Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari
From MEMRI, with thanks to Steve Z, comes the assertion by Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, former dean of the Faculty of Islamic Law at the University of Qatar, that the term jihad is being misused by radical Muslims. He says that "Jihad, in its true sense as defined in the Koran and as implemented by the Prophet [Muhammad] and his noble companions, is a means of defending differences, pluralism, and diversity."
Hmm. Sounds as if the Prophet Muhammad was sort of a Proto-John Kerry. But if Al-Ansari is right, of course, then the defeat of radical Islamic theology, which is used every day to recruit terrorists, is at hand. All that moderate Muslims have to do is go to the radicals with a Qur'an and a sira (biography of the Prophet) and show them how he defended differences, pluralism, and diversity.
Unfortunately, however, the assessment of Ibn Warraq is correct: "For every text the liberal Muslims produce, the mullahs will use dozens of counter-examples [that are] exegetically, philosophically, historically far more legitimate." I have written an entire book about the meaning of jihad and radical Islam's use of the term; suffice it here to quote just one tradition of Muhammad:
Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war ... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [the special tax for non-Muslims]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294)
Doesn't seem quite like encouraging pluralism to me. It would have been interesting if al-Ansari had attempted to answer objections of that kind, rather than just blandly asserting that the Prophet teaches diversity. Anyway, here is the report on what he did say:
In an article in the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, former dean of the Faculty of Islamic Law at the University of Qatar, stated that modern Islamic Fatwas (religious legal opinions) distort the meaning of Jihad to justify an aggressive ideology. The following are excerpts of his article:(1)Jihad's True Definition: 'A Means of Defending Differences, Pluralism and Diversity'
"Following a kind invitation from the Kuwaiti Ministry of Religious Endowments and Islamic Affairs, I participated last month in the seventh annual meeting on innovation in modern and future Islamic ideology.
"The meeting was attended by leading ulama [religious Muslim scholars] from across the Islamic world. The meeting was called to discuss 'Islam and Regional and Global Cooperation.' I was asked to prepare a paper on 'Trends in Understanding the Concept of Jihad and the Confusion Regarding this Term in Fatwas In Light of the Interests of the Muslim people.' This is a lengthy title, and what it meant was to clarify the true meaning of Jihad and how the Fatwas are confused about what [should be] considered Jihad and what should not, in light of contemporary applications.
"My paper dealt with basic elements of the contemporary applications [of Jihad]. Cooperation is not a matter of choice, but rather a vital necessity in an age in which interests dovetail, and no one country, no matter how powerful, can be self-sufficient, and the guardians of backwardness, who scare us off from opening up, on the pretext of safeguarding [our] unique identity, are actually going against the Koranic text...
"Jihad, in its true sense as defined in the Koran and as implemented by the Prophet [Muhammad] and his noble companions, is a means of defending differences, pluralism, and diversity. That is, it is [a means] of defending freedom of choice [as is written in the Koran] 'There is no coercion in Islam'...[2:256] From the beginning, Jihad has been defined by two goals: The first was a response to aggression and oppression [as told in the Koran 22:39]: 'To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily, Allah is most powerful in assisting.' The second [goal] is the liberation of the persecuted peoples from tyrannical regimes, as happened to the Persian and Byzantine peoples."
'The Muslim Public Has Been Deceived'"Then I raised the question: How was the meaning of Jihad distorted?
"The first ones to distort the concept of Jihad were the ancient Khawarij ['those who go out']. They rose up with arms against the Righteous Imam [i.e., the Caliph 'Ali Ibn Abi Taleb] and against the virtuous society of the companions of the Prophet. The Khawarij called themselves Al-Muwahhidoun ['the unifiers of God,' or monotheists] and they called their movement Jihad. The companions of the Prophet were not deceived by these shows of piety and numerous ritual acts; they called them Khawarij and saw their actions as insurrection and rebellion.
"In contrast, [today] the Muslim public has been deceived by the deeds of the new Khawarij, and considers bin Laden a Jihad warrior, and his deeds as required by Jihad. Even if they [i.e. Muslims] ostensibly condemned terrorism - the shows of rejoicing were universal and they believed that America deserved what happened to it, as a result of its subjective policy.
"During the modern era, the concept of Jihad has been distorted by the new Khawarij, those groups that took for themselves the title of Jihad. But [Jihad] against whom? Against their societies and governments. Their ideas were taken from the ideas of some Islamic thinkers such as Sayyed Qutb and [Abu A'la] Al-Mawdoudi. The perception of Jihad in the eyes of these two masters emerges from the assumption that the Muslims are the guardians of the human race, that Allah has charged them with liberating it from the tyrants on earth, and that Jihad is the only means of establishing an Islamic government that will rule the world."
'The Distortion of Jihad is Evident in Four Cases'
"The distortion of the meaning of Jihad among the political Islamic streams and among some leading Islamic figures was revealed in four cases:
1. "In the war to liberate Kuwait: The position of most of the Islamic circles was mistaken. Some saw the aggression [of Iraq against Kuwait] as Jihad for the sake of uniting the nation and liberating Jerusalem. Others, even if they condemned this aggression, thought that obtaining help from a foreign [party] is not permissible, and demanded [that there be] an Islamic Arab solution, which was impossible, and which would have turned the problem of Kuwait into something like the problem of Palestine.
2. "In liberating Afghanistan from the Taliban: Fatwas appeared calling on the youth to wage Jihad together with the Taliban - even though the Taliban were an oppressing group that shed blood, damaged Islam, and turned the towns into terrorist garrisons. How can Jihad be waged together with them?
3. "In the war on Saddam's regime: Many Fatwas appeared calling youth to Jihad. Many youth were deceived [by them] and went to Baghdad [to fight alongside Saddam's supporters] and the Iraqis themselves took vengeance upon them. How can the defense of a criminal regime that is unlike any other in history be Jihad? What will these sheikhs say tomorrow in front of the Wisest of Leaders [i.e, Allah] about their pushing innocent youths into the abyss, knowing that the forces were not equal? And if their perception is correct, why don't they send their own sons to wage Jihad?
4. The bombings in Saudi Arabia: There is a group of Jihad sheikhs who are professors of Islamic theology in the most veteran Islamic universities inciting Saudi youth to carry out these acts of terror on the pretext of Jihad. Jihad is innocent of this. This is the very essence of terrorism."
'The Explanation [for Jihad's Distortion can be Found] in An Examination of the Educational System, and in the Religious, Cultural, and Media Discourse'
"Finally, I raised an important question in my paper: How did this distortion of the meaning of the concept of Jihad come about?
"There were those who said that it was out of ignorance. But can the great sheikhs teaching the creed of the faith in distinguished universities be ignorant?
"There were those who said that it was due to oppression and lack of freedom. But these people are not interested in human freedoms, and in most Islamic societies there are reasonable margins in which it is possible to express an opinion. So why turn to violence?
"There were those who said that it was due to few work opportunities and high unemployment. But how does this correspond with the fact that [those who carried out the operations] had money and weapons, besides living in rich societies?
"There were those who said that [the reason for the distortion of the concept of Jihad] is the failure to implement Shari'a and the violation of Islamic law. But Shari'a is implemented to varying degrees in our societies. Additionally, [if this is true], what is the explanation for their rebellion against Saudi society, which implements Shari'a?
"There were those who said it was due to America's pro-Israel bias. But the Jihad organizations have only recently [begun] to wave the banner of Palestine. Similarly, the ideology of the [Jihad] movements maintains that [the world] is [now in] Jahiliyya [i.e. pre-Islamic era of ignorance]. Society, a tyrannical ruler, and the Arab regimes are considered 'the near enemy' against whom Jihad must be waged first, [prior to waging Jihad against] 'the distant enemy' - Israel and America.
"The truth is that there is no explanation for the distortion of the concept of Jihad, except for the fact that there is an aggressive ideology embedded in the hearts of some people.
"But where did this aggressive ideology come from? The explanation [lies] in an examination of the educational system, and in the religious, cultural, and media discourse.
"This is a summary of my paper, which sparked great controversy among the [conference] participants and commentators..."
Endnote:
(1) Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), April 15, 2004.
The Qur'an, Sura 4:47;
"O you who have been given the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Believe in what We have revealed (to Muhammad SAW) confirming what is (already) with you, before We efface faces (by making them like the back of necks; without nose, mouth, eyes, etc.) and turn them hindwards, or curse them as We cursed the Sabbathbreakers. And the Commandment of Allâh is always executed"
Of course I'm sure Muhammed meant for his followers to cut off the faces of Jews and Christians in a purely "defending differences, pluralism and diversity" type of a way.
Thats ok then chaps, isn't it??
kc.
Like the Communists, and some American politicians, Al-Ansari, gave a long answer that doesn't answer the given question. Verbiage some obfuscates and confuses the listener (questioner) so that the original question is forgotton. Perhaps he believes, or wants to believe, that the Prophet meant Jihad to mean "internal struggle," but the long road of history has demonstrated the truth about Jihad. If Jihad were only internal struggle, why would millions of Muslims for over a thousand years make the mistake of confusing "internal struggle" for war?
In the world of Islam, black is white and white is black. Muslims constantly defend their actions by using the Koran, the Hadith and the Sharia. But when their perfectly logical reasoning chain (starting from an absurd premise) leads to actions that the rest of the world condemns, they then say that what is plainly said does not really mean what it says, etc.
In many previous posts, I have stated outright that any more major attacks on the US will (and should) provoke a direct response on Saudi Arabia.
Call me a doe-eyed optimist, but I think I am seeing the beginning of Muslim recognition of this fact. While individually, they might be willing to die for Allah, the 'smarter' of them don't want Arabia to become the 'land of radioactive glass' (as someone put it).
This observation does not, however, mean that we should lower our vigilance against the cancer that is Islam. My wife, who has a masters degree in religion, continually reminds me that I am wrong to call Islam a 'death cult'. She says that it is a religion, as much as Judaism, Christianity or Buddhism, and a VERY strong one at that. I then rephrase my statement to say that Islam is a 'religion of death'. The problem then in the West, as I see it, is that we cannot imagine such beliefs in a religion, and cannot get our minds around how people can willingly believe such things and can willingly die for them. We (meaning the West in general) continually make the mistake of applying our morality and our reasoning to that which is totally foreign and alien. Islam has no morality or reasoning in our sense. Everything that is permitted or prohibited is spelled out. All knowledge is contained in the 'holy books'.
I am often asked, if Islam is so horrible, how can it be 'the world's fastest growing religion?' My answer boils down to this: men (and I do mean males) who feel that their life is worthless and totally our of their control, latch onto Islam to give their life order, commanded from the outside, that is by Allah. PLUS, they get to control their women, which makes them feel powerful indeed! Add to this the comfort of group acceptance, and a strong feeling of the holy US vs. the filthy, dirty infidel. Stir gently, over low heat for a long time, and you have a brainwashed person, who might look 'moderate' but who in his heart hates us as the OTHER.
I give no answers, just observations, alas.
Excellently expressed Ethylred! We in the West, particularly America, have been taught to believe in the inherent good in everyone. Some of us have been raised on idiotic programs like Barney--I love you, you love me, makes us happy as you can see. No. The Muslims don't see it that way. We're fat dumb and happy over here and their intention is far more passionate than Communism ever was. They really want us gone. As a society we just don't get it. There are elements in our country assiduously working against our safety and the continuation of our civilization. I don't know what's more frightening them or the Jihadists.
I think we should be encouraging people like this...not making fun of them. I say...don't attack the moderates.
Dear "A" - I would love to encourage a moderate Muslim, if I could find one that is direct and doesn't take a wishy-washy stance towards violence and jihad. Stating that they "regret" what happened is not a stance. Refusing to locate and turn in violent jihadists is not a stance against jihad, its complicity. As for al-Ansari, he didn't take stance either, he tried to explain jihad away as if his words would erase history and our present dilemma.
"I am often asked, if Islam is so horrible, how can it be 'the world's fastest growing religion?'"
Because it allows mankind to do what comes naturally--follow our imbedded sin nature. "Some" may think that we are inherently good, but when given the opportunity to show our real selves, we show that we are, more often than not, in it for "me".
Muslim man: Goes to "heaven" and gets to eternally pleasure himself with deflowering virgins--definitely into it for "self".
Muslim woman: I'm not sure what they get to do. According to what I've read about Islam, hell is 2/3 full of women because they didn't appreciate the selfishness of their men. Again, sounds like a very "me, me, me" man's perspective
Christian/Jew: Goes to Heaven and gets to eternally praise God--into it for God.
I was under the impression that Christianity was the fastest growing religion......and Islam was a rapidly growing pagan cult....
To mb: you gave more detail, but we are saying the same thing. I wish to add this:
In Islam, Human beings are nothing, Allah is everything. Allah demands praise and supplications to be forgiven. Allah knows and controls everything, their is no free will, all is predestined. THIS LIFE MEANS NOTHING and the afterlife is everything.
To A: I agree with epg. But don't take our word for it. Find a moderate Muslim and ask them if they believe that the Koran is the uncreated truth, true for time, past, present and future. They must say yes or they are apostates. Then ask about jihad, killing infidels, position of women, etc and see what happens. My guess is that they will resort to name-calling and shouting. Better yet, give YOUR opinion of Islam or Muhammad and watch the sparks fly. A Muslim's very being is so tied up with the supposed 'truth' of the Koran, etc, that they simply cannot partake in an open-minded discussion, since their 'feelings' could be hurt or they will feel 'humiliated.'
My guess is that deep down inside, way below consciousness, that they know it is all crap and makes no sense, but their very body rebels when faced with this fact.
MB has it right. Islam panders to what is basest in human nature and turns it into a virtue.
Perhaps Dr. al-Ansari and all who subscribe to his viewpoint on the true nature of jihad would care to purchase some real estate properties I have in Florida...Or, visit my natural lava flow site in Louisiana.....
Some time back I read a comment that I believe typifies the situation for the "Liberal" Muslims:
"No one in Nazi Germany escaped the pull of Nazi ideology. And, the ones who suffered the most, were the one's who saw through it, yet could not escape it's pull." (actually this is my paraphrase of the idea, but I think it has merit.)
I feel a deep sense of compassion for those who recognize the craziness of their ideology's thinking, yet cannot escape its pull. They are caught, literally, between a rock and a hard place. Underneath it all, they believe in the ideas that they espouse, even if they don't take them literally; but, they also don't want to fully embrace them because they see where such a road will take them. How horrible to be pulled apart like that!
Of course, you have to balance it with the fact that they are responsible for what they believe and how it influences them. I am reminded, in this case of another quote I read about the Nazi's. After the war, many former Nazis and former Nazi sympathizers went to Switzerland to seek out psychotherapy from C.G. Jung. Whenever he faced such a person, he asked them a simple question: "What do you think about the death camps? About Auschwitz and all?" If they did not condemn it, he refused to take them on as a client because, "they were still beyond hope." I kind of think this analogy describes the situation of the Liberal Muslims. Either they will have to acknowledge the sickness inherent within the Islamic faith, or they too are quite beyond help. Sad, really. :-(
Ethylred, if your wife has a masters degree in religion she should understand that Islam is more than a religion. It is a social, cultural and political system masquerading as a religion. But, in reality, you are correct. Islam is a cult. Uses the same sorts of methods that cults use to isolate and brainwash people.
I don't believe there is such a thing as a "moderate" Muslim. Those who pick and choose their Qur'anic passages to believe are apostates. Those who condemn Islamic atrocities committed because Islam commands it are no longer Muslims.
Here, then.
I am a moderate Muslim and an American. Ask away, and perhaps we can hash through some of our differences.
kcEngland, in regard to your post about Sura 4:47, which you found so repulsive.
Here is the Surah again, for clarity:
"O you unto whom the Scriture hath been given! Believe in what We have revealed confirming that which ye possess, before We destroy countenances so as to confound them, or curse them as We cursed the Sabbath-breakers (of old time). The commandment of Allah is always executed." (Translation by Pickthall)
Your criticism centered around the fact that you believe that this verse is spoken first person by Muhammad(peace be upon him)- which makes it appear that he is threatening those who don't believe him with torture. Which would make sense, if the verse was supposed to represent the words of Muhammad(pbuh).
But it isn't- if you read about the structure of the Qur'an, you will find that the word "We" is used to refer to God. The Qur'an is not supposed to represent the words of Muhammad(pbuh), but the words of God as related by Muhammad(pbuh).
This is why Muhammad(pbuh) as referred to as "the messenger" of God (RasoolAllah in Arabic) by Muslims.
In fact the story of Muhammad's first "message" (in quotes because I know none of you actually believe in it) illuminates this fact.
I'm paraphrasing here because I don't have the particulars of this tale sitting before me, but the story is that at some point when Muhammad(pbuh) was in his 40th year, he was meditating in a cave on a mountain overlooking his city of Mecca, a habit he had aquired as he aged. Supposedly on this particular evening he suddenly felt a crushing weight pressing down upon him, and felt (more than heard) a sudden command from this force:
READ!
Muhammad, reportedly illiterate and in great fear and shock, replied:
But I cannot read!
The sensation or voice came again, saying:
READ, MUHAMMAD, THE WORDS OF THY LORD, ALLAH!
At which point Muhammad(pbuh), in pain from the weight upon him, turned and fled down the mountain to his wife Khadija at their house in Mecca. He said to her "cover me, protect me!" and was reportedly shaking severely and sweating as if he had a fever, though it was a cold night. She sat him down and covered him up in his cloak, and it was a couple of years before anything similar happened- at which point these revelations began to come more rapidly, and he began to preach the message he thought was coming straight from God.
For this reason, some of the Suras begin:
"Read, O Muhammad:", or "Say:" and then a verse follows. So, the words of the Qur'an are seen by Muslims as the actual word of God, as translated into human terms through Gods use of a man to relay His message.
[I'll explain how this pertains to the verse you quoted in a few minutes- so if anybody reads this in the next few minutes note that it is incomplete and I am posting it because I don't want my computer to lose it while I take a break and stick some food in the microwave (its dinner time here).]
Well Trekker, I waited, then decided to go to bed.
Its now monday morning here in England, but you still don't seem to have finished your explanation.
So I'll go ahead and explain myself.
"Your criticism centered around the fact that you believe that this verse is spoken first person by Muhammad"
No. I realise that this verse is supposed to be allah speaking, for one because in the version I have used (The noble) the translaters have inserted "what we have revealed" just after the introduction.
I then made the comment that Muhammed meant for his followers to execute this command because, well, he did. Thats why he supposedly 'received' this 'revelation'.
It seems a common trait through the Qur'an that allah needs his followers to execute all his vengeance as he is apparently not able to do so.
In contrast with Yahweh who says "Vengeance is mine says the LORD, I will repay." Romans 12:19.
regards,
kc.
Well Trekker, I waited, then decided to go to bed.
Its now monday morning here in England, but you still don't seem to have finished your explanation.
So I'll go ahead and explain myself.
"Your criticism centered around the fact that you believe that this verse is spoken first person by Muhammad"
No. I realise that this verse is supposed to be allah speaking, for one because in the version I have used (The noble) the translaters have inserted "what we have revealed" just after the introduction.
I then made the comment that Muhammed meant for his followers to execute this command because, well, he did. Thats why he supposedly 'received' this 'revelation'.
It seems a common trait through the Qur'an that allah needs his followers to execute all his vengeance as he is apparently not able to do so.
In contrast with Yahweh who says "Vengeance is mine says the LORD, I will repay." Romans 12:19.
regards,
kc.
Well Trekker, I waited, then decided to go to bed.
Its now monday morning here in England, but you still don't seem to have finished your explanation.
So I'll go ahead and explain myself.
"Your criticism centered around the fact that you believe that this verse is spoken first person by Muhammad"
No. I realise that this verse is supposed to be allah speaking, for one because in the version I have used (The noble) the translaters have inserted "what we have revealed" just after the introduction.
I then made the comment that Muhammed meant for his followers to execute this command because, well, he did. Thats why he supposedly 'received' this 'revelation'.
It seems a common trait through the Qur'an that allah needs his followers to execute all his vengeance as he is apparently not able to do so.
In contrast with Yahweh who says "Vengeance is mine says the LORD, I will repay." Romans 12:19.
regards,
kc.
Err..sorry about that guys...not sure what happened!
Sorry kc, I'm in a college dorm and got a bit distracted.
At any rate, I still beg to differ about the verse.
Commands that are supposed to be executed by Muslims in the Qur'an, for one thing, start with "O Muslims:" or "O ye who believe" or something similarly clear.
In line with this pattern, "We" in the Qur'an always refers to God, never to the Muslim community, neither does it imply that the ummah should act out the words of God where he has not directly commanded them to do so. Remember that in the story I related Allah speaks to Muhammad in first-person plural- and this is something He does throughout the Qur'an.
Thus the words "before We efface faces...and curse them as We cursed the Sabbath-breaker" is a threat from God that he would curse disbelievers, as he cursed those Jews who broke the sabbath in the Old Testament of the Bible. Muhammad and the Muslims are not commanded in any way to execute this verse. This verse couldn't refer to Muhammad and the Muslims in any way, as they weren't around to be the "We" who cursed the sabbath-breakers.
In fact, if you read the Qur'an and hadiths, you'll find that descriptions of "those whose faces have been effaced, heads turned hindwards" is a descriptions of the humiliations of those in hell, whose faces have been "turned hindwards" because in life they turned away from the truth.
In other words- the verse is potraying God threatening the disbelievers with hell, much as He did time after time in the Old Testament.
The believers are not commanded in this verse to commit any act against Jews or Christians, as the threat issued here to disbelievers is one of torture in the afterlife, not of pain or loss in this one.
Thanks for your reply Trekker.
I guess you realise that I believe the whole of the Qur'an came from Muhammeds 'inner voice' and not God, therefore all the commands of the Qur'an were indeed from Muhammed. Although I understand where you are coming from looking at it through a Muslims eyes.
Actually the verse I quoted was not the original one I was looking for, this was the one I wanted but at the time couldn't find it;
"The recompense of those who wage war against Allâh and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter Sura 5:33
(those 'waging war' being anyone who refuses to embrace Islam) and I would then have concluded with;
"Of course I'm sure Muhammed meant for his followers to cut off the hands and feet of Jews and Christians in a purely "defending differences, pluralism and diversity" type of a way."
Can I encourage you to read this guys testimony. He was a former professor in Islamic history at Al-Azhar university and Imam at a mosque in Cairo Egypt.
regards, kc