RANDicalization of the Ummah
- Filed under: Islam
- Date: Mar 30,2007
New report has been released from RAND called Building Moderate Muslim Networks. I saw it on Imam Suhaib Webb’s blog. Jinnzaman has written a great commentary about it. (Also posted on SufiStication).
“Remember how the Unbelievers plotted against thee, to keep thee in bonds, or slay thee, or get thee out (of thy home). They plot and plan, and Allah too plans; but the best of planners is Allah.”
(Surat al-Anfal Verse 30)
Introduction
The RAND corporation, author of the infamous “Civil Democratic Islam” paper that essentially laid forth a “divide and conquer” strategy to subdue the Muslim world from resisting American hegemony, recently released a follow up report entitled “Building Moderate Muslim Networks” to effectuate the policy objectives that were previously discussed in their other papers. The report comes in the wake of a recent summit by “secular†Muslims in St. Petersburg, Florida where they issued a proclamation declaring support for secularism, “human rightsâ€, along with condemnation of orthodoxy, the Shari’ah with particular focus on the hadd punishments against apostasy, zina, Islamic governance, not to mention practices that have no place in Islam such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage. Unsurprisingly, the doctrine such “secular†Muslims espouse and the method they utilize to propagate their ideas coincides exactly with the doctrine and methods espoused in the “Building Moderate Muslim Networks†paper. Some may describe the secular Muslim summit and the publication of the RAND report as a fortuitous coincidence, while others may describe them as merely the convergence of plans that were long in the making.
Summary
The underlying argument of this paper is that the United States is currently embroiled in what is described as a civil war within Islam whose outcome is on par with the titanic struggle that occurred during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Just like the US utilized both covert and overt tactics to contest the expansion of communism, it must utilize both covert and overt tactics to subdue “radical†Islam. The paper specifically focuses on the concept of developing “moderate†networks to contest the authority of America’s opponents both at home and abroad.
The paper defines “moderate†Muslims’ as (1) those who support democracy, (2) internationally recognized human rights, including gender equality and freedom of worship, (3) respect for diversity, (4) acceptance of nonsectarian sources of law, and (5) opposition to terrorism and all illegitimate forms of violence. It also claims that “moderate†Muslims are in the majority in the Muslim world whereas radical Muslims form an extreme minority that have only come to power because of (1) their use of force and intimidation to silence their opponents, (2) Saudi funding promoting Wahhabism, and (3) organization through networks.
These moderate networks can be built by (1) bolstering existing networks, (2) identifying potential networks and promoting their inception and growth, and (3) contributing to the underlying conditions of pluralism and tolerance that are favorable to the growth of these networks. The authors go so far as to identify the types of networks that must be promoted: (1) democracy promotion networks, (2) civil society networks, and (3) public diplomacy networks.
- Democracy Promotion means the promotion of liberal democratic values of equity, tolerance, pluralism, the rule of law, and respect for civil and human rights. The US government already has democracy mandates in both the Department of State and the US Agency for Development (USAID) which contract with NGOs such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the Asia Foundation, and the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID). Incidentally, one of the the Board of Directors of the CSID was a professor of mine at UMBC where he taught a class called “Islam and Politics.†(Cantori bio).
- Civil-society development. By “civil society,†the authors refer to a set of institutions and values that serves both as a buffer and a critical link between the state and individuals, families, and clans that are manifested when voluntary civic and social organizations (such as NGOs) can stand in opposition to forces brought by the state. They describe possible targets for the promotion of civil society as (a) Liberal and secular Muslim academics and intellectuals, (b) young and moderate religious scholars, (c) community activists, (c) women’s groups engaged in gender equality campaigns, and (d) moderate journalists and writers. A specific focus should be directed towards Muslims living in Diaspora in the West, along with those from “moderate†nations such as Turkey and Indonesia, whose works should be translated.
- Public Diplomacy. Although the paper itself doesn’t bother to define public diplomacy, in international relations, it is merely clever verbiage for propaganda. “PUBLIC DIPLOMACY refers to government-sponsored programs intended to inform or influence public opinion in other countries; its chief instruments are publications, motion pictures, cultural exchanges, radio and television.”
Criticisms
The paper is wracked with ambiguous definitions, weak inferences, and downright ignorance of the subtleties of the region as a whole. Although I am not quite certain how the paper has been received by strategists within the government, if this paper is the primary source of covert policy in subduing “radical†Islam, then the US is in for a world of trouble because such a program is bound to fail. In addition to the general problems of the normative and descriptive value of the paper, I have five specific criticisms of the article.
- War on Islam, Not Terrorism. This paper shows that there are some strategists in the world who seek not to subdue extremists within Islam, but subdue Islam itself as a discourse of social justice and resistance to hegemony. According to Imam Laqqani, the author of the classical Ashari text “Jawharat at-Tawheedâ€, a Muslim is “one who both believes and submits to that which is necessarily known of the religion.†The main problem with the article is that it automatically affiliates those Muslims who espouse the Shari’ah as being extremists who want to utilize violence in order to achieve their goals. The document shows that the conflict is not being defined in terms of methodology, but in terms of ideology. Those who support the Shari’ah, regardless if they support violence to establish it, are grouped in with terrorists. In other words, even if Muslims democratically instituted the Shari’ah, it would still be construed as a threat to Western civilization. The article fails to make a distinction between those who seek to establish the khalifah through non-violent means and those who use violence to kill innocent civilians. It also conflates jihad with terrorism, either intentionally for propaganda purposes, or unintentionally, reflecting reckless ignorance of the legal distinctions and implications between the two actions. Given that the authors are highly educated people who no doubt are being well paid for their analysis of radicalism in the Muslim world, I cannot give them the benefit of the doubt and presume that they made such a glaring error innocently. The mindset of the authors is one that is becoming dominant in most policy makers, especially of the neoconservative persuasion. If such a policy proposal becomes integrated in strategic planning, then the war on terrorism must be proclaimed a farce and renamed a war on Islam since the Shari’ah is inherently a component of Islam and any call to eliminate the Shari’ah is, by de facto, an attack on Islam itself. Allah (subhana wa ta’alaa) warned against leaving the deen in order to conform to the desires of the Ahl ul Kitab: “Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: “The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance.” Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against Allah.†(Surat al-Baqarah Verse 120) The Shari’ah is a legal system, not a political system. A legal system which, by definition, cannot be totalitarian or fascist since the very purpose of a legal system is to limit the powers of the state. In other words, the Shari’ah is the very antithesis of totalitarianism or fascism. The ‘Ulema are not servants of the state, but act as a separate class of professionals whose primary duty is to emphatically emphasize what the law is. Both the state and lay people have no authority in declaring crimes and punishments regarding Islamic law. Just because Islamic law is not democratic does not make it totalitarian. Furthermore, merely advocating the complete implementation of the Shari’ah is not, in and of itself, a radical belief or act. It is shared by Muslims all through out the world. The assertion that this the US is merely supporting one side in a “civil war” within Islam is downright ludicrous. This is a conflict that has been precipitated from day one from foreign soil. The origins of the “moderate” Muslims has been and always will be merely a tool for Western hegemony, whether they realize it or not. This paper affirms that modernist Muslims are merely a fifth column within the Muslim Ummah. The relationship between such people and foreign powers with imperialist designs has been described in detail in “The ‘Death’ of Progressive Islam” post. The conflict within Muslim countries would not exist but for the covert and overt interference of Western nations. This is not a civil war, but a world war.
- Definition of “Moderate†Muslims. Anyone who rejects those aspects of the Shari’ah upon which there is consensus is simply not a Muslim, let alone a “moderate†one. Thus, it is unsurprising when the paper lists potential “moderate†Muslims whose works should be promoted in the Muslim world, it includes: Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Salman Rushdie, Tasleema Nasreen, Irshad Manji, amongst others. Most of the people who have been described as “moderate†Muslims are not even Muslim at all. The secularized Muslims, i.e. apostates, come from some of the most educated and wealthy segments of Muslim societies, yet, for all their affiliation with the most powerful nation on the Earth, they are absolutely weak. Thus far, they have failed to penetrate the authority of the ‘Ulema let alone establish a strong hold anywhere in the world. Every overdramatic theatrical endeavor they have embarked on has been met with utter ridicule and scorn. The assistance of the kuffar is infinitely miniscule compared to the assistance of Allah (subhana wa ta’ala).Interestingly enough, the authors refer to the Danish imams as not being “moderate†Muslims simply because they traveled through the Middle East to urge support for their complaint against the Danish government concerning outrageous cartoons that depicted the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) in a terrible manner that was both ahistorical, stereotypical, and downright hateful. The author fails to recognize that Muslims from all over the world, whether moderate or radical by their own definition, protested the Danish cartoons, including “secular†Turkey and Indonesia. Muslims as far off as Thailand and China protested the cartoons. This illustrates even further how incoherent the authors are since they do not have a working definition of “moderate†Muslim.
- Stuck in the Cold War Rut. The documentary “Why We Fight†opens with video footage of President Dwight D. Eisenhower warning of the dangers of the “military-industrial complex.†With a hint of clairvoyance, he cautioned against overstating the importance of RAND-like institutions. “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.†After World War II, the Cold War was perhaps the most expensive venture in American foreign policy, if not the longest in duration. New branches of the government, industries, and think tanks were conceived simply to study the ideological foe. Colleges and universities sprouted political science departments where some professors ended up dedicating their whole lives to this task. Then, in a moment, the evil empire crumbled. People whose sole occupational purpose was to study this foe were suddenly fish out of water. Think tanks, intelligence experts, military officers, suddenly found that they needed to justify their funding and purpose. Reformists within the military who sought to transform the Cold War-era structure of the armed forces into one that could fight in the era of asymmetrical warfare were castigated by the “Old Guard.†This can be clearly illustrated when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld attempted to scrap the $11 billion Crusader artillery program and was met with opposition by both officials within the military and politicians. Thus, it is not improbable that the Cold War era thinkers would rely upon pre-existing paradigms for scrutinizing “radical†Islam. There are, of course, several major problems with analogizing between Communism and Islamism. To be fair, the authors recognize that not all of the tactics that were utilized in the Cold War can be used against “radical†Islam since they are, by their very nature, two drastically different entities. However, the threat of “radical†Islam to the US is nowhere near comparable to the Soviet threat. At best, Islamists might be able to detonate one or two nuclear warheads in an American city, and although that is reprehensible, it is simply a gross exaggeration to claim that such a threat is on par with the annihilation that could have been inflicted by the Soviets who possessed hundreds of armed warheads with intercontintental ballistical missiles. Until recently, Islamists didn’t even posses armies, let alone stable control over one Muslim country. Of course, the war on Iraq has changed all that. The war on Afghanistan pretty much destroyed, if not disrupted, Al-Qaeda’s infrastructure and command network. Had their been no war on Iraq, that might have been the end of Al-Qaeda, but the war on Iraq, with the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, the atrocities at Abu Graib, the rape of Iraqi women and children, and the rampant sectarianism gave provided the causus belli to this organization whose numbers grew exponentially in that region. The rise of Islamist militants in Iraq is a direct reaction that has emanated from the myopic vision of strategic analysts who have been stuck in this Cold War rut. After all, the very origin of many of these groups has been due to the presence of authoritarian tyrants in the Middle East that were supported by the U.S. government in order to combat the threat of communism. The support of mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, the support of these dictators, the invasion of Iraq, the attacks on Afghanistan, are all examples of epic levels of short-sightedness on behalf of these policy experts who continue to fail to understand Islam for what it is. One of the reasons they have repeatedly failed to do so is because they constantly try to examine Islam with their Cold War goggles. Islam is not the same threat to America or the West as the Soviet Union was. What Islamists seek is not the destruction of freedom or human rights, but the preservation of their own way of life. If anyone is threatened with annihilation, it is the Islamists, not America. However, the paper grossly aggrandizes the threat of Islamism as a threat to the very core of Western civilization. This language is not accurate and is left over verbiage from the Cold War era. However, regardless if such mistakes are accidental or intentional, they have drastic consequences in global affairs. Any more miscalculations on behalf of Western strategists, and their will be a global, unified revolt of Islam.
- Anachronistic Obfuscation of Islamic Revival and Terrorism. Perhaps the greatest illustration of the shortsightedness of the article its failure to recognize that the movements of today are not merely reactions to Western hegemony, but part of a greater Islamic revival that has been thriving for the past several centuries. The distinction between the revivalists of today is a change in their tactics and targets, not in the revival itself. Thus, the claim that radicals have been influenced by Saudi funding for Wahhabism is ludicrous. The effects of Wahhabism/Salafism on movements like Jamat e Islami, Ikhwan al Muslimeen, Hizb e Tehrir, Tableeghi Jamaat, the Taliban are all miniscule. Nor does it account for revolutionary Iran, whose origins are in the intellectual triumph of the Usooli tradition over the Akhbaris just like the origins of the Sunni revival can be directly traced to the revival of hadeeth studies. Terrorism is not caused by Wahhabism, nor are all Islamic resistance movements utilizing terrorism to achieve their goals. The call for Islamic sovereignty, governance, and law does not make a person a terrorist. It is only when they use violence against civilians can such a person be declared a terrorist. If people use non-violent or violent means that are directed at legitimate military targets, they cannot be construed as terrorists or radicals. Such movements can be traced back to the pre-colonial and colonial era of resistance. To claim that such movements began only recent is downright false and may lead to dramatic outcomes if not corrected.
- Democratizing the Muslim World. Perhaps what I find most dangerous about their program is that their plan to (1) detach the authority of the ‘Ulema from the state and from within the state and to (2) expand the concept of ijma into a consensus concerning public opinion. Although no strategy is explicitly propounded to achieve these goals, my guess is that they’ll be using the legal principle of ijtehad. There is no reason to believe that democratization would have prevented the rise of militant groups and movements. The direct cause of these movements has been particular political problems, not for ideological reasons. Islam was an a posteriori justification for violent act, not an a priori action. Whether they utilize democracies or Islamic governance, these resistance movements will continue since the cause of their resistance is a particular conflict, not a want for a particular system of values.
Challenging the Hegemonic Discourse on Islamism
What the RAND paper has made clear, along with other papers on Islam, is that Western countries do not seek to eliminate those Muslims who utilize violence against innocent civilians, but those Muslims who seek to challenge Western hegemony as well, regardless if they use entirely peaceful and legal means to fulfill these objectives. If this is true, than the “War on Terrorism†must be changed to the “War on Islam Itself.†Some Muslims may contest such a claim. Some Muslims, wasting away in luxury and conceit, ignorant of Islamic traditions and history, naïve of global politics, go so far as to deny that the West is an existential threat to Islam. What these ignoramuses fail to realize is that war is already upon the Muslim Ummah. The threat of bombs falling on our cities, our women being raped, our men being shipped off to prisons for no crimes and being tortured in inhumane ways, is not merely a potential future outcome, it is already here. The future is now.
I ask that all Muslims honestly and sincerely endeavor to answer the following questions:
- Do Muslims have an obligation to establish a single universal Islamic government? Universal not in the sense that it must encompass every inch of the earth, but that it seeks to preserve the interests of all Muslims, irrespective of their race, sect, or location. The answer to this question is yes.
- Do Muslims have a right to establish a single universal Islamic government? In other words, if Muslims had a peaceful way of establishing a universal Islamic government that implemented the Shari’ah, but did not interfere in the affairs of other nation-states, would Western governments allow such a state to subsist? The answer to this is yes, according to the very principles of the doctrine of nationalism.
- Why is there opposition to the Shari’ah? Is the Shari’ah a threat to John Doe living in Kansas? Why do Westerners care about the Hadd punishments when they are not subject to it? Is their a real genuine concern for the crimes and punishments under the Shari’ah? The answer is that the opposition to the Shari’ah is merely pretext in the war of propaganda which seeks to incite the masses against Islam.
- Why is there opposition to jihad, even if it rejects terrorism (i.e. the targeting of civilians)? This is self-evident; jihad is a threat to Western hegemony. Regardless if it follows the rules of war or not, any Muslim who espouses jihad, even in defense for their self-preservation and national integrity is a terrorist in the eyes of the West. The West does not care about social justice and peace, it is concerned with preserving its control of Muslim lands and it can only do so through Muslim hearts and minds.
- Why is it no surprise that this study calls for networking among apostates (people who are either atheists or openly reject elements of the deen which are necessarily a part of the faith)? If Western countries truly were not at war with Islam and merely sought to combat extremists, why is that they promote apostates to “reform†Islam? They do so because they are not at war with a handful of extremists, but because they want to change the very nature of Islam into a subservient defanged religion.
Intellectual Revolution: The Only Solution
Upon reading about such plans and plots, the average Muslim asks him or her self “What can be done? What can I do to participate in this war of ideas?†The answer is simple: intellectual revolution. What is intellectual revolution?
What many Muslims fail to understand is that neo-colonialism has not only economic, political, and military aspects, but also intellectual and philosophical aspects as well. The RAND paper and others like it highlight the efforts of Western intellectuals to subdue Islam as a form of a resistance to Western hegemony. Such efforts can not be responded to by force alone nor can they be disregarded or ignored. Obviously, intellectual hegemony can only be contested by intellectual resistance, intellectual revolution. The definition of a revolution is that it (1) calls for the complete deconstruction of one paradigm and replacing it with another or (2) a return to the existing state of things (in the manner that a cosmic body returns to the point of its origin). Thus, an Islamic intellectual revolution is one that seeks to thoroughly deconstruct the intellectual paradigms that are instrumental in preserving Western hegemony in a manner by returning to the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) in spirit, mind, and body.
As such, intellectual revolution refers to efforts by a group of thinkers, in accordance with the traditional Islamic sciences, to utilize their minds in order operate within the conceptual framework of Ahl us Sunnah waal Jam’ah to serve as a catalyst in convering the thought of the Muslim Ummah. To be more precise, Intellectual Revolution has four components: (1) the reconstruction of the sacred sciences to provide the proper epistemological outline for developing ethics, political theory, and law in accordance with the Shari’ah, (2) the deconstruction of Western ethical, legal, and political philosophy that is used to critique the Shari’ah, (3) the construction of Islamic alternatives to contemporary economic, legal, and political paradigms, and (4) the refutation of deviant groups, with a special focus on those who oppose the Shari’ah itself. The reconstruction of Islamic knowledge entails the revival of the Islamic sciences in accordance with the boundaries of the Quran and Sunnah as understood by the Mujtahid Imams and those who followed them with a special focus on Aqeedah, Fiqh, and Tasawwuf. The second component of intellectual revolution entails deconstructing Western power systems. Instead of Muslims falling into an ideological trap of whether or not Islam is compatible with such Western thought-systems as science, democracy, feminism, etc, we ought to question the authority of such systems. Deconstructing Western power systems requires those Muslims living in the West to rigorously reject the authority of the Western political discourse and to firmly attack the roots of their political concepts, especially this absurd notion of freedom. The third component of Intellectual Revolution is the thorough refutation of deviant groups, especially those groups that possess deviant aqeedah or lack an understanding of usool al fiqh, or question the authority of the Ulema without having studied their proofs. Special attention should be given to those who ascribe to the ‘modernist’ paradigm where they claim that there is no proof in the Quran and Sunnah for a variety of rulings. The method of responding to such groups must be based firmly on the Islamic sciences as well as rational arguments, which is why the reconstruction of Islamic knowledge is a necessary prerequisite for all of the other components of intellectual revolution. The last component of intellectual revolution is to develop a contemporary formulation of Islamic power systems (ie to provide sufficient proofs for the establishment of a Universal Islamic Government). As is it clear by the works of the Ulema such as Imam Tahawi, Imam Mawardi, ibn Khaldun, Shaykh Uthman dan Fodio et al, that the establishment of a Khalifa is a fardh kaffayah, there must always be a group of people within our Ummah working towards this goal. The method of working towards khalifa is not by hosting debates on college campuses or passing out flyers or by throwing protests against the actions of corrupt governments as some political groups engage in. The method of restoring the khalifa is by restoring the confidence of the people within such a system. Due to the effects of excessive Western propaganda that slander the image of the khalifa based on false information or incorrect assessments, the average Muslim is so afraid of the establishment of a khalifa that he would prefer living under non-Muslim rule than Muslim rule. With all these four components of intellectual revolution, the basis of the intellectual suppression of the Ummah becomes null and void and it is only then when talk of real change becomes feasible. When the masses realize that political systems are not solid, cemented, metallic structures but are constructed and comprised of human beings like themselves, it is only then that they will be able to realize that just as they can be constructed, they can be ‘deconstructed’ and ‘reconstructed’ as an Islamic one.â€
For more information about intellectual revolution, click here.
May Allah (subhana wa ta’ala) raise up a leader from amongst us who will unite our Ummah and fight this fitnah. Ameen.
Source: Jinnzaman’s Blog.
57 Responses for "RANDicalization of the Ummah"
Salam,
Now my blood is boiling. I will not live my life defined by those who know not what I am. I will not live my life by your definition.
The more you try to box me in…the more you want to constrain my thoughts ..the more I will not bow down to you. I have faith Inshalla, Islam will prevail. Use your words..that change defintion with the wind…I am Muslim, I was born a Muslim… I inshalla, will die a Muslim.
Do you really think your think tanks can change that which was placed in my heart by My Maker???!!!
Please you are addressing 1.5 billion souls. They submit to only Allah. They forget while they are plotting…there is One who knows!!!
I think it is interesting that in the report they talk about how one of the “potential allies” of the West are traditionalists (”including Sufis”). They got that wrong. While we are certainly for peace and harmony, we certainly will not cater to the likes of people who seek to manipulate us, and certainly not at the expense of our brothers and sisters.
We will never submit, never to surrender to anyone other than Allah (subhana wa ta’ala) and His commands and way of life.
ameen!
Jinn’s commentary was an excellent starting point (and some more) for refutation of this wickedness. A lot more has to be said and inshallah I hope it will be.
On the light side, I have a RAND-issued security-alert posted on MM, Link Here…
[…] […]
Salam,
It’s me again. Alhumdullila. I found an article that is worth reading. I followed your links and ended up here. It is 25 pages long. But it is an eye-opener. This article explains how the Rand co-op got the money and ideas. The author also tells us about the Islamic reformation. Please read for yourselves. There is a movement aflot using “liberal” muslim thinkers to turn on Islam. It is blasphamey. These thinkers are stating that he Quran is not divine…that the Prophet (swas) did not recieve the Divine Revelation. Read and fight. May Allah protect us from the enemy within.
http://ls.berkeley.edu/dept/anth/mahmood.secularism.pdf
Salam,
this was the site. Please read. On the lighter side..i am a mother..and like all mothers we are mutlitasking at all times..forgive me ineptitude.
All articles supportive of mainstream islam seem to continue the idea of Muslim “victimization” by proclaiming the West is at war with Islam. Yet there is no manifesto claiming such a thesis. But Islam has a manifesto that dates back to Muhammed of Arabia, it is called the Qur’an. It contains by injunction of nashk(abrogation), “the verse of the sword”, among the last verses recited by Muhammed, a clear invocation: ” Fight and kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every strategem of war.” (Sura 9:5)
Islam will subdue the “conspiracy” against them when they admit that the war they speak of is their own war against the world of Unbelievers, which includes the west.
Holding on to your assumed victim status only shows the levels of deceit you are willing to use to fool the foolish who would rather not go to the source to understand the true Muslim dictum.
You are victims, yes, but only the victims of that souless menace of Arabia who in his zeal to unify arabia under 1 God, sought vengence against others because they rejected his “calling” from God; A calling that was refuted by the nature of his actions AFTER that calling was rejected. Muhammed was a prophet in his own right during the time of his meccan suras, however, after his rejection by Jews, Christians , secularists and pagans, his benevolence and zeal for justice turned to rage and that rage to violence and injustice which we are seeing the fruits of even to this day.
Before you deem such criticism as a cause for anger, I suggest you analyze why such anger exists or why flying into a rage at any attempt to criticize your prophet or religion, is met with violence. Perhaps it is because such behavior was exemplified and permitted by muhammed and his earliest followers.
I suggest , if you wish to proclaim a peaceful religious Islam , that you throw out the Medinan suras of the Quran as well as the sunnah and stick to the pillars alone. then you religions’ personal dimension will be seen more clearly and given its proper respect.
peace!
Islam is not a pacifist religion; it is a religion of just war and resistance.
We will never submit to Western tyranny, get that through your skull.
From Palestine, to Iraq, to Afghanistan, to any other inch of occupied territory, our voices will be heard. We will never abandon the Shari’ah, and their is nothing you can do to prevent the establishment of the Khilafah.
This is true Islam is not a pacifist religion. The quran and sunnah confirm this. It is a religion of war. This is my premise.
Muhammad was the tyrant and you are submitting to his will. The wars fought by islam to date have never been Just in any respect. Muhammed regularly broke treaties because of an islamic superiority complex. Go set up your khalifa. Why did you get rid of it in the first place? Because under the khalifa the history of Islam was war and conquest. The crusades responded to 400 years of muslim conquest of lands, where those who survived were subjected to the worst forms of degradation and slavery. Many converted in order to be treated with dignity.
What exactly does Islam “resist” other than modernity, innovation and education? It resists the occupation of lands that it stole through conquest in previous years, like israel which the first crusade was called to liberate. And what is Islams legacy? the destruction of religious history from the jewish artifacts on the temple mount, to the buddhist statues in afghanistan and the virtual wiping outof zorastrianism from persia.
You treat all outsiders with contempt to the point, that unlike all the other major religions you do not hold up the golden rule” Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
Shariah law is made for dummies who cant think for themselves, it is more legalistic than jewish law and more binding than canon law. it is in its essence:Tyranny.
Hey Giorgio, why are you here, since you are against Islam? I think you should be on Daniel Pipe’s site or something.
You can say what you want. Islam is more then just a political entity. It changes peoples hearts. It establishes brotherhood. White, Black, Asian, South American, Spanish, German, Russian, Chinese, etc., doesn’t matter what the person is as long as they Muslim, they have so many things in common. I might not have met the Muslims in China or France, but I know they believe in God, the Angels, the Books sent by God, the Messengers, and the Day of Judgement. I know they believe in the heaven and hell and that this life is just a test. The final destination is the after life. The results of the test living in this world will decide our place in the after life. With that said, without even meething them, they are my brothers and sisters in Islam who have the same goal as me: heaven.
This is not the only time period where Islam was attacked and the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings upon him) was ridiculed. Since the time Islam was revealed from God it came under fire. Throughout history much worse things happened to Muslims and writings against the Prophet (peace annd blessings be upon him) were written.
The crusaders killed Jews and Muslims and even there own Christians. They fought for land, money and power. The Muslims fought for justice. The Jews, Christians and Muslims all lived together in Jerusalem in peace. This is a historical fact. Even Hollywood got it right, haha! (Kingdom of Heaven).
Yes your are correct, Muslims today seem like they are blood thirsty, ready to kill. Those Muslims are the only Muslims you see. You’d rather not see Muslims that really portray Islam like here or you don’t see the popular Muslim scholars who write articles like this here. Instead you see Muslims with AK-47s and cloths aroudn there faces and extremist Muslims who are given the title as ‘leader’ or ’scholar’ when in reality they just had a lot of money and influence and made there own group.
What we all fail to realize is that every single Muslim will not be a good Muslim. It’s such a simple concept, but yet Islam is attacked because of what Muslims do.
Lastly, you said “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, you should tell Mr. Bush that.
Peace.
Salam,
Giogio is here because his heart is unsettled. Giogrio, if I am not wrong Islam has answered a question deep in your heart. If that is the case continue to read and learn from us. The Prophet (SWAS) is protected by Allah and His Angels…in the Heavens and by love of his Ummah, yesterday, today, always.
We are strong because we are secure in our understanding of the Love for Allah.
Seek your soul and Islam is there. Look at the skies Islam is there..Look into the mirror and Isalm is there. We will all pray for you…because we know as Muslims our prayers our always answered. We believe.
thanx MR for ur reply to giorgio
Ooh wow, this Giorgio guy is real smart. He shoots out the old “Bigoted Idiot’s Guide to the Muhammadans” lines, throws out some big words, and boom. An “intelligent” criticism is born. Oh, wait, we’re not that stupid, Alhumdulillah. Apparently, the genius doesn’t understand how Surahs were revealed, and how they are classified. I’ll do you a favor and inform you of some possible life altering information: the Makkan and Madinan Surahs were not completely revealed in their respective cities. The classification is (if I remember correctly) only dictated by where the first revelation of the Surah was revealed.
Sorry for revealing your utter stupidity, but lets go further. Lets look at the ENTIRE verse you just mentioned. Lets look at Verse 9:5, from Surah Tawba:
“Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”
Now, if you’re still here, (I don’t know why you’d still be here. After all, you are an Idiot) let’s look at the entire passage in question:
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
“Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty. (1) Travel freely in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape Allah and that Allah will confound the disbelievers (in His guidance). (2) And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve, (3) Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him). (4) Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (5) And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not. (6) How can there be a treaty with Allah and with His messenger for the idolaters save those with whom ye made a treaty at the Inviolable Place of Worship? So long as they are true to you, be true to them. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty. (7) How (can there be any treaty for the others) when, if they have the upper hand of you, they regard not pact nor honour in respect of you? They satisfy you with their mouths the while their hearts refuse. And most of them are wrongdoers. (8) They have purchased with the revelations of Allah a little gain, so they debar (men) from His way. Lo! evil is that which they are wont to do. (9) And they observe toward a believer neither pact nor honour. These are they who are transgressors. (10) But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. (11) And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist. (12) Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first? What! Fear ye them? Now Allah hath more right that ye should fear Him, if ye are believers (13) Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of folk who are believers. (14) And He will remove the anger of their hearts. Allah relenteth toward whom He will. Allah is Knower, Wise. (15) Or deemed ye that ye would be left (in peace) when Allah yet knoweth not those of you who strive, choosing for familiar none save Allah and His messenger and the believers? Allah is Informed of what ye do. (16) It is not for the idolaters to tend Allah’s sanctuaries, bearing witness against themselves of disbelief. As for such, their works are vain and in the Fire they will abide.(17)” Surah Tawbah Verses 1-17
Bloodthirsty, huh? No, I didn’t think so.
May Allah forgive me if I have spoken unjustly or without proper Adhab and Akhlaq, but some one needs to stand up and shut these Morons up.
As-Salam Alaikum
Sorry for the double post, but I just needed to say that.
Its interesting you mention mr. Bush when you quote the golden rule as I had. If you see him in this horrible light, then how is it that muhammeds many raids of caravans in arabia(who never attacked him or the muslims, except maybe with words), his killing of the woman Ashraf the poet who criticized him in her writings(buhkari, the 400 years of war and conquest to take persia, india, north africa and spain(who never attacked islam, whose only sin is they didnt heed the muslim call to convert or feel yourself subdued)Hhow is it these multiple incidences don’t sway your opinion of muhammed.
The historical facts belie your own unwillingness to be honest intellectually. A muslim can not claim that Islam was spread by love and tolerance and only made war in sewlf defence. The sunnah and quran refute this numerous times and you know it.
“Islam is more then just a political entity. It changes peoples hearts. It establishes brotherhood. White, Black, Asian, South American, Spanish, German, Russian, Chinese, etc., doesn’t matter what the person is as long as they Muslim, they have so many things in common. I might not have met the Muslims in China or France, but I know they believe in God, the Angels, the Books sent by God, the Messengers, and the Day of Judgement. I know they believe in the heaven and hell and that this life is just a test. The final destination is the after life. The results of the test living in this world will decide our place in the after life. With that said, without even meething them, they are my brothers and sisters in Islam who have the same goal as me: heaven.”
Take out Islam and place in it Christianity and you will have almost exactly the same understanding of faith.
problem is these virtues are contained in both the quran and the Bible: however, you left out all the other wonderful things in the quran that abrogate these virtues for that higher calling:jihad. Kill the unbelievers, do not take christians and jews for friends, etc.
You guys deny the reality of the violence of muhammed and his cohorts and chalk it up to self defence yet your own books refute such ideas. Ayatollah rulah khomeini himself, extolled the virtues of armed conflict quoting hundreds of quranic suras and hadith to back it up. I needent give you those quotes as i know you will not take the time to explain what they really means No muslim ever does because from moderates to the crazies it all means the same thing. “Call them to islam, if they convert then leave them alone, if they dont have them pay the jizya in submission, other than that kill them” these teachings are part and parcel of islam.
Like I said if islam is what you say it is spirtually then that is a virtuous but politically as a system its justice applies only to those who call themselves muslims by choice. for all others it is tyranny, and this can be explained to you by all those who have lived as dhimmis under muslim rule throughout history.Ask the hindu’s , zorastrians, jews , christians, atheists etc.
MR you are right to say that all muslims are your bothers and sisters because their destination is heaven , including the Jihadists who blow themselves up in palestine, iraq and afgahnistan, indonesia,sudan and somalia. If they are your brothers and you defend them based on their identity as muslims, then you are guilty of what they do, just as i am guilty for what the United states does.
But as a christian, i will not stand by and defend what another christian does or says by virtue that he is a christian. That is not God’s will, to support evil. If islamic faith is so simplistic as to not difeerentiate between evil and good simply because the evil and good share the same religion then that religion must be condemned, it is why the Christianity underwent a reformation.
MMG thankyou for the invite. If it is a sign of goodwill and not an attempt at mockery then I accept your desire to pray for me. I believe that anyones prayers are beneficial whether God hears their prayers or not, because the act is done out of selfless love rather than selfish condescension.
I have one muslim friend in africa who works with christians to educate the very por muslims and christians in his neighborhood. I currently have a european architect friend who is working on a special rebuilding project with him as part of his PHD dissertation.
Mahmoud embodies all the virtues spoken of before but at the same time has a profound ignorance of who muhammed really was and what he preached , particularlly in the medinan suras,. he listened in horror as I detailed the numerous attacks on caravans, including hudibayah during the sacred month as well as, the assassination of prominent poets and leaders as baukari carefully illustrates. the conquests by muslims throughout history before the crusades also painted a picture he was unaware of. Why? because too many muslims in Africa are told to study the quran in a foreign language:Arabic! To master such a complex language takes years and many africans just dont take the time. It may be the same with some of you. it happened in the catholic church with latin. The preaching they hear extolls the virtues of prayer fasting, hajj, etc, yet excludes some of things done with the approval of muhammed or by muhammed himself.
I hesitated in telling him these things but as always told him to do the research himself. ceratinly dont take it from me. because he knows i will fund his school no matter what he does, he has said out of respect for his parents who were likely as ignorant as himself, he will throw out the evil things of muhammed and only practice the virtues extolled in the mainly meccan suras. Who can blame him?
Speaking of arabic;for non-arabs don’t you find it a bit imperialistic to deign one language(arabic ) as divine(meaning all other languages become subservient to it), or how about the fact that you must face makkah in arabia when you pray?
I think muhammed was zealous, devout and sincere in his desire to unite the arabian people but I think he got caught up in his spiritual awakening by taking his gift for oratory as a calling from god himself. So many mistake charisma with a calling from God. When he was unable to convince everyone, he became despondent and made some compromises particularly regaring the Godess al-lat and the 2 others whose names escape me. Then the rejection turned to harsh criticism and defiance which caused muhammed to fly into a rage and invent recitations that condone all sorts of deviance including, murder(ashraf, caravancs of jews and arabian polytheists), theft,sexual immorality(slaves his right hand possesess, 6 year old wife aisha)the taking of slaves. He even gave himself special privleges that other muslims didnt like having more than 4 wives and receiving 20 or 25% of all the booty the muslims stole from their dead enemies.
Muslims would be wise to rethink their defence of the prophet or outright denial of his sinful life and leadership and be content with the virtues he espoused earlier in his life, and lead their lives accordingly. Perhaps that is what many of you are doing, then I commend you for it, but i will continue to share the truth as i read the quran, and various books of the sunnah, as well as writings from ex muslims like Ibn Warraq, and all others who have been persecuted under the yoke of Islam.
PS
As a christian i will continually pray that all of you will reject the duty of jihad against unbelievers, and embrace the virtues of general benficience that all the worlds religions do. Islam must remain personal and not extend to all the public by force. that is tyranny.
peace
Nameless: why the anger, why the name calling. Can’t amake an argument like your father Muhaammed?
Have you not read the suras you have painstakingly quoted for me?
“(2) And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve, (3)”
What does that mean exactly? have you given it any thought? Could it mean that muslims bear no obligation to treat polytheists(idolaters) as equals under the law , that they can treat themnm as second class citizens or even kill them? that is reading into it for sure but given the islamic teaching that is supported by countless suras that muslim belief is on ahigher plane than unbelievers and thus affords them special priveleges.
“Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo!”
These idolaters you can be merciful too as along as they dont infringe on your rights(no mention of muslims infringing on their rights)and a slong as they dont support your other enemies. Support is rather vague quite purposely dont you think?
“(4) Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush.”
No explanation as to what injustice they have done , other than not being muslim?
” But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”
Meaning: become Muslim.
” (5) And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not. (6)”
Meaning: surrender, become subject to dhimmi status perhaps?
“(7) How (can there be any treaty for the others) when, if they have the upper hand of you, they regard not pact nor honour in respect of you? They satisfy you with their mouths the while their hearts refuse.”
He basically says because they are not muslims, they cant be trusted to be honest(quite frankly i think muhammed knew they would not trust him. quite understandably)
” And most of them are wrongdoers. ”
I could say that “most muslims are violent”; does that make me a prophet?
“(8) They have purchased with the revelations of Allah a little gain, so they debar (men) from His way. Lo! evil is that which they are wont to do. ”
Their evil is that they don’t believe. So they deserve death?
“(9) And they observe toward a believer neither pact nor honour. These are they who are transgressors.”
What is this observation based on exactly? like i said before, Muhammaed knew he couldnt be trusted so he laid that down as his enemies vice.
“(10) But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge.”
Meaning: become muslim.
“(11) And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist. ”
Assail your religion: like calling muhammed a fool? could be anything once again.
“(12) Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first?”
Seems they attacked with words again or other non-violent actions.
” What! Fear ye them? Now Allah hath more right that ye should fear Him, if ye are believers (13) Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of folk who are believers. ”
Allah will help you kill them. praise be to Allah!
“(16) It is not for the idolaters to tend Allah’s sanctuaries, bearing witness against themselves of disbelief. As for such, their works are vain and in the Fire they will abide.(17)†Surah Tawbah Verses 1-17″
its funny but who made muhammed king of Arabia to decide that the idolaters , who created the Kaaba, have no right to worship there and make the hajj? Again the sins elucidated here are harmless words and non violent actions and those are fought against with death and destruction and you call this Justice?
Contemporary comparisons to this ridiculous revelation: Salman Rushdie anyone? The dutch movie maker who was killed?
Iraqi imam on Iraq and islam: a must see for those of you who agree Islam has been hijacked by extremist interpretations:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Jamal+AlDin&search=Search
We have a lot in common Giorgio. I agree with you on this statement.
Any human being who acts like a tyrant, kills unarmed innocent citizens regardless of what faith they are should be condemned. As a Muslim, I condemn that.
One of my teachers and a highly trustworthy authentic scholar, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, once said: “The problem is not religion. The problem is the absence of religion.”
Thank you for the YouTube video, but I don’t trust any scholar without knowing who he is. I don’t know who he is. For scholars that I trust and follow please see ‘Ulema Blogs’ (right sidebar) and check out MR Links.
I personally believe that Muslims have skipped the most important and major foundation of this religion, and that is purifying the hearts. Many Muslims want to go perform Jihad but they have not done this. Once oneself fully submits himself to God, there would be no need to fight and war with people.
I believe, as it says in the Qur’an, God will send down tribulations upon the people as tests and as reminders to tell the people to come back to God. The situation in Iraq is beyond religion. It is heated by Sunni-Shia hatred. Add the US military in there, and now you have chaos. Those jihadis thta blow themselves up and kill shia or the shia extermination squads that go and murder sunnis are not done in the name of God, but in the name of there desire to kill the other side. They claim it is for Allah, but they fail to realize that this is destroying the Muslim world.
With regards to you understanding of the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings upon him), I think there is some misunderstanding and you have been misinformed.
Regardless of what you think of Muhammad (peace be upon him), this man is praised every single second at least somewhere around the world. Every single time someone says Muhammad it is almost always followed by (peace and blessings be upon him). Even with the other prophets, from Adam, Moses to Jesus and all the rest. May God be pleased with them all.
This same man, Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is the most mentioned name in the world. It is said in our daily prayers. It is said in lectures, sermons, red in books and praised in beautiful recitations of poetry.
This same Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is visited by millions of Muslims every single year continuously.
This same man Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is the most talked about person in the entire world.
This one man has brought 1.5 billion human beings to submission to One God.
Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were all Messengers of God. They are all praised and respected in Islam.
Surely you can agree with me on all these points.
So now with all the things you said about Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), are you telling me every single one of those 1.5 billion believe in a man that you described?
No, my brother.
Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was not like how you have described him.
It is okay for you to hold those opinions, but I am sincerely asking you to read Ash Shifa by Qadi ‘Iyad. You seem very educated, thus the current biographies and books on Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) are too elementary for you. The Ash-Shifa is a classical book translated into English. It’s around 900 years old.
You can buy it here, BUT I will send it to you for free.
My email - mujahideenryder at gmail dot com
As-Salam Alaikum
Nice explanation, if I had never actually read the Qur’an and understood the historical context of verses.
There’s a big problem (a lot of them, actually) with your whole analysis. You obviously do not know of the historical context of the quoted verses. These verses were revealed after numerous instances of the Pagans lack of fidelity towards their treaties with the Muslims. In particular, the breaking of the treaty of Hudaybiah, with violence, mind you, is to be remembered. Although the verses clearly point out that only enemies are to be attacked, (Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him). (4), How can there be a treaty with Allah and with His messenger for the idolaters save those with whom ye made a treaty at the Inviolable Place of Worship? So long as they are true to you, be true to them. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty. (7)) he actual verses themselves are hardly as violent as you claim them to be. Your bigoted mind does not allow you to actually comprehend the meanings of these verses, but I’ll try to explain them to you anyway:
Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty. (1)
As I said before, this verse declares the dissolution of all the treaties that existed between the Muslims and Pagans that were not being upheld by the Pagans. In particular it is beneficial to look at the treaty of Hudaybiah, which was broken by the Pagans, who attacked some Muslims. (On a side note, the actual treaty is a great example of how much Muhammad (SAWS) wanted peace. The treaty was completely in the favour of the Pagans, who were declining in power rapidly, anyway, meaning Muhammad (SAWS), if he had chosen to do so, could have never signed the treaty, and fought the Pagans again. He would have most likely beaten them, and then the Conquest of Makkah would have occurred a couple years earlier)
Travel freely in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape Allah and that Allah will confound the disbelievers (in His guidance). (2)
Four months are given to the breakers of the treaties, after which they are to be considered enemies.
And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve, (3)
Again, the dissolution of the treaties that weren’t being upheld. The Disbelievers are to be warned of the Doom (I believe this refers to Hell) that will come upon them if they are to remain persistent in their rejection of Islam.
Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him). (4)
This verse goes on to specify that those who had upheld their treaties with the Muslims be treated according to the terms of the treaty, which means they are not to be treated unjustly, as you seem to claim is allowed by the verse. You see, “fulfil their treaty to them†means their rights are not to be infringed upon. I can’t believe anyone honestly trying to understand this verse can’t see that.
Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (5)
After the four months notice, the war with the Pagans is resumed. If they become Muslim, they are to be left alone.
And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not. (6)
If any of the party of enemies seeks protection from the War (both Muslims and Pagans), it is to be given to him, and the call to Islam should be announced to him, meaning he should be given the chance to become Muslim.
How can there be a treaty with Allah and with His messenger for the idolaters save those with whom ye made a treaty at the Inviolable Place of Worship? So long as they are true to you, be true to them. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty. (7)
The exception made on this verse regards two Pagan tribes that upheld their treaties, even though their allied tribes didn’t. This verse also emphasizes the Muslim’s duty to be true to his word, and not betray even those who are Pagan.
How (can there be any treaty for the others) when, if they have the upper hand of you, they regard not pact nor honour in respect of you? They satisfy you with their mouths the while their hearts refuse. And most of them are wrongdoers. (8)
This verse explains one of the reasons that the treaties were dissolved: namely, that any advantage the Pagans gained resulted in actions breaking the treaty, making it obvious that they had never intended to actually keep true to these treaties. And since the primary function of these treaties were a temporary end of hostilities, this would usually mean that the Pagans would attack Muslims.
They have purchased with the revelations of Allah a little gain, so they debar (men) from His way. Lo! evil is that which they are wont to do. (9)
Another reason was that the Pagans rejected Islam for some small worldly gain, such as power or influence. They’d also try to stop others from becoming Muslim, either through violence (such as torture), or spreading lies.
And they observe toward a believer neither pact nor honour. These are they who are transgressors. (10)
Another translation (Yusuf Ali’s) translates this as “In a Believer they respect not The ties either of kinship Or of covenant! It is they Who transgressed all bounds.†This translation clarifies this verse as meaning that the Pagans even disregarded the ties of Family, which were considered sacred above almost everything else, only so they could thwart Islam.
But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. (11)
This verse shows that the opportunity for repentance is always there, and that all previous inequities would be forgiven if the call to Islam is answered.
And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist. (12)
Again, if a treaty holding party is to be unfaithful to that treaty, they are to be fought to the utmost. That’s fair, isn’t it? That those that betray their previous pledges can no longer be trusted to uphold treaties?
Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first? What! Fear ye them? Now Allah hath more right that ye should fear Him, if ye are believers (13)
This verse addresses the Muslims, telling them not be afraid of the Pagans who betray them. It tells us to fight those who betray their words of peace.
Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of folk who are believers. (14) And He will remove the anger of their hearts. Allah relenteth toward whom He will. Allah is Knower, Wise. (15)
These verses first command us Muslims to fight those that have broken their treaties, and then tell us that some of them enemy may eventually have their hostility quelled, and may eventually even come in to the fold of Islam.
Or deemed ye that ye would be left (in peace) when Allah yet knoweth not those of you who strive, choosing for familiar none save Allah and His messenger and the believers? Allah is Informed of what ye do. (16)
This verse is directed towards the Muslims, telling us that we will be tested to bring out the differences between those that are willing to give everything they have for Allah (SWT), and those that are not
It is not for the idolaters to tend Allah’s sanctuaries, bearing witness against themselves of disbelief. As for such, their works are vain and in the Fire they will abide. (17)
This is actually the beginning of another section of this Surah, which deals with the Pagans loss of the Sacred Mosque (Ka’bah), due to their many inequities, especially their crime of associating partners with the one true God, Allah (SWT).
Now then, please explain to me how these verses are so violent? Or are you one of those Christians that actually believes that the idea of no violence, even towards aggressors, is actually practical? Let’s be honest, humans are somewhat violent by nature, and those that utilize violence cannot be quelled without retaliation.
And to end this argument, you claim that none of Madinan Surahs contain any verses dealing with non-Muslims in a way other than violence. Although, as I have already said, you clearly do not understand the Makkah/Madinah classification, it is interesting to note that the verse that declares peace with non-Muslims is actually contained in a Madinan Surah. Let’s look at this very famous verse, which by the way, if you are not familiar with, shows that your “knowledge†of Islam is completely limited to Answering Islam (through deceit and deceit and dishonesty) and Daniel Pipes.
There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.
Is that clear enough? Or are you going to somehow ignore the bolded section and make some whacky interpretation up?
Let’s just face the facts, you either know your religion is inferior compared to Islam, or you’re just hateful and ignorant. Both may also be possible.
I’ll be the first to be more than glad to teach you the truth about Islam, but if you’re going to come in here with your attitude and try to tell me your religion (which you probably barely follow anyway. Just a little trivia, Paul, I remember correctly, ordered that no woman spoke in the presence of a man at a church, and, that if she were to remove her dead covering, that her head be shaved. Whether you knew that or not, remember to know your actual religion, and not just that inspirational stuff you hear from the “do as I say, not as I do†priests) is in anyway superior to mine. If you think anyone will actually just blindly follow a random guy’s words over their own Prophet’s, think again. We know our Prophet, Alhumdullilah, and we know how great his morality and character were. Infact, let me end this with a story from near the end of his life (that’s right, after the Madinan period). At the conquest of Makkah, Muhammad (SAWS) asked the people of Makkah, the ones who attacked, maimed, tortured, killed, pilfered, and otherwise abused the Muslims and Muhammad (SAWS) in any and every way possible, what they thought he was going to do with them. All they could say was that he was their brother and kindred. They were sure they were going to be massacred. But, they weren’t. No. They were all set free, everyone of them.
May Allah (SWT) forgive me if I have said or done anything contrary to the Way of Allah (SWT) and his Messenger, and May Allah (SWT) guide us all towards the straight path of Islam, and instil the fires of Jihad within all our hearts. Ameen.
As-Salam Alaikum
Oops, that came out wrong. Most of it isn’t supposed to be italicized.
“There’s a big problem (a lot of them, actually) with your whole analysis. You obviously do not know of the historical context of the quoted verses. These verses were revealed after numerous instances of the Pagans lack of fidelity towards their treaties with the Muslims. In particular, the breaking of the treaty of Hudaybiah, with violence, mind you, is to be remembered. ”
perhaps you dont know the history:
I’ll clarify: In 628, Muhammad had a vision in which he performed the pagan pilgrimmage to mecca, which he would subsequently make part and parcel of Islam, but he had the qurayash as a stumbling block. The quaryash met him outside the city and concluded a 10 year truce(hudna)The treaty of hudaybiyya.
The treaty contained that muslims go back to medina to return the folowing year.alsoagreed was the return on both sides of persons fleeing mecca or medina for the other. after this treaty muhammed claimed victory and received a new revelation(sura 48:1)he also promised his followers much booty (48:18-20)
if muhammed intended to keep the treaty, where was he expecting to capture all this booty from?
Umm Kultham , a woman of the quryash left mecca for medina and upon her brothers arrival to retrieve her they were turned away by muhammed in clear violation of the treaty. Of course muhammed was bound by another convenient new revelation that said anyone who comes to the faith can not be sent back to unbelievers. Treaty or no treaty. (Sura60:10)This violation came before any violations by the quryash.
“Another reason was that the Pagans rejected Islam for some small worldly gain, such as power or influence. ”
if this is lacking in virtue, why , pray tell does muhammed appeal to his own followers desire for booty after making the treaty in question?
“They’d also try to stop others from becoming Muslim, either through violence (such as torture), or spreading lies.”
Dont you think the killing of men in front of their wives, and consigning women and children to slavery is torture as well? And the lies muhammed hated were ones that said he was bllod thirsty and power hungray and greedy as the story of ashraf the poet aptly illustrates in the hadith.
“And they observe toward a believer neither pact nor honour. These are they who are transgressors. (10) ”
Muhammed was not trustworthy considering he was talking about getting booty immediately after lying to the qurayash about their safety.
“But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. (11)
This verse shows that the opportunity for repentance is always there, and that all previous inequities would be forgiven if the call to Islam is answered.”
Ie the only repentence is Conversion. Thus there is no compulsion in religion is turned on its ear. unless you believe there are pagans willing to die for their faith. I am sure some may have but most sought to preserve their lives as did countless dhimmis who lived under the yoke of islam as second class citizens treated with disdain and contempt and often humiliated.
“Again, if a treaty holding party is to be unfaithful to that treaty, they are to be fought to the utmost. That’s fair, isn’t it? That those that betray their previous pledges can no longer be trusted to uphold treaties?”
As we have seen muhammed liked to break treaties too but we also might want to look at subsequent treaties to hudaybiyya which grossly favored the muslim side and included many degrading conditions for islams enemies. I can illustrate them if necessary, but since you understand the history so well i might be condescending by doing so.
“Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first? What! Fear ye them? Now Allah hath more right that ye should fear Him, if ye are believers (13)”
Does this not sound like the rantings of a teenager? They did it first(which is in doubt as i have illustrated)therfore , kill them?
“These verses first command us Muslims to fight those that have broken their treaties, and then tell us that some of them enemy may eventually have their hostility quelled, and may eventually even come in to the fold of Islam.”
Dont you mean they will fear for their lives and thus give in to the conditions. is this not compulsion?
“This is actually the beginning of another section of this Surah, which deals with the Pagans loss of the Sacred Mosque (Ka’bah), due to their many inequities, especially their crime of associating partners with the one true God, Allah (SWT).”
I associate partners with God under the islamic definition as muhammed was want to say”dont speak of a trinity” This CRIME deserves what penalty for me? Do you see the gravity of such a pronouncement it is as grave as the first pronouncement muhammed made to the qurayash tribe: “Say there is no God bt Allah and I am his prophet and YOU WILL HAVE PEACE” Meaning: you will not have war with me and my armies. in other words give up you religion and your government and I wont kill you. It is abn obvious threat which also goes against the “no compulsion in religion” sura.
It is NOT a crime to espouse other beliefs about God or the God’s is it? Islam does not even acknowledge other Gods, christianity and judaism acknowledge the existence of other gods but make them subservient to the supreme God “yahweh” Thou shalt have no other Gods before me”
“Now then, please explain to me how these verses are so violent? Or are you one of those Christians that actually believes that the idea of no violence, even towards aggressors, is actually practical? Let’s be honest, humans are somewhat violent by nature, and those that utilize violence cannot be quelled without retaliation.”
Excellent illustration irreligiosity. You take a common disposition that i whole heartedly agree with by the way, that we are inclined to lash out violent when we are offended physically or otherwise, and essentially said that GOD understands that and allows you to act on that “animal” instinct. He sanctions it. Where is the virtue in that?
Is it not more virtuous to negate the animal instincts for a more noble cause. are we not, by denying these baser instincts , drawing on the power of God to overcome evil with good? Is God so out of control , unable to convince us to go against our animal instincts and embrace the higher virtue of working out our problems with prayer and mutual beneficience?
“And to end this argument, you claim that none of Madinan Surahs contain any verses dealing with non-Muslims in a way other than violence. Although, as I have already said, you clearly do not understand the Makkah/Madinah classification, it is interesting to note that the verse that declares peace with non-Muslims is actually contained in a Madinan Surah. Let’s look at this very famous verse, which by the way, if you are not familiar with, shows that your “knowledge†of Islam is completely limited to Answering Islam (through deceit and deceit and dishonesty) and Daniel Pipes.”
Never think that after so many years of religious violence in the name of God, you can in one exegetical thesis, end an argument that has been going on since the coming of man.
You may be surprised to know that though I have heard of pipes , I have never read anything of his. I have read IBN warraq quite a lot and some writngs from the 1900’s as well as the quran and various writings in the sunnah such as tabari,baukari, ishaq, and muslim among others. Incidentally the story of ashraf, the poet who was assassinated at the behest of muhammed is in the most authentic hadith in sunni islam (Bukhari V4B52N270)
“There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower. ”
Excellent quote but , i believe , on 3 occassions I call this text into question.
“Let’s just face the facts, you either know your religion is inferior compared to Islam, or you’re just hateful and ignorant. Both may also be possible.”
I dont base my faith in God on whether my religion is superior to anyone elses, I base on my personal experience with God and that of other virtuous believers and non believers like Mother theresa, ghandi, Martin luther king etc.
“I’ll be the first to be more than glad to teach you the truth about Islam, but if you’re going to come in here with your attitude and try to tell me your religion (which you probably barely follow anyway. Just a little trivia, Paul, I remember correctly, ordered that no woman spoke in the presence of a man at a church, and, that if she were to remove her dead covering, that her head be shaved. Whether you knew that or not, remember to know your actual religion, and not just that inspirational stuff you hear from the “do as I say, not as I do†priests) is in anyway superior to mine.”
First off you ask me not to try to teach you about your religion while pretending to teach me something about mine: does this not come of as a bit arrogant and condescending. Is Allah proud of such things? Also please tell me you know that the Koran as it came down from heaven, came in many forms? Many of muhammeds followers tried to gather all the revelations into one document: Ibn masud,ubai b. kab, ali, abu bekr, al ashari,al aswad and others. We eventually had what became known as the metropolitan codices of mecca medina, damascus, kufa and basra. Uthman tried to bring order to this chaos by canonizing the medinan codex with orders to destroy all other codexes. the bible compiled in much the same fashion was compiled in the same way by various clergy except that manuscripts deemed non canonical were not destroyed but preserved. What was uthman trying to hide? perhaps muhammad had allthe virtues you speak of , but by the words of the koran and sunnah those virtues mainly extended to muslims alone. and the opposite usually was reserved for us poor unbelievrs.
Your arrogance is similar to that of christian fundamentalists who believ all we need to know about life is contained in the bible, yet it leave us in a quandry as to why god gave us brains to reason with. It is reason that has been killed by islam. there have been great muslim thinkers who have been killed over the years for transgressing the sacred(man made ) limits.
You want to know Allah then become critical of your own religion, and see its human face as christianit has been doing for centuries,
“At the conquest of Makkah, Muhammad (SAWS) asked the people of Makkah, the ones who attacked, maimed, tortured, killed, pilfered, and otherwise abused the Muslims and Muhammad (SAWS) in any and every way possible, what they thought he was going to do with them. All they could say was that he was their brother and kindred. They were sure they were going to be massacred. But, they weren’t. No. They were all set free, everyone of them.”
It was his first major conquest against his own tribe. compassion is quite understandable since his tribe was to be given subseqent preferential treatment for giving islam the kabba and its many rituals that were adopted such as the 7 circuits during the hajj etc. plus for years the claliph was to be of this tribe.
Lastly, your reference to priests i believe may have been a refernce to highly publicized pedophile scandals. If so, i shall remind you that Muhammed had sex with a nine year old girl.His third wife whom he Married at age 6. see tabari IX:131 for proof from the account of aisha herself. and please tell me she was consenting to this liason rather than being obedient to her father abu bekr!
“…My mother MADE me sit on his lap, HE consumated HIS marriage to me when I was 9 years old.”
Peace
Giorgio - I never heard of Tabari as a hadith collection. The most popular ones are Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, Nasai and ibn Majah
Also, you never took me up on my offer.
Are you still down for the free book, Ash-Shifa.
Girogio,
You amaze me…for a Christian you have so much spite. This is Holy Week…the week you should be fasting and in vigil. How can you point fingers at the people who uphold your Prophet ( Allah’s peace be upon Jesus )?
The jist of Christianity is peace. Turn the other cheek? Not one response from a Muslim has been angry or rude. Muslims have faith. We believe..which philosphically is more than knowledge. If you wish I will debate you and win. There is no anger in Christanity. Please reread the Gospel ( in red print). If you are faithful you will have the courage to pray and know all will pass as dictated by the will of God.
Son, you are as faithless as they come. How dare you attack when your foundation of faith is as shallow as it comes. If your are of the faithful then by reason you know the words of sprituality are the same in all faiths. Love is reason. How dare you mock the Prophet Jesus on Holy Week….He will not forgive you!!!! Your heart is without reason…You have the fever of Satan…put him behind you. Your empty harsh words will not change the Truth…There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger. This is in continuation with the Bible.
Please repent. As Jesus said on the cross..forgive them for they do not know what they are doing…Son, repent for the sake of your soul.
May Allah forgive me if I have been too harsh.
As-Salam Alaikum
Look, stop ignoring some things, and then repeating others over and over. You can’t seem to understand the UNDENIABLE fact that Muhammad (SAWS) was an extremely compassionate man. He was even considered so by his contemporary enemies.
As for Tabari, I believe it is a somewhat unauthentic Hadith collection that is so often cited by the Orientalists, I’m surprised they haven’t choked on it yet.
Pretty much, I’m really tired of speaking to you. I’ve told myself to stop arguing with those that can’t see their own mistakes many times, but it seems I’ve done it again. I hope someone else will finish this for me, or else I’ll have to. I don’t really have the time right now to go research and correct all the lies and ignorant things you’ve said, but, if you really believe in THE God, not the other false dieties you seem to believe in, go read some writings by real Muslims. Or even better, go read the Qur’an (face it, you haven’t actually read it completely, or it has been a long time since you’ve done so, because you don’t seem to really know anything about it.) and the Authentic Hadith. You’ll be able to do so at this really good website: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/reference.html
I just would also like to point out that
#1: The treaty of Hudaybiah WAS broken first by the Pagans. Making up your own history doesn’t really help your arguments.
#2: Please “enlighten” me as to the treaties Muhammad (SAWS) broke.
#3: There is ONLY one God. You can call him Yahweh or Allah, but nothing will ever change this truth. Jesus (AA) WAS not a god, and he never claimed to be. The only part of the Bible that ever alludes to this is the Gospel of John, which is generally considered a post-Jesus work, meaning its value is discarded.
#4: The fact that you’re Christian doesn’t make Christianity any more true than it already isn’t. Face it, a religion that is confused about its own God is one that can’t be relied on for guidance. And yes, me being Muslim doesn’t make it more true than it already is.
#5: Islam IS the truth. It doesn’t matter what you, I, MR or anyone else says. This has been, and always will be true. The only ones who will ever succeed are those that acknowledge this and submit.
#6: Stop making heinous lies against my Prophet (SAWS). Just because you don’t believe in him, doesn’t give you the right to do so. I’ll be completely honest and tell you that, if I ever heard you or someone else saying the things you’ve said, I’d break their legs. This is no reflection on Islam, or any aspect of it, but rather my own personality.
May Allah (SWT) forgive me if I’ve said anything wrong in this Post, and may Allah (SWT) guide all those sincerely looking for the truth towards his perfect way. Ameen
As-Salam Alaikum
“Giorgio - I never heard of Tabari as a hadith collection. The most popular ones are Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, Nasai and ibn Majah
Also, you never took me up on my offer. Are you still down for the free book, Ash-Shifa. ”
Muhammed ibn jarir al-tabari(d A.D 923) is one of the most revered muslim commentators on the koran and a devout muslim.He also wrote othe r books including “the history of the world” tabari often cites from other hadith including IbnIshaq and sayf b. umar (796) Bukhari includes the story of Ashraf which none of you have commented on thus far.
No thanks on the free book. I can afford to buy for myself. Any way, part of my reasons for arguing against muhammed is that I entered into this study innocently as i tried to glean wisdom from other sources , i have also read the dhamapada and hindu writings.
“You amaze me…for a Christian you have so much spite.”
,gibson, what you deem as spite was in direct response to accusations by nameless. see his above post for details
“This is Holy Week…the week you should be fasting and in vigil. How can you point fingers at the people who uphold your Prophet ( Allah’s peace be upon Jesus )?”
Islam regularly insults christ by reducing him to a mere person rather than the long awaited messiah. Dont pretend to respect christianity when the quran , sunnah and muslim history directly refutes that.
“The jist of Christianity is peace. Turn the other cheek? Not one response from a Muslim has been angry or rude.”
Please define peace! did not jesus overturn the tables in the temple? Did he not chastise when necessary saying to some ” you brood of viperss..”?
Namless has been rude but then again I expect that from muslims.
” Muslims have faith. We believe..which philosphically is more than knowledge. If you wish I will debate you and win. ”
What will you win exactly? no religious argument ever has a winner besides satan dont you think? like jesus did in the temple, a little indignation or chastising can go a long way in determining the seriousness of the situation and jolting someone to change. Forgiveness doesnt embody allowing people to step all over you it means you love someone despite their sins and chastise them so they will take heart and leave those sins in the past. This is why God is referred to as father. the father punishes to reform people. Jesus as the son will soon become a “father” and that time will be in heaven. the first born son in the davidic kingdom was given authority by the father.
“Please reread the Gospel ( in red print). If you are faithful you will have the courage to pray and know all will pass as dictated by the will of God.”
Which Gospel? according to muslims , the injeel is the real gospel and ours is a forgery. Why advise me to read a forgery?
“If your are of the faithful then by reason you know the words of sprituality are the same in all faiths. Love is reason. How dare you mock the Prophet Jesus on Holy Week….He will not forgive you!!!! ”
Is this an attempt at a theological treatise? If so it is poorly reasoned and not consonant at all wih the gospel. Jesus wont forgive me?
“Your heart is without reason…You have the fever of Satan…put him behind you. Your empty harsh words will not change the Truth…There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger. This is in continuation with the Bible.”
No! because the bible never speaks of the need for another prophet when the messiah comes the world was wait for his second coming. the only prophets jesus told us about was false prophets, and even then muhammed was never mentioned by name , though we certainly can infer that he is a false prophet because “we will no them by their fruits”
“Please repent. As Jesus said on the cross..forgive them for they do not know what they are doing…Son, repent for the sake of your soul.
May Allah forgive me if I have been too harsh.”
What were they doing by the way that jesus asked them to be forgiven? They were killing an innocent man.(hint what did the pagans of arabia do that was so bad, remmebre the quranic sura you cited that said their worst sin was idolatry) By the way according to Islam jesus never died on the cross? read the Gospel of barnabas. ( this “gospel” by the way was proven to be a 14th century forgery as barnabas was known to have only written a short epistle, plus the style of writing was consistent with greek philosophy etc.)
“Pretty much, I’m really tired of speaking to you. I’ve told myself to stop arguing with those that can’t see their own mistakes many times, but it seems I’ve done it again. I hope someone else will finish this for me, or else I’ll have to. I don’t really have the time right now to go research and correct all the lies and ignorant things you’ve said, but, if you really believe in THE God, not the other false dieties you seem to believe in, go read some writings by real Muslims. Or even better, go read the Qur’an (face it, you haven’t actually read it completely, or it has been a long time since you’ve done so, because you don’t seem to really know anything about it.) and the Authentic Hadith. You’ll be able to do so at this really good website: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/reference.html”
Face it! you cant argue with what I have said so you heap generalities about what I have said as lies. Baukari is authentic Islam is it not? Then please research the story of Ashraf the poet as I cited above.(V4B52N270)and also Ishaq676 about the woman poet with 5 sons who was assainated while breat feeding her fifth son. Look at these 2 and afterwards see if muhammed was a compassionate as you say he was.?
“I just would also like to point out that
#1: The treaty of Hudaybiah WAS broken first by the Pagans. Making up your own history doesn’t really help your arguments.”
See sura 9:1 and 28 for references to the breaking of treaties wih unbelievers. what about the sura 48:18-20, why was allah and muhammed promising booty after signing a peace treaty if he wasnt planning on breaking the treaty. Is it possible muhammed made up an excuse that the meccans broke the treaty so that he could make good on his promise and not look dishonest?
#2: Please “enlighten†me as to the treaties Muhammad (SAWS) broke.
Gladly,all of them. like hudaibaya, Muhammed