We don't need a Gandhi
The Daily Telegraph last Saturday published a piece by Charles Moore, Where is the Gandhi of Islam?, containing an awful lot of waffle and a few plainly false assertions. The article basically casts doubt on the integrity of "moderate" Muslims and alleges that no specific denunciation has been forthcoming from Muslim leaders.
After a few introductory paragraphs about the "Blitz spirit" etc., Moore has a go at Ken Livingstone and Brian Paddick for their attempts to disassociate Islam from last week's terrorist attacks on London. In one case he makes a false extension and in the other he mistakes rhetoric for literal meaning.
His assessment of Livingstone's speech from Singapore:
They were not, he said, attacks "against the mighty and the powerful", but against "working-class Londoners". Would they have been all right, one wondered, if they had been against the mighty and powerful, or if they had cleverly found a way of killing only middle-class Londoners?
Well, he didn't say that, did he? His point was that the bombing may have seemed to its perpetrators to be a protest against the G8 or the war in Iraq, but in fact killed only innocent people. It was all the worse for the killing of innocent people with no connection to either. In the case of Paddick's assertion that "Islam and terrorism don't go together," the obvious meaning was that Islam does not support this kind of action. The fact that Muslims can do this sort of thing doesn't change that.
Even his comparison with the Irish situation (most Irish were not IRA, but nearly all the IRA were Irish) does not fully apply. The IRA appealed to certain sections of northern-Irish society (and southern-Irish society, to a lesser extent) and had a support network. It was also known for maintaining control of its constituency by intimidation and murder. This isn't the case with the al-Qa'ida type of terrorist.
There were places in London where extremist ideologies were openly preached, but in the last few years the groups have been disrupted, their leaders jailed and the mosque they controlled returned to those who originally ran it. Most mosques, on the other hand, are dominated by communities originating in India or Pakistan. In some cases, their constitutions restrict membership to one sect or school of thought, as if to prevent infiltration and the taking-over of the mosque by members of another group, and one of the groups has been accused of kufr (disbelief) by at least one of the extremist ideologues.
On top of which, there is an important fact which would in fact dissuade ordinary Muslims, whatever their opinions about foreign policy, from supporting these terrorists, namely that they seem to display no concern whatsoever for the interests of the Muslims. They do not choose targets commonly seen as hostile to Muslims; in fact, Muslims may indeed have been deliberately targeted in this latest attack. If Muslims were responsible for this, it is clear that their intention is not to free Palestine or Iraq or Muslims anywhere. Their intention is to rule the Muslims.
Moore next moves onto an attempt to use out-of-context verses from the Qur'an to demonstrate that the nature of Islam makes Muslims susceptible to violence:
In Sura No 8, for example, God is quoted as saying: "I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!" This punishment comes to them for having "defied God and His apostle". It seems reasonable to ask Muslims what this sort of remark means in the modern world.
Well, the verse is clearly in the first person and therefore not an imperative. No doubt its context is an actual battle, and the difference between a battle and the bombing of a trainful of unsuspecting and non-hostile people should not need to be explained to anyone. Moore concedes that "similarly nasty dictums" are to be found in the Old Testament, but he believes that "it is surely significant that they are very much harder to find in the New Testament". What does the New Testament say about war anyway? Not much in the way of legislation appears anywhere in the New Testament, the cause of an awful lot of the conflict which plagues the modern-day churches.
Moore seems to expect that Muslims embrace pacifism, something he displays no intention of advocating for his own race. He is displeased by the Muslim Council of Britain's refusal to "condemn the killing of British troops in Iraq ... in absolute terms", which nobody can do, certainly no Muslim, because the British troops are an occupying force; they do not even have the dubious authority of the United Nations. If the attacks are by a terrorist organisation which wants to claim power in Iraq for itself to turn it into a socialist republic or an even more extreme variant of Saudi Arabia or Iran or to bring Saddam Hussain back, I would certainly oppose such actions (as well as all by the group concerned). But the fact is that being attacked is an occupational hazard for any occupying army.
He then resorts to a links-and-ties smear against Muhammad Abdul-Bari of East London Mosque, who welcomed the imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca to the opening of the London Muslim Centre (the extension to the East London Mosque in Whitechapel). Sudais is reported to have delivered a sermon in Mecca a couple of years ago containing various derogatory remarks about Jews. It is quite possible that the mosque's extension received Saudi assistance, which is the likely explanation for Sudais being invited to the opening. Sudais is a well-renowned Qu'ran reciter whose recitations can be bought on cassette or CD; it is likely that people enjoyed the opportunity to hear him recite in person.
As for his comments about Jews, the context of his sermon (such as what the Israeli government had been doing in the immediate period before) is missing, but he was most likely talking about the Israelis and their supporters. Arabs (I personally heard this for myself when in Egypt) refer to the Israelis as Bani Isra'il, the "children of Israel", rather than by a phrase like Ahlu Ard Isra'il (the people of the land of Israel). This phrase does not, in itself, refer to Jews not of that lineage, or even to the land of Israel, but is commonly used for this purpose. "The Jews" is likewise used to refer to the state of Israel, is people, and its overseas support network. Saudi Arabia is nominally at enmity with Israel, although its contributions even when there were actual wars were limited. I agree that it's not fitting sermon material, although one notes that MEMRI are not around to record what Israeli rabbis say about Arabs, and we are not told if and when these rabbis visit the UK.
Moore next brings up the wafflings of "Sheikh Dr Abdul-Qadir as-Sufi" in the Muslim Weekly. The Muslim Weekly is a thin volume which sells for 50p, whose editing standards have not always been very impressive. Abdul-Qadir, as Moore would have found out if he had done some very basic research, is a highly controversial character, at least among those who have even heard of him. His followers are nearly all converts, not Muslim immigrants or their descendents, and he lives in a part of Scotland which is extremely remote from any Muslim community. Some of his followers books (mostly translations of classical texts) are well-known, but Abdul-Qadir himself is a marginal figure. (The Qaradawi controversy has been dealt with before; I'm not going to rehash it here.)
Moore suggests two reasons why "many Muslim leaders appear unable or unwilling to break absolutely with the teachings that give cover to violence": the fact that Islam is partly a political faith, and fear. The political aspects to Islam, he claims, are why "Muslim leaders find it very difficult to resist the hotheads who say that Sharia - the divine law - should be imposed wherever possible". But the "hotheads" are not the people who say this; they are the people who make inflammatory and absurd claims and demands, who suggest that un-Islamic means (like blowing up trains and buses) are somehow justified by the ends, and condemn as "sell-outs" anyone with a conciliatory stance, even if this is only on a community relations level. Not renouncing an entire tranche of our religion is not the same thing as not being a hothead.
I should add, regarding Islam's prohibition on non-Muslims residing permanently in the Arabian peninsula, that the region concerned is of limited value to non-Muslims. It is not fertile, and until the discovery of oil, the region was not rich; Alexander the Great famously abandoned his own attempt to conquer the territory.
Moore's contention that Muslim leaders "cannot say very fierce things against the extremists" for fear of losing control over "their people", or for fear of violence, is also baseless in my opinion. Numerous Muslim leaders have condemned all of the terrorist acts attributed to al-Qa'ida and similar groups without any disguise, and still walk the streets and turn up for the prayers they lead. These include acts the common people might have sympathised with (such as the bombings of US bases in Saudi Arabia), and Palestinian suicide bombings (some scholars agree with the tactic, others don't). Mufti Barkatullah, in a speech given after the expulsion of Abu Hamza's group from Finsbury Park mosque, spoke about the "physical and spiritual filth" they had introduced, and about how they had cursed the Saudi royal family from the pulpit after they had contributed to the mosque's finances. You will not find many Muslims with any great sympathy or affection for the Saudi royals, but the mufti still walks the streets.
Next, we see what amounts to an advocacy of right-wing anti-immigration policies and an attack on recent sensitive policing policies. While I thoroughly disagree with ID cards, a policy targeted at "the usual suspects" (men with light-brown skins and beards) seems outdated given the suggestions that recent acts of terrorism appear to be the work of drug dealers who smoke and drink. One of the newspapers this morning even mentioned "white mercenaries" as possible culprits for last Thursday, meaning not that old-public-school-boy gang rotting in Zimbabwe and Equatorial Guinea, but white Muslims from the Balkans. Either way, an anti-terrorist policy which assumes the ordinary white bloke is not a terrorist because he's an ordinary white bloke may be as ineffective as one which picks on an innocent Muslim because he seems a bit hostile (maybe he thinks you're a dirty kafir, or maybe he just got out of the wrong side of the bed).
And what's with these silly right-wing canards about it being too easy to get here through marriage, about our supposed ceding of asylum policy to the EU (fact: the UK is not in the Schengen treaty, and unlike many continental countries, you need a passport to go to other EU countries, except Ireland)? The fact is that people, of no apparent terrorist threat, experience considerable difficulty in obtaining residency through marriage (the ongoing saga of the Cable family is one example), and the Blair government has been willing to deport asylum seekers to such a plainly unsafe country as Zimbabwe. The UK has no excuse for not knowing who is in the country and who isn't.
A number of accusations are made about the police's policy on dealings with Muslims; if it really is 'to seek the consent of those he supposes to be community leaders before "going in"', this would seem absurd if the suspicion is, say, an imminent terrorist threat. Some of it may be to do with simple community relations; if you cause offence to the religious sensibilities of an entire community, it may store up future hostility to the police which may surface when they need to know what led to a police officer being killed, for example. In fact, the police raided a mosque in 2002 to remove illegal immigrants, so it should not be doubted that they would do so if the suspicion was that guns or explosives were being stored there. (It stands to reason that Muslims, if they want to protect the sanctity of the mosque, should not use it for these purposes.)
The most important question is for Muslims, and the authorities' attitude towards them. Embedded in modern government are too many advisers who believe in a quietist policy. To them, the most important thing is to avoid a "backlash" against Muslims. But the truth is that the backlash only threatens because the terror strikes.
By the same token, terror strikes only because of British or American foreign policy; this is an idea which earns much condemnation whenever it is raised in the media, particularly as it gives the impression of the person raising it harbouring some sympathy or glee. He next accuses the government, "mired in ignorance", of having "little idea how to find the trends in Islam that could really improve the life of our country, and run with them". The problem is that Muslims have made efforts to distance themselves from the aspects of British society which drag it down, but are routinely accused of separating themselves from society through such means as Islamic schools (and even homeschooling). There are aspects of Islam which could improve the life of this country, but they are not things which could be brought in by government: dressing decently, polite and appropriate conduct, respect for elders and other people generally.
Moore then makes a number of accusations about the community not doing enough to disassociate itself from its violent elements.
When did you last hear criticisms of named extremist groups and organisations by Muslim leaders, or support for their expulsion, imprisonment or extradition? How often do you see fatwas issued against suicide bombers and other terrorists, or statements by learned men declaring that people who commit such deeds will go to hell?
The Salafi Publications website, which represents western followers of the establishment scholars in Saudi Arabia, is full of condemnations of the extremist groups, some by name and some in general. I am not a "Salafi" myself and disagree with much (if not most) of its content, but most of the al-Qa'ida type of terrorist are "Salafi", i.e. Wahhabi, by sect. The site also contains a piece by Ibn Uthaimeen (a senior Saudi establishment scholar who died a few years ago) condemning suicide bombers.
As for "support for their expulsion, imprisonment or extradition", this requires that we jump to the conclusion that what the security services and politicians say is likely to be correct, and I'm sure Muslims are not alone in rejecting such assumptions. Even when I wrote my article on "Shaikh" Faisal, I sought assurance from a scholar that I would not be responsible for whatever harm Faisal might come to if, for example, he were to be deported to Jamaica.
When do Muslim leaders and congregations insist that a particular imam leave his mosque because of the poison that he disseminates every Friday?
Where do imams disseminate poision every Friday? Having never encountered a situation where this was happening, I can't say if it would or wouldn't happen. I don't know of anywhere this has happened other than Finsbury Park.
When did a British Muslim last go after a Muslim who advocates or practises violence with anything like the zeal with which so many went after Salman Rushdie?
How do you mean "go after"? There were demonstrations over Rushdie's book, but there were measured responses as well, and condemnations by Muslim organisations of Khomeini's fatwa, which certainly succeeded in raising pro-Iranian sympathies among ordinary Muslims.
Why is not more stigma attached to the Muslims who are murdering other Muslims every day in Iraq and the Middle East?
What does Charles Moore know about what Muslims think of the various armed factions in Iraq who carry out acts of terrorism? A small fraction of Britain's Muslim community are Iraqi - we do not have much knowledge about what goes on there other than that bombings take place on a regular basis. I should add that Muslims are generally distrustful of the media, and may suspect that the true nature of some of the armed factions is different to how the press portrays them. But that does not mean that a Muslim would not condemn outright atrocities, if he knew for certain that one had taken place.
What communal protection is offered to those Muslims who really are brave and confront Islamist violence, or the poor treatment of women, or call for democracy in the Middle East?
What evidence exists that any protection is needed? There is no history of assassinations or acts of sabotage among the Muslim community here, and very little in the USA (there was an incident in New York where an imam who opposed a particular sectarian group in the Lebanon was beaten up, but I can't think of anything else). Websites like Muslim WakeUp! have caused much controversy and offence among even mainstream Muslims, but its authors are not under round-the-clock police protection to my knowledge.
How much do mainstream political parties with Muslim councillors and candidates really insist on their religious moderation and co-opt them to extrude the bad people lurking within their communities?
Very simply, extremists do not join political parties. Besides being opposed to democracy anyway, they regard these particular parties as the enemies of Islam, and Muslims who join as sell-outs and even apostates. Some of the Muslim politicians are not actually all that religious.
Towards the end, we have the old call for a "Gandhi" to appear among the Muslims:
When a nation, a race, a political movement, a group of workers, the followers of a religion have legitimate grievances, there generally arises amongst them a champion who can command respect for his advocacy of peace, his willingness to fight without weapons and to win by moral authority. There may be many such grievances for Muslims in Britain, and in the West, but we are still waiting for the Gandhi or the Martin Luther King to give them the right voice.
It may have escaped Moore's attention, but there is no mass movement of any sort among British Muslims, so it appears that the community does not have the grievances necessary to sustain such a movement, violent or otherwise. History shows that non-violent resistance is sometimes effective (as in India), but sometimes it isn't, and force is needed to expel or otherwise remove the offenders (as in Ethiopia and Romania). Even Martin Luther King said, "if your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi. But if you enemy has no conscience, like Hitler, then follow Bonhoeffer", a Lutheran pastor executed for plotting to assassinate Hitler.
Our community leaders do not stand out as "non-violent resistance" leaders because there is no major violent tendency in the community here (and the small minority who may be sympathetic to the idea do not respect these community leaders anyway). We have been told since 9/11 that an attack has been inevitable, and it has indeed happened, but the Muslim community itself has not been a source of violence. There have been no attacks on targets hostile to Muslims (even in the Netherlands, there has been only one such incident), nor even campaigns of intimidation or sabotage similar to those of the animal rights movement. No, we have seen four random bombings, two of them in or near Muslim areas, with apparent Muslim casualties. So there is no reason why the fingers should be pointed at "the Muslim community", given that we have no reason to support actions like this. If we are not forthcoming with information on the "terrorists in our midst", it's because they don't tell us who they are.
(Update 16th July: a few months ago I heard a story on Radio 2's morning thought slot about Badshah Khan, a Pathan Muslim contemporary of Gandhi who also advocated non-violence. The problem was that I thought he was saying "Pacha Khan", and I did a Google search for him while planning this piece, but not suprisingly found nothing related to Badshah Khan. Thabet has an entry on him at his blog. The Radio 2 report interestingly mentioned a phenomenon Badshah Khan noticed which is still prevalent in our Ummah today: the tendency to ridicule and insult others' religions, while taking grievous offence when non-Muslims ridicule ours. Does Allah ta'ala not tell us in the Qur'an not to curse others' idols, lest they insult Allah in their ignorance?)
Comments
Salaams, Alhamdulilah glad to see your ok. Would you mind if we posted this excellent rebuttal on the MPACUK website?
Posted by: UmmZak | July 12, 2005 3:07 PM
You wrote: I should add, regarding IslamâÂÂs prohibition on non-Muslims residing permanently in the Arabian peninsula, that the region concerned is of limited value to non-Muslims.
This doesn't really answer the problem. There are non-Muslims from outside the country who reside in Saudi Arabia for business reasons. They are forbidden to express themselves religiously and have to go to great lengths to practice their religion in private. Any perceived infraction can get them in trouble. I personally know of a family that was thrown out of Saudi Arabia for bringing in religious videotapes that were only meant for the local small Christian congregation's consumption.
The largest mosque in Europe is in Rome -- obviously a majority Catholic city. However, Christians (or other religions) are not allowed to build houses of worship in Saudi Arabia. The problem isn't lack of interest or value for non-Muslims in the area.
There is a problem that Muslims in some places greatly restrict the freedoms of non-Muslims to worship. At the same time, Muslims are fully (and properly, I might add) enjoying the rights they are granted in areas that are tolerant to freedom of religion.
Posted by: danithew | July 12, 2005 3:07 PM
I should add that in the story above, of the family I am speaking about -- they were only able to have a weekly Christian service by doing it in the homes of the families involved. These were very small (almost clandestine) meetings. The only purpose of the meetings was for them to continue to practice their religious beliefs. They were not attempting in any way to proselytize the people of the country.
So, when I speak of a congregation, I'm not really speaking of a congregation as we imagine it in the U.S. or in most places.
Posted by: danithew | July 12, 2005 3:07 PM
Above, I meant to write Zarqawi ... but I guess Zawahiri works too.
Posted by: danithew | July 12, 2005 4:07 PM
Sorry to be commenting so much. But just one more thought. I think the title of this post "We don't need a Ghandi" is flat out wrong. Sunni Islam (or Islam in general) would be greatly served by a prominent pacifist leader who openly preached and practiced non-violence. The existence of such a leader (if he could gain a critical mass following at all) would help to alleviate the terrible PR that comes about because of people like Bin Laden, Ayatollah Khomenei, Zawahiri, etc. -- those who openly and proudly espouse violence and brazenly scream out Death wishes upon entire nations.
Posted by: danithew | July 12, 2005 4:07 PM
Salaam 'Alaikum
We don't need a Ghandi, and we certainly don't need non Muslims telling us what we need when our own non Muslim countries are pretty screwed up. We don't need a Ghandi b/c we have the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Further, last I checked, no one was forced to go work in Saudi Arabia against their will. People who go there know what the laws are, they know what the atmosphere is like, their companies give them training about this. I really don't feel sorry for them, even if I do think the KSA gov't should allow private worship for foreign workers.
Posted by: UmmZaid | July 12, 2005 6:07 PM
"Moore next brings up the wafflings of âÂÂSheikh Dr Abdul-Qadir as-Sufiâ in the Muslim Weekly. The Muslim Weekly is a thin volume which sells for 50p, whose editing standards have not always been very impressive. Abdul-Qadir, as Moore would have found out if he had done some very basic research, is a highly controversial character, at least among those who have even heard of him. His followers are nearly all converts, not Muslim immigrants or their descendents, and he lives in a part of Scotland which is extremely remote from any Muslim community. Some of his followers books (mostly translations of classical texts) are well-known, but Abdul-Qadir himself is a marginal figure."
I wouldn't be too quick to disregard Shaykh Abdalqadir's writings as "wafflings". Especially since his condemnation of terrorism is much more frank and genuine than many of our "mainstream" representatives. They only seem to care about it when it effects them directly and almost try to justify it. Shaykh Abdalqadir on the other hand has always condemned terrorism without the presence of any media interrogation.
Posted by: Shamil | July 12, 2005 7:07 PM
Saudi Arabia -- love it or leave it.
Posted by: danithew | July 12, 2005 7:07 PM
You certainly do need a Ghandi. And Mohammed wasn't it. He was one of the biggest warmongers of all time.
Posted by: Cat | July 12, 2005 9:07 PM
Cat,
I dont believe the Messenger of Allah was a warmonger. I believe, by the leave of Allah that he defended our right to wage war or peace as our interest dictate. It should be mentioned however that out interest should be above all the making of Allah's law to be superior in the land and the prevention of vice.
Posted by: bikhair | July 13, 2005 12:07 AM
Yusuf - Masha'Allah
A remarkable article.
May Allah increase you in 'Ilm and Fadhl.
Posted by: Abu Eesa | July 13, 2005 12:07 AM
nice article Macha Allah salam
definitely no need for a gandhi for us Muslims, but maybe the US needs their own gandhi?
Posted by: cncz | July 13, 2005 12:07 AM
Isnt it interesting that all of the non white non christian people of the world are urged to resist peacefully while the western christian world is justified in using its military to defend or pursue its interest? This is why in America, where I come from, Martin Luther King is loved while Malcolm X, El Hajj Malik Shabazz is reviled by white america, when in reality the latter preaced the defense of people who were oppressed or threatened similar to actions of the USA against its Islamic foes. ITs an unfortuante double standard.
Islam doesnt need a Ghandi because we have a Sunnah. Pacifism is a luxury that is a result of others fighting in your place.
Posted by: bikhair | July 13, 2005 12:07 AM
Mashallah There's some good stuff on here.
Bush certainly ain't no Gandhi nor can i recall an American Gandhi. Correct me if I'm wrong
Posted by: Aisha | July 13, 2005 3:07 AM
Here's a serious question ... I'm sure there are answers. Please don't take this question as condescending, sarcastic or ironic in tone.
What contemporary Islamic leader represents peace, tolerance and understanding? I'd like to hear some names or maybe read some linked articles if possible.
Posted by: danithew | July 13, 2005 4:07 AM
Danithew,
You asked the wrong question. We have a serious disease in the Muslim community where by Muslims like to follow a particular scholar to the exclusion of others. When in fact Muslims should follow the haqq- truth, to the exclusion of bateel- falsehood.
As far as I am concerned anyone who advocates a return to the example of the Prophet and the understanding of his companions is such a person. Peace, tolerance- though I have reservations about this ideal, and understanding are a consequence of correct guidance, beliefs, methods of action and worship.
Remember Denithew there cant really be a person or idol, if you will, that represents these things. Those things can only be a manifestation of his religion. So instead of asking for a particular person to promote these ideas, Muslims should establish Islamic values within themselves that result in peace, tolerance, and understanding.
Posted by: bikhair | July 13, 2005 6:07 AM
This was a fascinating article, and at times and in places, persuasive in its argument. However, I do have one major reservation. I feel the title rather missed a issue as it affects us today, and which also lies at the heart of Islamic theology today, just as it has resided in the heart of Christian theology since the Reformation - the question of authority.
Authority, in theological terms, comes with God. But, just as the Christian Churches and ecclesial communities have had, and are having to face up to the question of what is the authority that each Church possesses, and in what sense are decisions made by Churches and ecclesial communities "authoritative" (i.e. the authority of the Petrine ministry in the Catholic Church, or the authority of Synod in the Church of England - and what a mess there is there!), so too in Islam, there has been and continues to be theological divisions over the nature of the authority by which certain Muslim sects and schools of thought claim decisions and judgements; claims which are not shared by other groups and schools of thought within Islam. The issue is exactly the same as it was for the Christian Churches and ecclesial communities - the question of "on whose authority are these claims justified?".
This is not to disparage the theological debate that is ongoing, (and which will continue for centuries to come) What it does mean is that finding a consensus is always going to be hard work. And there will always be those so-called "hardliners" (whatever that term really means), who will not assent to the right of some to express a particular view authoritatively.
So what does this mean in the light of events in London? First, with regards to the horrors of last Thursday, it is clear that the bombers acted in a manner which they saw as being Islamic - and I say that carefully - in a manner that they perceived to be Islamic. For them the authority to kill and to be killed was an authority derived from their belief systems, and was embedded within the kind of Islam they had come to accept as normative. As such, the authority to do such acts - that which drove them to commit such appalling atrocities - was embedded within the authority given to them by their faith, as they perceived it. Now this is a matter of absolutely vital concern to any Muslim. Just as for some Christians, the acceptance of certain kinds of authority led to the more horrendous violence of the Reformation period, (the massacre on St Bartholomew's Day, for example), so this acceptance of certain kinds of authority within Islam - the kind of authority which most Muslims would reject - led to these sad individuals destroying life which the Creator of all had allowed to be.
Authority, and the ways in which different kinds of authority lead to such terrible acts, must be addressed by all Muslims. We should look into our own hearts on this matter. And this is, yes, despite the injustice and terrors of present day Iraq, despite the horrible situation for Palestinians in the Middle East, despite the opulent luxuriating self-satisfaction of the House of Saud, and yes, despite the clearly evil intent of American and UK foreign policy towards the Middle East. Despite all this, the issue remains one of Muslims dealing with the self-validating structures within Islam that allow a certain kind of "religious authority" to come about that can mould young men into killers, and which leaves children orphaned, husbands and wives bereaved, and parents' lives destroyed.
May Allah, Who knows all things, guide all of us onto the straight path, and away from the paths of confusion, violence and death. May He Who is all-forgiving and all-compassionate, forgive those who were so badly misled by people in authority over them, to commit this act. And may Allah, the all-compassionate, have compassion on those who have suffered so terribly in these recent days, months and years.
Posted by: Dr Peter Kalve | July 13, 2005 9:07 AM
What I have seen in this thread and in general with Islam is that the authority of Islam still resides in the Qur'an (equated with God's words) and in the Sunna (Muhammad). In other words, the authority is not in people at all, but in those works that constitute scripture: the Qur'an and the canonical hadith collections (particularly Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim). Because there is no prophetic successor allowed for Muhammad, the authority still lies in the traditions. Any living Islamic leader who has a following has achieved that following because he is viewed as being pious, pure and having an exceptional knowledge of the souces in which the real authority lies.
However, it seems that those who take these works the most seriously are the ones who want to return the world to the seventh century -- because they desire so much to be like the Muhajirun and the Ansar. Of course the Ansar and the Muhajirun were the ones who conquered Arabia and outlying areas (and even empires) for Islam. What is the true sign of the purity and righteousness of the Ansar and the Muhajirun? They conquered their world with their armies. Their successful expansion is often judged a sign of their acceptability and excellence towards Allah. So it seems somewhat natural then, that those who want to be the purest often are the ones who become militant, because they are seeking to emulate people who were fighters.
Posted by: danithew | July 13, 2005 12:07 PM
Bikhair, I think that the Sira and the hadith collections demonstrate that people (Muslims, if you will) need a person to follow and a person to emulate. People need narrative, a story-line with heroes. I believe the biographies of the Prophet were specifically written because the Qur'an lacked the narrative that Muslims needed and was a difficult book to understand. It's a nice idea to believe that people could simply learn and follow abstract true principles -- but I don't think it works very well in the real world. It has been interesting to me to ponder the degree to which the three monotheistic traditions (yes, I know Trinitarian Christianity might not be considered by many to be monotheistic) depend on narratives to get their message across.
Posted by: danithew | July 13, 2005 12:07 PM
The issue of authority in Islam is manifested in a state (Caliphate) which currently does not exist in the world and which the US and UK are trying very hard to prevent being brought about. This is actually incorrect from the point of view of preventing terrorism - if Usama Bin Laden succeeded in toppling the Saudi Royal Family and turning the Arabian Peninsula into a Caliphate (with himself as Caliph), terrorism would actually be easier to deter as there would be a clear return address for retaliation. As we have witnessed over the past decade, Muslim nations are totally helpless in the face of Western bombing, so a state ruled by Bin Laden could be completely destroyed in a nuclear retaliation that is so beholden to many of the Neo-conservatives and Zionists in the US and Britain. However, deterring terrorism isn't really what the West is concerned about. Control of the Muslim world - or at least its resources is the primary aim of Western policy towards the Muslim world. A few occasional deaths of their citizens can be tolerated by the ruling establishments but losing control over oil - the lifeblood of their way of life isn't. Hence, there's never any discussion about preventing terrorism by simply cutting all ties with the Islamic world and sealing themselves of into an Occidental fortress.
Posted by: Raashid | July 13, 2005 12:07 PM
I dont believe the Messenger of Allah was a warmonger. I believe, by the leave of Allah that he defended our right to wage war or peace as our interest dictate. It should be mentioned however that out interest should be above all the making of AllahâÂÂs law to be superior in the land and the prevention of vice.
Ha ha! So he is a warmonger and a peacemonger at the same time? It's OK to be a warmonger if it's for Allah?
It's a good job the West is a lot stronger than the Muslim world or we'd be in trouble.
Posted by: Cat | July 13, 2005 5:07 PM
Seems like BNP rejects are in heat. The west needs a Gandhi, plenty of them. Can we expect one from the continent that gave us Franco, Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin. The current track record doesnt seem to suggest so.
Posted by: DrM | July 13, 2005 8:07 PM
Assalaamu alaikum,
Interesting discussion... just some random thoughts:
Danithew, I appreciate your accuracy in saying only that Saudi Arabia prevents nonMuslims from practicing their religion publicly. So often, I read that this is the case in the Middle East as a whole, or in Muslim countries as a whole, which is completely untrue.
Muslims are not warmongers, but we're not pacifists either. When a nation is invaded, or a group is oppressed, it's not only permitted, but in some cases an obligation, to fight to redress these grievances.
Posted by: Ann | July 13, 2005 10:07 PM
It's that same old colonial attitude, we'll polish our nukes while you natives run along and embrace pacifism. Not that I expect anything less from a little Englander like Charles Moore.
Atticus
Posted by: Atticus | July 14, 2005 1:07 AM
Totally unrelated question for you, Yusuf. It's about Abu Hamza's group. After they were removed from the mosque, how did this changeover affect the ownership and charitable status of the mosque? I'm just curious. :-)
Posted by: Safiyyah | July 14, 2005 3:07 AM
I think the writer has some legitimate greivences that I as a Muslim would also like to have addressed. I can only imagine how confusing and complicated this would be to a non-Muslim, who seems sincere in from his article in wanting to learn and understand. I think the Muslims of the UK have an obligation of fulfilling this mission and shining the light of Islam upon those that seek a perverted interpretation to support violence.
Posted by: Talib | July 15, 2005 11:07 AM
"We donâÂÂt need a Ghandi, and we certainly donâÂÂt need non Muslims telling us what we need."
The heart and soul of the problem with islam joining the 21st century are people like this. If you don't need us to tell you what to do then you need to fix your religion yourselves. If you don't, we'll fix it for you...
Posted by: Flanstein | July 15, 2005 6:07 PM
Flanstein,
"The heart and soul of the problem with islam joining the 21st century are people like this. If you donâÂÂt need us to tell you what to do then you need to fix your religion yourselves. If you donâÂÂt, weâÂÂll fix it for youâ¦"
As I have said somewhere else in this forum, if religion is divine it must be in perpetuity. If people can fix a religion, they can also abandon it for something of thier own creation. Islam is the straight path to understanding Allah azawajal, and to Paradise. IT is the perversion of Muslims who are the problem. Besides this battle isnt between Muslims and kafirs or between fundamentalist Muslims (incorrectly mistaken as Muslims who really practice thier religion) and moderate Muslims (incorrectly mistaken as Muslims who dont really practice thier religion) THis is between truth and falsehood, the correct path and deviation. Non Muslims are too ignorant to properly fight or win this since you can only deliver death or capture. The Ulema (scholarly community) and those who follow the way of the Prophet and his companions are the only ones who can set straight this people from thier deviance.
And to Allah, the mighty and majestice, is all the power and glory.
Posted by: bikhair | July 15, 2005 7:07 PM
The Ulema (scholarly community) and those who follow the way of the Prophet and his companions are the only ones who can set straight this people from thier deviance.
I thought the only way to deal with the extremist takfiri terrorists is to wipe out, as they simplt won't listen to anyone who disagrees with them. Even more moderate Islamists...
Posted by: George Carty | July 15, 2005 8:07 PM
Fecalstein goes the way of all other failed bloggers, the path of the pathetic troll. The only way to fix low lives like these is to ship them off to Iraq.
Posted by: DrM | July 15, 2005 8:07 PM
George Carthy,
I am talking about the youth since they represent a bulk of this movement. I think they can be swayed. Now the hardcore old school types only have but to options.You can fill in the blank.
It is also true that even when the upper older eschelon of the movement are killed or die off the works of Maududi and Qutb et al. are still around poised to poison.
Mr. Carty I am BTW extremely idealistic and naive.
Posted by: bikhair | July 16, 2005 4:07 AM
For so long so much of the Muslim world has been bouncing between very bad systems of government and political expression -- secular authoritarian/totalitarian (disguised as republics), monarchies or militant Islam.
The Iraqis who voted so exuberantly in the election demonstrated that they would take advantage of another way out (democracy) if they are just given the opportunity -- even at the risk of their lives. I really hope and pray that Iraq can become a stable prosperous democracy where many Muslims can live their beliefs peacefully in dignity and express their political feelings fervantly but non-violently. If this happens in Iraq and it is demonstrated that it will work, perhaps other Arab Muslim nations will follow suit. What a great thing it would be to see all these personality-cults replaced by democracies.
Posted by: danithew | July 16, 2005 5:07 AM
Danithew,
Democracy huh? Well I have to bring up some matters to you, there are values in Islam that are non negotiable and shouldnt be put up to a vote lest they enter into the society, become normalized and corrupt.
Besides these forms of government isnt what the PRophet or his companions had it mind.
Posted by: bikhair | July 16, 2005 7:07 AM
Bikhair, which Islamic values are non-negotiable? Can you give examples? And do you mean non-negotiable to the entire world or only to Muslims?
Posted by: danithew | July 16, 2005 2:07 PM
"Islam is the straight path to understanding Allah azawajal, and to Paradise."
People are entitled to believe what ever they want in the west, and if that's what you believe, more power to you. As a belief system tho, you need to reign in the large minority of muslims who believe they need to kill me and other innocents to satisfy your jihad requirement. If you don't, we will.
Do you believe it is sustainable for muslims to continue executing innocent people in nations all over the world without a terrible, and bloody backlash? Can you imagine what would happen in the aftermath if muslims detonated a nuclear weapon in the US? (aside from muslims celebrating like they did after 9/11)
You folks need to stop looking in the mirror and admiring your own beauty and start looking around. You can start by never calling non-muslims kaffir again. It is a pejorative that sounds (when used) like the N word. If you want respect, you give respect. And give the Jew-hatred a rest as well...
Posted by: Flanstein | July 16, 2005 7:07 PM
Fecalstein? Kitty litter?
Are you keeping a log book??
Dr M, isn't it about time you grew up, or are you still in nappies?
Flanstein makes some good points. Islam is a failure in the modern world, and will only become successful if Muslims can take criticism and change.
Dr Muckspreader, are you listening:-)))
Posted by: Cat | July 17, 2005 4:07 PM
My, my, MY Brother Yusuf! You have certainly got a little party going on here. I missed the invite. ;-)
IMHO, the Muslim world needs no Gandhi, though I respect the man and his message. If someone invades your home, breaks your belongings, rapes your wife and daughters (or sometimes your husband and sons), steals your dignity and has the nerve to tell you that "We are liberating you. This is freedom," the last thing you should do is break out into a spunky remix of "Kumbaya, My Lord."
Like Atticus said, it's men with guns and bombs asking defenseless Muslims, "Well, gee, guys, could you be a little more passive as we kill your wife and make you watch?" Passivism. Yes, that's what they taught my ancestors right before they were dragged onto the slaveships at gunpoint. Or how those passive Native Americans who had their land stolen out from under them? Really, this neo-colonialist tripe makes me ill and the last thing we need is to be lectured to by armchair activists whose apathy and tax dollars fuels the religious extremism we are seeing today. Oh wait, I forgot, they know everything and can do no wrong because they are Western and secular. My bad.
Posted by: Izzy Mo | July 17, 2005 9:07 PM
Flanstien,
Shut up!
Posted by: bikhair | July 18, 2005 7:07 PM
Why? Is the truth causing you irritation? Do the facts make you cranky? Do you find it difficult answer my question: "Do you believe it is sustainable for muslims to continue executing innocent people in nations all over the world without a terrible, and bloody backlash? "
Posted by: Flanstein | July 18, 2005 7:07 PM
Flanstien,
Dont flatter yourself. Youre boring, your quesitons are boring... I am not sure I am speaking to an adult.
Posted by: bikhair | July 19, 2005 11:07 AM
Our religion is perfectly fine. All Muslims are not collectively guilty for what a few do. There will always be bad people in this wolrd. As for your "we will fix it for you comment", well you sure did a great job of that in Iraq/Afghanistan haven't you? hahaaha
Posted by: Aamir Ali | July 19, 2005 2:07 PM
I note mention of democracy earlier.
"His point was that the bombing may have seemed to its perpetrators to be a protest against the G8 or the war in Iraq, but in fact killed only innocent people."
We in Britain have a democracy. That means that as a nation we have collective responsibility for our nation's actions. It is sad, but there are no innocents in this conflict, not even those who voted Lib Dem. Except those who didn't vote at all, who are innocent of reason.
"There are aspects of Islam which could improve the life of this country, but they are not things which could be brought in by government: dressing decently, polite and appropriate conduct, respect for elders and other people generally."
True enough; but these are common to all religions. I don't believe any has ever stated "1.1 'Er...yeah, dress in your underpants 1.2 swear at passers by and 1.3 torch old people for kicks.' 1.4 Thus spake God."
I am atheist, if you hadn't noticed. ;)
Posted by: JABITheW | July 19, 2005 2:07 PM
"People are entitled to believe what ever they want in the west, and if thatâÂÂs what you believe, more power to you. As a belief system tho, you need to reign in the large minority of muslims who believe they need to kill me and other innocents to satisfy your jihad requirement. If you donâÂÂt, we will."
Of course, Flanstein, fascism and ifgnorance are tolerated in all Western societies and even encouraged in some.
Posted by: JABITheW | July 19, 2005 2:07 PM
Islam needs a leader like gandhi, who will unite all muslims, arabs or non-arabs, shia's or sunni's and so on... Islam itself is a collection of diverse ehnicities.
Gandhi united different religions, castes and ethnic minorities in to a single force. I like gandhi for his leadership qualities rather than his preaching of non-violence. He manipulated british very cunningly.
Posted by: samba | July 19, 2005 2:07 PM
"Mashallah ThereâÂÂs some good stuff on here.
Bush certainly ainâÂÂt no Gandhi nor can i recall an American Gandhi. Correct me if IâÂÂm wrong "
Aisha,
America had Martin Luther King, who brought the civil rights movement to fame and success. Europe has had Martin Luther (the original) who translated the Bible to the common tongue (German in his case) and helped to bring attention to the corruption of the ruling elite. He undermined their authority by spreading the actual words of Jesus and God. Before, all Christian texts and ceremonies were conducted in Latin.
We have had 'Ghandi's and many philosophers who supported civil secular governments. That's why they exist.
Posted by: JABITheW | July 19, 2005 5:07 PM
It seems to me that there is a great deal of propaganda from BOTH sides of this argument. The problem here, is NOT one of religion. Itis political. If the people on both sides of this argument could see the truth, if the religious zealots could see that it is futile for one religion to push its belief system on another, and if people would talk with open minds - then, maybe, we could make progress.
I have extensively travelled the world, and met nothing but kindness from people of all races and beliefs. There is little of real substance that separates any of us.
Everyone is entitled to be foolish, but some people abuse the privilege.
Posted by: A Moderate Voice | July 19, 2005 6:07 PM
I don't know where to put this...but here it is...
I believe, a Religion is set of beliefs followed by a set of people. But, any religion in its pure sense doesn't, and shouldn't teach/preach non-violence. Afterall, irrespective of religion, and place...we all want to live peace. And clearly the war, riots, or religious clashes are not giving us any peace. They only result in more blood shed. So, clearly, the only option is to live, and let live.
After all, what is a Religion when it tells that a person from other religion is an infidel, and is to be killed? How can we call it a civilized religion when it preaches so? What kind of paradise one could possibly go to, by killing people from other religions?
Posted by: Free Thinker. | July 19, 2005 7:07 PM
I agree with Frre Thinker. I can not belive that Islam rewards the killers of women and children with a place in paradise, any more than Christianity does. This is NOT a religious problem, any more than the bombings and assasinations in Northern Ireland was about Catholics vs Protestants. This is a question of politics, or differing views on how we should conduct our lives.
Posted by: A Moderate Voice | July 19, 2005 7:07 PM
"Of course, Flanstein, fascism and ifgnorance are tolerated in all Western societies and even encouraged in some. "
If you're speaking of our tolerance for islamic intolerance, you are correct...
Posted by: guest | July 19, 2005 8:07 PM
....and so, any one does killings in the name of religion is an enemy of that religion itself....and he/she should not be heed-ed. People should not let such people to act in the name of so called Religion and to take fellow-men of religion for a ride. Such person is posing danger to that religion, and most important, to the mankind itself. Any religion that doesn't teach/preach peace/harmony should be abandoned.
Posted by: Free Thinker. | July 19, 2005 9:07 PM
Freethinker said "...and so, any one does killings in the name of religion is an enemy of that religion itselfâ¦.and he/she should not be heed-ed. People should not let such people to act in the name of so called Religion and to take fellow-men of religion for a ride..."
And this is precisely my point in my earlier post about Islam lacking an authority structure which defines what is and is not correct belief, other than each individual's self-interpretation of the meaning of the Qur'an and the Sunnah.
Without a definitive authority-structure available to Islam, Islamic theology will always be interpreted according to the political and social sitz-im-leben of those who then follow the individualistic consequences of those self-interpretations, be that the path of moderate political activism, or the path deadly destruction followed by these four misguided bombers.
Some on these posts seem to like to follow the fashionable secular Western view that religion should keep out of politics, and that the violence in London was political, not religious in origin. I disagree. In Islam, politics is always subsumed within religion. And it is the interpretation of that religion without an authoritative guide other than self-interpretation, that brought things to a head on July 7th.
No authoritative structure to Islam leads automatically to this kind of situation happening. Even the smallest minority of murderous killers who can use their self-interpretation of Islamic theology to reach the decision to kill, the fact that even a tiny group of just 4 men could do that, should be food for thought for Islamic theologians who now wonder how to stop the violence.
Structural authority, or the lack of it, is the issue - and it is the issue to which all of Islam must now turn.
Posted by: Dr Peter Kalve | July 20, 2005 7:07 AM
"âÂÂOf course, Flanstein, fascism and ifgnorance are tolerated in all Western societies and even encouraged in some. âÂÂ
If youâÂÂre speaking of our tolerance for islamic intolerance, you are correct⦠"
I think that all religions should operate within the laws of the state. Certainly much that is done in the name of Islam is dispicable, irrespective of whether or not it is correct to attribute it to Islam. But that is primarily because I'm atheist...I do not believe in a higher power or law and see no need to. Religion simply does not make sense to me. Nevertheless...
...the actions of our nation cannot be excused by the actions of others. I refer you to Pratchett's unabridged warcry, which goes something like this: "Remember the atrocity which was committed against us and which will excuse the atrocity we are about to commit today. et cetera! Hurrah!"
So we should not show intolerance because some areas of Islam show intolerance.
Posted by: JABITheW | July 20, 2005 9:07 AM
Dr Peter Kelve, I agree with your post on Islam needing a definite authority structure. However, I will reword that and say "Muslims need a definite authority structure". But that is something that must be earned by muslims, or shall I say something we must be worthy of by our spirituality and actions, and ofcourse ultimately by Allah's generousity.
Posted by: anonymous | July 20, 2005 3:07 PM
Before the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, did 'the Catholic community' apologise every time Catholic terrorists killed innocent people? Did 'the Protestant community' apologise every time Protestant terrorists killed innocent people? I'm a (Scottish) Catholic, but I don't feel responsible for the deaths of people killed by the IRA just because the IRA are [nominally, but not in their actions] mostly Catholic, in the same way ordinary Muslims have nothing to apologise for just because Al Quaeda are [nominally, but not in their actions] mainly Muslim.
Posted by: David Russell | July 20, 2005 3:07 PM
I don't recall the Catholics or the Protestants killing each other because their bible told them to - do you? Guess whose does?
"O Prophet! make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate." Q. 66:9
"I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, maim them in every limb." Q. 8:12
"And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah." Q. 2:193
Posted by: Guest | July 20, 2005 8:07 PM
The apparent inability of the West to understand the motivation of Islamic extremists and terrorists, the lack of will, and the absence of any effective idea for dealing with the intrinsic problem of the diametrical nature of Islam to the Western ideals, is baffling. What is even more troubling is the doctrine of appeasement (excuses on behalf of Islam by western leaders) that is emerging in response to Islamic terrorist attacks, threats, and apparent intimidation of the West, whereby European leaders have elected to appease Muslims rather than engage them in honest and constructive dialog to transform the fundamental ideology that breeds hatred and inspires unspeakable acts of cruelty.
In the mind of most Muslims, Islam is still at war with the Christian EuropeâÂÂcrusaders as the Islamic extremists and terrorists like to characterize the West. The incredulity that is at display over the fact that the London suicide bombers were home grown terrorist, is at best, naiveté and at worst, acute denial. The idea that assimilation is politically incorrect has led to the self-isolation of Muslims in European societies and has encouraged the hostility that has emerged towards the West. Moreover, the added notion that life in the West is too good an alternative, and will inevitably dissuade and change the mindset of fundamental Islamists and terrorists, weaken their resolve to carryout the biddings of Islamic holy edicts issued by clerics and regarded as the very word of Allah is a perilous feel good notion.
Surveys continue to show that western educated Muslims are more resentful of the West. Their diatribes and incendiary comments are clear signs that have gone unheeded. Many of them have indeed taken up arms against their Western countries (America and U.K) in the name of Islam. As they have shown, there is no question that Islam does not allow ijtihad (free play of the intellect) and qiyyas (analogical reasoning). In Islam, the fundamental duty of each member is to submit to Allah and whatever Allah wants of them. Frequently, the âÂÂdemandsâ that Allah makes of Muslims seem to be the unquestioned demands that Islamic clerics have presented by way of fatwas (or holy edicts), which they issue to Muslims. Many of these fatwas are essentially calls to one âÂÂreligious warâ (jihad) or another, such as is now in Europe and America.
According to an article in the New York Times, about a year ago, âÂÂMany religious and community leaders were convinced that Islam would manifest itself in its truest form in this country. Some even proclaimed that one day America would be an Islamic state.â In 1983, in a speech marking the dedication of an Islamic Center in Stockholm, Sweden, an Islamic leader declared, âÂÂIn the next fifty years, we will capture the Western world for Islam. We have the men to do it, we have the money to do it, and above all, we are already doing it.âÂÂ
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, both regarded as American allies, have committed $7 billion to spread Islam in America, with the goal to establish a Mosque in every 20 sq miles. Saudi Arabia has for decades funded the Madrasas in Pakistan and Afghanistan that have been the breeding ground for most Islamic extremists and every Islamic terrorist that has attacked the West, from 9/11 to 7/7. They have all come to the belief that the greatest weakness the West has is its civil liberties, hence they have committed to employ the same to carryout their agenda. Is any one truly surprised at what is happening?
The questions that are now being asked in the West and the realizations that are slowly unfolding are already in the pages the book titled Tribalizing America: A Social Evolution of the American Society (pages 26 â 34 & 141 â 147).
Posted by: slowtrain | July 20, 2005 8:07 PM
For those who are convinced that the Bible is all sweetness and light, I direct you to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
Note there is also a (slightly less sarcastic) treatment of the Quran and Book of Mormon there.
Posted by: JABITheW | July 20, 2005 9:07 PM
By reading all these views I have no doubt in mind that at this time islam is a trouble maker arround the world. I would not like my children to live in a country with even a fraction of the islamic scent. I don't want them to be referred as Kafirs and non-believers and become the victims of the religious violence. So, I am really looking for a country to move in where islamic preachings are prohibited. Does anybody know such county? Please let me know. I hope, in near future we will have many more such countries! No hard feelings muslim folks. I just want to stay out of trouble. You can't criticize me for leaving you guys alone.
Posted by: A Hindu | July 21, 2005 12:07 AM
No such luck Hindu. Muslims are everywhere, you're just going to have to learn some tolerance which I know amongst your kind is non-existant. Which rung of the caste system do you belong to ?
Posted by: DrM | July 21, 2005 4:07 AM
In my last post, there are some typos...
perceive. should be passive.
Posted by: anonymous | July 21, 2005 9:07 AM
Steady on DrM. How many people have let off bombs on the London Underground in the name of the Hindu faith to destroy unbelievers? And how many for Islam? So who's intolerant here?
Perhaps Hindus are intolerant of each other. But they leave me alone. I'm quite happy with that. It's when people start to try and impose their beliefs on me that I get angry.
Incidentally, the IRA comparison is false. The IRA wanted to destroy London's economy, so concentrated mostly on commercial targets. These nutters seem to want to kill and maim. That's why they attacked the mass-transit system.
Posted by: JABITheW | July 21, 2005 9:07 AM
Again, all these arguments fail to address my earlier point as to how easily the West could avoid, or at least dramatically reduce the threat of terrorism by cutting all ties with the Islamic world. Discussions about where the authority lies in Islam, needs for Ghandis and reformations are irrelevant as the West has no control over the beliefs of the wider Muslim world. What would work is cutting all ties with the entire Islamic world. Yet nobody in the West wants to even entertain the idea.
Posted by: Raashid | July 21, 2005 9:07 AM
Hi Guest,
I noticed how you failed to quote the verses that preceded each of those verses you have selectively quoted. How amazing? I am beginning to wonder what kind of people we have in this world. Perhaps you quoted them in a hurry. I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Okay, here we go, starting with the last one you quoted Q2.193.
This is the full text: [2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. [2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. [2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
Moving on to the second one you quoted: Q8.12 [8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. [8.13] This is because they acted adversely to Allah and His Apostle; and whoever acts adversely to Allah and His Apostle-- then surely Allah is severe in requiting (evil). [8.14] This-- taste it, and (know) that for the unbelievers is the chastisement of fire. [8.15] O you who believe! when you meet those who disbelieve marching for war, then turn not your backs to them. [8.16] And whoever shall turn his back to them on that day-- unless he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company-- then he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah's wrath, and his abode is hell; and an evil destination shall it be.
We could do we here by going into the context of the revelation of these verses, but you have come across as a very dishonest person simply interested in misrepresenting the truth. However, you could get yourself a book on the exegisis of Islamic scriptures. There are tonnes of them, although mostly in Arabic. Don't be too proud to ask ssomeone. You could stroll to a mosque and sit down with someone who could explain the meaning and the context of these verses to you. This is not inviting you to become Muslim, cos you really don't have to.
Let's move to the third verse: Q66.9 You quoted this quite rightly, as the preceding verse and the following verse are not connected to that verse instructing the Prophet (peace be upon him) "to strive hard against the unbelievers and hypocrites".
I believe this verse was revealed in Medinah. Hence, this was after the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his followers finally escaped from the persecution in Mecca. I haven't found a detailed exegisis of this particular verse, looking at Ibn Kathir's book of exegisis. However, the Prophet (peace be upon him) cannot afford to be perceive any longer in Medinah after years of persecution by the Meccan idol worshippers. And this verse is a perfect motivation for them to fight back. As you probably would not know, the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade his followers from fighting back the persecution for many years.
This should help you a little bit. I am not knowledgeable in Islam but I am sure I know enough to answer the classic naiveties such as yours.
Posted by: anonymous | July 21, 2005 9:07 AM
Assalaamu alaikum,
I'd just like to point out that there are many, many Hindus living and working in the Arab Gulf; obviously they've decided that it's not so bad in those Muslim countries - apparently better than in India. And there have been attacks on Christian missionaries, for example, by Hindus in India.
If the U.S. and U.K. were invading and occupying Hindu countries, then they'd have Hindus attacking them. And if they were doing the same to Catholic, or Buddhist, or Communist countries, then people with those beliefs would be attacking them. (And in fact, there are quite a few terrorist attacks againt the U.S. in Latin America.)
Posted by: Ann | July 21, 2005 10:07 AM
An atheist crusade..."Kill the believers!"
Well, a change is as good as a rest. :p
Posted by: JABITheW | July 21, 2005 11:07 AM
Communism isn't a belief. It's a political system. There is a difference, not one to be confused lightly. Communist societies are atheist precisely because of what we are seing here. Religion is dangerous in that it can be used to manipulate and control the masses.
The Indians seem to do well wherever they go...
As to Christian missionaries; why were they trying to convert people? What's the point?
Posted by: JABITheW | July 21, 2005 11:07 AM
I see that the discussion turning towards Hindus.
I am an Indian and I believe most indians whether hindus, muslims, christians or sikhs are tolerent. There are some intolerent people in each religion and they try to use religion for their political gains.
How can you explain a Sikh prime minister, a Muslim president and a roman catholic leader of parliament in india, a hindu majority country. We do not use the catch phrases like "multi cultural", "multi religion", "multi ethnic" , " Secular democracy" in letter and practice something else in spirit.
I am really fed up with this propaganda that Hindus are anti-muslim. Does any body know, Who is the most famous religious personality in India at the moment, its Sai baba. Richest person india is Mr Azim Premji , most famous film personality is Shah Rukh Khan, in the field of Music its A.R. Rahman and the most respected person in india after gandhi is Dr. Abdul kalam. They are all Indian, who happen to be Muslims.
Can anybody name a western democracy or arab/muslim country, where the minorities are doing rather reasonably well. Mind you that doesnt mean that everything is fine in india, we have our set of extremists in all religions.
Posted by: samba007 | July 21, 2005 11:07 AM
The calls for some kind of structure are an absolute nonsense. The existence of a Pope never stopped the Catholic Church from being corrupt and in some places rotten to the core - it allowed a powerful body (perhaps the most powerful in the world) to do things like hoard Nazi gold, persecute scientists, destroy centuries' worth of research because it disagreed with their doctrine... to hide abuses and scandals, to protect their own no matter how awful their actions...
On the other hand, the Society of Friends all seem to get along with each other pretty well, the general idea being that you follow your own path and talk about your ideas in an open forum, in order to lead yourself to truth, and help the people around you to reach their own.
And why does religion have to be tied to the state? there are some things that most of us agree on - whatever our beliefs, DON'T KILL being a majority value, if I'm not mistaken... don't steal is generally up there too and there's usually some stuff about looking after people who need it, and respecting (though maybe not always agreeing with) people who have lived longer than you...
We have enough in common...
Which is why I advocate politics as a religion-free zone; a place where mundane and practical decisions are made in a mundane and - dare I say it? - co-operative manner, allowing all people to live their lives in peace...
But of course, that's just ludicrously naive, isn't it?
Posted by: probably very naive | July 21, 2005 6:07 PM
This blog has an extremely thought provoking article and many intelligent responses, notably those of 'anonymous', 'slow train', and 'Dr Peter Kelve'. Sadly only Dr Kelve deals with the issue at hand adequately (and without prejudice, Jabithew, a Hindu Said, and Guest), which is leadership or a form of authority in Islam. The main problem with Dr. Kelve's argument is that he does not provide provision for the implementation of such authority. Islam is intrinsically bound to the scriptures of the Holy Q'uran which do not allow for leadership other than that of (MashaâÂÂ)Allah and the Prophet, Muhammad (Peace be upon Him). There are of course provisions for guidance from imam's but these do not extend to an all encompassing guidance of Islam.
Perhaps there is no need for a Gandhi, merely strong leadership that can merge Islam accross the world..
Posted by: Interested atheist | July 21, 2005 8:07 PM
This blog has an extremely thought provoking article and many intelligent responses, notably those of 'anonymous', 'slow train', and 'Dr Peter Kelve'. Sadly only Dr Kelve deals with the issue at hand adequately (and without prejudice, Jabithew, a Hindu Said, and Guest), which is leadership or a form of authority in Islam. The main problem with Dr. Kelve's argument is that he does not provide provision for the implementation of such authority. Islam is intrinsically bound to the scriptures of the Holy Q'uran which do not allow for leadership other than that of (MashaâÂÂ)Allah and the Prophet, Muhammad (Peace be upon Him). There are of course provisions for guidance from imam's but these do not extend to an all encompassing guidance of Islam.
Perhaps there is no need for a Gandhi, merely strong leadership that can merge Islam accross the world.
Posted by: Alexei du Bois | July 21, 2005 8:07 PM
This article and the comments posted on this page prove my worst fears about muslim communities to be true. You just haven't arrived in the modern time. You don't understand - NO you won't understand the fundamental values the so called western societies are based on. What I read is the repeated uttering of conspiracy fantasies, apologetic justification of atrocities discrimination repression and outright barbarism, and last but not least ignorance about the own wrongs and responsibilities. I sense feelings of supremacy and outright intolerance in almost every post. Intolerance lurks at the heart of every religion. But clearly there is something very fishy in the house of islam. It is about time that we liberals learn that there cannot be tolerance with the intolerant - including not exclusively large chunks of the muslim communities.
Posted by: Liberal | July 21, 2005 9:07 PM
If we are going to root out intolerance in supposedly liberal societies, we could do worse than start with the State of Kentucky. They tried to outlaw the teaching of evolution. Certainly atheism and all forms of not-being-a-fundamentalist-Christian are disapproved of in the US by the current Neo-Con government (we're all liberal eco-commies, clearly.) They wouldn't let a woman swear on the Koran instead of the Bible, which is a legal and logical nonsense! If she is a Muslim then she is moe likely to lie on a Bible than a Koran. It also supposes that the Bible is more legally true than the Koran, which contradicts the US constitution (the state should be secular).
So for intolerant fundamentalist hypocrites, perhaps we should look west rather than east?
Posted by: JABITheW | July 21, 2005 10:07 PM
Samba007, the discussion only turned to Hindus when one posted that s/he wanted to live where there were no Muslims and where Islamic teachings were prohibited. So if you're "fed up with this propaganda that Hindus are anti-muslim", you should be addressing Samba007. (And as I pointed out, many Hindus live safely in the Muslim countries of the Gulf.)
Posted by: Ann | July 21, 2005 11:07 PM
Actually, the Prophet (pbuh) did have successors - not Prophets, since he was the last prophet, but those who succeeded him as leader of the Islamic community (the caliph). We're taught that we will have a caliph again at some point. Apparently, though, this is considered a radical idea; one organization which advocates the caliphate (Hizb ut-tahrir) is banned in many countries, including many Muslim countries.
Posted by: Ann | July 21, 2005 11:07 PM
I was scared not scared to death but for afterwards for the outcome of what I will say will do to the people or beliefs of people. Any way I am willing to pay.
I believe I believe in a religion that ecceps anyone in that can say I believe in god and prophets.
I therefore cannot tell who is Muslim. I also cannot tell what to do to the Muslims I also do not accept any one teaching me what to do unless I ask them to.
There cannot be a religious authorty that can say this or that
I also belong to nation that acceps anyone in by just calling self as a Turk
There is nobody but god can forgive and judge me for my sins.
God is most merciful.
These are the base of my belief it is not mostly routed in any scripture but in the base of our social life.
In any fight (or war) there need to be at least two sides. One need to stop being a side to be a seperator and or a peace giving party. But what I am feeling by the way both sides speaking is that I belong to the other side.
Even with the best wishes of mine to stop both parties of doing what they are doing . they are soon to point me as an oponent side fighter.
So there is something wrong with the way their cases are put forward.
ðs this the regular media distortion that makes this thing seem so or is there an intention underneath for a greater or more sinister purpose.
Whether or not you believe in the way I do but we believe in Muslim and when we pray we pray for all the believers and this includes all the believers of all the prophets mentioned in and all the living and the death of all.
My call is to all belivers (any way you belive) dont let anyone in between you and the thing you believein.
Posted by: gokmonk | July 22, 2005 5:07 AM
@gokmonk
So you exclude those who don't base their beliefs and moral values on what is passed down in dodgy writings - mostly about, not from so called prophets. Those who don't claim to derive theire beliefs from a "god" or someone "enlightened" by "god". Please define me "tolerance" and please explain who is separating here!?
Posted by: Liberal | July 22, 2005 10:07 AM
On successorhip. To "complement" what Ann has said, indeed the Prophet (peace be upon him) has successors. However, the problem is that the successorship of the Prophet (peace be upon him) has not been Wholesome these days and in fact has not been for a long time. But no none knows what the future holds! We need someone who can succeed the Prophet (peace be upon him) in his spirituality, outward actions, inward states, leadership, statesmanship, fatherhood, Godliness, etc. This is going to be an impossibly difficult task, especially with the challenges of "modernity". By modernity here, I refer to those aspects of modern life that is miserably against the human purpose. Take for example, modern warfare. Contrast this with the Prophet (peace be upon him) commandment not to kill by the fire. And ofcourse not to kill indiscriminately. In the seerah, we read how the Prophet (peace be upon him) even stationed a soldier at a site where some dog was given birth, so that the scuffles of the combat will not disturb her. You want to compare this with carpet bombing, suicide bombing, atomic bombing? hasha, the sane and the insane are never equal. Muslims were meant to be a voice of moderation by succeeding the Prophet (peace be upon him) in these principles; unfortunately however, you have muslims and their countries aping the west, competing hard to developing nuclear weapons and all other kind of bombs. Whoever their leaders/scholars are they have obviously not succeeded the Prophet (peace be upon him) in his vision for the world, for world peace. Obviously by not having such kind of weapons and by humiliatingly reducing war to hand-to-hand combat, you will have a world with minimal wars and destructive conflict. Compared to the convenience and sweetness of waging war in our time ... it takes few keystrokes to destroy everything!. Is this what civility is all about. Muslims have left a lot of their traditions behind and have taken on board a path that will definitely lead to misery unless Allah's mercy intervenes. In as much as we try to succeed the Prophet (peace be upon him) in his outward actions, such as prayer, fasting, giving charity, we have failed utterly to provide successors of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in other aspects of his humanity, his statesmanship, leadership, etc. Even if we were to have a caliph who purports to succeed the Prophet (peace be upon him) in his leadership and statesmanship, how would he do it in "modern" times? How would he defend the borders of his state without resulting to violating some of the guidelines of Islam? Wouldn't he think he needs to acquire explosive weaponry and arsenals and what not. Now, what is Islamic about this? Nothing. And I know many muslims will even argue against this by pointing out that the way of the Prophet (peace be upon him) can be interpreted to allow for a lot of things. But I am sure the Prophet (peace be upon him) was aware of a lot of things, and he would have mentioned them if he wanted his ways to be interpreted in those terms. He gave the best, but Muslims have settled for the worst. We have just accepted and assimiliated such horrible standards and all we will just have to live with it. So, what we need to mitigate this slippery slope to hell is to perhaps have some modesty in claiming successorhip to the Prophet (peace be upon him). Cause his sunnah, his way is completely different from ours. We are loser