Virtual Magazine of Witness-Pioneer

Volume 8 Issue 3 - October-December 2008: Terrorism - Islamic Perspectives (in PDF)


Terrorism Shakil Abdullah
Terrorism: Islamic Perspective Shamama Anwar
Terrorism or War on Islam? Nafis Iskandar
Jihad Hammudah 'Abd al 'Ati
Jihad vis-a-vis Terrorism: Fetullah Gulen's Perspective Maimul A Khan
Misinterpreted Verses and Hadiths about Violence Jamal Badawi
Islam in the West: the Threat of Internal Extremism M. Muqtedar Khan and John Esposito
Interpretation and Exceptionalism Asma Barlas
Exclusive Interview: Shah Abdul Hannan
Exclusive Interview: Prof. A K M Azharul Islam, PhD
Book: “Islam Denounces Terrorism” Harun Yahya
Bringing an End to the World of Extremism Fatima Nasreen Hasan based on Yusuf al-Qaradawi's book
Opinion on "Muslim image in next two decades" Maryam Sakeenah



Alhamdulillah, finally we have finalized the October~December 2008 issue of WP Magazine. It was a daunting task to find quality articles and interviews from experts and compile them in-line with Islamic perspectives.

This issue has covered one of the key topics of this time – terrorism and its consequences. We had the plan to collect articles based on regions, the nature of terrorism and its effect on Muslims around or Islam, and its overall impact on the society. However, we failed to achieve this goal as not enough quality write-ups were in our hands this time. Hence, we concentrated on the topic – Terrorism and its Islamic perspectives. We hope that readers will get some information from these excellent articles and wonderful interviews. The last two articles are basically based on two excellent books: “Islam Denounces Terrorism” by Harun Yahya, and “Islamic Awakening between Rejection and Extremism” by Yusuf Al Qaradawi. We strongly recommend that readers will carefully read the books, which are available online to download.

We humbly thank to the authors for their kind efforts to write for this magazine and for their interviews. We request readers to spread the information of this magazine to as many people as possible. We seek your kind support in terms of spreading the magazine to others, writings, comments or suggestions.

We hope that this issue will clarify much confusion on terrorism, its position in Islam and help people to act, to judge and to work for the best and extinct all the forms of terrorism and establish peace in this world.

Please write for this magazine to and visit the webpage of this magazine. Also keep your eyes on for a free course to start soon!

Editorial Board

N.B.: Respective authors are responsible of their writings or interviews; the editorial board or Witness-Pioneer is not responsible of anything.
Go To Contents

by Shakil Abdullah

Terrorism is generally defined as killing of civilians for political reasons. Dr Azzam Tamimi, Senior Lecturer, Markfield Institute of Higher Education, writes: “A straightforward definition of terrorism has been: ‘the use of force [or violence] to advocate a political cause'.”

It is to be emphasized that terrorism against the innocent civilians, whether through aggression or suicidal means, is under no circumstances permissible in Islam. Islam encourages the oppressed people to struggle for their liberation and it commands other Muslims to help those who are oppressed and suffering, but Islam does not allow, under any circumstance, terrorism against non-combatants and innocent people.

Islam has not only forbidden terror and violence, but also abhors even the slightest imposition of any idea on another human being. Allah Almighty says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.” (Al-Baqarah 2: 256) He Almighty also says: “So remind, you need only to remind. You cannot compel them to believe.” (Al-Ghashiyah 88: 22)

Some people who say they are acting in the name of religion may misunderstand their religion or practice it wrongly. For this reason, it is a mistake to form any idea of that religion from the activities of these people. The best way to understand Islam is through its holy source, the Qur'an; and the model of morality in the Qur'an is completely different from the image of it formed in the minds of some Westerners or some bigot Muslims. The Qur'an is based on the concepts of morality, love, compassion, mercy, modesty, self-sacrifice, tolerance and peace, and a Muslim who truly lives according to these moral precepts is highly refined, thoughtful, tolerant, trustworthy and accommodating. To those around him he gives love, respect, peace of mind and a sense of the joy of life.

Islam is a Religion of Peace & Well-Being:
The word Islam has the same meaning as "peace" in Arabic. Islam is a religion that came down to offer humanity a life filled with the peace and well-being in which Allah's eternal mercy and compassion is manifested in the world. Allah invites all people to accept the moral teachings of the Qur'an as a model whereby mercy, compassion, tolerance and peace may be experienced in the world. In verse 208 of Surat Al-Baqarah, this command is given: “You who believe! Enter absolutely into peace (Islam). Do not follow in the footsteps of Satan. He is an outright enemy to you.” As we see in this verse, people will experience well-being and happiness by living according to the moral teaching of the Qur'an.

Allah Condemns Mischief:
Allah has commanded humanity to avoid evil; He has forbidden immorality, rebellion, cruelty, aggressiveness, murder and bloodshed. Those who do not obey this command of Allah are walking in the steps of Satan, as the Qur'an says in the verse above, and have adopted an attitude that Allah has clearly declared unlawful. Of the many verses that bear on this subject, here are only two: “But as for those who break Allah's contract after it has been agreed and sever what Allah has commanded to be joined, and cause corruption in the earth, the curse will be upon them. They will have the Evil Abode.” (Ar-Ra'd 13: 25)

He Almighty also says: “Seek the abode of the hereafter with what Allah has given you, without forgetting your portion of the world. And do good as Allah has been good to you. And do not seek to cause mischief on earth. Allah does not love mischief makers.” (Al-Qasas 28: 77)

As we can see, Allah has forbidden every kind of mischievous acts in Islam including terrorism and violence, and condemned those who commit such deeds. A Muslim lends beauty to the world and improves it.

Islam Defends Tolerance and Freedom of Speech:
Islam is a religion, which fosters freedom of life, ideas and thought. It has forbidden tension and conflict among people, calumny, suspicion and even having negative thoughts about another individual. To force anyone to believe in a religion or to practice it is against the spirit and essence of Islam. Because it is necessary that faith be accepted with free will and conscience. Of course, Muslims may urge one another to keep the moral precepts taught in the Qur'an, but they never use compulsion. In any case, an individual cannot be induced to the practice of religion by either threat or offering him a worldly privilege.

Allah has Commanded Tolerance and Forgiveness:
In Surat Al-A'raf, verse 199, the phrase “practice forgiveness”, expresses the concept of forgiveness and tolerance which is one of the basic principles of Islam.

When we look at Islamic history, we can see clearly how Muslims established this important precept of the moral teaching of the Qur'an in their social life. At every point in their advance, Muslims destroyed unlawful practices and created a free and tolerant environment. In the areas of religion, language and culture, they made it possible for people totally opposite to each other to live under the same roof in freedom and peace, thereby giving to those subject to them the advantages of knowledge, wealth and position.

Likewise, one of the most important reasons that the large and widespread Ottoman Empire was able to sustain its existence for so many centuries was that its way of life was directed by the tolerance and understanding brought by Islam. For centuries, their tolerance and compassion have characterized Muslims. In every period of time they have been the most just and merciful of people. All ethnic groups within this multi-national community freely practiced the religions they have followed for years and enjoyed every opportunity to live in their own cultures and worship in their own way. Indeed, the particular tolerance of Muslims, when practiced as commanded in the Qur'an, can alone bring peace and well-being to the whole world. The Qur'an refers to this particular kind of tolerance: “The good deed and the evil deed are not alike. Repel the evil deed with one which is better, then lo! he, between whom and thee there was enmity (will become) as though he was a bosom friend.” (Fussilat 41: 34)

All this shows that the moral teaching offered to humanity by Islam is one that will bring peace, happiness and justice to the world. The barbarism that is happening in the world today under the name of "Islamic Terrorism" is completely removed from the moral teachings of the Qur'an; it is the work of ignorant, bigoted people, criminals who have nothing to do with religion. The solution which will be applied against these individuals and groups who are trying to commit their deeds of savagery under the guise of Islam, will be the instruction of people in the true moral teaching of Islam.

Three Basic Principles of Islam that Goes Counter to Terrorism:
Eminent Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi states:
“No doubt, aggression against innocent people is a grave sin and a heinous crime, irrespective of the victim's religion, country, or race. No one is permitted to commit such crime, for Allah, Most High, abhors aggression. Unlike Judaism, Islam does not hold a double-standard policy in safeguarding human rights.”

Following, I would like to highlight some relevant Islamic principles based on the Glorious Qur'an and Sunnah:

1. Islam Forbids Aggression against Innocent People
Islam does not permit aggression against innocent people, whether the aggression is against life, property, or honor, and this ruling applies to everyone, regardless of post, status and prestige. In Islam, as the state's subject is addressed with Islamic teachings, so is the ruler or caliph; he is not allowed to violate people's rights, lives, honor, property, etc.

In the Farewell Pilgrimage, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) declared the principle that people's lives, property, and honor are inviolable until the Day of Judgment. This ruling is not restricted to Muslims; rather, it includes non-Muslims who are not fighting Muslims. Even in case of war, Islam does not permit killing those who are not involved in fighting, such as women, children, the aged, and the monks who confine themselves to worship only.

This shouldn't raise any wonder, for Islam is a religion that prohibits aggression even against animals. Ibn `Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, quote the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, as saying: "A woman (was made to) enter (Hell) Fire because of a cat which she tied, neither giving it food nor setting it free to eat from the vermin of the earth." (Reported by Al-Bukhari)

If such is Islamic ruling concerning aggressive acts against animals, then, with greater reason, the punishment is bond to be severe when human being happens to be the victim of aggression, torture and terrorism.

2. Individual Responsibility
In Islam, every one is held accountable for his own acts, not others'. No one bears the consequences of others' faults, even his close relatives. This is the ultimate form of justice, clarified in the Glorious Qur'an, as Allah, Most High, says, “Or hath he not had news of what is in the books of Moses and Abraham who fulfilled (the commandments): That no laden one shall bear another's load.” (An-Najm 53: 36-38)

Therefore, it's very painful to see some people ¨who are Muslims by name¨ launching aggression against innocent people and taking them as scapegoats for any disagreement they have with the state's authority!! What is the crime of the common people then?! Murder is one of heinous crimes completely abhorred in Islam, to the extent that some Muslim scholars hold the opinion that the repentance of the murderer will not be accepted by Allah, Most High. In this context, we recall the Glorious Qur'anic verse that reads, “­if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people.” (Al-Ma'idah 5: 32)

3. Ends do not Justify Means
In Islam, the notion “End justifies the means” has no place at all. It is not allowed to attain good aims through evil means, and, therefore, alms collected from unlawful avenues are not halal (lawful). In this context, the Messenger of Allah, (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Surely, Allah is Good and never accepts but what is good."

Thus, in Shari`ah, with all its sources, “the Glorious Qur'an, the Sunnah, consensus of Muslim jurists”, aggression and violation of human rights are completely forbidden. On this issue, Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, President of the Fiqh Council of North America, adds:

“The Islamic position as regards non-Muslims is that they should recognize Allah's Oneness and Prophet Muhammad as Allah's Final Prophet. They should accept Islam to live happily and successfully in this world and to be saved in the Hereafter. It is Muslims' duty to give them this message clearly, but without any coercion or intolerance. If others accept this message it is good for them, but if they do not accept, Muslims should still treat them with kindness and gentleness and leave the final judgment to Allah.”

In our enthusiasm for da`wah, we should not be intolerant and aggressive towards others. However, in our politeness and civility we should also not give up our mission and message. We should not be intimidated to become quiet and we should not feel shy to tell the truth.

Jihad: Its difference from terrorism:
Terrorism is not Jihad, it is Fasad (mischief). It is against the teachings of Islam. There are some people who use their twisted arguments to justify terrorism for their causes, but it has no justification: Allah says: “When it is said to them: 'Make not mischief on the earth,' they say: 'Why, we only want to correct things.' Indeed they are the mischief doers, but they realize (it) not.” (Al-Baqarah 2: 11-12)

The word Jihad does not mean “Holy War”. It means “struggle” or “striving”. The word for war in the Qur'an is “Harb” or “Qital”. Jihad means serious and sincere struggle on the personal as well as on the social level. It is a struggle to do good and to remove injustice, oppression and evil from the society. This struggle should be spiritual as well as social, economic and political. Jihad is to work hard to do right things. In the Qur'an this word is used in its different forms 33 times. It often comes with other Qur'anic concepts such as faith, repentance, righteous deeds and migration.

Jihad is to protect one's faith and one's human rights. Jihad is not a war always although it can take the form of war. Islam is the religion of peace, but it does not mean that Islam accepts oppression. Islam teaches that one should do one's utmost to eliminate tension and conflict. Islam promotes non-violent means to bring change and reform. Actually, Islam urges that one should eliminate evil through peaceful means without the use of force as much as possible. In Islamic history from the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) until now, Muslims most of the time resisted oppression and struggled for liberation in non-violent and peaceful manners.

Islam teaches proper ethics in the situation of war also. The war is permissible in Islam, but only when other peaceful means such as dialogue, negotiations and treaties fail. It is a last resort and should be avoided as much as possible. Its purpose is not to convert people by force, or to colonize people or to acquire land or wealth or for self-glory. Its purpose is basically: defense of life, property, land, honor and freedom for oneself as well as defense of others from injustice and oppression.

Basic rules of war in Islam are: Allah says very clearly: “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not do aggression, for Allah loves not the aggressors.” (Al-Baqarah 2: 190)
“The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.” (Al-Baqarah 2: 194)

Islam wants to establish a world order where all human beings - Muslims and non-Muslims - can live with justice in peace, harmony and good will. It gives its followers full guidelines to find peace in their personal and social lives, but it also tells them how to extend the good will on the basis of human relations towards others. Muslims worked under these principles for centuries. People of many faiths lived with them and among them. Islamic societies were known for their tolerance, generosity and humanity.

In our modern society where we are living in a global village, where non-Muslims are living with Muslims in the Muslim countries and Muslims are living with non-Muslims in countries where non-Muslims constitute a majority, it is our duty to bring better understanding among ourselves, work for peace and justice for all people and cooperate with each other in matters of goodness and virtue in order to stop all terrorism, aggression and violence against the innocent people. This is our Jihad today.

Question-answer from Islam Online:
1. “What does Islam say about terrorism and the fight for religion?”,
2. “Aggression Against Innocent People”,
3. “Jihad: Its True Meaning and Purpose”,

Supplementary Reading:
1. “What does the term "Jihad" mean to you as Muslims?”, source:
2. “What is Terrorism and What is Not?”, Azzam Tamimi, source: 
3. “Condemned By Terrorism”, Ramzy Baroud, source:
4. “Terrorism is not a Muslim monopoly”, Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar, source:

Contributor: Shakil Abdullah, in cooperation with Shah Abdul Hannan, Advisor of Witness-Pioneer International. He is a Shura Member of Witness-Pioneer and can be reached at
Go To Contents

Terrorism: Islamic Perspective
by Shamama Anwar

Terrorism is an outrageous attack carried out either by individuals or groups against the human being, his religion, life, intellect, property and honor. It includes all forms of intimidation, harm, threatening, killing without just cause and even terrifying and horrifying people by hurting them or by exposing their lives, liberty, security or conditions to danger.

Islam, a religion of mercy, does not permit terrorism. In the Qur'an, Allah has said: "And seek not occasions for mischief in the land: for Allah loves not those who do mischief.” (28:77)

Islam urges the protection of human life, honor, property, religion and intellect.  Allah says in the Qur'an:  "If any do transgress the limits ordained by Allah, such persons wrong themselves as well as others.” (2:229)

Accordingly, in furtherance of this honor bestowed upon mankind, Islam prohibits man's injustice to his fellow man, and condemns those who cause harm to people, not only in the Muslim world, but anywhere in the world.  Allah says in the Qur'an:  "The things that the Lord has indeed forbidden are; shameful deeds, whether open or secret; sins and trespasses against truth or reason." (7:33)

Furthermore, Islam ordered its followers to keep away from anything that may cause turmoil among the people, and warned at the same time, against its evil consequences. 

"And fear tumult or oppression, which affects not in particular (only) those of you who do wrong: And know that Allah is strict in punishment." (8:25)

With regard to the non Muslims, Islam ordered that they must be treated justly. It gave them rights and imposed duties on them. It gave them security in the Muslim world, and imposed blood-money and compensation for an act of killing committed against anyone among them.  Allah says:  "If he belonged to a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance, blood-money shall be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed.” (4:92)

Moreover, Islam does not forbid its followers from being charitable towards those who do not fight them or expel them from their homes.  Allah says in the Qur'an: "Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for your faith, nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: For Allah loves those who are just.” (60:8) 

"And let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do." (5:8)

In Islam, Jihad is ordained to uphold right, repel injustice and establish justice, peace, security and clemency. More specifically, Jihad has been ordained to eliminate all forms of terrorism, and to defend the homeland. Jihad is waged against those who support others in driving out people out of their homes.

Islam forbids the killing of innocent persons, such as the elderly, women and children; pursuit of fleeing persons, slaying persons who have surrendered, injuring prisoners, or mutilating the bodies of the dead, or destroying structures and buildings that have no connection with combat. “God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers.” (60:8)

In light of these and other Islamic texts, the act of inciting terror in the hearts of defenseless civilians, the wholesale destruction of buildings and properties, the bombing and maiming of innocent men, women, and children are all forbidden and detestable acts according to Islam. Muslims follow a religion of peace, mercy, and forgiveness, and the vast majority have nothing to do with the violent events some have associated with Muslims.

May Allah, Almighty guide us all to the Truth and spread peace throughout the earth. Ameen.

3. “Terrorism: Islam's Viewpoint”, reprinted from the Muslim World League Journal, Jumad al-Ula 1423, July 2002.  

Contributor: Shamama Anwar is a Guest Faculty, Department of Computer Science, St. Xavier's College, Ranchi, India. The author can be available at
Go To Contents

Terrorism or War on Islam?
by Nafis Iskandar

The Wikipedia extract states the definition of Terrorism: “Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." There is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. A common opinion about terrorist groups, especially after the 'Global War on Terror' began after 9/11/2001, is that the majority of terrorist attacks are due to Islamic-extremists or radical religious groups. The 2001 attack of the World Trade Center and the hijacking of four passenger jets are a very well known and a well documented example of Islamic terrorism in recent memory.” (Extracted from Wikipedia)

The key word that was intriguing was the use of the phrase Islamic Terrorism. The Muslim Ummah has been plagued with the constant use of this phrase over time since 9/11. This phrase has led to the development of hatred among the populous masses in the West towards Islam and the ideology it presents. The fear is instilled in the masses that Islam envisions evil and acts of terror. Yet, the following questions remain:
Since so many questions require to be answered, it would be prudent to focus on the subject of the Sovereignty of Allah (Swt) to dispel the notion that Islam espouses violence. One may question the reason for diverging from the topic. Well, in order to comprehend the purpose of Islam it is imperative to express the role of the Sovereignty of Allah (Swt). The following verses of the Holy Qur'an reflect upon the Sovereignty of Allah (Swt):

“God is the Creator; to Him alone therefore belongs the kingdom and He is the only Sovereign: 'Surely Your only Lord is God who has created the heaven and the earth... verily to Him belong the creation and the sovereignty'” (al-A'raf 7: 54).

And: “He has created the heavens and the earth with a purpose. He wraps night about day and He wraps day about night... He has created you from one being... That then is God, your only Lord; His is the kingdom. There is no god but He.” (al-Zumar 39: 5-6)

“God is the Creator. To Him alone, therefore, as his only Lord and Master, man must submit his entire being: 'Your God is One God, so only to Him submit.” (al-Hajj 22: 34)

“That then is God, your only Lord; there is no god but He, the Creator of everything. So Him alone serve.” (al-An'am 6: 102)

The above verses testifies to the fact that Allah (Swt) is the SOVEREIGN KING and The LORD OF THE UNIVERSE and there in no GOD BUT Allah (Swt). Now, to legitimize this SOVEREIGNTY in this Earth, our Beloved Prophet Muhammad (saw) preached the message of Islam as per the Qur'an and the Hadith with one purpose “Submission to Allah (Swt)”. Certain question may stem at this time with respect to one's intellect

What relationship does Sovereign Legitimacy play to Terrorism? The answer lies in the exhibition of fear of the resurgence of an Islamic Empire that has already planted its seed and is in a process of growth. Now, the question arises, who is in fear of such an Resurgence? One who is opposed to the belief that Islam is the Message of Allah (Swt) which is based on the Establishment of the Sovereignty of Allah (Swt) in this world.

Using the Global War on Terror as an instrument of extermination, the Non Muslim nations are engaged in a War on Islam and its resurgence towards establishing Islamic Empire. Therefore, any proponent of such a notion (Islamic revival) that seeks towards working for the establishment of GOD's Law in the World, falls under the rubric of extremism, Islamic Fanaticism, Islamic terrorism, etc. If a Muslim is oppressed in different parts of the world and a movement of individuals chooses to defend against that oppression, the label of Islamic terrorism is applied by the Non Muslim intellectuals, media, and politicians. If a Muslim is languishing in the dungeons of Guantanamo Bay, HMP Belmarsh, etc., then such a Muslim is an enemy combatant subservient towards welfare of the State. The catastrophe of 9/11 seven years ago, has triggered more than 100s of 9/11s in Iraq and Afghanistan under the label of War on Terror. This claim of so called War on Terror has now crossed the border to Pakistan where attacks are killing innocent Muslim masses in villages. Muslim masses throughout our Ummah are educated to fight extremism by these so called proponents of War on Terror. These proponents exhibit an act of hypocrisy. In an article by Mariam Ali (Reflections, The Student Newsletter of the Muslim Association of Britian's Youth Section, February 2006), the following excepts shares some horrifying experiences of a so called act of Rendition that is perpetrated by the US:

“Mamdouh Habib was born in Egypt but was granted Australian nationality, where he lived with his wife and four children. While on a business trip to Pakistan in 2001, he was seized and flown to Egypt by CIA Agents. In his lawyer's report, it states “Beatings were routine… Habib] was always handcuffed and sometimes suspended from hooks on the wall, [and] was kicked, punched and beaten with a stick, and rammed with what can only be described as an electric cattle prod.”. Electrodes would be attached to the most sensitive parts of the body during “interrogations”. He was often made to stand for hours on his toes in rooms that were filled with water up to his mouth. After a false confession is extracted from him he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay where he is denied medical care for his internal physical injuries and has been left in a catastrophic mental state”.

“28 year old Binyam Mohammed came to Britain as an asylum seeker in 1992. He was arrested by the FBI on a trip to Pakistan in 2002. He was flown to Morocco, where Moroccan interrogators threatened to beat and rape him if he didn't talk. Unable to give them the information they wanted, purely because he was completely innocent of their allegations, the severity of the torture was stepped up. Mohammed reported the following “They took a scalpel to my right chest. It was only a small cut. Then they cut my left chest”. He was also subject to mental torture when he was intoxicated with alcohol, drugged with heroin, subjected to pornography, and made to wear earphones playing “MeatLoaf” and “Aerosmith” and people's screams nonstop 24 hours. He was then transferred to Afghanistan under US custody. He is still being held in Guantanamo Bay, even though he has been formally “released” after signing another ready-made confession.”

However, if we reflect upon the definition of Terrorism i.e., Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Doesn't the above actions orchestrated by the nations that proclaim to be engaged in the War on Terror in actuality becoming proponents of state sponsored terror? Are they not exhibiting fear? Are they not instilling coercion? Are they not using violent means to accomplish their so called goal of rooting out terror?

Therefore, in conclusion it is suffice to ascertain that the Global War on Terror is actually a War on Islam and its growing resurgence towards establishment of the Rule of GOD in this world. It is a War on Muslims globally evident by the torture chambers of Guantanamo Bay, Muslim nation (no human rights is allowed) prisons, HMP Belmarsh and other prisons where more than eight hundred Muslims are held without any charge ( The proponents of this Global War are in fact by their own definition engaged in acts of terrorism and hide under so called Rendition and Extraordinary Rendition acts that allow them to do whatever they want believing this myth that they are engaged in rooting out terrorists. Finally, this quote of Hadith is a representation of the Muslim masses' duty towards the Ummah:

“You will find the believers, with respect to their mutual mercy, love and compassion for one another, like one body: if one portion of the body is ailing, the rest of the body suffers from sleeplessness and fever” (Bukhari and Muslim).

Contributor: Nafis Iskandar is an active member of Witness-Pioneer Virtual School, and can be available at
Go To Contents

by Hammudah 'Abd al 'Ati

The Holy War (Jihad)
Was Islam spread at the point of sword? Was the Muslim emblem "The Qur'an or the sword?" Were the Muslims imperialist and after mundane power or loot? Some people like to think about that in affirmative terms; some others in the negative, and some are undecided, perplexed and reluctant. But where does the Qur'an stand? What does the history of Muhammad reveal in this connection? It is certainly imperative on every honest person who has respect for truth and human dignity to find out for himself, and to reveal his findings to others.

The Qur'an makes it clear that, whether we want it or not, war is a necessity of existence, a fact of life, so long as there exist in the world injustice expression, capricious ambitions, and arbitrary claims. This may sound strange. But is it not a matter of historical record that humanity-from the early dawn of history up till now - has suffered from local, civil and global wars? And is it not also a fact that, more often than not, victorious allies settle their disputes over their gains and the status of their defeated enemies through wars and threats of war? Even today humanity lives under constant fear and buzzes of war over many hot spots in the world. Could God overlook these facts of life? Or could the Qur'an fail to deal with the matter in a realistic and effective manner? Certainly not! And that is why Islam has recognized war as a lawful and justifiable course for self- defense and restoration of justice, freedom and peace. The Qur'an says:

“Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. God knows, and you know not.” (2:216). “And did not God check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief: But God is Full of bounty to all the worlds.” (2:251). “And did not God check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of God is commemorated in abundant measure.” (22.40).

Although realistic in its approach, Islam never tolerates aggression from its own side or from any other side, nor does it entertain aggressive wars or the initiation of aggressive wars. Muslims are commanded by God not to begin hostilities, or embark on any act of aggression, or violate any rights of others. In addition to what has been already said in the previous chapter, some particular verses of the Qur'an are of significant bearing. God says:

“Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, and do not transgress limits (begin not hostility): For God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, God is Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more persecution or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice, oppression.” (2:190-193).

War is not an objective of Islam nor is it the normal course of Muslims. It is only the last resort and is used under the most extra- ordinary circumstances when all other measures fail. This is the actual status of war in Islam. Islam is the religion of peace: its meaning is peace; one of God's names is peace; the daily greetings of Muslims and angels are peace; paradise is the house of peace, the adjective ‘Muslim' means Peaceful. Peace is the nature, the meaning, the emblem and the objective of Islam. Every being is entitled to enjoy the peace of Islam and the kindness of the peaceful Muslims, regardless of religious or geographical/or racial considerations, so long as there is no aggression against Islam or the Muslims. If non-Muslims are peaceful with the Muslims or even indifferent to Islam, there ran be no ground or justification to declare war on them. There is no such thing as religious war to force Islam on non-Muslims, because if I lam does not emerge from deep convictions, from within, it is not Acceptable to God, nor can it help its professor. If there is any religion or constitution to guarantee peaceful freedom of religion and forbid compulsion in religion, it is Islam and Islam alone. To this point the Qur'an refers as follows:

“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error; Whoever rejects Evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And God hears and knows all things.” (2:256).

Even in the propagation of Islam a Muslim is not only forbidden to employ force but is also commanded to use the most peaceful methods. To Muhammad God says: “Invite (all) to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: For your Lord knows best who have strayed from His Path and who receive guidance.” (16:125). “And dispute you not with the People of the Book (Jews and except with means Better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): But say: ‘We believe in the Revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; our God and your God is One; and it is to Him we bow' (in Islam).” (29:46).

Now if Islam is so designated for peace, and if the Muslims are so dedicated to peace, and if the Qur'an is favorable to peace, why then did Muhammad launch wars and command battles? Why does the Qur'an say ‘slay them' and fight them? To examine this seemingly innocent inquiry, it is indispensable to mention some historical facts that accompanied and anticipated the Muslim wars against the infidels.

After receiving the Charge from God, Muhammad called a public meeting and told the assembly of what he had received, appealing to them to give up their idol-worship and believe in the One True God. His first peaceful and logical appeal was met not only with resistance but also with jeers, mockery and laughter. He tried continually to present his people with the blessed Call but had little success. Because he was not left free to propagate Islam in the open, he had to resort to private preaching for some years to save the lives of his few followers and mitigate their hardships. When instructions from God came to him to preach in the open, persecutions and torture increased and were brutally inflicted on the Muslims. But the more the persecutions increased, the higher the number of Muslims arose. The infidels tried all kinds of pressure and temptation to silence the Call of God. But the more they tried, the firmer Muhammad and the Muslims stood. When the infidels failed to shake the Faith of the Believers by threats, pressure, confiscation of property, jeers, etc., they organized a harsh boycott, a fierce campaign of ostracism, against the Muslims. For some years the Muslims were forced to remain within a very tight circle of association, unable to preach or sell or buy or marry or contact any of their fellow Meccans. Even this did not shake the Muslims' Faith. The boycott went on until the infidels themselves were tired of its observance and had to call it off.

Bringing the severe boycott to an end was no indication of peace or anticipation of tranquility on the part of the infidels. On the contrary, pressure and persecution continued with a rapid increase, but it was all in vain as far as the Muslims were concerned. Finally, the infidels convened a summit conference behind closed doors to discuss what to do next to eliminate Islam and get rid of Muhammad once and for all. A unanimous resolution was adopted to select a strong man from every tribe and murder Muhammad in his bed. The mission of Muhammad was not destined to end at that level. So, God instructed him to leave Mecca, his dear hometown, and migrate to Medina to reunite with the native Muslims and the earlier emigrants who had fled from Mecca to Medina (see Qur'an, 8:30; 9:40). This was the Great Event of Hijrah or, Emigration with which the history of Islam began and by which the Muslim Calendar goes.

Fleeing from Mecca, the Muslims were forced by a variety of circumstances to leave behind practically all their properties, belongings and even families. As soon as they settled in Medina, Muhammad resumed his peaceful preaching and his gracious invitation to Islam. Some natives responded favorably to the Call of God and immediately became full-fledged members of the Muslim community. Others did not embrace Islam but maintained their traditional beliefs. And because Muhammad was dedicated to dignified peace and reform, he concluded treaties with the non-Muslims assuring them of freedom and security, and creating in their hearts, for the first time, a socio-national conscience instead of the narrow tribal allegiance.

While Muhammad was engaged in these reforms, trying to organize the Muslim community at Medina and lay down the foundations of a stable and peaceful society wherein Muslims and non- Muslims could live side by side, the enemies at Mecca were restless. Their hatred of the Muslims was burning, and their determination to eliminate Islam was getting stronger and stronger every day. They reviewed their tactics and as soon as they completed their new plans, they started to implement them. They decided to make trouble for the Muslims from within and from without. Plundering and fighting raids were organized to attack Medina and get back to Mecca with whatever loot they could lay their hands on. The non-Muslims at Medina were getting increasingly envious of the popularity of Islam and the novel spirit of brotherhood among the Muslims, something which they themselves did not experience or particularly like to see experienced. So, the enemies at Mecca hastened to exploit the situation and stir internal troubles for the Muslims. The response of the envious non-Muslims of Medina to the instigation of, the Meccans was quick and manifest, and serious troubles were arising all over Medina.

Now the Muslims were being constantly threatened from within by the disenchanted at Medina as well as by the raids organized from Mecca. They were driven to a point where they could not stand any more persecution and threats. Their families were separated from them by force. Their properties were confiscated. Their blood was shed. They were forced to leave their dear hometown in three waves of migration: two to Abyssinia and one to Medina. They endured for over thirteen years. With the new tactics of the Meccan enemies there was no course for the Muslims except to await their final annihilation in a plural massacre or defend themselves against oppression and persecution.

It must have been a paradox. Islam came to assure them of dignity and strength, freedom and security, and to ally them with God the Supreme Source of goodness and help, power and peace. Yet here they were helpless and anxious, threatened and terrified. Islam commissioned them to establish peace, to enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, to support the oppressed and emancipate the subjugated, and to prove how reliable and helpful to His servants God is. But how could they do that; if they themselves were oppressed, subjugated to terror and projected to helplessness?

What perplexed them most of all was that the. Qur'an had been silent on the matter, and had given them no specific instructions as to what to do. Their perplexity did not last long, and God relieved their grief by a Divine resolution to solve their problems and those of any who might find themselves in a similar situation. Here is how God words His resolution:

“Verily God will defend those who believe: Verily God loves not any that is a traitor to faith or shows ingratitude. To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily, God is Most Powerful for their aid; (they are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right, (for no cause) except that they say: ‘Our Lord is God'. Did not God check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of God is commemorated in abundant measure. God will certainly aid those who aid His (cause); for verily God is Full of strength, Exalted in Might, (Able to enforce His Will). (They are) those who, if We establish them in the land, establish regular prayer and give regular charity, enjoin the right and forbid the wrong. With God rests the end (and decision) of all affairs.” (22:38-41)

With this permission from God there was no more persecution or oppression to be inflicted on the Muslims. There was resistance from their side to restore tranquility, to regain their peace and freedom, to reunite with their families and take back their belongings. There were battles and wars with the malicious infidels who flagrantly denied the Muslims peace and freedom. But never was there any aggression from the Muslim side, or any destruction of homes, crops, supplies, etc., or any killing of non-fighting children, women, elders and disabled people. The Muslims observed these rules and remained within the limits of God. That was something which had never been experienced before nor has been experienced after. It was under these circumstances that the Muslims had to fight, and it was with these principles and instructions of God that they in the end achieved decisive victories.

So much has been said or written about the "ruthless" Muslims who emerged from the burning and dry deserts of dark Arabia to conquer the Roman and Persian protectorates, and even to venture around the walls of Europe. Many have expressed the opinion that those Muslims were motivated by religious zeal to spread Islam by force as far as they could reach. Many others consider this opinion silly and naive, because Islam-by its nature-cannot be forced; and even if it were supposedly forced on the conquered people, it could not have lasted there for long, and non-Muslims would have been liquidated from the conquered regions. History bears witness to the fact that wherever Islam reached it survived-with the exception of Spain on account of certain reasons, and that wherever the Muslim conquerors went, they lived side by side with non-Muslim natives Moreover, they argue, one cannot force a religion like Islam an anyone and find him so sincere and honest about his faith as were, those Muslim converts of the new lands. It needs more than compulsion to develop such good Muslims out of a defeated people, and it requires much more than suppression to make them uphold and cherish the "forced" religion.

Another trend of thought is adopted by some who like to call themselves intellectuals or enlightened critics and authorities. They are not satisfied with that silly and naive opinion about the spread of Islam by force. They attribute the expansion of Islam to the aggressive wars launched by Muslims who suffocated in the heat and drought of Arabia, and were simply motivated by economic needs and circumstances. Those wars and adventures were not religious or spiritual but merely the outcome of pressing wants. This may indicate that the Arabs had not arisen to such a high level of sacrifice and devotion, or that after the death of Muhammad his survivors and theirs lost interest in religion altogether and took off to satisfy their immediate wants. It may also indicate that Islam itself is incapable of generating such fervor and zeal in those Muslim Arab warriors. The indication here is manifold, and the "intellectuals" of this opinion are uncertain as to which probability should have preference over others.

There is still one more trend adopted by some people who ascribe the Muslim wars out of Arabia to passionate lust for plunder and raiding. They cannot see any motive or, appreciate any appeal in the Muslims except hunger for blood and desire for loot. They refuse to see any virtue in Islam and to associate the Muslims with any high motives.

The dispute between these various sections is quite serious and sometimes takes the shape of academic discussion. But be that as it may. The fact of the matter is that none of these critics has made any serious attempt to understand the whole question and present the truth in any honest manner. None of them has had the needed insight and the moral courage to come out with the true version of the entire case. How heavy their burden will be when they discover some day that they have misled and misinformed millions of people! How serious their responsibility will be when they know that they have committed grave offenses against the truth, against the Muslims and against their own followers!

It will be impossible to present here the viewpoint of Islam in detail concerning each war or battle. However, there are certain main points which will, when mentioned, give a fair idea of the whole matter.

1. It should be remembered that Muhammad, who was commissioned by God as a mercy for all mankind, tried to approach the rulers of the neighboring territories, inviting them to embrace Islam and share in the mercy of God. It should also be remembered that they did not only reject his gracious invitation but also derided him and declared open wars against the Muslims. In his lifetime the Roman and Persian soldiers crossed the Muslim borders in various raids. So by the time of his death the Muslims were involuntarily at war with their neighbors.

That state of affairs continued, and whatever happened later in the following generations has to be seen in the context of those first incidents. This meant at the time that all Christendom, including Spain and France, was at war with the emerging world of Islam. The adventure of the Muslims in Europe has also to be seen in the light of these circumstances. The fact that all Christendom was operating as one power is proven by the unquestionable authority of the Roman papacy over Christians. It is also proven by the general mobilization of Christian powers against Islam during the Crusades of the Middle Ages and even of the first quarter of this twentieth century.

So, when Rome sanctioned war against Islam, the Muslims could not be denied the full right to fight back on any battleground- whether in Palestine or in the Fertile Crescent, Italy or Hungary. This is what took them to Spain and Southern France. They could not afford to be encircled from all around by, the mighty power of Rome and Persia. Nor could they just wait to be wiped out from the face of the earth. Orders were issued from Rome to slay Muhammad and present the Royal Court with his cut head, something which the pagan Romans had done to the early Christian pioneers. However, it must be admitted that some wars of later centuries had no relation to Islam, although they were fought by Muslims. They were not for the spread of Islam. Rather, they were motivated by certain local and, perhaps, personal reasons. Aggression is aggression, whether it be from or against the Muslims, and the attitude of Islam toward aggression is known and unchangeable. So, if there was aggression in those later wars, it could not be justified by Islam or acceptable to God.

2. None of the said critics tries to understand the nature and circumstances of those early centuries. The media of mass communication did not exist. There was no press or radio or television or even regular mail service. There was no way of public information or preaching except by personal contacts. There was no respect for life or property or honor or treaties of the individuals and of the weak nations. There was no security or freedom of expression. Whoever stood for a noble cause or came out with unpopular beliefs was menaced. This is revealed from the history of Socrates the Greek philosopher, of the Christian pioneers, and of the early Muslims. Many emissaries commissioned to deliver special messages to rulers and governors never came back alive. They were cold-bloodedly murdered or captured by their very hosts.

With all these hardships the Muslims of Arabia had to cope, and under all these circumstances they had to work. They had a message to deliver to mankind, a contribution to make to humanity, and a formula of salvation to offer. The Qur'an says invite to the Way of God by wisdom and beautiful preaching, and argue in the most gracious manner. But who was there prepared to listen to the peaceful Call of God? It is a fact that many disbelievers used to avoid hearing the Prophet lest they might be affected by his peaceful preaching. They even resisted by force the peaceful Call of Islam. The early experience of Arabia taught the Muslims that it is more effective to be peaceful and at the same time stand on guard; that you can move in peace only when you are strong enough to guard your peace; that your voice of peace would echo better when you are able to resist pressure and eliminate oppression.

Now they had, by the order of God, to make Islam known to the outside world, but there was no telecommunication system or press or any other mass medium of communication. There was only one course to take, namely, personal and direct contacts, which meant that they had to cross the borders. But they could not do that in small or unarmed groups. So they had to move in large protected groups which must have appeared like an army, but was not an army in the real sense. They crossed the borders in various directions at different times. What took place then deserves consideration. In some areas they were warmly welcomed by the natives, who had long been oppressed and subjugated by the foreign powers of Rome and Persia. In some other areas they were first to offer Islam to those who were prepared to accept it, and there were many. Those who did not embrace Islam were asked to pay tributes equivalent to the Islamic tax (Zakah). The reasons for demanding this kind of tax were: (1) that they wanted to be sure this taxpayer knew what he was doing, and that Islam was presented to him but he rejected it with his own free will and choice; (2) that they undertook to protect the taxpayer and guarantee his security and freedom in a way equal to that of the Muslim himself, because any danger to him was a danger to his Muslim compatriot-and, to defend the Muslim, they had to defend the non-Muslim and insure his security; (3) that the new state of affairs demanded the support and cooperation of all sectors, Muslims find non-Muslims alike: the former by Zakah, the latter by tributes, which were all spent in the public interest; and (4) that they wanted to be certain he was not hostile to them and their new brethren, or inclined to make troubles for his Muslim compatriots.

Those who rejected Islam and refused to pay tributes in collaboration with other sectors to support their state made it hard for themselves. They resorted to a hostile course from the beginning, and meant to create trouble, not so much for the new Muslim comers as for the new Muslim converts and their compatriots, the tribute- payers. In a national sense, that attitude was treacherous; in a human sense, mean; in a social sense, careless; and in a military sense, provocative. But in a practical sense it needed suppression, not so much for the comfort of the newcomers as for the sake of the state in which these very traitors were living. This is the only time force was applied to bring such people to their senses and make them realize their responsibilities: either as Muslims by accepting Islam freely, ox as loyal citizens by being tribute-payers, capable of living with their Muslim compatriots and sharing with them equal rights and duties.

3. It may be wise for these critics to study the Qur'an with honest intentions to see what it ordains with regard to war and peace. It may be wiser still for them to investigate the status of the "conquered" people, and the conditions under which they lived before and after their contact with the Muslims. What will they say, if they find out that urgent appeals were made to the Muslims by natives of the Persian and Roman protectorates to come and deliver them from the oppressing foreign rule? What will they think, if they happen to discover that the Muslim "conquerors" were joyfully welcomed by common people as well as by the religious patriarchs, who were longing for Muslim protection and Muslim justice of administration? How would they explain the phenomenon that some of the "conquered" people not only welcomed the "invading" Muslims but also fought on their side against the oppressors? How would they conceive the prosperity, freedom and progress of the "invaded" regions under Islam, in comparison to what had prevailed therein before?

We are not ascertaining any particular point of view on the matter or making any hasty conclusions. We simply believe that the question is worth reconsidering and deserves serious investigation. The findings will certainly be interesting and significant. Perhaps a Western mind can understand better, if the whole matter is considered in the light of the prevailing conditions in today's world. The deep concern of the Western Allies over Berlin, the appeals of the oppressed everywhere, the anxiety of the South Koreans, the fears of the Laotians, the NATO business, the SEATO affairs, the instability of the Communist Satellites-all that may help the Western mind to understand the events of those remote centuries and the actual policies of the Muslims of those days.

4. The idea that Muslim wars in the outside world were motivated by economic needs of the Arabs is worth considering too. Although seemingly certain of their own assumptions, the upholders of such an idea have not really studied the case seriously. Do they honestly think that the economic needs were the reasons to urge the Muslims to cross their Arabian borders? On what ground do they assume that Arabia-with its ancient centers of business, valleys and oases-was no longer capable of producing enough for the Muslims? Have they made any serious inquiry as to how much the "invading" Muslims made for themselves, how much they distributed among the people under their rule, and how much they sent back to the Central Administration in Medina or Damascus or Baghdad or Cairo? Have they compared the revenues of the "invaded" territories before and after Islam, and found out whether or not the "invaders" were simply self-interested business adventurers? Have they any reasons to believe that those Muslims took more than what they gave, or drew more than what they had deposited, or made More than what they had invested? Have they come across any evidence to prove if the Central Government in Arabia had at any time received tributes or taxes from its "conquered" protectorates which were needed for the development of these very protectorates, and if so how much was received, and was it worth the adventure in the unknown world? Have they collected any reliable information to show that Arabia was privileged or given preference, in expenditures or development programs over the "invaded" areas? Finally, did Arabia, all of a sudden feel the threat of a "population explosion" which forced the Muslims to carry out adventurous wars and/or economic explorations?

The attempt to interpret the Muslim contacts with non-Muslims in terms of economic needs may sound novel and worthy of sympathy, but it does not seem to have much truth in it or carry much bearing on serious scholarship. The least reservation that can be made as regards this attempt is that it is so far from being satisfactory and complete. There is so much yet to be done in terms of research, investigation, analysis and comparison. Until this is done, no critic has any moral right to pass his own theoretical assumptions as valid or binding. This presents another gracious invitation of Islam to all critics to make more serious attempts to search for the truth.

There is not much need to take as serious the opinions of those who consider the Muslim wars in terms of plunder and loot. What can be more casual or more stereotyped than such an opinion? It is a short cut in the field of scholarship and an easy way out of some intellectual and moral problems, but it is so far from being the truth. The same questions of points 3 and 4 above can be asked again, just to find out how much loot the Muslim adventurers took or sent back to Arabia, and how many of their men returned home with spoils. This is not to mention the flourishing, the renaissance and prosperity of the "looted" territories under these very "looters". It is not even to mention the harsh persecutions and heavy losses of lives and properties inflicted on Muslims, or the provocation and threats hurled at them. It is simply an appeal to those of such an opinion to make more careful studies of the case and present more responsible conclusions, However, they have to remember that whatever loot collected by the Muslims was very little compared to what they had lost by confiscation, usurpation, persecution and other provocative action inflicted on them from the hostile camps.

Whether or not the critics of these various grades accept the point of view of this survey, the fact remains that Islam is the religion of peace in the fullest sense of the term; that unjust war was never among its teachings, that aggression was never in its tenets or tolerated by it; that force was never employed to impose it on anyone; that the expansion of Islam was never due to compulsion or oppression, that misappropriation was never forgivable by God or acceptable to Islam; and that whoever distorts or misrepresents the Islamic teachings will do more harm to his own self and his associates than to Islam. Because it is the religion of God and the straight path to Him, it survived under the most difficult conditions, and it will survive to be the safe bridge to happy eternity. Should these critics have any doubt about this fact, they would be wise to study Islam, re-read the Qur'an, and refresh their memory of history.

The fact that economic prosperity and cultural renaissance followed the spread of Islam into the "conquered" regions does not necessarily mean that the Muslims were after economic gains and military spoils. Even if such alleged gains and spoils became incentives in later periods of Islamic history, it still does not follow that Islam prefers war to peace and the Muslims relish war spoils. There are better explanations. One of these should be very clear to those who are familiar with the classical discussion of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism where Protestantism, along with other factors, led to the rise of modern capitalism. No serious mind would contend that the Protestants developed their ethic to become economically prosperous or that modern capitalism still depends on the Protestant Ethic.

Islam in Focus”, Hammudah ‘Abd al ‘Ati, Amana Publications, Chapter 5, pp. 141-152.

Contributor: Hammudah ‘Abd al ‘Ati was born in Egypt April 1, 1928. He attended Al Azhar University in Cairo. He then went on to receive his M.A. degree in Islamic Studies from McGill University (1957). He studied in the University of Alberta, Canada from 1961 to 1963. He received his Ph.D. in sociology from Princeton University on January 16, 1971.  In 1958, after receiving his M.A. degree, Dr. 'Abd al 'Ati briefly returned to Cairo to work for Al Azhar University's Islamic Culture Administration (Idarat al Thaqafah al Islamiyah). He became the first full-time director of the Islamic Center of Edmonton.  In 1967, he joined the faculty of Utica College (Utica, NY) of Syracause University as Associate Professor of Sociology. He passed away on Jumada al Akhirah 14, 1396 / September 19, 1976.  As a qualified Azhari scholar competent in English, for his time Dr. 'Abd al 'Ati was a pioneer of Islamic propagation (da'wah) in North America. He was a renowned lecturer and scholar, resourceful consultant and advisor for many organizations both in North America and abroad.  In his short academic life, he wrote many articles and two books: the popular and time-tested Islam in Focus and the Family Structure in Islam (originally his Ph.D. dissertation).
[Source: ]
Go To Contents

Jihad vis-a-vis Terrorism: Fetullah Gulen's Perspective
by Maimul A Khan

At present there is a consensus that since the late decades of the twentieth century, the mankind as a whole has been turning to religious and spiritual ideals for its protection and growth as a human race deemed to be the best and supreme intellectual creature on earth. Here Gulen finds many genuine Islamic religious ideals are either lost or distorted. As a result, turning to religious doctrines by numerous religious groups and parties has led to the creation and establishment of fanatic or orthodox forces in politics. History of modern Christian fundamentalism goes back to the early decades of the twentieth century.

With the appearance of Muslim nation-states in the political map of the world, different kinds of extreme religious indoctrination has harmed genuine revival of universal Islamic values. Gulen's preaching and writing demonstrates that he has been quite aware of this intellectual drawback and weakness of Muslim political movements of his many predecessors engaged in upholding moral and ethical values derived from Islamic scriptures and traditions. On the other hand, a good number of Muslim countries have been trying to prosper politically and economically based on nationalist ideals of concerned people. Like many Arabs or Persians, Turks also wanted to build a prosperous modern state based on solely nationalist ideals and thus tended to establish a discriminatory attitude toward all kinds of religious traditions and phenomena rightly or wrongly derived from religious explanations of many aspects of life and cultural practice based on those religious beliefs.

Many Islamic religious symbolic expressions were either misused or antagonized disproportionately in the political games of capturing and upholding state powers. Gulen's voice of moderation has surfaced at this juncture of such a dichotomous Muslim polity and ideological struggles between extreme forces in the Muslim world. Gulen did not oppose overly secular and nationalist policies of his own governments and has been preaching to all sorts of politicians to follow the path of moderation, honesty, sincerity to protect the interests of masses irrespective of ethnicity or religiosity of particular groups of people.

Unfortunately many misguided politicians and statesmen across the board name all kinds of violent and terrorists acts as Jihad and devout and peace loving Muslims as Islamists, Jihadists, fundamentalist, and what not. One of the reasons why the West could do that propaganda against Islam is that it maintains upper hands in technology and media. The monopoly many Westerners now have over the use of high-tech for destructive purposes is a dangerous situation for the existence and survival of the entire Third and Muslim World countries. Instead of fighting that danger through violent ways and means Gulen has been trying to mitigate that dispute through dialogue. Gulen has rejected the ideas of “clash of Civilization” concocted in the Western academia and media. However, many believe that this concept of clash of civilization in the West has prompted with the religious ideas about the original emergence of human being on earth.

“So, to emphasize, in Islam there is nothing evil or undesirable about the body and its desires. Women, although partaking in the Fall, is not held responsible for the expulsion from paradise (Adam is). There is no original sin [in Islam]...It is also worth pointing out that unlike Christianity, which enshrines the masculine principle in the image of 'God the father' and Jesus the 'Son of God' or goddess religions that sanctify the feminine principle in the image of the Divine, in Islam, neither masculine nor feminine principle is enshrined in the Divine. God is neither the father, nor the Mother, nor the son.” (Bullock, Katherine, Rethinking Muslim Women and the Veil: Challenging Historical & Modern Stereotypes, The International Institute of Islamic Thought, Herndon, VA, USA, 2003, p. 162.)

Here is the founding stone where Muslims and Christians have started their fight over religious and civilizational issues. However, many Christian sects such as Universal Unitarian Church, Quakers, and many other groups have come out from these narrow-based conflicts with the Muslims. Like many orthodox Christians, many reactionary Muslims are also being caught with this never ending ideological fight over civilizational or terrorists' issues. However, in reality fight over civilizational issues have taken the shape of military brutality of stronger powers over smaller and weaker nations. Islamic ideology as political and economic teaching has always been against such uneven wars and extreme brutality. This is the reason why many name Islam as a “religion of harmony, peace, and justice”. Though the concepts of Deen al-fitra (Another name of it is Deen al Hanif, which means the primordial religion) is much broader than that, yet God clearly warned Muslims to be very cautious in all their talks and deeds, especially when it comes to war or violence:

“My grace overspreads everything and so I shall confer it to those who are conscious of Me and spend in charity, and who believe in Our messages - who will enjoy upon them the doing of what is wrong, and make lawful to them the good things of life and forbid them the bad things, and lift from them their burdens and the shackles that were upon them.” (7:156-157)

For a long time, Muslims overall had been contributing substantially in all fields of science and technology and even had been cooperating with their adversaries and enemies in spreading ethically sound educational avenues to open the doors of mysteries implanted and infused in the “Mother Nature.” However, using scientific knowledge for the betterment of the whole mankind or educating others Muslim ruling elite in many cases were forgetful about their responsibilities to their own people. Otherwise these experiences Muslims handed over to the West could not be used so easily against the Muslim and Islamic interests. Hearing such an argument many Westerners laugh today to the Muslims' claim that Muslim scientists had created the foundation of modern resonance upon which the modern technological world had been built.

“Their [Muslims'] victory in Western China in the eight century enabled the Muslims to benefit from contemporary Chinese technologies, such as paper making, which they in turn introduced into the entire Muslim world including Spain. From there it was taken to the rest of the Europe. This indeed was a revolutionary discovery leading to the wider dissemination of knowledge and democratization of learning.” (Siddiqui, Dilnawaz A., “Middle Eastern Origins of Modern Sciences”, In: Muslim Contribution to World Civilization, IIIT, Herndon, VA, USA, 2005, p. 60.)

Practically that tread of dissemination of knowledge from Muslim nations to the rest of the world this way or that way did continue about one thousand years until the recent colonial domination over the Muslim Nations. Horrible consequences of colonial domination over Muslim nations were brought by the newly discovered destructive methods of international politics, diplomacy, and technology. Fearing Western unethical educational systems under extreme secular or anti-religious policies, many Muslim nations had been trying to shun the doors of spreading modern scientific know-how and technology in their countries as a way of safeguarding them from Western moral decadence.*

Making scientific knowledge and technology free from all obligations to the universal ethical and moral values. Western imperial powers could not possibly wage two world wars within the first half of the twentieth century without technological capabilities they had at their disposal. Now that brutality has been continuing through out the Muslim and third world countries. Muslim nations as whole hopefully would emerge as a powerful force to deter all kinds of terrorist acts all over the world. Some Western powers would also come forward to stop all aggressive wars against smaller nations. Then only Gulen's ideals would be heard loudly in every corner of the world.

Contributor: Dr. Maimul A Khan is a Professor of Law in Dhaka University, Bangladesh. He can be reached at

*The Decline of the West (German: Der Untergang des Abendlandes) is a two-volume work by Oswald Spengler, the first volume of which was published in the summer of 1918. Spengler revised this volume in 1922 and published the second volume, subtitled Perspectives of World History, in 1923. The book includes the idea of the Muslims being Magian, Mediterranean civilizations of the antiquity such as Ancient Greece and Rome being Apollonian, and the modern Westerners being Faustian, and according to its theories we are now living in the winter time of the Faustian civilization. His description of the Faustian civilization is where the populace constantly strives for the unattainable—making the western man a proud but tragic figure, for while he strives and creates he secretly knows the actual goal will never be reached.” In:
Go To Contents

Misinterpreted Verses and Hadiths about Violence
by Jamal Badawi

What is the best argument in trying to convert a Born-Again Christian to Islam?
I personally prefer the term "revert" as it connotes returning back to the pure innate nature of believing in the one true universal God. Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) indicated that each child is born "Muslim", so when a person accepts Islam, he or she actually reverts to the true natural innate faith. Many of the born again Christians are sincere people who are trying to find meaning in life and pursue spiritual fulfillment. Some of them were involved in negative behavior and so how religiosity changed their life for the better.

Our role as Muslim is to share the truth as we believe in it and understand it in kindness and love without undue pressure and to be patience and pray for them to have even greater fulfillment and greater understanding about our common creator.

How to rightly interpret the following verses in the Qur'an:
(a) Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians, - any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (2:62) Is this verse still applies to Christians and Jews who live today or only those who lived prior to Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) lifetime. Some consider this verse being abrogated by other verse(s) in the Qur'an.
(b) And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers." (3:81-85) How to interpret the word 'Islam' in this verse correctly? If a Christian or a Jew or even a Hindu believes in the oneness of God, will that be acceptable to Allah.
This verse must be understood in the light of other verses in the Qur'an dealing with the same topic. It is clear in the Qur'an that rejecting beliefs in any prophet is tantamount to rejecting belief in all of them. Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) to Muslims is the last, final and universal messenger to all humankind. As such rejecting belief in him and in the divine revelations or word of God given to him is tantamount to rejecting all of the prophets. Therefore, this verse maybe referring to those who followed their prophet prior to the mission of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). In fact, these people who followed the unadulterated message of their prophet are in effect "fellow Muslims", literally those who sought peace through submission to God.

But this argument, however, is only on the theological level; it has nothing to do with the kind and just treatment of any person or any other faith community who coexist peacefully with Muslims. This might be similar to the truth claims made by fellow Christians who believe that trinity is the "theological truth" for them. Our duty as Muslims is to express our belief without animosity and let God judge all on the Day of Judgment.

As for the verse 3:81-85, it seems to be categorical and as such the word Islam may be interpreted legitimately in more than one way. It could mean generic Islam, literally achieving peace through submission to God, which applies to any follower of any legitimate prophet throughout history. Secondly, even if it refers to accepting Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), then it is up to Allah, not us, to accept or reject those rejected Islam. This means that we are not allowed as Muslims to mistreat them in any way as the one who accepts or rejects is Allah and not us.

How should we deal with verse 9:5, which seems to be in conflict with verse 2:256 "la ikraha fi deen"?
This ayah has been frequently quoted out of its textual and historical context. There is absolutely no contradiction between the two verses you mentioned.

Is there a special context for understanding many of the verses in Surah Al-Tawba which deal with war in Islam, like for example verses (9:5) and verse (9:123)? Is Surah Al-Tawba a "special case", as it's the only Surah in the Qur'an which does not start with "Bism Allah Al-Rahman Al-Rahim"?
The answer to 9:5 was already given in this session, please refer to previous answers. As for Surah 9, ayah 123, this must be understood in the light of a rule in Tafsir known as the general which is meant to refer to the specific, which has many examples in the Qur'an. This ayah for sure falls in that category, meaning that this does not apply to all non-Muslim neighbors all the time or under all circumstances. The historical context was that early Muslims were surrounded by style and even aggressive neighbors, some were "People of the Book", others were idolatrous Arabs while others were pre-Islamic Persians. History recorded instances where some of them engaged not only in intimidation and threats against Muslims but also inciting murder and engaging actually in murderous acts. As such it was a matter of physical security of the emerging of the young Muslim community who had to abort the surrounding dangers through legitimate pre-emptive strikes.

Another evidence or proof that this is limited to that situation or similar ones that may arise is that the general rule in dealing with non-Muslim neighbors, individuals or states has been explicitly stated in the Qur'an (Surah 60, verse 8 and 9) which indicates that those who peacefully coexist with Muslims are entitled to just and kind treatment.

Surah at-Tawbah is not a special case, it is not the only chapter that deals with the regulations of the legitimate warfare (to repel oppression or aggression). The fact that it does not begin with basmallah is explained better by referring to the statement made by Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him. For details, please listen to Islamic Teachings, under the Qur'an/preservation, which is available on

Surah Bara'a (immunity) is the last surah revealed to the prophet [pbuh] and many of its verses seem to abrogate almost everything that went before in the Qur'an in terms of war and the relationship with Christians, Jews and pagans. I find this confusing. Can you please explain?
There is no evidence whatsoever of the abrogation of the Qur'anic verses dealing with freedom of religion or the kind and just treatment of those who peacefully co-exist with Muslims such as Chapter 2, verse 256, and Chapter 60, verse 8 and 9 or Chapter 29, verse 46, and Chapter 16, verse 125. Surah 9 deals with a situation of aggression and oppression of Muslims and the two categories of verses are both applicable in their particular contexts; none of them abrogates the other. Please see the previous answer about some verses in the same Surah such as 5, 123.

Some people say that Islam is a religion of peace and war and not only peace and that war is part of Aqeeda in Islam. What do you think?
I believe that Islam is ultimately the religion of peace. Islam is defined as peace through submission to God. It is one of the names and attributes of Allah. It is the name of Paradise and it is the common greeting of all Muslims. The Qur'an describes the mission of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) as mercy to the worlds (21: 107). However, in order to maintain the state of peace it is necessary sometimes to resort the use of force to stop the aggressors and oppressors who disturb the peace sought by the masses. As such, peace is the ultimate objective (in this life and in the life to come) and war is the exception as the last resort to achieve and maintain the state of peace.

In fact, the Qur'an describes fighting as "a hated act" (Chapter 2: 206) and Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) hated that a person would call himself harb (war) whereas peace has always been praised and never referred to as a hated act. Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) also exhorted his followers not to be anxious to engage in fighting and to pray for peace and security. The Qur'an in more than one place emphases that imminent battles were averted such as the incident of the trench and the victorious return to Makkah without engaging in battle. It should be stated that war, the hated act, is only a necessary means (in some circumstances) to an end which peace, but not the other way round.

Prophet said: “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah…?” How can this meet with the verse in the Qur'an: “there is no compulsion in religion”?
It is impossible to interpret that hadith to mean all people as this understanding clearly contradicts numerous verses in the Qur'an including, “there is no compulsion in religion”. The hadith apparently refers to the Makkan chiefs who broke the treaty of Hudaybiya then fled after the opening of Makkah and conspired with others to initiate the battle of Hunain. When they were defeated they fled again. Such people were guilty of what we call today "war crimes" and murder of innocent people. While they deserve to be fought against they were given a magnanimous option that if they willingly wish to accept Islam that their previous transgression or crimes will be forgiven and their life and property will be safeguarded. In any case, it is an option, not force, it is a positive and constructive option to reconcile their hearts and assure them if they accept Islam willingly that they will not be punished for their previous atrocities.

Another aspect that confirms this understanding is that the use of the term "hatta" in the hadith does not necessarily mean that it is a condition for them to be safe and it could mean in this broad textual context that the reason for Muslims being permitted to fight against aggression or oppression is to safeguard their religious freedom and those of others. So the ultimate objective of averting war may be realized more effectively if the religious enmity on the part the enemy is removed and the most effective way of removing it will occur if they see the light and open their hearts to the truth.

It will be funny to say that Islam is peaceful and that it does not preach violence. Muhammad stated clearly that he loves war and that fighting is a means of making livelihood in Islam; he said: "my rizq (sustenance or provision) has been made under the shade of my armor?
Answer Please read my article for greater detail:

How can you explain the verse: "Kill them wherever you find them..."? And also the verse "Fight them till there is no more Fitna (oppression...)”? Also in the Sunnah, we have the well-know Hadith of the Prophet that goes as thus: "I'm ordered to fight people till they testify to the oneness of Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah..." Don't you think that these texts show that Islam sees that "sword" alone is the tool of making people embrace Islam? Don't you agree with me that these texts and other fall into the hand of extremist people like Al-Qaeda and so on?
The problem here is quoting one part of this verse (2:191) because the remaining part says "and drive them away from wherever they drove you away, for oppression is worse than killing." Therefore, this verse does not give a license to kill even idolatrous Arabs who are meant in this verse but only those who committed aggression and oppression against Muslims by driving them from their homes and towns without justification. So it is a case of legitimate fight against severe oppression which the Qur'an describes as "worse than killing". The same verse also continues to prohibit Muslims from fighting near the Sacred House unless the enemies fight against them first.

If you continue in the same section, you will find that the next verse indicates that if the oppressors desist from fighting and aggression, then Allah is indeed Forgiving and Merciful. The following verse clearly states that the reason for fighting is "to stop oppression especially that the common oppression at that time which took the form intimidation, torture to death or murder of those who chose Islam. This is why the verse says: "until persecution is no more and the choice of religion is between the person and God". The same verse continues to say that if they desist (i.e. from oppression) then there should be no more hostility except against the oppressors. As to the hadith you mentioned, please refer to the other answers in the same session for explanation.

What are the examples of those verses and ahadith that are wrongly misinterpreted in your opinion? I suppose also that by violence you are suggesting "terror" as defined by the West, isn't it? If that is the case what are the rules of engagement in Islam if someone or an enemy brings war, violence or terror right in your doorstep?
For examples, please see my paper on Islam on that link: In the absence of any comprehensive internationally accepted definition of terrorism, it may be defined as "any indiscriminate act of violence committed against the innocent by individuals, groups or states whether the victims and/or culprits are Muslims, Christians, Jews or any other faith community. As to the rules of warfare, when necessary, they are explicit to avoid hurting non-combatant. The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade hurting women who are not fighting, children, elderly, clergy, and other unarmed civilians. He also forbade killing an injured person in mistreating prisoners or destroying livestock or trees or what we call today the infrastructure of cities inhabited by the enemy.

My question is regarding the 'official Ulama' in many Muslim countries and especially the 9/11 events who seems to be deviating from the true teaching of Islam. They usually justify whatever being done or endorse policies of the ruling regime (Even if it is not Islamic at all!). I am so disgusted with these ulama when they will justify that the current leaders in most Muslim countries is "ulil Amri' and it is an obligation for every citizens to follow them! To cite the case of those in the Middle east and Gulf States where these leaders are clearly tools of the West and selling Muslim and Islamic interest for the sake of clinging to their power and rule. And at the same time, jailing many true ulama whom that have spoken up against these tyrrant regimes. Need your sincere comment.
Justifying wrong aggression or tyranny by any person is unjustified and I exhort all my Muslim brothers and sisters whether common people or scholars or rulers for that matter to fear Allah SWT and develop the quality of taqwa and to realize that one day all people will stand equally before the creator to be questioned about their words and actions. We pray for all as nobody is above advice and nobody can claim they have no need for exhortation and prayers of their brethren.

How about the hadith that claims "Kill whoever changes his religion."?
(a) If a person changes his religion, is it considered as a profound insult to Allah and to all Muslims but Allah says in the Qur'an "Let there be no compulsion in the religion" (2:256).
(b) What about the status of the hadith. Is it sahih (sound), hadith al-ahad (isolated) or dhaif (weak)?
(c) What if a person changes religion from Christianity to Judaism? Does this hadith still apply to that person?
Please shed some light on this hadith.
The question of apostasy has been debated among scholars based on their interpretations of some hadiths since the Qur'an does not specify any worldly punishment for it. For example, there was a case at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) where a man came to him in three consecutive days and told him that he wanted to apostate. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never took any action against him, and when the man finally left Madina, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never sent anyone to arrest him, let alone kill him. This hadith appears in more than one version in Sahih Muslim and is authentic.

This is why some scholars distinguished between individual apostasy and apostasy which is accompanied by high treason. For example, one version of a hadith narrated by `A'isha concerning apostasy (and one who left his religion and fought against Muslims). The topic is broad and most Muslims are acquainted only with the only common view and interpretation of these hadiths.

The rule of "no compulsion in religion" which appears in several verses in the Qur'an and is consistent with its message of willing submission to God. These verses are no doubt definitive and explicit. Other texts, in the Qur'an or Sunnah, which are speculative (mutashabih or texts that could be interpreted in more than one way without violating basic rules of interpretation) in meaning must be interpreted or re-interpreted in the light of the definitive.

Since Muslims are entitled the right to defend themselves or at least to maintain some kind of balance of military power, I would like to know what the position of Muslims scholars is with regard with nuclear weapons.
Experience shows that even in liberal democracies with a developed systems of checks and balances, nuclear weapons were actually used, e.g., in Japan. By its very nature, nuclear weapons indiscriminately kill and maim people and destroy the environment. Therefore, the immorality of using weapons is obvious and is against the Islamic teaching even at the time of war. Some may argue that possessing such weapons may act as deterrent to aggression and prevent being intimated unjustly by those who possess them. However, the real solution to this menace is not the proliferation of such weapons in the name of deterrents but the complete abolition of all stocks of nuclear weapons. There is also a need for the establishment of internationally strict controls against the development of such weapons in the future.

It is the moral responsibility of big powers who possess most of those weapons to give an example for the rest of the world by beginning this process of zero tolerance themselves rather than stockpiling and developing them while trying at the same time to prevent others from developing them. All powers, big or small, must stop stockpiling or developing these genocidal weapons for the sake of true and lasting world peace.

If you feel your question is very important, feel free to contact at and they will try their best to answer your question.
Jamal Badawi, PhD, is a Famous Da'iyah and Member of the European Council for Fatwa and Research
Source: Islamonline Live Dialogue Editing Desk, 10th Sep. 2005,
Go To Contents

Islam in the West: the Threat of Internal Extremism
by M. Muqtedar Khan and John Esposito

The tension between the US and the Muslim World has been steadily escalating with both sides resorting to steps that undermine the prospects for more peaceful and cooperative US-Muslim relations. Western Muslims, in America and Europe, suffer directly as a result of this escalation. They are being targeted as a potential fifth column and though they have responded admirably to face the new challenges, their circumstances continue to deteriorate. The presence of a persistent anti-western extremism within a small minority of Western Muslims exacerbates the plight of Western Muslims and undermines all their efforts to improve relations with the broader Western communities and allay fears that Islam in the West is a threat to democracy and security.

The US led invasion of Iraq and the subsequent chaos, death and destruction in Iraq, compounded by the inability of 1700 US experts to find any trace of WMDs in two years of systematic searching [the stated reason for the invasion] has contributed to an unprecedented amount of anger, frustration, resentment and anti-American feelings among Muslims everywhere. According to several international polls conducted by the PEW forum and Zogby International, public opinion of the US across the Muslim World (and elsewhere in the world) has plummeted and is at its lowest ever.

The Bush administration's tactics of keeping the fear, anger and resentment triggered by the 9/11 catastrophe alive in order to advance the conservative agenda combined with frustration of American goals in Iraq and a sense of being at war with Muslim extremism has made many Americans increasingly hostile towards Islam and Muslims. Polls conducted in the US suggest that while 38% Americans hold very negative views about Islam and Muslims, only 2% have anything nice to say about them [survey conducted by CAIR Survey, November 2004] and over 44% of Americans are willing to deprive Muslims freedoms and rights available to other Americans [A survey by Cornell University, December 2004].

The war on terror and its attendant consequences has created extremely difficult circumstances for American Muslims in particular and Western Muslim in general. The changing political and legal environment in Western countries across the board has undermined the quality of life of Western Muslims. Many face discrimination in the work place, are victims of racial and religious profiling, businesses are failing, international travel has become difficult and risky and Islamic institutions, and particularly mosques and Islamic charities face harassment and unnecessary scrutiny.

The world has never been more interdependent and the plight of Western Muslims is illustrative of how global integration is now a palpable reality. The murder of a Dutch film producer, Theo Van Gogh, allegedly by a disenchanted Dutch Muslim [Mohammed Bouyeri, 26], the denial of a visa to the US for a Swiss Muslim scholar, Tariq Ramadan, or the humiliating deportation of a British Muslim, Yusuf Islam, from the US immediately on arrival are all front page news all over the world. Not only do these episodes draw widespread attention from the media, they feed upon and fuel the new crisis in Western Civilization – “Islam in the West”.

When a Dutch animal rights activist, Volkert van der Graaf, murdered a Dutch politician, Pim Fortuyn in 2002, it did not raise questions about the compatibility of the philosophy of rights and the West. But when a Dutch Muslim murders a Dutch film producer, it raises profound questions not just about Islam's compatibility with modernity and democracy but also about the ability of Western Muslims to live in a democratic society. Even though such outrageous episodes are extremely rare, the fear of Islam and the now embedded antipathy towards Muslims, frequently surfaces in the western media, in popular discourse, in casual conversation, in parliamentary discussions and in new legislations.

As long as relations between Western societies and the Muslim World remain less than cordial, Western Muslims face the reality of Islamopheobia and as a result they will remain second-class citizens, constantly watched, regularly demonized, systematically marginalized, feared, despised and portrayed as a potential fifth column. Defending the innocence of Western Muslims, and speaking about tolerance and Islamic teachings on peace and violence, has become the most important communal activity of western Muslims.

The Challenge for Western Muslims today is existential. If things get worse what will happen to them? Some fear the rhetoric and recommendations of Islamopheobic political commentators who exaggerate and exacerbate the situation, questioning the patriotism of Muslim communities in the West and even raising the example of the internment of Americans of Japanese origin during World War II. Will the West create another “Israel” to solve the problem of the new Jews of the West? The fact that there are nearly 20-30 million Muslims in the West makes such drastic solutions impossible. Those who are bewildered that we are even considering this possibility must remember not only what happened to Japanese Americans but also what happened to Muslims in Spain who disappeared after ruling Spain for 700 years.

There are three routes available to Western nations with regards to their Muslim populations. They are marginalization, assimilation and accommodation. The first implies dis-empowering the community, reducing its influence and its rights and making its presence insignificant. The Bush administration has adopted this policy since 9/11. The second strategy is to reform Islam and Muslims, secularize them to such an extent that the difference does not make a difference. The French have embarked on this strategy and face a lot of resistance. This strategy causes disharmony and divisions within society and undermines democracy. Accommodation, a strategy that was adopted by the US before 9/11, by the UK, Canada and Netherlands is for Muslims the best option.

But in order to push Western nations to adopt the strategy of accommodation and resist the political pressure from xenophobic right-wingers to do otherwise, Western Muslims will have to manage their politics with foresight, prudence, and patience.

Dangers for Western Muslims
There are three potential dangers that Western Muslims face. Increased anti-western terrorism in the Muslim World which fuels Islamopheobia, enhances the political influence of Western anti-Muslim extremists and enables the institutionalization of legislation designed to undermine the influence of Muslims. The bush administration's foreign policy that is geared towards the projection of American power and reassertion of American hegemony in the Middle East is another threat to Western Muslims. Aggressive American unilateralism triggers events and actions that ultimately undermine the security and well being of Western Muslims. The third danger to Western Muslim future is homegrown extremism.

While western Muslims at the moment can do little to reduce the first two dangers beyond engaging in dialogues – political and religious – at various levels, they can and must play an aggressive and decisive role in eliminating internal extremism that resonates with extremism in the Muslim World. Extremist discourse, actions and postures by a small minority of Western Muslims not only undermines the efforts of the vast majority to improve Western-Islamic relations, they also provide concrete evidence of the most egregious stereotypes of Islam and Muslims.

Western Muslim community leaders, activists and scholars must condemn and reject any and all forms of extremist rhetoric coming from Jumma Khutbas, public statements on TV and other media and from Muslim publications themselves. Care must be taken to not only moderate Muslim public discourse but also Muslim-Muslim discourse in order to ensure that extremism and vehement anti-Westernism do not take root in the community. Islam and Muslims in the West can be critical of the West and Western ideals but cannot and must not be anti-West. The critical distinction between being opposed to American foreign policy in the Muslim World and being anti-American must be maintained.

The Threat of Internal Extremism
While a vast majority of Western Muslims have the same basic desires as many others – material well being, cultural acceptance and the opportunity to practice their faith without social and political intimidation – some of them however wish to use their geographic location as an asset in their war against the perceived enemies of Islam. The argument made by some that radical Islam is well deeply embedded in the West and the community western Muslims hides in its bosom many secret sleeper terrorist cells is patently false and such claims must be seen as racist and religiously bigoted. No community has been so closely scrutinized as Muslims in America and no widespread threat has been uncovered. The 9/11 Commission fully exonerated the community of any connection to terrorism.

Nevertheless in every Muslim community there is a small group of individuals angry with the West and fearing that Islam is being destroyed. In their ignorance and anger they say and do counter-productive and dangerous things. The continuous barrage of images of Arab and Muslim humiliation and defeats from Iraq and Palestine make it difficult for even those most pacific to remain calm. Occasionally people lose control and say things that hurt them as well as the community.

Most people in the West are sensible and recognize isolated episodes of violence or intemperate rants as isolated. However there are three issues on which a small minority of Western Muslims, continue to alienate Western populations from Islam and Muslims.
The community must get tough on radical discourse
We recommend that Western Muslims become more organized and aggressive in marginalizing and condemning voices that justify violence, incite hatred and practice demonization of the other. How can community members and leaders fight bigots in the mainstream community and the rising Islamopheobia if some within their own ranks mirror the same fear, ignorance and prejudice? When some one from the community makes a radical statement, community leaders must immediately condemn it and demand a retraction and an apology before anyone else does it. Once radicals realize that the community will not tolerate their extremism, and will take lead in condemning them, they will fade away. The struggle for acceptance of Islam and Muslims in the West cannot be divorced from the acceptance of the West within its Muslim communities.

Contributors: Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is also the Director of the Islamic Studies Program. He earned his Ph.D. in International Relations, Political Philosophy, and Islamic Political Thought, from Georgetown University in May 2000. For more, visit We are glad to him for his permission to publish this article in our magazine.
John L. Esposito is University Professor & Founding Director, Professor of Religion and International Affairs and Professor of Islamic Studies.
His specialty is Islam and Politics, Religion and International Affairs, Islam and Global Terrorism, and the impact of Islamic movements from North Africa to Southeast Asia. Visit
This article was published in, The Q-News [Feb. 2005 - UK], The [Feb 18, 2005 - USA], [Feb. 17, 2005 - USA], Iqra [Feb 18, 2005 - Canada], Closer [Feb 21, 2005 - Netherlands]. Research Institutions such as The Brookings Institution, Zogby International and ISPU also carry it on their websites. Shorter versions have appeared in [March 9th, 2005 - USA] and Islamic Horizons [May, 2005 - USA].
Go To Contents

Interpretation and Exceptionalism
by Asma Barlas

As someone who has been asked to speak about Islam only a couple of times in the ten years I've been at Ithaca College, it's obvious to me that this new interest in it is the result not of positive developments but of people's desire to make sense of the attacks on the U.S. allegedly by a group of Muslim men, which has left them fearful, angry, and bewildered.

The irony is that looking to Islam alone may not provide the answers, or the closure, that people are seeking. As Robin Wright says, “mining the Qur'an for incendiary quotes is essentially pointless. Religions evolve, and there is usually enough ambiguity in their founding scriptures to let them evolve in any direction. If Osama Bin Laden were a Christian, and he still wanted to destroy the World Trade Center, he would cite Jesus' rampage against the money-changers. If he didn't want to destroy the World Trade Center, he could stress the Sermon on the Mount.” Even if one doesn't agree with this view, the point is that every religion-or secular ideology, for that matter-offers the possibility of violence and peace, oppression and liberation, depending on who is interpreting it, how, and in what particular contexts. As I always say, there is little family resemble between modern liberation theology and the Christianity of the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Conquest.

And yet, ignoring that every religion is open to multiple interpretations, many people are attacking Muslims for making “it sound like there are two versions of the Koran floating around out there. If so, what is the difference between the Koran that the Terrorists are reading, and the Koran that the rest of the Muslim world is reading? ... I need to have the ‘real' Islam please stand up.” (This is from an article forwarded to me by a friend with no title or bye-line). The same author who says he's a Catholic-also says he doesn't “want to hear [the] history about the Crusades, or the U.S. foreign policy crap, or … comparisons [of Islam] to Christianity and Judaism.” Thus, while wanting Muslims to explain which Qur'an we are reading and which is the real Islam, he himself chooses not to explain the difference between the bible that the Crusaders and Conquistadors were reading and the bible he has been reading, nor to convince others why his Christianity is the “real” one. Such a strategy not only lays upon Muslims a burden that believers in other religions refuse to bear themselves, but it also obscures the fact that the bloodiest conflicts, like the two World Wars, have had secular, not religious roots. Even those conflicts we think of as religious can be shown to be about power and resources, not merely ideology. This is no less true of the Crusades, than it is of the conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, or Jews and Muslims in the Middle East, or even the attacks of September 11th.

Read the full article from
Go To Contents

Exclusive Interview with Shah Abdul Hannan,
President, Bangladesh Institute of Islamic Thought, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Witness-Pioneer International (WPI):
Many people accuse Muslim that they promote terrorism. What are their arguments? Are they justified?
Shah Abdul Hannan (SAH):
I cannot say I know the answer fully. But the argument they give is like this: They say that in the last twenty years or thirty years they are seeing that most of the terrorist outfits are Muslim outfits or Muslim named outfits. In that list they include for example Fatah. They also included Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which they do not do now. They include Hamas and Hijbullah of Lebanon. At later period they also said that Talibans are terrorist outfit; Al Qaeda is a terrorist outfit. And Al Qaeda – they feel their presence everywhere in the world. They feel that Al-Qaeda may be present even in the in the house of Mr. Bush; in the house of Mr. Blair and now Mr. Brown. They feel Al-Qaeda is present everywhere. They feel that Al-Qaeda is all powerful. They place Al-Qaeda almost at the level of God almighty (Allah may forgive us) – so far as their presence is concerned or their power is concerned. They strongly believe from their assessment and their inquiries that Muslims have done the 9/11. And then they feel that in Bali also, Muslims have done it (i.e., bombings). In Madrid also Muslims have done it (i.e., bombings), in London also they have done it. So they feel that there is something wrong with the Muslims. Why it would be so prominent? Compared to other religious groups or community why there is so much preponderance of terrorist activity by or from the Muslim community. They feel that it must have some basis.  

We Muslims normally say that it is the foreign policy failures of the United States in particular and also some other western powers like Britain and France and Russia and even India which are responsible for this increasing terrorist activities from among the Muslims in the last twenty, thirty or forty years relating to the failures on the issues  of Palestine, relating to the issue of American presence in some countries, relating to the issues of invasion of Iraq, invasion of Afghanistan and also relating to the issue of occupation of Kashmir by India and also Russian occupation of the some of the Caucasian countries like Chechnya, etc.
The line of argument of some of the western scholars is that it has some basis in the religious literature of Islam, the Qur'an and the Sunnah and the Fiqh literature. They say that some of the verses of Qur'an are responsible. Some of the verses in Surah At Tawbah where the Muslims have been asked to fight with the Non-Muslims (for example, Surah 9: verse 5), unbelievers or with the infidels or with the rebels or with the people who are not obeying the central administration of Medinah. So these verses of the Qur'an where the Muslims are asked to fight them all and to kill them wherever they find them, are the basis of these terrorist activities according to the west. Here the Muslims say that Islamic position cannot be understood by quoting out of context. Even if anybody goes to Surah At Tawbah he/she will find that all the instructions in those verses were directed against  the unruly Arab tribes who did not follow the central administration and always created  trouble (see 9: 12 , 13). Anybody who reads Surah Tawbah will see that these verses do not relate to people who are in agreement with Muslim power or Muslim authority [9:4]. Anybody can look into a very major work titled “Thematic commentary of Qur'an” by Muhammad Al Ghazali where a very thorough and sound discussion has been done showing that these verses do not apply to the present situation or western people  or non-Muslims generally. There are few other verses like that on the basis of which they make the statement that Qur'an and Sunnah are in part responsible for this type of mental state of some Muslims. So this is their main line of argument.
But I must say the major Ulama of Islam of the current time or in the past have not said that Islam allows violence against any state. For example, the Qur'an says, “Al Fitnatu Ashaddu minal Qatal”, that is violence is worse than fighting [2:191]. The scholars have not promoted violence, terrorism, killing of civilians etc. by any group. The administration of Ali Ibn Abu Talib did not allow the Khawarej to create turmoil. He said that you are free to speak your mind, what ever you feel like; that is your intellectual freedom, but you cannot create violence. And finally he fought against them in a battle and Khariji power was totally destroyed so far as their political group was concerned. So I would say that the western line of argument is not accepted by the major Ulama of Islam.  

Muslim Scholars say Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. What are their main lines of argument?
I think I have covered something of it in reply to the first question. But I will say again. First of all, the Muslim scholars say that Islam is a religion of peace. The name Islam also means peace. Islam has come not to create disturbance, not to create turmoil but to create peace in the world. Islam was basically a peaceful movement. In Makkah for example, the prophet (SWS) was there for thirteen years. He led a very peaceful movement. He did not even start a guerilla movement. Even he did not start a secret movement; that is he did not create a faction to do guerilla fighting. When he went to Medina, he established a state in a most peaceful manner with the consent of the people of Medina, the Arab tribe of Aws and the Arab tribe of Khajraj and even those who did not accept Islam among them (aws & khajraj) and with the jewish tribes. The agreement what we call the Misaq-Al-Medina, agreement of Medina or As-sahifa-Al-Medina, the covenant of Medina, elaborately lays down the rights of the community that they all together is one state, one community. But they were separate also; the Arab Muslims, the Muhajireen and Ansar were one community, Jews were another community – again all of them together also were one Ummah. We can say that Medina was the first ideological state. In a way it was the first ideological state and also in a way it was a nation state (comprising different ideological and ethnic and religious communities) and the state had the equality of citizenship of all people. From political science point of view may be it was the first nation state and from ideological point of view may be it was the first ideological state of the world. After that period if I look into the history we will understand Islam's peaceful nature. We will see that naturally Prophet (PBUH) tried to stabilize the Medinan state and he wanted to bring the warring tribes around Medina under the control of Madinan state. I mean his patrolling around Medina or his sending some expeditions to bring under control was justified because they were warring tribes. Moreover they were not states. They were uncontrolled and uncivilized folks. The Prophet wanted to bring them under the control of a civilized government. He did not want them to accept Islam. That is a different matter. There is the verse “La Ikraha Fiddin”; that is no compulsion in religion [2:256]. And the Medina came under attack only because that his soldiers were patrolling around Medina. The Makkan said our trade route is not safe. But they could negotiate with the Muslims then, that they should not disturb Makkah's trade routes. But they did not do that. They came from Makkah to attack Medina with one thousand soldiers only because Prophet was patrolling around the state when the borders were not determined. And only for that reason you cannot come from three hundred miles away and attack the state of Medina. But the Qurayesh did that. And they got defeated. So they again came in Uhud, the next year. Then they mobilized the whole Arab world and came in Ahzab. And in each of these three incidents Islam could be wiped out. If anybody looks into the history, he/she can say that Islam could be wiped out. Allah Subhanahu Wa T'ala in his mercy and because he decided to make his Deen prevail, it was possible for the state of Medina to survive in Badr, to survive in Uhud, to survive in Ahzab. And then prophet wanted to perform Umrah which was the right of all people. He went with no armour, nothing – except only the sword which Arabs allowed for everyone to carry in principle, like now in some of the tribes in   Pakistan anybody can carry a gun. Similarly anybody could carry a sword - this was an agreed principle. They went without any armour – I mean war armour we call them. But they did not allow him to perform Umrah. Then Prophet made a conciliatory and unfavorable agreement in Hudaibiah with Qureysh for peace. Hudaibiah shows what level of peace he believed in. Also it was evident in the victory of Makkah - he wished a very peaceful victory. And he forgave almost everybody. And even later, after Rasul (SAAS), the Muslims faced the danger of being overthrown by the Persian Empire and the Roman Empire. They had to fight back and establish them. In the then world it was not possible; I mean Islam would not have survived if the Persian power and the Iranian power were not destroyed. But in doing that they did not kill civilians. They did not burn cities. They did not ask anybody to accept Islam. They only destroyed the Jalim (oppressor) administration at that time to free the people and to make Islam safe. Because the leadership of Islam whether it is Abu Bakr or Umar or Usman or Ali (RA) they realized that unless these are destroyed Islam will never be safe, this ideology of Allah Subhanahu Wa Taala will never be safe. And in doing that they did not become another group of emperors. They remained the servants of Allah and the servants of the people. So I would say that Islam is basically a peaceful ideology. It says “La Ikaraha fiddin” (there is no compulsion in Islam) [2:256]. It says “Lakum dinukum Waliadin” (your religion is unto you and mine unto me) [109:6]. How can Islam be called a violent force?

There is some misunderstanding about Jihad which I may discuss later. I can say at this point only this that Jihad is not for imperialism. Jihad is basically for safeguarding the Muslim state and also to stop oppression in the areas where we can. Allah asked us why are you not fighting for those who are asking the children and women and the men for praying to Allah that give us a Sultan, give us an authority that will save us from the oppressions of here [4:75]. Allah says in Surat Al Nissa [4:75] that why are you not fighting; what has happened to you? But you must remember this is not the only Qur'anic Ayah.

Islam has similarly said to obey agreements, to fulfill agreements and to keep agreements [5:1, 16:91, 17:34, 23:8]. So, naturally now, when international law has come into full force and when Muslim states have entered into multilateral and bi-lateral agreements through the UN systems, through Geneva agreements and through other systems. We cannot directly go now and say we have come here to stop oppression here. We have to do that but through United Nations system. “Ma lakum” [4:75] means what has happened to you; that is when it comes to notice that genocide is happening somewhere; it is our duty to raise our voice. But we have to do it now under the international law, going to the UN Security Council and so on. I think in Islam nothing is decided by single Ayah. Whole Qur'an and all the values of Islam should be put together to understand any verse or understand any sunnah or any issue.  

But UN is not functional organization, in that case what you would say?
You cannot say it is not functional, it is functional in so many matters...  

But not effectively...
Yes, in political matters. Only in political matters, it is not so functional really. WHO is working. Whatever you say whenever there is any real bad disease, it is WHO which is most equipped to handle it. And there is UNICEF for example relating to children or even maritime organization about laws of seas etc. So I think International law does not depend on UN only. So many protocols have been signed by parties in Geneva even before UN. So these are also agreements. Moreover let us say UN is not functioning well. But if you say as it is not functioning well I will take law into my own hand; will it be fair? Something like government of a country is not punishing the criminals so I take law into my own hand and I start killing people. It would not be lawful and it would create dangerous situation. Similarly if every country takes law into its own hand as sometimes America does, if every country does that then whole world will be a jungle. It is already a jungle, but it would be a bigger jungle - it would be a deep forest then.  

You have said Islam is peaceful, can you cite some Qur'anic evidence on that?
When prophet Muhammad (SAAS) was in Makkah, Allah advised him “Kuffu Idiakum”, meaning you close your hand, don't stretch your hand [4:77]. That is, don't fight. Then even in Surah Tawbah you see that it is said do not fight with the people who want peace, who keep agreements, when somebody turns towards peace you also turn towards peace [9:4, 9:6]. I would request the reader to check the portion “Jihad” in the book “Islam in Focus” by Dr. Hammuda Abdul Ati to see the reference of some other verses in this regard.
I would also say that Islam is for justice and it is justice not between Muslims it is justice among humanity. It indicates Islam's peaceful nature in protecting human rights of all. Even in Suratun Nisa it is said in another verse that – “kuunu kawaamina” you stand up and become witness for Allah by doing justice whether it is against you or your near relation or your parents whether they are rich or poor – you stand up [4:135].  

So I think this emphasis on justice really means maintaining rights of all human beings and rights of all religious people - people of all religion and communities. I would say non-peaceful condition cannot be supported if we want to maintain human right, because any non-peaceful condition, any violence will disturb human rights. There are many verses.    

Does Islam approve suicide bombing?
As far as I know in Muslim jurisprudence or Fiqh, there is no permission for suicide, whether it is by suicide bombing or by other means – there is no permissibility of suicide in Islam. In Qur'an also it has been said that “don't throw you by your own hand or action towards destruction” [2:195]. And also in Sunnah it is Prophet's (SAAS) very Maruf Hadith that out of pain one soldier killed himself and prophet said that he will go to Jahannam (hell).

The unanimity of opinion of the jurists of the past is that suicide is not permissible, it is prohibited. In the current times I don't know what has happened to some Ulama who allowed with some conditions, suicide bombing in Palestine. This was the beginning of suicide bombing among the Muslims. But I personally feel they have done a very wrong thing. They did not realize its impact and now it has traveled to every place among the Muslims. Those Ulama who have done it they should relent and should withdraw their fatwa and may be some of them have already done it. I think Ulama everywhere should say that this is not right; in this regard we should follow the Ijma (consensus) of the Ummah of the past. In this regard there is not a single Mujtahid who has said suicide is permissible. So we can go back to that Ijma of the past. I think we should be very serious about this matter. This is the most dangerous thing. We have to stop it somehow. The Ulama have great role to play.  

What is concept of Jihad in Islam? Is it akin to violence or terrorism?
Jihad is actually not war. Jihad primarily means struggle. One kind of Jihad is war. But the broad meaning of Jihad is struggle. Islam agrees the struggle against Nafs that is evil tendencies of every human being is also Jihad. The Iranian says Jihad of construction. We can say for example Jihad against corruption. Jihad doesn't mean war. Jihad doesn't really mean Qital. Qital is a kind of Jihad. You can say Qital is included in Jihad -Struggle and then armed struggle. And in Islam Jihad can be declared only by a lawfully established state, not any individual not Mollah Omar, or Osama bin Laden. An established authority can only declare Jihad. Presently we have agreed among the Muslim countries, the UN charter, that all states are equal and we cannot attack another country. If we have a complaint we can go to the UN Security Council. Those who violate, they are violators - like America, the arrogant power in the world. They are arrogant power in the world but they are doing wrong and everybody says they are doing wrong. And they are invaders; half of the Americans say they are invaders. So I would say Qital -   the state can only do it and present time I don't see any scope of armed struggle with another state. Because I have a problem with a country I am not supposed to fight with the country, I am supposed to go the UN Security council. So I think ‘Qital' part is very theoretical now. But if there is no international law for example, no international forum for example, then Islam would say that you can protect your state and you should fight if necessary. I do not say Jihad is mainly aggressive - it is not. It is mainly defensive, to protect the Islamic state. Even if there is injustice somewhere we should force the international organizations - human right organization, international court of justice, UN Security Council or other organizations to look into the situation.  We are bound by agreements. Allah says to keep our agreements to fulfill our agreements”.  

Are Hijbullah or Hamas terrorist groups?
In my view Hijbullah is not and Hamas is not too. Because Hijbullah is there and Lebanon has a history of militias. If we look into histroy, we will see that Lebanon has a history of militias for last fifty years because of community composition. It's a bad history but still it's a history. Hijbullah is also a militia of muslims or Shia muslims. They had to defend themselves and their community. Israel captured part of south Lebanon . So they feel that Israel can attack anytime and hence they have a right to be there.

As particularly whole Lebanon has demilitarized, for example all the militias have demilitarized, I personally feel Hijbullah should be demilitarized. But I don't know the Lebanese situation. It will depend on the Lebanese situation. The Islamic scholars of Lebanon know better than me about their condition. But I personally feel if other militias are there HIjbullah should be there but if other militias are not there Hijbullah should only be a political party. And they are a political party. About twenty percent members of the parliament are from Hijbullah.

About Hamas, they are fighting a battle you can say freedom struggle. They are trying to fight an aggressor, an occupier. And the occupier is there for sixty years because of the western failures, western machinations, western interests and western bad faith. It would not require so much time to solve this problem - how to divide former Palestine into two parts, it should not take sixty years to settle. America can do many things in one year or two years but they cannot do it here in sixty years. I would not say Hamas is terrorist, rather Israel is terrorist and even America is terrorist but Hamas is not.  

What about other groups like Al-qaeda and Taliban?
I think these are difficult cases. For example Al-Qaeda, I do not know them. I don't know where they are, who their leaders are really. But in any event, if Al-Qaeda and I say if they think that suicide bombing is lawful, if they think killing civilians is lawful, if they create unnecessary problems in other countries, for example if they do create problem in Saudi Arabia, or in let us say in Tanjania or in Pakistan, I would say then they are a terrorist outfit. Otherwise I would not say that. I don't know them. I don't know whether there is any Al-Qaeda at all. I am not sure that there is Al-Qaeda. This may be just a name being used by the western powers. I do not know, may be Osama bin Laden is there - a person. But I don't know that Al-Qeda exists. This is something very peculiar, really we don't know, even now we are not clear whether there is any Al-Qaeda.

About Taliban, I would say that they established a government after fighting with other Mujahidin groups. There are several Mujahidin groups who defeated the Soviet Union. But then they could not agree and they fought among them, which was very unfortunate. Then Taliban came and gradually it drove away all others and captured whole Afghanistan under their control except north. Except northern Afghanistan they were in control of Afghanistan. But they were thrown away again by the American invasion - US led invasion. So Taliban, I would take it first of all as an Afghan party – an Afghan armed group, an Afghan group. Now I would say that they have a right, if other Afghan groups are armed they have a right to be armed. But solution lies in some negotiation. There should be some negotiation and there should be a neutral government installed for some time, new election should be held and new government should be formed and all the militias including Taliban should be disarmed. I mean there has to be an agreement and this has to be done. Other wise the bloodletting will continue. America cannot win the war; even Taliban cannot also finally win.  We don't want the blood letting of Muslims whether they are Shias or Sunnis or Taliban or non-Taliban.

So Taliban I would say they have a grievance. They feel they are overthrown by force and they want to overthrow them by force. In that sense Taliban is an aggrieved party and is not a terrorist outfit. It is a kind of government, which has been thrown out - a legal government thrown out.

But about Pakistani Taliban, why they are creating trouble in Frontier province? Why they are doing suicide bombing there? And they say they want to operate from there. But Pakistan want them to not to operate from there. I think Pakistan is right here. I think whole world unnecessarily disturb Pakistan because of the Taliban presence there. They should remain in the Afghan villages. Most of the Afghanistan villages are under your control. Why do you come to Pakistan and create problems for Pakistan? In Pakistan they are really doing wrong things. They are killing people, they are killing soldiers and they want to capture even Peshawar. So, I would say Pakistani Taliban is a terrorist outfit. But it is very difficult. These are my opinion. I do not know all the facts. I can only say what I know.  

WPI: Thank you very much.

[The interview was taken by Shakil Abdullah, Shura member, WPI on behalf of WPI magazine]
Shah Abdul Hannan is a prominent Islamic scholar and highly active in dawah activities in Bangladesh as well as overseas. He is the former Secretary of the Government of Bangladesh. He has written several books, many articles, establishes lots of organizations, Islamic Banking systems, Universities and Islamization of knowledge (several private universities in Bangladesh, starting with North South University, Darul Ihsan University, International Islamic University Chittagong, Manarat International University, etc.), etc. He is the founding Advisor of Witness-Pioneer.
More on him can be available at
Go To Contents

Exclusive Interview with Professor Dr. A K M Azharul Islam

Many people accuse Muslims that they promote terrorism. What do you think are their arguments? Are they justified?
A K M Azhar (AKMA):

The neo-conservatives of the Bush administration are reportedly responsible to advance the perception that Muslims promote terrorism because of Qur'an. Further the western pundits and Evangelical preachers through their lectures and writings are trying to lead the world to believe this absurdity about the Divine script.

Their arguments: No, certainly they are not justified in projecting Islam in this way. Lack of knowledge about true Islam and bias prompted such inaccurate and wrong perception.


On the other hand, Muslim Scholars state that Islam, in fact, denounces terrorism. What is their main line of argument?

The phrase ‘Islamic terrorism' as often used by much of the media and western neo-conservatives is dangerous and irresponsible because terrorism has no religion, and in fact Islam denounces it. The Divine faith Islam does not condone violent acts, for whatever reasons, of a few Muslims.

According to Muslim scholars Terror attacks and the killing of the innocent people are totally forbidden. They are of the opinion that 'Islam, Christianity and Judaism share the basic values necessary to create a world in which tolerance and peace prevail. Main lines of their arguments are: The first verse equates the killing of one innocent to slaughtering all of humanity. Likewise the second verse points to the importance that the faithful should attach to life.


Do you think UN is a functional organization? Do you think UN is playing an effective role for peace-keeping in the current world?

There is no effective UN authority on world events now-a-days. Its legitimacy has not been put into so many questions as it is today. Because of decades of Israeli non-compliance and the recent unilateral military action against Iraq by US and its allies, the world organization UN has lost the very legitimacy that nations of the world once granted it soon after the World War II.

The world should be governed by the rule of international law, under the administration of the UN. In recent time the UN created the International Criminal Court in order to make international law binding on all nations. The court has jurisdiction over all nations. It can prosecute ‘crimes against humanity', genocide and ‘war crimes'. But unfortunately the US obstructed the move - it should be brought back under the sanctity of the rule of international law. The UN should be empowered and strengthened to exercise its authority to enforce the International Criminal Court's judgments.

The UN is the best hope for the future of the world. But the International institutions with a mission to prevent war have proved to be impotent. Following the US each country may now follow its own dictates with a philosophy that ‘might makes right'. The Arab world is witnessing it in the occupied Palestine and elsewhere with little or no action from the powerful nation. A stabilizing force is required to prevent havoc. The world needs better rules. It is the duty of the UN and its various bodies, not the individual state, to see that these rules are adhered to in respect of the following matters: Several analysts believe that the world is disappointed as the only superpower US has virtually downgraded the UN through its exercise to influence world events. Just and responsible role of the superpower is yet to be seen. UN role model respect for sovereignty, mutual respect, equality, interfaith dialogue, media moderation and impartiality should be ensured. Bypassing the international ethics stipulated in the UN Charter would further worsen the situations.


Does Islam approve suicide bombing?

Islam does not approve suicide bombing (walking bombs). In fact Islam forbids wars of aggression as stated in the following verses in the Qur'an: ‘Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loves not aggressors.' (2:190). So Islam sets strict conditions for just warfare. Those conditions are limited to self-defence or removing injustice against other people.

Examples of suicide bombings carried out by non-Muslim groups are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Christians and socialists in Lebanon. The religious orientation of either the abortion clinic bomber in the US or the Stern Gang or Irgun during British Mandate days in Palestine or ‘the depredations of Serbian forces during the Bosnian conflict' is too well known. Robert Pape (Chicago professor) in his book, ‘Dying to Win - The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism', finds that suicide terrorism is not overwhelmingly a religious phenomenon. He shows that between 1982 and 1986, 71% of the Lebanese suicide attackers were Christians and 21% Communists/Socialists. Pape further points out that the available data on 384 attackers show that 43% were religious, while 57% were secular.

The cycle of violence in Palestine using missiles and aerial bombings by Israel and suicide bombings by Palestinian groups has killed mostly innocent people. The former is an example of terrorism of the State and the latter that of the non-state actors.

Many people assume “Jihad” to be synonymous of violence and terrorism. What is your opinion?

The two terms ‘Jihad' and ‘Fundamentalism' are being used extensively to portray Islam as a rigid and militant religion. The US neo-con politicians and media have launched a campaign to demonize Islam, particularly after the tragic 9/11. The western pundits, evangelical Christians and media have created such an environment that the two terms are the subjects in nearly all public discourse leading to deep misunderstanding about Islam and Muslims.

Is “Jihad” a Holy War or synonymous with violence and terrorism? The question is raised over and over again. Jihad has been translated and taken as ‘Holy war' by the western pundits, politicians and media. In Islam, there is no such thing as holy war. This terminology was generated in Europe during the Crusades and their war against Muslims. In fact ‘Holy war' is the translation not of ‘jihad' but of ‘crusade' - a term used to refer to wars undertaken by Christians in Europe in the 11–13th centuries, to liberate the Holy Land from the ‘infidels' (Muslims).

The term ‘Jihad' is constantly being misused by western media.  Jihad is a concept, which derives from the Arabic root-word ‘jahada' meaning ‘striving' or ‘making an effort'. It is cited in around 40 places in the Qur'an while the term qital appears around 167 times in one or another context. While jihad in its Qur'anic sense refers to struggle, concerted effort, and an ongoing endeavour, in order to achieve an objective, the term qital simply means fighting or war in its wider connotation.

The highest form of jihad in Islam (jihad al akbar) is against one's own shortcomings and weaknesses. It is an ongoing struggle to make one's self better in every way.  A lesser form of jihad (jihad al-asghar) is struggle against socials ills and injustice. Defensive war can be a part of the lesser jihad but the Qur'an repeatedly points out that ‘Allah loves not aggressors'.  Jihad as ongoing effort is a part of everything that a Muslim is required to do – from praying five times a day (salat) to fasting in the month of Ramadan (siyam) to wealth-sharing (zakat) to performing pilgrimage (hajj) to standing up for justice and testifying to the truth.

In matters related to restoration of human rights of people we can cite the Qur'anic word mustad'afin. The word refers to those who are ill-treated and oppressed, and exhorts Muslim to fight for the cause of the liberation of the oppressed. The relevant Qur'anic verse is: ‘And why should you not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who being weak are ill-treated (and oppressed) men, women and children, who cry: Our Lord rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors and raise for us from Thee one who will protect and raise for us from Thee one who will help' (Qur'an: 4: 75). The intent of jihad as mentioned here is to liberate people from oppression, injustice, expiration, slavery and bondage or restoration of human rights of a people. Thus the fighting of a war in the name of justice or Islam,  to deter an aggressor,  for self defence, and/or to establish justice and freedom to practice religion, would also be considered a Jihad. Who is then authorized to call for Jihad as a war in such case? It must be undertaken following Islamic rules and regulations. The physical or military Jihad (defence of the country, retribution against tyranny, eviction from homeland by force and so on) must be called by a Muslim authority, such as, a president or head of a Muslim country after due consultations with the learned leadership.

Defensive war can be a part of the lesser jihad keeping in mind that the Qur'an repeatedly enjoins upon the adherents that ‘Allah loves not aggressors'.  Thus jihad, with the meaning, jurisdiction and limitation as in Islam, cannot be abandoned despite its persistent vandalization by the western media. ‘It must, therefore, be purged of the negative images attached to it.'

What is your idea about Hijbullah or Hamas? Are these terrorist groups?
There is no straightforward one-word answer to this question. We need to discuss in some details before we have the answer.

The following five definitions of terrorism are extracts from ‘Bedevilled World' (Azharul Islam, Global Media Publications, New Delhi 2008, ISBN: 81-88869-26-0): If ‘terrorism' means ‘intimidation by violence or the threat of violence' (FBI), ‘wanton killings' and if the definition can be extended to include violence by anybody whether it be individuals, groups, states and agents of states, then the isolated individuals, groups, states, agents of states are all ‘terrorists' or the likes. Now-a-days we see violence leading to terrorism is perpetrated by violent attacks on people, or even by employing military force on people, or destructive sabotage of infrastructure. These are done in order to frighten or coerce people to buckle under your pressure to enslave them or exploit them.

Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement) is a Palestinian anti-occupation Organization. The acronym ‘Hamas' first appeared in 1987 in a leaflet accusing Israeli intelligence services of undermining the moral fibre of Palestinian youths as part of their recruitment of ‘collaborators'. The use of violence against Israeli occupation, military targets and other misdeeds appeared almost in the same time with the first Intifada. Its popularity stems from its social, welfare, cultural and educational services mainly to the Palestinian poor. Israel supported Hamas starting in the late 1970s as a ‘counterbalance to the PLO'.The first attack by the group was in response to the 1994 massacre in the Mosque in Hebron of 29 Muslim worshippers. The organization's goal has been used to justify assassination of Hamas leaders by using air force in the occupied territories and by car bombings, shootings and even poison injections by Mossad agents outside Israel. Hamas has also attacked Israeli military and security forces and carried out suicide bombings. Many top Hamas leaders were assassinated in which scores of civilians also were killed. Among the assassinated leaders were Yasin in wheel-chair (missile attack on 26 January 2004), Rantissi (17 April 2004 by air strike), Izz El-deen Sheikh Khalil (26 September 2004 by car bombing in Damascus). Hamas has recently (early 2006) entered the political process and formed government after winning the free and fair election.

Palestinian Hamas victory in the free democratic election was not given recognition by Israel's staunchest ally US. Former President Jimmy Carter, who monitored the Palestinian election, said in the ‘Larry King Live' program, ‘Hamas deserves to be recognized by the international community, and despite the group's militant history, there is a chance the soon-to-be Palestinian leaders could turn away from violence.' He went on - ‘If you sponsor an election or promote democracy and freedom around the world, then when people make their own decision about their leaders, I think that all the governments should recognize that administration and let them form their government. .... the people of Palestine - who already suffer ... under Israeli occupation - will not suffer because they are deprived of a right to pay their school teachers, policemen, welfare workers, health workers and provide food for people.'. He further added that the US should not cut off aid to the Palestinian people, but rather funnel it through third parties like the UN.

Hamas victory in a democratic election is not recognized on the plea that Hamas was involved in violence as a part of their struggle against occupation by the murderous Israelis equipped with US fighting machines. Their fault is that they resisted the Israeli occupation and they do not recognize the occupier. One should not forget the situation of the former Zionist leaders accused of killing British dignitaries and Palestinians who were later elected in Israeli Parliament or became part of a government. In the words of Albert Einstein and 18 other prominent Jews in a letter on 4 December 1948 to the New York Times, ‘Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the ‘Freedom Party' (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.'

There is a distinction between the struggle for freedom and terrorism. The right to be free from foreign domination or occupation is acknowledged by most people. It is their genuine right to fight for their own salvation. The fight is based on the basis of their right to choose their own political destiny. This is the right to exercise self-determination in terms of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966. Article-I of the UN Charter reads - All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

H. Rashid, a former Bangladeshi Ambassador to the UN, wrote an article highlighting the human rights for waging struggle for freedom from occupation. He writes - ‘Historically all struggles for freedom begins initially with revolt or by commission of some violent acts. The American Revolution in the 18th century started against the British rule with the ‘Boston Tea Party' in 1773 when protesters threw crates of British tea into the sea.' American, in an effort to liberate Europe from the occupier during 1950s, had to drop nuclear bomb that resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and injury of thousands including many more by radiation induced cancer related diseases.

Now back to the question asked. I am sure one can now judge the actions of Hamas, Israel or for that matter Hizbullah in the light of the above discussions.

Thank you for your contribution.

[This interview was taken through email]
Prof. A K M Azharul Islam is a former Vice Chancellor, International Islamic University Chittagong (IIUC), Bangladesh and Professor, University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh.
Go To Contents

Book: “Islam Denounces Terrorism”
Islam is Not the Source of Terrorism, But its Solution

by Harun Yahya

During the last two decades in particular, the concept of "Islamic terror" has been often discussed. In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on targets in New York and Washington which caused the death of thousands of innocent civilians, this concept has once again returned to the top of the international agenda.

As Muslims, we completely condemn these attacks and offer our condolences to the American people.

In this article, we will explain that Islam is by no means the source of this violence and that violence has no place in Islam.

Even though the hijackers have Muslim identities, the terror they perpetrated cannot be labelled "Islamic terror", just as it would not be called "Jewish terror" if the perpetrators were Jews or "Christian terror" if they were Christians.

That is because, as we will examine in the following pages, murdering innocent people in the name of religion is unacceptable. We need to keep in mind that, among those who were killed in Washington or New York, there were people who loved Jesus (Christians), Prophet Moses (Jews) and Muslims. According to Islam, murdering innocent people is a great sin that, unless forgiven by God, brings torment in Hell.

Thus, a religious person who has fear of God can never commit such an act.

In fact, the aggressors can commit such violence only with the intention of attacking religion itself. It may well be that they carried out this violence to present religion as evil in the eyes of people, to divorce people from religion and to generate hatred and reaction against pious people. Consequently, every attack having a "religious" facade on American citizens or other innocent people is actually an attack made against religion.

All the three Theistic religions command love, mercy and peace. Terror, on the other hand, is the opposite of religion; it is cruel, merciless and it demands bloodshed and misery. This being the case, while looking for the perpetrators of a terrorist act, its origins should be sought in disbelief rather than in religion. People with a fascist, communist, racist or materialist outlook on life should be suspected as potential perpetrators. The name or the identity of the triggerman is not important. If he can kill innocent people without blinking an eye, whatever his label is, then he is a disbeliever, not a believer. He is a murderer with no fear of God, whose main ambition is to shed blood and to give harm.

For this reason, "Islamic terror" is quite a erroneous concept which contradicts Islam's message. That is because, the religion of Islam can by no means concur with terror. On the contrary, Muslims are responsible for preventing terrorist acts and bringing peace and justice to the world.

The author, who writes under the pen-name Harun Yahya, was born in Ankara in 1956. Since the 1980s, the author has published many books on political, faith-related and scientific issues. Harun Yahya is well-known as an author who has written very important works disclosing the imposture of evolutionists, the invalidity of their claims and the dark liaisons between Darwinism and bloody ideologies. For more on his works, please visit

Source: To read the entire book (of 177 pages and 9 chapters), please download [free or you may buy] from –
The book is published in Jan. 2002 by Amal Press, PO BOX 688 Bristol BS99 3ZR, England.
Website: E-mail:
Go To Contents

Bringing an End to the World of Extremism
Based on Yusuf al-Qaradawi's book
“Islamic Awakening between Rejection and Extremism”

by Fatima Nasreen Hasan

Islam is the clear straight path, which recommends moderation and balance in everything: in brief, Ibadah, conduct and legislation. Allah calls this path ‘Al Sirat Al Mustaqim', one distinct from all others. It is important to point out that moderation or balance is not only a general characteristic of Islam but also a fundamental landmark. The Qur'an states: “Thus have we made of you an Ummah justly balanced that ye might be witnesses over the nations and the Messenger a witness over yourselves…” [2:143].

Reading the above verse one might realize the significance of a balanced Ummah. The word balance simply means neither too little nor too much (i.e., excessiveness) but something in between the two. So in order to be on the right path we would have to oppose all the extremism. In the following discussion we would look at the concepts of religious extremism.

Literally, extremism means being situated at the farthest possible point from the center. Figuratively, it indicates a similar remoteness in religion and thought, as well as behavior. It is clear that failure to define and comprehend religious extremism and to leave the issue t o the whimsical desires of people will lead to discord among Muslims. The Qur'an states: “If the truth has been in accord with their desires, truly the heavens and the earth and all the beings therein would have been in confusion and corruption”. Here importance should be drawn to two observations.

First: The degree of a person's piety as well as that of the society in which lives affect his judgment of others as far as extremism, moderation and laxity are concerned. A religious society usually produces a person of sensitivity opposite to that of deviation or negligence. On the other hand, one who is brought up in an environment, which neglects Shariah, will consider even minimal adherence to Islam a kind of extremism. Some Muslims, who are influenced by alien ideologies and practices, consider the call for the application of Shariah and the establishment of an Islamic state as a sign of ‘religious extremism'. To such a person, a young man with beard or a young woman with Hijab, are both extremists!

Second: It is unfair to assure a person of religious extremism simply because he has adopted a ‘grand-line' juristic opinion of certain Fuqaha. As for example Ibn Abbas (one of the companions of the Prophet) facilitated religious matters while Ibn Umar was strict. There are mainly three kinds of extremism: Ghuluw(excessiveness), Tanattu (transgressing meticulous religiosity) and Tashdid (strictness).

Indications of Extremism:
There are basically four manifestation of extremism which are explained below:
Causes of Extremism:
Occupation with Side Issues: Lack of religious sight and intellectual shallowness result in an intense interest in marginal issues instead of major ones, as for example, unnecessary talk about growing of beard, wearing cloths below the ankle, acquisition of photographs and so on.

Excessive Extension of Prohibitions: For example, an extremist due to lack of Islamic knowledge may be seen to force others to drink while sitting. Since the Hadith, which permit drinking water while standing, are more authentic as sighted by Bukhari but no Hadith was cited there which forbade it.

Misconceptions: Misconception is a cause of extremism because people are unable to realize the difference between absolute Iman and limited Iman or major facts leading to non-Islam and Kufr of disobedience between major shirk and minor shirk.

Emphasis on Allegorical Texts: Ignoring the Qur'anic verses which are straightforward and clear; and giving more stress on the allegorical ones is one of the major causes of extremism. [Al-Qur'an 3:7]

Lack of Insight into History & Reality: The essence of Shariah causes some people to demand the impossible and unavailable. Thinking or demanding like this is not related any way to Sunan of Allah.

Islam: A Stranger in its Homeland: Perhaps the most alarming and unbearable factor for any ardent, committed Muslim, especially the young, is a lack of adherence to the teachings of Islam in Muslim countries where perversion, corruption are rampant. As such, we see in the media, in addition to the clubs and theatres spreading obscenities and misconduct. In the opinion of devoted young Muslims, all the rulers of the Arab and Muslim countries are mere “pieces on a chessboards” and puppets in the hands of the secret powers which rule the world. The youth strongly believe that these rulers only appear to be true national leaders concern for their people and their religion, while in reality they are no more than paid agents serving the enemies of al ‘Ummah.

The Impediments Imposed on Daw'ah and Du'at: Another cause to which we have to draw attention pertains to the freedom – indeed duty – to call people to Islam. It is a common knowledge that Islam not only teaches a person to be pious and righteous but should endeavor to reform others. This is the purpose of the obligation to call people to righteousness, to command the common good and forbid that which is evil and undesirable; to join together in mutual teaching of truth and of patience.

Is it possible for any Muslim – who accepts Allah as his Lord, Islam as his Deen, and Muhammad as his Prophet – to deny these? What could Muslims who aspire to live in accordance with the teachings of Islam do while kufr is prescribed and Iman is rejected; while haram is made lawful and halal unlawful? Are not these unnatural situations the root cause of excessiveness and extremism?

In 1954 and 1965 in Egypt, devout Muslims were subjected to nightmarish, hair-raising, unbelievable torture and punishment at the military prison: they were lashed, exposed to flames, their flesh burned with cigarettes; men, and sometimes even women, were hung upside down like slaughtered animals, while the executioners took tern scorching them until their bodies swelled up in heaps of blood and pus.

Extremism and the tendency for takfir were born in this notorious prison. The prisoners began by asking simple questions: Why are we subjected to this torture? What crime have we committed? And they were certain that those who were punishing them (i.e., the leaders, soldiers) were all kafir. In this way the tendency to label individuals and groups with kufr was born and nurtured.

Defects of Extremism:
The first defect is that excessiveness is too repulsive for ordinary human nature to endure or tolerate. One should always keep in mind that legislation of Allah addresses the whole humanity not a special group who may have a unique capacity for endurance. Excessiveness is short lived since man's capacity for endurance and perseverance is naturally limited, and since man can easily become bored, s/he cannot endure any excessive practice for long. The Prophet (SAWS) said, “Do those deeds which you can endure as Allah will not get tired (of giving rewards) till you get bored and tired (of performing good deeds)… and most beloved to Allah is the one which is done regularly even if it were little”. Excessive practice jeopardizes other rights and obligations. A sage once said, “Every extravagance is somehow bound to be associated with a lost right”. As for example, if a woman starts offering nafl prayer day and night, she will be ignoring her children and family. And it is far better for the mother to give more time to her children (her family) than to offer those nafl prayers.

The second defect is that extremism acts as a serious barrier towards the propagation of Islam. Nowadays we see thousands of Muslims but we hardly see anyone who offers the five daily prayers or sawm properly and regularly. We observe Muslims drinking alcohol, women wearing shorts and so many things, which are clearly prohibited by Allah. Therefore the world is in need of proper and true Islamic guidance. We should show the young Muslims the path of moderation. All this will only be possible if Islam is propagated all over the world in the right manner. People should be addressed to Islam in a nice way so that they feel the need for it. How extremism is related to this issue then? We have already seen how an extremist calls other people to Islam. They do it in a harsh and cruel way. They would tell people to perform the unnecessary (i.e., excessive) ibadah like they do. Since people know the wrong side of Islam (because of those extremists) they naturally ignore it and do not find any interest in Islam. They get the idea that Islam is very complicated and a prosaic religion, which does not allow one to listen to music, to watch TV, to go to a party etc. Finally we can see that the world will never realize the true teachings of the Qur'an through extremism. Islam allows everything but it has only placed a limit to every action we perform so that we do not deviate from the path of Allah even for a minute.

Remedies for Extremism:
Since extremism has so many disadvantages, how can we root out extremism from the society? In other words what are the remedies for extremism? We must give due weight to the following four remedies briefly discussed: In order to establish a balanced Ummah all of us should act in concert against the extremists. Let us pray to Allah: “Show us the straight way, the way of those on whom Thou has bestowed Thy grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who got not astray.” [Al-Fatihat : 6-7]

Source: This article is a brief summery of the book “Islamic Awakening between Rejection and Extremism” by Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an eminent Egyptian Islamic scholar and now working as Dean of the Faculty of Shariah, Qatar Islamic University. The English version of the book has been jointly published by International Islamic Publishing House and The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), USA.
The book is available in Witness-Pioneer Online Library.
Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi was born in Egypt in 1926. He studied at Al Azhar University till his PhD there. He is one of the best in Dawah activities and he has written many wonderful and thought-provocating books, materials. Many of his achievements are available only in Arabic, but also in various other languages.
This article is a compilation of several parts, from different issues of ‘The Windows'.
Go To Contents

Opinion on "Muslim image in next two decades"
by Maryam Sakeenah

The so-called War on Terror has led to the creation of a Muslim 'stereotype' as a violent, fanatical character, to the extent that many have opined that 'Muslims are the new blacks.' Looking at the way things stand, future trends seem to be rather bleak. However, a keener insight into things gives one room for optimism. Amidst the current trends of rising anti-Islamist sentiment, one can sense the stirring of countercurrents too. Soon after Nine Eleven, sales of the Quran all over the US hit a record high. It is a fact that the current propaganda onslaught against Islam is helping create interest in the much-maligned religion in the Western mind. It is also true that conversions to Islam in America, even in the midst of conditions as hostile as these, have consistently remained on an all-time high, alhamdulillah. This arousal of interest in the religion will, in the coming decades, win new converts to the religion inshallah. I say this because I believe an honest study of the original sources of Islam surely stirs the deepest within the human heart and appeals to human logic. The true message of Islam stands clear as day, proclaiming the pure faith in the Oneness of God that leads the self to the Peace of Surrender. The moral system that springs forth from this fundamental spiritual premise is centred around Justice in society, economics and politics. I believe, over the years, this understanding of Islam will inshallah grow as the anti-Islam propaganda will lead many to search for the truth for themselves. Besides, the moral crisis of secular Western societies that is most sharply seen in the destruction of the institution of marriage and family and the growth of a permissive culture of artifice, materialism and inner emptiness is gradually leading many to seek an alternative value system that accords sanctity to universal moral values.

This, however, entails a great deal of responsibility on the Muslims, which is to help the quest of the average Westerner in seeking the true Islam through stepping up Dawah efforts and propagating its universal message in the modern context 'with wisdom and fair preaching.' (The Quran)

I see hope for the average Muslim in the coming decades too. The onslaught against Islam, the labels of 'extremist' and 'moderate' etc are igniting a raw quest for the true Muslim identity in the mind of the ordinary Muslim. Furthermore, the campaign of hatred and prejudice against Islam is leading Muslims to find answers to the lies to be able to refute them with an empowering knowledge of what Islam truly is. The hostility and prejudice around helps strengthen the link to and the pride in Muslimhood. This perhaps explains the ever-increasing numbers of young born-again Muslims both in Muslim and Western societies. Given the growth in the resources and means for the propagation of Islam's message through Dawah, I see Islam at the threshold of a new revival in a modern context, as the only viable system that can effectively counter the decadent amoral Hedonism and Materialism that has plagued the West too long.

Maryam Sakeenah can be available at
Go To Contents

Contact e-mail address:
Send your contribution to this address. Thanks a lot for your effort, comment and being with us.

Home||Library|| Magazine|| Dawah|| Entertainment|| Children