Since the report’s release, President John E. Sexton of NYU, Yale’s Richard C. Levin, and Columbia’s Lee C. Bollinger have led a chorus of university leaders concerned about the surveillance. Bollinger, a First Amendment scholar, worried about any government actions that might “chill the freedom of thought or intrude upon student privacy.” Sexton found the reports “troubling and problematic.” The consequences of NYPD surveillance, especially those that reduce the “free and peaceful exchange of ideas ... even of genuinely controversial ideas,” Sexton emphasized, “are disquieting to our students and their families, harmful to our community-building efforts, and antithetical to the values we as a university cherish most highly.”

It’s not uncommon at times like this that we talk more about the controversy than anything interesting or valuable going on just below the surface of our outrageousness or outrage. Yet if we look at Officer Ahmad’s cursory report of forthcoming events that had Muslim students atwitter in late 2006, we can see something of what matters to young American Muslims, and perhaps more importantly, who it is that’s been guiding them along a bumpy road this past decade. Those named in the report come as no surprise to anyone who might join a Muslim Student Association: Imam Siraj Wahhaj, Imam Zaid Shakir, and Sheik Hamza Yusuf.

Not a Muslim myself, nor a believer in any appreciable way, I’ve spent much of the last 18 months with these scholars and their students: at a venerable mosque in Brooklyn and a storefront mosque in Oakland; at fund raisers in Washington, D.C.; New Brunswick, N.J.; New York City, and throughout the Bay Area; in online forums and open houses; in classrooms and in the basement of a Roman Catholic church; and in Muslim community centers located in low-rent business parks. When I asked Sheik Hamza recently whether he was surprised to see his name in the report, he said no. Although he added, “A lot of these young Muslims born here are not always aware of the history of real persecution of other communities. They would do well reading more history.”

Here’s what I know. These three men, all converts, appeal to young American Muslims. They appeal, in large part, because they were born and raised in this country and have a vision for Islam that is unmistakably American. Though they’ve all spent time studying in Muslim-majority countries—Imam Zaid and Sheik Hamza were away for years—their focus remains on building a Muslim community that looks and feels, in every way possible, American. They are not alone, of course, and they do not always agree, but they have been in the vanguard over the last 15 years, at least; their students are just now growing into leadership roles of their own, compelled by the notion that the religion must adapt, within the norms of the tradition, to the culture of the lands where Islam has moved over the centuries.

Committed to building things up and not tearing things down, Siraj Wahhaj, throughout the 1980s, revitalized his little corner of the world—the dangerous corner of Bedford Avenue and Fulton Street in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood of Brooklyn—through the efforts of his community at Masjid At-Taqwa, or the Mosque of God-Consciousness. When last December he celebrated the 30th anniversary of the masjid and raised funds to build a state-of-the-art community center in Brooklyn, including space for a school to serve hundreds of local kids, he invited not just Imam Zaid and Sheik Hamza but also called on the Brooklyn native, Muslim emcee and film star Yasiin Bey, formerly known as Mos Def, to offer his reflections on the neighborhood before the imam brought it back to life.

It’s true, of the three Muslim leaders named in the NYPD report, Imam Siraj remains the least comfortable with modern American life, and especially modern American policing. According to the NYU adjunct law professor Paul M. Barrett, who writes about Imam Siraj in his book American Islam (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007), he’s most inclined to think of law-enforcement allegations against Muslims as “evidence of a government conspiracy,” not one among the Muslims. My own interactions with Imam Siraj suggest he’s eased up in recent years. It’s also worth noting that his effort to clean up the crack houses of Bed-Stuy was met with high praise by the NYPD. The Brooklyn borough president honored the imam with an official Siraj Wahhaj Day on August 15, 2003.

As his own community in Brooklyn has grown, Siraj Wahhaj has become a national figure. He served for a time as vice president of the Islamic Society of North America, currently leads the Muslim Alliance in North America, and lectures and preaches around the country, usually on matters of special concern to inner-city communities. “Islam came,” he has said, “to deal with the inequalities in the neighborhood.” Moving seamlessly from English to Arabic and back, he brings Islamic ideas of justice, for instance, to bear on chronic unemployment among African-Americans, and in a recent speech, located within Islam the roots of black pride and self-love, bringing together two passages from the Koran: “It was Allah who created you in the womb—as He pleased.” His gloss: “So if Allah was pleased to make me a black man, I was happy to be a black man.”

Imam Zaid, who like Imam Siraj is African-American and who also has roots in poor, urban neighborhoods, has been likened to his hero Malcolm X. Born Ricky Mitchell in Berkeley, Calif., and raised in housing projects from Georgia to Connecticut, Imam Zaid, with Sheik Hamza, went on to found Zaytuna College, the nation’s first four-year Muslim liberal-arts institution.

Embodying an American story if ever there was one—including proverbial bootstraps, military service, political activism, and deep religious commitment—Zaid Shakir draws young Muslims to himself because his message of social justice in the face of poverty and racism he has known first hand makes him endlessly and, it often seems, effortlessly relevant. He is as approachable a man as I’ve ever met; tall and somewhat too lean—he fasts one day per week—he’s all wingspan when embracing his followers at the mosque. To them he says, “Islam is calling us to be bigger than what the world has made us.” And they see in him—whether in his tirelessness, his intelligence, or his fire—a model.

His students call him Superman. When I first heard him preach in Oakland, not far from the new college in Berkeley, he faced what he called a “humble gathering ... representing 30 or 40 different ethnicities and national origin.” To them he issued the charge: “We have to raise our voices, we have to present our example, and we have to institutionalize our example. We have to develop institutions that reflect our diversity. We have to develop institutions that bring all of this potential power ... of these people, coming with all of their collective experience, all of their collective spiritual and emotional energy, all of their collective histories ... and say, ‘This is how we can live in this country.’”

Like Imam Siraj’s Brooklyn mosque, Zaytuna College is one of those places where Muslims come together to learn how to live in this country. With a reputation for classical Islamic scholarship and community building dating back to 1996, when Sheik Hamza established the Zaytuna Institute and began his public life, the founders see the college in historic terms and as an essential part of the nation’s religious fabric. Speakers at Zaytuna’s inaugural convocation in August 2010 included Virginia Gray Henry, a descendent of Patrick Henry; the keynote speaker was the Jesuit-trained president of the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, the ethicist James A. Donahue. His address highlighted the work ahead for Zaytuna, as the school incorporates into its mission the value American democracy places on rights and liberties, pluralism, pragmatism, democratic justice, and creative novelty. “Zaytuna,” he said, “is an academic institution—a college. It is not a mosque; it is not a community center; it is not a gathering space for religious rituals; it is not a cultural center—although elements of each of these will surely be part of Zaytuna. The challenge for Zaytuna will be to determine in what ways it will serve the Islamic tradition and how it can enable that tradition both to preserve and grow.”

Sheik Hamza Yusuf, perhaps the most influential Muslim scholar in the country, praised Donahue for his remarks and drew connections between the challenges to founding Muslim institutions and the struggle Catholics faced to establish themselves in this country. About Virginia Gray Henry, he said, “I think it’s auspicious—and I don’t say this lightly—that a direct descendant of Patrick Henry is here with us in this convocation. ... What’s happening here today is part of the American Revolution.” And with a nod to the Prophet Mohammed in what appeared to be a Freudian slip, Sheik Hamza added, “What was articulated in starting this revelation—revolution—was ‘Give me liberty or give me death.’”

What makes the appearance of these three scholars on the secret NYPD document a “teachable moment,” as Sheik Hamza sees it—and so do I—has only partly to do with the enormous appeal of these teachers in their communities, especially among the young. Given the NYPD’s interest in them in the wake of September 11, 2001—an interest Sheik Hamza, for instance, understands and sympathizes with—what’s perhaps most important to grasp is that these hugely popular and widely influential Muslim leaders have time and again preached an anti-extremist message. “Islam doesn’t teach anarchy,” Imam Siraj declared on the stand when called to testify during a terrorism case in March 2001, “and people cannot take it upon themselves when they don’t like something, even though something seems to be unjust, to get up and do that kind of violence.” As for the NYPD, Sheik Hamza has said, we can’t simply fault them—“that’s too easy.” From his perspective, “It’s not us against the police. ... If those MSA-goers have an emergency, they’re still going to call 911.” We need the police. They just need to know that we don’t need them spying on peaceful, patriotic American Muslims.

Sheik Hamza recently told me: “I have never advocated violence, never supported suicide. ... Those things are antithetical to everything that attracted me to Islam.” And last September 10, Sheik Hamza and Imam Siraj gathered with a host of other leaders at a convention organized by Imam Zaid called “United for Change: One Nation, One Destiny.” The event brought together Muslim activists and scholars from across the political and theological spectrum, a Jewish community organizer named Anya Cordell, and the former Catholic nun, Karen Armstrong, who concluded the event by presenting her “Charter for Compassion.” In a single voice, everyone in attendance condemned violent Islamic extremism. On September 11 we saw not Islam, but what they all agreed was “a cult of death.”

Three of the nation’s most relevant and influential Muslim leaders—Imam Siraj Wahhaj, Imam Zaid Shakir, and Sheik Hamza Yusuf—may criticize American foreign policy, especially in the Middle East; they may preach to the crowds gathered at Occupy Oakland and condemn the corruption in American markets and in American law enforcement. But then, public dissent is an American art. Indeed, the heroes these men call upon are just as often a Founding Father or a literary giant like Henry David Thoreau as they are a Muslim leader like Malcolm X.

These Muslims, like Malcolm, are Americans. This is the land they’ve always called home. They’re building a tradition here that, against all apparent odds, they’d like to see last. And if they have a secret message, it’s this: To those who don’t like America, or who don’t want to be here, or who wish to do harm in our neighborhoods, it’s time for you to leave.

To view this this reprint article written by Scott Korb go to: The Chronicle of Higher Learning: http://chronicle.com/article/American-Islam/131154/ He teaches writing at New York University and the New School.

Usually, when western Muslims speak of women and Islam, we speak of the rights and opportunities Islam afforded women in the economic, social and political realms long before similar developments occurred in Christendom. There is nothing wrong with such a narrative and it helps to normalize Islam to people in the west, both converts and others who are seeking to better understand a sometimes controversial world religion.

Hence, we will begin by mentioning some famous Muslim women, whose exploits reflect the lofty social status Islam afforded to women. The accomplishments of women among the Companions of the Prophet, in this regard, are well-known. Khadija’s financial and moral support to the Prophet and his mission were critical to the success of the fledgling Muslim community. Aisha’s learning and leadership gave her a standing in the early community that rivals that of her male contemporaries. Umm Salama’s wisdom and decisiveness broke the impasse that confronted the believers at Hudaybiya. Nusayba’s heroic defense of the Prophet, peace upon him, during the height of the Battle of Uhad, is legendary. Hafsa, the daughter of Umar bin al-Khattab, at the time of her father’s death, was entrusted with the protection of the standardized rendition of the Qur’an, considered by some to have been the greatest trust ever vouchsafed to anyone in the history of the Muslim community.

The erudition, wisdom, courage and vision of these and many other women among the Companions of the Prophet has lived on in the lives of successive generations of Muslim women.  For example, Amra bint Abdul Rahman, a jurist, mufti and hadith scholar was one the greatest scholars of the second generation of Muslims. The Umayyad Caliph, Umar bin Abdul Aziz, a great scholar in his own right, said, “No one remains alive who is more learned in the Hadith of Aisha than Amra.” She was highly praised by al-Zuhri, Yahya bin Ma’in, ibn Madini, Ibn Hibban and many others who recognized her erudition, especially in the area of hadith.

Amra exemplified a tradition of scholarly excellence among women, which continued throughout the centuries. During the 8th Hijri Century, there appeared a great scholar in Damascus whose lessons would draw students from all over the Muslim world. Aisha bint Muhammad bin Abdul Hadi was known to have possessed the shortest chain of narration back to the Prophet, peace upon him, of any scholar alive during her time. Among her students was Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, considered the greatest of all latter-day Hadith scholars. He is reported to have read dozens of books with her and to have received the Hadith of Mercy (al-Musalsal b’il Awwaliyya) from her.

Other women were known for their great linguistic prowess. In more recent times, we can mention the example of Aisha Ismat bint Isma’il Taymur, who passed away in Egypt in 1902. Educated in both the linguistic and religious sciences, she became one of the leading literary figures of her time. A master of Arabic, Turkish and Persian, she embodied the Egyptian-Ottoman culture that dominated Egyptian intellectual life during the latter half of the 19th Century. She published lengthy collections of poetry in Arabic and Turkish, wrote for many of the leading literary magazines of her day and was a staunch advocate for female education. Although she was not known for her religious poetry, she was known to be a woman of great piety.

As Muslims, we cannot limit our appreciation of women to their social, economic and political accomplishments. Many women throughout the history of our community are famous for their devotional acts and the high spiritual stations they attained. Rabia al-Adawiyya is well-known in this regard, however, there are many others who are largely unknown. One such woman is well-known by name, but most Muslims know very little about her life. She is Sayyida Nafisa. The daughter of al-Hasan bin Zayd bin al-Hasan bin Ali bin Abi Talib, she was born in Mecca in 145 AH. She grew up in Medina, but spent her later years in Egypt where she is buried.

Sayyida Nafisa was a scholar of repute, having memorized the Qur’an and mastered the exegetical sciences. It is said that Imam al-Shafi’i, whom she greatly respected, studied hadith with her after his arrival in Egypt. She was most known for her devotion and piety. She fasted perpetually, prayed the entirety of the night, constantly recited the Qur’an and frequently wept out of fear and longing for God. She performed thirty pilgrimages to Mecca. She was also blessed with considerable wealth and spent freely on the sick, poor and downtrodden. She was also a financial supporter of Imam Shafi’i during his time in Egypt.

Sayyida Nafisa was associated with many great blessings. Once, she was left to care for the invalid daughter of her Christian neighbors who left their house to go to the marketplace. When she saw the bedridden child she began fervently praying for her cure. No sooner had she finished her prayer did the young girl regain the use of her limbs and was able to walk to the door to greet her parents upon their return. The entire family then became Muslims.

At the end of her life she fell ill. Her attendants beseeched her to cease fasting for the sake of her health. She replied, “For thirty years I have fasted asking Allah that I meet Him while I am fasting. Am I to break my fast now [while I am close to the meeting]? Never!” She recited Sura al-An’am during the still of that night until she reached the verse, “They will have the Abode of Peace in the presence of their Lord, while He is their loving protector, because of the righteous deeds they used to do (6:127).” She then uttered the Testimony of Faith and quietly passed away.

As we celebrate International Women’s day let us celebrate this aspect of femininity. Islam certainly advocates for a balanced social order where there is space for the contributions of men and women. However, its primary purpose is to prepare human beings to succeed when we meet our Lord. Ultimately, we are living for the Hereafter, not this world.

In this regard, as we strive to accomplish the worldly objectives demanded by our social, economic and political situations, let us never forget that there are overarching otherworldly objectives that we should never lose sight of. Let us celebrate the likes of Sayyida Nafisa and other great women who reminded us so powerfully of those otherworldly objectives. Let us further consider that perhaps the best way we can celebrate their lives is to aspire to live as they lived.

Reprinted from EMEL Magazine:  http://emel.com/article?id=95&a_id=2640&c=94

One of the most profound developments in the modern history of Islam has been the emergence of the Nation-state in Europe and its subsequent imposition on the Muslim world. Its profundity is illustrated by the fact that it has come to capture the imagination of all politically active Muslims. In the process, it became one of the principal means for consolidating the destruction of a viable Islamic civilization by introducing into the Muslim world an institutional and conceptual framework that helped to hasten the disappearance of the institutions and organizations that gave Muslim societies their unique character and identity.

To briefly illustrate both the pervasiveness and the destructiveness of the nation-state in the Muslim world, we can mention the statement of Dr. Sayyid Hussein Nasr that the Muslim nations are united in their destruction of their respective environmental richness. Hence, Qaddafi’s Libya, Saddam’s Iraq, The Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. all share a reckless disregard for environmental protection and a total disregard of classical Islamic teachings relating to environmental stewardship and conservation. His point is that these Muslim nation-states, despite their varying ideological orientations, have all waged an undeclared war against their fragile ecosystems.

One of the reasons for this is the imperative that the Muslim nation-states “catch-up” with its western counterparts in terms of economic and industrial development. In the context of a linear view of national development, the argument goes, Muslim nation-states cannot afford the luxury of considering the ecological consequences of their so-called development programs. Environmental protection can only come at the cost of slowing development and the strategic implications of lagging to far behind are too grave for ecological concerns to even be considered.

Before proceeding, let us mention that the nation-state as a modern political arrangement was unknown until 1648, at the earliest, in the aftermath of the signing of the Peace of Westphalia, which resulted in the break-up of the Holy Roman Empire. This is seen as the event that demarcates the birth of the modern nation-state. As far as Muslims are concerned, the idea of a sovereign nation-state is a 20th Century phenomenon. Most contemporary Muslim states did not achieve independence until after the Second World War through the expiration of various colonial mandates and decolonization struggles. There are a few exceptions to this chronology, such as the secular Turkish Republic, which achieved its independence in the aftermath of the First World War.

Prior to the 20th Century, hence, for most of the history of the Muslim Ummah, Muslims organized themselves, politically, according arrangements that primarily reflected tribal or geographical lines of demarcation. A sultan’s (political leader) authority was demarcated by the limit of his tax-collecting and rebellion-suppression ability, not according to his claim to hold sway over a territory demarcated by fictitious lines drawn on a map. Similarly, although people may have accepted the authority of a particular sultan, their ultimate allegiance was, practically, to their tribe or clan.

Despite such practical ties, most Muslims held a sentimental attachment to the Ummah, in its conceptualization as the global Muslim community. There were instances when that sentimental attachment translated into tangible political action, such as the Turks soliciting volunteers from lands as far flung as India and Morocco to assist in the expulsion of the European occupiers from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of the First World War.

In endeavoring to look at the question of what it means to be a member of the global Muslim Ummah in the context of the modern nation-state, we must look at the different ways we can examine the idea of the Ummah. We can examine it politically, socially, culturally and religiously. In many instances confusion arises when discussing issues related to this topic, we fail to make these distinctions.

Let us begin by looking at the idea of a distinct Ummah, religiously. Most of the verses in the Qur’an dealing with the idea of a single, unified Ummah are religious statements. They demarcate a unique religious community, and in most instances they enjoin upon it specific religious duties.

  رَبَّنَا وَٱجْعَلْنَا مُسْلِمَيْنِ لَكَ وَمِن ذُرِّيَّتِنَآ أُمَّةً مُّسْلِمَةً لَّكَ وَأَرِنَا مَنَاسِكَنَا وَتُبْ عَلَيْنَآ إِنَّكَ أَنتَ ٱلتَّوَّابُ ٱلرَّحِيم
Our Lord! Make the two of us submissive unto you, and from our progeny a community submissive unto you. Teach us our rituals, and accept our repentance. Surely, you are most accepting of repentance, the all merciful.

  وَكَذَلِكَ جَعَلْنَاكُمْ أُمَّةً وَسَطاً لِّتَكُونُواْ شُهَدَآءَ عَلَى ٱلنَّاسِ وَيَكُونَ ٱلرَّسُولُ عَلَيْكُمْ شَهِيداً
Thus have we made you a moderate community in order that that you be a witness against humanity and the Messenger will be a witness against you.

  وَلْتَكُن مِّنْكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى ٱلْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِٱلْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ ٱلْمُنْكَرِ وَأُوْلَـٰئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْمُفْلِحُونَ
Let there arise from you a group calling to all good, enjoining right and forbidding wrong.  They are those who will be successful.

  كُنْتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِٱلْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ ٱلْمُنْكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ
You are the best community brought forth [to serve] humanity. You command good, forbid wrong and you believe in Allah.

  لَيْسُواْ سَوَآءً مِّنْ أَهْلِ ٱلْكِتَابِ أُمَّةٌ قَآئِمَةٌ يَتْلُونَ آيَاتِ ٱللَّهِ آنَآءَ ٱللَّيْلِ وَهُمْ يَسْجُدُونَ
They are not the same! Among the People of the Scripture is an upright group that recites the Signs of Allah, throughout the night, all the while in humble prostration.

  فَكَيْفَ إِذَا جِئْنَا مِن كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ بِشَهِيدٍ وَجِئْنَا بِكَ عَلَىٰ هَـٰؤُلاۤءِ شَهِيداً
How [will it be] when We bring forth from every community a witness, and We will bring you forth as a witness against these.

إن هذه أمتكم أمة واحدة و أنا ربكم فاعبدون
Verily, this community of yours is a unified community, and I am your Lord. Worship Me!

In these verses Allah describes a religious community that has been commissioned with religious responsibilities: submission to God; undertaking certain rituals; witnessing for or against humanity; recipients of and preservers of a scripture; followers of the Prophetic tradition; calling to the path of God; enjoining the right; forbidding the wrong; believing in God; a community that will be testified against by the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessing of Allah upon him, a community established to worship Allah.

These functions are religious duties or obligations that can be performed within or outside of the context of a nation-state. There is no excuse for Muslims not to be performing them in whatever time or place we find ourselves in. This is the most basic level of our defining our membership in the Ummah of Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah upon him. This is a level that defenders of most modern nation-states would view as noncontroversial.

Another level we can consider the Ummah is directly associated with the first. As a religious community of shared rituals, a shared liturgical language, shared dietary conditions, a common general dress code and unique approaches to art and music, Muslims share a common culture. This shared reality creates an Ummah at the cultural level. This cultural Ummah, cuts across the various nations, tribes and geographical regions that comprise the religious Ummah. At its height, it allowed Ibn Battuta to travel over 70,000 miles, from Tangiers in Morocco to Indonesia, and to remain, for the most part in a single, integrated cultural zone. Hence, he was able to become a judge in the Maldives. He was at home wherever he went in the vast Muslim world. His situation stands in stark contrast to Marco Polo, who traveled to many of the same areas a quarter century before Ibn Battuta.  The latter was an outside observer in virtually all of the lands he traversed.

This cultural unity has indeed decayed, but it is still an extant reality, even in its diminished form. Muslims pray the same way the world over. We fast the same month of Ramadan in the same way the world over.  If a Muslim from Canada and or the United States were to go to Indonesia or Mali he or she would find Muslims praying and fasting exactly as he or she is praying or fasting, and if they were educated, Islamically, they could communicate with their hosts in the Arabic language. Standards governing what constitutes acceptable or Halal food are universal among Muslims.   

These cultural distinctions of the Ummah should be actively encouraged regardless of the political imposition of the nation-state over the Muslim people, as they are distinctions that are apolitical in nature.  Those cultural traditions that are disappearing, such as calligraphy, spiritual musical, etc. should be revived. Furthermore, these standards have always accommodated local influences. Thus, by way of example, even though traditional Malay food or dress would be viewed as Islamic, it differs markedly from the traditional Fulani, West African Muslim food or dress owing to the unique Malay of Fulani contributions to the Islamic ideal.

It should be also be understood that the cultural reality of Islam has preceded, coexisted with and will likely outlive the nation-state. This latter statement does not assume an inherent superiority of the “Islamic.” It assumes that humans will find superior ways to organize their societies than the already anachronistic (to some extent) nation-state. Again, these are levels of endeavor that most advocates and defenders of the nation-state will not find controversial.

The most controversial level of analysis in terms of assessing the relationship between the Muslim Ummah and the nation-state is at the level of politics.  Here the degree of controversy does not arise from Islam, if that were the case, the nation-state would have never become the dominant form of political organization among the Muslim people.

The ongoing “Arab Spring” illustrates the pervasiveness of the degree to which Muslims have accepted the nation-state. The various movements in different Muslim countries are focused on who will control the nation-state. They are not movements that challenge the validity of the state itself. The movements’ principal slogan illustrates this:

الشعب يريد إسقاط النظام
The people want the downfall of the regime.

The activists, both Muslim and secular, are calling for the eradication of the oppressive ruling regimes, not the eradication of the state itself.

What controversy between Muslims and the nation-state that does exist arises from the nation-state itself, not from Islam and Muslims, with the exception of fringe groups that have little political relevance in their respective societies. The critical question here is what does the nation-state demand of the Ummah. If the nation-state demands the acceptance of a common set of political obligations and the assumption of a common set of political responsibilities, which advance the common good of all of its members, and I am speaking of Muslims in the context of a pluralistic, representative state, then the degree of controversy can be managed.

Among the most fundamental obligations and responsibilities for Muslims living in the western, secular, pluralistic nation-states are the following:

1) Respecting the sanctity of the life, property and honor of one fellow citizens;

2) Respecting the sanctity of the public space;

3) Respecting the plurality of ideas, beliefs and the personal freedoms that underlie them; and expecting that the belief, ideas and personal freedoms of Muslims will be protected.

These are obligations that virtually all Muslims will find acceptable and consistent with Islamic beliefs and values.

However, if the nation-state demands blind, unconditional allegiance that crosses into the realm of worship, which some fascist definitions of the nation-state imply, then the state is elevated to the level of an idol and idolatry is forbidden in Islam. Consider the following view of the fascist state by one of its most influential theorists and architects, the Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini:

Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State, which is the conscience and universal will of man in his historical existence. It is opposed to classical Liberalism, which arose from the necessity of reacting against absolutism, and which brought its historical purpose to an end when the State was transformed into the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of the individual. And if liberty is to be the attribute of the real man, and not of that abstract puppet envisaged by individualistic Liberalism, Fascism is for liberty. And for the only liberty which can be a real thing, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value, outside the State. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State, the synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops and gives strength to the whole life of the people.

This conceptualizing of the state is not only forbidden in Islam, it runs counter to the western, pluralistic democratic state as we know it and as it was envisioned by its founders. It is therefore a patriotic duty for Muslims and all other concerned citizens to oppose any fascist views that involve the deification of the state. Critically, and this is an issue I have addressed at length elsewhere, it is a duty of Muslims to oppose efforts deifying an authoritarian, totalitarian state in the name of Islam, or the “Islamic” state.

One of the greatest steps we can take to undermine the emergence of fascist views of the nation-state is to “de-reify” it. In other words, the modern state is not an anthropomorphized, monolithic, living, “spiritual” entity. It is an pseudo-abstraction comprised of individuals, groups, institutions and organizations, which have in most instances varying interests. Each of these is connected to a particular nation-state in different ways. Take the example of the United States.

It is comprised of groups that have been labeled Native American, African Americans, White Americans, Latino Americans, Asian Americans, Jewish Americans, home-owing Americans, corporate Americans, oil industry-controlling Americans, defense-contracting Americans, etc. Each of these groups is connected in different and differing ways to the American project. Some groups are able to control and manipulate the institutions of government in ways that advance their interests, while other have little or no influence over those institutions.

Usually, but not always, groups are connected to the American project in ways that reflect their being the victims or beneficiaries of that project. For example, many Native Americans feel no connection at all to America. As a result they are seeking independence from the United States and endeavoring to establish sovereign nations. Some African Americans, whose ancestors were brought to America in chains, lack the same sense of patriotism that resides in the breasts of many who came to America freely and found prosperity for themselves and their progeny. Their feeling is expressed well in the following words of Fredrick Douglas. In his moving speech, What is the Fourth of July to the Negro, Douglas stated:

“The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak today?”

Yet, even among African Americans, there is a a wide range of feelings towards America. While many would share the bitterness expressed by Douglass, others display a more ambivalent attitude towards the country.  Consider the words of Langston Hughes when he writes, critically, but hopefully, in his poem, “Let America be American Again”:

“O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath—
America will be!

Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain—
All, all the stretch of these great green states—
And make America again!”

Yet other Americans of African descent find no problem in an unqualified embrace of the American project and unabashed praise for the country. This group is represented by the likes of Reverend Archibald Carey, Jr., an African American minister whose words informed Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.‘s I Have a Dream Speech. He proudly proclaimed in an address to the 1952 Republican Convention:

“We, Negro Americans, sing with all loyal Americans: My country ‘tis of thee, Sweet land of liberty, Of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, Land of the Pilgrims’ pride From every mountainside Let freedom ring!”

The point I am making here is that if African Americans are this complex and diverse in terms of a connection to the American project then what about the entire country and all of its ethnic, racial and religious elements. That diversity is what makes America unique, and it argues against a fascist vision of the state that would seek to disguise that diversity beneath an imaginary uniformity generated by an authoritarian state.

In conclusion, America, and most other modern western nation-states are composed of many elements. Muslims, in varying numbers at various times have always been one of those elements. As such, the struggle of American Muslims, both to live peacefully in this land as Muslims, and the struggle to define the nature and terms of our engagement with the state, while belonging to a global Muslim community, are uniquely American struggles. As such, we have an obligation to our ancestors who preceded us in this land to continue that struggle, and we have an obligation to our fellow citizens to work along with them to preserve the integrity of the sociopolitical arrangement that made that struggle possible.

The nation-state, which involves wedding a specific people to a sovereign territorial entity, is a modern phenomenon. For example, the unity of the Italian city-states into a coherent modern nation-state did not occur until the late 1850s. The unification of Germany under Prussia did not occur until 1871. Even though there were many French kingdoms, and even a French empire under Napoleon, it could be argued that the emergence of France as a viable, modern nation-state did not occur before Jules Ferry established universal public education during the 19th Century. Outside of Europe, excluding European settler states such as America, and with the notable exception of Japan, one can not meaningfully discuss the existence of viable nation-states until the 20th Century.

Nationalism, the movement of a people to establish an autonomous state, a phenomenon instrumental in the creation of the contemporary international system, is also strictly modern. It can be seen as part a 19th Century European reaction, a political offspring of Romanticism, to the universalizing and anti-authoritarian tendencies of the earlier Enlightenment. There are, however, elements of nationalist thought, which are extremely ancient. Most of these, such as an exclusivist, chauvinistic attachment to a particular group, and the sacrificing of universal human concerns on the altar of particular national interests, are strongly rejected by Islam. It is from this point of departure that we can develop a credible Islamic critique of nationalism.

Islam, the last of the Abrahamic religions, has been defined as, “submission to the will of God,” also, “the state of peace resulting from submitting to the will of God,” and, “acknowledging, then being led by everything brought by Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of God be upon him.” One of the distinguishing features of Islam, emphasized in the last definition, is its comprehensiveness. The way of life it informs has been viewed as touching on every aspect of human existence.

This comprehensiveness can be gleamed from a cursory view of most expansive Islamic law manuals. For example, in the introduction to a contemporary work on the jurisprudence of the Shafi’i school, the authors mention the seven basic areas covered by Islamic Law:

1) Worship (al-Ibadah): prayer, fasting, etc.
2) Family Matters (al-Ahwal al-Shakhsiyya): marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc.
3) Interpersonal Relations (al-Mu’amalat): buying, selling, legal claims, etc.
4) Duties and Responsibilities of the Political Governors and the Governed (al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya): establishing justice, preventing oppression, rights of obedience, etc.
5) Criminal Justice and Maintaining Public Order (al-Hudud): punishing thieves, adulterers, eradicating threats to public safety, etc.
6) International Relations (al-Siyar): war, peace, truces, etc.
7) Character Reformation and Good Manners (al-Akhlaq w’al-Adab): abstention, patience, humility, courage, etc. [2]

Since nationalism, as stated, is a modern phenomenon, it has not been explicitly dealt with in any of the above-mentioned areas. However, as we will attempt to show, Islam contains teachings which clearly argue against elements of nationalist thought. It also argues against the chauvinism and exclusiveness which the nationalist project engenders. These phenomena are a major part of what we will call the nationalist question. In this article, we will attempt to critically examine the nationalist question in light of fundamental Islamic teachings. That examination will begin with a section which examines Islamic teachings of relevance in examining that question, followed by a section which defines nationalism more rigorously than above, and then analyzes it in the light Islamic teachings. Although this arrangement will involve a degree of redundancy, it will hopefully make the overall discussion more meaningful for those not familiar with the Islamic concepts we introduce initially. Finally, I will conclude the article with some reflections on the role Islam can play in our efforts to move beyond nationalism. 

Nationalist Concepts in the Light of Islam

Islam posits that humanity shares a common ancestry. God says in the Qur’an, “O Humankind! We have created you from a single pair, a male and female, then made you into nations and tribes in order that you come to know one another [not that you may despise one another]. The most honored of you with God is the most pious. And God is Well Informed, Knowledgeable [49:13].”  God also says, “O humankind! Be mindful of your Lord who has created you from a single soul, and created from that soul its mate, and has brought forth from them multitudes of men and women [4:1].” Humanity, as these verses emphasize, has a common ancestry, which creates inseparable bonds of brotherhood and sisterhood between us. Islam, in this regard, does not sanction any scheme that negates or trivializes those bonds, as occurs with conflicting nationalisms.

Islam advocates the essential equality, human worth, and dignity of all people. God says, “We have ennobled the human being [17:70].” Similarly, “And their Lord accepted their prayer, and answered them, I will never allow to be lost the work of any of you, be he male or female, you are from one another [3:195].” These, and similar verses, emphasize that the fundamental worth of all humans transcends race and gender divisions. Understanding this equality is central if we are to gain a true understanding of how Islam approaches the issue of nationalism. While recognizing the validity of national, racial, tribal, ethnic, and cultural differences, Islam views them as signs of God’s creative power, not as the basis for the creation of mutually destructive political agendas.

As for culture and race, God says, “And among His Signs is the creation of Heaven and Earth, and the variation of your languages and your colors. Surely, in this are signs for those endowed with knowledge. [30:22].”  We mention this verse here because of our belief that language is the most important element in any cultural system. Hence, it is one of the strongest bases of national identity.

Islam also acknowledges that distinct people, nations, and tribes can be vested with unique historical missions. God says, “The Romans have been defeated, in a nearby land. However, despite this defeat of theirs, they will soon be victorious, within a few years. And with God is the Command, in the past and the future. And on that day, the believers will rejoice [30: 2-4].” The point here is that God decreed this victory for the Romans as a people. Their historical destiny as a people was to defeat the Persians. Conversely, the Persians, after their initial triumph, were destined to be defeated by the Romans in the end. He also says concerning the idea of distinct nations, “Every nation has a fixed term. When that term expires, they can neither delay nor hasten [their inevitable demise] [7:34].

This idea of distinct historical missions is further born out by the fact that nations, prior to the advent of the prophecy of Muhammad, peace and blessings of God be upon him, were addressed by prophets sent specifically to them. Noah was sent specifically to his people. [2] Hud was sent specifically to the people of ‘Ad. [3] Salih was sent to the people of Thamud. [4] The message of these and other Prophets, Peace of God be upon them all, was directed towards their respective peoples, constituting a divine affirmation of their distinct national identities.

However, one should not be led to believe that the specificity of those prophetic missions, which preceded that of Muhammad, peace and blessings of God be upon him, can be used as a justification for pursuing narrow nationalistic agendas. That is because the specificity of those messages was abrogated by the universality of the message of Muhammad, Peace and Blessings of God upon Him. God says, describing that message, “Say to them, [O Muhammad!], ‘I am the messenger of God to you all [7:158]!”
 
This verse is especially significant in that it occurs after a lengthy description, in Sura al-‘Araf, of the earlier Prophets and their messages. Consider the previous four citations in that regard. It is as if God is especially emphasizing the universality of the mission of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of God upon him, by presenting it in contradistinction to the earlier messages. It is significant that this transition from specific messages to a universal one occurred at the advent of an era when the overland trade routes which would be created by the vast, functionally unified Islamic Empire would integrate the entirety of the “known” world to an extent unprecedented in history. That is to say, it came just when the world was prepared to receive such a message.

The universality of that message counters the idea that the division of humans into their respective nations, tribes, cultural and ethnic identity groups, possessors of distinct historical missions, or any other groupings, should constitute the basis for the creation of destructive, mutually exclusive, potentially belligerent agendas. It also rejects the idea of these distinctions being the basis for any claims of superiority. God reminds us that these differences are rooted in the accident of birth. They exist as a means for our mutual recognition of the creative power of God, and as a means for us to come to know and appreciate each other. [5] Any claim of superiority can only be based on superior devotion and ethics, bases which transcend the accident of birth. God says in that regard, “The most honored of you with God is the most pious [49:13].”

Assessing Nationalism

In this part of our article many of the concepts outlined above will be revisited in the context of a more rigorous assessment of nationalism from an Islamic perspective. This assessment will be structured around the following definition of nationalism, namely, “The belief that each nation has both the right and duty to constitute itself as a state.” [6] According to this, and most other definitions, the essence of nationalism involves the wedding of a nation to a state. However, if we are to understand the dynamics involved in the formation of national identity, the organizational impetus which moves a nation to seek statehood, we need to understand six terms, some of which we have previously mentioned in this article: 1. nation, 2. culture, 3. state, 4. fear, 5. anger, 6. and victimization.

Nation

A nation has been defined by as “an historical concept founded on a cultural identity shared by a single people.” [7]  As mentioned earlier, Islam does not reject the idea of a nation. All of the Prophets, before Muhammad, peace and blessings of God be upon him, were sent to specific nations. However, if that shared identity leads to a scheme where the rights or humanity of other groups are denied by an exclusive quest for sovereignty, the ensuing nationalist enterprise is questioned by Islam. The reason for that will be clarified towards the end of this article.

Culture

Culture, defined anthropologically and sociologically, “denotes indifferently all manifestations of social life which are not concerned with the reproduction and sustenance of human beings. Thus customs, habits of association, religious observances, even specific beliefs, may be spoken of as part of a culture.” [8] Culture is the glue which holds a nation together, for it provides the basis for the tangible distinctions that differentiate one group of people from another. The basic elements of cultural distinction are compatible with Islamic beliefs. This is illustrated by the following verse in the Qur’an, “And among His Signs is the creation of Heaven and Earth, and the variation of your languages and your colors. Surely, in this are signs for those endowed with knowledge [30:22].” This verse, which has been previously referenced, articulates the Islamic ethos concerning cultural diversity. Diverse cultures, symbolized by varying languages, contribute to the beauty of human society. This diversity is also reflected in the attitude of Islam towards religious diversity, another cultural manifestation. Although Islam can be interpreted as asserting the possession of ultimate truth, it has never negated the right to other forms of religious expression, neither in creed, nor in practice. There are many well-known examples of religious and cultural tolerance in Islamic history. Perhaps the most frequently cited are the Golden Age of Islamic Spain, [9] and the Ottoman Millet system. [10]

State

The state is a political unit defined in terms of a population, demarcated borders, and an autonomous government. [11] The creation of a state is the ultimate objective of a nationalist movement, in the case of most stateless nations. The potential destructiveness of nationalism is rooted in the fact that most states are nationally heterogeneous, and most nations are stateless. If the nationalist aspirations of all people were enthusiastically pursued, a state of perpetual war and severe persecution would probably ensue. Islam anticipates this eventuality and warns against it in unequivocal terms. As we have mentioned earlier in this article, the Qur’an states that national and ethnic diversity exists, ” …in order that you come to know one another, [not that you despise each other] [49:13].”

Fear

Nationalism involves the effort of a nation to create or maintain an identity with a state. Here our last three terms: fear, anger, and victimization; become relevant. Fear is one of the principle factors motivating a nation to consolidate its control over a particular territory and create a state. Such fear revolves around a real or imagined enemy that is seen as a threat to the existence or interests of a particular nation. Although one of the positive benefits of group solidarity has often been security, when the promise of security is manipulated for political purposes the consequences can be extremely destructive. Such manipulation has inevitably been part of the formula that led to most modern-day genocides.

This security/genocide consanguinity is perhaps best illustrated in the horrific slaughter of Rwanda’s Tutsis by the majority Hutus in 1994. Commenting on the propaganda campaign, which preceded and accompanied that genocidal episode, Samantha Power notes, “As genocidal perpetrators so often do as a prelude to summoning the masses, they began claiming the Tutsi were out to exterminate Hutu and appealing for preemptive self-defense.” [12] That appeal was answered, resulting in one of the most brutal and intense massacres in modern history.

Islam strives to remove this motivation from human society. We read in the Qur’an, “Thus does Satan attempt to instill the fear of his dupes into you. Do not fear them. Rather, fear Me, if indeed you are believers [3:175].” In this verse, God tells the believers not to fear their enemies, rather, to fear Him. And perhaps more importantly, when they establish their political community, to establish it on the fear of God, not on the fear of a real or imagined human adversary, often described in contemporary discourse as the “other.” Believers are encouraged to understand that they are united in a human family, and that there are fundamental rights accruing to members of that family regardless of their religious affiliations. As mentioned earlier, God has ennobled the human being. This ennoblement precedes the division of humanity into religions, nations, tribes, and other identity groups. At this level of supra-historical existence, all of humanity belongs to a single tribe, the tribe of Adam (Bani Adam).

It is interesting to note, that in Islamic teachings, Satan, who attempts to instill fear of the “other” into human beings, also attempts to base superiority on accidental physical differences. God mentions in the Qur’an, What prevented you from prostrating yourself to Adam when I ordered you to do so?  He (Satan) said, “I am better than him. You created me from fire, and you created him from clay [7:12].” This prototypical racist attitude is reflected in the rhetoric of many bigots, past and present. Satan, blinded by his arrogance, apparently forgot that Adam’s distinction lay in the fact that his supposedly low physical origin was augmented by the life spirit (Ruh), which was breathed into him, and by the fact that God had ennobled him.

The Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of God upon Him, emphasized the fact that physical distinctions are irrelevant in the sight of God. He said, “God does not look at your physical forms, or your wealth. Rather, He looks at your deeds and your hearts.” [13] This prophetic tradition argues against using physical distinctions arising from the accident of birth as the basis for any claims of superiority, or as the focal point for the creation of chauvinistic movements or states.

Anger and Victimization

Anger is the actualization of fear. In other words, anger is one of the greatest factors urging people to act against the source of their fear. One of the greatest sources of such anger is a feeling of victimization. Ernest Gellner, one of the foremost writers on nationalism, explains the role of victimization in contemporary nationalist thought, thus:

As the tidal wave of modernization sweeps the world, it makes sure that almost everyone, at some time or another, has cause to feel unjustly treated, and that he can identify the culprits as being of another ‘nation’. If he can also identify enough of the victims as being of the same ‘nation’ as himself, a nationalism is born. If it succeeds, and not all of them can, a nation is born. [15]

As is the case with fear, Islam condemns anger as a motivation for political action. Commenting on the Qur’anic verse, When the unbelievers had set up in their hearts the zealotry [for battle] which they had demonstrated during the days of pre-Islamic ignorance, God sent calm and tranquility upon the Messenger and the believers… [48:26] Imam Ghazali says, at the beginning of the introduction to a chapter on the condemnation of anger in his famous Quickening the Religious Sciences, “The unbelievers are condemned for the unjustified zealotry they manifested due to their anger [16].”

One of the keys to beneficial political decisions, or decisions of any type, is a firm intellectual command. For this reason, Islam expressly forbids a judge from issuing a decision in a state of anger. [17] The above verse extends this principle into the realm of political action. It was revealed concerning the critical negotiations between the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of God upon him, and his Mekkan enemies over the terms of the treaty which was struck at Hudaybiyya. The followers of the Prophet, are praised for not letting their anger over the apparently humiliating terms of the treaty distort their better judgment, thereby preventing them from accepting what the Messenger of God, peace and blessings of God upon him, deemed acceptable. Hence, anger is rejected as a motivation for political action.

Islam also argues against appeals to a sense of victimization as a basis for political action. As opposed to seeking an external culprit or scapegoat to blame one’s problems on, Islam encourages individual and group responsibility. God says, in a revealed prophetic tradition:

Rather it is your actions which I reckon for you. Then I reward you fully for them. Therefore, whoever finds good, let him praise God, and whoever finds other than that, let him blame no one but himself. [18]

The Prophet himself, peace and blessings of God upon him, said, “Everyone of you is a guardian, and each of you will be asked concerning his/her wards.” [19] This cultivation of individual responsibility is so essential in Islam that the person who lacks any wards or possessions, is to be reminded of his/her guardianship over his/her very body, and to do those divinely sanctioned things which are best for the preservation of that body. Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani mentions, commenting on the above tradition:

The single person, who lacks a wife, servant, or child, is responsible for his very limbs, to insure that they implement the commandments, and avoid those things which are forbidden in speech, action, and belief. Therefore, his limbs, faculties, and senses are his wards. [20]

These, and similar proof texts, make it clear that Islam wants each individual to take responsibility for his or her actions, and to begin to address undesirable situations by seeing how he or she has fallen short in meeting the conditions God has established for the attainment of favorable outcomes in this life. A similar analysis could be made for groups and their collective fates. In a worldly sense, they are responsible for their own uplifting or debasement. God says clearly in this regard, “God does not change the condition of a people until they change the state of their souls [13:11].”

From the above discussion, it should be clear that Islam is against exploiting fear and anger, or cultivating a sense of victimization in order to create the zealousness which pushes a nationalist agenda. It should be noted that this zealousness, which is closely described by what we will term zealous tribal fealty (‘Asabiyya), has been specifically condemned by Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of God upon him. The Prophet, peace and blessings of God upon him, was asked about zealous tribal fealty. He replied, “It is aiding your folk in [their] oppression.” [21] He also said, “One who is killed under the banner of zealous tribal fealty, or raises the banner of zealous tribal fealty, or aids a party on the basis of zealous tribal fealty, [he/she has died] a death of pre-Islamic ignorance.” [22]

These condemnations by the Prophet, peace and blessings of God upon him, are aimed at cutting off a dangerous source of disunity and discord in the Muslim ranks. For example, before accepting Islam, the Madinan tribes of al-Aws and al-Khazraj were engaged in long and destructive internecine warfare. Islam united their hearts and joined them politically under one banner. However, on one occasion, their unity was threatened by the effort of a third party to stir up zealous tribal fealty among them. That effort was staved off by the direct intervention of the Prophet, peace and blessings of God upon him. [23]

It should be noted here, that the Arabic term, Jahiliyya, refers to more than the ignorance of the pre-Islamic Arabs. It also refers to their social, cultural, and political condition. Hence, it includes their practice of burying female newborns alive, their revenge motivated wars, and other practices. Ibn Mandhur says, explaining this term:

It is the state which the Arabs were in prior to Islam. [It refers to] their ignorance of God, be He exalted, His Messenger, the laws of the religion, their boasting over their lineage, their arrogance and haughtiness, and other characteristics. [24]

Again, these narrations should make it clear that Islam in no way endorses the idea of mobilizing to pursue an exclusivist political agenda based on tribal or national bonds. Such mobilization, which lies at the heart of the nationalist venture, not only runs counter to clear Islamic teachings, as we have attempted to show, it has also been the source of many of the most brutal and costly wars in recent history, and has manifested itself in all of the genocides that occurred during the 1990s.

The defenders of nationalism, while acknowledging its latent danger, point to its great triumphs, specifically, its role in stopping the advance of the twin totalitarian menaces of Nazism and Stalinist Communism. However, even here, nationalism does not stand above indictment, if we view Nazism and Stalinist communism as grotesque manifestations of German and Russian nationalism, respectively.

In the lands of Islam, as has been the case in other parts of the developing world, nationalism has had its most profound impact on western-educated elites. Those elites were instrumental in articulating a post-colonial national consensus. That consensus, as to the meaning, purpose, and direction of the post-colonial state, was initially greeted with significant mass support throughout the Muslim world. However, the systematic and oftentimes cynical negation of any meaningful mass participation in the political process has led to a widespread view of the nation-state as a foil for self-serving autocratic rule. This perception, coupled with the developmental and strategic failures of the nation-state in the Muslim world, have left many Muslims begging for new forms of political identity, and a new basis for political action.

Conclusion

Humanity will not be able to move towards a harmonious state where the actualization of true human unity and our collective security are realities, if we do not move beyond the nation-state. Improved means of communications and transportation continue to “shrink” the world. Continuous improvements in weapons technology, conventional and non-conventional, greatly enhance the efficacy of our ability to kill each other. Global problems, such as AIDS, SARS, pollution, and increasingly disastrous economic inequalities defy unilateral solutions. In light of these and many other pressing facts, we can no longer accept a scheme where, in the words of William Pfaff, “…a nation conceives itself licensed to validate itself by the victimization of another society.” [25] Mutual victimization, an unfortunate result of conflicting national interests, creates conditions which could well lead to our mutual destruction.

That said, nationalism is an reality, which lies at the heart of the contemporary global order. Therefore, transcending it will require more than a mere understanding of its inherent dangers. New ways of thinking about the meaning of life, humanity, and human civilization will have to be developed, and new institutions will have to be constructed. Many daunting problems relating to the meaning of national sovereignty, self determination, and citizenship will have to be resolved.

Fortunately, many contemporary developments have already started that process. International finance markets and the real time operations of the largest multinational corporations have already transcended the effective control of individual states. Although these developments currently facilitate oftentimes exploitative and irresponsible corporate behavior, they are part of an evolving global system which could potentially render the nation-state an irrelevant institution.

At the level of the individual citizen, the concept of human rights, and the associated phenomenon of humanitarian intervention present additional challenges to the idea of state sovereignty. Human rights imply that the rights owed to individuals supersede the rights that are owed to states. The idea of humanitarian intervention accentuates that conclusion, as in the interest of assisting affected individuals, the sovereignty of the state where intervention occurs is oftentimes completely bypassed.

These and related developments are forcing a reevaluation of the meaning of national sovereignty in the postmodern world. A similar reevaluation is occurring around the meaning of citizenship in the context of the nation-state. One of the greatest issues in that regard revolves around resolving the challenge of multiculturalism. Of issue here is the political role of collective identities. In other words, how can a privileged majority, in whose interest the state was founded, meaningfully accommodate excluded, disenfranchised, or marginalized minorities. If a meaningful resolution to this issue can be affected within the legal and constitutional framework of individual states, then replicating that solution within the framework of international law should be within the realm of possibility. Both developments, once achieved, will eventually translate into new social and political institutions.

Just as the institutions which facilitated the rise, consolidation, and entrenchment of both nationalism and the nation-state occurred in a distinctive social, cultural, and political milieu, a milieu that was in turn fostered by a distinctive social psychology, a new institutional reality, rooted in its distinctive socio-political culture, will require its own distinctive social psychology. Herein lays the contemporary relevance of Islam. As we have endeavored to demonstrate above, Islam provides a set of beliefs and principals that simultaneously foster cultural distinction and universalism. Accommodating these twin developments in an equitable fashion is one of the greatest challenges to be overcome by the emerging globalization of our times.

At the height of its civilization, Islam was able to meet and overcome this challenge, by creating a culturally diverse, politically decentralized, but functionally integrated “global” realm which extended from Spain unto China. The fact that an individual such as Ibn Battuta, the great Moroccan traveler, could go from one end of that realm to another, communicate in a single language, Arabic, and be accepted as a judge in the distant Maldives, testifies to the globalization fostered by Islam during that period. [26]

One of the greatest keys to the emergence of that realm was the social psychology fostered by Islam. Perhaps the most important fruit of that social psychology was the creation of a political culture which generally discouraged the development of nationalist thinking. Such a political culture is desperately needed today as many people are beginning to struggle with new forms of transnational organization. If Islam is allowed, by both its enemies and advocates, to contribute to a new global socio-political consensus by helping to resolve the nationalist question, humanity will be well served.

This article is reprinted from my book, Scattered Pictures: Reflections of an American Muslim

Notes:

[1] The article is based on a lecture by the same title given by the author at the University of California, Berkeley, in September 2003.
[2] Dr. Mustafa al-Bugha, et al.,  Al-Fiqh al-Manhaji (Damascus, Syria: Dar al-‘Ulum al-Insaniyya, 1989), 12-13.
[3] Al-Qur’an 7:59.
[4] Al-Qur’an 7:65.
[5] Al-Qur’an 7:73.
[6] Al-Qur’an 49:13.
[7] Adam and Jessica Kuper, eds., The Social Science Encyclopedia (London, New York: Routledge, 1985), 551.
[8] Theodore Couloumbis and James H. Wolfe, Introduction to International Relations: Power and Justice (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1978), 37.
[9] Roger Scruton, A Dictionary of Political Thought (New York, NY: Hill and Wang), 109-110.
[10] An excellent study of the culture of tolerance that existed at the height of Islamic rule in Spain can be found in Maria Menocal’s, Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews, and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain (Boston, New York, London: Little, Brown, and Company, 2002).
[11] For a concise, balanced assessment of the nature of the Millet system, see Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 33-34.
[12] Columbis and Wolfe, 37.
[13] Samantha Power, A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide (New York: Harper Collins, 2003), 340. Although Powers writes convincingly as a theorist, politically she is a strong advocate of humanitarian intervention. Hence, she supports using the US war machine to selectively invade countries, such as Libya, whose government are viewed as threatening civilian life.
[14]  Muslim bin al-Hajjaj, Sahih Muslim, ‘Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, trans. (Lahore, Pakistan: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1976), 4:1362, no. 6221; Ibn Majah, al-Sunan (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Dar al-Salaam, 1999), 604, no. 4143.
[15] Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism  (Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press, 1983), 112.
[16] Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, Ihya ‘Ulum al-Din, 3:244.
[17] See Shihab al-Din b. Abi ad-Dimashqi-Shafi’i, Kitab Adab al-Qada’,  Muhammad az-Zuhayli, ed. (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr al-Mu’asir, 1982/1402), 111.
[18] Sahih Muslim, 4:1365-1366, no. 6246.
[19] Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, The Meanings of Sahih al-Bukhari (Chicago, Ill: Kazi Publications, 1979), 7:81-82, no. 116.
[20] Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari: Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (Riyadh: Dar al-Salaam; Damascus: Dar al-Fayha’, 1997), 13:141.
[21] Abu Dawud as-Sajistani, Sunan Abu Dawud (Riyadh: Dar al-Salaam, 1999), 720, no. 5119.
[22] Sahih Muslim, 3:1030, no. 4561
[23] This incident is mentioned in the Qur’an, 3:100-101. The text of this verse reads, “O Believers! If you obey a party from those previously given the scripture, they will return you to disbelief after your faith. How could you ever revert to disbelief while the Scripture of God is yet being revealed and His Messenger is yet with you. Whoever holds fast to the [Religion of] God will be guided to a straight path. ”
[24] See Ibn Mandhur, Lisan al-‘Arab (Beirut: Dar al-Sadir, 2000), 3:229.
[25] William Pfaff, The Wrath of Nations: Civilization and the Furies of Nationalism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993), 238.
[26] For an excellent and concise account of Ibn Battuta’s travels, see, Douglas Bullis, “The Longest Hajj: The Jouneys of Ibn Battuta,” Aramco World, 51:4 (July/August, 2000) 3-39.

To begin to analyze the current situation in the Middle East and North Africa, each of the movements in the various affected countries would have to be assessed on a case by case basis. Conditions in each country are unique and therefore any blanket statement would likely not only be inaccurate, but also irresponsible. What follows are some considerations that would have to be part of any meaningful discussion of the Islamic legitimacy of the various movements that can potentially reshape the political map of the Middle East.

First of all, we have to bear in mind that classical treatises and writings dealing with Muslim political theory will not give us the entire answer to the question of the Islamic legitimacy of the ongoing uprisings in the Muslim world. This is so because those writings occurred in a sociopolitical environment that differs totally from the current one. Especially significant in this regard is the advent of the modern nation-state and its associated concepts of state sovereignty, legitimacy, allegiance, citizenship, the social contract and the national interest. Each of these concepts, in the modern setting, differs from its premodern conceptual counterpart, or was unknown in the premodern world. Hence, the writings of premodern Muslim scholars, no matter how brilliant, cannot give us full insight into the social, political and cultural issues that Muslims are currently dealing with.

Secondly, the nature of the neocolonial arrangements that prevail in many Muslim nation-states, where a “comprador bourgeoisie” “manages” the indigenous masses on behalf of a foreign power renders the entire question of the legitimacy of the state a controversial point. In other words, if the state is merely a front for foreign control, and the policies it pursues are oriented to serve the interests of a foreign elite, first and foremost, it is meaningless to discuss the allegiance people owe to the state without asking a deeper question. Namely, if in reality allegiance to the state is a sort of de facto allegiance to a foreign non-Muslim power, how can questions of allegiance to the state have any definitive meaning or relevance from an Islamic perspective?

A third issue of significance is the hegemonic nature of the modern state and its ability to exert control over the lives of its citizens in ways that were inconceivable at the time medieval Muslim political theorists were writing. Generally speaking, the modern state controls the economic life chances of its citizens, it defines the parameters of political participation, it controls the scope and nature of education, it can intrude almost at will into the private lives of its citizens, it can determine the conditions of mass incarceration (i.e. the Japanese Internment Act, or the current Drug War in the United States) and, if it chooses, it can tyrannize the citizenry with impunity, as by definition the state monopolizes the legitimate use of force in the society it presides over.

The upshot of the preceding passage is that the expanded reach of the modern Muslim state demands an expanded basis for defining allegiance and legitimacy. In earlier times, when the lack of information and security technology limited the scope of state power, it was natural to limit the scope of state legitimacy to questions revolving around primarily religious issues. However, the deepened reach of the state demands that examinations of legitimacy and allegiance begin considering questions such as economic security, political participation, and basic human dignity along with related matters. If these issues are motivating Muslims who are challenging the legitimacy and efficacy of their states, they have to be considered by the religious scholars and authorities who are assessing the appropriateness of those challenges.

Furthermore, by accepting the legitimacy of the sovereign state, we accept, implicitly, that all of the citizens share an inherent equality. That being the case, the state is not the property of an individual, or an oligarchy or any other elite. Rather, it is the property of the people. That being such, if the people rise up in response to the abuses of the state, that uprising by definition cannot be considered illegitimate. An example given by the noted political theorist Hannah Arendt can be mentioned here to clarify this idea. We cannot consider an angry mob occupying a bank to be similar to an angry group of students occupying a building on the campus of a public university. The first group is encroaching on private property, while the second “own” the university as much as the faculty and administration who may oppose their actions own it, by right of their enrollment.

Considering this understanding of legitimacy, as it relates to the modern state, those who dogmatically adhere to the traditional Muslim view of legitimacy are confronted with a conundrum when arguing against the right of Muslims to engage in even peaceful protest against oppressive regimes. Either they must reject the legitimacy of the modern nation-state for their Islamic critique of Muslim popular revolutions to be meaningful, or they must abandon their Islamic critique in favor of the critiques of legitimacy that have arisen with the advent of the modern state. It is theoretically difficult to have it both ways.

When we do consider existing Muslim writing on these issues there are caveats that normally escape discussion. Let us consider, by way of example, the issue of the legitimacy of revolt against an established “Muslim” ruler. There are those who claim that any rebellion against a Muslim ruler is unsanctioned. However, we do not find this opinion in the writings of the traditional scholars. This opinion is close to the conservative Sunni view. However, even the Sunni view is conditional, and rebellion is sanctioned in the case of the ruler openly rejecting Islam or sanctioning laws or practices that violate accepted Islamic laws or principles, and it is not feared that a greater tribulation will befall the believers should they rise up.

This Sunni position, which gives priority to stability over justice, evolved over time and is informed by well-known historical realities. However, it is not universally accepted among the Muslims. The Shi’ah and the Mu’tazila, both hold that a rebellion in the pursuit of justice is lawful and even encouraged in some instances. This is particularly the case when the injustices being challenged are clearly unsanctioned by the laws or principles of Islam. Hence, the scholarly consensus needed to declare as absolutely forbidden the current protests is lacking.

Similarly, a simplistic application of the verse, “If two parties of the believers fight each other make peace between them…” (49:9), to challenge the protests would be difficult in places like Egypt, because two parties amongst the believers were not fighting each other. The protesters were nonviolent in their actions and intent. Any violence was initiated by the supporters of the government, or the state security forces, while during the periods the protesters resorted to violence it was clearly in self-defense. As soon as the violence being used against them abated they returned to their nonviolent protests. Their peaceful protest was guaranteed by Article 54 of the Egyptian constitution, while Article 57 clearly condemned as unconstitutional the violence the pro-Mubarak goons were employing against them. Hence, to declare their movement as illegitimate would be difficult from either an Islamic or a constitutional basis.

This brings up a related point. In that the protesters were speaking out against the excesses of tyrannical, authoritarian powers, they are engaging in the best Jihad. The Prophet, peace and blessings upon him, mentioned, “The best Jihad is a just word in the face of a tyrannical ruler.” In light of this Hadith, what Islamic argument can validly be made to deny the people their right to speak out against the tyranny of their rulers?

Others argue that these rebellions are sowing the seeds of instability in the region. It should be borne in mind that the seeds of instability are being sown by the governments themselves and the rapacious elites and foreign powers that benefit from their rule. The political repression of the people and their economic exploitation is the source of any instability, not the action of those protesting against those abuses. The protesters are themselves the fruit of the seeds being sown by the ruling elites. Hence, any efforts to identify the source of any instability must go to the source of that instability and not focus on its effects.

Finally, we can add, that as Muslims we should not see ourselves as being eternally trapped in a world where we are the helpless objects of the actions of others who have constructed institutions that are antithetical to our values and interests. The nation-state system in the Muslim world is less than one hundred years old. As an institution it has debatable legitimacy and authenticity according to Muslim political thought. The way its sociopolitical role in Muslim societies has evolved has been shaped by un-Islamic realities such as colonization and the Cold War, and by un-Islamic institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and now the World Trade Organization. To declare this arrangement beyond question, criticism or challenge is not only unjust, it is a betrayal of Muslim history.

This issue is one that requires an analysis that goes far beyond what we have been able to articulate in the limited space available here. Hopefully, we will be able to engage in a fuller analysis elsewhere. In the meantime, we pray that God blesses the people of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and elsewhere to fulfill their aspirations to enjoy a dignified existence in lands where the nobility and honor conferred upon them by God is celebrated and cherished.

Note:This article originally appeared in the April edition of EMEL Magazine: http://www.emel.com/article?id=84&a_id=2330

Question: Your nonviolence will deny Muslims the right to defend their homelands and repulse invaders.

Answer: I definitely advocate nonviolence for Muslims living in the pluralistic societies of the West. This is a fundamental Islamic responsibility. However, Muslims in Muslim majority countries have every right to defend their lands, resources, homes and families, if their political and religious leaders deem such a defense to be in their best interest. The issue I have been discussing is not the universally-recognized right of self-defense, which is applicable for Muslims and all other people. I am arguing against the mass murder of civilians being part of Islam. It is morally wrong and strategically counterproductive. Any credible strategic gains made by Muslims in recent history have been accomplished by popular resistance, not by vigilante murderers or mercenary killers.

Question: Why are you trying to convince me to abandon jihad by your intellectual arguments when the literal meaning of the Qur’an is clear in terms of the incumbency of slaying the kuffar wherever they are found?

Answer: I think the most important issue to clarify in this question is the use of intellect. The issue of “slaying the kuffar wherever you find them” will be dealt with in the context of answering a subsequent question. The Qur’an itself calls to the use one’s intellect. This is true at the very beginning when one enters into Islam. Allah states, “There is no compulsion in religion, truth clearly distinguishes itself from error…” (2:256). Ibn Kathir says concerning this verse:

The Most High says, “There is no compulsion in religion…” That means you cannot force anyone to enter the religion of Islam, for it is evident and clear. Its evidences and proofs are discernable such that it does not require that anyone be forced to enter into it. Rather, whosoever Allah guides with Islam, opens his breast, and illuminates his inner vision; he enters the religion on the basis of clarity. [Conversely,] whosoever finds his heart rendered blind by Allah, his hearing and vision sealed; there is no benefit to him entering Islam by force and compulsion. They mention that the occasion of revelation for this verse concerns a group of the Ansar, even though its ruling is general.

The evidences and proofs that Ibn Kathir refers to cannot be grasped without sound intellect, which is why all Muslim scholars consider a person who lacks control of his or her mental faculties to not be religiously responsible (ghayr mukallaf). The position the scholars take on this issue is based on the Hadith of the Prophet, blessings and peace upon him, “The pen is lifted from three: the insane until he regains his sanity; the child until he attains to puberty; and the sleeper until he wakes up” (Abu Dawud, 4403, Ibn Majah, 2041).

The Qur’an further states, concerning reason, intellect, reflection, contemplation and related concepts, “Do they not reflect on the Qur’an? If it had it been from other than Allah they would have found therein many divergent views” (4:82). Ibn Kathir comments on this verse with the following words:

The Most High orders them to reflect on the Qur’an, forbids them from turning away from it and from its unambiguous meanings and clear expressions, and informs them that there are no divergent views, inconsistencies or contradictions in it. [This is] because it is a revelation from the Mighty and Praiseworthy. Thus it is a truth from The Truth.  For this reason He says, “Do they not reflect on the Qur’an? Rather, their hearts are sealed up” (47:24).

He then says:

Had it been from other than Allah they would have found therein many divergent views.” Meaning, were it manmade or fabricated, as the ignoramuses among the idolaters and the hypocrites claim during their secret councils, they would have found much divergence in it –namely many inconsistencies and contradictions. However, this [scripture] is safe from divergent views, because it is from Allah.

How are divergent views, inconsistencies and contradictions known if not through contemplation and reflection which are rooted in reason? The following verse should make the role of intellect in understanding Islam clearer. Allah mentions in the Qur’an:

It is He who has revealed unto you the Scripture. In it are unambiguous verses, they are the foundation of the Scripture. Others are ambiguous. As for those harboring deviance in their hearts, they pursue what is ambiguous, seeking discord and desiring its interpretation. No one knows it interpretation except Allah. Those firmly established on knowledge say, “We believe in it, it is all from our Lord.” None will be admonished except those possessing sound intellects (3:7).

Unlike verses that call for reflection on the wonders of Allah’s creation, this verse deals with a specific theological issue. Fully grasping that issue requires a sound intellect. Ibn Kathir comments on the phrase, “None will be admonished except those possessing sound intellects…,” by saying, “Only those possessing sound intellects and upstanding powers of discernment understand, intelligently grasp and comprehend meanings accurately.” I have noted what Ibn Kathir mentions in this regard because he is considered a conservative exegete not known for relying on reason and intellect in explaining the Qur’anic text.

Fakhruddin al-Razi is even more explicit in supporting the role of intellect in understanding the message of the Qur’an. He says concerning the phrase, “None will be admonished except those possessing sound intellects” (3:7):

This is praise from Allah Most High for those who said, “We believe in it.” It means: None will be admonished by what the Qur’an conveys except those with mature intellects. This expression has become an indication that they use their intellects to understand the Qur’an.

Our Prophet, blessing and peace of Allah upon him, mentioned, “Whoever Allah desires good for, He gives him a sound understanding of the religion…” (Bukhari, 71; Muslim, 1037). Understanding is critical to attaining to the truth of this religion. One lacking understanding will be doomed to misguide both others and himself, which the Prophet, peace upon him, mentioned as the condition that will result when the scholars are taken away:

Allah does not suddenly remove knowledge by snatching it away from the servants. Rather, He removes it by taking away the scholars until not a single scholar remains. The people then take ignoramuses as their leaders. They are asked [questions] and respond without knowledge. They are astray and they lead others astray (Bukhari, 100).

Uncritical literalism has contributed to transforming jihad from a means to obtain interests that are countenanced by the Divine Law into an end in and of itself. In the words of one of the leading theoreticians of the jihad movement, Abdul Salaam Faraj, it is the Missing Obligation (al-Farida al-Gha’iba). This transformation has led many to believe that they have to fight regardless of the consequences, whether the interests of the Ummah are advanced or set back by their fighting.

The Prophet, peace and blessings upon him, has indicated that jihad is not an end in and of itself. In fact, it can be undertaken for the wrong reasons.  An example of this is found in the hadith of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari: He mentions the following incident:

The Messenger of Allah was asked about a man who fought to display his courage; one who fought motivated by tribal fervor; another to show off, which of those was in the Way of Allah? The Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace upon him, responded, “The one who fought in order that the Word of Allah be uppermost, that is in the Way of Allah” (Bukhari, 7458; Muslim, 1904).

As the Prophet, blessings and peace upon him, reminds us, there are worldly and otherworldly consequences for fighting, especially for the wrong reasons. For example, the Prophet, blessings and peace upon him, mentioned a man who claimed he both fought and was killed in the way of Allah, yet he was thrown into Hell. He says:

The first person to be judged on the Day of Resurrection will be a man who was martyred. He will be brought forward and reminded [by Allah] of the blessings he has received and he will acknowledge them. He will ask, “What have you done for these blessings?” He will say, “I fought for your sake until I was martyred.” Allah will reply, “You have lied. Rather, you fought in order that it would be said that you are brave, and it was said.” He will then be ordered to be dragged on his face until he is flung into Hell (Muslim, 1905).

Many times, the implications of literalism are not fully thought through. For example, if we consider the hadith, “Do not long to meet the enemy. Ask Allah for well-being. If you do meet them be patient and know that Paradise lies in the shadow of the swords” (Bukhari, 2965; Muslim, 1742). In this hadith, the Prophet, blessing and peace upon him, is warning against longing for the tribulation of conflict and ordering his community to pray for peace and well-being. This prayer is consistent with the origin (asl) in human affairs which is peace and wellbeing, war and disease are deviations from that origin. He then mentions that if you do meet the enemy to be patient. One of the manifestations of patience in conflict is to strictly observe the rules of engagement delineated by Allah and His Messenger, such as those guaranteeing the protection of innocents and noncombatants. He then says, and this is the point I want to emphasize in the context of discussing literalism, “…and know that Paradise lies in the shadow of the swords.” Our Prophet, blessings and peace upon him, mentioned that Paradise lies in the shadow of the swords. According to this hadith, literally interpreted, it does not lie in the shadow of the AK-47 or the RPG-7 or any other modern weapons.  The only way to apply this hadith to modern fighting conditions is to interpret it figuratively or in the light of other texts.

This is a small example of the limited efficacy of literalism in understanding the divine texts. Ultimately, literalism in this area will only serve to reinforce foregone conclusions, such as mass murder being an inherent part of Islam. When it confronts its advocates with dilemmas of understanding that can only be resolved by its abandonment the usual course of action is to ignore those dilemmas.

Question: How can you advocate peaceful and friendly relations with non-Muslims when the “Verse of the Sword” (9:5) abrogates all of the lenient verses you cite to substantiate your position?

Answer: The contention that the “The Verse of the Sword” abrogates other more peaceful and tolerant verses in the Qur’an is flawed for a number of reasons. First of all, the most authoritative commentators on the Qur’an hold that the “Verse of the Sword” is itself abrogated by the verse, “Then, when you encounter the disbelievers in battle, smite their necks; after you have routed them, bind (the prisoners) tightly. Then set them free or ransom them…” (Qur’an 47:4). The point to be made here is that if an indiscriminate, unconditional order has been given to kill the non-Muslims, how can one have a choice to free or ransom them? It should also be pointed out that the order to “smite their necks” is in the context of the actual battle. Many anti-Islamic polemicists use this verse to argue that Muslims are ordered to behead innocent people.

Imam al-Qurtubi mentions that al-Dahhak, ‘Ata’, and others are of the opinion that the above-mentioned verse (Qur’an 47:4) abrogates the “Verse of the Sword.” Al-Thawri relates from Juwaybir, that al-Dahhak said, “Slay the polytheists wherever you find them… (9:5)” is abrogated by the verse, “Then set them free or ransom them….(47:4).” Imam at-Tabari reaches the following conclusion concerning this latter verse. After mentioning the proofs of those who opine that it abrogates or is abrogated by the “Verse of the Sword”:

The correct opinion in this discussion, as far as we are concerned, is that this verse (47:4) is operative; it has not been abrogated. This is because the description of what constitutes an abrogating or an abrogated [verse], which has been mentioned in more than one place in this book of ours, occurs when it is not possible to join the two conflicting rulings advanced by the verses or when there is convincing proof that one of the rulings abrogates the other. [In this case] it isn’t farfetched to say that a choice has been given to the Messenger of Allah and those charged with the affairs of the community after Him between liberating, ransoming, or executing [the combatant] non-Muslims.

Secondly, the claim that the “Verse of the Sword” abrogates other verses that encourage peace and tolerance is challenged by many exegetes. For example, among the verses it is claimed are abrogated by the Verse of the Sword, is the following, “If they [your enemies] incline towards peace then you should likewise incline and place your trust in Allah. Surely, He hears and knows all” (Qur’an 8:61). Imam Qurtubi engages in a lengthy discussion of why this verse is not abrogated. In the context of his discussion, he mentions that this verse is the basis for Muslims entering into a treaty of peace with non-Muslims that can extend indefinitely.

Imam Tabari similarly rejects the idea that this verse is abrogated. He mentions, “As for those who repeat what Qatada and others mention concerning the abrogation of this verse [by the Verse of the Sword]it is a baseless statement unsubstantiated by the Qur’an, the Sunna (prophetic tradition), or sound intellect.” Ibn Kathir, after mentioning the opinion that this verse is abrogated specifically rejects that idea. He states, “There is no contradiction (tanafi), abrogation (naskh) or specification(takhsis) [in this verse].”

In addition to the opinions that the “Verse of the Sword” is itself abrogated, and that it does not abrogate those verses urging restraint, peace and tolerance in relations between Muslims and the members of other communities, many scholars are of the opinion that it does not even apply to Jews and Christians. Hence, it cannot be used as a proof that the Qur’an condones the indiscriminant murder of Jews and Christians. For example, Imam al-Qurtubi, renowned for his exposition on the legal implications of the Qur’anic text, states, concerning the verse in question (9:5), “… it is permissible to [understand] that the expression ‘polytheists’ does not deal with Jews and Christians (Ahl al-Kitab).”  This opinion is reinforced by the interpretation of a related prophetic tradition, “I’ve been ordered to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity but Allah. …” Imam Nawawi mentions in his commentary on this tradition, “Al-Khattabi says, ‘It is well-known that what is intended here are the people of idolatry, not the people of the Book (Jews and Christians).’” Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Ahmad, and many other scholars, are of the opinion that the polytheists living in the Arabian Peninsula at the advent of Islam are the group being referred to in the “Verse of the Sword.” As for polytheists outside of the Arabian Peninsula, in this opinion, the verse does not apply to them.

Question: You frequently quote the verse, “Whoever kills a soul for other than retribution in the case of murder or spreading murderous corruption on earth, it is as if he has killed all of humanity. Whoever saves an innocent soul, it is as if he has saved all of humanity, … (5:32)” but you never cite the next verse, “Rather, the sole recompense for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to work corruption on earth is that they be killed, crucified, that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. Disgrace is theirs in this world; and in the Hereafter they will have a great punishment (5:33).” 

Answer: The magnitude of the verse, “Whoever kills a soul for other than retribution in the case of murder or spreading murderous corruption on earth, it is as if he has killed all of humanity. Whoever saves an innocent soul, it is as if he has saved all of humanity,…  (5:32)” is too great to glibly dismiss.  However, I will not dwell long on it other than pointing out what two of the greatest Qur’anic commentators have said about it. Imam Fakhruddin al-Razi says, commenting on this verse:

When he [a murderer] resolves to intentionally kill an innocent person he has given preference to the dictates of his bloodlust and anger over the dictates of obeying Allah. When this prioritization occurs, in his heart he has resolved to kill anyone who opposes his demands, were he capable of doing so.

Imam al-Qurtubi mentions:

The meaning is that whoever makes it lawful to take the life of a single innocent person has made everyone’s life lawful, because he has rejected the divine law [establishing the prohibition of killing innocents].

It should be sufficient warning to anyone that intentionally killing innocent people has been declared by one of the greatest scholars in Islamic history as a rejection of the divine law.

To move to the subsequent verse (5:33):

Rather, the sole recompense for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to work corruption on earth is that they be killed, crucified, that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. Disgrace is theirs in this world; and in the Hereafter they will have a great punishment (5:33).

It is interesting that attention is being called to this verse by a “jihadi” for it specifically indicts those guilty of the atrocities that increasingly are passed off in the name of “jihad,” as exegetes and jurists agree that this verse is an exposition on the punishment for those who are guilty of crimes against public order. The only difference of opinion in this regard is are such crimes against public order Muharabah/Hirabah strictly confined to rural areas or include both rural and urban areas. Imams Malik, al-Awza’i, Layth b. Sa’d, al-Shafi’i, and Ahmad b. Hanbal are of the opinion that such crimes against public order can occur in the rural and urban areas. However, Abu Hanifa and his school are of the opinion that they can only occur in rural areas because in urban areas people can more easily and readily appeal for help and there are police agencies to prevent such crimes under normal circumstances.

After an exhaustive study of the occasion for the revelation of this verse (5:33) Ibn Kathir explains the punishment associated with the crime it describes. He says:

The majority of scholars say: This verse is revealed for varying situations, as has been mentioned by Abu ‘Abdullah al-Shafi’i. [He says] we were informed by Ibrahim b. Abi Yahya, on the authority of Salih al-Taw’ama, on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas concerning the crime of brigandage: if the criminals kill and take wealth they are killed and crucified; if they kill and do not take wealth they are killed and not crucified; if they take wealth and do not kill their hands and feet are cut off from opposite sides; if they terrorize people, but do not take wealth they are exiled from the land.

No one mentions that this punishment can be applied to someone who has not been directly convicted of the crimes Ibn ‘Abbas mentions above. Hence, to claim or imply that this verse can be used to justify the murder of innocent civilians is a baseless misinterpretation.

Question: America, Israel and their dupes have no mercy on innocent Muslim civilians, why should we have mercy on their civilians?

Answer: Allah, Most High, says, “Do not kill the soul Allah has sanctified except with just cause…” What cause can be evoked to justify the murder of innocent, noncombatant people who might even be Muslims? The fact that America or Israel or anyone else does it is not a suitable justification. None of the Qur’anic verses mentioning retribution apply to this situation in light of the hadith, “There is no harm or reciprocating harm,” and the associated legal principle, “Harm is to be removed.” Killing innocent non-Muslims only creates the conditions making it easier for far greater numbers of Muslim civilians to be indiscriminately killed. Hence, it is inviting and reciprocating harm, which is to be removed.

Our Messenger, blessings and peace upon him, has stated that he is a gift of mercy. He declared, “O People! Verily, I am a gifted mercy” (Hakim, al-Mustadrak, 100). He further stated, “One who shows no mercy will be shown no mercy” (Bukhari, 5997; Muslim, 2318). Similarly, “Whoever shows no mercy to humanity, Allah will show him no mercy” (Bukhari, 6013; Muslim, 2319). Likewise, “The merciful people will be shown mercy by the All Merciful; be merciful to those on earth and the One in heaven will be merciful to you” (Abu Dawud, 4941; Tirmidhi, 1924). Also, “You will not believe until you are merciful to each other.” Those hearing this replied, “O Messenger of Allah! All of us are merciful [to each other].” He responded, “Not the mercy one of you displays to his companion, rather mercy to all people.” “Mercy is only removed from the heart of a Hell-bound wretch” (Abu Dawud, 4942).  During the Battle of Uhud when his enemies were on the verge of killing him, the Prophet, blessings and peace upon him, was asked to pray for their destruction. He refused, declaring, “I was sent as a mercy. I was not sent to damn people.”

Question: You advocate friendly relations with the non-Muslims, when Allah has forbidden us from taking them as friends.

Answer: Allah mentions in the Qur’an, “Allah does not forbid you, concerning those who have not fought you because of your religion or driven you from your homes that you treat them kindly and justly. Allah loves those who are just” (Qur’an: 60:8). There are those who claim that this verse has been abrogated by the “Verse of the Sword (9:5).” However, Imam Qurtubi mentions, while explaining this verse, that most of the exegetes consider it to be operative and reject the idea that it is abrogated. The many scholars who consider the verse to be operative cite as the basis for their position the story of Asma, the daughter of Abu Bakr, when she was visited in Madina by her mother, who remained committed to idolatry. She hesitated accepting the gift her mother brought her and refused to allow her to enter her house. Upon learning of the situation, the Prophet, peace upon him, encouraged her to accept her mother’s gift, to host her and to treat her with the upmost kindness, even though she was an idolater.

Imam Tabari states, after mentioning the various interpretations of the verse in question (60:8):

The most accurate opinion concerning this [issue] is that of one who says, “What is intended by this verse (60:8) are members of all ways of life and all religions; that you are kind to them, join relations with them and treat them justly.” This is because Allah, Mighty and Majestic is He, makes a general statement [in the verse] that includes anyone who fits the description. He does not designate some people to the exclusion of others. The claim that the verse is abrogated is meaningless.

Ibn Kathir also rejects the idea that this verse (60:8) is abrogated. Alluding to the following verse (60:9), he states:

Rather, He forbids you from taking as friends those who have displayed open enmity towards you, fought you, expelled you, or cooperated in your expulsion. Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has forbidden you from their friendship.

If one examines other verses in the Qur’an that discourage the befriending of members of other faith communities, one will find, consistent with what Ibn Kathir mentions above, that condemnation is conditional. For example, in (3:28) it is conditional on prejudicing the believers; in (3:118) it is conditional on befriending those whose have openly declared their hatred for the religion and are working for its ruin; in (5:57) it is conditional on befriending those who ridicule Islam. When the conditions mentioned in these verses are absent then the prohibition against the just, equitable and friendly treatment of members of other faith communities is of no effect.

It is fitting to mention in conclusion here that a Muslim man can marry a non-Muslim woman. This is undeniable. Allah mentions in the Qur’an, “Among His signs is that he has made for you from yourselves spouses, in order that you live with them in tranquility, and he has made between you love and mercy. Indeed, in this are signs for people who do reflect” (30:21). Allah mentions that he has placed love and mercy between the man and his wife, who may be a Jew or a Christian. Is he to reject this love and mercy or the friendship of his spouse and blindly adhere to a supposed absolute prohibition against befriending members of other faith communities?

Question: What is a person who is fed up with America’s murder of innocent Muslims all over the world supposed to do?

Answer: This is a valid and important question. I will make a few recommendations here.

1. Realize that you did not create the confusion, weakness and political incompetence that prevails in the Muslim world and that you are not responsible for or capable of fixing it. Oftentimes, we become stressed out over things beyond our control. Our Prophet, peace and blessings upon him, informed us, “From a person’s Islam being good is his leaving what does not concern him.” What we cannot control is not our concern. On the other hand there is much we are capable of doing here yet we oftentimes neglect those things. We will even run from what we can effectively influence to become caught up in events that we have no ability to influence at all. This is a formula for frustration and ineffective action.

2. Take advantage of the educational opportunities you have and train yourself to do something meaningful for the Muslims and humanity at large. Most people in the average Muslim society have no opportunity for higher education. Here in western societies we do have such opportunities. Instead of brooding about the situation of Muslims in various parts of the world, we should be educating ourselves to able to do something meaningful with our lives that can make a difference in theirs. It has been proven that knowledge indeed translates into power. We should be about the business of empowering ourselves.

3. Contribute in a meaningful way to the discourse that is shaping how Americans will view Islam. We should not assume that everyone in this country is inherently anti-Muslim. However, if we do not begin educating our fellow citizens about our religion, our community and the struggles of our people, an ever greater percentage of Americans will be prejudiced against Islam and we will have an extremely difficult time changing their attitudes. You can research to help provide refutations of the slanderous and defamatory ideas that are being passed off as Muslim principles and beliefs. You can write or blog. You can teach people about Islam in both formal and informal settings. You can arrange for classes and seminars in public places such as libraries, community centers and similarly places. You can give private presentations in the homes of friends, neighbors and relatives. You can organize book clubs to read and discuss books that portray Islam accurately.

4. Learn a skill that is needed in the Muslim world and spend part of your time serving people in other countries. Such skills may include medicine, nursing, computer science, sanitation engineering, environmental science, psychology (as the basis for therapeutic counseling), auto mechanics, etc. By serving in these areas you can contribute to the stability of Muslim societies that are being rendered damaged and dysfunctional by decades of unrelenting violence.

5. Help to serve the incarcerated, recent immigrants, poor, elderly and other populations whose lives are being ravaged by the corporate state. Building bridges with these populations will be a key to creating the kinds of coalitions that can push back in an effective way against the hegemonic sociopolitical machine that is attempting to actualize its control over all aspects of our lives. As the fiscal crisis of the capitalist state deepens there will be more and more people in need of various services. Muslims must step up to do our part in meeting those needs. This is one of the greatest things we can do to counter the vociferous anti-Muslim propaganda.

6. Join the work of those organizations whose political vision aims to bring people together and to overcome the divisions and rifts that have separated them. Such work can take place within the context of the electoral political system and in the context of grassroots political education and organization. There are also many Muslim advocacy groups that are springing up. Get involved with those groups and help to strengthen them both financially and in terms of their human resources.

7. Join the movement to humanize Muslims to the mainstream society with Muslim art and culture. This movement is powerful and is gaining momentum. The realms of effective communications in this regard include film, art, acceptable genres of music, poetry and many other vistas.

8. Get involved in the antiwar movement. Grassroots antiwar activism was instrumental in ending the Viet Nam war and it is the only thing that will end the so-called war on terror. There are many organizations and online initiatives that need help to enhance their efficacy. Muslims should be involved with such groups in great numbers if we are sincere in our desire to end a so-called war, which is leading to the deaths of thousands of innocent Muslims and the destruction of many Muslim societies.

These are just a few suggestions. There are many others. No young Muslim has an excuse to sitting around suffering from boredom waiting to be lured into a reactionary scheme that will only be used to set back Muslims both in this country and abroad.

I hope these answers have helped to provide some clarity and direction for those asking these questions and the demographic that they represent. At the end of the day, no success is possible without the Divine Providence of Allah. We ask that He assists us and that He fills our sails with the winds of His providence and His Love during these challenging times. May Allah bless you all, friend and foe alike.

Your Brother in Islam,

Imam Zaid Shakir
1/20/11

This essay, written in the immediate aftermath of the failed New York City bomb attempt [1], will examine some of the theological implications of Muslims violating civilian immunity. I have written elsewhere why attacks against innocent civilians are in opposition to fundamental teachings of Islam. Unfortunately, there are some Muslim ideologues that sanction such actions and a growing number of Muslim civilians and noncombatants are being killed by their coreligionists, in Iraq, Afghanistan [2], and elsewhere. For these reasons, the argument that follows is more than merely hypothetical. This article is being reprinted in the aftermath of an alleged plot to mail bombs to Chicago-area synagogues from Yemen.

Western military commanders, politicians and philosophers who have sanctioned the widespread bombing of civilian populations –owing to the industrialization of war and its being wedded with nationalist ideology during the 19th and 20th centuries- realize that their actions involve a dangerous moral leap. The following passage from Phillip Meilinger’s work on the moral implications of modern warfare illustrates this point:

The Fall of France in 1940 left Britain alone against Germany. The ensuing Battle of Britain, culminating in the Blitz, left England reeling. Surrender was unthinkable, but it could not retaliate with its outnumbered and overstretched army and navy. The only hope of hitting back at Germany and winning the war lay with Bomber Command. But operational factors quickly demonstrated that prewar factors [emphasizing precision bombing of military objectives] had been hopelessly unrealistic. …Aircrew survival dictated night area attacks, and, in truth, there was little alternative other than not to attack at all. Moral constraints bowed to what was deemed military necessity, which led air leaders down a particularly slippery slope. [3]

That slippery slope led to wanton massacres of civilians that were unprecedented in history and they culminated in the nuclear incineration of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Muslims who would sanction gross violations of civilian immunity, owing to strategic desperation, are entering on a similarly slippery slope. However, there is a huge difference between the norms that govern western strategic thinking and those defined by Islam. Namely, western norms are socially constructed while those defined by Islam have their origin in revelation –the latter as understood by Muslims. Hence, from a Muslim perspective, and that perspective is critical for the argument we are making, western norms are subject to change with changes in social, political, economic and especially technological considerations, while Islamic norms are transcendent. [4]

The idea of total war, which holds that there is no distinction between the combatant and noncombatant elements of an enemy population, and that both groups can legitimately be targeted by an armed force, is ancient. The Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC), as documented by Thucydides, involved both the mobilization of entire populations for the war effort and likewise the eradication of entire populations, such as the inhabitants of Milos. During the Middle Ages, the Mongol invasion of the Muslim heartland of Asia could be described as a campaign of total warfare that left unimaginable death and destruction in its wake.

The existence of total war campaigns during early historical periods is accompanied by efforts to extend immunity from violent conflicts to civilians. Plato, various Roman philosophers, Medieval Christian theologians, orders of knights and in the early modern period, theorists such as Francisco de Victoria and Hugo Grotius all advocated various degrees of civilian immunity from the scourges of war.

In the western intellectual tradition, thinking surrounding this idea during various historical epochs was associated with prevailing views of just and unjust actions as well as the self-interest of relevant societal actors, as opposed to clear and deeply rooted scriptural pronouncements. This was true even among Christians. Hence, we do not see meaningful discussions on limiting the destructiveness of war among Christian theologians until the 4th Christian Century with the work of St. Augustine.

In Europe, changing conditions and circumstances have led to changing positions on the issue of civilian immunity. For much of the latter Middle Age the prevailing European views were dominated by ideas emerging from the Catholic Church’s Peace of God movement, and the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. The advent of the nation-state in the aftermath of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 would introduce a new epistemology to govern thinking around strategic affairs, even though Medieval Christian thinking still informed attitudes and policies related to civilian immunity, at least until the French and Industrial Revolutions.

These nearly simultaneous developments led to the idea that the civilian infrastructure needed to support a modern war effort was so essential to its successful prosecution that it transformed civilians into combatants. As a result, beginning with the Napoleonic Wars and the American Civil War, conflicts in the West would witness the erosion of civilian immunity –at least until the aftermath of the World War Two.

Unlike the situation prevailing in non-Muslim lands, the idea of civilian immunity among Muslims has been rooted in clear scriptural pronouncements from the prophetic epoch. Qur’anic passages establishing the sanctity of innocent life (Q. 5:32) and not expanding hostilities to noncombatants (Q. 2:190) coupled with prophetic strictures against killing women, children, monks, and other noncombatants created the basis for a strong and enduring Muslim ethic governing civilian immunity. Although there have clearly been instances when some Muslim rulers and commanders have not respected that ethic, it has generally remained a restraining factor throughout Muslim history. [5]

Among its greatest fruits has been the existence of large non-Muslim populations in historical Muslim empires, the general lack of forced conversion of non-Muslim populations, a lack of genocidal massacres undertaken by Muslim armies [6], and the peaceful coexistence of Muslims and other faith communities in areas such as Andalusia, Bosnia, Palestine and Iraq, historically.

As changing geopolitical and technological realities dictate changes in the norms governing the intentional targeting of civilians in western strategic thinking, there is no inherent damage to the integrity of western secular thought. Indeed, the socially constructed nature of those norms only serves to reinforce the secularity of the process whereby they are arrived at and the analytical methods governing their assessment. This is not the case for the transcendental Islamic ideal governing civilian immunity. When it is abandoned by Muslims, a critical aspect of the religion itself in abandoned.

As Dr. Tim Winter (Abdul Hakim Murad) [7], expanding the work of John Gray [8] and others, argues, when that abandonment occurs in the modern context, it is precisely because the transcendental Islamic ideal has been forsaken or lost. Muslims who target civilians are robbed of any moral high ground in their struggle with opposing forces and are left naked before the bitter winds of political expediency. If expediency demands suicidal murder, bombs in mosques and marketplaces or in the heart of western cities then in the view of those who have entered upon this vile path, so be it.

At the heart of the Islamic ethic regarding the sanctity of innocent life is the following verse in the Qur’an, alluded to earlier:

Owing to that [first instance murder] we ordained for the Children of Israel that whosever takes an innocent life for other than retribution for murder or murderous sedition in the land it is as if he has killed all of humanity, and whoever saves a life it is as if he has saved all of humanity. Our Messengers have come to them with clear proofs, yet even after that many of them exceed limits in the land.[9] (Q. 5:32)
من أجل ذلك كتبنا على بني إسرائيل أنه من قتل نفسا بغير نفس أو فساد في الأرض فكأنما قتل الناس جميعا و من أحياها فكأنما أحيا الناس جميعا و لقد جاءتهم  رسلنا بالبينات ثم إن كثيرا منهم بعد ذلك في الأرض لمسرفون

This verse emphasizes that the immunity extended to innocents is a principle that was upheld by all of the Prophets. Hence, the specific mention of the Children of Israel, who were the recipients of a long line of Prophets, and the mentioning of the Messengers at the end of the verse.

The idea that to discard the immunity that is extended to innocents is to abandon an indispensible part of the divine law is emphasized by Imam al-Qurtubi in his commentary on this verse (Q. 5:32). He states:

The meaning is that whoever makes it lawful to take the life of a single innocent person has made everyone’s life lawful, because he has rejected the divine law [establishing the prohibition of killing innocents] [10].
المعنى أن من استحل واحدا فقد استحل الجميع لأنه أنكر الشرع

Abandoning the divine law when one makes the blood of innocent people lawful to shed is emphasized from a deeper perspective by Imam Fakruddin al-Razi in his commentary on the same verse. He states:

When he [a murderer] resolves to intentionally kill an innocent person he has given preference to the dictates of his bloodlust and anger over the dictates of obeying God. When this prioritization occurs, in his heart he has resolved to kill anyone who opposes his demands, were he capable of doing so. [11]
أنه لما أقدم على القتل العمد العدوان فقد رجح داعية الشهوة و الغضب على داعية الطاعة و متى كان الأمر كذلك كان هذاالترجيح حاصلا بالنسبة إلى كل واحد فكان في قلبه أن كل أحد نازعه من مطالبه فإنه لو قدر عليه لقتله

The murderous campaigns undertaken by some misguided Muslims that have led to the massacre of thousands of civilians in the Muslim world and that are now threatening the innocent people in this country are not manifestations of Jihad, as some claim. Rather, they are a mirror image of the godless murderous mayhem and carnage this country has inflicted on the innocent civilians of many Muslim countries, and, as explained above, it involves an abandonment of the prophetic legacy.

Every Muslim who is concerned for the future of his or her faith and the future of the prophetic legacy in the world is morally obliged to work in whatever capacity he or she can to stop attacks that target innocent civilians by any party –Muslims or members of other communities. The basis for this moral obligation is powerfully stated by Imam Razi in his commentary on (5:32). He mentions:

If all of humanity knew that a single individual intends to exterminate them they would undoubtedly try their utmost to prevent him from obtaining his objective. Likewise, if they knew that he intends to kill a single person then their seriousness and exertion in trying to deter him from killing that person should be just as great as it would be in preventing their own mass murder. [12]
هو أن جميع الناس لو علموا من إنسان واحد أنه يقصد قتلهم بأجمعهم فلا شك أنهم يدفعونه دفعا لا يمكنه تحصيل مقصوده فكذلك إذا علموا منه أنه  يقصد قتل إنسان واحد معين يجب  أن يكون جدهم واجتهادهم في منعه عن قتل ذلك الإنسان مثل جدهم واجتهادهم في الصورة الأولى

The reason for this is that the life of a single innocent person has the sanctity of the lives of all humanity. This is an ideal we cannot let die. If we allow it to die who will revive it? Human history has shown how quickly we can begin a free fall into murderous madness once we have entered upon the path that justifies murdering innocent civilians and other noncombatants. If the American military and the warmongering interests supporting it are guilty in this regard we condemn them in the strongest terms, and if our fellow Muslims are guilty we must likewise condemn them.

The only difference between the two cases is that when the American military kills innocent civilians it is violating principles of human rights and worldly conventions, which, as we have seen with the current arguments justifying torture, are subject to change or being discarded altogether. When Muslims do it, we are betraying our faith and the legacy of the Prophets, peace upon them, who have left us a wealth of timeless, enduring wisdom.

Notes:
[1] I am not assuming that Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani-American who has been arrested in association with this bomb plot is guilty. The investigation is ongoing and his guilt has yet to be established. The affair does provide an occasion to discuss the issues that are raised in this essay.
[2] This statement does not discount the existence of black or psychological operations that are undertaken against Muslim civilians by the security apparatuses of Western powers at war in the Muslim world, along with their agents and surrogates. However, it is undeniably true that an increasingly large number of the attacks against Muslim noncombatants are being undertaken by Muslims themselves.
[3] Quoted in Ward Thomas, The Ethics of Destruction: Norms and Force in International Relations (Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press, 2001), 90.
[4] The transcendental nature of Muslim norms does not deny the human effort that went into translating those norms into policy. Hence, like their medieval Christian scholastic counterparts, Muslim theologians struggled to define the scope and limits of civilian immunity.
[5] For an insightful study of the generally peaceful nature of Islam’s spread among non-Muslim peoples, and its respect for them see Professor Thomas Arnold, The Spread of Islam in the World: A History of Peaceful Preaching (New Delhi: Goodword Books, 2001).
[6] The most notable exception to this assertion is the Armenian Genocide that occurred in Ottoman Turkey in 1915. This controversial tragedy occurred during the waning years of a Muslim world governed by a viable Islamic tradition, and after Turkey had been transformed into a nationalist, quasi Islamic state led by the Young Turks. By that time, the Sultan was a powerless figurehead. For most of the Ottoman reign Armenians were a self-governing minority that enjoyed the protection of the rulers in Istanbul.
[7] See Abdal-Hakim Murad, Bombing Without Moonlight: The Origins of Suicidal Terrorism (Bristol, England: Amal Press, 2008). Murad convincingly demonstrates how Muslims who engage in wanton attacks against civilians are merely extensions of a deeply-rooted history of such violence in western civilization. Likewise, he shows how Muslims who would justify such violence openly reject the Islamic tradition of patience and restraint in strategic affairs.
[8] See John Gray, Al Qaeda and What It Means To Be Modern (New York: The New Press, 2005). Gray argues that the philosophy of al Qaeda owes more to the positivism of Saint-Simon and Comte than to any traditional Islamic influences, and its organizational structure is a reflection of 21st Century globalization.
[9] Their exceeding limits lies in the continuation of their murderous ways.
[10] Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Qurtubi, al-jami’ li ahkam al-Qur’an (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-‘Arabi, 1995), 3:147
[11] Muhammad b. ‘Umar Fakhruddin al-Razi, mafatih al-ghayb (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-‘Arabi, 1995), 4:344
[12] Ibid., 4:344