Those younger than that have heard tales of that 1982 massacre. Furthermore, the young and old live with the unheard echoes of the screams of tortured family members, neighbors or someone they have heard of who had been dispatched to the dungeons of Tadmur Prison, or the expansive gulag of torture centers scattered throughout the cities and towns of Ba’thist Syria. They also understood that no one could be trusted if one were tempted to voice even the mildest words of dissent. The secret police are ubiquitous, so much so that one of the first warnings given to an outsider more accustomed to open political discussion, is, “Even the walls have ears.” The collective weight of the suspicion and the horrors, some quietly whispered, others unmentioned and unmentionable combined to create a population easily controlled and readily accepting to forgo any real political rights or freedoms in order to live in peace.

So, when the regime decided to torture and murder the innocent school children in Dar’a who had launched their version of the Arab Spring revolts being broadcast into their living rooms daily by Aljazeera they figured the message would be loud and clear. In American street vernacular, “This is Asad’s Syria and we don’t play that stuff here.” The result was unexpected, the people of that poor border town, erupted to protest the regime’s excessive and unjustified force. The regime had miscalculated and the protests quickly spread. That miscalculation illustrates the vagaries of political violence.

Now, as the country stands on the brink of a civil war, there are things that those of us outside of the country should be clear about. First of all, there will inevitably be opportunists, the Americans, the Israelis, the Iranians, the Russians, the Chinese and others who will try to influence the conflict in ways that advance their political interests and agendas. However, our support for any of those sides should not lead us to miss the essence of the conflict, namely, that an oppressive, single-party police state brutalized its citizens to the point that a favorable political climate led a critical mass to declare that enough is enough. Iran’s continued ability to supply Hezbollah via Syria, Russia’s ability to maintain a political beachhead in the Middle East, America and Israel’s ability to thwart growing Iranian influence in the region and effect “full spectrum dominance,” which are all issues that will play into the eventual outcome of the crisis, are of secondary importance at this point.

Secondly, while it is tempting, especially in the face of the actual assaults on several major Syrian cities, to urge for outside military intervention, such intervention would likely push a regime far better organized and far more ruthless than Qaddafi’s Libya to levels of violence that could easily result in hundreds of thousands of casualties. Such intervention would also likely spark a dangerously unpredictable regional war. Hence, if one of the main desires of the supporters of the Syrian people is to minimize the loss of life, outside intervention is likely not the best option.

Thirdly, the vast majority of Syria’s oppressed majority Sunni population follows the lead of their scholars. While the slavish support of the regime displayed by some Sunni scholars does not begin to represent the position of most of the Sunnis in Syria, there are other scholars who have taken a more nuanced position. While falling short of a call for an open revolt, these scholars condemn the excesses of the regime, urge political reform and call for an immediate cessation of all attacks on unarmed demonstrators,  and for the immediate release of all prisoners of conscience as well. The influence of these scholars cannot be underestimated and any actions on the part of outsiders that is radically incongruent with the positions adopted by these scholars is unlikely to aid in the popularizing of the revolt beyond the current levels of support.

In light of these realities, what are the best steps forward for those outside of Syria who wish to see the establishment of a representative political system in Syria? First of all, we must call for the end of all violence from all sides in the conflict. The regime, as we have mentioned above, miscalculated when it launched a violent repression of the nascent movement in Syria, a movement that was initially calling for political reform, before it was radicalized by the violence of the regime.  However, the violent elements of the opposition also miscalculated when they launched an armed rebellion. They provided the pretext for the regime to escalate its brutality and the political backdrop for the Russians and Chinese to veto attempts by the UN to cripple the Syrian regime, and they made the conservative elements of the Sunni religious and business establishments, who would have likely thrown their weight behind a continued peaceful protest movement fearful of a descent into total chaos, and, hence, hesitant to endorse the rebellion. Some opponents of the regime argue that a violent resistance is necessary for self-defense and the defense of the unarmed elements of the movement. However, the feelings of those who are thus far not actively opposed to the regime must also be accounted for in any calculus that endeavors to assess the efficacy of violence. At the end of the day, this element will be critical in determining the fate of the country.

We must escalate pressure on the regime by expanding the scope and number of demonstrations demanding the dissolution of the authoritarian Syrian state. Increased outside pressure will work to further isolate the Ba’thist regime in Syria and will encourage continued peaceful protests, despite the clear dangers, by people inside of the country. Expanded protests must target the Russian and Chinese embassies in various countries. Increased pressure on Russia and China, coupled with a widening nonviolent protest movement inside of Syria, will greatly expand the scope of international pressure on the Syrian regime and undermine the arguments of its supporters.

Greater consideration must be given to the religious scholars and political leaders inside of the country who are more representative of the Sunni masses and have not yet actively joined the opposition movement. By being overly responsive to only the more radical elements of the opposition, those of us outside of the country run the risk of marginalizing or alienating those masses whose support will be absolutely critical for a peaceful resolution of the crisis. Saying that does not mean that the actions of those who have actually stood up and are risking their lives to protest the excesses of a brutal regime are not critical to the success of the movement. However, if they are not joined in massive numbers by their fellow countrymen and women, the critical mass needed to effect meaningful change may be lost.

In conclusion, we pray that Almighty God blesses the people of Syria with a free government of their choosing where the dignity of all Syrians is respected, dissent is encouraged and the sacrifices of so many whose lives have been lost will not be in vain.

This narration focuses on four things that are essential to our religion: Islam (Muslim practice), Iman (Muslim dogma), Ihsan (States of inner excellence) and the Sa’ah (Doomsday). To rephrase the focal points of this Hadith, we can say that Islam is a religion that demands of its adherents that they do something, that they believe something, that they embody something and that they prepare for something. What we do involves the devotional acts that are enjoined by the religion. This is the essence of Islam, in this particular context. What we believe involves the dogma that we affirm as agreed upon by the scholars who have mastered the prophetic message and distilled from it the essential beliefs whose affirmation is necessary if a person is to be considered a Muslim. This is the essence of Iman, again, in the context of the Hadith. The states of being that a believer embodies are illustrated, in the immediate context of the Hadith of Gabriel, by the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah upon him,  “...that you worship Allah as if you see Him. If you fail to see Him, be mindful that He observes you.” This is the essence of Ihsan. Finally, by living a life, which encompasses in a real way all of the aforementioned elements, we are preparing for the end of things in the world, or Doomsday.

To expound further on the idea of a Muslim embodying something, we can add that this is an aspect of our religion that many Muslims fail to adequately consider. Specifically, the idea that we are to embody the prophetic virtues is lost by many. Those virtues, which the Prophet, peace and blessing of Allah upon him, embodied are an articulation of the ontological stations he attained to. In other words, his very being, for example, embodied the station of patience. This ontological reality then manifested itself in his character as he displayed unmatched patience in his dealings with others. This is what Ihsan is about.

Imam al-Qushayri, in his Risala, mentions some of the states a believer should strive to embody: repentance or penitence (Tawba); sincere exertion in worship (Mujahada); spiritual insularity (Khalwa or ‘Uzla); God-consciousness (Taqwa); religious scrupulousness (Wara’); worldly detachment (Zuhd); silence (Samt); fear of God (Khawf); hope for God’s Mercy (Raja’); sobriety of heart (Huzn); suppression of the appetite for food and drink (Ju’a); humility (Tawadu’); opposing the whims of one’s ego (Mukhalafa al-Nafs); avoiding envy (Hasad); avoiding backbiting (Ghiba); contentment (Qana’a); trusting in Allah (Tawakkul); thankfulness (Shukr); being certain of divine truths (Yaqin); patience (Sabr); being mindful of Allah’s observation of one (Muraqaba); being pleased with Allah’s Decree (Rida); willing servitude to Allah (‘Ubudiyya); strong conviction for truth and religion (Irada); consistency (Istiqama); sincerity in all of the relevant realms (Ikhlas); honesty (Sidq); shyness (Haya’); freedom from the weight of worldly engagements (Hurriyya); constant remembrance of Allah (Dhikr); concern for others (al-Futuwwa); viewing things in the light of truth (Firasa); good character (Khuluq); generosity (Jud) and many others. [1]

One of the loftiest of stations mentioned by Imam al-Qushayri, and others, is that of thankfulness (Shukr). To fully strive for the actualization of this station in our lives we must know its meaning. The linguistic meaning of Shukr is from Sha-Ka-Ra, which means an animal attaining to pasture and then fattening on it. Thus, the Arabs say, Sha-Ka-Rat al-ibilu, meaning the camels attained to pasture and became fat. The expression Hisan Shakur means a horse that is fattened up by very little fodder. In general, an animal that is shakur eats little but grows much.

This definition gives us insight into the nature of a thankful person. It does not take much to please them. We find that a person that is truly thankful is appreciative of very little. When we give them the smallest gift they are deeply grateful and seek to express their gratitude in the warmest terms and kindest actions. As for the ingrate, no matter how much they receive they desire more and fail to express any gratitude for what they have received.

Thus, the effect of a blessing, be it pasture or fodder, is seen on the animal who receives that blessing, in its increased size. Likewise, the effect of a blessing given by Allah to His servant manifests itself on the tongue, heart and limbs of a thankful person. Hence, in the technical usage of the religious scholars, as expressed by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, thankfulness means “to manifest one’s appreciation for the blessings bestowed by Allah on the tongue, through praise and acknowledgment; in the heart by witnessing the giver of the blessing and loving Him; and on the limbs by willingly accepting His guidance and obeying Him.” [2]

This definition helps us to understand that the spiritual path is not a philosophical picnic.  It requires action, the action of the heart, the tongue and the limbs. Knowledge though, does play its part, in fact, as emphasized by Imam al-Ghazali in the Ihya’, it is the foundation of the subsequent acts of thankfulness. He says:

You should know that thankfulness is among the stations of those journeying to Allah. It is also [like other stations]organized around the categories of knowledge (‘Ilm), state (Hal) and action (‘Amal). Knowledge is the foundation and it bequeaths the state, while the state [in turn] bequeaths action. As for knowledge it is the knowledge that the blessing is from the giver of blessings [Allah: al-Mun’im].The ensuing state is the happiness resulting from His bestowing the blessing. The action is undertaking what is intended and loved by the giver of the blessing. [3]

Imam al-Ghazali outlines a process whereby thankfulness can become actualized in our lives. The foundation of this process is the knowledge that every blessing we have ultimately comes from Allah. In our increasingly “material world” people are losing touch with this great reality. Many view their hard work, intellect or creativity as the source of the good they enjoy. They cannot conceive of the role played by the divine in their good fortune. Hence, we witness the growing disinclination on the part of the wealthy to share their wealth with the less fortunate members of our society. In the face of appeals for greater charity we increasingly hear retorts such as, “Poor people should work hard as I did…” “Those people should pick themselves up by their bootstraps like we did…”  People uttering such statements may recognize the blessings they enjoy, but they fail to see the giver of those blessings, and because they do not see or acknowledge the giver of the blessing, they neither see nor acknowledge the rights He has established in their wealth.

The various sayings of the scholars we have considered let us know that to really be people of thankfulness we must be people who praise and worship our Lord. When the Prophet, peace and blessing of Allah upon him, was asked why he was standing in prayer at night until his feet were swollen, he replied, as the tears flowed down his cheeks, “Should I not then be a thankful servant?” [4] His thankfulness was expressed in his worship. This should be our case.

A final way we can express our thankfulness in indicated by the name of Allah, al-Shakur. One of the meanings of this name is one who rewards a small amount of human effort with a great amount of grace. A vile criminal can enter into Islam one moment and then die the next. Having done only one righteous deed, uttering the Testimony of Faith, he is rewarded with eternal bliss in Paradise. How small was his action compared to the magnitude of Allah’s grace? This should remind us that in all of our relations and dealings in the world we should try to give far more than we take. This is especially important when the dominant ethos is becoming take as much as you can and give as little as possible. Let us take time to reflect on what it truly means to be thankful, and let us work to the extent of our capabilities to extend the blessings we enjoy to others, not just on one day, but every day.

Notes:

[1] See Abi al-Qasim ‘Abdul Karim bin Hawazin al-Qushayri, al-Risala al-Qushariyya fi ‘Ilm al-Tasawwuf (Beirut: Dar al-Khayr, 1413/1993), 91-254.

[2] Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Madarij al-Salikin bayna Manazil “Iyyaka na’budu wa Iyyaka Nasta’in” (Damascus, Syria: Maktaba Dar al-Bayan, 1420/1999), 250.

[3] Imam Abu Hamid Muhammad bin Muhammad al-Ghazali, Ihya’ ‘Ulum al-Din (Beirut: Dar al-Qutayba, 1412/1992), 4: 120.

[4] Bukhari, 1130.

In choosing Abraham to make that awesome call, God honoured him greatly. He further honoured him with one of the most profound descriptions ever given to a human being. He says, “Truly Abraham was a nation, devoutly obedient to God. Naturally inclining towards the true faith, he was not amongst the idolaters. He was abundantly thankful for the blessings God bestowed upon him. He chose him, and guided him to a Straight Way.” (16:120-121)

God describes Abraham as a nation. One interpretation is that he was a repository of all good human traits and virtues. During his long and distinguished life, Abraham demonstrated characteristics such as chivalry, patience, honesty, loyalty, hospitality, graciousness, and most importantly, an uncompromising commitment to upholding the Oneness of God. As he was, so should we be. We should exert our utmost to embody these and other prophetic virtues. Furthermore, we should realise that it is our duty to call humanity to these virtues. God orders us, “Let there arise from you a community calling to all that is good.” (3:104)

Abraham was naturally inclined towards the worship of God, and a strict monotheist. The magnitude of this characteristic is brought home to us when we realise that Abraham was alone in a world of idolatry. Despite that, he was prepared to sacrifice his life to defend and uphold the standard of the Oneness of God. In his days, the idols that people worshipped were idols of wood and stone. Today, the idols people worship have changed. However, we should be opposed to idol worship nonetheless, especially when that worship, in its modern manifestations, is proving destructive to individuals and societies.

The modern and postmodern conditions have bequeathed unto humanity an array of “idols” which are worshipped besides God. Perhaps the greatest idol arising from our condition is the individual’s worship of himself. In what sociologist Christopher Lasch describes as a “culture of narcissism,” it is easy to appreciate the penetrating question asked by God in the Qur’an, “Have you not seen the one who has taken his vain inclinations as his god?” (45:23)

The havoc being wreaked on the western psyche and soul by a pervasive narcissism is beginning to manifest itself in the traditional Muslim homelands. Much of that damage can be traced to the pervasiveness of western culture, a pervasiveness which has not emerged from a congruent belief and social system. In other words, what we see in the Muslim homelands is the tree of western culture grafted onto Islamic roots. Such a tree is destined to produce the sort of societal dysfunction and anomie we see prevailing in most Muslim countries.

We can see the extent of this pervasiveness when we consider, for example, that the political institutions that guide Islamic movements and self-proclaimed Islamic governments are actually western institutions. We fight our battles using western military technology and tactics. We are educated in institutions patterned along those in the West. Increasingly, most of the urban population is housed in western-styled, cement apartment blocks. The people wear western clothing; they cultivate the land according to western agricultural techniques. They work in western-styled factories—usually subsidiaries of western multinationals. Those who can afford to, eat in western restaurants such as McDonalds, KFC, or local imitations of the same. They spend billions of dollars smoking and cultivating tobacco, a destructive habit popularised in the West. They spend greater billions on soft drinks, even when it affects their ability to purchase food and drink of real nutritional value for their families. They take their sick to hospitals built and administered according to western models, utilising western medicines and surgical techniques. They squander valuable time watching meaningless programs on television sets pioneered in the West, when not reading newspapers that utilise western journalistic techniques and advertising practices, or playing sports developed in the West. They relax to what is essentially western music, even though for the time being, most of the lyrics are still in eastern tongues. Even the intelligentsia is unified by western languages, English or French—not Arabic. In such a cultural milieu, it would be difficult to expect that Islam would have a deep impact on the lives of ordinary people.

We do not intend for this article to become a pointless diatribe against the West. However, many of the problems facing humanity, such as crushing national debts, grinding poverty, growing disparities between the rich and the poor, the continued and accelerating destruction of the environment, and our exponentially enhanced ability to kill each other with increasingly sophisticated and deadly weaponry, are all facilitated by an international environment shaped by increasingly hegemonic western institutions. As Muslims, we should have the vision and courage—Abrahamic courage—to work for a world that while acknowledging and benefiting from the many positive advancements bequeathed to humanity by western materialist civilisation, work to minimise the damage caused by its negative and darker innovations.

Abraham was also described as being grateful for the many gifts and blessings bestowed upon him by God. We read in the Qur’an, “He (Abraham) was abundantly grateful for the blessings God had bestowed upon him.” (16:120-121) Graciousness should have an exalted place in the life of every Muslim. As Muslims living in western lands, we have more to thank God for than any other group of Muslims on earth. We have experienced the fullness of the meaning conveyed by the following verse, “He has completed His Blessings upon you, in open and hidden ways.” (31:20) Were we to attempt to enumerate or express the magnitude of those blessings, we would not be able to do so. Among the open blessings we could mention are food, drink, potable water, sanitation, health, wealth, shelter, clothing, security, education, and despite certain well well-publicized abuses, the overwhelming majority of us live under the protection of the law. Among the hidden blessings, we could mention understanding, discernment, psychological stability, and faith—the greatest blessing of all.

All of these blessings, and countless others we could mention, are subordinate to two other blessings, which are frequently completely taken for granted, the blessing of existence, and the blessing of sustenance. Ibn ‘Ata-Allah expresses the immensity of those blessings in the following penetrating words, “There are two blessings that are not extraneous to anything in existence, and that are indispensable for every form of creation: the blessing of origination, and the blessing of sustentation.” No matter what heights of arrogance and ingratitude a human being may reach, there is no one who will go so far as to claim that he has brought himself into existence, or that she sustains her own life.

Therefore, we should fervently and without stint express our gratitude to our Lord. Imam Ghazali mentions that graciousness consists of knowledge, a state, and action. As for knowledge, it is a firm knowledge of the one who bestows all gifts, God. As for the state, it is the delight which ensues because of His bestowing the gift. As for the action, it is undertaking that which is sought and beloved by God—namely, pure, unadulterated worship and devotion.

So let us go forward and rededicate ourselves to the worship of God and the service of humanity. Let us thank God for the many blessings He has bestowed upon us with every ounce of energy we can muster, from the bottom of our hearts, and from the depths of our soul. Let us also remember, that God does nothing in vain. Our being Muslim at this critical juncture in history is not without purpose. Our existence here is part of a divine plan, and the deeper our understanding of that plan, the deeper our realisation of the tremendous responsibility we shoulder. Our situation presents us with staggering challenges, and places before us daunting work. However, if we take up those challenges with the courage, determination, vision, and patience which availed Abraham throughout his life, like him, we may be blessed to change the course of history.

Note:This article originally appeared in the November 2011 edition of EMEL Magazine: http://www.emel.com/article?id=91&a_id=2512

Charles Dickens opens his classic, A Tale of Two Cities, with this famous anaphora: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way…”

For Muslims in the United States, in many ways, 9/11 inaugurated what could be described as the best of times. The heinous attacks of that day stimulated an unprecedented, genuine interest in Islam. Churches, civic and community organizations, law enforcement offices, schools and universities were all reaching out to Muslim organizations to send speakers to explain the faith to their constituencies.

However, in a sense, the post 9/11 world has been the worst of times. Even as doors were being opened to receive Muslims, draconian policies were being put into place that held troubling consequences for the Muslim community. Dragnet operations led to the arbitrary arrest and deportation of thousands of innocent Muslims. The Patriot Act and related “anti-terror” legislation was rammed through Congress with scant thought as to its implication for the freedom and openness of American society. Perhaps, most ominously, the seeds of a defamatory movement to foster deep hatred of Islam were being sown.

The wisdom and foolishness mentioned by Dickens are both illustrated in the actions of President George W. Bush. Bush displayed great wisdom when he visited a mosque in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 9/11 and called for respect for Arab Americans and Muslims. There are many who will dismiss the impact of those gestures, but had the American president sent another message at that time of great tension, fear and anger a horrible bloodbath might have ensued.

However, in launching an ill-defined war on “terror” and ill-conceived invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush displayed tragic foolishness. One cannot fight terror, a concept, with bombs and bullets. Furthermore, wars that result in a tremendously disproportionate number of civilian casualties while tearing apart the social fabric of the targeted countries only aid in the creation of conditions that will lead to more conflict and “terror.” The greatest victims of that terror, as has tragically shown, are innocent Muslims.

The sympathy and goodwill displayed by the nations and people of the world towards the United States in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks could have been translated into an enlightened new era of international cooperation. Instead, the possibility of a season of light has been replaced by the dark reality of legalized torture, extrajudicial rendition, preemptive war, black sites and a global network of drones perched to deliver extrajudicial, remote controlled murder anywhere on earth.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 it seemed everything was before us –new possibilities and promises. However, the rapidity with which a growing tide of hate literature and bigoted radio hosts have been able to create a groundswell of anti-Muslim sentiment illustrates the degree to which nothing may have been before us other than the same old prejudices and xenophobic attitudes that have led in the past to too many episodes of exclusion, discrimination, and in some instances, terrible violence.

Perhaps the deeper message of Dickens’ novel is that the cruelties the aristocracy and peasantry visited upon each other during the French Revolution would ultimately prove redemptive as a new society was brought into being. That was then. Now, in an age where the wedding of modern industrial technology and war provide us with the means to bring about unprecedented human and ecological destruction in the name of “politics by other means” only a fool would think that there is some redeeming quality in war.

Maybe, the way ahead for us is found in the heroic sacrifice undertaken by Sydney Carton, one of the central characters in Dickens’ novel. After a loathsome and meaningless existence he is able to give life to others by sacrificing his own. Only by giving preference to the lives and interest of others will we be able to escape the grasp of the greed, self interest, insecurity and apathy that make it so easy for us to be turned against each other.

In George W. Bush’s famous words, “You’re either with us or against us…” The dichotomy mentioned by Bush needs to be transcended. The sooner we realize this the sooner we will be able to set aside the delusional thinking that leads some of us to believe that “we” will be able to impose our agenda on “them,” without any consideration for their interests and well-being. Some of us may even think that this is the direct path to Heaven. History has shown it usually leads directly the other way.

The roads to peace are paths of war,
  The gentle dove will leave her scar.

The moral men to say the least,
  Will kill us all to get their peace.

The roads that lead to victories gained,
  Are filled with people full of pain.

Only our Creator knew,
  We’d kill so many to save so few.
 

The ongoing slaughter of civilians on both sides of the so-called “War on Terror” is disheartening. Again and again nefarious forces see fit to totally disregard innocent human life in pursuit of a vile agenda that few of us know and even fewer could understand. The fact that misguided violence only begets more violence is perhaps more disheartening, as it promises more of the ill-conceived policies and wrongheaded “Fatwas” that have proven so ineffective in both prosecuting the war on terror and ushering in the victory of the “Jihad.” If current events are any indicator of future developments, innocent civilians will continue to die for absolutely nothing.

This is a war being guided on both sides by self-righteous murderers whose motives and proclamations mirror each other. Each side sees God as being exclusively with them. That being the case, the restraint and judiciousness urged by Christian and Islamic theology to guide the execution of war is cast aside with wanton impunity. Each side manipulates a vulnerable public to create a climate that allows for the perpetuation and the inevitable escalation of the ongoing slaughter. Each side reserves the right to use the spectacle of indiscriminate violence to “Shock and Awe” the opposition, yet will deny that its tactics can be described as terrorism. Each side sees their civilian population as hapless, innocent victims, while the suffering innocent civilians on the other side are acceptable collateral damage.

There will never be any real progress in ending this terror war, until we realize that we have all become collateral damage, unacceptable collateral damage. That being the case, there is no they or we in this affair. We are they and they are we. When a child in New York never sees his mother again because she was crushed in a collapsed tower at the World Trade Center, we all have suffered an irreplaceable loss. When an impoverished family in Afghanistan is bombed from the face of the Earth by a misguided missile, something of our collective humanity is destroyed by the blast. When a child in Iraq is born with gross birth defects due to his mother’s exposure to depleted uranium, we have all been deformed. When London commuters fear ever again entering the underground, because of the ill-advised actions of a handful of desperate fanatics, their insecurity touches us all.

We, the collaterally damaged, will continue to exit in a state of dehumanizing loss, deformity, and insecurity until we rise up, unite, and refuse to support at any level the policies of leaders who continually fail to heed one of the surest of all political lessons: killing innocent civilians will never lead to a positive outcome for the transgressing party. This realization is the first meaningful salvo anyone could fire in a real war on terror. However, as long as we are not as moved by the suffering of innocent civilians anywhere as we are by the suffering of those close to us, it will be a salvo that remains unfired.

Reprint from Scattered Pictures: Reflections of An American Muslim:   http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004TZP8IG/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_n60Iob1FRXCFX

The tranquility of my retreat was interrupted by panicked banging on the metal frame of one of mosque’s doors. Three or four neighborhood children had run up to deliver an urgent message in exited and panicked voices. Between the confused clamoring I could make out the following, “Sayyid Zaid, America has been bombed! They blew up the Trade Center, the Pentagon, the White House and Congress!” Who, I asked? “We don’t know! You have to come out and find out what is going on!” I asked them to go get the Imam and have him unlock the doors so I could go home to investigate this strange news.

The Imam’s residence was adjacent to the mosque so he was summoned in short order. He was unaware of the breaking story, but quickly unlocked the doors so I could return home to find out what was occurring. Arriving home I was faced with a challenge. The house had a television with a satellite hook-up. However, I had never watched the television. After an hour or so looking for a neighbor knowledgeable enough to give me a crash course on manipulating the controls directing the satellite dish, an image being broadcast by CNN appeared on the screen.

There was a picture of the World Trade Center Towers, one of them belching smoke, beneath a banner that read, “America Under Attack.” The name, “Osama Bin Ladin,” keep popping up periodically and the guest commentator was the American novelist, Tom Clancy. In an apparent reference to his 1994 novel, Debt of Honor, which described a group of terrorists crashing a Boeing 747 into the United States Capitol building, Clancy was being asked by the CNN correspondent, “Tom, is this a case of life imitating art?”

I immediately contacted the other American students and we hastily arranged a meeting where we discussed what we could do to assist our respective communities back in the States. We developed an action plan that was amazingly mature and prescient in that it actually outlined many of the measures that major Muslim organizations in America would subsequently adopt. We agreed on one thing: Dawah (calling to Islam) in America was finished.

To our collective surprise we were all proven wrong by subsequent events. We were receiving calls from all over the country of an unprecedented interest in Islam. Sales of Qur’ans and Islamic literature were off the charts. People living in the vicinity of mosques were volunteering to protect them.  A friend of mine in Texas emailed me to let me know that an open house at his mosque in Richardson, Texas, drew 3,000 people, which the organizers had to handle in two shifts of 1,500 people each.

One of the most heart-warming stories from those early days after the attacks was from the same friend in Texas. He related that one well-meaning old lady left a voice message on the answering machine of the mosque offering to escort Muslim women to the store. She feared their hijabs would make them visible targets for vengeful, violent reprisals. She concluded her message by saying, “I’m too old to help carry groceries, but if anyone tries to bother you I’ll hit them over the head with my cane.” Her message represents our noblest traits.

However, the tragic events of that day brought out the worst in other people. In Dallas, Texas, a few miles from the Richardson Mosque, a white supremacist, Mark Stroman, murdered a Muslim convenience store worker and a Hindu he thought was a Muslim. He nearly took the life of a third victim, who he shot point blank in the face with a shotgun. There were other violent attacks, many of them directed at Sikhs, whose turbans and beards led to them being mistaken for Muslims.

Perhaps the most far-reaching development occurring in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks has been a campaign to systematically distort Islamic teachings to create a climate of deep hatred towards Muslims. The result of this effort and the subsequent institutionalizing of anti-Muslim hatred in American society and politics are chilling, and the fallout is global.  The details fill our daily newspapers.

The growing climate of hate has another unfortunate consequence.  Some western Muslims are losing confidence in the ability of Islam to make any meaningful contribution to their societies in light of post 9/11 realities. This is unfortunate, because, now, perhaps more than ever, the world is in desperate need of critical aspects of the message of Islam.

One of the most relevant features of Islam in this regard, one that many contemporary Muslims fail to adequately appreciate, is its anti-utopian nature. Islam does not promise that the believers’ actions will usher in a millennial era of good and harmony. That is the job of Jesus, upon his return to the earth, Muslims are taught. We do our best to make a difference in the world, to work for justice and peace. However, at the end of the day there are no vanguard parties or messianic movements charged with the responsibility of undertaking the work of the Messiah.

This feature of Islam helps to ensure that there will never be a Muslim Stalin, Mao, Hitler or Pol Pot, based on its teachings. In the Islamic worldview, there are no classless states to be ushered into being; hence, there are no reactionary classes to be eliminated. There is no idea of a pure race, a Volk, hence, there are no potentially polluting impure races to be done away with. Contrary to the proclamations of many anti-Muslim ideologues, there is no doctrine of world domination. Furthermore, there is no progressive, triumphalist march through history for the Muslim community. There are victories and there are defeats, there are periods of strength and there are periods of weakness. God emphasizes this in the Qur’an, “If some injury has afflicted you, know that a similar injury has afflicted your opponents. These vicissitudes we alternate among humans… (3:140).”

Even when we are blessed with victory, we are told that our success comes from God, not from our own devices,  - “Victory only comes from God, The Mighty, The Wise (3:126).” Hence, the goal for Muslims is not winning at all costs. Our goal is to obey God at all times.  At the end of the day, there is only the individual believer and the Lord. For us, the quality of that relationship outweighs all else in this world, for, in the stark terms of the Qur’an, “Thus, each of them will come before God on the Day of Resurrection, alone (19:95).” The one who achieves Paradise on that day is the true victor. Hence, we do not find meaning in victory, we find meaning in salvation.

When our relationship with God is sound we begin to realize the essential power of God and our inherent weakness. That realization allows us to trust that God will use us as agents of good and positive transformation in the world. There is no need for us to violently impose ourselves on the world. Nothing illustrates this better than one of the most powerful stories emerging from the tragedy of 9/11.

Mark Stroman, the white supremacist mentioned earlier in this essay was executed this past July (2011). He died having renounced his racist views. One of the last things he said was the following: “Hate is going on in this world and it has to stop. Hate causes a lifetime of pain.” Stroman’s transformation was inspired by the compassion shown by Rais Bhuyian, the Muslim he shot in the face. Bhuyian survived after many operations and the loss of one eye. He still carries 35 shotgun pellets in his face. However, none of this prevented him from forgiving Stroman and from waging a valiant campaign to save him from execution. Stroman was so moved by Rais’ act of grace that he renounced his hatred of Muslims.

The example set for us by both Rais and Stroman, at the end of his life, is our best hope as we attempt to move beyond the pain, strife and hatred unleashed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Trusting in the power and promise of God we will be able to do just that.

“Good and evil are not equal. Repulse [evil] with what is best. Unexpectedly, you will see the one between who he and you there was enmity become like an intimate friend (Qur’an 41:34)”

Note: A version of this article first appeared in EMEL Magazine, www.emel.com

For all its power of depiction, the movie is not real life. Waleed Ebadi’s situation is. Waleed is a 16 year old youngster in Fremont, California. He is a student at Washington High School in Fremont. He is losing his enthusiasm for basketball, school and life itself as the acute kidney failure he has been battling most of his life rapidly worsens, and the weight of the treatments overwhelm him. During the blessed month of Ramadan, if there is anyone out there who would like to undertake their own act of tremendous grace by donating Waleed a kidney please come forward. A match for his blood type is B+, B-, or O. If you are interested in responding to this appeal contact Gerri James at the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford University. She can be reached at (650) 498-4905, or mailto:gjames@lpch.org.

You will not attain righteousness until you spend of what you love. Whatever you spend; God is well aware of it. (Qur’an 3:92)

The recent murderous rampage of the Norwegian, Anders Breivik, is a case of textbook terrorism. He targeted unsuspecting innocent civilians, specifically those at two locations identified with Norway’s ruling party, in order to affect a political outcome. That outcome, according to Breivik’s rambling manifesto, was to ignite an epic confrontation in European society that would culminate in the expulsion of Muslims from Europe in the year 2083.

There are, however, those who are so wedded to their campaign to demonize Muslims, and to the centrality of the association between Islam and terrorism in their ideology that they refuse to describe Breivik as a terrorist. To these elements he is a “madman,” an “extremist,” a “mass murderer” or a “hero.” There are even those who attempt to absolve Breivik of ultimate responsibility for the massacre by arguing that he was driven to his crime by the intensity of his “anti-Jihadi” sentiments. Hence, were it not for the violence of some Muslims, Breivik would not have been moved to undertake his own murderous rampage.

One of the great ironies of our times is that many political commentators, who never tire of parroting the danger of the manufactured Muslim menace, are actively involved in efforts to dismiss or cover up the real threat posed by individuals such as Breivik, and fanatical right-wing groups, many of whom openly advocate mass murder. When the Department of Homeland Security produced a report in 2009, principally authored by Daryl Johnson, documenting the growing danger of right-wing hate groups, it was condemned by many right-wing pundits and politicians with such fury that it was never publicly released. This sort of blind hypocrisy is placing this country and its citizenry in grave danger.

It is not surprising that Breivik, who ordered his high-capacity ammunition clips from the United States, claims that he was inspired by American-based anti-Muslim bigots such as Robert Spenser, Pamela Geller and others. America is giving free reign to their hate-inducing polemics. In the aftermath of Breivik’s murderous rampage, many of these writers and their apologists are claiming that they do not advocate violence. However, violence defines their program. That violence begins with their conscious distortion of the message of Islam and the gross violence they do to it texts and teachings.

They know perfectly well that their lies, half-truths and propaganda provide ammunition to the bloggers, preachers and “patriots” who are exploiting the fears and insecurities of masses of people, leaving many of them increasingly primed to engage in or readily endorse mass murder. They will be quick to claim that their words are not intended to incite violence and that such an atrocity has not occurred here in the United States. However, they are well aware of the fact that hatred oftentimes culminates in violence, sometimes genocidal violence. Many of them are praying for the spark that will ignite the American Breiviks their ideas have helped to create.

Like the politicians who so dutifully follow their lead, these so-called experts warn of the Muslim takeover of our government. The takeover of government they warn of is indeed happening and they are its architects, engineers and beneficiaries. It is they who are brainwashing our military and law-enforcement officers with their anti-Muslim venom. It is they who are dominating the briefing of our legislators. If their takeover of our government is allowed to be completed, and the reigns of the American war machine fall into their hands, the carnage that could well result as they attempt to realize their fanatical fantasy of ridding the world of Islam and Muslims would be no less than the Holocaust, the purges of Stalin or Mao, or Pol Pot’s effort to return Cambodia to Year Zero. Their escalating demonization of Muslims will inevitably lead to a program, a final solution, designed to exorcise their demons.

As the influence of these bigots grows they are steadily transforming the very fabric of our nation. The nation of fearless Americans who were roused and inspired when FDR urged, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself…” would be transformed, if these hate-mongers had their way, into a nation of paranoid cowards. Our institutions and society, which by their very nature are inclusive, are being transformed into bastions of exclusive, tribal privilege. And our political system, which once boasted of being the most open and democratic on earth is being systematical closed.

If these self-serving bigots are allowed to continue to work unchallenged, coldblooded mass murderers like Anders Breivik will become the norm. Senseless wars against Muslim nations on the flimsiest of pretexts will become the rationale driving our foreign policy. And the constructive role America could play in fostering greater peace, equity and harmony in the world will be sacrificed on the bloody altar of the chiliastic fantasies of the “counter-jihadis.”
 
At the end of the day, Spenser, Geller and their coconspirators, are what the British philosopher, John Gray, calls “revolutionary utopians.” The utopia they envision is one purged of Muslims and Islam. Gray reminds us that the “use of inhumane methods to achieve impossible ends is the essence of revolutionary utopianism.”  These ideologues may claim to reject the use of inhumane methods to achieve their ends, but the actions of their student, Breivik, belies their claim.

Finally, let us imagine that the wildest of the anti-Muslim bigots eventually get their wish and the country is purged of Muslims. Were that to happen, an America purged of Muslims would not be a nation immune from purges. New demons would emerge to take the place of the departed Muslims. Like the Muslims, those demons would demand to be exorcised and the likes of Anders Breivik, perhaps by the millions, would rise up to undertake the task. Before such a scenario unfolds, we would do well as a nation to realize that the demons we need to exorcise are not our fellow humans. They are the demons of ignorance, delusion, hubris and our tendency to continuously ignore the lessons that history repeatedly endeavors to teach us. The sooner we all get on with the business of attacking those demons the better off we will all be.

As the level of racially-charged exclusionary politics grows throughout the Western world, Muslims will have to contribute to the developing discourse to counter this problem. Doing so will require a plunge into the murky waters of racial politics. We should not shy away from the challenge. We readily acknowledge that Islam opposes all forms of racism and bigotry. However, sometimes we deny the need for any involvement in a racially defined political arena fearing that by involving ourselves on such a basis, we are somehow implicitly legitimising racial distinctions.

Racial and ethnic distinctions are real, whether we choose to acknowledge them or not. One of the greatest factors working to perpetuate the negative manifestations of such distinctions lies in a failure to acknowledge their existence. By failing to acknowledge the existence of a problem, we are robbed of any realistic basis to help eradicate it.

Such denial was not the way of our Prophet. He acknowledged the reality of racial prejudice and took concrete steps to eliminate it. For example, a companion insulted Bilal, one of the first appointed muezzins (callers to prayer), by derisively referring to him as the “son of a black woman.” The Prophet rebuked that companion by reminding him that his attitude displayed the influences of pre-Islamic incivility.

The Prophet took concrete measures to insure that social practices that displayed racist attitudes were broken down by public policy. One of the largely unmentioned examples is his active work to undermine the stigma that many aristocratic Arabs in his time attached to marrying black men: he ordered several Arab families to allow the marriage of their daughters to black companions.

Zayd ibn Haritha, the beloved companion, is described by Ibn Jawzi in his work Tanwir al-Ghabash, as being of very dark complexion. The Prophet ordered the family of Zaynab bint Jahsh to marry her to Zayd. Perhaps Zayd’s dark complexion was one of the reasons for the well-known resistance of Zaynab’s family to the marriage. Another marriage of this type involved Julaybib, a black companion. The Prophet asked an Ansar family to marry their daughter to Julaybib. The mother vehemently refused. However, the daughter, owing to her piety insisted that the marriage proceed. The couple would go on to enjoy a happy and blessed union.

An especially moving story, in this regard, involved a companion known as S’ad al-Aswad. Sa’d was a black man of pure Arab lineage from Bani Sulaym. He came to the Prophet and asked him if his dark complexion would prevent him from entering Paradise. The Prophet responded that it would not, as long as he was mindful of his Lord and believed in Him. Sa’d immediately accepted Islam. Sa’d later complained to the Prophet that he had searched persistently for a wife, but had been rejected because of his dark complexion. The Prophet sent Sa’d to marry the daughter of ‘Amr bin Wahhab, a recent convert from Bani Thaqif who retained many pre-Islamic prejudices.

Sa’d went to ‘Amr’s door and informed him that the Prophet asked that he marry his daughter to him. ‘Amr flatly refused. His daughter, overhearing the conversation between her father and the stranger, interceded telling her father to relent lest he be disgraced by Revelation. ‘Amr went to the Prophet and was strongly rebuked for refusing Sa’d. Hearing this, ‘Amr promptly married his daughter to him.

Shortly after, as Sa’d was in the market purchasing provisions for his new wife, he heard a caller rallying the faithful for a military campaign. He decided to first answer this call and purchased arms and a steed to set out for the battlefield, where he fought valiantly until he was slain. Learning of his death, the Prophet went to his body and placed his head in his lap until his grave was prepared. He then ordered that his arms and mount be sent to his wife’s family.

As we can see from these brief examples, the blessed Prophet acknowledged race and its implications in society. He then took steps to reform society to be less accommodating to racially-based prejudices and attitudes. This must be part of our duty as citizens in the West. We cannot sit silently aside as political forces organise themselves along racial lines and attempt to implement policies that are essentially racist, even though many of them are framed in anti-Muslim language. Those policies will have devastating consequences not only for Muslims, but for all racial and ethnic minorities. For example, here in the US, the most draconian measures of the Patriot Act have been enacted to ostensibly fight “Muslim” terrorism. However, it is the Latin American community that has suffered most severely as a result of the arbitrary arrests, summary detentions and deportations that those policies facilitate.

At a deeper level, the rise in racist politics and policies in Western democracies not only threaten racial minorities, it threatens the very nature of our countries. A monumental and heroic struggle has been waged in the West to create open societies that extend civil and human rights to all. This struggle was especially significant in the US which has had large numbers of non-white people among its population since its inception - the native Indians and the imported African slaves.

Because of that struggle, we have moved closer to societies - to paraphrase the words of the great American civil rights leader Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. - where people are judged based on the content of their character and not on the colour of their skin.

The full realisation of Dr King’s dream is now threatened. Those voices that continue to advocate the politics of inclusion are drowned out by those calling for the politics of exclusion. Those voices calling for co-operation and understanding are marginalised by the advocates of conflict and obscurantism.

Muslims must become a part of this raging discourse. We have to break free from the chains many of us have imposed on ourselves through self-censorship and a lack of self-confidence. When we censor ourselves, we assume that if we remain silent all of the controversies currently involving Islam and Muslims will simply go away. They will not. When we lack confidence in ourselves we assume we have nothing meaningful to contribute to the conversation. There is indeed much we can contribute as individuals and as
a community.

Ultimately, and ironically, in light of the growing negativity surrounding Islam and Muslims here in the West, Islam can help to create a social consciousness that works against a re-entrenchment of racist or white supremacist politics. The power of Islam to create such a social consciousness was grasped by Malcolm X, during his Pilgrimage to Makkah. From there he penned the following words: “During the past eleven days here in the Muslim world, I have eaten from the same plate, drunk from the same glass, and slept in the same bed (or on the same rug) - while praying to the same God - with fellow Muslims whose eyes were the bluest of blue, whose hair was the blondest of blonde, and whose skins were the whitest of white. And in the words and in the actions and in the deeds of the ‘white’ Muslims, I felt the same sincerity that I felt among black African Muslims of Nigeria, Sudan and Ghana. We were truly all the same (brothers) – because their belief in one God had removed the ‘white’ from their minds, the ‘white’ from their behaviour, and the ‘white’ from their attitude. I could see from this that perhaps if white Americans could accept the Oneness of God, then perhaps too, they could accept in reality the Oneness of Man – and cease to measure, and hinder, and harm others in terms of their ‘differences’ in colour.”

This optimism that society could be reformed, which Islam kindled in Malcolm X, can be contrasted to the pessimism that seized Dr King after a lifetime of struggle in the arena of civil rights. He would conclude shortly before his assassination, “Yet the largest portion of white America is still poisoned by racism, which is as native to our soil as pine trees, sagebrush, and buffalo grass.”

Let us follow the lead of Malcolm X. Let us believe that Islam can indeed help to repulse the rising racism that threatens the future of these western lands most of us call home. Let us then work to translate that belief into effective action. Let us rid our own lives of any vestiges of racialised thinking and racist actions. Let us open our hearts to our neighbours and fellow citizens who may be of other racial or ethnic backgrounds. Let us join or work to help build coalitions that work towards the advancement of ideals that foster peace, reconciliation and harmony in our societies. Now is our time. Let us seize it!

Note: This article originally appeared in the October 2010 edition of EMEL Magazine: http://www.emel.com/article?id=87&a_id=2152

                  ****************************

As revolutions and popular uprisings sweep the Middle East from Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and elsewhere most Muslims everywhere are energized by a wave of hopeful change in a region that has suffered far too long under the stultifying rule of “presidents for life.” However, some Muslims are more hesitant and view the waves of protests as unsanctioned rebellions against legitimate rulers. 

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. Hence, they have every right to occupy a building on campus to express certain grievances. 

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 visited upon the people and their economic exploitation is the source of any instability, not the action of those protesting against those abuses. The protests are 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 cause 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 I 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, Syria 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.

However, it is being taken seriously by a lot of people and it promises frightening political consequences. Therefore, we need to expose the campaign warning against “Shariah creep” for what it is. Namely, among other things, the latest installment in a long line of diversionary cultural issues that attract the demography that has been code-named the “American people” to support policies that at the end of the day only strengthen the corporate interests that are systematically destroying the American middle class and undermining its economic interests.

The speaker, preying on the ignorance, fear and gullibility of his audience proceeded to spin a preposterous tale of Islam as a menacing ideology, similar to Nazism. According to the speaker, Islam is a menacing force poised to permanently scuttle the glorious, historically exceptional American experiment, leaving in its wake a trail of severed limbs, usurped rights and enslaved women who will be flung mercilessly back into a misogynistic past, which western humanism has long left behind.

As if the shock effect of lies big enough to embarrass Goebbels was not enough, the speaker accentuated the alleged barbarism of Islam with repulsive images such as a close-up shot of the ripped-up vagina of a woman who supposedly had been forced to endure the “mandated” Muslim practice of female genital mutilation. My friend was in shock for two weeks after the presentation.

This is the type of garbage that is being fed to crowds of people in community centers, libraries, college campuses, police departments, FBI offices, military bases and at other venues all over the country. [1] The campaign it represents is well-funded and increasingly pervasive. In the face of such an onslaught, what is a Muslim to do? The answer is simple. Fight back with the truth. Allah mentions in the Qur’an, “Truth comes and falsehood perishes. Falsehood is inherently perishable” (17:81). We have to illuminate the darkness descending on this land with the truth.

Among the lies, slanders and distortions of the speaker was the following, “Allah has 99 names in the Qur’an and none of them mention love.” The balance of this essay will focus on revealing the blatant nature of this lie.

In the Qur’an, we read, “Seek the forgiveness of your Lord, then turn to him in repentance! Verily, my Lord is Most Merciful and All Loving” (11:90). In another verse, we read, “And He is Oft-forgiving, All Loving” (85:14). This name, al-Wadud, is also found in the hadiths that list the “Ninety-Nine Names of Allah.”

Allah’s name, The All Loving, manifests itself in many ways in the life of the believer and in the world. For example, “Verily, Allah loves those who do good” (2:195). “Verily, Allah loves those who are penitent and those who keep themselves pure” (2:222). “For verily, Allah loves those who are righteous” (3:76). “And Allah loves those who are patient’ (3:146). “Allah loves those who trust in Him” (3:159). “Allah loves those who are just” (5:42). “Allah loves those who foster purity” (9:108). [2] These phrases are repeated numerous times in the Qur’an. Notice the qualities they mention as being associated with the Love of Allah: Goodness, penitence, purity, righteousness, patience, trust in God and justice. These are all religious virtues that those who hate Islam consciously avoid mentioning in their twisted, defamatory presentations.

As for the prophetic hadith, the instances where the manifestations of Allah’s love are mentioned are too numerous to be recalled in this brief overview. We relate the following, by way of example: “Allah loves a servant who is magnanimous in his business dealings…” (Malik, al-Muwatta, 1376). “Divorce your heart from the world and Allah will love you…” (Ibn Majah, 4102). “Allah is gentle and loves gentleness. He gives to those displaying gentleness what he does not give to those displaying violence” (Ibn Majah, 3688). “Allah loves the righteous, pious, inconspicuous people. When they are absent they are not missed. When they are present they are not called out or noticed. Their hearts are lamps of guidance. They emerge from every place of darkness” (Ibn Majah, 3989). “Allah is beautiful, He loves beauty” (Muslim, 261). “Very, the most beloved of people to Allah on the Day of Resurrection and the one closest to Him will be a just leader…” (Tirmidhi, 1329). This is just a representative sample of such hadiths. Again, notice the qualities they emphasize.

Before returning to the Qur’an, let us consider what love is in the theological sense. We read in the American Heritage Dictionary, under the definition for Love: “6. Theology. a. God’s benevolence and mercy towards man.” Based on this and similar definitions, God’s benevolence and mercy cannot be separated from His love. In this regard, as we know, all of the 114 chapters of the Qur’an, with the exception of a single one, open with the phrase, “In the name of Allah, the All Merciful (ar-Rahman), the Mercy-Giving (ar-Rahim).” These two names of Allah, both involving mercy, occur over 170 times in the Qur’an. As for those names that imply love, benevolence or mercy, we could mention: al-Ghaffar, The Most Forgiving; al-Wahhab, The Giver of Gifts; al-Razzaq, The Provider of Sustenance; al-Lateef, The Most Gentle; al-Haleem, The Forbearing; al-Mujeeb, The Answerer; al-Wasi’, The Most Expansive in His Grace; al-Barr, The Source of Goodness; al-Tawwab, The Acceptor of Repentance; al-‘Afuww, The Pardoner; al-Ra’uf, The Compassionate; al-Mughni, The Enricher; al-Mani’, The Source of Assistance; al-Nafi’, The Benefactor, al-Hadi, The Gentle Guide; Al-Rashid, The Wise Guide. There are other names that convey other meanings associated with the terms in question. However, they do not appear on the most reliable lists of “The Ninety-Nine Names.” Hence, we leave off their mention, even though they are taken from the Qur’an and the Prophetic Hadith. 

Among the specific manifestations of His mercy mentioned in the Qur’an we list the following, again, as a representative sample: “And among His signs is that He has made for you, from yourselves, spouses, in order that you live together with them in peace and tranquility; and He has made between you love and mercy. Surely, in this are signs for people who reflect (30:21),” “Behold the effects of your Lord’s mercy; how He revives the earth after its death… (30:50),” “Were it not for the grace of Allah and His mercy you would have followed Satan, with scant exception (4:83).” Verses of this type, mentioning various manifestations of Allah’s mercy, abound in the Qur’an.  Perhaps the most moving recounting of Allah’s mercy is to be found in the chapter of the Qur’an fittingly entitled, “The All-Merciful:”

The All-Merciful! He has taught the Qur’an. He has created the human. He has taught him to clearly express himself. The sun and moon move along in a measured course. The stars and trees are prostrating themselves. The sky! He has raised it aloft and established the balance; that you not disrupt the balance. Establish weighting with justice and do not cheat in the balance. The earth! He has spread it out for all creatures. In it are fruits, date palms with fruitful clusters, husk-covered grains and flowers. Then which of the favors of your Lord will you deny? (55:1-13)

These are meanings that are well-known to a Muslim who is familiar with the message of the Qur’an. As for one who has only been exposed to the caricature of Islam being presented by deceitful propagandists who distort the beautiful message of the Qur’an for their own purposes, these passages likely come as a shock. These and the many other passages from the Qur’an and Hadith, which we could usher to give an even more comprehensive presentation of the existence and meaning of love and mercy in proper Islamic teachings are not only meant to endear Allah and His Messenger, peace upon him, to the faithful. Rather, they are also meant to encourage loving, merciful and benevolent behavior in a believer.

To emphasize this point, we present the following prophetic hadiths: 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.”

This is what our religion teaches us and we have a responsibility to bring this message to humanity. If we choose to sit back and allow others to portray our religion based on their ideology of hate, we will have only ourselves to blame if the image of Islam presented by the likes of the propagandist mentioned at the outset of this article becomes the one accepted by the majority of our fellow citizens. If we continue to allow wholesale falsehoods to be fabricated about our religion, and then go unchallenged until they become entrenched in the popular imagination, our silence will be contributing to a climate that might prove extremely detrimental to not only the interests of our community, but also to the interests of our country.

[1] For an informative introduction as to the scope and impact of such presentations, see the Political Research Associates (PRA) report, Manufacturing the Muslim Menace.

[2] I have used wudd, the root of al-Wadud, synonymously with hubb. The most authoritative Arabic dictionaries, such as Lisan al-‘Arab and al-Muhit, mention these words as synonyms. For example, in Lisan al-Arab, Ibn al-Mandhur states:  al-Wadud: al-Muhibb الودود: المحب

Referencing Dr. Timur Kumar’s study of Muslim economic stagnation, Kristof concludes that it is not Islam as such that is responsible for the economic stagnation of the Muslim world, rather certain stultifying Muslim business laws that have stifled the creation of the gargantuan financial institutions that are responsible for the economic prowess of the West.

It is interesting that Kristof would deliver this particular broadside at Islam at time when the Western nations are reeling from the debilitating influences of an ill-conceived financial system that is spiraling wildly out of control. Banks and the related financial “services” industry have orchestrated the greatest upward shift of wealth in human history. Ordinary citizens have had their pension accounts raided, their savings looted (remember the S&L scandal of the 1980s), and the equity sucked out of their homes by a set of business practices that would have led to the mass incarceration of the perpetrators in a just society.

Entire countries like Iceland have been rendered financially insolvent, while thieves in suits and ties walk out of national treasuries with billions of dollars in tax-payers money. Perhaps Kristof has not taken time to watch the Oscar-winning documentary, Inside Job, a brilliant expose on the current fiscal crisis. If he had, I think he might realize that this is not the ideal historical moment to be pontificating about the virtue of the banking industry, monopolies and corporations.

Speaking of corporations, Kristof argues that in the Muslim world they did not assume the colossal size they have reached in the West owing to the nature of the laws governing business partnerships in Islam. What he fails to mention is that that the huge dimensions of western corporations have allowed them to orchestrate a de facto take over of our political system, to plunder the world’s resources and despoil the natural environment.

In terms of environmental degradation, consider another documentary, Gasland, which was nominated for an Oscar. It shows just how nefarious the resource extraction corporations can be. Led by that exemplar of the virtue of western corporate ethics, Haliburton, those industries are in the process of destroying aquifers all over this country through the process of hydraulic fracturing (fracking). This film documents the influence of corporations, not only on our environment, but also on the political system as their lobbyists buy off politicians and manipulate the media to serve their sole interest -profits. Is this what the Muslim world needs more of if it is to prosper and create the just and equitable socieites protesters in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere are dreaming of? I would think not.

Kristof concludes with his hope that the current uprisings in the Middle East can address the issue of “what went wrong” in the Muslim world by creating the conditions for a new beginning. In light of the destructive impact of the banking industry, corporations and the huge concentration of wealth in the hands of an ever-shrinking few here in the West, the question of “what went wrong” is indeed appropriate. However, it is being hurled in the wrong direction.

We need to be asking what went wrong in the West, generally, and here in America, specifically. How is it that billionaires are not proportionately taxed and poor people end up having services they have paid for such as social security threatened, while those same billionaires are paid interest on the money they have “loaned” the government with tax dollars taken from the poor? How is it that private, corporate military contractors with a vested economic interest in the perpetuation of war are being paid billions of dollars to do things the military used to do for free, or at a fraction of the cost? How is it that a nation with 5% of the world’s population has half all its incarcerated individuals and corporate prisons are paying millions of dollars to judges to sentence teenagers to jail?

This is just the tip of the iceberg of what has gone wrong in this country, and role of the banks and corporations in those developments. Yet the best Kristof can do is to point a patronizing finger at the Muslims and tell them their countries need more of what is destroying ours. As the Qur’an rhetorically asks, “What is wrong with you? How is it that you judge?”

Kristof is right about one thing in his article. Namely, that a new day is indeed dawning in the Muslim world and that new day gives the Muslims a chance to do things differently. However, that new day also gives America a chance to do things differently in the Muslim world. She can open a new era in her relations with the Muslim world, an era based on mutual cooperation, mutual respect and a collective effort to work towards the betterment of world for all of its inhabitants. She can also choose to continue to walk clumsily and to carry a big stick. Kristof seems to prefer the latter choice as the big stick approach has always been one that has sought to bludgeon the natives into submission in order to clear the way for the banks, corporations and filthy concentrations of wealth that Kristof seems so enthralled by. Kristof’s time in Cairo should alert him to a very sobering reality. The big stick approach does not command the fear it once did.

To return to the song, “What the world needs now is love sweet love, no not just for some but for everyone…”

Middle Easterners are not the only ones whose mental furniture needs reshuffling. Here in the United States, we need to begin to critically assess our silence in the face of the atrocities we support, or knowingly turn a blind eye to. Our officials know that the money we have been pumping into the Mubarak regime for the past 30 years has done nothing to improve the lot of the average Egyptian. Rather, it was being used to strengthen the Egyptian military and the internal “security” forces, which is a euphemism for the forces of torture and political repression. For example, the State Department’s 2008 Human Rights Report for Egypt mentions:

Police and the SSIS reportedly employed torture methods such as stripping and blindfolding victims; suspending victims by the wrists and ankles in contorted positions or from a ceiling or door-frame with feet just touching the floor; beating victims with fists, whips, metal rods, or other objects; using electric shocks; dousing victims with cold water; and sexual abuse, including sodomy. Victims reported that security officials threatened them and forced them to sign statements for use against themselves or their families should they in the future lodge complaints about the torture. Some victims, including women and children, reported that security officials sexually assaulted or threatened to rape them or their family members. Human rights groups reported that the lack of legally required written police records often effectively blocked investigations.

What is mentioned in this report is the tip of the iceberg concerning the abuses that every Egyptian knows of. The dehumanizing horrors occurring in the “Zinzana” are not well-kept secrets. However, what did the United States do about these atrocities after documenting them? We did the same thing we did about the rigged elections that kept falsely affirming Mubarak and his gerontocracy in power. We did the same thing we did in the face of the grinding poverty of the country, only accentuated by the regime’s enthusiasm to accept neoliberal economic policies that only funneled money from the impoverished masses and into the clutches of the wealthy elite managing their society on behalf of their western sponsors. Namely, nothing. In the name of our war against terror, in the name of our security interests, in the name of our economic interests we did nothing.

It is time for Americans to acknowledge that when we prioritize our interests in foreign lands over the interests of the citizens of those lands, in many instances, those citizens are starved, politically disenfranchised, tortured and sometimes killed. We have to realize that this is not only true in the Middle East, it is just as true in the Congo, Haiti and elsewhere.

Tunisians and now Egyptians have bravely stood up and challenged the hypocrisy, brutality and illegitimacy of their rulers. It is blatant hypocrisy for America to pontificate about the need for peaceful political reform in the Middle East and then support the violent repression of peaceful reformers or circumvent internal reform all together by imposing political change through the gun-barrel of an M1 Abrams tank. It is time that the people of this country stand up and challenge that hypocrisy. The masses in Tunisia and Egypt should be a source of courage and inspiration for us in this regard.

The popular movements emerging in the Middle East are giving birth to watershed events that may well redefine the political map of the region for the next century. We should work to make sure that the vision and hope they embody are not confined to the Middle East. Now is the time for us to express our solidarity with the people of Egypt and elsewhere as they struggle to carve out a dignified existence for themselves and their progeny. If we do so with courage, conviction, vision and principle we may all live to see a day when the old game will be over everywhere. If that happens, we will all be the winners.

There has to be an honest and faithful understanding of the Qur’an”.

One of the fundamental assumptions driving the current demonization of Islam and Muslims in the West is the idea that acts of wanton violence undertaken by isolated Muslim individuals, or the brutal excesses of some Muslim states or political groups, are inseparable from the religion itself. This argument posits that excesses or abuses committed in the name of Islam logically flow from the normative teachings of the religion. Hence, they argue, since every practicing Muslim is committed to those teachings every practicing Muslim is a latent barbarian.

A related argument is that peace with Muslims is impossible because jihad, which is incorrectly emphasised as ‘armed struggle,’ is the only basis for relations between Muslims and other communities. A person making this argument is likely to add that Muslims have been ordered to, “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them.” He might then conclude by asking, “How could a religion with such teachings ever encourage amicable relations and basic human decency in dealing with other communities?”

Unfortunately, many of the parties arguing that the Qur’an urges unrestrained, unrelenting violence ignore those verses that undermine their arguments. By so doing, they are distorting both the Qur’anic message and the logic of Muslim history.

The message of the Qur’an is distorted in that, while there are verses that seemingly call for harsh measures against certain parties, those verses cannot be divorced from their wider context. For example, both prophetic hadith and exegetical writings emphasise that the command to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them” refers to a small group of antagonistic idolaters in the Arabian Peninsula during the Prophet’s lifetime. To extrapolate from this verse the idea that Muslims are waiting to go on a collective, religiously sanctioned killing spree is insanity.

Muslim history is distorted because the arguments that present all Muslims as inherently violent dismiss the reality of the tolerant, culturally diverse societies that have characterised much of Muslim history. Places as far-flung as Cordova, Baghdad, Cairo, Sarajevo, Istanbul and others became symbols of tolerance and diversity. Christians, Jews and other minority populations have not only survived, but in many instances thrived under Muslim rule.

Furthermore, for every verse in the Qur’an that apparently encourages a harsh stance towards members of other faith communities – in contextualised circumstances – there are many others urging restraint, tolerance and respect. To illustrate this point, we will examine three verses from the Qur’an. One emphasises the importance of good relations with individual members of other communities. The second emphasises the primacy of pursuing peace, even in the midst of war. The third verse shows that there is no systematic imperative for Muslims to feel enmity towards Jews and Christians, contrary to what some people allege.

Before examining these verses, we acknowledge that contemporary political reality, including the acceptance of the system of nation-states and international law by all Muslim nations, calls for a reformulation of classical Muslim political theory. However, one of the sad aspects of contemporary political discourse is that many people who are antagonistic towards Islam argue from pre-modern Muslim legal references. Hence, it is incumbent upon us to respond from those sources.

The first verse states, “God 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. God loves those who are just.” (60:8) Imam Qurtubi mentions, while explaining this verse, that most of the exegetes consider it to be still operative and reject the idea, posited by some, that it is abrogated.

The many scholars who consider the verse still operative cite as the basis for their position the story of Asma, the daughter of Abu Bakr, when she was visited by her mother, who remained committed to idolatry. She hesitated to accept the gift her mother brought her and refused to allow her into her home. Upon learning of the situation, the Prophet encouraged her to accept her mother’s gift, to host her and to treat her with the utmost kindness. The Prophet was emphasising that basic human decency trumps any considerations related to cast or creed.

Imam Tabari, the Dean of Sunni exegetes, is much more emphatic than Qurtubi in his rejection of the idea that this verse is abrogated. He states, after mentioning the various interpretations of the verse in question, “The most accurate opinion concerning this issue is that of one who says, the people addressed by the verse, “God does not forbid you, concerning those who have not fought you because of your religion…” 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 God, Mighty and Majestic, makes a general statement that includes anyone who fits this description. He does not designate some people to the exclusion of others. The claim that the verse is abrogated is meaningless.”

The importance of this verse is that it is the foundation of one of the pivotal principles of Islam: the decent and equitable treatment of individual members of other faith communities. This is a principle cherished by Muslims and it has defined the ability of Muslims to live in peace and harmony with others throughout the long history of Islam. As Muslims, it is our collective responsibility to make sure this principle remains alive, not only in our community, but in the world at large.

The second verse is, “If they [your enemies] incline towards peace then you should likewise incline and place your trust in God. Surely, He hears and knows all.” (8:61) This verse is particularly important because it undermines the arguments of those who claim there is no Islamic basis for peaceful relations between Muslims and other communities at a strategic level.

Again, the vast majority of exegetes consider this latter verse to be operative. Imam Qurtubi, after mentioning the arguments of those who say that this verse is abrogated, engages in a lengthy discussion of his opinion that it is not. Amongst the reasons he gives as the basis for accepting or initiating a treaty of peace with other communities is that it secures benefit for the Muslims. He also mentions an opinion from Imam Malik that the period of any treaty of peace can be indefinite.

Even in its pre-modern formulation, Islamic law emphasises that it is imperative to seek peace, even in the midst of a conflict. This imperative is so great that even if a Commander believes that his adversaries are only offering a ceasefire to regroup or resupply, he must accept that offer.

The third verse is used by some to argue that Islam aims to humiliate Jews and Christians. This verse states, “Fight against the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] who do not believe in God or the Last Day, those who forbid not what God and His Messenger have forbidden and those who do not accept the Religion of Truth until they pay the tribute out of hand with all due humility.” (9:29)

Muslims and others who seek to use this verse to substantiate such a reading are not engaging in a full analysis of the verse, especially the term that is sometimes translated as “utterly subdued,” which I have translated as “with all due humility”. Imam at-Tabari mentions that some of the scholars are of the opinion that this term means he [the Jew or Christian] pays it [the tribute] standing while the recipient is seated. It should be noted that the tribute mentioned here is only levied on able-bodied adult males in lieu of military service. Such ‘humiliation’ does not govern how that person is treated in the public square.

For example, the scholars agree that anything that would be deemed offensive to a Muslim is forbidden to be visited upon a Jew or Christian. Anything that would demean, belittle, or oppress members of other communities is strictly forbidden. This prohibition emanates from the prophetic tradition, “As for one who oppresses a non-Muslim [in a Muslim land], belittles or burdens him above his capability or takes anything from him against his will, I will be his disputant on the Day of Resurrection.” It is even forbidden to address him with derogatory terms such terms as “nonbeliever.”

Like all other scriptures, it is easy to take a Qur’anic verse out of context and distort its meaning to fit an ideologically defined agenda. However, such an approach not only results in semantic violence towards the text, its can become the basis of physical violence against innocent adherents of a particular religion.

The time has come for members of all faith communities to begin a push towards a higher ground that leads to a common ground. The hard work of fostering understanding will require honest and enlightened scholarship and leadership, coupled with a deep quest for truth, peace and justice. If we stop short of that, we are only cheating ourselves and jeopardising our collective security.

Reprinted from EMEL Magazine
http://emel.com/article.php?id=79&a_id=2238&c=94&return=imam%20zaid%20shakir