"On Faith" panelist Pamela K. Taylor is co-founder of Muslims for Progressive Values and director of the Islamic Writers Alliance. She is a member of the national board of advisors to the Network of Spiritual Progressives, and served as co-chair of the Progressive Muslim Union for two years. Taylor is a strong supporter of the woman imam movement, which seeks the full participation of Muslim women in every aspect of life, including the pulpit. In July 2005, she became the first woman in centuries to officiate Friday prayers in a mosque when the United Muslim Association of Toronto and the Muslim Canadian Congress invited her to serve as guest imam. (This event followed a number of services, sermons and prayer sessions led by women held in private venues because no mosque agreed to host them.) In February 2006, when the former Grand Mufti of Marseilles visited Toronto, he requested that Taylor lead him in congregational prayer as an unequivocal demonstration of his support for female imams. Taylor has also been active in interfaith dialogue for 20 years, both in local initiatives and speaking at numerous conferences, universities, and churches. She received her MTS from Harvard Divinity School, and writes regularly on spiritual matters and the Islamic faith. She has essays in Nurturing Child and Adolescent Spirituality: Perspectives from the World's Religious Traditions (2006) and the forthcoming The Veil: Women Writers on Its History, Lore, and Politics (2007). She has written hundreds of articles and opinion pieces for newspapers, magazines, and journals, and is an award winning poet.
Close.
Pamela K. Taylor
co-founder, Muslims for Progressive Values
"On Faith" panelist Pamela K. Taylor is co-founder of Muslims for Progressive Values and director of the Islamic Writers Alliance. She is a member of the national board of advisors to the Network of Spiritual Progressives, and served as co-chair of the Progressive Muslim Union for two years. Taylor is a strong supporter of the woman imam movement, which seeks the full participation of Muslim women in every aspect of life, including the pulpit.
more »
salam alaikum dear sister.
I hope that Allah guides you in this holy month because there is much, much for you to learn about our beautiful religion of Islam. Unfortunately, your femenist views are a obfuscating your understanding of Islam.
May Allah guide us all.
"Mahommedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world ... What Mahommedanism did for the Arabs, Bolshevism may do for the Russians.(3) "
1. The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, Allen and Unwin, London, Second Edition 1962, p. 7.
2. Ibid, p. 27
3. Ibid, p. 74. For a critique of this book compare my "Russell's Judgement on Bolshevism", in George W. Roberts (ed.), Bertrand Russell Memorial Volume, Allen and Unwin, London, 1979, pp. 428-454.
bertrand russel certainly makes good points, but he was so focused in general about christianity and it's dysfunctional relationship with science that he only saw a part of the picture, that which affected him personally.
maybe his experiences and upbringing made him believe that religion is based primarily on fear and terro, but his opinion in this matter is his own concepts for himself.
i liked bertrand russel a long time ago- and he makes some excellent observations on the christian religion, but as a scientifically inclined philosopher he must have had some awareness of the many and deep and lasting contributions to science by islam- and how there was an inherent harmony between the religion of islam ad the precepts of science (it was a muslim scientist who first proposed scentific method as we know it today)
from my personal perspective- my spiritual hungers and longings were not based on fear- as there was no one to instill that in me.
it was and is a longing for connection with the god-
and the god is more compassionate - kind and loving- and learning is a celebration- and my religion compels me to be a more effective human so that is certainly a valuable inspiration no matter how you look at it
im still trying to learn more- thats mostly why im here- to broaden my understanding of my fellow travelers in this world which includes the bertrand russells and the poets and everyone in between
Religion is based,I think,primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes.
Fear is the basis of the whole thing-fear of the mysterious,fear of defeat,fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty,
and therefore it is no wonder if religion and cruelty have gone hand in hand.It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things,and a little to master them by help of science,
which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion,against the churches,and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us,and I think our own hearts can teach us,no longer to look around for imaginary supports,no longer to invent allies in the sky,but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in,instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.
Why I Am Not A Christian.pp22
You, like the rest of usm suffer from the three B's, i.e. we were Bred, Born and Brainwashed in some form of religion. In your case, it is Islam. It is time for the koran to be rewritten with the historic facts and reality in mind. Once you do that, the healing process will begin.
And a million deaths in Iraq? Hmmm, if so it is due to the Shiite-Sunni civil war and the butchery demonstrated 24/7 by each warring faction.
Africa? Hmmm, Somalia, pirates, the Kenya suicide bombings, tribal hatreds, jungles, deserts, radical Muslims? We will support the Ethiopians and let the UN and AU handle the rest of the problems. Hmmm, and who funds much of the UN??? And much of its relief efforts???
And Salan what Islamic sect do you belong to??
And whose oil wells are you tapping? Oil profits/blood/terror money, where are you sending it??
Various options were available to outst
Saddam [political,moral and economic support for opposition for example]. Not by killing one million people.
There are several leaders like Saddam in Africa.Why US is not spending 400 billion dollars to invade Africa.
If a leader in the middle east is progressive,liberal and democratic and close the oil tap to america,do you honestly believe he will be respected?
I have great respect for American people. That doesnt stop me from calling spade a spade
Various options were available to outst
Saddam [political,moral and economic support for opposition for example]. Not by killing one million people.
There are several leaders like Saddam in Africa.Why US is not spending 400 billion dollars to invade Africa.
If a leader in the middle east is progressive,liberal and democratic and close the oil tap to america,do you honestly believe he will be respected?
I have great respect for American people. That doesnt stop me from calling spade a spade
Because Saddaam was killing off and torturing the helpless Shiites and Kurds . And because Islam is composed of a number of sects, none of which can tolerate each other and all because of the significantly stupid disagreement as to who has the rightful "holey not holy hallucinator's" offspring.
And Salan what significantly stupid Islamic sect do you belong to??
Again the butchering in Iraq is due to the civil war between the Shiites and Sunnis. Nothing more, nothing less.
The Human Cost Of War In Iraq- A mortality study2002-2006
Bloomberg School Of Public Health
JOHN HOPKINS University,Maryland
Mustansiriya university,IRAQ
In cooperation with centre for international studies MASSACHUSSETS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,CAMBRIDGE,MASSACHUSSETS
web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf
Dear christian liberated,why there was no sunni shia fight before invasion
What schools? References?? Website addresses? Dates of publication? Publisher??
So CNN, Time Magazine, Al Jazeera, the London Times et al have been publishing false stories about the Shiite-Sunni civil war in Iraq and the said butchery of said groups vs each other??
From CNN, "Al-Sistani was apparently referring to Abdullah bin Jabrain, a key member of Saudi Arabia's clerical establishment, who last month joined a chorus of other senior figures from the hardline Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam that regards Shiites as infidels.
Bin Jabrain described Shiites as "the most vicious enemy of Muslims."
"Abdullah bin Jabrain is a leading Sunni cleric in Saudi Arabia and a member of the Senior Clerics Association.[1]
"Commenting on Shiites, Jabrain said, "Some people say that the rejectionists are Muslims because they believe in God and his prophet, pray and fast. But I say they are heretics. They are the most vicious enemy of Muslims, who should be wary oft their plots. They should be boycotted and expelled so that Muslims spared their evil."[1]
Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the political leader of Iraqi Shiites, once referred to Jabrain as an "evil cleric."[
Not only MIT, most of the leading universities have done research on number of deaths in Iraq. Please vsit their web site.If not for Iraq occupation for oil this wouldnt have happened. According to you American war planes dropping only democracy on their heads.
Sunni shia conflicts is in the best interest of US.old divide and rule policy.There are sunnis and shias all over the middle east coexisting peacefully. Take a break from CNN and BBC.
Most of the deaths in Iraq are caused by Sunnis butchering Shiites and vice versa. And all over oil profits and who has the right ancestor to the "holey not holy hallucinator".
Because said Democracies are protecting the minority Muslims in the region e.g. Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo. These same "bombs of democracy" are also used to defeat radical Islamics who threaten the peaceful Islamics in places like Somalia and Afghanistan.
And typically an Islamic "suicider" kills more than 10-20 civilians. Check the death toll from 9/11 and the train bombings in the UK and Spain.
How is it that when a suicide bomber kill ten or twenty people its called terrorism and when thousands are killed with sophiticated war planes its Democracy?
Ms. Taylor,
How can a group of people who kill innocent civilians daily in the name of their "peaceful religion" not be called a cult?
Why have they made more than 50 countries exclusively Islamic?
You have a scarf on your head. What do you think of many of these Islamic nations where women are forced to cover up?
MODERATE- i assumed it was so obvious i was using your words that i forgot to credit you with them.
now i really like your explanation-
it seems obvious that one has to go the source- now my non-scientific nature always leads me to the source of intentions-
but science is much less subjective-
i try to always read the many links people post, out of respect for their views and giving them attention and effort to understand their points-
REDACTION-
The act or process of editing or revising a piece of writing; preparation for publication.
An edited work; a new edition or revision.
I didnt know what it means so i had to look it up
i have to agree form my limited knowledge that the scholarship seemed very subjective-
i agree- if you're studying the canon, of what use is it to base your subjective opinion on someone else's objective opinion?
maybe their opinion is flawed in soem way and it throws everything off-
and after all, just remains an opinion.
i couldn not have framed a critique without your edifiying analysis first-
you provided the words and ideas
truthseeker, i really liked your post- but it was awfully long, and even though i agree with it- i often skip those long posts.
but you actually wrote it yourself didnt you?
thats why i always say moderate-
let people define themselves- listen to a hindu if you want to understadn hinduism-
or a scientist if you want to understand science-which i have an inordinate amount of respect, but no talent or knowledge of to speak of.
peace
ill say one thing- science certainly removes the emotional illogical flames that burn through here and are so disheartening sometimes
Somehow you know more than contemporary NT exegetes by reading one book. Add the bible to your library and you have two books. Such expertise is overwhelming!!!!
But then again you still believe in "pwtfft"s, tinker bells and demons of the demented. But then again maybe Gabriel visited you on some dark and starry night and revealed to you the real history of it all??
And I have not exerted all that much effort in studying the work of the professors of the Jesus Seminarians et al. I am simply reiterating their conclusions, conclusions based on exhaustive reviews of all the scriptural documents, not just four books that have substantial differences. Their conclusions in many cases also review the scripture archeology.
Professors Crossan and Reed's books, Excavating Jesus and In Search of Paul, Professor Chilton's Rabbi Jesus and Rabbi Paul, Luke Timothy Johnsons, The Real Jesus, Professor Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, Josephus, the Jewish War, and Professor Borg's Meeting Jesus for the First Time, The God We Never Knew, and Jesus and Buddha (the Parallel Sayings) are good starting references for your library.
"how we can work towards a world that doesn't need pejorative labels for people who hold slightly different beliefs"
There is either a universal truth or there is not and The Bible is that truth. Stearing people elsewhere or toward a "tolerant" society is exactly what The Bible describes as a one world religion set up by Satan. This kind of talk is dangerous.
"how we can work towards a world that doesn't need pejorative labels for people who hold slightly different beliefs"
There is either a universal truth or there is not and The Bible is that truth. Stearing people elsewhere or toward a "tolerant" society is exactly what The Bible describes as a one world religion set up by Satan. This kind of talk is dangerous.
"how we can work towards a world that doesn't need pejorative labels for people who hold slightly different beliefs"
There is either a universal truth or there is not and The Bible is that truth. Stearing people elsewhere or toward a "tolerant" society is exactly what The Bible describes as a one world religion set up by Satan. This kind of talk is dangerous.
"how we can work towards a world that doesn't need pejorative labels for people who hold slightly different beliefs"
There is either a universal truth or there is not and The Bible is that truth. Stearing people elsewhere or toward a "tolerant" society is exactly what The Bible describes as a one world religion set up by Satan. This kind of talk is dangerous.
"how we can work towards a world that doesn't need pejorative labels for people who hold slightly different beliefs"
There is either a universal truth or there is not and The Bible is that truth. Stearing people elsewhere or toward a "tolerant" society is exactly what The Bible describes as a one world religion set up by Satan. This kind of talk is dangerous.
The modern definition of cult or religion seems completely self-referential. If you agree with a group, or do not feel threatened by it, or if you don't have some need to pity its members, then you rarely label it a cult. If the opposite applies, well then, cults be they all!
Cult has become almost exclusively a pejorative label, used to exclude from legitimacy those so labeled. Whether used by "people of faith" or by so-called "rational" people, it is the same.
Carrying on an intelligent conversation with those who like to attach the label to others is nearly impossible, as there is no acceptable definition outside, or even merely at odds with, their personal belief system.
Defining a group as a religion or a cult? It seems purely a matter of "faith."
"LIB- just a comment- im no scientist, but i can make the distinction between hypothsizing, checking, and improving on said hypotheses as scientifically and genrally agreed upon tools of objective science."
I think that was my comment. It refers to research methodology in biblical exegesis. The people I like to read do things like go back to the earliest codex sources and count words, measure consistency of tables of contents, and redactional frame. They thereby identify codex sources that reflect the same original source documents.
In this way, Trobisch established that there was a consistent canon of the NT. It did not accumulate in layers over centuries.
Sloppy workers like the Jesus Seminar crowd, by contrast, usually go back to earlier commentaries, and each other's opinions. The seldom seem to go back to the oldest instances of the NT canon. They also assume that anything written by anyone in the first four centuries are equivalent to the canon. Then Funk, et al. reject almost all of the canonical text on purely subjective gut feel. After that, they can say what ever they want to and pretend that it is scholarly. "The canon is what I say it is." is the result.
Established that the canon was set down at one time, one place, and by one group of editors (which for historical reasons must include Luke, and Paul) completely undermines the Jesus Seminar's basic methodology.
The questions about whether the eye witness were liars, crazy, or touched by God remains for another day. I doubt that it is amenable to scientific solution, but the provenance of the original canon is. We are able to reject the twentieth century belief that the canon accumulated over centuries by scientific means, though.
Concerned Christian Now Liberated has a hard time with that because he has invested great time and emotional commitment to flawed methods of the Jesus Seminar.
Pamela K. Taylor, "slightly different beliefs?" Are you serious? If the Lord Jesus was genuine, proof being God raised Him from the dead. You can deny that and call God a liar. You take that up with Him. The Lord Jesus was either God in the flesh or a madman. You take that up with Him. But to obfuscate the truth and call it "slightly different beliefs" is PROVE you are a cult. The Lord Jesus said, "If the light IN you be darkness, HOW GREAT is THAT darkness!" Pamela K Taylor, do not study the imitation to learn the genuine, study the genuine and the phoney's are apparent. Study the Gospel of John and Romans asking God to reveal His truths to you.
Labeling Mormonism as a cult has nothing to do with Mormons holding "slightly different beliefs." It has everything to do with Mormons accepting a set of crazy propositions as received truths, against all relevant scientific probabilities.
On those grounds, all faith-based religions qualify as cults. In a few thousand years (unless we destroy ourselves), the religions of the 21st century will look as cultish as ancient religions now look to us, and for the same reason---we humans are smart enough to eventually identify and shed our most inane superstitions.
Pamela, there is a great book that I wish was still in print called "The Wrong Way Home: Uncovering the Patterns of Cult Behavior in American Society" by the psychiatrist Arthur Deikman. He says that we are all prone to cultic behavior - not just people in religions or 'cults'. He identifies four basic behaviors that people in groups are prone to, that cause us much trouble in thinking and living realistically. They are: compliance with the group, dependence on a leader, devaluing the outsider, and avoiding dissent. These behaviors are valuable for maintaining group coherence in a hostile world. For most of human existence in small tribal groups, they must have worked well. But they also lead to a great deal of self-righteousness, conflict between groups, and failure of people to think and act on their own inner consciences.
A great deal of religious teaching is designed to counteract these behaviors: teachings about loving the stranger, the outsider; or about recognizing goodness when it is encountered in someone with the 'wrong' beliefs (which is what I think the Good Samaritan parable of Jesus is about); or about listening to the voice of God or conscience in your own heart.
On the other hand, religions are very prone to falling into these tribal behaviors, partly because people invest so much of themselves in their religions, and it gets worst when people invest almost everything in their religion: so when your employment, friends, spouse, family, worship, ideas, money, and home are all contained within the religion then it becomes hardest to think for yourself, hear your own conscience, and avoid demonizing outsiders or allowing some leader to dominate. The same thing can happen in political cults.
I have read a lot about religious cults, having grown up in a movement many people thought was one, and then having acquired a doctorate in the sociology of religion, but nothing had it down better than Deikman's book, in my opinion. In 2003 I wrote a column, based on Deikman's ideas, about how the cultism inside Bush's cabinet was likely to lead them into unrealistic thinking about the Iraq War, and I think events and memoirs of participants have proven that thesis. See http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-aboutfaith/article_1129.jsp
When you post comments of ridiculous length,
people don't read them.
When you post them many times,it just means we scroll right through them.I didn't read a word from your posts.They are just way toooo long.
Get real.
The question is often asked " what should non-Muslims do to win the hearts and minds of Muslims?" when the question that should really be asked is " what should Muslims do to win the hearts and minds of non-Muslims?".
Muslims are now universally despised for several reasons.
1) The repeated acts of terrorism against non-Muslims and the generally implicit approval by the general populace of non-Muslims for these acts and the readiness to blame the US and the Jews for the acts. To this day most Muslims believe that the Jews orchestrated 9/11.
2) Their refusal to integrate into the societies that have made life so good for them, especially the west, and that have allowed them escape the misery that their own Muslim societies with their allegiance to an outdated Islamic system have inflicted on them.
3) Most importantly the internet and recent publications has revealed the truth about Islam and its founder, Muhammad. It is now well known that Muhammad was a psychopath who indulged in sex with children in his fifties, was a slave owner, had fathered an illegitimate son with his slave girl, 15 year old Maria who was also a Christian, carried out ethnic cleansing of Jews in Arabia and stole half of Arabia from them, insulted God by inventing Allah and making this evil god the sole deity for Muslims.
4) Their refusal to condemn atrocities in Iraq, Muslims upon Muslims and also the shameful Islamic apartheid practiced in Saudi Arabia where non-Muslims may not enter Mecca and Medina, may not openly worship anywhere in the kingdom, may not build churches, synagogues and other places of worship in Saudi Arabia. Muslims give implicit approval for the Islamic apartheid by continuing to do the hajj to Mecca, thereby saying that " the apartheid is fine with us".
The Muslims can do the following and, although it will take time, eventually Muslims will have won some respect from non-Muslims.
1) Declare that Islam was not revealed by God and admit that Islam is a harmful faith. Muslims should condemn outright Muhammad and Islam. Muslims should stop insulting God by associating Muhammad and Allah with Him.
2) Stop doing the hajj. By doing so they will send a powerful message that they will not tolerate apartheid. If Saudi Arabia stops the apartheid and the first church is built in Mecca and in Medina, then the hajj may be resumed.
3) Return half of Saudi Arabia, the western half of Saudi Arabia, to its rightful owners, the Jews. Relocate all Muslims from Palestine and the West Bank to Muslim countries.
4) Agree that all Muslim immigration to non-Muslims countries be halted until secular democratic societies are built in all Muslim countries. This may take many years. Right now it is too easy for Muslims to escape the oppression in Muslim societies by escaping to non-Muslim countries, especially to the West. They have no incentive to fight oppression at home.
It will take time. But eventually Muslims may become an integral part of civilized human society.
Islam is being associated with violence and jihad in the minds of not only non-Muslims but also of many Muslims. The slogans of jihad are being raised by frustrated youth unable to find any other way and also by those who are fighting for national liberation and regional autonomy. Such slogans create strong images of holy war being ordained by Islam and Islam being religion of violence. And now what has happened in New York on 11th September 2001 and in Pentagon i.e. attacks on World Trade Centre with the help of hijacked planes will greatly strengthen this stereotype in the minds of people of the world in general and in the minds of Americans, in particular. The attack on WTC in New York and Pentagon in Washington is, to say the least, horrific and must be condemned in strongest possible and unambiguous terms.
It should be remembered that there is no relation between religion and violence, neither in Islam, nor in any religion for that matter. Violence is a social and political phenomenon. It is true that there is mention of war in scriptures like Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Qura’n. But this mention is not to establish any integral link between religion and violence but to portray certain social and political situation that prevailed at that time. It can be called integral only if these scriptures mandate violence as a desirable solution.
It is important to distinguish between what is empirical and ideological. The Twain do not always meet. While violence is empirical, peace is ideological. All scriptures, particularly the Qur’an while permitting violence in some inevitable situations, ordain peace as a norm. The great religions of the world came to establish justice and peace, not to perpetrate revenge and violence. Revenge and violence can never become part of any religion, much less that of Islam. Allah has created both in human beings – tendency for aggression and violence and exalted feeling for serenity of peace. Allah, according to the Qur’an, created human person in the best of mould (ahsan-i-taqwim) and then rendered him lowest of the low (95:4-5)
In fact it is this dynamics of human personality i.e. being created in the best of the mould and then being reduced to the lowest of the low that we have to understand the dynamics of peace and violence also. Allah desires peace and created us, for that purpose, in the best of the mould but our greed, greed for both wealth and power reduced us to an instrument of aggression and violence. For a human being there will always be an internal jihad, an internal struggle to rise to the level of ahsan-i-taqwim (best of the mould) and continuously resist the temptations of wealth and power.
The Qur’an strengthens the social roots of peace by emphasising the role of need based economy and resolutely opposing greed based one. The roots of violence, as pointed out above, lie in human greed. Thus we find in the Qur’an, “They ask thee what should we spend. Say what is surplus.” (2:219) It is obvious from this verse that you spend on yourself according to your personal needs and give away the surplus with you to other needy people. Similarly the Qur’an prescribes in yet another context that the wealth should not circulate among the rich only. (59:7). And it also exhorts Muslims that those who hoard gold and silver and do not give them away in the way of Allah announce to them the painful chastisement.(9:34)
Thus the Qur’an wants to establish peace not superficially by exhorting the believers to love peace but tries to tackle the very socio-economic roots of conflict. If few people or countries grab largest part of the resources of the world and live in all comfort and deny other people even their basic needs violence and conflict will result whatever the pleadings for peace. Or, if some people commit aggression unjustifiable against others to keep their own dominance and deny others their very basic rights, it will be impossible to maintain peace is such unjust political order.
The Qur’an draws our attention to such a situation also as the Prophet and his followers were persecuted by the powerful and the rich chiefs of Mecca to maintain their own hegemony and were forced to flee from that town which was rightfully theirs. It is such persecution by the powerful, in order to maintain their hegemony that violence results. The Qur'an is opposed to an unjust order and domination by few powerful whom it calls mustakbirun (i.e. arrogant and powerful). They persecute the weak (mustad`ifun). If such an unjust order persists violence will result, however undesirable it may be.
Allah thus says in the Qur’an, “And what reason have you not to fight in the way of Allah, and of the weak (mustad`ifin) among the men and the women and the children, who say: Our Lord, take us out of the town, whose people are oppressors, and grant us from Thee a friend and grant us from Thee a helper.” This verse in the Qur’an combines both what is empirical and what is ideological. The weak when oppressed are more likely to fight and resist an unjust order. This is empirical. But the above verse also makes an ideological statement when it says that the weak among men, women and children pray that our Lord take us out of this town (Mecca) whose people are oppressors and grant us from Thee a friend and a helper. Thus the Qur’an makes it clear that one must not live in an unjust order and seek helper from Allah to relive them of injustice.
It is also important that the Qur’an more then once focuses our attention on the on going conflict between mustakbirun and mustad`ifun i.e. between the arrogant and powerful and the weak and the oppressed. The arrogant and powerful is represented by Nimrod and Pharoa and the weak and oppressed by Abraham and Moses. Both Abraham and Moses were liberators. But they liberated their oppressed people not through violence but through struggle leading them out of the unjust order, unjust situation.
There will always be struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed, the powerful and the weak but this struggle need not be violent. It much depends on situation. The Prophet (PBUH) himself prefers peace at Hudaybia (sulh-i-Hudaybia) than war even at the cost of pride of Muslims. The peace conditions (I need not go into details of those conditions here, which are quite well known) were far from favourable to Muslims but the Prophet of Islam accepted those conditions in order to avoid bloodshed. However, the Prophet could do so as the other side also, due to certain constraints, accepted peace on their own terms.
If the other side was bent upon war there would have been no choice for the Prophet but to accept the situation and fight the war. It much depends what situation you are facing. One cannot talk of war and peace quite in an abstract manner. Thus socio-political and socio-economic context plays great role in deciding whether peace will prevail or not.
One thing is sure: Islam does not even indirectly hint at coercion, let alone violence, when it comes to any religious or spiritual question. Thus it becomes quite clear that Islam being religion does not approve of violence at all in any religious matter. However, if Muslims are put in a particular situation which is unjust (not only for them but for humanity as such) they may have to struggle peacefully (and if violence is thrust on them, reluctantly through violence) to remove the cause of injustice.
It is quite important to note that liberative struggle should never be confined to Muslims alone. It is quite significant for theology of peace in Islam that throughout the text of the Qur’an we find the words mustakbirun and mustad`ifun i.e. arrogant and the weak or oppressors and the oppressed without an qualification of being Muslim or not. Thus even if arrogant and oppressor is a Muslim, one will have to struggle against him and even if an oppressed and persecuted is non-Muslim Muslims will have to wage struggle against him.
Thus the struggle nowhere involves Islam as a religion but Muslims as upholders of peace and justice. Yes, it is true justice and peace (and for that matter compassion) are also Islamic values but they are also universal values applicable not only to Muslims but to all whether they be Muslims or not. Thus, as far as justice and peace is concerned the clash is not between Islam and any other religion but it is primarily between oppressors and the oppressed. It is wrong to implicate Islam if some Muslims choose to adopt violent means to achieve their goal. Islam does not automatically approve of violent means if any injustice or exploitation is to be fought.
The Qur’an does not permit use of violence as a norm at all. All the verses involving permission to use violence is preceded by the words “if they commit violence against you….”. Thus we find in verse 2:190 “And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allah does not love aggressors.” (emphasis added)
Thus it is very clear from this verse that Qur’an does not permit unconditional war and aggression and Allah does not love aggressors. But permits fighting in the way of Allah only if war is imposed by others. The words in the way of Allah are also very important here. Fighting in the way of Allah would restrain Muslims from committing aggression and excesses. Fighting in the way of Allah would mean fighting only for a just cause, not for power and wealth, fighting only if war is imposed on them and not involving personal or collective feeling of revenge. When Ali the son-in-law of the Prophet (PBUH) defeated a powerful foe in the battle and was about to kill him that he spat on his face. Ali immediately got off his chaste and let him go. The defeated foe was greatly surprised as he expected greater violence from Ali after he spat on him. Ali told hi if I had killed you after you spat on me it would have been an act of revenge. Thus Islam does not permit killing for revenge. Revenge killing is not a religious act; its main reason is human tendency to retaliate. Arabs used to call it qisas and Qur’an permits it in keeping with the prevailing tradition as it tolerated slavery as a concession to the prevailing system. But as it makes clear that human dignity and equality is the norm, not slavery. Similarly while it permits qisas it makes it clear that one should not be revengeful and should suppress anger. One who suppresses anger (kazim al-ghayz) is a person of great merit.
The Qur’an says, “Those who spend in ease as well as in adversity and those who restrain (their) anger and pardon men.” And Allah loves the doers of good (to others).” (3:133). Thus it becomes clear from above verse that to restrain ones anger and to pardon is an act of merit, a religious act. Thus one should not use violence even as an act of revenge. To restrain anger and to pardon are great acts of merit. Violence in any form, except in defence, is most deplorable. Humanity cannot flower in an atmosphere of violence.
The pre-Islamic Arab society was highly violent society. Various tribes fought against each other for decades on end. Thus before the Holy Prophet migrated to Medina the two principal pagan tribes of Medina Khazraj and Aus had been fighting against each other for more than four decades. The Prophet was invited there by the members of these two tribes as peace maker and the Prophet did bring peace between these two tribes and old enmity was happily resolved. But to stamp out violence from the Arab psychology and Arab society was not an easy project. Many Arab tribes had economically survived through raids on other tribes (it was called ghazw)
The pre-Islamic Arabs, as pointed out, not only indulged in qisas but were used to settle all questions through use of violence and thus violence continued in the society. There was no concept of spirituality and higher morality. It is Islam, which brought, for the first time, the concept of higher morality to the Arab society. Peace (salam) was part of this higher morality. It was in view of the violence in the Arab society that even greeting between two Muslims was made as Al-salam-u-‘alaykum (i.e. peace be upon you) and it is the principal form of greeting among the Muslims.
However, the post-Islamic Arab society did not easily imbibe the higher Islamic morality. It required inner struggle to control oneself and it was for this reason that many Muslim thinkers, particularly the Sufi thinkers called this inner struggle to control ones desires and raw passions as jihad-e-akbar (i.e. the great jihad and real jihad) and described war with sword as jihad-e-asghar (i.e. small jihad). The Sufis were the pacifists of Islam and those who kept themselves away from the violent struggle for power and also practised great restraint. They thus could imbibe the higher morality of Islam.
One can understand the nature of Arab society and the deep stamp of violence on it from the fact that after the depth of the Holy Prophet his successors – Caliphs hardly got time to promote higher Islamic morality akhlaq-i-karim. The holy Prophet himself was described as uswa-i-hasanah (best examplar) by the Qur’an. Thus Qur’an says, “Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent examplar for him who hopes in Allah and the Latter day, and remembers Allah much.” (33:21)
But the Arabs with few honourable exceptions hardly followed this best examplar in the true spirit. Civil war broke out soon after his death (war of riddah) as many tribes wanted to return to their ancestral religion and refused to pay zakah the Islamic tax. Four of the three Khulufa-i-Rashidun (the rightly guided caliphs) were murdered. The third and fourth caliphs (Uthman and Ali) had to face tumultuous times and rebellions resulting in more than one hundred thousand deaths.
Thus one can understand the great gap between what was ideological – peace – and what was empirical – violence. The great tragedy of Karbala on 10th of Muharram when the grand son of the Prophet was martyred by the forces of evil as he tried to revive the higher Islamic morality. The Umayyads usurped power and indulged in violence and terror to retain it. Yusuf al-Hajjaj, governor of Iraq, during the Umayyad period, was a great terror and was quite ruthless in eliminating his enemies. The Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs with some exceptions had no compunctions in resorting to violence. The founder of the Abbasid dynasty was known as al-Saffah, which means one who sheds blood.
Before Islam there was inter-tribal violence. After Islam the social and political scenario changed. All tribes embraced Islam and the very nature of their economic sustenance through inter-tribal raids changed but inter-tribal rivalries persisted. One more factor was added to this. Now centralised state came into existence, which did not exist before Islam and inter-tribal struggle for power to capture the state began often resulting in great blood bath. Thus when the Abbasids captured power from Umayyads the Abbasids hunted down all Umayyads including their children and killed them. This violence was direct result of struggle for power.
All inter-tribal violence in the post-Islamic period was result of struggle for power and had nothing to do with Islam. In other words it was empirical rather than ideological. There is hardly any evidence in history of violence for spreading of Islam. As far as spreading of Islam was concerned the Qur’anic directive was very clear that “call people to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation and argue with them in the best manner.” (16:125) One can argue that this again is an ideological statement and that empirical reality was different in the sense that Islam spread through sword. This is simply not true. Firstly, no religion can spread through bloodshed and terror and secondly there is hardly any evidence of this in history.
Islam either spread through Sufi saints who were good examplars of Islamic morality rather than the rulers who were any way seen as tyrants. It was sufi saints who were carriers of real message of Islam and peace by keeping their distance from the power centres. Also, many people adopted Islam simply because it was religion of the rulers and had many advantages. Also, once a prominent member of the community or a tribal chef adopted Islam other members of the community or tribe followed. Thus it is not borne out even empirically that Islam spread through violence. There is even the instance of the Umayyad caliphs stopping conversion to Islam as their treasury was getting depleted as the converts stopped giving jizyah
ISLAM AND PEACE
The Qur’an, as pointed out above, tried to spread higher morality of which peace was the most important component. In fact the word Islam itself is derived from the root slm which is the root letters for peace. Islam means establishing peace as well as surrendering to the Will of Allah. One of the Allah’s name is Salam i.e. peace. Many Muslims are named as Abdus Salam i.e. servant of peace which also means servant of Allah as Allah is peace.
In Qur’an there are repeated references to the concept of peace. Significantly the Qur’an calls upon Muslims, “O you who believe, enter into complete peace and follow not the footsteps of the devil. Surely he is your open enemy.” (2:208) Entering into complete peace here means entering into peace whole-heartedly. It would also imply surrendering to Allah whole-heartedly. Acceptance of violence as the other part of the verse says is like following in the footsteps of devil. Violence is devil and devil is violence.
In the verse 2:131 Allah says submit and reply is given I submit myself to my Rabb of the worlds. Now rabb in Arabic means one who is sustainer or one who takes us step by step from one stage of perfection to another stage of perfection. Thus submitting to Allah, or accepting His authority means dedicating oneself to the cause of peace so that this universe reaches perfection. Perfection is possible only if there is peace, not otherwise. In fact violence destroys all the achievements of culture and civilisation. Since Allah is Rabb i.e. the Sustainer and Perfecter, he ordains peace and those who surrender to His Will have to work for peace so that perfection could be reached.
We find in the Qur’an (14:23) “And those who believe and do good are made to enter Gardens, wherein flow rivers, abiding by their Lord’s permission. Their greeting therein is Peace!”. Thus it will be observed that jannah (Garden) is so as there is peace therein. Thus the main quality of jannah for which all Muslims aspire is peace. This world can become like jannah only if there is peace in the world. For entering the jannah Allah says, “ Enter it (i.e. jannah) in peace and security.” (15:46) Thus peace and security are the main attributes of paradise.
Muslims invoke peace for all Allah’s messengers because they brought the message of peace for entire humanity. Thus Muslims always write peace be upon him after the name of the Prophet, in fact all prophets of Allah. All Messengers of Allah are messengers of peace as Allah Himself, as pointed out above, is Peace. Again in the verse 56:25-26 we read "They hear therein (i.e. Paradise) no vain or sinful talk but only the saying, Peace! Peace.”
Thus peace is so vital for converting this world into paradise. Its opposite i.e. violence is sin. Sin is nothing if not selfish behaviour. We have converted this earth into a violent place because of our interest-oriented behaviour. The harmony of interests is possible only in need based economy. Clash of interests result from greed-based economy. Our world today is full of violence as we clash with each other for our greed. Islam wanted to establish peace on this earth and hence it emphasised need-based economy and condemned accumulation of wealth, circulation of wealth among the rich. The chapter 104 clearly says that obsession with wealth results in fire kindled by Allah.
.
Same thing happens if we are obsessed with power. Thus this earth can enjoy peace only if some people are not obsessed with wealth and power. Islam laid equal emphasis on justice (Allah’s name is also Just ‘Adil along with Peace, Salam). Thus justice and peace go together. There cannot be peace without justice. Today there is no peace on earth as there is no justice. We are living in a violent world because we live in an unjust world. The Muslim world is also full of injustices and hence of violence. Islam did its best to emphasise justice and peace but a section of Muslims, particularly Muslim rulers remained obsessed with wealth and power and perpetrated injustices and violence. Thus the blame for violence lay on the doors of some Muslims not on Islam. As far as Islam is concerned justice and peace are integral parts of its teachings.
Moreover for millions of Muslims Islam is a deep spiritual experience. They pray, fast, perform Hajj and all other spiritual practices and feel deeply satisfied. They pray for peace. Such Muslims are in overwhelming majority. They have nothing to do with politics, violence or use of Islam for ones interests. It is these Muslims who seek deep spiritual fulfilment who matter and not the few who use or misuse it for political purposes. For millions of Muslims Islam, like any other religion, is a great source of inner peace.
Some countries like America bomb countries in the name of democracy and human rights some Muslims commit acts of violence and terror in the name of Islam. Is there any difference between the two? How does it matter if the people are killed in the name of democracy and freedom or in the name of Islam? We must try to learn between ideals and their misuse by some vested interests or frustrated people.
Islam is being associated with violence and jihad in the minds of not only non-Muslims but also of many Muslims. The slogans of jihad are being raised by frustrated youth unable to find any other way and also by those who are fighting for national liberation and regional autonomy. Such slogans create strong images of holy war being ordained by Islam and Islam being religion of violence. And now what has happened in New York on 11th September 2001 and in Pentagon i.e. attacks on World Trade Centre with the help of hijacked planes will greatly strengthen this stereotype in the minds of people of the world in general and in the minds of Americans, in particular. The attack on WTC in New York and Pentagon in Washington is, to say the least, horrific and must be condemned in strongest possible and unambiguous terms.
It should be remembered that there is no relation between religion and violence, neither in Islam, nor in any religion for that matter. Violence is a social and political phenomenon. It is true that there is mention of war in scriptures like Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Qura’n. But this mention is not to establish any integral link between religion and violence but to portray certain social and political situation that prevailed at that time. It can be called integral only if these scriptures mandate violence as a desirable solution.
It is important to distinguish between what is empirical and ideological. The Twain do not always meet. While violence is empirical, peace is ideological. All scriptures, particularly the Qur’an while permitting violence in some inevitable situations, ordain peace as a norm. The great religions of the world came to establish justice and peace, not to perpetrate revenge and violence. Revenge and violence can never become part of any religion, much less that of Islam. Allah has created both in human beings – tendency for aggression and violence and exalted feeling for serenity of peace. Allah, according to the Qur’an, created human person in the best of mould (ahsan-i-taqwim) and then rendered him lowest of the low (95:4-5)
In fact it is this dynamics of human personality i.e. being created in the best of the mould and then being reduced to the lowest of the low that we have to understand the dynamics of peace and violence also. Allah desires peace and created us, for that purpose, in the best of the mould but our greed, greed for both wealth and power reduced us to an instrument of aggression and violence. For a human being there will always be an internal jihad, an internal struggle to rise to the level of ahsan-i-taqwim (best of the mould) and continuously resist the temptations of wealth and power.
The Qur’an strengthens the social roots of peace by emphasising the role of need based economy and resolutely opposing greed based one. The roots of violence, as pointed out above, lie in human greed. Thus we find in the Qur’an, “They ask thee what should we spend. Say what is surplus.” (2:219) It is obvious from this verse that you spend on yourself according to your personal needs and give away the surplus with you to other needy people. Similarly the Qur’an prescribes in yet another context that the wealth should not circulate among the rich only. (59:7). And it also exhorts Muslims that those who hoard gold and silver and do not give them away in the way of Allah announce to them the painful chastisement.(9:34)
Thus the Qur’an wants to establish peace not superficially by exhorting the believers to love peace but tries to tackle the very socio-economic roots of conflict. If few people or countries grab largest part of the resources of the world and live in all comfort and deny other people even their basic needs violence and conflict will result whatever the pleadings for peace. Or, if some people commit aggression unjustifiable against others to keep their own dominance and deny others their very basic rights, it will be impossible to maintain peace is such unjust political order.
The Qur’an draws our attention to such a situation also as the Prophet and his followers were persecuted by the powerful and the rich chiefs of Mecca to maintain their own hegemony and were forced to flee from that town which was rightfully theirs. It is such persecution by the powerful, in order to maintain their hegemony that violence results. The Qur'an is opposed to an unjust order and domination by few powerful whom it calls mustakbirun (i.e. arrogant and powerful). They persecute the weak (mustad`ifun). If such an unjust order persists violence will result, however undesirable it may be.
Allah thus says in the Qur’an, “And what reason have you not to fight in the way of Allah, and of the weak (mustad`ifin) among the men and the women and the children, who say: Our Lord, take us out of the town, whose people are oppressors, and grant us from Thee a friend and grant us from Thee a helper.” This verse in the Qur’an combines both what is empirical and what is ideological. The weak when oppressed are more likely to fight and resist an unjust order. This is empirical. But the above verse also makes an ideological statement when it says that the weak among men, women and children pray that our Lord take us out of this town (Mecca) whose people are oppressors and grant us from Thee a friend and a helper. Thus the Qur’an makes it clear that one must not live in an unjust order and seek helper from Allah to relive them of injustice.
It is also important that the Qur’an more then once focuses our attention on the on going conflict between mustakbirun and mustad`ifun i.e. between the arrogant and powerful and the weak and the oppressed. The arrogant and powerful is represented by Nimrod and Pharoa and the weak and oppressed by Abraham and Moses. Both Abraham and Moses were liberators. But they liberated their oppressed people not through violence but through struggle leading them out of the unjust order, unjust situation.
There will always be struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed, the powerful and the weak but this struggle need not be violent. It much depends on situation. The Prophet (PBUH) himself prefers peace at Hudaybia (sulh-i-Hudaybia) than war even at the cost of pride of Muslims. The peace conditions (I need not go into details of those conditions here, which are quite well known) were far from favourable to Muslims but the Prophet of Islam accepted those conditions in order to avoid bloodshed. However, the Prophet could do so as the other side also, due to certain constraints, accepted peace on their own terms.
If the other side was bent upon war there would have been no choice for the Prophet but to accept the situation and fight the war. It much depends what situation you are facing. One cannot talk of war and peace quite in an abstract manner. Thus socio-political and socio-economic context plays great role in deciding whether peace will prevail or not.
One thing is sure: Islam does not even indirectly hint at coercion, let alone violence, when it comes to any religious or spiritual question. Thus it becomes quite clear that Islam being religion does not approve of violence at all in any religious matter. However, if Muslims are put in a particular situation which is unjust (not only for them but for humanity as such) they may have to struggle peacefully (and if violence is thrust on them, reluctantly through violence) to remove the cause of injustice.
It is quite important to note that liberative struggle should never be confined to Muslims alone. It is quite significant for theology of peace in Islam that throughout the text of the Qur’an we find the words mustakbirun and mustad`ifun i.e. arrogant and the weak or oppressors and the oppressed without an qualification of being Muslim or not. Thus even if arrogant and oppressor is a Muslim, one will have to struggle against him and even if an oppressed and persecuted is non-Muslim Muslims will have to wage struggle against him.
Thus the struggle nowhere involves Islam as a religion but Muslims as upholders of peace and justice. Yes, it
All Comments (93)
amhost amhost
October 4, 2007 11:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 4, 2007 23:20
mashalla
October 1, 2007 3:24 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 1, 2007 03:24
Great rivers flow with silent majesty;shallow brooks are noisy
September 30, 2007 1:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 30, 2007 13:33
thank you sanal- that is indeed a rarity here.
peace
September 30, 2007 2:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 30, 2007 02:05
SALAMU ALAIKUM is used by non muslims. Thanks sanal for indirectly hinting at it.
September 27, 2007 3:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 15:42
Peace victoria. I am impressed by your views
September 27, 2007 3:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 15:15
Peace victoria.I am impressed by your views.
September 27, 2007 1:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:55
wa alaikum a salaam sad- don't be sad- there's room in this world for all of us.
Were all working for a deeper understanding brother. (or sister)
lib, dont you know that old expression?
my grandmother used to say it- that and a quarter will get me a cup of coffee.
the meaning is, that information you gave me, plus a quarter-(or 3 bucks) will get me a cup of coffee (or capuccino).
which, with the same 3 bucks or quarter- i'd be able to get anyway.(making the information unecessary to my purchase.)
im not going to read bertrand russell- im not gong backwards- im going forwards.
im reading qu'ran in about 15 minutes insha'alla.
but a funny coincidence is that i actually have a 4 month old kitten named capuccino.
ok lib- as always, peace to you
a salaamu alaikum wa rahmatulahi wa barakatu sanal
September 27, 2007 2:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 02:05
Sad it is Assalamu alaikum not salam alaikum
September 26, 2007 1:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 26, 2007 13:44
salam alaikum dear sister.
I hope that Allah guides you in this holy month because there is much, much for you to learn about our beautiful religion of Islam. Unfortunately, your femenist views are a obfuscating your understanding of Islam.
May Allah guide us all.
September 26, 2007 10:38 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 26, 2007 10:38
Victoria, Victoria,
I trust your $3.00 cappucino will help you stay awake during the Ramadan parties.
Maybe you can read some more about Bertrand Russell's views of Islam during your caffeine fix.
And how go the flaws in Islam today? Any "pwtfft"s showing up during the day-time fasting? Or is Gabriel and his crew only Ramadan party types??
September 26, 2007 10:08 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 26, 2007 10:08
that and 3 dollars will get me a cup of capuccino
September 26, 2007 6:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 26, 2007 06:01
So Russell himself concluded:
"Mahommedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world ... What Mahommedanism did for the Arabs, Bolshevism may do for the Russians.(3) "
1. The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, Allen and Unwin, London, Second Edition 1962, p. 7.
2. Ibid, p. 27
3. Ibid, p. 74. For a critique of this book compare my "Russell's Judgement on Bolshevism", in George W. Roberts (ed.), Bertrand Russell Memorial Volume, Allen and Unwin, London, 1979, pp. 428-454.
September 26, 2007 2:03 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 26, 2007 02:03
bertrand russel certainly makes good points, but he was so focused in general about christianity and it's dysfunctional relationship with science that he only saw a part of the picture, that which affected him personally.
maybe his experiences and upbringing made him believe that religion is based primarily on fear and terro, but his opinion in this matter is his own concepts for himself.
i liked bertrand russel a long time ago- and he makes some excellent observations on the christian religion, but as a scientifically inclined philosopher he must have had some awareness of the many and deep and lasting contributions to science by islam- and how there was an inherent harmony between the religion of islam ad the precepts of science (it was a muslim scientist who first proposed scentific method as we know it today)
from my personal perspective- my spiritual hungers and longings were not based on fear- as there was no one to instill that in me.
it was and is a longing for connection with the god-
and the god is more compassionate - kind and loving- and learning is a celebration- and my religion compels me to be a more effective human so that is certainly a valuable inspiration no matter how you look at it
im still trying to learn more- thats mostly why im here- to broaden my understanding of my fellow travelers in this world which includes the bertrand russells and the poets and everyone in between
peace
September 26, 2007 1:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 26, 2007 01:42
Bertrand Russell
Fear,the Foundation of Religion
Religion is based,I think,primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes.
Fear is the basis of the whole thing-fear of the mysterious,fear of defeat,fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty,
and therefore it is no wonder if religion and cruelty have gone hand in hand.It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things,and a little to master them by help of science,
which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion,against the churches,and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us,and I think our own hearts can teach us,no longer to look around for imaginary supports,no longer to invent allies in the sky,but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in,instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.
Why I Am Not A Christian.pp22
September 26, 2007 12:38 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 26, 2007 00:38
sanal- you made some good logical points.
dont mind concerned, if you said the sky was blue, and were a muslim, he'd argue about its green tones and then blame you for it.
September 26, 2007 12:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 26, 2007 00:16
Sanal,
You, like the rest of usm suffer from the three B's, i.e. we were Bred, Born and Brainwashed in some form of religion. In your case, it is Islam. It is time for the koran to be rewritten with the historic facts and reality in mind. Once you do that, the healing process will begin.
And a million deaths in Iraq? Hmmm, if so it is due to the Shiite-Sunni civil war and the butchery demonstrated 24/7 by each warring faction.
Africa? Hmmm, Somalia, pirates, the Kenya suicide bombings, tribal hatreds, jungles, deserts, radical Muslims? We will support the Ethiopians and let the UN and AU handle the rest of the problems. Hmmm, and who funds much of the UN??? And much of its relief efforts???
And Salan what Islamic sect do you belong to??
And whose oil wells are you tapping? Oil profits/blood/terror money, where are you sending it??
Viva La France!!!!!
September 25, 2007 6:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 25, 2007 18:27
Dear christian liberated,
Various options were available to outst
Saddam [political,moral and economic support for opposition for example]. Not by killing one million people.
There are several leaders like Saddam in Africa.Why US is not spending 400 billion dollars to invade Africa.
If a leader in the middle east is progressive,liberal and democratic and close the oil tap to america,do you honestly believe he will be respected?
I have great respect for American people. That doesnt stop me from calling spade a spade
September 25, 2007 1:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 25, 2007 13:51
Dear christian liberated,
Various options were available to outst
Saddam [political,moral and economic support for opposition for example]. Not by killing one million people.
There are several leaders like Saddam in Africa.Why US is not spending 400 billion dollars to invade Africa.
If a leader in the middle east is progressive,liberal and democratic and close the oil tap to america,do you honestly believe he will be respected?
I have great respect for American people. That doesnt stop me from calling spade a spade
September 25, 2007 1:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 25, 2007 13:51
Salan,
Because Saddaam was killing off and torturing the helpless Shiites and Kurds . And because Islam is composed of a number of sects, none of which can tolerate each other and all because of the significantly stupid disagreement as to who has the rightful "holey not holy hallucinator's" offspring.
And Salan what significantly stupid Islamic sect do you belong to??
Again the butchering in Iraq is due to the civil war between the Shiites and Sunnis. Nothing more, nothing less.
Viva La France!!!!!
September 25, 2007 8:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 25, 2007 08:44
that was me
September 25, 2007 3:38 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 25, 2007 03:38
heres a link to the lancet study
http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf
September 25, 2007 2:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 25, 2007 02:46
The Human Cost Of War In Iraq- A mortality study2002-2006
Bloomberg School Of Public Health
JOHN HOPKINS University,Maryland
Mustansiriya university,IRAQ
In cooperation with centre for international studies MASSACHUSSETS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,CAMBRIDGE,MASSACHUSSETS
web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf
Dear christian liberated,why there was no sunni shia fight before invasion
September 25, 2007 12:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 25, 2007 00:54
Sanal,
What schools? References?? Website addresses? Dates of publication? Publisher??
So CNN, Time Magazine, Al Jazeera, the London Times et al have been publishing false stories about the Shiite-Sunni civil war in Iraq and the said butchery of said groups vs each other??
From CNN, "Al-Sistani was apparently referring to Abdullah bin Jabrain, a key member of Saudi Arabia's clerical establishment, who last month joined a chorus of other senior figures from the hardline Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam that regards Shiites as infidels.
Bin Jabrain described Shiites as "the most vicious enemy of Muslims."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_bin_Jabrain
"Abdullah bin Jabrain is a leading Sunni cleric in Saudi Arabia and a member of the Senior Clerics Association.[1]
"Commenting on Shiites, Jabrain said, "Some people say that the rejectionists are Muslims because they believe in God and his prophet, pray and fast. But I say they are heretics. They are the most vicious enemy of Muslims, who should be wary oft their plots. They should be boycotted and expelled so that Muslims spared their evil."[1]
Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the political leader of Iraqi Shiites, once referred to Jabrain as an "evil cleric."[
Such peaceful, coexisting groups/cults!!!!!!!!
September 24, 2007 11:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 24, 2007 23:21
concerned the christian now liberated,
Not only MIT, most of the leading universities have done research on number of deaths in Iraq. Please vsit their web site.If not for Iraq occupation for oil this wouldnt have happened. According to you American war planes dropping only democracy on their heads.
Sunni shia conflicts is in the best interest of US.old divide and rule policy.There are sunnis and shias all over the middle east coexisting peacefully. Take a break from CNN and BBC.
September 24, 2007 9:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 24, 2007 21:40
Sanal,
MIT study, when published, by whom??
Most of the deaths in Iraq are caused by Sunnis butchering Shiites and vice versa. And all over oil profits and who has the right ancestor to the "holey not holy hallucinator".
September 24, 2007 7:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 24, 2007 19:55
CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED,
Please read the study conducted MIT[one of the best universities in the world]about number of deaths in Iraq.
September 24, 2007 6:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 24, 2007 18:49
Sanal,
Because said Democracies are protecting the minority Muslims in the region e.g. Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo. These same "bombs of democracy" are also used to defeat radical Islamics who threaten the peaceful Islamics in places like Somalia and Afghanistan.
And typically an Islamic "suicider" kills more than 10-20 civilians. Check the death toll from 9/11 and the train bombings in the UK and Spain.
September 24, 2007 2:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 24, 2007 14:26
TO JUHI
How is it that when a suicide bomber kill ten or twenty people its called terrorism and when thousands are killed with sophiticated war planes its Democracy?
September 24, 2007 1:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 24, 2007 13:54
Ms. Taylor,
How can a group of people who kill innocent civilians daily in the name of their "peaceful religion" not be called a cult?
Why have they made more than 50 countries exclusively Islamic?
You have a scarf on your head. What do you think of many of these Islamic nations where women are forced to cover up?
September 24, 2007 9:31 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 24, 2007 09:31
MODERATE- i assumed it was so obvious i was using your words that i forgot to credit you with them.
now i really like your explanation-
it seems obvious that one has to go the source- now my non-scientific nature always leads me to the source of intentions-
but science is much less subjective-
i try to always read the many links people post, out of respect for their views and giving them attention and effort to understand their points-
REDACTION-
The act or process of editing or revising a piece of writing; preparation for publication.
An edited work; a new edition or revision.
I didnt know what it means so i had to look it up
i have to agree form my limited knowledge that the scholarship seemed very subjective-
i agree- if you're studying the canon, of what use is it to base your subjective opinion on someone else's objective opinion?
maybe their opinion is flawed in soem way and it throws everything off-
and after all, just remains an opinion.
i couldn not have framed a critique without your edifiying analysis first-
you provided the words and ideas
truthseeker, i really liked your post- but it was awfully long, and even though i agree with it- i often skip those long posts.
but you actually wrote it yourself didnt you?
thats why i always say moderate-
let people define themselves- listen to a hindu if you want to understadn hinduism-
or a scientist if you want to understand science-which i have an inordinate amount of respect, but no talent or knowledge of to speak of.
peace
ill say one thing- science certainly removes the emotional illogical flames that burn through here and are so disheartening sometimes
September 24, 2007 2:33 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 24, 2007 02:33
Ah, The Moderate,
Somehow you know more than contemporary NT exegetes by reading one book. Add the bible to your library and you have two books. Such expertise is overwhelming!!!!
But then again you still believe in "pwtfft"s, tinker bells and demons of the demented. But then again maybe Gabriel visited you on some dark and starry night and revealed to you the real history of it all??
And I have not exerted all that much effort in studying the work of the professors of the Jesus Seminarians et al. I am simply reiterating their conclusions, conclusions based on exhaustive reviews of all the scriptural documents, not just four books that have substantial differences. Their conclusions in many cases also review the scripture archeology.
Professors Crossan and Reed's books, Excavating Jesus and In Search of Paul, Professor Chilton's Rabbi Jesus and Rabbi Paul, Luke Timothy Johnsons, The Real Jesus, Professor Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, Josephus, the Jewish War, and Professor Borg's Meeting Jesus for the First Time, The God We Never Knew, and Jesus and Buddha (the Parallel Sayings) are good starting references for your library.
September 24, 2007 2:28 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 24, 2007 02:28
"how we can work towards a world that doesn't need pejorative labels for people who hold slightly different beliefs"
There is either a universal truth or there is not and The Bible is that truth. Stearing people elsewhere or toward a "tolerant" society is exactly what The Bible describes as a one world religion set up by Satan. This kind of talk is dangerous.
September 23, 2007 11:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 23, 2007 23:39
"how we can work towards a world that doesn't need pejorative labels for people who hold slightly different beliefs"
There is either a universal truth or there is not and The Bible is that truth. Stearing people elsewhere or toward a "tolerant" society is exactly what The Bible describes as a one world religion set up by Satan. This kind of talk is dangerous.
September 23, 2007 11:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 23, 2007 23:37
"how we can work towards a world that doesn't need pejorative labels for people who hold slightly different beliefs"
There is either a universal truth or there is not and The Bible is that truth. Stearing people elsewhere or toward a "tolerant" society is exactly what The Bible describes as a one world religion set up by Satan. This kind of talk is dangerous.
September 23, 2007 11:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 23, 2007 23:36
"how we can work towards a world that doesn't need pejorative labels for people who hold slightly different beliefs"
There is either a universal truth or there is not and The Bible is that truth. Stearing people elsewhere or toward a "tolerant" society is exactly what The Bible describes as a one world religion set up by Satan. This kind of talk is dangerous.
September 23, 2007 11:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 23, 2007 23:35
"how we can work towards a world that doesn't need pejorative labels for people who hold slightly different beliefs"
There is either a universal truth or there is not and The Bible is that truth. Stearing people elsewhere or toward a "tolerant" society is exactly what The Bible describes as a one world religion set up by Satan. This kind of talk is dangerous.
September 23, 2007 11:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 23, 2007 23:34
The modern definition of cult or religion seems completely self-referential. If you agree with a group, or do not feel threatened by it, or if you don't have some need to pity its members, then you rarely label it a cult. If the opposite applies, well then, cults be they all!
Cult has become almost exclusively a pejorative label, used to exclude from legitimacy those so labeled. Whether used by "people of faith" or by so-called "rational" people, it is the same.
Carrying on an intelligent conversation with those who like to attach the label to others is nearly impossible, as there is no acceptable definition outside, or even merely at odds with, their personal belief system.
Defining a group as a religion or a cult? It seems purely a matter of "faith."
September 23, 2007 10:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 23, 2007 22:30
Dear Victoria:
"LIB- just a comment- im no scientist, but i can make the distinction between hypothsizing, checking, and improving on said hypotheses as scientifically and genrally agreed upon tools of objective science."
I think that was my comment. It refers to research methodology in biblical exegesis. The people I like to read do things like go back to the earliest codex sources and count words, measure consistency of tables of contents, and redactional frame. They thereby identify codex sources that reflect the same original source documents.
In this way, Trobisch established that there was a consistent canon of the NT. It did not accumulate in layers over centuries.
Sloppy workers like the Jesus Seminar crowd, by contrast, usually go back to earlier commentaries, and each other's opinions. The seldom seem to go back to the oldest instances of the NT canon. They also assume that anything written by anyone in the first four centuries are equivalent to the canon. Then Funk, et al. reject almost all of the canonical text on purely subjective gut feel. After that, they can say what ever they want to and pretend that it is scholarly. "The canon is what I say it is." is the result.
Established that the canon was set down at one time, one place, and by one group of editors (which for historical reasons must include Luke, and Paul) completely undermines the Jesus Seminar's basic methodology.
The questions about whether the eye witness were liars, crazy, or touched by God remains for another day. I doubt that it is amenable to scientific solution, but the provenance of the original canon is. We are able to reject the twentieth century belief that the canon accumulated over centuries by scientific means, though.
Concerned Christian Now Liberated has a hard time with that because he has invested great time and emotional commitment to flawed methods of the Jesus Seminar.
September 23, 2007 8:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 23, 2007 20:30
Pamela K. Taylor, "slightly different beliefs?" Are you serious? If the Lord Jesus was genuine, proof being God raised Him from the dead. You can deny that and call God a liar. You take that up with Him. The Lord Jesus was either God in the flesh or a madman. You take that up with Him. But to obfuscate the truth and call it "slightly different beliefs" is PROVE you are a cult. The Lord Jesus said, "If the light IN you be darkness, HOW GREAT is THAT darkness!" Pamela K Taylor, do not study the imitation to learn the genuine, study the genuine and the phoney's are apparent. Study the Gospel of John and Romans asking God to reveal His truths to you.
September 23, 2007 5:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 23, 2007 17:21
Labeling Mormonism as a cult has nothing to do with Mormons holding "slightly different beliefs." It has everything to do with Mormons accepting a set of crazy propositions as received truths, against all relevant scientific probabilities.
On those grounds, all faith-based religions qualify as cults. In a few thousand years (unless we destroy ourselves), the religions of the 21st century will look as cultish as ancient religions now look to us, and for the same reason---we humans are smart enough to eventually identify and shed our most inane superstitions.
September 23, 2007 3:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 23, 2007 15:48
Pamela, there is a great book that I wish was still in print called "The Wrong Way Home: Uncovering the Patterns of Cult Behavior in American Society" by the psychiatrist Arthur Deikman. He says that we are all prone to cultic behavior - not just people in religions or 'cults'. He identifies four basic behaviors that people in groups are prone to, that cause us much trouble in thinking and living realistically. They are: compliance with the group, dependence on a leader, devaluing the outsider, and avoiding dissent. These behaviors are valuable for maintaining group coherence in a hostile world. For most of human existence in small tribal groups, they must have worked well. But they also lead to a great deal of self-righteousness, conflict between groups, and failure of people to think and act on their own inner consciences.
A great deal of religious teaching is designed to counteract these behaviors: teachings about loving the stranger, the outsider; or about recognizing goodness when it is encountered in someone with the 'wrong' beliefs (which is what I think the Good Samaritan parable of Jesus is about); or about listening to the voice of God or conscience in your own heart.
On the other hand, religions are very prone to falling into these tribal behaviors, partly because people invest so much of themselves in their religions, and it gets worst when people invest almost everything in their religion: so when your employment, friends, spouse, family, worship, ideas, money, and home are all contained within the religion then it becomes hardest to think for yourself, hear your own conscience, and avoid demonizing outsiders or allowing some leader to dominate. The same thing can happen in political cults.
I have read a lot about religious cults, having grown up in a movement many people thought was one, and then having acquired a doctorate in the sociology of religion, but nothing had it down better than Deikman's book, in my opinion. In 2003 I wrote a column, based on Deikman's ideas, about how the cultism inside Bush's cabinet was likely to lead them into unrealistic thinking about the Iraq War, and I think events and memoirs of participants have proven that thesis. See http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-aboutfaith/article_1129.jsp
September 23, 2007 2:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 23, 2007 14:20
Truth Seeker
When you post comments of ridiculous length,
people don't read them.
When you post them many times,it just means we scroll right through them.I didn't read a word from your posts.They are just way toooo long.
Get real.
September 23, 2007 10:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 23, 2007 10:54
The question is often asked " what should non-Muslims do to win the hearts and minds of Muslims?" when the question that should really be asked is " what should Muslims do to win the hearts and minds of non-Muslims?".
Muslims are now universally despised for several reasons.
1) The repeated acts of terrorism against non-Muslims and the generally implicit approval by the general populace of non-Muslims for these acts and the readiness to blame the US and the Jews for the acts. To this day most Muslims believe that the Jews orchestrated 9/11.
2) Their refusal to integrate into the societies that have made life so good for them, especially the west, and that have allowed them escape the misery that their own Muslim societies with their allegiance to an outdated Islamic system have inflicted on them.
3) Most importantly the internet and recent publications has revealed the truth about Islam and its founder, Muhammad. It is now well known that Muhammad was a psychopath who indulged in sex with children in his fifties, was a slave owner, had fathered an illegitimate son with his slave girl, 15 year old Maria who was also a Christian, carried out ethnic cleansing of Jews in Arabia and stole half of Arabia from them, insulted God by inventing Allah and making this evil god the sole deity for Muslims.
4) Their refusal to condemn atrocities in Iraq, Muslims upon Muslims and also the shameful Islamic apartheid practiced in Saudi Arabia where non-Muslims may not enter Mecca and Medina, may not openly worship anywhere in the kingdom, may not build churches, synagogues and other places of worship in Saudi Arabia. Muslims give implicit approval for the Islamic apartheid by continuing to do the hajj to Mecca, thereby saying that " the apartheid is fine with us".
The Muslims can do the following and, although it will take time, eventually Muslims will have won some respect from non-Muslims.
1) Declare that Islam was not revealed by God and admit that Islam is a harmful faith. Muslims should condemn outright Muhammad and Islam. Muslims should stop insulting God by associating Muhammad and Allah with Him.
2) Stop doing the hajj. By doing so they will send a powerful message that they will not tolerate apartheid. If Saudi Arabia stops the apartheid and the first church is built in Mecca and in Medina, then the hajj may be resumed.
3) Return half of Saudi Arabia, the western half of Saudi Arabia, to its rightful owners, the Jews. Relocate all Muslims from Palestine and the West Bank to Muslim countries.
4) Agree that all Muslim immigration to non-Muslims countries be halted until secular democratic societies are built in all Muslim countries. This may take many years. Right now it is too easy for Muslims to escape the oppression in Muslim societies by escaping to non-Muslim countries, especially to the West. They have no incentive to fight oppression at home.
It will take time. But eventually Muslims may become an integral part of civilized human society.
September 23, 2007 8:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 23, 2007 08:16
Islam is being associated with violence and jihad in the minds of not only non-Muslims but also of many Muslims. The slogans of jihad are being raised by frustrated youth unable to find any other way and also by those who are fighting for national liberation and regional autonomy. Such slogans create strong images of holy war being ordained by Islam and Islam being religion of violence. And now what has happened in New York on 11th September 2001 and in Pentagon i.e. attacks on World Trade Centre with the help of hijacked planes will greatly strengthen this stereotype in the minds of people of the world in general and in the minds of Americans, in particular. The attack on WTC in New York and Pentagon in Washington is, to say the least, horrific and must be condemned in strongest possible and unambiguous terms.
It should be remembered that there is no relation between religion and violence, neither in Islam, nor in any religion for that matter. Violence is a social and political phenomenon. It is true that there is mention of war in scriptures like Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Qura’n. But this mention is not to establish any integral link between religion and violence but to portray certain social and political situation that prevailed at that time. It can be called integral only if these scriptures mandate violence as a desirable solution.
It is important to distinguish between what is empirical and ideological. The Twain do not always meet. While violence is empirical, peace is ideological. All scriptures, particularly the Qur’an while permitting violence in some inevitable situations, ordain peace as a norm. The great religions of the world came to establish justice and peace, not to perpetrate revenge and violence. Revenge and violence can never become part of any religion, much less that of Islam. Allah has created both in human beings – tendency for aggression and violence and exalted feeling for serenity of peace. Allah, according to the Qur’an, created human person in the best of mould (ahsan-i-taqwim) and then rendered him lowest of the low (95:4-5)
In fact it is this dynamics of human personality i.e. being created in the best of the mould and then being reduced to the lowest of the low that we have to understand the dynamics of peace and violence also. Allah desires peace and created us, for that purpose, in the best of the mould but our greed, greed for both wealth and power reduced us to an instrument of aggression and violence. For a human being there will always be an internal jihad, an internal struggle to rise to the level of ahsan-i-taqwim (best of the mould) and continuously resist the temptations of wealth and power.
The Qur’an strengthens the social roots of peace by emphasising the role of need based economy and resolutely opposing greed based one. The roots of violence, as pointed out above, lie in human greed. Thus we find in the Qur’an, “They ask thee what should we spend. Say what is surplus.” (2:219) It is obvious from this verse that you spend on yourself according to your personal needs and give away the surplus with you to other needy people. Similarly the Qur’an prescribes in yet another context that the wealth should not circulate among the rich only. (59:7). And it also exhorts Muslims that those who hoard gold and silver and do not give them away in the way of Allah announce to them the painful chastisement.(9:34)
Thus the Qur’an wants to establish peace not superficially by exhorting the believers to love peace but tries to tackle the very socio-economic roots of conflict. If few people or countries grab largest part of the resources of the world and live in all comfort and deny other people even their basic needs violence and conflict will result whatever the pleadings for peace. Or, if some people commit aggression unjustifiable against others to keep their own dominance and deny others their very basic rights, it will be impossible to maintain peace is such unjust political order.
The Qur’an draws our attention to such a situation also as the Prophet and his followers were persecuted by the powerful and the rich chiefs of Mecca to maintain their own hegemony and were forced to flee from that town which was rightfully theirs. It is such persecution by the powerful, in order to maintain their hegemony that violence results. The Qur'an is opposed to an unjust order and domination by few powerful whom it calls mustakbirun (i.e. arrogant and powerful). They persecute the weak (mustad`ifun). If such an unjust order persists violence will result, however undesirable it may be.
Allah thus says in the Qur’an, “And what reason have you not to fight in the way of Allah, and of the weak (mustad`ifin) among the men and the women and the children, who say: Our Lord, take us out of the town, whose people are oppressors, and grant us from Thee a friend and grant us from Thee a helper.” This verse in the Qur’an combines both what is empirical and what is ideological. The weak when oppressed are more likely to fight and resist an unjust order. This is empirical. But the above verse also makes an ideological statement when it says that the weak among men, women and children pray that our Lord take us out of this town (Mecca) whose people are oppressors and grant us from Thee a friend and a helper. Thus the Qur’an makes it clear that one must not live in an unjust order and seek helper from Allah to relive them of injustice.
It is also important that the Qur’an more then once focuses our attention on the on going conflict between mustakbirun and mustad`ifun i.e. between the arrogant and powerful and the weak and the oppressed. The arrogant and powerful is represented by Nimrod and Pharoa and the weak and oppressed by Abraham and Moses. Both Abraham and Moses were liberators. But they liberated their oppressed people not through violence but through struggle leading them out of the unjust order, unjust situation.
There will always be struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed, the powerful and the weak but this struggle need not be violent. It much depends on situation. The Prophet (PBUH) himself prefers peace at Hudaybia (sulh-i-Hudaybia) than war even at the cost of pride of Muslims. The peace conditions (I need not go into details of those conditions here, which are quite well known) were far from favourable to Muslims but the Prophet of Islam accepted those conditions in order to avoid bloodshed. However, the Prophet could do so as the other side also, due to certain constraints, accepted peace on their own terms.
If the other side was bent upon war there would have been no choice for the Prophet but to accept the situation and fight the war. It much depends what situation you are facing. One cannot talk of war and peace quite in an abstract manner. Thus socio-political and socio-economic context plays great role in deciding whether peace will prevail or not.
One thing is sure: Islam does not even indirectly hint at coercion, let alone violence, when it comes to any religious or spiritual question. Thus it becomes quite clear that Islam being religion does not approve of violence at all in any religious matter. However, if Muslims are put in a particular situation which is unjust (not only for them but for humanity as such) they may have to struggle peacefully (and if violence is thrust on them, reluctantly through violence) to remove the cause of injustice.
It is quite important to note that liberative struggle should never be confined to Muslims alone. It is quite significant for theology of peace in Islam that throughout the text of the Qur’an we find the words mustakbirun and mustad`ifun i.e. arrogant and the weak or oppressors and the oppressed without an qualification of being Muslim or not. Thus even if arrogant and oppressor is a Muslim, one will have to struggle against him and even if an oppressed and persecuted is non-Muslim Muslims will have to wage struggle against him.
Thus the struggle nowhere involves Islam as a religion but Muslims as upholders of peace and justice. Yes, it is true justice and peace (and for that matter compassion) are also Islamic values but they are also universal values applicable not only to Muslims but to all whether they be Muslims or not. Thus, as far as justice and peace is concerned the clash is not between Islam and any other religion but it is primarily between oppressors and the oppressed. It is wrong to implicate Islam if some Muslims choose to adopt violent means to achieve their goal. Islam does not automatically approve of violent means if any injustice or exploitation is to be fought.
The Qur’an does not permit use of violence as a norm at all. All the verses involving permission to use violence is preceded by the words “if they commit violence against you….”. Thus we find in verse 2:190 “And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allah does not love aggressors.” (emphasis added)
Thus it is very clear from this verse that Qur’an does not permit unconditional war and aggression and Allah does not love aggressors. But permits fighting in the way of Allah only if war is imposed by others. The words in the way of Allah are also very important here. Fighting in the way of Allah would restrain Muslims from committing aggression and excesses. Fighting in the way of Allah would mean fighting only for a just cause, not for power and wealth, fighting only if war is imposed on them and not involving personal or collective feeling of revenge. When Ali the son-in-law of the Prophet (PBUH) defeated a powerful foe in the battle and was about to kill him that he spat on his face. Ali immediately got off his chaste and let him go. The defeated foe was greatly surprised as he expected greater violence from Ali after he spat on him. Ali told hi if I had killed you after you spat on me it would have been an act of revenge. Thus Islam does not permit killing for revenge. Revenge killing is not a religious act; its main reason is human tendency to retaliate. Arabs used to call it qisas and Qur’an permits it in keeping with the prevailing tradition as it tolerated slavery as a concession to the prevailing system. But as it makes clear that human dignity and equality is the norm, not slavery. Similarly while it permits qisas it makes it clear that one should not be revengeful and should suppress anger. One who suppresses anger (kazim al-ghayz) is a person of great merit.
The Qur’an says, “Those who spend in ease as well as in adversity and those who restrain (their) anger and pardon men.” And Allah loves the doers of good (to others).” (3:133). Thus it becomes clear from above verse that to restrain ones anger and to pardon is an act of merit, a religious act. Thus one should not use violence even as an act of revenge. To restrain anger and to pardon are great acts of merit. Violence in any form, except in defence, is most deplorable. Humanity cannot flower in an atmosphere of violence.
The pre-Islamic Arab society was highly violent society. Various tribes fought against each other for decades on end. Thus before the Holy Prophet migrated to Medina the two principal pagan tribes of Medina Khazraj and Aus had been fighting against each other for more than four decades. The Prophet was invited there by the members of these two tribes as peace maker and the Prophet did bring peace between these two tribes and old enmity was happily resolved. But to stamp out violence from the Arab psychology and Arab society was not an easy project. Many Arab tribes had economically survived through raids on other tribes (it was called ghazw)
The pre-Islamic Arabs, as pointed out, not only indulged in qisas but were used to settle all questions through use of violence and thus violence continued in the society. There was no concept of spirituality and higher morality. It is Islam, which brought, for the first time, the concept of higher morality to the Arab society. Peace (salam) was part of this higher morality. It was in view of the violence in the Arab society that even greeting between two Muslims was made as Al-salam-u-‘alaykum (i.e. peace be upon you) and it is the principal form of greeting among the Muslims.
However, the post-Islamic Arab society did not easily imbibe the higher Islamic morality. It required inner struggle to control oneself and it was for this reason that many Muslim thinkers, particularly the Sufi thinkers called this inner struggle to control ones desires and raw passions as jihad-e-akbar (i.e. the great jihad and real jihad) and described war with sword as jihad-e-asghar (i.e. small jihad). The Sufis were the pacifists of Islam and those who kept themselves away from the violent struggle for power and also practised great restraint. They thus could imbibe the higher morality of Islam.
One can understand the nature of Arab society and the deep stamp of violence on it from the fact that after the depth of the Holy Prophet his successors – Caliphs hardly got time to promote higher Islamic morality akhlaq-i-karim. The holy Prophet himself was described as uswa-i-hasanah (best examplar) by the Qur’an. Thus Qur’an says, “Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent examplar for him who hopes in Allah and the Latter day, and remembers Allah much.” (33:21)
But the Arabs with few honourable exceptions hardly followed this best examplar in the true spirit. Civil war broke out soon after his death (war of riddah) as many tribes wanted to return to their ancestral religion and refused to pay zakah the Islamic tax. Four of the three Khulufa-i-Rashidun (the rightly guided caliphs) were murdered. The third and fourth caliphs (Uthman and Ali) had to face tumultuous times and rebellions resulting in more than one hundred thousand deaths.
Thus one can understand the great gap between what was ideological – peace – and what was empirical – violence. The great tragedy of Karbala on 10th of Muharram when the grand son of the Prophet was martyred by the forces of evil as he tried to revive the higher Islamic morality. The Umayyads usurped power and indulged in violence and terror to retain it. Yusuf al-Hajjaj, governor of Iraq, during the Umayyad period, was a great terror and was quite ruthless in eliminating his enemies. The Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs with some exceptions had no compunctions in resorting to violence. The founder of the Abbasid dynasty was known as al-Saffah, which means one who sheds blood.
Before Islam there was inter-tribal violence. After Islam the social and political scenario changed. All tribes embraced Islam and the very nature of their economic sustenance through inter-tribal raids changed but inter-tribal rivalries persisted. One more factor was added to this. Now centralised state came into existence, which did not exist before Islam and inter-tribal struggle for power to capture the state began often resulting in great blood bath. Thus when the Abbasids captured power from Umayyads the Abbasids hunted down all Umayyads including their children and killed them. This violence was direct result of struggle for power.
All inter-tribal violence in the post-Islamic period was result of struggle for power and had nothing to do with Islam. In other words it was empirical rather than ideological. There is hardly any evidence in history of violence for spreading of Islam. As far as spreading of Islam was concerned the Qur’anic directive was very clear that “call people to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation and argue with them in the best manner.” (16:125) One can argue that this again is an ideological statement and that empirical reality was different in the sense that Islam spread through sword. This is simply not true. Firstly, no religion can spread through bloodshed and terror and secondly there is hardly any evidence of this in history.
Islam either spread through Sufi saints who were good examplars of Islamic morality rather than the rulers who were any way seen as tyrants. It was sufi saints who were carriers of real message of Islam and peace by keeping their distance from the power centres. Also, many people adopted Islam simply because it was religion of the rulers and had many advantages. Also, once a prominent member of the community or a tribal chef adopted Islam other members of the community or tribe followed. Thus it is not borne out even empirically that Islam spread through violence. There is even the instance of the Umayyad caliphs stopping conversion to Islam as their treasury was getting depleted as the converts stopped giving jizyah
ISLAM AND PEACE
The Qur’an, as pointed out above, tried to spread higher morality of which peace was the most important component. In fact the word Islam itself is derived from the root slm which is the root letters for peace. Islam means establishing peace as well as surrendering to the Will of Allah. One of the Allah’s name is Salam i.e. peace. Many Muslims are named as Abdus Salam i.e. servant of peace which also means servant of Allah as Allah is peace.
In Qur’an there are repeated references to the concept of peace. Significantly the Qur’an calls upon Muslims, “O you who believe, enter into complete peace and follow not the footsteps of the devil. Surely he is your open enemy.” (2:208) Entering into complete peace here means entering into peace whole-heartedly. It would also imply surrendering to Allah whole-heartedly. Acceptance of violence as the other part of the verse says is like following in the footsteps of devil. Violence is devil and devil is violence.
In the verse 2:131 Allah says submit and reply is given I submit myself to my Rabb of the worlds. Now rabb in Arabic means one who is sustainer or one who takes us step by step from one stage of perfection to another stage of perfection. Thus submitting to Allah, or accepting His authority means dedicating oneself to the cause of peace so that this universe reaches perfection. Perfection is possible only if there is peace, not otherwise. In fact violence destroys all the achievements of culture and civilisation. Since Allah is Rabb i.e. the Sustainer and Perfecter, he ordains peace and those who surrender to His Will have to work for peace so that perfection could be reached.
We find in the Qur’an (14:23) “And those who believe and do good are made to enter Gardens, wherein flow rivers, abiding by their Lord’s permission. Their greeting therein is Peace!”. Thus it will be observed that jannah (Garden) is so as there is peace therein. Thus the main quality of jannah for which all Muslims aspire is peace. This world can become like jannah only if there is peace in the world. For entering the jannah Allah says, “ Enter it (i.e. jannah) in peace and security.” (15:46) Thus peace and security are the main attributes of paradise.
Muslims invoke peace for all Allah’s messengers because they brought the message of peace for entire humanity. Thus Muslims always write peace be upon him after the name of the Prophet, in fact all prophets of Allah. All Messengers of Allah are messengers of peace as Allah Himself, as pointed out above, is Peace. Again in the verse 56:25-26 we read "They hear therein (i.e. Paradise) no vain or sinful talk but only the saying, Peace! Peace.”
Thus peace is so vital for converting this world into paradise. Its opposite i.e. violence is sin. Sin is nothing if not selfish behaviour. We have converted this earth into a violent place because of our interest-oriented behaviour. The harmony of interests is possible only in need based economy. Clash of interests result from greed-based economy. Our world today is full of violence as we clash with each other for our greed. Islam wanted to establish peace on this earth and hence it emphasised need-based economy and condemned accumulation of wealth, circulation of wealth among the rich. The chapter 104 clearly says that obsession with wealth results in fire kindled by Allah.
.
Same thing happens if we are obsessed with power. Thus this earth can enjoy peace only if some people are not obsessed with wealth and power. Islam laid equal emphasis on justice (Allah’s name is also Just ‘Adil along with Peace, Salam). Thus justice and peace go together. There cannot be peace without justice. Today there is no peace on earth as there is no justice. We are living in a violent world because we live in an unjust world. The Muslim world is also full of injustices and hence of violence. Islam did its best to emphasise justice and peace but a section of Muslims, particularly Muslim rulers remained obsessed with wealth and power and perpetrated injustices and violence. Thus the blame for violence lay on the doors of some Muslims not on Islam. As far as Islam is concerned justice and peace are integral parts of its teachings.
Moreover for millions of Muslims Islam is a deep spiritual experience. They pray, fast, perform Hajj and all other spiritual practices and feel deeply satisfied. They pray for peace. Such Muslims are in overwhelming majority. They have nothing to do with politics, violence or use of Islam for ones interests. It is these Muslims who seek deep spiritual fulfilment who matter and not the few who use or misuse it for political purposes. For millions of Muslims Islam, like any other religion, is a great source of inner peace.
Some countries like America bomb countries in the name of democracy and human rights some Muslims commit acts of violence and terror in the name of Islam. Is there any difference between the two? How does it matter if the people are killed in the name of democracy and freedom or in the name of Islam? We must try to learn between ideals and their misuse by some vested interests or frustrated people.
*******************************
Institute of Islamic Studies,
September 23, 2007 7:28 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 23, 2007 07:28
Islam is being associated with violence and jihad in the minds of not only non-Muslims but also of many Muslims. The slogans of jihad are being raised by frustrated youth unable to find any other way and also by those who are fighting for national liberation and regional autonomy. Such slogans create strong images of holy war being ordained by Islam and Islam being religion of violence. And now what has happened in New York on 11th September 2001 and in Pentagon i.e. attacks on World Trade Centre with the help of hijacked planes will greatly strengthen this stereotype in the minds of people of the world in general and in the minds of Americans, in particular. The attack on WTC in New York and Pentagon in Washington is, to say the least, horrific and must be condemned in strongest possible and unambiguous terms.
It should be remembered that there is no relation between religion and violence, neither in Islam, nor in any religion for that matter. Violence is a social and political phenomenon. It is true that there is mention of war in scriptures like Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Qura’n. But this mention is not to establish any integral link between religion and violence but to portray certain social and political situation that prevailed at that time. It can be called integral only if these scriptures mandate violence as a desirable solution.
It is important to distinguish between what is empirical and ideological. The Twain do not always meet. While violence is empirical, peace is ideological. All scriptures, particularly the Qur’an while permitting violence in some inevitable situations, ordain peace as a norm. The great religions of the world came to establish justice and peace, not to perpetrate revenge and violence. Revenge and violence can never become part of any religion, much less that of Islam. Allah has created both in human beings – tendency for aggression and violence and exalted feeling for serenity of peace. Allah, according to the Qur’an, created human person in the best of mould (ahsan-i-taqwim) and then rendered him lowest of the low (95:4-5)
In fact it is this dynamics of human personality i.e. being created in the best of the mould and then being reduced to the lowest of the low that we have to understand the dynamics of peace and violence also. Allah desires peace and created us, for that purpose, in the best of the mould but our greed, greed for both wealth and power reduced us to an instrument of aggression and violence. For a human being there will always be an internal jihad, an internal struggle to rise to the level of ahsan-i-taqwim (best of the mould) and continuously resist the temptations of wealth and power.
The Qur’an strengthens the social roots of peace by emphasising the role of need based economy and resolutely opposing greed based one. The roots of violence, as pointed out above, lie in human greed. Thus we find in the Qur’an, “They ask thee what should we spend. Say what is surplus.” (2:219) It is obvious from this verse that you spend on yourself according to your personal needs and give away the surplus with you to other needy people. Similarly the Qur’an prescribes in yet another context that the wealth should not circulate among the rich only. (59:7). And it also exhorts Muslims that those who hoard gold and silver and do not give them away in the way of Allah announce to them the painful chastisement.(9:34)
Thus the Qur’an wants to establish peace not superficially by exhorting the believers to love peace but tries to tackle the very socio-economic roots of conflict. If few people or countries grab largest part of the resources of the world and live in all comfort and deny other people even their basic needs violence and conflict will result whatever the pleadings for peace. Or, if some people commit aggression unjustifiable against others to keep their own dominance and deny others their very basic rights, it will be impossible to maintain peace is such unjust political order.
The Qur’an draws our attention to such a situation also as the Prophet and his followers were persecuted by the powerful and the rich chiefs of Mecca to maintain their own hegemony and were forced to flee from that town which was rightfully theirs. It is such persecution by the powerful, in order to maintain their hegemony that violence results. The Qur'an is opposed to an unjust order and domination by few powerful whom it calls mustakbirun (i.e. arrogant and powerful). They persecute the weak (mustad`ifun). If such an unjust order persists violence will result, however undesirable it may be.
Allah thus says in the Qur’an, “And what reason have you not to fight in the way of Allah, and of the weak (mustad`ifin) among the men and the women and the children, who say: Our Lord, take us out of the town, whose people are oppressors, and grant us from Thee a friend and grant us from Thee a helper.” This verse in the Qur’an combines both what is empirical and what is ideological. The weak when oppressed are more likely to fight and resist an unjust order. This is empirical. But the above verse also makes an ideological statement when it says that the weak among men, women and children pray that our Lord take us out of this town (Mecca) whose people are oppressors and grant us from Thee a friend and a helper. Thus the Qur’an makes it clear that one must not live in an unjust order and seek helper from Allah to relive them of injustice.
It is also important that the Qur’an more then once focuses our attention on the on going conflict between mustakbirun and mustad`ifun i.e. between the arrogant and powerful and the weak and the oppressed. The arrogant and powerful is represented by Nimrod and Pharoa and the weak and oppressed by Abraham and Moses. Both Abraham and Moses were liberators. But they liberated their oppressed people not through violence but through struggle leading them out of the unjust order, unjust situation.
There will always be struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed, the powerful and the weak but this struggle need not be violent. It much depends on situation. The Prophet (PBUH) himself prefers peace at Hudaybia (sulh-i-Hudaybia) than war even at the cost of pride of Muslims. The peace conditions (I need not go into details of those conditions here, which are quite well known) were far from favourable to Muslims but the Prophet of Islam accepted those conditions in order to avoid bloodshed. However, the Prophet could do so as the other side also, due to certain constraints, accepted peace on their own terms.
If the other side was bent upon war there would have been no choice for the Prophet but to accept the situation and fight the war. It much depends what situation you are facing. One cannot talk of war and peace quite in an abstract manner. Thus socio-political and socio-economic context plays great role in deciding whether peace will prevail or not.
One thing is sure: Islam does not even indirectly hint at coercion, let alone violence, when it comes to any religious or spiritual question. Thus it becomes quite clear that Islam being religion does not approve of violence at all in any religious matter. However, if Muslims are put in a particular situation which is unjust (not only for them but for humanity as such) they may have to struggle peacefully (and if violence is thrust on them, reluctantly through violence) to remove the cause of injustice.
It is quite important to note that liberative struggle should never be confined to Muslims alone. It is quite significant for theology of peace in Islam that throughout the text of the Qur’an we find the words mustakbirun and mustad`ifun i.e. arrogant and the weak or oppressors and the oppressed without an qualification of being Muslim or not. Thus even if arrogant and oppressor is a Muslim, one will have to struggle against him and even if an oppressed and persecuted is non-Muslim Muslims will have to wage struggle against him.
Thus the struggle nowhere involves Islam as a religion but Muslims as upholders of peace and justice. Yes, it