Not too long ago, the Guardian newspaper in the U.K. reported that Saudi Arabia had bribed the British government with a $70 million arms deal to cease a criminal investigation against members of the Saudi royal family, and stop affording asylum to two prominent Saudi dissidents, Sa’d al-Din al-Faqih and Muhammad al-Mis’iri. These two men called attention to Saudi Arabia human rights abuses, and were strong advocates for democratic reform in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim world. Per the terms of the arms deal, they were turned over to Saudi Arabia where they would certainly be tortured and killed.

For three days, neither government confirmed nor denied the Yamama deal, as it came to be known. At the same time, the British government ordered the Guardian to stop reporting on this matter of national security. Shockingly, al-Faqih and al-Mis’iri, both British citizens, were arrested, denaturalized and deported. Relying solely on Saudi evidence, both men were charged with supporting terrorism. This is only one example in an extremely alarming trend of human rights abuses committed by Western democracies in the name of fighting terrorism. Add to this the recent revelations about secret U.S. detention centers, the horrifying use of torture by the U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, and the abhorrent practice of “rendition” or “proxy” torture, where other governments do the dirty work at the behest of the U.S

Continue »

Bishop John Chane, Senior Rabbi Bruce Lustig and I have been on a Jihad since September 11, 2001. We have been “struggling”—the literal meaning of Jihad—to create understanding, friendship and harmony between our faiths. Rabbi Lustig took the initiative immediately after 9/11 by organizing the First Abrahamic Summit in Washington, DC. Since then, I have been honored to be part of several ongoing initiatives with my two friends. For example, every year, we walk hand in hand with several thousand people on 9/11 in a show of friendship from the Washington Hebrew Congregation to the National Cathedral and on to the Mosque on Massachusetts Ave. As recently as June, the three of us, along with Canon John Peterson, were at the National Cathedral speaking about the themes that arise out of my book "Journey into Islam: The Crisis of Globalization."

1. What is common between Islam and the Judeo-Christian tradition?

For a Muslim, the Judaic and Christian traditions shape and form our history, values, culture and ideas. Muslims inherit the same idea of a monotheistic, omnipotent God and the same great Biblical prophets which include figures like Abraham and Moses. Muslims believe in the Ten Commandments and even many of the dietary restrictions are similar. We are here on earth to do good and follow in the footsteps of the great figures that have come as messengers from God so that at the end of our lives, our ledgers show the good outweighing the bad and we can be judged to enter paradise; we therefore share an idea of judgment day. Muslims consciously talk of Jews and Christians as “people of the book” and there have been long periods of harmony between them.

Continue »

1) What is common between Islam and the Judeo-Christian tradition?

Most importantly we are monotheistic, believing in “the one God” that we all share in common. There are those in both Christianity and Judaism who do not believe that we share the same God. But in truth, we see our common connection with the same God to be critical in interfaith dialogue, and in our understanding of each others Holy Books. There can be no meaningful inter-faith engagement and dialogue unless we come to the table, Muslims, Jews and Christians with this as our initial binding theological truth. We are in fact the sons and daughters of Abraham, the first monotheist.

For Christians, Islam honors the Virgin Mary as the bearer of Jesus who Muslims consider to be a great prophet. Mary is mentioned more times in the Koran than is Jesus, but none the less both appear by name in the Koran. Islam and Christianity separate when place of Jesus in the life of monotheism is elevated. Since the basis of Christianity is centered on the core, canonical teaching that Jesus is the son of God; in other words, God Incarnate, there is an inherent problem. The question here is, “can Islam and Christianity live side by side in a rapidly changing and violent world where religion is too often the fault line” and where Muslims and Christians differ on the divinity of Jesus. Judaism and Christianity have been able to live side by side even with their different understands of the Christian imperative that Jesus is the Messiah. Can Islam bear this same tolerance with Christianity about Jesus?

Continue »

I didn’t need to watch the PBS series “America at a Crossroads” or read the recent Pew Research Center survey on American Muslims, to know that the Muslim community is under intense scrutiny.

The day I won the Democratic Farmer Labor (DFL) endorsement for the Fifth Congressional District of Minnesota, it was the first question out of the shoot.

“Aren’t you a Muslim?” “Will you be the first one in Congress if you win?” “Will you swear your oath on the Qur'an?” “Do you oppose terrorism?”

I’ve heard them all. But although I’ve been asked a few intrusive, repetitive, and even silly questions about my faith, life has been good.

First, a fairly small number of conversations revolve around religion. Whole days – even weeks – have gone by without me being asked to speak on behalf of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. But more importantly, I’ve been able to pursue my work on behalf of my constituents. I have been effective on issues such as peace, ending the war in Iraq, credit justice, and environmental sustainability. My colleagues have been tolerant and inclusive. I have not had a single unpleasant face-to-face encounter with a member of congress over religion. Individual leaders in the Bush Administration have been open and inclusive. I accompanied Speaker Pelosi on her trip to the Middle East, and I’ll never forget the warm reception she received from the women who poured out of the Omayyad Mosque in Damascus just to shake her hand or take a picture.

Of course, there have been a few bumps.

Continue »

WHAT IS JIHAD? UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS DOES ISLAM SANCTION THE USE OF VIOLENCE? WHAT WOULD YOU TELL SUICIDE BOMBERS WHO INVOKE ISLAM TO JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS?

The term “Jihad” is very much misunderstood by many non-Muslims and it is also very much abused by some Muslims. Jihad does not mean “holy war.” Jihad is an Arabic word, and its literal meaning is “to strive and exert effort.” In the Qur’an, this word is used several times. Sometimes it is used in the spiritual sense implying to strive and make an effort for self-purification from sin and evil. Sometimes it is used in social sense meaning to strive to keep good relations with others and to establish truth, justice and to do charitable deeds. Jihad is also used sometimes in terms of striving against oppression and aggression. As such, Jihad may involve combat and military action. However, this is only one aspect of Jihad. The more specific term for military action in the Qur’an is not jihad but “qital.”

In Islam, warfare is allowed only for defensive purposes to stop oppression and aggression. There is no place in Islamic teachings for war or violence against any person, group or state simply because of the difference of race, color, language, nationality or religion. Islam does not allow any coercion in order to convert others to its faith. The Qur’an says, “There is no coercion allowed in religion.” (Surah 2:256).

Continue »

1. What is common between Islam and the Judeo-Christian tradition?

Basic to Judaism, Christianity and Islam is monotheism, the belief in one god. In each faith, the relationship to the one God is demonstrated not only in a life of prayer and devotion, but, more importantly, in how one lives his or her life. How we act in this world is central to all three faiths; the philosophical and theological tenets of the faith are meaningless unless they are demonstrated in daily life. How we treat each other as human beings, all children of one God “created in the Divine image” is more important to Judaism, Christianity and Islam than what is written in our sacred books or professed by our clerics. Each faith emphasizes social justice, partnering with God to make our world a more just and compassionate world--how we care for the widow, the orphan, the poor and the powerless is the measure of our faith. The words that grace the entrance to our congregation from Micah 6:8: “Oh man what is good and what is required of you--to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God” - these very words may not be found at the door of the mosque or the church but they are in common upon the heart of every Jew, Christian and Muslim.

Continue »

1. WHAT IS JIHAD? UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS DOES ISLAM SANCTION THE USE OF VIOLENCE? WHAT WOULD YOU TELL SUICIDE BOMBERS WHO INVOKE ISLAM TO JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS?

In the name of God, the Compassionate and Merciful

Jihad is an Arabic word meaning ‘struggle’ or ‘effort’. In religious teaching, it denotes any struggle against the lower, selfish tendencies of the ego. One dimension of this may be to struggle against one’s own selfishness and cowardice in order to defend one’s people. One form of this was indicated by the Blessed Prophet when he said: ‘the best form of jihad is to speak a true word to a tyrannical ruler’. In doing so one risks one’s life, but is serving the weak and the oppressed; the Prophet therefore describes it as a form of jihad.

While non-retaliation against a personal injury is frequently a virtue (see the Holy Qur'an, chapter 41 verse 34), Islam believes that human communities have the right to collective self-defense, since non-resistance to aggression would result in a world dominated by tyrants (see Holy Qur’an, 22:40). Under some circumstances, Muslim scholars will allow oppressed peoples to rebel against their oppressors. They might, therefore, classify the American War of Independence as a form of jihad, broadly understood. When Bosnia was faced with ethnic cleansing in 1992, the Muslim authorities there authorized the use of force to defend the country’s Muslim minority. The alternative would have been mass murder and mass rape, and therefore jihad was lawful. Furthermore, some Muslim scholars will permit a non-defensive ‘idealist’ war to establish justice and freedom in a neighboring country. This is analogous, perhaps, to the decision of the United Kingdom to declare war on Germany on September 3, 1939, in response to the German invasion of Poland. There are more recent analogies as well, including very recent instances in which Western powers have used force to overthrow tyrants such as Saddam Hussein.

Continue »

Waging Jihad against Violence

The word jihad does not signify “war” (qital) alone, but can also mean to strive mightily to defeat one’s own ego, so as to become humble and at peace with oneself, with God, and His varied creation. As many others have stated, the Prophet himself explicitly made this point, upon returning from the “lesser jihad” at the battle of Badr to the “greater jihad,” through which he exhorted his Muslim followers to overcome their egotistical nature and desires. Violence is generally born of egotism and arrogance, even when veiled in the sanctity of religious justification. The wave of suicide bombings we have witnessed in recent years is no exception. True jihad consists of opposing such violence, in the name of God and His religion. For only God Himself has any right or claim to absolute possession of the Truth.

The question confronting us – whose answer will be pivotal in determining the future of humanity – is whether the Muslim ummah (community) in the 21st century is willing to reinterpret the Qur’an, rather than remain stuck with an outmoded understanding of the sacred text inherited from Muslim clerics who lived and wrote their Qur’anic interpretations a thousand years ago, at a time of great wars and chaos.

Continue »

1. WHAT IS JIHAD? UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS DOES ISLAM SANCTION THE USE OF VIOLENCE? WHAT WOULD YOU TELL SUICIDE BOMBERS WHO INVOKE ISLAM TO JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS?

Linguistically, Jihad means “to struggle or strive against an opponent.” The classical commentary on the Qur’an and the Way of the Prophet Muhammad describes four levels of Jihad, all of which involve a struggle on the side of goodness, truth and justice for the sake of God against evil, falsehood and injustice.

The most inward and profound meaning is “Jihad against the self or ego,” the struggle for good against evil that occurs within every human being. This is sometimes referred to as the “Greatest Jihad” because it underpins the other levels of Jihad.

“Jihad with wealth” is the sacrifice of wealth to support noble causes.

“Jihad with the tongue” (or pen, printing press, keyboard, etc.) is the oral, verbal and written struggle for goodness, truth and justice.

Finally, “Jihad with one’s life” includes the ongoing, lifelong struggle as well as the willingness to give up one’s life in a just and noble cause for the sake of God. This includes the military form of Jihad, which here may be translated as a “Sacred War,” a term that has similarities to the concept of the “Just War” in Christianity and to militant traditions in all major religions. There are strict rules governing military Jihad, such as it being a declared war and the prohibition of targeting civilians and other non-combatants.

Continue »

Since I became Imam of the Shia Imami Ismaili Muslims just fifty years ago, I have watched the world oscillate between promise and disappointment. In many cases, the disappointments can be attributed to the absence of a culture of tolerance.

My commitment to the principle of tolerance is based on spiritual understandings which are rooted in ancient teachings. I would mention two touchstones in particular. The first affirms the unity of the human race, as expressed in the Holy Qur'an where God, as revealed through the Holy Prophet Muhammad, may peace be upon him, says the following:

"O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord, Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from the twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women." (4:1)

This remarkable verse speaks both of the inherent diversity of mankind -- the "multitude" -- and of the unity of mankind -- the "single soul created by a single Creator" -- a spiritual legacy which distinguishes the human race from all other forms of life.

Continue »

One of the most important things for all people to remember in these difficult times is that there are more compatibilities than differences among the major religions – at least concerning treatment of one another as individuals. The commonly professed commandments and commitments are to peace, humility, service, forgiveness, compassion, and generosity toward poor and suffering neighbors.

Also, according to the Islamic, Hebrew, and Christian scriptures, we are all spiritual descendants of Abraham, mutually blessed by his covenant with God. To questioning gentiles among early Christians, Saint Paul emphasized that, without any rejection of the Hebrews, this blessing flows from Abraham’s faith, and not the ties of race or blood.

One possible difference between religions is the apparent militancy of Islam compared to the Christian worship of the Prince of Peace. This might be seen as an inherent advantage if the principle were not so often abandoned or rejected by Christian believers.

Continue »

My Islam, Your Islam, Our Islam, Their Islam

As may be obvious to readers of this forum, a wide variety of opinions exists as to the nature and teachings of Islam, even among those widely regarded as experts. Rather than view Islam and its teachings as a single monolithic entity, it is more accurate to recognize and acknowledge the de facto plurality of opinions that have always existed as to what Islam is, and what it “compels” you, me or us to do.

The personal experiences of any one human being can never be exactly identical with those of anyone else. These experiences invariably color the understanding and perceptions of those who have them, within the context of their respective religious traditions. I myself have undergone a continual process of transformation regarding my personal understanding of Islam from the time of earliest childhood until today. From this I conclude that the Islam which I conceive and experience is unique to me, and may rightly be termed, “My Islam.” The character of My Islam is the outgrowth of my cumulative personal experience, which it may be appropriate to share, but never to force upon others. Should I try to force my personal understanding of Islam and its teachings upon others, the result will inevitably be a serious “dislocation” for those so affected, annihilating the perceived beauty and joy of their own respective opinions.

A vast diversity of opinions about Islam are held by my fellow Muslims, which they are free, in turn, to share with me. I may or may not agree with them, but the result of such interaction invariably becomes another element of my own personal understanding and experience, and of theirs. For example, those wishing to “purify” Islam from so-called bid’a, or innovation, may reject the use of a drum to issue the call to prayer, reverence of saints, or even the use of a rosary while reciting the names of God. Thus we may refer to others’ personal experience and understanding of Islam as “Your Islam,” and go through life adopting or politely refusing to adopt any given element thereof.

Continue »

Shortly before I left office, I held a conference on Islam in London. The purpose was to allow Islamic leaders to talk about Islam directly, without mediation, and in a rational not excitable setting. It arose, in part, out of my meetings with Muslims, especially young ones, in different parts of Britain. Their constant complaint was that the only people whose voices got heard were the extreme ones, the ones whose look and language was straight out of central casting – Islam as a militant struggle against “the infidel.” Instead they wanted the true Islam to be heard. Young women were particularly vocal, seeing the extremists as a threat to their rights to equality.

The outcome of the conference was remarkable. Some of the most distinguished scholars and clerics from round the world condemned totally the warping of Islam by the extremists, spoke of the need for more moderate Islam to stand up and be counted and even argued for change and reform within Islam itself.

Continue »

The concept jihad could be rendered to mean effort from the original Arabic jahhada (to struggle or to resist), or ijtahada (to work one's mind, or to reason), or still the expression ajhada nafssahu (to exhaust one's self). Jihad then could mean mental effort or reasoning (ijtahada), or military efforts in the sense of struggle (jahhada). Both the mental and the military renderings of the term correspond to the bifurcation of the "greater jihad", and the "lesser jihad". The former is preserved for the mental efforts; the inward-seeking, or the mandatory efforts of each Muslim to become a better human being. The latter, or the military struggle, is the lesser jihad. In the military sense, there is another bifurcation; i.e., "offensive jihad" which is an obligation on the Muslim community as a whole (in Arabic fardu kifayah), and "defensive jihad" which is an obligation on every capable male adult (fardu eiyn). Why is this difference?

In his attempt to define jihad Bernard Lewis chose to give it an abstract, over-general and inclusive meaning. He was at pain to stress the all and encompassing military and aggressive connotation of the term. (Lewis, The Political language of Islam; 1988, pp.26-7) This is disputed by the differentiation between the two types of military jihad, let alone that there is a non-military jihad. The offensive jihad is fardu kifayah because it is basically a political option for the state to make depending on its political interests and political calculations. The defensive jihad, on the other hand, is a moral issue as much as it is a political one, and for that reason it is mandatory on every capable male adult, or fardu eiyn. The defensive jihad is to defend the identity, the interests and the faith of the community in the face of aggression, whereas the offensive jihad is merely a mechanism in the service of the interest of the state per se. The latter fits quite well with the period of early Islam. At that the time the world system, or the ancient world, was dominated by the concept of empires and not by that of a nation-state as is the case in the modern world. The ambition of a state or an empire's to expand its geographical boundaries was not subject to the checks and balances of international institutions and international law as we know them today. Practically, the whole globe was there for grab by the most powerful. Hence, the ability of a state to satisfy its geographical ambition was mainly a function of a state's economic and military capabilities.

Continue »

Let me start with the traditional greeting of Islam: peace be upon you.

I welcome the opportunity to engage in this conversation, and I am glad to think global readers are interested in Islam, a religion shared and cherished by millions of men and women around the world. I hope that this exercise challenges perceptions that Muslims are somehow different…strange…a breed apart. The other.

All faith, after all, is based on an intensely personal, private relationship with God. And I believe that if we are to build true understanding among and within our societies, we must approach each other as fellow human beings, not representatives of one religion or another.

Continue »

Answer 1:

First, I'd like to thank you for choosing me among the participants of what you informed me was an interfaith forum, or so I understood. Then I received three questions form you and I don't know if they are part of the open dialogue/discussion, or if they have a goal in themselves.

I believe that these three questions are very important to you according to what is happening in our international and regional arenas, but the Arabic translation of the phrasing of your questions shows that they are not very deep, and do not conform to a thorough understanding, although I may be mistaken in my assessment. And if I wanted to provide you with detailed answer, then each question is a stand-alone topic on its own generally speaking, and in Islamic thought more specifically.

Continue »

On the Amman Message:

1. How does Islam function?

Islam has no central authority or church. It has been held together over the centuries and generations, across geographic, juridical and intellectual diversity, by texts and by established, authoritative interpretations of these texts—starting with the Holy Qur’an itself. Misinterpretation of these texts, and misunderstanding of the methodologies of their interpretation can have very dangerous consequences and can lead to an entirely different civilization from that of traditional orthodox Islam.

Continue »

A Statement by the Grand Mufti of Egypt on Apostasy and Freedom of Religion

Cairo, Egypt

I never retracted my statement on apostasy and freedom of religion. On Sunday I published an article in the Washington Post-Newsweek On Faith forum discussing the Islamic perspective on apostasy. I affirmed the freedom that God has afforded all of humanity in their right to choose their own religion without it being imposed upon them from the outside. Choice means freedom, and freedom includes the freedom to commit grave sins as long as their harm does not extend to others. This is why I discussed the fact that throughout history the worldly punishment for apostasy in Islam has been applied only to those who, in addition to their apostasy, actively engaged in the subversion of society.

These two points sum up a greater religious principle: with freedom comes responsibility. My remarks on the On Faith forum were picked up in local Egyptian papers, but they only focused on the question of freedom giving the impression that leaving Islam is a light matter. Nothing could be more serious. In order to maintain the balance of the original article my press team sent out a statement emphasizing the aspect of responsibility, mainly that apostasy is a grave sin and, when combined with sedition, is punishable in both this world and the next.
This balanced opinion is one that I have held for years and I have included in both my books and lectures. It is a position that I have never retracted. Unfortunately, some members of the press and the public understood this statement as a retraction of my position that Islam affords freedom of belief. I have always maintained the legitimacy of this freedom and I continue to do so.

About Dar al-Ifta

A fatwa is an official non-binding Islamic legal opinion issued by a qualified scholar in response to a question posed by a member of the public. The institution of Dar al-Ifta was established in 1895 with the purpose of issuing authoritative, accurate, and practical legal opinions. It is considered one of the few institutions authorized to issue fatwas in the Islamic world, and it issues over 5,000 fatwas a month in response to the questions it receives from all over the world by all forms of communication.

Dr. Ali Gomaa
July 25, 2007

1. WHAT IS JIHAD? UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS DOES ISLAM SANCTION THE USE OF VIOLENCE? WHAT WOULD YOU TELL SUICIDE BOMBERS WHO INVOKE ISLAM TO JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS?

The concept of “jihad” has different meanings and a scholar such as Jalal ad-Dîn as-Suyutî (15th century), while studying its scope, highlighted 80 different dimensions, uses and objectives related to its place in Islamic teachings. Its root “ja-ha-da” means “making an effort”, “exerting oneself” in order to promote good or to resist wrongdoing, evil or oppression. Every individual trying to resist her/his own negative temptations is engaged in “jihad” and the first time the word is used in the Qur’an (25:52), it refers to an intellectual and spiritual resistance by the means of the Qur’an itself.

In all its dimensions, the essence of “jihad” is “to resist” in the name of justice and dignity. When there is an armed aggression, Muslims have the right to protect themselves and to defend their rights. Here “jihâd” means “qitâl” (armed struggle). The use of violence and weapons must be adjusted to the nature of the aggression itself: an armed aggression may justify an armed resistance if there is no other way to come to a peaceful agreement. But the use of violence and weapons must be proportionate and never target innocent people, women, children, the elderly, and even fruit trees as Abû Bakr, the first successor of the Prophet, stated following Muhammad’s teachings. Jihad never means “holy war” in order “to impose” or “to propagate” Islam everywhere. In fact jihâd and qitâl mean exactly the opposite of what we commonly think: rather than being the justifying instruments of war, they are the imposed measures to achieve peace by resisting an unjust aggression.

Continue »

PBS defines Jihad as "striving in the way of God; this striving can take a number of forms, including the daily inner struggle to be a better person. However, jihad is often used to refer to an armed struggle fought in defense of Islam."

I do not wish to overlook offensive Jihad but I see that there are neither logical justifications nor grounds for this kind of Jihad in the present-day. However, Jihad at present is sadly seen differently from what it was initially meant to be.

Jihad has been subjected to political agendas more than it has been kept to the real Islamic conceptualization. The political manipulating of Jihad is not a new innovation for its origins go back to the age of the companions of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). During the first 30 years after the death of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) at least 3 major wars had occurred between the companions for political gains. The most famous battles are Aljamal (the Camel), Nahrwan and Sefeen. In the belief of Sunni Muslims we should disallow the discussion wars and disputes that occurred between the companions. Instead we were taught that we should continue to value them all.

Continue »

1. What is Jihad? Under what conditions does Islam sanction the use of violence? What would you tell suicide bombers who invoke Islam to justify their actions?

There is a miracle and a puzzle in Muslim history which cannot be rationally explained. The miracle is the speed and scope of the early Seventh Century spread of Islam from a poor Arab-Bedouin perspective, into the two great civilizations of the time – the Persian and the Byzantine. And the puzzle is the rapid decline of the Islamic civilization by the eighteenth century, after it had proved its unprecedented vitality and capability. By that time, the Muslims had lost the geographical, cultural, economic and political impact on world affairs to the point of their being put to the margin of the so-called modern history. This state of affairs made the Muslims for the last two centuries struggle for their come-back to the main stream of the modern or global history. Consequently, the Muslims have been busy with two main movements aimed at regaining their place in history: the movement of secularization and the movement of re-Islamization.

We are now at the peak of the movement of “re-Islamization” of the Muslim mind because the “movement” of secularization or modernization of the Muslim mind has failed to bring to the Muslim societies the social justice, democracy, the rule of law, political accountability and economic prosperity. The rate of Muslim illiteracy today is very high, the GDP in many Muslim societies is very low, 70% percent of the world refugees are Muslims and today’s wars are conducted in the Muslim lands.

Continue »

Here’s an interesting exercise. A group of journalists were asked recently by a Muslim leader to listen to the news for a week, and constantly ask themselves this question: “What would that item have sounded like if I were a Muslim?” Try it. You may well be surprised.

We all know that a fear of Islam has grown in Western societies. Understandably, given the terrorist bombings in New York, London, Madrid and many other places. But how do we decide when our fears are reasonable, and when they tip into Islamophobia?

By Islamophobia I mean more than violently-expressed visceral prejudices. Red-neck cab drivers may talk as if extreme practices – like so-called honor killings, cutting off thieves’ hands or stoning adulterers to death – are what ordinary Muslims do when they are not. And such bigots have little say on the inventions bequeathed to us by Islamic civilizations – such as the carpet, the garden, the still, the camera, the crankshaft, the windmill, the parachute, the gun and the practice of vaccination.

Continue »

One of the fastest growing phenomena in the Muslim world is the access to and use of the Internet. There are now about 200,000 Muslim web sites, forums, chat rooms, and blogs, produced by individuals, clerics, movements, institutions, universities and governments.

Only a tiny fraction, perhaps no more than 250 sites, promote restoration of the Muslim caliphate through global terrorism and armed struggle – although their explicitly Jihadi message is often amplified by mainstream media outlets. Other sites are defined by their non-violent support for an Islamist political agenda and opposition to autocratic Arab regimes. Most sites seek mainly to revive Islamic teachings among a growing population of Muslims effected by Western secular ideologies. Virtually many of them are committed to the destruction of the state of Israel, and publish anti-Jewish material. Only a small minority of these sites call for inter-faith dialogue, primarily between Islam and Christianity, but not with Judaism, Hinduism, or Buddhism.

Continue »

Over the past five years, as part of a project on religious fundamentalism, I’ve studied and talked with Muslims from Houston to Auschwitz. And as I’ve gained a better understanding of how Christians and Muslims see each other, I’ve learned that how we communicate is as important as what we communicate.

Take the term jihad, for starters. It’s often used by those who want to raise temperatures and inspire hatred of Muslims They tend to define it as a murderous campaign against non-Muslims. But scholars and moderate Muslims will tell you that the word’s root concept is “struggle” – and that the struggle often refers to the one within ourselves over our own failures.

The word crusade inspires a similar misunderstanding. For many Christians, it is an honorable endeavor. Billy Graham innocently defined his gatherings as Crusades, benefiting from the positive connotations that went with promoting the cause of Christ. Among Muslims, however (and many Eastern Orthodox Christians, for that matter), “crusade” evokes images of bloodthirsty warriors exploiting the land and people as they traveled to the Holy Land – a land that was holy not just to them but to their enemies as well.

Continue »

In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

Answer (1)

Jihad in Islam (The violent confrontation of the enemy) is the fighting movement that aims at preventing the enemy from forcing its hegemony over the land and the people by means of violence that confiscates freedom, kills the people, usurps the wealth and prevents the people's rights in self-determination and running their own affairs. Therefore, Jihad is confronting violence by means of violence and force by force, which makes it of a defensive nature at times and a preventive one at others. And this is what the Glorious Qur'an has maintained in the following verses. Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loves not aggressors. (02:190 ) ; Sanction is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged; and Allah is indeed Able to give them victory(22:39 ) and “If thou fears treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms”(08:58)

In the light of this, Jihad is no different than any human and civilized concept of self-defense.
It expresses the innate human nature of self-defense, or preventing the others from building the ability for a sudden aggression. Islam meets in this with all human values of all civilizations.
There is also the case of defending the downtrodden who are prosecuted by the arrogant and who have no means of defending themselves. Muslims have to defend these people if they ask them to. The humanitarian content of Islam makes it responsible for facing the injustice the downtrodden are subjected to by freeing them of this injustice.

Continue »

1. WHAT IS JIHAD? UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS DOES ISLAM SANCTION THE USE OF VIOLENCE? WHAT WOULD YOU TELL SUICIDE BOMBERS WHO INVOKE ISLAM TO JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS?

Jihad in its wider sense means to struggle in the way of God. One possible way of doing Jihad is to fight against His enemies if a situation so demands. The possibility of doing Jihad could arise during the times of prophet Muhammad (the messenger of God) for three possible reasons: i) when the enemies of Muslims attacked them; ii) when some people were persecuted by tyrant, intolerant rulers or warriors in retribution for following a certain religion; and iii) when the nation that received the message of God directly from His messenger rejected it even after the deadline for accepting the message set forth by God had expired. While the last of the three reasons was specific to the era of the messenger, the other two are still valid for doing Jihad provided two other conditions are met: i) An Islamic ruler declares Jihad and ii) Muslims are at least half as strong militarily as their enemies.

Except for the two possible reasons of doing military Jihad along with the two conditions mentioned above for doing it, there is no other possibility of legitimately resorting to any military expedition for Muslims.If a private group of individuals which doesn't enjoy political authority to rule over Muslims resorts to violence, the punishment of it is severe in Islam.

Continue »

WHAT IS JIHAD? UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS DOES ISLAM SANCTION THE USE OF VIOLENCE? WHAT WOULD YOU TELL SUICIDE BOMBERS WHO INVOKE ISLAM TO JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS?

The word Jihad means ‘struggle’. It is mentioned in the Islamic scripts to mean a number of things; all refer to ‘moral struggles’ rather than anything else. These include: struggle against one’s evil desire, struggle with words of good against words of mischief, struggle against greed by giving charity, and struggle against the enemy in the context of war. However, the Qur'an mentioned the latest kind of struggle in the sense of ‘defending people against injustice’, and without violent aggression. In fact, the Qur'anic commandment clearly states: ‘Do not make aggression. God does not love those who are aggressive’. Prophet Mohammad’s commandment is also clear in that: ‘peacefulness is always beautiful and violence is always ugly’. However, Islam does sanction violence to defend one’s life, family, or country. Yet, this defense should never cause injustice or chaos. What the suicide bombers do is an un-Islamic forbidden injustice against themselves and others.

HOW DOES ISLAM DEFINE APOSTASY? IS IT PERMISSIBLE FOR A MUSLIM TO CONVERT TO ANOTHER FAITH? HOW CAN LAWS AGAINST APOSTASY AND BLASPHEMY BE RECONCILED WITH THE KORANIC INJUNCTION OF "NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION"?

It is permissible for a Muslim to convert to another religion, and this is what the verse ‘no compulsion in religion’ means. What is not permissible is for this person, who chooses another religion, to insult or defame Muslim’s belief in God or any of His prophets. What is not permissible is defamation and hate, not choosing to convert to another religion per se. However, for me, the best Islamic reaction to this kind of hate is civil protest and continuous dialogue, rather than violence of any kind.

WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN IN ISLAM? HOW DOES ISLAM'S VIEW OF MALE-FEMALE EQUALITY DIFFER FROM THE WESTERN VIEW?

In Islam, women are equal to men in all senses, in front of God and the law. It was Prophet Muhammad who taught the world, fourteen centuries ago, that ‘all people are equal like the tooth of the comb’. The difference between the ‘Islamic’ and ‘western’ male-female equality is a difference of culture, even though it is often misunderstood to be a difference in principles and rights. One example: Muslim women view modesty and respect in terms of a certain style of dress. This specific style is not a sort of discrimination against Muslim women, but rather a view of a common human and universal value, which is modesty, in their own way.

1. Jihad, properly understood, is the effort made by Muslims fully to implement their faith, regardless of the obstacles subjectively or objectively encountered. Thus, the use of force is a special eventuality of jihad. It is justified in two cases only:

a) to defend the Muslim community against aggression from without and
b) to resist tyranny from within.

Suicide is unconditionally forbidden by the Qur`an (4: 29), regardless of circumstances.

2. Islamically, there is no penalty for apostasy in this world. In fact, the Qur`an describes several cases of apostasy without sanctions here and now. This implies that Muslims are not prevented by the Shari´ah to convert to other religions. The exclusion of compulsion in religion (2: 256) is so fundamental that it must be applied not only towards non-Muslims but between Muslims as well. During Muslim history this issue was frequently obscured by the confusion of apostasy with rebellion. The latter is punishable in all systems of law.

3. In Islam, women theologically have the same dignity, the same
metaphysical destination and religious duties like men. However, their function is different as much as needed by their unique ability to bear and raise children.

This does not exclude women in principle from being active in life, also in public life, in other respects, including politics, the military, business and science - a ideal modeled by ´A`isha, the Prophet`s wife.

The vast discrimination of women practiced in the Muslim world is pre-Islamic and not even typically Muslim, but to be found in China, India, and South America as well.

By Firas Ahmad & al-Husein N. Madhany

Robert Baer, the former Middle East CIA operative, recently interviewed a 17-year-old suicide bomber from Afghanistan who was caught before he could undertake the attack. Baer discovers that, far from being a rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth, anti-American zealot, the boy was simply brainwashed into believing Al Qaeda’s ideology. Among the absurdities the boy believed was that the President of Pakistan, Pervaiz Musharaff, was a Jew.

Ideology is the refuge of con men. Its influence is derived from restricting the availability of information so as to manipulate the way people view the world. Ideology flourishes in environments where reality is oversimplified into a vapid, monochromatic, black-and-white view of the world. “Either you’re with us, or you’re against us” can go both ways.

One way to mitigate the influence of ideology is by broadening the worldview of those most susceptible to its grip. While this task is admittedly difficult in a country like Afghanistan--where institutions and infrastructure have been crushed under 30 years of foreign-backed proxy wars--, it is equally so in the major metropolitan centers of New York City, London, and Paris. This is because the ideologues who organize suicide bombings and videotaped beheadings realize that controlling and manipulating the flow of information is more important than scoring military victories. In fact, more so than being a military threat, the greater danger of Al Qaeda is that it convinces the general public--both Muslim and otherwise--that Islam is an ideology, fixed in time and inexorably charging towards a confrontation with anything “Western.” If it is successful, those who accept this false premise will carry out the war that Al Qaeda has no inherent capacity to fight on its own.

Continue »

After 9/11, an internet ‘fatwa’ argued non-American Muslims were justified in carrying out the attacks. Quoting from a number of classical works in Islamic jurisprudence, he argued they were justified under Islamic law.

A harsh rebuttal came from a Malaysian Mufti, al-Akiti, who was a doctoral scholar at the University of Oxford (the full rebuttal is hosted on this site).

A Muslim rebuttal against terrorism is not unique; there have been many since 9/11. What made Al-Akiti’s response unique was that it went beyond this: it rejected its very methodology. It was like a Professor of Shakespeare telling a college student he did not know English syntax. The basic message was: your conclusions are irrelevant, because you don’t know what you’re doing.

But since there are no Muslim bishops or priests, and no Church in Islam, is such a critique valid? When it comes to Islam, is anyone in charge?

Continue »

1. WHAT IS JIHAD? UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS DOES ISLAM SANCTION THE USE OF VIOLENCE? WHAT WOULD YOU TELL SUICIDE BOMBERS WHO INVOKE ISLAM TO JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS?

How disappointing that the three questions posed reflect the limited vision through which the West continues to view Islam: Jihad, apostasy and women! Surely, the world deserves to hear about Islam from a more authentic starting point? Nevertheless, here goes!

The distortion of Islamic concepts such as jihad is not new. Jihad in its Western interpretation is usually described as ‘holy war’. In other words the idea of unrepentant, religious violence being synonymous with Islam is a myth created by the West almost from the beginning of Islam itself. The power of these created images is so strong that Muslims themselves have bought into the idea of ‘holy war’ and calls for ‘jihad’ can be heard all over the planet.

Jihad simply means ‘to struggle’. The ‘struggle’ in the first instance is against ones self – our inner demons, egos and passions. This continues into our personal relationships where we are advised to act justly and in consideration of others. Then into our public spheres we are told in a saying of Prophet Muhammad: ‘Whosoever of you sees an evil action, let him change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his heart – and that is the weakest of faith’. All spheres of life are seen as holding challenges and therefore have elements of struggle or ‘jihad’.

Continue »

Question No. 1.

Jihad means a holy war.

It will take place:
1. To liberate people when a ruler or a government refuses to let people here the message of God. That was happening when Islam began. And when the Muslim army went into Damascus, Hems, Halab, Hamat, Bethlehem, Kudos (Jerusalem) or Egypt, they did not force people there to became Muslim and they did not destroy churches. They only liberated the people and left the choice to them.
2. When Muslim territory is in danger or under attack.
3. When Muslims are being violated.
4. When the religion of Islam is in danger.

Those situations must be identified by the Caliph ( not available at the time) or a board of Muslims scholars.

Continue »

First Question: What is Jihad? Under what circumstances does Islam sanction the use of violence? What would you tell would be suicide bombers who would invoke Islam to justify their actions?

THE ISLAMIC TRADITION UNEQUIVOCALLY CONDEMNS ANY TYPE OF AGGRESSION TOWARD INNOCENT CIVILIANS.

Islam does not sanction armed struggle except when opposing an aggressor who occupies another’s land or in order to help remove oppression from oppressed peoples.

The concept of jihad in the Islamic tradition carries the meaning of exerting all of one’s resources and energies in order to arrive at the realization of truth, preparedness to make sacrifices for the sake of doing good, and reaching out to others with goodness, seeking nothing in return save the contentment of God.

The root of the word “jihad” in Arabic is to struggle or endure hardship; expending energy & resources. When this is applied to the Islamic context it becomes the effort to advance goodness and enlightenment. This is the doctrinal understanding found in the original and defining religious texts.

Continue »

WHAT IS JIHAD? UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS DOES ISLAM SANCTION THE USE OF VIOLENCE? WHAT WOULD YOU TELL SUICIDE BOMBERS WHO INVOKE ISLAM TO JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS?

Jihad, meaning struggle, is a term introduced by the Qur’an to describe the effort and responsibilities required for remaining steadfast in this world of trials as a religious person against all kinds of odds. It includes spiritual (Jihad bi’nafs) as well as physical struggle (qital). Qital (armed resistance and combat) is allowed only in defense, and only to the extant it is justified morally. Jihad does not mean war; the term for war is Harb, which is a pre-Islamic concept of a state of war. It is rarely used in the Qur’an. Peace (silm) is the natural state of affairs, and therefore, the Qur’an obliges Muslims to end fighting when the other party calls for peace in the middle of fighting, even as a tactics. In history, Muslims often did not fully abide by these teachings. Legal doctrines about Jihad generally evolved as the policies of a community in power. However, the jurists incessantly tried to stipulate conditions in order to limit the use of violence. Debates about just and unjust war continued among Muslim scholars. Illustrations of this debate are the resentment that some Muslim scholars expressed against the use of gunpowder in eighteenth century and against the use of nuclear weapons in the twentieth century. A number of Muslim scholars today are calling for rethinking of Jihad in the context of modern warfare, which is only destructive; it is no longer a means to settle disputes or impose peace, as the ancients used to believe.

Suicide bombing as a political act is a modern form of the ancient practice of using special dedicated troops who were ready to sacrifice their lives protecting their king. No justification for such troops is available in Islamic law books. The present practice is unjustified also because it is against the Islamic teachings about limited and just war; it allows extending war to innocent citizens and non-combatants. It is based on a concept of perpetual state of war. It justifies continuation of violence by the parties. It has not achieved the possible objectives for which the suicide bombers lay their lives; it has only aggravated the situation by creating an environment of fear and retaliation.

2. HOW DOES ISLAM DEFINE APOSTASY? IS IT PERMISSIBLE FOR A MUSLIM TO CONVERT TO ANOTHER FAITH? HOW CAN LAWS AGAINST APOSTASY AND BLASEPHEMY BE RECONCILED WITH THE KORANIC INJUNCTION OF "NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION"?

No response.

3. WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN IN ISLAM? HOW DOES ISLAM'S VIEW OF MALE-FEMALE EQUALITY DIFFER FROM THE WESTERN VIEW?

No response.

Since the events of Sept. 11, government officials and the media have paid increasing attention to Islam and the Muslim world. Yet polls conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and its sister projects at the Pew Research Center show that many Americans remain largely unfamiliar with the basic teachings of Islam and the religious beliefs and practices of Muslims.

Continue »

The majority of Muslims expressed opposition to suicide bombing in defense of Islam in every country surveyed by the Pew Research Center in 2006, stating that such attacks are never justified or justified only in rare circumstances. The same surveys also revealed that in many predominantly Muslim countries, support for suicide bombing has been on the decline in recent years. In Pakistan, for instance, the number of Muslims saying suicide bombing is often or sometimes justified dropped by 11 points between 2005 and 2006, while in Jordan support for suicide bombing declined by a substantial 28 percentage points over the same period.

Continue »

Religious Freedom

The freedom to practice their religion is highly important to Muslims around the world, according to Pew Research Center polling conducted in 2002. Indeed, in every country surveyed other than Jordan, large majorities of Muslims -- ranging from 69% in Uzbekistan to 97% in Senegal -- say that it is very important to them to live in a country where they are able to practice their religion freely.

Continue »

Pew Research Center surveys conducted in 2005 and 2006 show that in many places around the world, Muslims express highly unfavorable views of Jews. In Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, for instance, Muslims are essentially unanimous in expressing unfavorable views of Jews, while in Indonesia, Pakistan, Morocco and Nigeria more than seven-in-10 share this negative impression. Muslims residing in Europe tend to be less negative in their views of Jews, though only among Muslims living in France do those with a favorable view of Jews outnumber those with a negative view (71% vs. 28%).

Continue »

By Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn

In the Qu’ran, God himself anticipated earthly extremism. “We have made you a middle people,” Allah says to the Muslims in Chapter 2, verse 143—a suggestion that Islam was founded, in part, as a means by which the people of the faith might keep the things of this world in perspective and in proportion. In the popular imagination of the first years of the 21st century, though, Islam (like Christianity and Judaism at different times and in different places) is more likely to be thought of as violent and literal rather than peaceable and interpretative. It would be politically correct but pointless to act as though this were not the case.

Put bluntly and broadly, many people today wish to portray Islam as a peaceful faith with a violent few, arguing that “jihad” (literally, “struggle”) is a spiritual term encompassing the Muslim’s daily religious life and that it can only be used for armed struggles that are defensive. On the other end of the spectrum are those who believe Islam is a violent faith in which jihad is a perpetual militaristic element. The truth, it seems reasonable to say, lies somewhere in between. Believers of all kinds have killed in the name of their conception of God, or of the gods. Historically, some of the blood has been shed in what some traditions think of as “just wars,” some in unjustifiable atrocities, some in battles of conquest. And yet believers of all kinds have done great good in the name of their conception of God, or of the gods, in acts of mercy, charity and liberation.

Continue »