Hadiths
Of the four main sources of Shari`ah (Islamic Law), Hadith occupies a place second only to the Qur’an. Hadith enshrines the Sunnah (sayings, deeds, and tacit approval of the Prophet). It follows that Hadith and Sunnah are sometimes names for one and the same thing.

Teaching of Hadith by the Prophet

During his lifetime, the Prophet used to teach his Sunnah by three methods: verbal, written (dictation to scribes), and practical demonstration.

As far as the first method is concerned, the Prophet used to repeat important things thrice and then listen to what the Companions had learned from him. The second method includes all the letters of the Prophet to kings inviting them to Islam, and to Muslim governors detailing the rules of zakah and other legal matters. Likewise, the Prophet taught his Companions how to perform ablution, prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, etc. This represents the third method of teaching the Sunnah by the Prophet.

In this context, the role the Companions played in learning and teaching the Hadith of the Prophet. They used all the three methods applied by the Prophet for teaching the Sunnah. They also committed Hadiths of the Prophet to memory.

Writing Down of the Hadith (Tadwin Al-Hadith)

In Hadith literature, we are faced with hadiths that forbid and others that permit the writing down of hadiths.

Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri reported a hadith that forbids the writing down of hadiths: “Do not write from me anything except the Qur’an and whosoever has written anything from me other the Qur’an should erase it.”

This is the only sound hadith in this regard. Other often-quoted hadiths that forbid the writing down of hadiths are weak and unacceptable. The above mentioned hadith is recorded in Al-Bukhari, and according to him it is the statement of Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri himself. The hadith meant that nothing should be written with the Qur’an on the same sheet, as this might lead to mixing the text of the Qur’an with that of the Hadith. This command was given when the Qur’an was being revealed bit by bit and was yet incomplete.

Another interpretation of the hadith is that it was forbidden to write down hadiths in early days because all attention was to be paid to the Qur’an and its preservation. Then later on, when there was no fear of abandoning the Qur’an, the previous order was abrogated and the Companions were permitted to write down hadiths. On the other hand, we have evidence that the Prophet approved of writing down his hadiths.

We find that many Companions recorded hadiths. For example, `Abdullah ibn `Amr complained to the Prophet that he had a problem in memorizing what he heard from him, so the Prophet told him that he should seek the assistance of his right hand, that is, that he should write it down.

In addition, some fifty Companions and many followers are said to have possessed manuscripts (sahifah plural suhf), which was used as a term to designate compendia of Hadith that emerged during the century before the formation of the classical collections. The original sahifahs have been lost, but a very few copies have survived. An example is the sahifah of Hammam ibn Munabbih, who learned from Abu Hurayrah and from him he wrote his sahifah which contains 138 hadiths. This sahifah is believed to have been written down around the middle of the first century after the Hijrah (seventh century CE).

In the beginning of the second Hijri century, during the reign of `Umar ibn `Abd Al-`Aziz (AH 97-101/715-19 CE) the texts of Hadith were committed to writing. The Sunnah was collected in Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, and Khurasan. Leading theologians uttered some statements warning against unscrupulous reporters and their unreliable reports.

Imam Malik (d. AH 179/795 CE) was the first to undertake the comprehensive and systematic compilation of Hadith. His work is known as Al-Muwatta’ (The Trodden Path). Later, other compilations came into existence.

In this regard, it is very important to note that there are two kinds of compilations: musnad and musannaf. In musnad collections, hadiths are arranged alphabetically under the names of the Companions on whose authority these hadiths were reported. Examples of this kind are the Musnad of Ibn Hanbal (d. AH 164/241 CE) and the Musnad of Abu Dawud (d. AH 203/818 CE).

In musannaf collections, hadiths are recorded under various headings dealing with juridical subjects such as As-Sihah As-Sittah (The Six Authentic Books of Hadith) namely the compilations of Al-Bukhari (d. AH 256/870 CE), Muslim (d. AH 261/874 CE), An-Nasa’i (d. AH 302/914 CE), Abu Dawud (d. AH 200/835 CE), At-Tirmidhi (d. AH 279/892 CE), and Ibn Majah (d. AH 273/886 CE).

Evolution of the Science of Hadith

As time passed, many hadiths appeared due to several reasons. Some of these hadiths were not authentic. Therefore, it was quite necessary to sift out the authentic from the fabricated. One can say that this task was as necessary as that of removing the weeds from a flower bed. To be sure, the task was not that easy for early scholars to develop a tool by which they could regulate such immense Hadith literature.

It should be observed that the rules and criteria developed by Hadith scholars regulating their study of Hadith were meticulous, but some of their terminology varied from person to person, and their principles began to be systematically written down, but scattered among various books, for example, the Risalah of Ash-Shafi`i, the introduction to the Sahih of Muslim, and the Jami` of At-Tirmidhi. Many of the criteria of early Hadith scholars, such as Al-Bukhari, were deduced by later scholars from a careful study of which reporters or isnads (chains of transmission) were accepted or rejected by them.

In this way the science of Hadith (mustalah al-hadith) emerged. It was the purpose of this science to sift, organize, develop, and systemize earlier material. Scholars put forward theories, expanded biographical works of all generations, made full and well-defined classification of narrators and hadiths, and subjected works of leading compilers to vigorous scrutiny, sparing not even Al-Bukhari and Muslim.

Fabrication of Hadith

At this juncture, it is appropriate to mention something about the fabrication of hadiths. A fabricated hadith is one that is falsely ascribed to the Prophet while, in fact, he did not pronounce it; it is not permissible to narrate such hadiths. Most of the fabricated hadiths were introduced in Islamic literature by the fabricators themselves, that is, they forged the statements and invented the isnad from their own imagination.

Fabrication is divided into two categories: intentional and unintentional. Intentional fabrication was done by heretics, storytellers, various party leaders, and ignorant ascetics. It was also done due to political differences and prejudice for one’s own town, race, or imam.

Some of unintentional reasons behind the widespread phenomenon of the forgery of hadiths are given below:

1. Some transmitters took a well-known hadith and supported it with a new isnad just for the sake of novelty to attract the people around their transmission.

2. Some scholars committed a mistake in the transmission of the hadith when its isnad ends with a Companion or a successor only, so they attributed sayings to the Prophet while a Companion or a successor was responsible for them.

In order to sift out fabricated hadiths, some means were undertaken to carry out this uneasy task. Some of these means are comparing the hadiths of different students of the same scholar; comparing written documents and hadiths transmitted from memory; comparing the hadiths with related verses of the Qur’an and rational criticism.

Recent Hadith Debates

As mentioned in the very beginning, Muslims believe that the Sunnah of the Prophet, enshrined in the Hadith, was handed down by the Prophet himself and, therefore, it is regarded as an authentic and valid basis of Islamic law. This authenticity comes from the criticism of both the isnad and matn (text of hadiths) in order to distinguish between the genuine and the spurious. If few would still claim that criticism was directed only to the isnad, there is a possibility that many isnads are not authentic and this, in turn, belittles or even damages the authenticity and authority of the Sunnah as a source of Islamic legislation.

This is in response to some theses put by modern orientalists that early Hadith critics directed their attention to the criticism of the isnad and neglected textual criticism. In a recent study on Hadith textual criticism:

(1) that the opinion of some writers that very little attention was paid to testing the matn of the Hadith is based on fallaciousness;

(2) that the opposite thesis—that the Hadith scholars devoted as much attention to the study of the quality of the contents of the Hadith as to the chain of reporters—is correct on the basis of their works; and

(3) that their criticism of Hadith was a reliable method of authenticating the Sunnah.

-link


These books (Hadiths) were very authentic and the most authentic of them are the Sahihs of Al-Bukhari and Muslim. This leads us to the question, which is relating to the criteria for a hadith to be correct.

Hadiths are classified according to several criteria. The word correct is not one of the terms used for a classification. Perhaps sahih (authentic) or hasan (sound).

All those scholars stated certain conditions regarding the truthfulness and certainty of a certain transmitter so that a hadith is accepted from him or her. Al-Bukhari and Muslim were the most strict and thus secured the highest level of trustworthiness .

This shows that Muslim scholars were very cautious regarding the authenticity of the hadiths of the Prophet; they never accepted any hadith unless they verified its authenticity very well.

-link

[+/-] show/hide this post
al taqiyah
He who disbelieves in Allah after his belief in Him (is the liar) except he who is compelled while hiS heart re­mains steadfast with the faith (has nothing to worry). But he who opens his breast for infidelity, on these is the wrath of Allah, and for them is a great torment.
In many Dhimmi and anti Islamic websites the authors misrepresent al taqiyah as being a carte blanc for muslims to lie. It is on this basis they claim that Muslims cannot be trusted.

What many of these non-Muslim commentaors are is that they are certainly not scholars of Islam. There is some dispute between Muslim sects about the validity of al taqiyah , this article is to serve as to the nature of when al taqiyah is supported. It is clear that actions are in a well defined context and solely in religious terms for the protection of Islam and Muslims. It is not allowed outside of that context.

The literal meaning of al taqiyah is to safeguard; to defend; to fear; piety (because it saves one from the displeasure of Allah).

Every society, religion and group practices it and has practiced it at one time or the other. You will find so many examples of taqiyahin the Old and the New Testaments, and even in the lives of the Holy Prophets.

Belief and faith as well as the disbelief or re­jection of faith (in short, Iman and Kufr) are basically the matters of "heart". That is why Allah rebuked those newly‑converted Arabs who claimed to be `Believers':

the desert Arabs‑say: "We believe" : Say (unto them): "You believed not; rather say "we accepted Islam" be cause the Faith has not yet entered your hearts "
The declaration by tongue has a very minor role in it, A belief without declaration is acceptable but a declara­tion without belief is condemned in the Qur’an in seve­rest terms:


When come unto thee the hypocrites, they say: "We bear witness that verily you are the Messenger of Allah"; and verily Allah knows that you are certainly this Messenger; and verily Allah bears witness that the hypocrites are cer­tainly the liars.
Now remember that the life is very precious in the eyes of Islam. The importance attached to even one life is seen in this verse:‑

And he who saves it (i.e., a human life) shall be as though he has saved the whole mankind
And a Muslim is bound to save a life from unlawful destruction, whether it is some one else's or his own:
And cast not yourselves with your own hands into perdi­tion.
It is for this reason that suicide has been declared a capital sin just like murder; and it is for this reason that Shi'a Shari`ah does not allow starting a war with­out permission of the Prophet, Imam or their especially appointed deputies or in defense.


And it is to save the life of a believer that one is allowed al taqiyah.

When a person is in such a situation that no matter whichever course of action he chooses he has to commit an evil, then the reason says that he should se­lect the lesser evil.

Or if he is forced to destroy or damage one of his two possessions, then surely he would damage or destroy the less‑expensive item to save the more precious one.

Imam Fakhru 'd‑din ar‑Razi says commenting on the events of the Prophet Musa (as) and Khidr (as), mentioned in Surah al‑Kahf:
When one is confronted by two damaging alterna­tives, it is wajib to bear the lesser one in order to ward off the greater one; and this was the principle followed in the three actions (done by Khidr)
Islamic Shari`ah abounds with examples of this prin­ciple. Prayer is the most important pillar of Islam. But if you are praying and a child falls down a well, and there is no one else to save the child, the Shari’ah commands you to leave your prayer, and try to save the child. If you ignored this command, that prayer would not be ac­cepted, and you would be guilty of neglecting to save a life.


Now, suppose the unbelievers are determined to kill a Muslim, not because he has committed any crime but just because of his faith. The said Muslim goes into hid­ing and you know where he is. The unbelievers come to you and ask you whether you knew where that person was. You are caught between two evils: either you say `No' and become a liar, or you say `Yes' and cause the murder of an innocent Muslim. The reason says that tell­ing a lie in that situation is preferable than the truth which would lead to murder.

Now suppose that the unbelievers have caught a Mus­lim and that Muslim happens to be `You'. They put two alternatives before you: Either renounce Islam or be killed. If the flame of true Faith is lighting your heart, mere words of tongue cannot extinguish it at all. Those words of disbelief will be just like a dark cover to hide the light of your faith from the unbelievers, but they can have no adverse effect on the flame itself.

And if you do not hide that flame behind that cover, your life will be forfeited and with that you will lose the possibility of serving Islam at some other time.

In short, by uttering a few false words against Islam you will save your life as well as your faith; and by not ut­tering those words your life will come to its end and with it will vanish all chances of Islamic services which you could have rendered had you been alive. Allah, there­fore, has allowed you to save your life

Taqiyah is opposite of Nifaq. Remember, Iman and Kufr, when seen with their `declaration', can be divided in four categories only:
(1) Correct belief of Islam by heart and its declaration in words.


This is open Iman (faith).


(2) Belief against Islam by heart and expression of that anti‑Islamic belief in words.


This is open Kufr (infidelity). These two categories are opposite to each other and cannot combine in one place.


(3) Belief against Islam in heart but declaration of Islam in words.


This is Nifaq (hypocricy).


(4) Correct belief of Islam by heart but declaration of anti‑Islamic belief in words.


This is taqiyah, and these two categories (Nifaq and Taqyah are, likewise, opposite to each other and can never be found in one place.
As explained taqiyah and tuqat both are synoynmous. As‑Suyuti writes inter alia under this verse:
"And Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim have narrated through al‑`Awfi from Ibn 'Abbas (that he said about this verse): `So taqiyah is by tongue. Whoever is com­pelled to say something which is disobedience of Allah and he speaks it because of those people's fear while his heart remains steadfast in the faith, it will do him no harm; verily taqiyah is with the tongue only.'
Imam Fakhruddin ar‑Razi has mentioned some rules concerning taqiyah under this verse, some of which are given here:

Third Rule: Taqiyah is allowed in matters related to manifestation of friendship or enmity; and it is also allowed in matters connected to professing (their) reli­gion. But it is certainly not allowed in matters which af­fect other persons, like murder, fornication, usurpation of property, perjury, slander of married women or infor­ming the unbelievers about the weak points in the Mus­lims' defence.


"Fourth Rule: The Qur’anic verse apparently shows that taqiyah is allowed with dominant unbelievers. But according to the madhhab of Imam Shafi'i (May Allah be pleased with him) if the condition between (various sects of) the Muslims resembles the condition between the Muslims and the polytheists, then taqiyah (from the Muslims too) is allowed for the protection of one's life.


"Fifth Rule: Taqiyah is allowed for protection of life. The question is whether it is allowed for the protection of property; possibly that too may be allowed, because the Prophet (saw) has said: `The sanctity of a‑Muslim's property is like the sanctity of his blood'; and also he (saw) has said: `Whoever is killed in defence of his property, is a martyr'; and also because man greatly needs his property; if water is sold at exorbitant price, wudhu' does not remain wajib and one may pray with tayammum to avoid that small loss of property; so why should not this principle be applied here? And Allah knows better.


"Sixth Rule: Mujahid has said that this rule (of taqiyah) was valid in the beginning of Islam, because of the weakness of the believers; but now that the Islamic gov­ernment has got power and strength, it is not valid. But `Awfi has narrated from al‑Hasan (al‑Basri) that he said: `Taqiyah is allowed to the Muslims upto the day of resur­rection.' And this opinion is more acceptable because it is wajib to keep off all types of harm from one's self as much as possible."
Imam Bukhari has written a full chapter, Kitabul Ikrah, on this subject of compulsion, wherein he writes, inter alia:

And Allah said `except when you hale to guard your­selves against them for fear from them’. And it is Taqiyah.
And Hassan (Basri) said:
`Taqiyah is upto the Day of Resurrection .... And the Prophet (s.a:w.) said: `Deed are according to intention.
As‑Sayid ar‑Radi (the compiler of Nahj ul Balaghah) writes, inter alia, in explanation of the verse 3:28‑29:


"Then Allah made an exception (in. this rule of not keeping friendship with the unbelievers) and that excep­tion is the situation of taqiyah;


"It means that Allah bas permitted in this situation (when one is afraid of them) to show their friendship and one's inclination towards them `with tongue' but not with intention of heart."

Also, there are four verses in the Qur’an which allow eating unlawful food when one is starving to death and no lawful food is available: One of them says:
Verily, verily; He has but prohibited that which dies of itself and blood and swine flesh and whatsoever has other name than Allah's invoked upon it; but whoever is forced to it without the desire (for it) not to transgress (the limits) then it a no sin on him; verily Allah is Forgiving, Merci­ful'.
The same thing has been repeated in 5:3, 6:145 and 14:115.


Taqiyah is based on the principle of opting for the lesser evil. Telling a lie is not as big a sin as destroying a life. Therefore, lie is preferable to putting oneself in danger of life.

Now, if safety of one's own life depends upon putting another believer's life in danger, then, by the same rea­soning, taqiyah is not allowed, because one believer is going to die in any case. So, it is better for you to die than to cause the death of another believer.

By the same reasoning, if there is a likelihood that one's taqiyah may destroy the belief of other believers, then taqiyah is forbidden to such a person.

Take for example the case of Imam Husain (as). The character of Yazid is known. Such a person demands allegience from Imam Husain (as), the grandson of the Holy Prophet of Islam and symbol of Islamic values and relig­ious uprightness. Yazid had written to his governor of Madina to demand allegiance from Imam; and, if Imam refused, then the governor was to send his head to Da­mascus.

So Imam Husain (as) was well aware of the conse­quences of his rejection of that demand. Still, he knew that if he did swear allegiance to Yazid, Muslims would think that Yazid was the rightful successor of the Holy Prophet (saw), and thus all the debaucheries of Yazid would become a part of Islam. In short, Islam would have been completely disfigured if Imam Husain (as) had accepted Yazid as the legal Khalifah of the Holy Prophet.

Thus we come to the conclusion that if someone is of such a status that if he, resorted to taqiyah, others would be misled into un‑Islamic tenets and beliefs, then the basic principle demands that he should sacrifice his life but save others from going astray. One or more lives are not as important as one or more people's Faith and spiritual deliverance.

There is a dispute between Muslim sects about the validity of Taqiyah , this article is to serve as to the nature of when al taqiyah is supported. It is clear that actions are ina well defined context and solely in religious terms for the protection of Islam and Muslims.

Quran Sura 16 Verse 106-110
Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.

107. This because they love the life of this world better than the Hereafter: and Allah will not guide those who reject Faith.

108. Those are they whose hearts, ears, and eyes Allah has sealed up, and they take no heed.

109. Without doubt, in the Hereafter they will perish.

110. But verily thy Lord,- to those who leave their homes after trials and persecutions,- and who thereafter strive and fight for the faith and patiently persevere,- Thy Lord, after all this is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful

(16:106-110)
The growth and development of the Muslim Ummah is marked by two great phases:

- The period in Makkah, before the Hijrah (Migration)622 CE)

- The period in Madinah, after the Hijrah.
Naturally the revelation from Allah to guide the Muslims also responded, to some extent, to these particular situations.


Sura 16 was revealed in Mecca before migration . The muslims were just a minority in Mecca, they were severely persecuted and were subjected to some of the worst form of torture. Yet the Muslims remained firm in faith, There are many accounts of how people preferred death .

16:106 speaks volumes about the mercy and Justice of God . He does not punish people people who had uttered disbelief in the face of compulsion only by their mouths while their heart remained firm in faith. This verse further goes on to warn people of grevious punishment who completely forsook their religion in the face of oppression, This verse nowhere commands people to wilfully lie or decieve.

It is God here who will decide to forgive only those who are sincere in heart as it is only God who can see what is in the hearts of men.

In verse 16:106 God clearly says that the only ones who would be forgiven for uttering unbelief are the ones who's hearts remained pure under duress and compulsion.

So how can you say this verse encourages people to lie--- no matter how hard one tries, one can never feign sincerity . So it is the sincere heart which shall be forgiven if the mouth utters unbelief in the face of compulsion. Under no stretch of imagination it can be inferred that verse 16:106 and Verse 40:28 of the Quran encourages people to lie.

The Quran nowhere says that one should utter disbelief in the face of Compulsion.---

No where in the Noble Qur'an or the haadith teach us to give up our faith after we have accepted the truth, even when someone is holding you a gun on your head.

Remember, Allah(swt) Said we will be tested on this life.

How can we forget Bilal (ra)? He was tortured almost to death, but never announced his faith back.

Or what about the wife of pharaoh, Asia, who was killed by her own husband? And there was a maid from pharaoh's houshold, who was among very few believers. She was thrown on boiling oil together with her children, and never renounced her faith even though she was promised to go free if she converted back from Islam.

The Quran states that those who uttered disbelief under compulsion while their hearts remained firm in faith would be forgiven .



[+/-] show/hide this post
Ten Misconceptions About Islam
In this article, we will try to clear up many of the misconceptions that are prevalent about Islam. Before jumping into the list of misconceptions directly, it is important to give a little interesting background about the source of Islam.

Islam is the name of a way of life which the Creator wants us to follow. We avoid the word religion because in many non-Islamic societies, there is a separation of "religion and state." This separation is not recognized at all in Islam: the Creator is very much concerned with all that we do, including the political, social, economic, and other aspects of our society. Hence, Islam is a complete way of life.

The source of Islam is Allah, the Creator of everything known and unknown to us. He is One, and He is Unique. Allah has taught us about Islam via two mediums: the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Both the Qur'an and Sunnah were transmitted to us, humanity, via the Messenger of Allah: Muhammad bin Abdullah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him (saas). The Messenger of Allah was nothing more and nothing less than a mortal messenger of the immortal Creator.

The Qur'an is a book containing the literal Word of Allah. It was transmitted from Allah to an angel of His (Gabriel), and from the angel to the Messenger of Allah who delivered it to us. The Qur'an covers a wide variety of topics, including evidence to support its claim of being the Word of the Creator, stories of earlier generations, rules which humanity is asked to obey, and information about the Hereafter. The Qur'an claims that it is protected from change by other than Allah, and this is confirmed by its 1400 year history. The earliest copies and the latest copies are the same.

The Sunnah is the term used to describe how the Messenger of Allah (saas) lived his life. The Messenger's life is an example for all Muslims, or those who accept Islam, to follow. Whatever the Messenger (saas) did, said, or approved of is a source of Islam just as much as the Qur'an. The Messenger's role is not overemphasized: his life was dictated by what the Creator desired, and the Messenger did not add or subtract to Islam according to his own personal whim. His life was such that his wife called him "a walking Qur'an."

The Qur'an and Sunnah are the only two mediums by which Allah has directly taught us about Islam. This leads us to the following simple but critical principle:

If any man or woman engages in a belief or action which clearly contradicts the Qur'an or Sunnah, then that belief or action cannot be thought of as `Islamic'.
This rule applies whether the man or woman is Muslim or non-Muslim. Hence, we cannot equate Islam and the Muslims. Islam is the way of life; Muslims are people who claim to follow that way of life. A Muslim may claim to follow Islam, but be wrong. In the context of misconceptions, we can restate the above principle in a slightly different way:

Some misconceptions about Islam are due to the wrong beliefs and actions of Muslims, and others are due to a significant lack of understanding and false stereotyping by non-Muslims.

Several misconceptions are listed below. Instead of simply stating the misconception by itself, we have also included some reasons why people might adopt that misconception. Therefore, each entry in the list is given in the following form:

because:

o

o

o etc.
After each misconception and its possible reasons, we show briefly why the misconception is false by showing one or more of three possibilities:

1. a reason is false

2. the reason does not logically lead to the misconception

3. a key piece of information is being ignored

Our answers to the misconceptions are drawn from the Qur'an and Sunnah. All other approaches are insufficient: Islam is a way of life which is very firmly based on a scholarly approach, an approach which is based on knowledge.

Misconception 1

Islam is `the religion of peace' because:

o the Arabic word Islam is derived from the Arabic word "Al-Salaam" which means peace.

It might seem strange to think of this as a misconception, but in fact it is. The root word of Islam is "al-silm" which means "submission" or "surrender." It is understood to mean "submission to Allah." In spite of whatever noble intention has caused many a Muslim to claim that Islam is derived primarily from peace, this is not true. Allah says in the Qur'an (translated):

[2:136] Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed to us and that which was revealed to Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have surrendered. [Arabic "Muslimoon"]

A secondary root of Islam may be "Al-Salaam" (peace), however the text of the Qur'an makes it clear that Allah has clearly intended the focus of this way of life to be submission to Him. This entails submission to Him at all times, in times of peace, war, ease, or difficulty.

Misconception 2

In Islam, denial of human rights is OK because:

o Islam is against pure democracy

o Islam tolerates slavery
The misconception does not follow from the reasons given, and the reasons ignore a great deal of information.

As stated earlier, Islam is a complete way of life. Given this, it is not surprising that the Creator is concerned with the method which we choose to govern ourselves. The preeminent rule which the Islamic state must observe is stated in the Qur'an (translation follows):

[4:59] O you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If you differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you do believe in Allah and the Last Day; That is best, and most suitable for final determination.
From this verse, it is clear that the state's obligation of obedience to the Creator is as important as the obedience of the individual. Hence, the Islamic state must derive its law from the Qur'an and Sunnah. This principle excludes certain choices from the Islamic state's options for political and economic systems, such as a pure democracy, unrestricted capitalism, communism, socialism, etc. For example, a pure democracy places the people above the Qur'an and Sunnah, and this is disobedience to the Creator. However, the best alternative to a pure democracy is a democracy that implements and enforces the Shari'ah (Islamic Law).

The Creator also states in the Qur'an (translated):

[42:36-38] So whatever thing you are given, that is only a provision of this world's life, and what is with Allah is better and more lasting for those who believe and rely on their Lord, and those who shun the great sins and indecencies, and whenever they are angry they forgive, and those who respond to their Lord and keep up prayer, and their rule is to take counsel among themselves, and who spend out of what We have given them.
Allah orders us in this verse to conduct our matters by taking counsel among ourselves, or by consulting each other. This is the methodology of the Islamic state, to consult one another, but to always keep the Qur'an and Sunnah paramount. Any law which contradicts the Qur'an or Sunnah is unlawful. This broad principle of consultation is certainly wide enough to encompass a form of government where all are heard - in fact, encouraged to be heard. The early Islamic states were of this form. The petty governments of many `Muslim countries' today do not apply this principle and in fact commit many crimes against the people.

As for slavery, Islam is unique among the `religions' in its close attention to the peaceful removal of this practice. Before the advent of Islam, slavery was widespread all over the world. The Messenger of Islam taught us that freeing slaves was a great deed in the sight of Allah. From the Sunnah, specifically in the study of the Sunnah called Sahih Bukhari, we find:

[3:46:693] Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Whoever frees a Muslim slave, Allah will save all the parts of his body from the (Hell) Fire as he has freed the body-parts of the slave." Said bin Marjana said that he narrated that Hadith to `Ali bin Al-Husain and he freed his slave for whom `Abdullah bin Ja'far had offered him ten thousand Dirhams or one-thousand Dinars.

Also from the Sunnah, specifically in the study of the Sunnah called Malik's Muwatta, we find:

[38:9:15] Narrated Aisha Ummul Mu'minin: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was asked what was the most excellent kind of slave to free. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, answered, "The most expensive and the most valuable to his master."
The Creator has also made it easy for slaves to gain their freedom. From the Sunnah, specifically in the study of the Sunnah called Sahih Bukhari, we find:

[3:46:704] Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Whoever frees his portion of a common slave should free the slave completely by paying the rest of his price from his money if he has enough money; otherwise the price of the slave is to be estimated and the slave is to be helped to work without hardship till he pays the rest of his price."
The condition of slavery is very different in Islam than the harsh conditions imposed by non-Muslims or disobedient Muslims. From the Sunnah, specifically in the study of the Sunnah called Sunan Abu-Dawud, we find:

[41:4957] Narrated AbuHurayrah: The Prophet (saw) said: None of you must say: "My slave" (abdi) and "My slave-woman" (amati), and a slave must not say: "My lord" (rabbi or rabbati). The master (of a slave) should say: "My young man" (fataya) and "My young woman" (fatati), and a slave should say "My master" (sayyidi) and "My mistress" (sayyidati), for you are all (Allah's) slave and the Lord is Allah, Most High.
Also from the Sunnah, specifically in the study of the Sunnah called Sahih Bukhari, we find:

[3:46:721] Narrated Al-Ma'rur bin Suwaid: I saw Abu Dhar Al-Ghifari wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a cloak. We asked him about that (i.e. how both were wearing similar cloaks). He replied, "Once I abused a man and he complained of me to the Prophet. The Prophet asked me, `Did you abuse him by slighting his mother?' He added, `Your slaves are your brethren upon whom Allah has given you authority. So, if one has one's brethren under one's control, one should feed them with the like of what one eats and clothe them with the like of what one wears. You should not overburden them with what they cannot bear, and if you do so, help them (in their hard job)."
As a result of the teachings of Islam, slavery was almost completely eradicated from many areas of the Muslim world, peacefully and without bloodshed.

Misconception 3

In Islam, women are inferior to men because:

o a man can marry up to 4 wives, a woman can marry only one man

o a man's share of inheritance is bigger than a woman's

o a man can marry a non-Muslim, a woman cannot

o women must wear the veil

This widely held misconception does not remotely follow from the reasons given. The first and most important observation to make about the popular question "Are men and women equal?" is that it is a badly-formed, unanswerable question. The problem which many people conveniently ignore is that "equal" is not defined. This is a very critical point: the equality must be specified with respect to some measurable property. For example, women on average are superior to men if we ask who is shorter in height than the other ("Growth and Development", Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1992). Women are also superior on average if we ask whom do children bond to deeper, mothers or fathers. Women are also superior on average if we ask who has a tendency to socialize more. On the other hand, men are superior on average if we ask who is taller in height than the other. And so on: every question can be turned around, and more importantly these are properties which are irrelevant.

What then, is the really important property which we are worried about in terms of gender equality? Naturally, from the point of view of the Qur'an and Sunnah, the obvious important property is who is dearer to Allah, men or women? This question is emphatically answered in the Qur'an (translation),

[4:124] If any do deeds of righteousness - be they male or female - and have faith, they will enter Paradise, and not the least injustice will be done to them.

[33:35] For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for truthful men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast, for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah's praise, for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward.
The Qur'an and Sunnah repeat over and over again that Allah only favors one person over another based on that person's awareness, consciousness, fear, love, and hope of Allah (the Arabic word is difficult to translate: Taqwa). All other criteria are excluded: gender, ethnic group, country, ancestry, etc.

Given that Allah does not favor one gender over the other in His attention to us (and it helps to remember that Allah is neither male nor female), we can now address the differences between the genders in Islam. First, men and women are not the same as we know. The Creator states in the Qur'an (translation),

[3:36]...and the male is not like the female...
Men and women are different in their composition, and in their responsibilities under Islam. However, both are bound by obligations to one another, especially the following important one which must be understood in any discussion on men and women. From the Qur'an (translation),

[24:32] And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, Allah will make them free from want out of His grace; and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.
In this verse, the Creator emphasizes that marriage is to be vigorously pursued by the Muslims: the state of being single is not to be maintained. With this in mind, we can begin to understand the four reasons cited above for the nonetheless erroneous conclusion.

Men and women are different in their responsibilities towards the families that they are strongly encouraged to set up. Women are not obligated to work, whereas men are obligated. The man must provide for the family, but the woman does not have to spend out of her money for it, though she gets a reward for doing so. Allah says in the Qur'an (translation),

[4:34] Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
From the Sunnah, specifically in the study of the Sunnah called Sahih Bukhari, we find:

[2:24:545] Narrated `Amr bin Al-Harith: Zainab, the wife of `Abdullah said, "I was in the Mosque and saw the Prophet (p.b.u.h) saying, `O women ! Give alms even from your ornaments.' " Zainab used to provide for `Abdullah and those orphans who were under her protection. So she said to `Abdullah, "Will you ask Allah's Apostle whether it will be sufficient for me to spend part of the Zakat on you and the orphans who are under my protection?" He replied "Will you yourself ask Allah's Apostle ?" (Zainab added): So I went to the Prophet and I saw there an Ansari woman who was standing at the door (of the Prophet ) with a similar problem as mine. Bilal passed by us and we asked him, `Ask the Prophet whether it is permissible for me to spend (the Zakat) on my husband and the orphans under my protection.' And we requested Bilal not to inform the Prophet about us. So Bilal went inside and asked the Prophet regarding our problem. The Prophet (p.b.u.h) asked, "Who are those two?" Bilal replied that she was Zainab. The Prophet said, "Which Zainab?" Bilal said, "The wife of `Adullah (bin Masud)." The Prophet said, "Yes, (it is sufficient for her) and she will receive a double rewards (for that): One for helping relatives, and the other for giving Zakat."
Given that husbands are obligated to provide for wives, and that marriage is a highly recommended goal of Islam, it is easy to see why women's inheritance share is half that of men. We note also that men are obligated to provide a suitable dowry to women on marriage. In fact, it is preferable at this point to speak in terms of husbands and wives instead of men and women. Allah says in the Qur'an (translation),

[4:4] And give women their dowries as a free gift, but if they of themselves be pleased to give up to you a portion of it, then eat it with enjoyment and with wholesome result.
Allah says in the Qur'an (translation),

[2:228]...And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them...
This one degree in no way affects the position of the Creator in which He has stated that He does not hold women dearer to him than men, or vice versa. Rather it is simply a way of partitioning responsibilities in a household of two adults: someone must make the final decision on daily matters. As will be shown below in a section on a different misconception, though the final decision rests with the husband, it is through mutual consultation that decisions are best reached at.

While men are allowed to marry up to four wives, they are also commanded to meet the preconditions of being able to financially support them. They must also deal with each wife justly and fairly with respect to marital and economic obligations. Allah says in the Qur'an (translation),

[4:3] If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.
Moreover, women are allowed to reject any marriage proposal made to her by prospective suitors, thus if she does not feel she can abide by the rules of the Qur'an and Sunnah if she marries a certain person, she can reject his proposal. While it is irrelevant to Islam, it is worthwhile to note that both Judaism and Christianity allow polygamy. The idea is not as foreign to the non-Muslims as is often claimed.

Finally, the wearing of the veil by women is also an illogical premise to claim that women are inferior to men. It is more appropriate to indict a society of female exploitation if it tolerates pornography rather than if it enforces the veil. Given that Allah is neither male nor female, given that He does not endear people to Himself based on their gender, given that the Creator cares about all of us male or female, given that the sexual and violent drive of men is stronger than that of women...given all this, it is illogical to cast a negative light on the following injunctions contained in the Qur'an (translation),

[33:59] O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women to draw their outer garments around them (when they go out or are among men). That is better in order that they may be known (to be Muslims) and not be annoyed...
[24:30-31] Say to the believing man that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that will make for greater purity for them; and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; and that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands...
On this misconception, there is a great deal more to write, most of it showing how current practices in many Muslim lands go against what the Qur'an and Sunnah have ordained, lands in which women are treated as property (unIslamic), are not educated (unIslamic), are forbidden their economic rights (unIslamic), and more. On this point in particular, we encourage everyone to consult the Qur'an and Sunnah before incriminating Islam. Always remember that Islam is a complete way of life from the Creator, and that Muslims are people who claim to follow that way of life. A Muslim may claim to follow Islam, but be wrong.

Misconception 4

Islam is well-suited only to the Arabs because:

o most Muslims are Arabs

o the Qur'an is in Arabic
The first reason for this misconception is far from the truth. Of the more than one billion Muslims around the world, only 18% are Arab. The most populous Muslim country in the world is Indonesia. The second most populous Muslim country is Bangladesh. Neither of these countries is Arab.

Islam is the fastest growing major religion in the world (Encyclopedia Britannica). It has adherents on all the populated continents, and is accessible to Arabs and non-Arabs alike. In the United States, Muslims are expected to become the largest religious minority around the turn of the century, outstripping the Jews.

The universal appeal of Islam to Arabs and non-Arabs comes in spite of the Qur'an being in Arabic. Allah states in the Qur'an that this way of life called Islam is for all people (translation follows),

[21:107] And We (Allah) have not sent you (Muhammad) but as a mercy to the worlds.

[34:28] We have not sent you but as a universal (Messenger) to men, giving them glad tidings, and warning them (against sin), but most men understand not.
Moreover, the Creator does not use the color or mother tongue of people to judge them, be they Arab or not. Instead, it is the level of their awareness of Allah which is the criterion,

[49:13] O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other (not that you may despise each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)."
The choice of Arabic as the language of the Qur'an is explained very simply and clearly (translation follows),

[41:44] And if We (Allah) had made it a Qur'an in a foreign tongue, they would certainly have said: "Why have not its communications been made clear? What! a foreign (tongue) and an Arab!" Say: It is, to those who believe, a guidance and a healing; and (as for) those who do not believe, there is a heaviness in their ears and it is obscure to them; these shall be called to from a far-off place.
However, it is also important to emphasize that the Qur'an in its revealed form in Arabic is the literal Word of the Creator - but any translation is not. Each translation is more accurately called a translation of an interpretation, for every translator includes his or her own bias.

Misconception 5

Islam rejects Jesus because:

o Jesus is not accepted as `the Son of God'
The Qur'an and Sunnah both teach us emphatically and without any doubt that the Creator considers the statement of the Trinity to be a great falsehood. The Qur'an states (translation):

[19:88-93] They say: "(Allah) the Most Merciful has begotten a son!" Indeed you have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, that they should invoke a son for (Allah) the Most Merciful. For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) the Most Merciful that He should beget a son: Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (Allah) the Most Merciful as a servant.
However, the misconception that Jesus is rejected does not follow from the reason given above. It is more precise to say that identifying Jesus as `the Son of God' is rejected. As a Messenger of Allah, Jesus is accorded the same honor that all the Messengers are given, as the following verse attests to (translation),

[2:136] Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed to us and that which was revealed to Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have surrendered. [Arabic "Muslimoon"]

Misconception 6

Islam orders the worship of a man because:

o Muslims are also `Muhammadans'
Early non-Muslim quasi-researchers of Islam called it `Muhammadanism', implying in some way that Muslims worshipped the Messenger of Allah (saas). Hence, the (false) basis for this misconception really emanates from non-Muslims. However, as was described above, a "Muslim" is "one who submits to Allah." The essence of Islam is pure, pure, pure monotheism. Allah says in the Qur'an (translated):

[112:1-4] Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the One on whom all depend; He begets not, nor is He begotten. And there is none comparable to Him.

[3:144] Muhammad is no more than a messenger: many Were the messengers that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will you then turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah; but Allah (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with gratitude.

From the Sunnah, specifically in the study of the Sunnah called Sahih Bukhari, we find:

[9:93:470] Narrated Mu'adh bin Jabal: The Prophet said, "O Mu'adh! Do you know what Allah's Right upon His slaves is?" I said, "Allah and His Apostle know best." The Prophet said, "To worship Him (Allah) Alone and to join none in worship with Him (Allah). Do you know what their right upon Him is?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know best." The Prophet said, "Not to punish them (if they do so)."

[4:55:654] Narrated `Umar: I heard the Prophet saying, "Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle."
Misconception 7

Islam tolerates the killing of innocents because:

o Muslims can be terrorists

o Muslims engage in `holy wars' (jihad)

o Islam spread by the sword

o it has a harsh and cruel judicial system
This misconception is one of the most widely held misconceptions about Islam today. And yet in the Qur'an, the Creator unambiguously states (translation),

[17:33] Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand retaliation or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life, for he is helped (by the Law)
Based on this verse, it is Islamically unlawful to murder anyone who is innocent of certain crimes. It is well to remember at this point the distinction made above between Qur'an and Sunnah, and the Muslims: only the Qur'an and Sunnah are guaranteed to be in accordance with what the Creator desires, whereas the Muslims may possibly deviate. Hence, if any Muslim kills an innocent person, that Muslim has committed a grave sin, and certainly the action cannot be claimed to have been done "in the name of Islam."

It should be clear, then, that "Muslim terrorist" is almost an oxymoron: by killing innocent people, a Muslim is commiting an awesome sin, and Allah is Justice personified. This phrase is offensive and demeaning of Islam, and it should be avoided. It is hoped that as the general level of public awareness and understanding of Islam increases, people will keep "terrorism" and "Islam" separate from each other, not to be used in the same phrase.

Another reason advanced in support of the misconception is that the Creator has imposed `jihad' on us. The term "holy war" is from the time of the Crusades and originated in Europe as a rallying cry against the Muslims in Jerusalem. Jihad is an Arabic word meaning struggle, but in the context of many verses in the Qur'an, it carries the meaning of military struggle, or war. Allah gradually introduced the obligation of military struggle to the Muslim community at the time of the Messenger (saas). The first verse ever revealed in that connection is as follows (translation),

[22:39] Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them;
This verse lays down the precondition for all war in Islam: there must exist certain oppressive conditions on the people. The Creator unequivocally orders us to fight oppression and persecution, even at the expense of bloodshed as the following verse shows (translation),

[2:190-192] And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque (in Makkah) until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the reward of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
As one might imagine, the method of military struggle has been clearly and extensively defined in the Qur'an and Sunnah. Since this subject is a huge one, we simply summarize part of it by noting that it is unlawful to kill women, children, the infirm, the old, and the innocent. From the Sunnah, specifically in the study of the Sunnah called Sahih Bukhari, we find:

[4:52:257] Narrated 'Abdullah: During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.
A related misconception to jihad is often propagated by Muslims who say that "Jihad is only for self-defense of physical borders." The Qur'an and Sunnah refute this notion categorically. As the verses cited above show, jihad is obligatory wherever there is injustice, and Muslims need not acknowledge imaginary lines around the earth when it comes to upholding this obligation. The Messenger of Allah (saas) has also commented on this extensively in the Sunnah. From the study of the Sunnah called Sahih Bukhari, we find that,

[4:52:65] Narrated Abu Musa: A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause."
Hence, the Creator obligates us to fight wherever people are being grossly deprived of freely hearing or practicing the Message of Allah as contained in the Qur'an and Sunnah. Sayyed Qutb, a famous Muslim scholar eloquently discusses the notion of jihad and self-defense in his book Milestones,

"If we insist on calling Islamic jihad a defensive movement, then we must change the meaning of the word `defense' and mean by it `defense of man' against all those elements which limit his freedom. These elements take the form of beliefs and concepts, as well as of political systems, based on economic, racial, or class distinction."

A third reason often cited for the misconception about Islam which says that this way of life tolerates the killing of innocents is that the judicial system of Islam is unnecessarily harsh. This reason is weak in two respects. First, it presupposes that human beings are more just and more merciful than the Creator, and therefore we can change the law. Second, it is often based on gross oversimplifications of Islamic law, such as saying "all thieves get their hands cut off."

The Qur'an and Sunnah make it clear that the law of retaliation (or equality) governs us for murder and physical injury, but forgiveness is better as the following verses from the Qur'an show (translation),

[2:178] O you who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement.

[42:40-43] The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah: for (Allah) loves not those who do wrong. But indeed if any do help and defend themselves after a wrong (done) to them, against such there is no cause of blame. The blame is only against those who oppress men and insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice: for such there will be a grievous penalty. And whoever is patient and forgiving, these most surely are actions due to courage.
The Creator ordained the law of retaliation on us knowing full well that we might question it. In many non-Muslim societies today, there are ongoing debates about the death penalty. In Islam, this discussion is moot: the Creator has decided the matter for us. He has however given us an interesting verse in the Qur'an which advises to consider the matter carefully if we want to understand it (translation follows),

[2:179] And there is life for you in (the law of) retaliation, O people of understanding, that you may guard yourselves.
Most people are also unaware of the stringent conditions which must be met for the law of retaliation to be applicable. The Sunnah is full of examples of the Messenger of Allah showing us when the law's preconditions were fulfilled. For example, a thief is only liable to lose his or her hand if the item stolen exceeds a certain value, and if it is proven that the item was taken from its normal resting place. Stealing food is not punishable by the loss of one's hand, and other items are exempt as well. This is just an example of how gingerly the law is applied in Islam.

Finally, another reason advanced for this prevalent misconception is that Islam `spread by the sword'. It should be clear by now that we must always distinguish between the Qur'an and Sunnah and the Muslims when it comes to determining what the Creator has asked of us. Allah has stated clearly in the Qur'an (translation),

[2:256] There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever rejects Satan (and what he calls to) and believes in Allah, he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handhold, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.
Hence, it is impossible to accept Islam under duress. Even if misguided Muslims were to try to `force' Islam somehow on others, it would not be accepted by the Creator based on this verse.

Historical arguments that try to demonstrate that Muslims did not `convert others by force' are actually secondary to the argument given above. However, it is worth noting that historically, Islam did spread by peaceful means. The Message of the Creator was conveyed to Africa and to southeast Asia by trading Muslims, and today the largest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia. The military expeditions that led to the conquest of large swathes of territory in Europe and central Asia were all marked by tolerance of other creeds and faith.

Again, it is important to remember that Allah declares it IMPOSSIBLE that Islam can be forced on a person, hence Muslims find it useless to try!

Misconception 8

Islam is intolerant of other religions because

o the Qur'an condemns the other religions as false
The Creator has taught us in the Qur'an and Sunnah that all other `religions' and ways of life are unacceptable to Him if a person is aware of Islam. The Qur'an states (translation),

[3:85] And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.
However, even though the Creator has clearly specified that no other way of life is acceptable to Him except Islam (i.e. submission to Him as embodied in the Qur'an and Sunnah), He has also commanded the Muslims to be tolerant of people who espouse other creeds. From the Sunnah, specifically in the study of the Sunnah called Al-Awsat by Al-Tabarani, we find regarding those non-Muslims living in the Islamic state,

The Messenger of Allah (saas) said, "One who kills a non-Muslim person under protection (Arabic: dhimmi) will not even smell the fragrance of Paradise."

Also from the Sunnah, specifically in a report from Al-Khatib, we find that the Messenger of Allah (saas) also said:

Whoever hurts a non-Muslim person under protection, I am his adversary, and I shall be an adversary to him on the Day of Resurrection.

In short, Islam is intolerant of false ideas, however it is tolerant of the people who hold to those ideas. One historical example of Muslims living up to the standard of Islam can be found from the time of the Spanish Inquisition. During that disaster sprung by misguided Catholics, some Spanish Jews fled to Muslim Turkey and to this day, there is a community of Spanish-speaking Jews in Turkey. Another example may be found during one of the Crusader invasions from Western Europe. Some of the the Catholic Western European knights were so likely to rape, murder, and pillage the Jews and Orthodox Christians, that when the Muslims won, they were treated as a liberating force by those non-Muslims.

Misconception 9

Islam is a racist, afro-centric cult because:

o Nation of Islam espouses the superiority of the black man

o The Nation of Islam recognizes God as a black man
One of the great misconceptions of the twentieth century is that the so-called `Nation of Islam' is a Muslim community, or more precisely: a community which submits to Allah by following the Qur'an and Sunnah. The `Nation of Islam' is a man-made way of life which borrowed some elements of Islam and then mixed them with a large number of inventions and lies to reach their present doctrines.

It suffices to point out the `Nation of Islam's deviation in two areas. First, they reject the essence of Islam by concocting a story wherein the Creator takes the form of a black man. From their on-line publications, we find that the `Nation of Islam' believes in

...one God (Allah) and that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long awaited `Messiah' of the Christians and the `Mahdi' of the Muslims...

However, the Creator states in the Qur'an (translation),

[6:103] No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things.

The `Nation of Islam' also claims that white men are `devils', and that black people are in general superior to all other races. However, from the Sunnah, specifically in the Messenger of Allah's farewell sermon, we find the Messenger (pbuh) saying:

All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white - except by piety and good action.

There are many other beliefs which the `Nation of Islam' holds which take it outside of Islam. It is interesting to note that in the mid-1970's, the overwhelming majority of the group realized its errors and converted to true Islam. There is, however, a splinter group which remains active today.

Misconception 10

Islam produces a lazy, uneducated society because:

o all things come from God, and so fatalism is OK

o modern technology and science are condemned
The reasons given for this misconception are false, and the misconception itself is actually refuted directly by the Qur'an and Sunnah. While it is true that the Creator is the source of everything to us, it is not true that this can be used as an excuse for humanity to hide behind as the following verses from the Qur'an state (translation),

[16:35] The worshippers of false gods say: "If Allah had so willed, we should not have worshipped anything but Him - neither we nor our fathers,- nor should we have prescribed prohibitions other than His." So did those who went before them. But what is the mission of messengers but to preach the Clear Message?

[43:20] They (the idolators) say, "If it had been the will of (Allah) the Most Merciful, we should not have worshipped such (deities)!" Of that they have no knowledge: they do nothing but lie!

Allah has taught us via the Qur'an and Sunnah that we all have a certain amount of free will. This free will must be exercised properly in accordance with the Qur'an and Sunnah to please the Creator. This is plenty of motivation for all Muslims to push themselves to be the most knowledgeable, effective Muslims they can be. If Muslim societies today are not meeting their potential, it is surely not due to their knowledge of Islam, rather it is their ignorance of this way of life. The importance of seeking knowledge and working are made clear in the Sunnah.

From the Sunnah, specifically in the study of the Sunnah called Sunan Abu-Dawud, we find:

[9:1637] Narrated Anas ibn Malik: A man of the Ansar came to the Prophet (pbuh) and begged from him.

He (the Prophet) asked: Have you nothing in your house? He replied: Yes, a piece of cloth, a part of which we wear and a part of which we spread (on the ground), and a wooden bowl from which we drink water.

He said: Bring them to me. He then brought these articles to him and he (the Prophet) took them in his hands and asked: Who will buy these? A man said: I shall buy them for one dirham. He said twice or thrice: Who will offer more than one dirham? A man said: I shall buy them for two dirhams.

He gave these to him and took the two dirhams and, giving them to the Ansari, he said: Buy food with one of them and hand it to your family, and buy an axe and bring it to me. He then brought it to him. The Apostle of Allah (pbuh) fixed a handle on it with his own hands and said: Go, gather firewood and sell it, and do not let me see you for a fortnight. The man went away and gathered firewood and sold it. When he had earned ten dirhams, he came to him and bought a garment with some of them and food with the others.

The Apostle of Allah (pbuh) then said: This is better for you than that begging should come as a spot on your face on the Day of Judgment. Begging is right only for three people: one who is in grinding poverty, one who is seriously in debt, or one who is responsible for compensation and finds it difficult to pay.

Also from the Sunnah, specifically in the study of the Sunnah called Sunan Ibn Majah, we find that the Messenger of Allah said:

Seeking knowledge is a duty upon every Muslim.

Knowledge of the Qur'an and Sunnah are clearly the best types of knowledge, and knowledge which benefits humanity is good as well. The Qur'an and Sunnah do not condemn the study of this earth and in fact the Creator encourages us to investigate the world we live in according to the following verse from the Qur'an (translation),

[3:190-191] Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day, there are indeed Signs for people of understanding. People who celebrate the praises of Allah, standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and contemplate the (wonders of) creation in the heavens and the earth, (with the thought): "Our Lord! not for nothing have You created (all) this! Glory to You! Give us salvation from the penalty of the Fire."
Anything good in this document is from Allah, while everything bad in it is from us. - link

[+/-] show/hide this post
Commentary : De-linking Religion From The Bombings
DEMONISING ISLAM

A poll in the Daily Telegraph in the aftermath of the London suicide bombings found that 19 per cent of those polled felt that Islam itself ‘as distinct from Islamic fundamentalism’ posed ‘a major threat’ to Western liberal democracy. A further 27 per cent felt that Islam itself posed ‘some threat’.

In Oct. 2001, the corresponding figures were 10 and 22 per cent. Now, one in five people believes Islam as a religion poses a ‘major threat’, and nearly half the people of Britain believe that it is some kind of threat to liberal democracy. This is unjustified fear.

DEMONISING CHRISTIANITY

When nine young Muslim men carry out, or try to carry out, brutal atrocities, Islam is blamed. But when small groups of Christians carry out brutal atrocities, Christianity is not. Why this double standard?

Between 1993 and 1998, seven people (doctors, receptionists, police officers) were killed in shootings and bombings by Christian anti-abortion activists in the US. This was religiously-motivated terrorism, but no one blamed Christianity itself.

When Christian anti-abortionist James Kopp admitted shooting dead Dr Barnett Slepian in 1998, was there a cry for all Christians to condemn him?

When David Koresh’s heavily-armed Christian fundamentalist sect resisted the FBI siege at Waco in 1993, did non-Christians rush to the Bible to understand what could have motivated this kind of apocalyptic survivalism?

When 800 or so members of the Christian ‘Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God’ group died of suicide or (mostly) murder in March 2000, did non-Christians refer to the Christian record of violence culminating in the development and use of the atomic bomb, as part of the cultural background to this tragedy?

When people see violence in, say, Democratic Republic of Congo, torn by savage civil war—and with 42m Christians making up 70% of the population—are they entitled to blame Christianity itself?

SCRIPTURE

Do non-Christians scour the New Testament to pull out the most violent and frightening verses, linking them with the “Christian terrorism” of James Kopp and his colleagues?

For example, do they endlessly repeat the words of Jesus when he criticised the Jews of his time for not putting to death children who spoke evil of their parents, as the Law commanded? [Mark 7:9-10. Check all references online]

Do they trumpet the passages when Jesus exults in the prospect of destruction? For example:
I came to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already set ablaze!’ [Luke 12:49]

Do they keep repeating that when he drove the moneychangers out of the temple, Jesus didn’t just overturn tables, he actually used a whip? [John 2:15]

In one famous parable, Jesus does not seem to have any problem with the idea of owning, beating, or indeed killing slaves. [Luke 12:46-48]

What about Jesus’ call to his disciples to sell their possessions in order to buy swords? [Luke 22:35-36]

And his ominous warning, ‘Don't assume that I came to bring peace on the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.’ [Matthew 10:34]

Here are some frightening quotations: ‘

You shall destroy all the peoples... showing them no pity.’ [7:16]

All the people present there shall serve you as forced labour.’ [20:12]

You shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, the livestock, and everything in the town—all its spoil—and enjoy the use of the spoil of your enemy which the LORD your God gives you.’ [20:14-15]

You shall not let a soul remain alive.’ [20:16]

This is from Deuteronomy in the Old Testament, the Jewish Torah, which both Jews and Christians consider sacred.

What if someone said these verses of Jesus and Deuteronomy were the essence of Christianity? It would be absurd. But with the Koran, non-Muslims feel free to pull the most aggressive verses out of context. All major religions can be used in this way.

THE KORAN: RESTRAINING WAR

Christians focus on Jesus’ peaceful words, not his violent curses on unreceptive towns such as Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum [Matthew 11:21-24].

Ex-Catholic nun Karen Armstrong explains,

Like the Bible, the Qur’an has its share of aggressive texts, but like all the great religions, its main thrust is towards kindliness and compassion. Islamic law outlaws war against any country in which Muslims are allowed to practice their religion freely, and forbids the use of fire, the destruction of buildings and the killing of innocent civilians in a military campaign. So although Muslims, like Christians or Jews, have all too often failed to live up to their ideals, it is not because of the religion per se.’ (Guardian, 11 July)

MUHAMMAD: NONVIOLENT ACTION

After largely winning a war against his old tribe, who had driven him out with violent persecution (nearly killing him), and successfully blockading them, Muhammad could have destroyed the Quraysh militarily. Instead he led his followers in an unarmed, nonviolent, pilgrimage into the hands of the Quraysh, signed a peace treaty with them, and abandoned the blockade, paving the way for peace in war-torn Arabia. (Karen Armstrong, Muhammad, p. 214-223)

Karen Armstrong comments:

It is not true that Islam preaches a total intransigence and inspires a mindless fanaticism. Instead the Koran evolves a complementary theology of war and peace, which most Christians would not find difficult to accept.’ (p. 225)

EXTREMISM AND SOME YOUNG BRITISH MUSLIMS

If Islam itself is not to blame, how is it that young British Muslims could carry out the London bombings? The British Government carried out a secret study of precisely this topic—‘Young Muslims and Extremism’—in 2004 (leaked to the Sunday Times on 10 July, p. 1)

This joint report by the Home Office and Foreign Office (with intelligence input) put together a list of factors causing ‘extremism’. First on the list was British ‘Foreign policy issues’:

It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment amongst Muslims including young Muslims is a perceived “double standard” in the foreign policy of western governments... in particular Britain and the US. This is particularly significant in terms of the concept of the “Ummah”, i.e. that Believers are one “nation”...’

This perception seems to have become more acute post 9/11. The perception is that passive “oppression”, as demonstrated in British foreign policy, eg non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya, has given way to “active oppression”—the war on terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan are all seen by a section of British Muslims as having been acts against Islam.

This disillusionment may contribute to a sense of helplessness with regard to the situation of Muslims in the world, with a lack of any tangible “pressure valves”, in order to vent frustrations, anger or dissent.’

In other words, British Muslims see themselves as part of a global Muslim community, and when they see the British government waging violent war on other parts of that global community—against ordinary civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, it hurts them.

It is their anger over violent civilian deaths at the hands of the US and UK, and their despair at the possibility of changing these foreign policies, which make some young British Muslims vulnerable to recruitment by al Qaeda.

This is the Government’s own analysis.

NOT ISLAM, BUT OUR POLICIES ARE TO BLAME

Michael Scheuer, the CIA’s bin Laden expert from 1996 to 1999, says we must understand that:

‘the motivation for the people fighting us has to do with our policies... it’s a mistake to think the Muslims don’t understand our policy... we need a shot of democracy inside the United States... If... the decision is to keep those policies kind of as they are—well, I think that might be a mistake. But... at least the country would be going into the war against Islamic militancy with its eyes open, knowing that those policies, more than anything else, motivate our enemy. We would go into it with our eyes open. We’d be expecting a very long war, and a very bloody and costly war.’ (January 2005)-link
Young Muslims And Extremism

INTRODUCTION

On 10 July 2005, the Sunday Times carried an important front-page story on a leaked British Government study 'Young Muslims and Extremism' (see our Media Review for more details). The key element of this story (buried in the middle of the article) was the finding that it is British foreign policy that has been responsible for the growth of 'extremism' - the willingness of young Muslims to participate in anti-Western terrorism.

This joint Home Office/Foreign Office report can be downloaded from the Sunday Times website in full, in four parts. What follows are the conclusions of the report.

Notice that when discussing the factors that cause 'extremism' among young Muslims, foreign policy is listed first. Second is 'Islamophobia'.

EXCERPTS FROM THE REPORT

Definition:

By extremism, we mean advocating or supporting views such as support for terrorist attacks against British or western targets, including the 9/11 attacks, or for British Muslims fighting against British and allied forces abroad, arguing that it is not possible to be Muslim and British, calling on Muslims to reject engagement with British society and politics, and advocating the creation of an Islamic state in Britain.

Factors:

At this stage all we can say is that there are a variety of issues that impact upon British Muslims, including young Muslims, and may increase the likelihood of their moving towards extremism . The factors discussed below are based partly on survey evidence but partly on the subjective impressions of Home Office and FCO officials and Muslim advisers, taking account of their contacts with Muslim leaders, clerics and academics and monitoring of publications.

Foreign policy issues

It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment amongst Muslims including young Muslims is a perceived `double standard' in the foreign policy of western governments (and often those of Muslim governments), in particular Britain and the US. This is particularly significant in terms of the concept of the "Ummah", i.e. that Believers are one "nation". This seems to have gained a significant prominence in how some Muslims view HMG's [Her Majesty's Government's, ie British Government] policies towards Muslim countries.

Perceived Western bias in Israel's favour over the Israel/Palestinian conflict is a key long term grievance of the international Muslim community which probably influences British Muslims.

This perception seems to have become more acute post 9/11 . The perception is that passive `oppression', as demonstrated in British foreign policy, eg non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya, has given way to `active oppression' - the war on terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan are all seen by a section of British Muslims as having been acts against Islam.

This disillusionment may contribute to a sense of helplessness with regard to the situation of Muslims in the world, with a lack of any tangible `pressure valves', in order to vent frustrations, anger or dissent.

Hence this may lead to a desire for a simple `Islamic' solution to the perceived oppression/problems faced by the `Ummah'- Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir and Afghanistan.

A case in point is the March 2004 ICM poll of Muslim opinion asked "Jenny Tonge, a Liberal Democrat MP said she condemned all forms of terrorism, but if she had to live in the same situation as a Palestinian she might consider becoming a suicide bomber herself. Do you agree or disagree with her?" 47% agreed with the statement, whilst 43% disagreed.

Domestic issues

Islamophobia

Perceived Islamophobia (particularly post-9/11) in society and the media may cause some British Muslims including young Muslims to feel isolated and alienated and in a few cases to reject democratic and multi-cultural values.

The Cantle report identified polarisation between Pakistani/Bangladeshi and white communities as a factor in the 2001 disturbances. The young people involved in these disturbances included educated professionals as well as under privileged people.

Lack of understanding of Islam - insensitive use of language and perceptions of Islam and an ill-informed assumption that Islam's teachings are inherently extremist. Media coverage of extremist fringe groups increases this.

Muslims' perception of bias in the way counter-terrorism powers are used to stop, detain and arrest people, both at ports and in-country.

Social issues

Attainment

Muslims are more likely than other faith groups to have no qualifications (over two fifths have none) and to be unemployed and economically inactive, and are over-represented in deprived areas. However, this is largely associated with the disadvantage of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, whereas the experience of Indian and Arab Muslims is much less disadvantaged .

Lack of participation and representation - There is still low Muslim representation in mainstream institutions of influence, especially for women - eg in public appointments, volunteering and mainstream politics (although the Home Office Citizenship Survey 2001 suggests that low Muslim participation rates largely reflect non-faith factors such as education, economic empowerment, age and gender).

Issues of identity

Parts of the Muslim community are still developing an understanding of how to reconcile their faith and Islamic identity with living in a secular multi-cultural society, and with modern social challenges. There is a developing critique by some within the Muslim community, both abroad and here, that traditional Islamic jurisprudence is not equipped to fulfil the needs of Muslims living in the West and needs to be developed and updated. There are tentative moves towards developing Islamic jurisprudence for Muslims living in Europe and the Western World.

A lack of any real `pressure valves', in order to vent frustrations/anger/dissent.

There are particular issues for young Muslim women who face some of the most complex clashes of culture. We need to think hard about the positive impact they can have with the right support.

Organisational issues

Some young Muslims are disillusioned with mainstream Muslim organisations that are perceived as pedestrian, ineffective and in many cases, as `sell-outs' to HMG.

The government must make a more concerted effort to persuade the Muslim community that it is trusted and respected . That requires a change of language. Public challenges to Muslims to decide where their loyalties lie are counterproductive.-link

Policy Recommendations: Co-opting Muslim Leaders

Introduction

It is interesting, in the light of the Prime Minister's new ideology-centred programme, that action against 'radical preachers' and ideologists is a long way down the list of actions, and that it appears to consist of 'Ensur[ing that] arrests and searches under the new powers are evidence-based, intelligence-led and proportionate'.

There is no (explicit) mention of deportations here, though Number 10 would probably try to interpret 'taking necessary enforcement action' in that light. This seems unlikely to have been the original intention (notice the detail in which other policy proposals are spelled out, in contrast).

What follows are excerpts from the report.

Key Actions, which will assist in tackling extremism among Muslim youth:

Improving our understanding of the extent and causes of extremism among young Muslims

l. Conduct focus groups with young Muslims, exploring their views on key aspects of foreign and domestic policy, interpretations of Islam, and the compatibility of being,British and Muslim. Focus groups to be drawn from a range of educational, economic and ethnic backgrounds

2. In light of focus groups, if needed, commission a more detailed and scientific study of Muslim opinions and experiences, to include older generations and some comparison with other faith groups to put the views of Muslims in context

3. Commission from the police service a survey of disaffection and extremist activity in schools and colleges in key selected areas.

4. Role of the National Community Tensions Team in helping Government to remain informed about levels of disaffection and extremism

Combating the recruitment of young British Muslims by terrorist organisations

1. Undertake research to extensively map the "Terrorist Career Path", including changes in opinions held, changes in associates or membership of organisations, and specific actions taken by individuals on the path from law-abiding citizen to terrorist .

2. On the basis of this research, develop a comprehensive Interventions Strategy, to enable us to intervene at key trigger points to prevent young Muslims from becoming drawn into extremist and terrorist activity and action.

3. Our work in this area will be focussed on finding local community based interventions, with support for faith, voluntary and community organisations from [N]GOs, local authorities and central government as appropriate.

Combating Islamophobia

1. Prepare and circulate to Departments advice on Muslim sensitivities and appropriate non-inflammatory terminology to be used in referring to Muslim issues .

2. Prepare communications plan aimed at combating distorted public and media perceptions of Islam and Muslims. Collaboration on this with moderate Muslim bodies, including student bodies, will further assist Government/Muslim relations.

3. Build capacity amongst information services like MCB Direct, in providing accurate representation for mainstream Islam (i .e. representatives and experts) in the mainstream media.

4. Encourage, assist and promote mainstream Muslim communication channels, i.e. radio stations, newspapers aimed at British Muslims, and television channels. Many of these are set up during a fixed time of the year (Ramadhan), and do not have the capacity to run a full-time set-up. This is what HMG has promoted in the Islamic world. That expertise can be utilised domestically.

Dialogue with young Muslims and building leadership capacity

1. Projection of British Muslim youth as role models for overseas audiences (e.g. sending delegations of British Muslim youth to `represent' Britain, signalling UK's pride in its Muslim youth.), and encouraging young moderate Muslims to become spokespersons for foreign media e.g. digital television.

2. Expand and deepen dialogue with young Muslims on non-traditional foreign policy areas of concern to Muslims, e.g. development (follow-up to UNDP Arab Development Report), globalisation, human rights, etc.

3. European dimension. Enable British Muslim youth to discuss mainstream/European Islam with EU counterparts, as well as how to tackle extremism internally within the European Muslim community.

4. Encourage Muslim youth to take part in local and national youth parliaments (the Bradford Youth Parliament recently visited by Mr O'Brien being a successful model of Muslim teenagers taking part in wider political engagement) .

5. Strengthen the hand of moderate student and youth organisations (such as the UMS and FOSIS), and of moderates within such organisations, by:

> continuing to offer Ministerial speakers for meetings and debates on foreign and domestic issues ofconcern to Muslims.

> inviting moderate Muslim youth representatives to participate in consultative discussions with departments on specific issues.

6. Audit government and other publicly funded community capacity building funding to assess the extent to which funds are reaching Muslim organisations and especially those for young Muslims. If necessary, advise Ministers on ways of channelling more funding to this need.

Reaching out to underachievers

1 . Work with DFES, DWP and DWP [sic] to address Muslim disadvantage and reduce social exclusion

2. Ongoing work with the Prison Service to develop a programme of measures to ensure young British Muslims do not leave prisons alienated and radicalised, and holding extremist views.

Responding to Muslim concerns about the use of anti-terrorist powers

1. Identify key individuals preaching extremism and recruiting to the cause and take necessary enforcement action.

2. Ensure arrests and searches under the new powers are evidence-based, intelligence-led and proportionate.

3. Engage Muslim community in a dialogue over the use of the powers

4. Provide feedback to Muslim community on reasons for, and outcomes of, arrests and searches under the new powers

Responding to other Muslim concerns

Show that HMG is addressing Muslim concerns, including youth concerns, by:

1. highlighting consular assistance given to British Muslim students/youth in legal difficulty abroad including those accused of affiliation to extremist bodies (e.g. the HT students in Egypt) and in relation to the Hajj, to dispel the claim of double standards

2. reviewing the scope for meeting Muslim concerns identified during public seminars with mosque representatives earlier this year, and publicising any resulting changes in policy. (Issues include family law, animal slaughter and faith in education.)

3. raising awareness among young Muslims of the current and forthcoming legal protections against religiously aggravated offences and religious discrimination in employment

4. making pump priming funding available to the Muslim Safety Forum

Promoting mainstream Islam

l. Bring about the development and provision of subsidised training, upskilling and qualifications for home-grown Islamic faith leaders. Training to focus on pastoral, community leadership and management skills. Action in hand, by Learning and Skills Council and Home Office (with FCO involvement) . Subsequent roll-out of LSC-subsidised courses

2. Raise the standards required from ministers of religion including Imams seeking admission and extension of stay. Package to include immediate English language requirement. Religious qualification requirements and civic engagement tests to follow after consultation, in stages during 2004/5.

3. Assist mainstream organisations to promote the many UK-based courses on Arabic and theology, taking away the need for Muslim youth to travel to seminaries in the Islamic world, many of which preach extremist doctrines. Encourage mainstream organisations to put their material on the web.

4. Seek opportunities through Government engagement and recognition, to promote awareness of moderate scholars with followings amongst young Muslims, such as Imam Hamza Yusuf and Imam Suhaib Webb.

5. Strengthen moderate Muslim media organisations (radio stations and publications, such as MCB Direct, e.g. by giving them stories and interviews.

Remedying the exclusion of Muslims from Public life

More work is needed on promoting Muslim representation in public life. Any feeling that Muslim voices are not heard in places of influence is helpful to extremism. The Home Office should consider what more could be done, and report conclusions.

Conclusions

Policy objectives include persuading young Muslims that they can be Muslim and British, and that Islam is not regarded with hostility. In this context the term `Islamic fundamentalism' is unhelpful and should be avoided, because some perfectly moderate Muslims are likely to perceive it as a negative comment on their own approach to their faith.-link

[+/-] show/hide this post
Women of Islam : Aisha
Aisha bint Abi Bakr Siddique was one of the greatest scholars of Islam of all time. The depth and breadth of her knowledge far surpassed that of most individuals after the Prophet, man or woman. Her life, her scholarly opinions though over 400 years old, are not collecting dust in some ancient manuscripts, but are alive and used as a basis and a guide for Muslims throughout the Muslim world, from the Americas to the Middle East, the Indo-Pak subcontinent to Southeast Asia.

Let us hear what some of her fellows said of her:
*Abu Musa Ash'ani--one of the companions of the prophet--"the companions were never presented with a problem which when referred to Aisha did not present a satisfactory solution."

*Attar Bin Abi Kibal--student of many of her companions "Aisha was the best theologian, the most learned and the one having sound judgment."

*Imam Zahni--one of the great Islamic scholars, "If the knowledge of all the men and the Mothers of the Believers is gathered at one place, the knowledge of Aisha would be vaster."
Who is the woman who receives such accolades and how did she become such a great scholar?

To understand her and her scholarship, we must first understand the sources of knowledge in Islam.


It is imperative that anyone embarking on a study of Aisha's life understand the distinction that she and all Muslims make between the Qur'an--The Holy Book of Islam and the Hadeeth.

The Qur'an is considered by Muslims and Aisha herself as the direct revealed word of God. Aisha was one of the greatest scholars and interpreters of the Qur'an and to understand her, it is important to understand some characteristics of the Qur'an.

First, the Qur'an is not the Qur'an if translated, it is only in Arabic,--the English copy of Qur'an is a translation of Qur'an, but the English is not Qur'an.

Second, the Qur'an is revealed in a prose/poetry that the Arabs at the time of revelation recognized as being superior to anything produced before or since the Qur'an was reveal in stages, so to understand the deeper meanings of any given verse one must understand the situation surrounding the revelation.

The meanings of certain verses are not immediately apparent and require interpretation based upon linguistic ability, knowledge of religious precepts and a knowledge of contents of the Qur'an.

Aisha was one of the foremost Qur'anic scholars. She was a great poet and orator in her own right, who had a knowledge of the history of Arabs that helped her in interpretation of verses, i.e. Qur'anic abrogation of pre-Islamic marriage forms of the Arabs. She was present during many of the situations surrounding any given revelation, so she could speak with authority on these issues.

In fact, a verse was revealed exonerating her from slander. Finally, she, as do all Qur'anic scholars, male and female and ancient and contemporary, had committed the entire Qur'an to memory. It is well known, that she would be consulted after the Prophet died by many of her contemporaries, the well known scholars and her students, e.g. Bukhari Vol. 4, Pg. 393--Hadeeth of Urwa


The Hadeeth is the second most important source of Islamic knowledge next to the Qur'an. The term hadeeth means in Arabic generally communication, story or conversation, but in Islamic terms it stands for 'what was transmitted on the authority of the Prophet, his deeds, sayings, tacit approval' (c.f. Azami, pg 3).

Hadeeth literature means the literature which consists of the narratives of the life of the Prophet and things approved by him. However, the term is used sometimes in the broader sense to cover the narratives about the companions--Aisha is one of them, as well.

The Prophet, of course, is the primary teacher of the religion, expounder of Qur'an, legislator of Islamic precepts, and role model whose example Muslims must follow. But after the Prophet died, his companions (sahabah) carried on the teachings of religion, as recorded in the hadeeth. Aisha as a companion, is a role model, whose example Muslims should follow.


Today, most the hadeeth considered authentic are collected in nine volume work by Bukhari and a four volume work by Muslims. However, these collections of hadeeth did not always exist. About 200 years after the Prophet died these two individuals collected them for generations of Muslims after them. From the time of the Prophet until Bukhari and Muslim, various schools of hadeeth arose, where great scholars would teach people the hadeeth they knew to students. The methods of teaching were rigorous. Teachers would narrate, students would record and then had to recite back what they learned in a systematic fashion. Over time, a general consensus arose concerning who had the best grasp of the material to be an interpreter, or who had an excellent memory or both. Methods were developed for assessing the excellence of teachers.

Both Muslim and Bukhari were skilled in assessing the excellence of teachers and students. They had to be because by the time they collected the hadeeth, the Sahabah (companions) had long since died. So they heard a particular hadeeth third, fourth, or even fifth hand. However, they would know who each narrator in the chain was, because in the transmission of hadeeth the narrators were preserved along with the text of the hadeeth.

So every hadeeth has two parts the chain of transmitters, or isnad and the text of hadeeth itself, or matn. So the sciences of hadeeth criticism with which Bukhari and Muslim were foremost practitioners including a criticism of transmitters as well as a criticism of the hadeeth itself. They would never include a narrator anywhere on the chain who did not meet vigorous standards of piety, morality as well as scholarship. Aisha met these standards without doubt and her scholarship, the stories of her and her contemporaries lives have been preserved for us.


Dating when Aisha lived to the exact year is difficult because of the difference in telling time. Muslims follow a lunar calendar, eg which has 11 less days than the solar calendar. Sources also date events in terms of the life of the Prophet, her birth date for example is in the fifth year of the Prophethood. So the Prophet was born about the year 570, he became a Prophet about the year 610, Aisha was born in 615. At the time of her birth, her mother Um Ruman and her father Abu Bakr had already accepted Islam as their religion, so Aisha was born of Muslim parents. The Prophet at the time was married to Khadijah a woman 15 years his senior and she died many years later.

Then the Prophet contracted marriage with Saudah, an elderly widow and Aishah the daughter of his closest companion Abu Bakr. She eventually was to become one of several co-wives. She was, after Khadijah, his favorite wife.

Aisha was just a girl at the time so he waited to consummate his marriage with her when she reached puberty. Aisha tells us these early years, her playing and giggling with her friends, watching the displays of traveling Ethiopians, listening to Islamic singing of the day of Eid, or holiday.

But even in her youth she had a great thirst for knowledge. She would listen to the Prophets lectures and later discuss points with him, pose problems to him and not rest contented until she was clear on any issue. Her discussions illustrate the wide ranging issues she would address: for instance, she asked about the Prophet's teachings on being kind to neighbors and asked whose neighbor has a greater right on you and the Prophet answered the one whose door is nearer. But in addition to these matters of day to day living, she would ask questions of great theological import, she asked the Prophet once about his teaching "Whoso likes to meet his Lord, God also likes to meet him, and whoso dislikes it god also dislikes to meet him" she commented, "none of us likes to meet death" and the Prophet answered, "A believer hearing about paradise desires to meet God and God is happy to meet him, a disbeliever hearing about God's chastisement and displeasure abhors meeting Him and God also detests him." She would also learn by example. Aisha also had great knowledge in medicine, which she attributes to watching the physicians of the Prophet treat him.


In spite of her great intellect, she had many other fine qualities: she was generous, lived a simple life, often going hungry to give her food and money to those she felt more needy. She was pious, practicing what she would teach. She was humble; often in later years she would refer questioners to others whom she felt had more knowledge than her and considered refusing to admit to Abbas because she was afraid that he would praise her too much. In spite of these qualities, she had some faults, the most prominent was her jealousy:

On Khadijah (the first wife of the Prophet, who died prior to his marriage with Aisha
Narrated Aisha (RA): I never felt so jealous of any wife of Allah's Apostle (SAAWS) as I did of Khadijah because Allah's Apostle (SAAWS) used to remember and praise her too often and because it was reveal to Allah's Apostle (SAAWS) that he should give her (Khadijah) the glad tiding of her having a palace of Qasab in Paradise.
Switching camels:
Narrated al-Qasim: Aisha (RA) said that whenever the Prophet (SAAWS) intended to go on a journey, he drew lots among his wives (so as to take one of them along with him). During one of his journeys the lot fell on Aisha and Hafsa. When the night fell the Prophet (SAAWS) would ride beside Aisha and talk with her. One night Hafsa said to Aisha, "Won't you ride my camel tonight and I ride yours, so that you may see (me) and I see (you) (in a new situation)?" Aisha said, "Yes (I agree.)" So Aisha rode, and then the Prophet (SAAWS) came towards Aisha's camel on which Hafsa was riding. He greeted Hafsa and then proceeded (beside her) till they dismounted (on the way). Aisha missed him, and so, when they dismounted, she put her legs in the Idhkhir and said, "O Lord (Allah)! Send a scorpion or a snake to bite me for I am not to blame him (the Prophet SAAWS)."
The Honey incident:
Narrated Aisha: Allah's Apostle was fond of honey and sweet edible things and (it was his habit) that after finishing the Asr prayer he would visit his wives and stay with one of them at that time. Once he went to Hafsa, the daughter of Umar and stayed with her more than usual. I got jealous and asked the reason for that. I was told that a lady of her folk had given her a skin filled with honey as a present and that she made a syrup drink from it and gave it to the Prophet (SAAWS) to drink (and that was the reason for the delay). I said, "By Allah, we will play a trick on him (to prevent him from doing so)." So I said to Sauda bint Zam'a, "The Prophet (SAAWS) will approach you, and when he comes near you say: 'Have you taken Maghafir (a bad smelling gum)?' He will say, 'No.' Then say to him: 'Then what is this bad smell from you?' He will say to you 'Hafsa made me drink honey syrup.' Then say: ' Perhaps the bees of that honey had sucked the juice of the tree of Al-¼Urfut [the tree that produces Maghafir].' I shall say the same." Later Sauda said, "By Allah, as soon as he (the Prophet SAAWS) stood at the door, I was about to say to him what you had ordered me to say because I was afraid of you." So when the Prophet (SAAWS) came near Sauda, she said to him, "O Allah¼s apostle! Have you taken Maghafir?" He said "No." She said, "Then what is this bad smell which I detect on you?" He said, "Hafsa made me drink honey syrup." She said, "perhaps its bees had sucked the juice of Al'Urfut tree." When he came to me, I also said the same, and when he went to Safiyya, she also said the same. And when the Prophet (SAAWS) again went to Hafsa, she said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall I give you more of that drink?" He said, "I am not in need of it." Sauda said, "By Allah, we deprived him of it.)" I said to her, "Keep quiet."
Later she would say that it was her youth that prompted her to engage in such behavior. In spite of this jealousy, she had great respect and love for all of her co-wives and many narratives exist about her praising them and them praising her which we will see an example later. Aisha had two great disappointments in her life during this period: one is the incident of slander which we will deal with later and the death of the Prophet. When the Prophet was stricken with his fatal illness, he continued to visit his wives in turn, but would ask, "Where will I be tomorrow, Where will I be tommorow?" seeking Aisha's turn. His wives then allowed him to stay where he wished and he expired in her house in her arms. Bukhari, Vol. 5, Pg. 517.

It was after the death of the Prophet that marked the beginning of her scholarship. With the Prophet gone, the people turned to the companions for knowledge. It was the habit of many women during the Prophet's life to ask Aisha to answer questions or take issues to the Prophet for judgement.

But after his death, people from far and wide used to seek her knowledge and religious judgments. Even one of the greatest scholars, Abu Hararayah would hold a class outside her home and after narrating a hadeeth would say "am I correct oh-Um Al-Mumineen and she would reply 'yes, but Rasool-lulhah would not speak so quickly'--meaning he would speak slowly."

She began a class for students to learn hadeeth and informally instructed many who came to ask her questions. Most notable among her students are Uriah Ibn Al-Zubbair one of her nephews and a woman Amra bint Abdur Rahman. Both became scholars in their own right and continued to transmit hadeeth after her. So, women had a place in the lineage of transmitters (the isnad) and met the stringent requirements of scholarship and character. Aisha herself transmitted more than 2,000 hadeeth.


Another incident deserves mention in this period of her life, in addition to being a great scholar, she also had the respect of those around her, so much so that she led 1,000's of men in battle. She inspired them and prodded them on with her oratory and poetry. This was during a time of great political strife in the Muslim community and she and her army was defeated with great casualties on all sides. She and her opponent met and settled their differences, but she never forgot this incident regarding it as a great mistake and often crying until her veil was covered with tears. Often she would say: "I wish I was a thing forgotten and out of sight." How fortunate for us, she wasn¼t! Aisha died in about the year 681 A.D. at the age of 65.

-link


There is much commentary about the age of marriage.

Society’s norms of sexual relationships and family life are in a state of continual change. Living in the 21st century, we find that these changes that used to be slow and gradual in the past are gaining more and more speed.


In most of the so-called civilized countries, family values seem to have lost all worth for most people. In the post–World War II generation of the United States, 80 percent of children grew up in a family with both the parents. Now that number has dipped to 60 percent. Before declining slightly in recent years, divorce rates had soared more than 30 percent since 1970. Today nearly half of American marriages are projected to end in divorce or permanent separation. Nearly half of people between ages 25 and 40 at some point have lived with a member of the opposite sex outside of marriage.

Please notice that we take the American statistics for the following reasons: (1) Reliable statistics are available there; (2) Most countries and peoples of the world imitate the Americans and are facing the same results; (3) Most of the critics of Islam come from America and so they are expected to have first-hand experience of the situations described.

Ninety percent of women born between 1933 and 1942 were virgins when they married; now over half of all teenage girls in the United States have sexual intercourse with some man before age 17. More dramatically, the percentage of teen girls who said that having a child out of wedlock is a “worthwhile lifestyle” rose from 33 to 53 in the past two decades. And what about same-sex marriage? It is being accepted even by the conservatives and the clergymen as perfectly normal. Such findings lead many people to conclude that “the institution of marriage is in serious trouble.” (Michael A. Fletcher, “Study: Marriage Rate Is at Its Lowest Ever—Findings Are Proof of Changing Attitudes, Report’s Authors Say,” Washington Post; published Friday, July 2, 1999, in The San Jose Mercury News.)

To speak of the age of consent for women in the United States: A 20-year-old woman who marries in Nebraska breaks the law because there the age of consent is 21, while a woman in Kanasa can legally marry at 13 years old. A hundred years ago, under the common law in the United States, the age of consent was just 10 years. Ancient Jewish law permitted girls to be wives at a much younger age. In ancient India girls as young as five and six were married to much older men. Even now the practice continues among some Hindus.

The foregoing shows that the minimum age for girls to be married varies from culture to culture and from age to age. Against this background, there seems to be no point in holding a particular age as the right age of consent in the post-modern world. But people who want to impose one on a different culture or religion would make it a big issue. It is surprising how even the intellectuals show a tendency to judge others by their own culture-specific standards as though these should be accepted universally binding on the whole of mankind!

This is not to argue that today girls should be married off at nine or ten years, for no one can ignore that the times, the social conditions, and the cultural milieu have undergone immense changes. But the very same fact should help us to realize that in another age and in another cultural setting, marrying a girl at the age of nine was quite the norm and there could be nothing surprising about that.

The events of the Prophet’s life (as also is the case of the lives of other prophets of the past) should be interpreted in the light of the socio-historical conditions of the times. What people often miss is the absurdity of trying to assess an event of sixth century Arabia, as though it happened the other day in downtown Manhattan or Birmingham.

It is worth stating here that it was Abu Bakr, the father of `A’ishah, who gave her in marriage to Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), and that she remained a faithful and loving wife until death parted her from her husband. And of the wives of the Prophet, none was so mature and knowledgeable as `A’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her).

It is acknowledged principle that a hadith should be interpreted against the background of the actual context that led the Prophet to say or do what he did. Furthermore, when applying the hadith to the present situation, we need to consider the changed circumstances. It is meaningless to expect the Prophet to have explained all in advance; rather, it is the duty of modern scholars to do this interpretation in the right way, so as to make the example of the Prophet relevant to the present times.

It is only natural that some of the things that the Prophet did or said may not correspond to a particular time or situation; but that does not make such examples insignificant or irrelevant. In the future, situations and conditions may arise that call for decisions or rulings based on those examples.

-link


The issue of `A’ishah bint Abi Bakr has arisen purely around the fact that she married Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) when she was young , “Do we know what her true age was?”

The problem is that we are dependent on reports of information. Even with accurate reporting, it is difficult to sustain that level of accuracy 100% of the time, all the time.


The true records that are referred to by Muslims for guidance are the Qur’an and the Hadiths (traditions) of Prophet Muhammad, the essence of both of which is the religion of Islam. They are not sociology textbooks although Islam covers all aspects of life. One of the foremost records depended upon is the collection of hadiths of Prophet Muhammad in the Sahih of Al-Bukhari. From the translation of Dr. Amin Al-Masri of Cambridge University, England and Head of Shari`ah at the College of Shari`ah and Islamic Studies in Makkah, we are informed:
`A’ishah reported that the Prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: “I have been informed that `A’ishah remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e., till his death).” (Al-Bukhari 7: 65)

The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with `A’ishah while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death). (Al-Bukhari 7: 88)
Islamic scholar Maulana Muhammad Ali was one of the first to challenge `A’ishah’s age. In his books Muhammad, the Prophet and Living Thoughts of the Prophet Muhammad, he states:
A great misconception prevails as to the age at which `A’ishah was taken in marriage by the Prophet. Ibn Sa`d has stated in the Tabaqat that when Abu Bakr (father of `A’ishah) was approached on behalf of the Prophet, he replied that the girl had already been betrothed to Jubair and that he would have to settle the matter first with him. This shows that `A’ishah must have been approaching maturity at the time.
Again, the Isaba, speaking of the Prophet’s daughter Fatimah, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than `A’ishah. This shows that `A’ishah must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be.

This is further borne out by the fact that `A’ishah herself is reported to have stated that when the fifty-fourth chapter [i.e., surah] of the Qur’an entitled “The Moon” [Al-Qamar] was revealed, she was a girl playing about and remembered certain verses then revealed. Now the fifty-fourth chapter was undoubtedly revealed before the sixth year of the Call. All these considerations point to but one conclusion, that `A'ishah could not have been less than ten years of age at the time of her nikah, which was virtually only a betrothal.

And there is one report in the Tabaqat that `A’ishah was nine years of age at the time of nikah. Again it is a fact admitted on all hands that the nikah of `A’ishah took place in the tenth year of the Call in the month of Shawwal. This is while there is also preponderance of evidence as to the consummation of her marriage taking place in the second year of Hijrah in the same month, which shows that full five years had elapsed between the nikah and the consummation. Hence, there is not the least doubt that `A’isha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.

If we dig deeper, we find that the great Islamic historian Ibn Jarir At-Tabari in his History iterated:
In the time before Islam, Abu Bakr married two women. The first was Fatila daughter of `Abdul `Uzza, from whom `Abdullah and `Asmaa’ were born. Then he married Umm Ruman, from whom `Abdur-Rahman and `A’ishah were born. These four were born before Islam.
Looking at `A'ishah's impressions of her early life, we can indeed see that she was born before the Call:

Since I reached the age when I could remember things, I have seen my parents worshiping according to the right faith of Islam. Not a single day passed but Allah’s Messenger visited us both in the morning and in the evening. When the Muslims were persecuted, Abu Bakr set out for Ethiopia as an emigrant. When he reached a place called Bark Al-Ghimad, he met Ibn Ad-Daghna, the chief of the Qara tribe, who asked Abu Bakr, “Where are you going?” Abu Bakr said, “My people have turned me out of the country and I would like to tour the world and worship my Lord.” Ibn Ad-Daghna said, “A man like you will not go out, nor will he be turned out, as you help the poor earn their living, keep good relations with your kith and kin, help the disabled (or the dependents), provide guests with food and shelter, and help people during their troubles. I am your protector. So, go back and worship your Lord at your home.”
Ibn Ad-Daghna went along with Abu Bakr and took him to the chiefs of Quraysh saying to them, “A man like Abu Bakr will not go out, nor will he be turned out. Do you turn out a man who helps the poor earn their living, keeps good relations with kith and kin, helps the disabled, provides guests with food and shelter and helps the people during their troubles?” (Al-Bukhari 3: 37 #494)
The famous classical commentator on the Qur’an, Ibn Kathir, wrote in Al-Bidayya wan-Nihaya: “Asmaa’ died in 73 AH at the age of one hundred years. She was ten years older than her sister `A'ishah.”

It might be worth noting that pubescence is characterized by the proliferation of sex cells which begins with the menarche, or first menstruation, in girls. Research has noted that the average age at which the menarche begins has been decreasing among Western European girls and apparently among girls of the United States and Canada, as well, since as far back as 1976. What this means is that we should try to avoid generalizations about when menstruation begins; this differs from culture to culture as well as epoch to epoch. If you want to take this further: puberty comes from the Latin word pubertas, which means “adult”. The Qur’an states what means:
{And when the children among you have attained to puberty, let them seek permission as those before them sought permission; thus does Allah make clear to you His communications, and Allah is Knowing, Wise}* (An-Nur 24: 59)
It all depends on what one wishes to recognize, the laws of nature or the social laws constructed by man. `A’ishah married willingly under circumstances that supported that marriage, whichever argument one chooses to follow.

-link


A Christian friend asked me once, “Will you marry your seven year old daughter to a fifty year old man?” I kept my silence. He continued, “If you would not, how can you approve the marriage of an innocent seven year old, Ayesha, with your Prophet?”

I told him, “I don’t have an answer to your question at this time.” My friend smiled and left me with a thorn in the heart of my faith.

Most Muslims answer that such marriages were accepted in those days. Otherwise, people would have objected to Prophet’s marriage with Ayesha.

The Prophet (PBUH) was an exemplary man. All his actions were most virtuous so that we, Muslims, can emulate them. However, most people in our Islamic Center of Toledo, including me, would not think of betrothing our seven years daughter to a fifty-two year-old man. If a parent agrees to such a wedding, most people, if not all, would look down upon the father and the old husband.

In 1923, registrars of marriage in Egypt were instructed not to register and issue official certificates of marriage for brides less than sixteen and grooms less than eighteen years of age. Eight years later, the Law of the Organization and Procedure of Sheriah courts of 1931 consolidated the above provision by not hearing the marriage disputes involving brides less than sixteen and grooms less than eighteen years old. (REF: Women in Muslim Family Law, John Esposito, 1982). It shows that even in the Muslim majority country of Egypt the child marriages are unacceptable.

So, I believed, without solid evidence other than my reverence to my Prophet (pbuh), that the stories of the marriage of seven-year-old Ayesha (ra) to fifty-year-old Prophet are only myths. However, my long pursuit in search of the truth on this matter proved my intuition correct. My Prophet was a gentleman. And He did not marry an innocent seven or nine year old girl.

The age of Ayesha (ra) has been erroneously reported in the hadith literature. Furthermore, I think that the narratives reporting this event are highly unreliable. Some of the hadith regarding Ayesha’s age at the time of her wedding with prophet are problematic. I present the following evidences against the acceptance of the fictitious story by Hisham ibn `urwah and to clear the name of my Prophet (pbuh) as an irresponsible old man preying on an innocent little girl.

EVIDENCE # 1

Most of these narratives printed in the Hadith books are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father.

First of all, more people than just one, two or three should logically have reported. It is strange that no one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived the first seventy one years of his life has narrated the event, even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn Anas.

The origins of the report of the narratives of this event are people from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have shifted after living in Medinah for seventy-one years.

Tehzibu'l-tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and the reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) report that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: " He [Hisham] is highly reliable, his narratives are acceptable, except what he narrated after moving over to Iraq." (REF: Tehzi'bu'l-tehzi'b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala'ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, 15th century. Vol 11, p. 50).

It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq:

“I have been told that Malik [ibn Anas] objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq." (REF: Tehzi'b u'l-tehzi'b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala'ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Vol.11, p. 50)

Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, another book on the life sketches of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports:"When he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly" (REF: Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, Al-Zahbi, Al-Maktabatu'l-athriyyah, Sheikhupura, Pakistan, Vol. 4, p. 301)

CONCLUSION:

Based on these references, Hisham’s memory was failing and his narratives while in Iraq were unreliable. So, his narrative of Ayesha’s marriage and age are unreliable.

Chronology Now let me state some of the pertinent dates in the history of Islam: Jahilliyya Before Revelation First Revelation 610 CE Abu Baker accepts Islam 610 CE Public preaching 613 CE Emigration to Abyssenia 615 CE Umar bin al Khattab accept Islam 616 CE Generally accepted betrothal of Ayesha 620 CE Hijarah 622 CE Generally accepted year of Ayesha living with Prophet 623 or 624CE (1 or 2 AH)

EVIDENCE # 2

Betrothal According to Tabari (also according to Hisham ibn ‘urwah, Ibn Hunbal and Ibn Sad), Ayesha was betrothed at seven years of age and began to cohabit with Prophet at the age of nine years. However, in another work, Al- Tabari says:"All four of his [Abu Bakr's] children were born of his two wives -- the names of whom we have already mentioned -- during the pre-Islamic period."(REF: Tarikhu'l-umam wa'l-mamlu'k, Al-Tabari (died 922), Vol. 4, p. 50, Arabic, Dara'l-fikr, Beirut, 1979)

If Ayesha was betrothed in 620 CE (at the age of 7 years) and started to live with Prophet in 624 CE or 2 AH (at the age of nine years), she was born in 613 CE {(Year of living with Prophet MINUS Ayesha’a age at that time of living with Prophet EQUALS the date of birth of Ayesha (624CE – 9 yrs = 613 CE)}.

So, based on one account of Al-Tabari the numbers show that Ayesha must have born (613 CE) three years after the beginning of revelation (610 CE). And yet another place Tabari says that Ayesha was born in Pre-Islamic time (in Jahilliyyah). If she were born in pre-Islamic time (before 610 CE), she would have be at least 14 years old.

So, Tabari contradicts himself.

CONCLUSION:

Al-Tabari is unreliable in the matter of determining Ayesha’s age. Contradicting Reports

EVIDENCE # 3

The Age of Ayesha in Relation to the Age of Fathima. According to According to Ibn Hajar, “ Fatimah (ra) was born at the time the Ka`bah was rebuilt, when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old... she (Fatimah) was five years older that Ayesha (ra).” (REF: Al-isabah fi tamyizi'l-sahabah, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Vol. 4, P. 377, Maktabatu'l-Riyadh al-haditha, al-Riyadh, 1978)

So, based on Ibn Hajar, Fathima was born when Prophet was 35 years old and Ayesha was 5 years younger than Fathima. If Ibn Hajar’s statement is factual, Ayesha was born when Prophet was forty years old (Prophet’s age at the birth of Fathima PLUS 5 years = 40 years).

If Ayesha was married to Prophet when he was 52 years old, Ayesha’ age at marriage would be 12 years {(Prophet’s age at the time of marriage MINUS Prophet’s age at Ayesha’s birth (52 yrs – 40 years = 12 yrs)}.

CONCLUSION:

Ibn Hajar, Tabari an Ibn Hisham and Ibn Humbal contradict each other. So, the marriage of Ayesha at seven years of age is a myth.

EVIDENCE # 4

The Age of Ayesha in Relation to the Age of Asma According to Abda'l-Rahman ibn abi zanna'd: “Asma (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha. (REF: Siyar A`la'ma'l-nubala', Al-Zahabi, Vol. 2, p. 289, Arabic, Mu'assasatu'l-risalah, Beirut, 1992)

According to Ibn Kathir: "She [Asma] was elder to her sister [Ayesha] by ten years". (REF: Al-Bidayah wa'l-nihayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, p. 371, Dar al-fikr al-`arabi, Al-jizah, 1933)

According to Ibn Kathir: "She [Asma] saw the killing of her son during that year [i.e. 73 AH], as we have already mentioned, and five days later she herself died. According to other narratives she died not after five days but ten or twenty or a few days over twenty or a hundred days later. The most well known narrative is that of hundred days later. At the time of her death, she was 100 years old." (REF: Al-Bidayah wa'l-nihayah, Ibn Kathir (died 1333), Vol. 8, Pg. 372, Dar al-fikr al-`arabi, Al-jizah, 1933)

"She [Asma (ra)] lived a hundred years and died in 73 or 74 AH." (REF: Taqribu'l-tehzib, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, Pg 654, Arabic, Bab fi'l-nisa', al-harfu'l-alif, Lucknow)

According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Ayesha (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha (ra). If Asma was 100 years old in 73 AH, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijra { Asma’s age MINUS 73 hijrah EQUALS the age of Asma at the time of Hijrah( 100 – 73 or 74 = 27 or 28)}. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of Hijrah, Ayesha (ra), being younger by 10 years, should have been 17 or 18 years old {Asma’s age at the time of Hijarah MINUS the age difference between Asma and Ayesha EQUALS the age of Ayesha at the time of Hijarh (27 or 28 –10 = 17 or 18 yrs)}.

Thus, Ayesha (ra), being 17 or 18 years of at the time of Hijra, she started to cohabit with Prophet between 19 to 20 years old (The Age of Ayesha at the time of Hijra + the year of Ayesha cohabiting with Prophet (19-20 + 1-2 Hijra) = The Age of Ayesha when she cohabit with Prophet (19 or 20 years). Based on Hajar, Ibn Katir, and Abda'l-Rahman ibn abi zanna'd, age of Ayesha at the time living with Prophet would be 19or 20 years.

In evidence # 3, Ibn Hajar suggests that Ayesha is 12 years old and in evidence # 4 he contradicts himself with a seventeen or eighteen-year-old Ayesha (ra).

What is the correct age, twelve or eighteen?

CONCLUSION: Ibn Hajar is an unreliable source for Ayesha’s age.

EVIDENCE # 5

Battles of Badr and UhudA narrative regarding Ayesha's (ra) participation in Badr is given in Muslim, Kitabu'l-jihad wa'l-siyar, Bab karahiyati'l-isti`anah fi'l-ghazwi bikafir. Ayesha (ra) while narrating the journey to Badr and one of the important events that took place in that journey says: "when we reached Shajarah".

It is quite obvious from these words that Ayesha (ra) was with the group travelling towards Badr. A narrative regarding Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of `uhud is given in Bukhari, Kitabu'l-jihad wa'l-siyar, Bab Ghazwi'l-nisa' wa qitalihinna ma`a'lrijal:"Anas reports that On the day of Uhud, people could not stand their ground around the Prophet (pbuh). [On that day,] I saw Ayesha (ra) and Umm-i-Sulaim(ra), they had pulled their dress up from their feet [to avoid any hindrance in their movement]."

CONCLUSION:

Ayesha (ra) was present in the battles of Uhud and Badr. It is narrated in Bukhari, Kitabu'l-maghazi, Bab ghazwati'l-khandaq wa hiya'l-ahza'b:"Ibn `umar (ra) states that the Prophet (pbuh) did not permit me to participate in Uhud, as at that time, I was fourteen years old. But on the day of Khandaq, when I was fifteen years old, the Prophet (pbuh) permitted my participation."Summary: Based on the above narratives, (a) the children below 15 years were sent back and were not allowed to participate in the battle of `uhud, (b) Ayesha participated in the battles of Badr and Uhud

CONCLUSION:

Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicates that she was not nine old but at least 15 years old or older. After all, women used to accompany men to the battlefields to help them, not to be a burden on them. This account is another contradiction about Ayesha’s age.

EVIDANCE # 6

Surat al QamarAccording to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said:"I was a young girl (jariyah)" when Surah Al-Qamar was revealed. (REF: Sahih Bukhari, kitabu'l-tafsir, Bab Qaulihi Bal al-sa`atu Maw`iduhum wa'l-sa`atu adha' wa amarr)


The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed eight years before Hijrah (REF: The Bounteous Koran, M.M. Khatib, 1985). So, it was revealed in 614 CE {Year of Hijrah MINUS year of revelation of Al Qamar (622 CE – 8 = 614 CE)}.

If Ayesha started living with Prophet (pbuh) at the age of nine in 623 CE or 624 CE, she was a newborn infant (a sibyah) {Year of Ayesha living with Prophet MINUS age of Ayesha when she started to live with Prophet (623 CE or 624 CE– 9 years=614 0r 615) at the time the Surah Al-Qamar was revealed. According to the above tradition, Ayesha (ra) was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) in the year of revelation of Al Qamar. “Jariyah” means young playful girl (Lane’s Arabic English Lexicon).

So, Ayesha, being a Jariyah not a sibyah (infant), must be somewhere between 6-13 years at the time of revelation of Al-Qamar, and thereby she must have been 14-21 years (6-13 + 8= 14-21 years) at the time she married Prophet.


CONCLUSION:

This tradition also contradicts the marriage of Ayesha at the age of nine.

EVIDANCE # 7.

Arabic TermAccording to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices that she had in her mind. Khaulah said: "You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)".

When the Prophet (pbuh) asked the identity of the bikr (virgin), Khaulah proposed Ayesha's (ra) name.
All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word "Bikr" in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine-year-old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is "Jariyah". "Bikr" on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady without conjugal experience prior to marriage, as we understand the word, virgin, in English.

Therefore, obviously a nine-year-old girl is not a "lady" (Bikr). (REF: Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Vol. 6, p. .210, Arabic, Dar Ihya al-turath al-`arabi, Beirut.)

CONCLUSION:

The literal meaning of the word, Bikr (virgin), in the above Hadith is adult women with no sexual experience prior to marriage. Therefore, Ayesha was an adult woman at the time of her marriage.

EVIDENCE # 8.

The Qur’anic TextAll Muslims agree that the Qur’an is the book of guidance.

So, we need seek the guidance from the Qur’an to clear the smoke and the confusion created by the eminent men of the classical period of Islam in the matter of the age of Ayesha at her marriage. Does the Qur’an allow or disallow marriage of an immature child of seven years of age?

There are no verses that explicitly allow such marriage. However, I found a verse that guides us in our duty to raise a child deprived with the death of one or both parents. I believe that guidance of the Qur’an on the topic of raising orphans is also valid in the case of our own children.

The Verse states: “And make not over your property (property of the orphan), which Allah had made a (means of) support for you, to the weak of understanding, and maintain them out of it, clothe them and give them good education. And test them until they reach the age of marriage. Then if you find them maturity of intellect, make over them their property……” (Qur’an 4:5-6).

In the matter of children who has lost a parent, a Muslim is ordered to (a) feed them, (b) clothe them, (c) educate them, and (d) test them for maturity “until the age of marriage” before entrusting them with management of finances. Here the Qur’anic verse demands meticulous proof of their intellectual and physical maturity by objective test results before the age of marriage in order to entrust their property to them. In the light of the above verses, no responsible Muslims would hand over financial management to a seven or nine year old immature girl.

If we cannot trust a seven-year-old to manage the financial matters, she cannot be intellectually or physically fit for marriage also.

Ibn Hambal (REF:Musnad Ahmad ibn Hambal, vol.6, p 33 and 99) claims that Ayesha at the age of nine was rather more interested to play with toy-horses than to take up the responsible task of a wife. Therefore, I would not believe that Abu Baker, a great Moimin, would betroth his immature seven-year-old daughter to fifty-year-old Prophet. Similarly, I would not believe that Prophet (pbuh) would marry a seven-year-old immature girl.

Another important duty demanded from the guardian of a child is “to educate them.” Let us ask the question, “How many of us in the Islamic Center believe that we can educate our children satisfactorily before they reach the age of seven or nine years?”The answer is “none.” It is a logically impossible task to educate a child satisfactorily before the child attains the age of seven. Then, how can we believe that Ayesha was educated satisfactorily at the claimed age of seven at the time of her marriage? Abu Baker (ra) was a better judicious man than all of us. So, he definitely would have judged that Ayesha was a child at heart and was not satisfactorily educated as demanded by the Qur’an.

He would not have married her to any one. If a proposal of marrying the immature and yet to be educated seven-year-old Ayesha came to Prophet (pbuh) he would have rejected it outright because neither Prophet (pbuh) nor Abu Baker (ra) would violate any clause in the Qur’an.

CONCLUSION:

Marriage of Ayesha (ra) at the age of seven years would violate the maturity clause or requirement of the Qur’an. Therefore, the story of the marriage of the seven-year-old immature Ayesha is a myth.

EVIDENCE # 9.

Consent in Marriage A women must be consulted and get her permission to make the marriage valid (REF:Mishakat al Masabiah, translation by James Robson, Vol. I, p.665). So, in the Muslim marriage, a credible permission from women is a pre-requisite for the marriage to be valid. By any stretch of imagination, the permission by a seven-year-old immature girl cannot be a valid authorization for marriage. It is unconceivable to me that Abu Baker, an intelligent man, would take seriously the permission of a seven-year-old girl to marry a fifty-year-old man. Similarly, Prophet would not have accepted permission given by an immature girl who, according to Muslim, took her toys with her when she went live with Prophet (pbuh).

CONCLUSION:

Prophet (pbuh) did not marry seven-year-old Ayesha because it would have violated the requirement of valid permission clause of Islamic Marriage Decree. Therefore, Prophet married intellectually and physically mature Lady Ayesha.:

It was neither an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as seven or nine years, nor did the Prophet (pbuh) marry Ayesha (ra) at such a young age.

The people of Arabia did not object to this marriage, because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated.Obviously, the narrative of the marriage of nine year old Ayesha by Hisham ibn `urwah cannot be held true when it is contradicted by many other narratives reported above. Moreover, I see absolutely no reason to accept the narrative of Hisham ibn `urwah as true when other scholars including Malik ibn Anas view his narrative, while in Iraq, as unreliable.

The quotations from Tabari, Bukhari and Muslim show they contradict each other regarding Ayesha's (ra) age. Furthermore, many of these scholars contradict themselves in their own records. Thus, the narrative of Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of the marriage is not reliable due to the clear contradictions seen in the works of classical scholars of Islam.

Therefore, I see absolutely no reason to believe that the information on Ayesha's (ra) age is accepted as true when there are adequate grounds to reject it as myth. Moreover, the guidance from the Qur’an is against the marriage of immature girls and boys and also against entrusting them with responsibilities.

ANSWER TO MY CHRISTIAN FRIEND:

We do not know the exact age at the time of her marriage due to lack of reliable records. Based on the evidences presented above, the marriage of fifty-two-year-old Prophet (pbuh) with Ayesha (ra) at nine year of age is only a proverbial myth. On the contrary, Ayesha (ra) was an intellectually and physically mature Bikr (virgin = adult unmarried woman with no sexual experience) when she married Prophet (pbuh).

link


[+/-] show/hide this post
A Dhimmis Guide to Christian Zionism : Dispensationalism And The Roots Of Sectarian Theology
A History of Dispensational Approaches

Dispensationalism is one of the most influential theological systems within the universal church today. Largely unrecognised and subliminal, it has increasingly shaped the presuppositions of fundamentalist, evangelical, Pentecostal and charismatic thinking concerning Israel and Palestine over the past one hundred and fifty years.

John Nelson Darby is regarded as the father of dispensationalism and its prodigy, Christian Zionism. It was Cyrus. I. Scofield and D. L. Moody, however, who brought Darby’s sectarian theology into mainstream evangelical circles. R. C. Sproul concedes that dispensationalism is now ‘...a theological system that in all probability is the majority report among current American evangelicals.’[[1]]

Most of the early popular American radio preachers such as Donald Grey Barnhouse, Charles E. Fuller, and M. R. DeHaan were dispensationalists. Today, virtually all the 'televangelists' such as Jerry Falwell, Jim Bakker, Paul Crouch, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart and Billy Graham are also dispensationalists.

Other leading dispensationalist writers include Charles Ryrie, Dwight Pentecost, John Walvoord, Eric Sauer, Charles Dyer, Tim LaHaye, Grant Jeffrey and Hal Lindsey. Notable political proponents include Jimmie Carter and Ronald Reagan. Probably the most significant Christian organisations to espouse dispensationalism have been the Moody Bible Institute, Dallas Theological Seminary and the International Christian Embassy, Jerusalem.

2. Dispensationalism Defined

The basic text upon which dispensationalism is based is the Authorised translation of 2 Timothy 2:15, where the Apostle Paul calls upon Timothy to ‘... rightly divide the word of truth.’ Scofield took this verse as the title for his first book which is a defence of this way of ‘dividing’ Scripture into discrete dispensations.[[2]] In its classical form, Charles Ryrie insists the sine qua non of Dispensationalism to be:

1. A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct...

2. This distinction between Israel and the church is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation...

3. A third aspect... concerns the underlying purpose of God in the world... namely, the glory of God... To the normative dispensationalist, the soteriological, or saving, program of God is not the only program but one of the means God is using in the total program of glorifying Himself.[[3]]

2.1 The Seven Dispensations

Following Darby and Scofield, dispensationalists claim to find in Scripture evidence of seven distinct dispensations during which humanity has been tested in respect of specific revelation as to the will of God. In each dispensation, including the present sixth dispensation of the Church, humanity has failed the test. These dispensations began with creation and will culminate in an exclusive Jewish kingdom on earth. Charles Ryrie offers the clearest outline of dispensationalism.[[4]]

The Dispensations

Name Scripture Responsibilities Judgment(s)

Innocency Genesis 1:3-3:6 Keep Garden...

Curses... Conscience Genesis 3:7-8:14 Do Good

Flood Civil Government Genesis 8:15-11:9 Fill earth...

Forced scattering.. Patriarchal Rule Genesis 11:10-Exodus 18:27 Stay in Promised Land

Egyptian bondage.. Mosaic Law Exodus 19:1 - John 14:30 Keep the Law...

Captivities Grace Acts 2:1- Revelation 19:21 Believe in Christ... Death...

Millennium Revelation 20:1-15 Believe & Obey... Death...

These dispensations are seen by proponents as literally 'providing us with a chronological map to guide us'[[5]] toward the seventh and final dispensation which will be inaugurated by the imminent return of Jesus Christ and the climax to world history.

2.2 A Distinction Between Israel and the Church

Dispensationalists believe that God has two separate but parallel means of working - one through the Church, the other through Israel (the former being a parenthesis to the latter).[[6]] Thus there is, and always will remain, a distinction, 'between Israel, the Gentiles and the Church.'[[7]] Darby was not the first to insist on a radical distinction between Israel and the Church.

Marcion stressed the radical nature of Christianity vis-a-vis Judaism. In his theology there existed a total discontinuity between the OT and the NT, between Israel and the church, and even between the god of the OT and the Father of Jesus.[[8]]

It was, however, Darby who first insisted that: ‘The Jewish nation is never to enter the Church.’[[9]] Scofield developed this idea further:

Comparing then, what is said in Scripture concerning Israel and the Church, we find that in origin, calling, promise, worship, principles of conduct and future destiny, all is contrast.[[10]]

Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary and a student of Scofield's, elaborated on this dichotomy between Israel and the church:

The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.[[11]]

For Chafer, ‘Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne,’[[12]] that is, on earth and distinct from the church who will be in heaven.

2.3 A Literalist Hermeneutic

Dispensationalism is based on the hermeneutical principle that Scripture is always to be interpreted literally. Darby’s approach might be summarised in one sentence in which he admitted, ‘I prefer quoting many passages than enlarging upon them.’[[13]] Scofield, who popularised and synthesised Darby's theology explains further,

Not one instance exists of a 'spiritual' or figurative fulfilment of prophecy... Jerusalem is always Jerusalem, Israel is always Israel, Zion is always Zion... Prophecies may never be spiritualised, but are always literal.[[14]]

Ryrie similarly asserts:

To be sure, literal/historical/grammatical interpretation is not the sole possession or practice of dispensationalists, but the consistent use of it in all areas of biblical interpretation is.[[15]]

The logical deduction of a literalist dispensational hermeneutic is, according to Dwight Pentecost, another former member of the Dallas faculty, that:

Scripture is unintelligible until one can distinguish clearly between God’s program for his earthly people Israel and that for the Church.[[16]]

So Donald Grey Barnhouse, another leading dispensationalist insists:

It was a tragic hour when the reformation churches wrote the Ten Commandments into their creeds and catechisms and sought to bring Gentile believers into bondage to Jewish law, which was never intended either for the Gentile nations or for the church.[[17]]

With breathtaking candour Chafer insists:

[Dispensationalism] has changed the Bible from being a mass of more or less conflicting writings into a classified and easily assimilated revelation of both the earthly and heavenly purposes of God, which reach on into eternity to come.[[18]]

Ernest Sandeen critically observes that dispensationalism has ‘a frozen biblical text in which every word is supported by the same weight of divine authority.’[[19]]

Based on this interpretative principle, dispensationalists hold that the promises made to Abraham and through him to the Jews, although postponed during this present Church age, are nevertheless eternal and unconditional and therefore await future realisation since they have never yet been literally fulfilled. So, for example, it is an article of normative dispensational belief that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants from the Nile to the Euphrates will be literally instituted and that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic Jewish kingdom centred on a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. In such a scheme the Church on earth is relegated to the status of a parenthesis,[[20]] a ‘Plan B...’,[[21]] and ‘...a sort of footnote or sidetrack in contrast to God’s main mission to save ethnic, national Israel.’[[22]]

2.4 An Apocalyptic Eschatology

Crucial to the dispensationalist reading of biblical prophecy is the conviction that the period of tribulation is imminent along with the secret rapture of the Church and the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple in place of, or along side, the Dome of the Rock. This will signal the return of the Lord to restore the Kingdom to Israel centred on Jerusalem. This pivotal event is also seen as the trigger for the start of the war of Armageddon in which most of the world's population together with large numbers of Jews will suffer and die.[[23]]

Convinced that a nuclear Armageddon is an inevitable event within the divine scheme of things, many evangelical dispensationalists have committed themselves to a course for Israel that, by their own admission, will lead directly to a holocaust indescribably more savage and widespread than any vision of carnage that could have been generated in Adolf Hitler’s criminal mind.[[24]]

Clearly, the consequences of such views, whether promulgated by academics from respectable theological institutions like Dallas Theological Seminary and the Moody Bible Institute, or by Jewish fanatics such as Baruch Ben-Yosef and the Temple Mount Yeshiva,[[25]] can only be devastating, especially since dispensationalists have considerable political influence through which they seek the fulfilment of their apocalyptic vision of the future. That dispensational vision is comparatively young in terms of church history. It began in 1828 when Darby wrote his first tract against the prevailing optimism of the established church.[[26]]

3. John Nelson Darby: The Father of Dispensationalism

Darby is rightly regarded as the first to espouse dispensationalism as a discrete theological system. However, William Kelly and Edward Irving played no small part in the restoration of premillennial speculations out of which Darby's dispensationalism arose.[[27]] Darby was not the first to use the term ‘dispensation’ to describe periods of Biblical history, nor was his own scheme universally accepted even within Brethren circles. It was Darby though who first insisted these dispensations were irreversible and progressive, speculating that the Church would soon be replaced on earth by a revived national Israel.

Charles Ryrie attempts, unconvincingly, to show that Darby's ideas were latent in previous writers such as the French mystic Pierre Poiret (1646-1719), the amillennial Calvinist John Edwards (1639-1716) and hymn writer Isaac Watts (1674-1748).[[28]] He does concede however that it was Darby who systematised and popularised the idea of dispensationalism.[[29]]

Darby was a charismatic figure and dominant personality, a persuasive speaker and zealous missionary for his dispensationalist beliefs. He personally founded Brethren churches in Germany, Switzerland, France and the United States, which in turn sent missionaries to Africa, the West Indies, Australia and New Zealand. By the time of his death in 1885, around 1500 separatist Brethren churches had been founded world-wide. Don Wagner makes the point that:

During his lifetime, Darby wrote more hymns than the Wesleys, travelled further than the Apostle Paul, and was a Greek and Hebrew scholar. His writings filled forty volumes... If Brightman was the father of Christian Zionism, then Darby was its greatest apostle and missionary... [[30]]

In 1908, Harry Ironside, a dispensationalist and former pastor of Moody Memorial Church in Chicago, claimed Darby had rediscovered the apostolic teaching lost to the church:

Until brought to the fore through the writings and preaching and teaching of a distinguished ex-clergyman, Mr J. N. Darby, in the early part of the last century, it is scarcely to be found in a single book or sermon through a period of sixteen hundred years.[[31]]

The clearest expression of Darby’s thinking is to be found in ‘The Apostasy of the Successive Dispensations.’ In this work it is noticeable, however, that Darby's views are vague and embryonic compared with later attempts by Scofield and Ryrie to systematise seven discrete dispensations. Ryrie’s interpretation of Darby’s dispensations is significantly at variance with Darby’s own writings but more consistent with, and probably reliant upon, Scofield. It is an understatement when Ryrie claims Darby’s scheme is, ‘not always easily discerned from his writings’.[[32]] Ryrie appears to have read back into Darby’s writings, a scheme that suited his own purposes. From Darby’s own works it is possible to reconstruct his dispensational chronology and compare it with Ryrie’s interpretation, together with Scofield’s 1909 version, itself modified in a subsequent revision made by Schuyler English in the New Scofield Reference Bible in 1967.

Darby’s Dispensations[[33]]


Ryrie’s Version of Darby[[34]]


Scofield’s Dispensations[[35]]








1. Paradisaical state




1. Innocency (Genesis 1:28)

1. Noah (Government)




2. Noah


2. Conscience (Genesis 3:23)




3. Abraham


3. Human Government (Genesis 8:20)





2. Moses (Law)

3. Aaron (Priesthood)

4. Kingly (Manasseh)




4. Israel-

under law

under priesthood

under kings


4. Promise (Genesis 12:1)



5. Law (Exodus 19:8)



5. Spirit (Gentile)


5. Gentiles


6. Grace (John 1:17)




6. Spirit







7. Millennium


7. Kingdom (Ephesians 1:10)

Darby defended his dispensational interpretation on two grounds. First, he claimed others had not studied the Scriptures correctly.

The covenant is a word common in the language of a large class of Christian professors... but in its development and detail, as to its unfolded principles, much obscurity appears to me to have arisen from a want of simple attention to Scripture.[[36]]

Second, Darby believed the Lord had revealed it to him personally.

For my part, if I were bound to receive all that has been said by the Millenarians, I would reject the whole system, but their views and statements weigh with me not one feather. But this does not hinder me from enquiring by the teaching of the same spirit... what God has with infinite graciousness revealed to me concerning His dealing with the Church.[[37]]

Even Roy Coad, in his otherwise sympathetic history of the Brethren Movement, admits that 'For the traditional view of Revelation, another was substituted.'[[38]] James Barr is less charitable arguing that dispensationalism was '...individually invented by J. N. Darby... [and] ...concocted in complete contradiction to all main Christian traditions...'[[39]]

Darby's was convinced that the visible Church of his day was apostate. This assumption appears to have shaped his emerging belief that the Church era was therefore merely a 'parenthesis' to the Last Days. Darby regarded the Church as simply one more dispensation that had failed and was under God's judgement. Just as Israel had been cut off, so the Church would be. Just as only a small remnant of Israel had been saved, so would only a small remnant of the church. And naturally, of course, the remnant taken from the ruins of the Church were his own followers, the Brethren.

The Church has sought to settle itself here, but it has no place on the earth... [Though] making a most constructive parenthesis, it forms no part of the regular order of God's earthly plans, but is merely an interruption of them to give a fuller character and meaning to them [the Jews].[[40]]

Darby believed that the covenantal relationship between God and Abraham was binding for ever and that the promises pertaining to the nation of Israel, as yet unfulfilled, would find their consummation in the reign of Jesus Christ on earth during the millennium. Speaking of the imminent return of the Jews to Palestine, Darby predicted,

The first thing, then, which the Lord will do will be to purify His land (the land which belongs to the Jews) of the Tyrians, the Philistines, the Sidonians; of Edom and Moab, and Ammon - of all the wicked, in short from the Nile to the Euphrates. It will be done by the power of Christ in favour of His people re-established by His goodness. The people are put into security in the land, and then will those of them who remain till that time among the nations be gathered together.[[41]]

Darby was as dismissive of the Jews as he was of Arabs. He not only taught that God would 'purify' the Arabs from between the Nile and the Euphrates and give it all to the Jews, but also believed the majority of Jews would eventually identify with the Antichrist.

The government of the fourth monarchy will be still in existence, but under the influence and direction of the Antichrist; and the Jews will unite themselves to him, in a state of rebellion, to make war with the Lamb... Satan will then be displayed, who will unite the Jews with this apostate prince against heaven... a remnant of the Jews is delivered and Antichrist destroyed.[[42]]

Clarence Bass summarises the novel nature of Darby’s emerging theological position.

It is not that exegetes prior to his time did not see a covenant between God and Israel, or a future relation of Israel to the millennial reign, but they always viewed the church as a continuation of God's single program of redemption begun in Israel. It is dispensationalism's rigid insistence on a distinct cleavage between Israel and the church, and its belief in a later unconditional fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant, that sets it off from the historic faith of the church.[[43]]

Darby's dispensational views, like those of Edward Irving, would probably have remained the exotic preserve of sectarian Brethren assemblies were it not for the energetic efforts of individuals like William Blackstone and D. L. Moody. Above all, however, they were propagated by Cyrus. I. Scofield who, through his Scofield Reference Bible, introduced them to a wider audience in America and the English-speaking world.

4. Cyrus I Scofield: The Author of the Scofield Reference Bible

The publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909 by the Oxford University Press was something of a literary coup. For the first time, explicit dispensational notes were added to the pages of the biblical text. While such a systematic chronology was largely unknown prior to Darby and Scofield, the Scofield Reference Bible became the leading Bible used by American Evangelicals and Fundamentalists for the next sixty years.[[44]]

By 1945 more than 2 million copies had been published in the United States alone. Between 1967 and 1979 a further 1 million copies were sold.[[45]] In a move to make Scofield’s work more accessible, in 1984 a new edition based on the New International Version was published followed by a CD Rom electronic version.

Scofield's notes relied heavily on Darby's writings. Gerstner notes that the resemblance between Scofield and Darby ‘is deep and systematic.’[[46]] It is significant, however, that neither in the introduction nor in any of the accompanying notes does Scofield acknowledge his indebtedness to Darby.

In the Introduction to the Scofield Reference Bible, he claims it is the 'remarkable results of the modern study of the Prophets, in recovering to the church... a clear and coherent harmony of the predictive portions...' Scofield defined his dispensations as periods of time, '...during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God...'[[47]]

The Dispensations are distinguished, exhibiting the majestic, progressive order of the divine dealings of God with humanity, the 'increasing purpose' which runs through and links together the ages, from the beginning of the life of man to the end in eternity. Augustine said: 'Distinguish the ages, and the Scriptures harmonize.'[[48]]


Whether Augustine understood 'ages' in terms of Scofield's dispensations is extremely unlikely. Nevertheless, Scofield believed that his scheme of seven was natural and self evident in Scripture,

...there is a beautiful system in this gradualness of unfolding. The past is seen to fall into periods, marked off by distinct limits, and distinguishable period from period by something peculiar to each. Thus it comes to be understood that there is a doctrine of Ages or Dispensations in the Bible.[[49]]

Scofield's rigid adherence to these dispensations required him to make some novel assertions to ensure consistency. So, for example, in describing the transition between his fourth dispensation of promise to his fifth dispensation of law, Scofield claims,

The descendants of Abraham had but to abide in their own land to inherit every blessing... The Dispensation of Promise ended when Israel rashly accepted the law (Ex. 19. 8). Grace had prepared a deliverer [Moses], provided a sacrifice for the guilty, and by divine power brought them out of bondage (Ex. 19. 4); but at Sinai they exchanged grace for law.[[50]]

Similarly, in his introduction to the Gospels, Scofield imposes stark divisions before and after Calvary which lead him to the following assertions:

The mission of Jesus was, primarily, to the Jews... The Sermon on the Mount is law, not grace... The doctrines of Grace are to be sought in the Epistles not in the Gospels.[[51]]

Strangely, Scofield ignored the one division that is self-evident - that between the Old and New Covenants. Mark 1:1 categorically states, ‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ’ and Matthew 11:13 reads, ‘for all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.' Yet Scofield places the life and ministry of Jesus within the dispensation of law, along with John the Baptist and the Old Testament prophets. He argues that the sixth dispensation of grace only ‘begins with the death and resurrection of Christ’.[[52]] For Scofield, the Lord’s Prayer, and in particular the petition, ‘Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors’ (Matt. 6:12) are not applicable to the church, since it is ‘legal ground’.[[53]] Scofield taught that salvation by works had been possible during the dispensation of the law and that the apostasy of the Church will signal the end of the dispensation of grace:

As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 3. 24-26; 4. 24, 25). The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ... The predicted end of the testing of man under grace is the apostasy of the professing church...[[54]]

Scofield believed the Gospels were essentially for the Jews and therefore not relevant for the Church. In a footnote to Ephesians 3, for example, he claims, ‘In his [Paul’s] writings alone we find the doctrine, position, walk, and destiny of the Church.’[[55]] Similarly, in perpetuating the distinction between Israel and the Church, Scofield claimed, that Israel is the earthly wife of God and the Church is the heavenly bride of Christ.

That Israel is the wife of Jehovah (see vs. 16-23), now disowned but yet to be restored, is the clear teaching of the passages. This relationship is not to be confounded with that of the Church to Christ (John 3.29, refs.). In the mystery of the Divine tri-unity both are true. The N.T. speaks of the Church as a virgin espoused to one husband (2 Cor. 11.1,2); which could never be said of an adulterous wife, restored in grace. Israel is, then, to be the restored and forgiven wife of Jehovah, the Church the virgin wife of the Lamb (John 3.29; Rev. 19.6-8); Israel Jehovah's earthly wife (Hos. 2.23); the Church the Lamb's heavenly bride (Rev. 19.7)[[56]]

In many ways Scofield was representative of, but at the same time became a focus for, the growing prophetic and millennial fundamentalist movement in North America influenced by the Brethren. The views later popularised by Scofield, were shaped by a series of Bible and Prophetic Conferences held across North America beginning in 1868 which followed the pattern established by Darby and Irving at Albury and Powerscourt from the 1830's.

Both the method of 'Bible readings' and the topics of the conferences strongly suggest that the gatherings were a result of J. N. Darby's travels in the United States and the influence of the Plymouth Brethren.[[57]]

One of the resolutions adopted by the 1878 Niagara Conference gives clear evidence of the influence of Darby's dispensationalism.

We believe that the world will not be converted during the present dispensation, but is fast ripening for judgment, while there will be fearful apostasy in the professing Christian body; and hence that the Lord Jesus will come in person to introduce the millennial age, when Israel shall be restored to their own land, and the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord; and that this personal and premillennial advent is the blessed hope set before us in the Gospel for which we should be constantly looking.[[58]]

In 1974, William E. Cox, a former dispensationalist and subsequent critic offered this appraisal Scofield’s abiding legacy.

Scofield’s footnotes and his systematized schemes of hermeneutics have been memorized by many as religiously as have verses of the Bible. It is not at all uncommon to hear devout men recite these footnotes prefaced by the words, ‘The Bible says...’ Many a pastor has lost all influence with members of his congregation and has been branded a liberal for no other reason than failure to concur with all the footnotes of Dr. Scofield. Even many ministers use the teachings of Scofield as tests of orthodoxy! [[59]]

Craig Blaising, professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary, agrees.

The Scofield Reference Bible became the Bible of fundamentalism, and the theology of the notes approached confessional status in many Bible schools, institutes and seminaries established in the early decades of this century.[[60]]

In 1890 Scofield began his Comprehensive Bible Correspondence Course through which tens of thousands of students around the world were introduced to his dispensational teaching about a failing Church and a future Israel. Scofield directed the course until 1914 when it was taken over by the Moody Bible Institute. In the 1890's, during Scofield's pastorate in Dallas, he was also principal of the Southwestern School of the Bible. This was the forerunner to Dallas Theological Seminary, which was founded in 1924 by another of his students, Lewis Sperry Chafer, who became one of Scofield’s most influential exponents.

Chafer has, in the history of American Dispensationalism, a double distinction. First, he established and led Dispensationalism’s most scholarly institution through the formative years of its existence. Second, he produced the first full and definitive systematic theology of Dispensationalism. This massive eight-volume work is a full articulation of the standard Scofieldian variety of dispensational thought, constantly related to the Biblical texts and data on which it claims to rest. Its influence appears to have been great on all dispensationalist teachers since its first publication, though it is fading today.

All of Chafer’s work and career was openly and obviously in the Scofieldian tradition. A few years before his death, Chafer, faithful to his mentor to the last, was to say of his greatest academic achievement, ‘It goes on record that the Dallas Theological Seminary uses, recommends, and defends the Scofield Bible.’ The major line of dispensational orthodoxy is clear and unbroken from Darby to Scofield to Chafer to Dallas.[[61]]

It is perhaps therefore not surprising that the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago and Dallas Theological Seminary have since then continued to be the foremost apologists for Scofield's dispensational views, and Christian Zionism in particular.

5. Hal Lindsey: The Father of Apocalyptic Dispensational Zionism

Hal Lindsey, himself a former Dallas student, is undoubtedly the most influential contemporary dispensationalist. Lindsey has been described by Time as ‘The Jeremiah for this Generation’, and by the New York Times as ‘the best selling author of the decade.’[[62]] The author of over twenty books, his latest publisher describes him as ‘The Father of the Modern-Day Bible Prophecy Movement,’[[63]] and, ‘the best known prophecy teacher in the world.’[[64]] Lindsey's most famous book, The Late Great Planet Earth has been described by the New York Times as the '#1 Non-fiction Bestseller of the Decade.'[[65]] It has gone through more than 108 printings with sales of more than 18 million copies in English, with between 18-20 million further copies in 54 foreign language editions.[[66]]

Lindsey’s popularity may be attributed to a combination of factors: his readable and journalistic style of writing; his imaginative, if dogmatic, insistence that contemporary geo-political events are the fulfilment of biblical prophecy; and, above all, his categorical assertions that the end of the world is imminent. Like Darby and Scofield, Lindsey confidently asserts that his interpretation of the Bible uniquely shows what will happen in the future.

Today, almost before I finish explaining a developing trend - it’s already an accomplished fact.[[67]]

On the back cover of The Final Battle we read,

This book describes in more detail and explicitness than any other just what will happen to humanity and to the Earth, not a thousand years from now, but in our lifetime-indeed in this very generation.[[68]]

Similarly, on the cover of The Apocalypse Code, Lindsey’s publisher writes,

In this riveting non-fiction book, the father of modern-day Bible prophecy cracks the "Apocalypse Code" and deciphers long-hidden messages about man's future and the fate of the earth.[[69]]

In Planet Earth, the Final Chapter, we are promised,

Hal will be your guide on a chilling tour of the world's future battlefields as the Great Tribulation, foretold more than two thousand years ago by Old and New Testament prophets, begins to unfold. You'll meet the world leaders who will bring man to the very edge of extinction and examine the causes of the current global situation - what it all means, what will shortly come to pass, and how it will all turn out.[[70]]

Like Darby, Lindsey also claims his interpretations were revealed personally to him by God.

I believe that the Spirit of God gave me a special insight, not only into how John described what he actually experienced, but also into how this whole phenomenon encoded the prophecies so that they could be fully understood only when their fulfilment drew near... I prayerfully sought for a confirmation for my apocalypse code theory...[[71]]

Lindsey may also be a popular writer because his tends to revise his predictions in the light of changing world events. Without carefully comparing each of his books, one would not necessarily realise that The Final Battle (1994) is a revision of The Late Great Planet Earth (1970); Apocalypse Code (1997) is a revision of There’s a New World Coming (1973); and Planet Earth 2000 A.D. (1994, & 1996) are both revisions of The 1980’s Countdown to Armageddon (1980). Planet Earth: The Final Chapter (1998) is the latest, but probably not the final, version in the ‘Planet Earth’ series.

A good example of Lindsey's prophetic revisionism concerns the future of the United States. In Planet Earth 2000 A.D. (1994) Lindsey specifically draws attention to a prophecy made in The Late Great Planet Earth (1970) as evidence of his prophetic accuracy. A comparison, however, shows that he has edited out his prediction of Communist subversion which did not occur.

The Late Great Planet Earth

Planet Earth 2000 A. D.

The United States will not hold its present position of leadership in the western world; financially, the future leader will be Western Europe. Internal political chaos caused by student rebellion and Communist subversion will begin to erode the economy of our nation. Lack of moral principle by citizens and leaders will so weaken law and order that a state of anarchy will finally result. The military capability of the United States, though it is at present the most powerful in the world, has already been neutralized because no one has the courage to use it decisively. When the economy collapses so will the military.[[72]]

"The United States will not hold its present position of leadership in the western world," I wrote in The Late Great Planet Earth.

"Lack of moral principle by citizens and leaders will so weaken law and order that a state of anarchy will finally result. The military capability of the United States, though it is at present the most powerful in the world, has already been neutralized because no one has the courage to use it decisively. When the economy collapses so will the military." Remember folks, these words were written in 1969, not the 1990's![[73]]

Lindsey's particular kind of reading of history, coloured by an imaginative exegesis of selected biblical scriptures, is dogmatic, dualistic and highly speculative. The titles of Lindsey’s books show an increasingly exaggerated and almost pathological emphasis on the apocalyptic, on death and suffering.[[74]]

In each Lindsey insists that biblical prophecy is being fulfilled, uniquely, in this generation and signals the imminent destruction of the world.

We are the generation the prophets were talking about. We have witnessed biblical prophecies come true. The birth of Israel. The decline in American power and morality. The rise of Russian and Chinese might. The threat of war in the Middle East. The increase of earthquakes, volcanoes, famine and drought. The Bible foretells the signs that precede Armageddon... We are the generation that will see the end times ...and the return of Jesus.[[75]]

Lindsey's last but one book, The Final Battle, includes the statement on the cover:

"Never before, in one book, has there been such a complete and detailed look at the events leading up to 'The Battle of Armageddon.'"[[76]]

Lindsey claims that the world is degenerating and that the forces of evil manifest in godless Communism and militant Islam are the real enemies of Israel. He describes in detail the events leading to the great battle at Megiddo between the massive Russian, Chinese and African armies that will attempt but fail to destroy Israel. He offers illustrated plans showing future military movements of armies and naval convoys leading up to the battle of Armageddon.[[77]] These will merely hasten the return of Jesus Christ as King of the Jews who will rule over the nations from the rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem.[[78]]

Obstacle or no obstacle, it is certain that the Temple will be rebuilt. Prophecy demands it... With the Jewish nation reborn in the land of Palestine, ancient Jerusalem once again under total Jewish control for the first time in 2600 years, and talk of rebuilding the great Temple, the most important sign of Jesus Christ’s soon coming is before us... It is like the key piece of a jigsaw puzzle being found... For all those who trust in Jesus Christ, it is a time of electrifying excitement.[[79]]

Acknowledging that the Islamic world will not tolerate such a scenario, Lindsey graphically predicts the effect of a world-wide nuclear holocaust centred on Jerusalem, with the 200 mile valley from the Sea of Galilee to Eilat flowing with irradiated blood several feet deep.[[80]]

...only a tiny fraction of the world’s population will be left. Only a remnant will have survived. Many of the Jews would have been killed.[[81]]

In The Final Battle, Lindsey claims, "The Jewish state will be brought to the brink of destruction."[[82]]

The land of Israel and the surrounding area will certainly be targeted for nuclear attack. Iran and all the Muslim nations around Israel have already been targeted with Israeli nukes... Zechariah gives an unusual, detailed account of how hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the Israel battle zone will die. Their flesh will be consumed from their bones, their eyes from their sockets, and their tongues from their mouths while they stand on their feet (Zechariah 14:12)... But God's power is certainly stronger than any nuclear bomb... We do know God will supernaturally strengthen and protect the believing Israelites so that they will survive the worst holocaust the world will ever see. Amen.[[83]]

Lindsey’s most controversial book is undoubtedly Road to Holocaust. In it, like Darby, he makes eschatology a test of orthodoxy.[[84]] He accuses those who refuse to accept dispensationalism’s distinction between the Church and Israel of encouraging anti-Semitism since they apparently deny any future role for the State of Israel within the purposes of God. This is, he claims,

...the same error that founded the legacy of contempt for the Jews and ultimately led to the Holocaust of Nazi Germany.[[85]]

The purpose of this book is to warn about a rapidly expanding new movement in the Church that is subtly introducing the same errors that eventually and inevitably led to centuries of atrocities against the Jews and culminated in the Holocaust of the Third Reich... They are setting up a philosophical system that will result in anti-Semitism.[[86]]

Through his many books, his International Intelligence Briefing[[87]], a monthly Middle East political journal, together with weekly television Prophecy Watch programmes, Lindsey has encouraged evangelicals and fundamentalists to support Israel's right-wing Zionist agenda. Yet there is great irony here for Lindsey claims to support Israel and to refute anti-Semitism yet his ‘'Armageddon’ style theology’[[88]] may actually be a self-fulfilling prophecy - leading to the very holocaust which he abhors yet repeatedly predicts.

6. The International Christian Embassy, Jerusalem

From its foundation in 1980 the charter of the ICEJ has been to ‘comfort’ Israel. This has been defined as encouraging and facilitating the restoration of the Jews to Eretz Israel although the geographical extent of greater Israel is not always made clear.

The embassy believes that God wants us to stimulate, encourage, and inspire Christians amongst the many nations concerning their role and task in the restoration of Israel. The Bible says that the destiny of nations, Christians, and even that of the church is linked to the way in which these groups respond to this restoration.[[89]]

Those who founded the ICEJ were drawn from Western evangelical, fundamentalist and charismatic circles. According to Don Wagner, virtually the entire ICEJ leadership are dispensationalists, who, like Darby, Scofield and Lindsey, believe that the restoration of the Jews to Israel and the contemporary State of Israel is the fulfilment of biblical prophecy.[[90]] In 1985, Johann Luckoff, the director of ICEJ wrote,

The return to Zion from exile a second time (Isa. 11:11) is a living testimony to God’s faithfulness and his enduring covenant with the Jewish people.[[91]]

With an international staff of 50 and representatives in over 80 countries, the ICEJ has gained significant status within Jewish political circles for its lobbying of foreign governments on behalf of Israel. Based on its dispensational convictions, the ICEJ sponsors an annual Feast of Tabernacles celebration attended by around 5,000 Christian Zionists from over 70 nations. Every Israeli Prime Minister since 1980 has attended and addressed their celebration. They proudly record the testimonials of many Jewish political and religious leaders. For example, Yitzhak Rabin said:

Allow me to tell you how much I, and Israel, appreciate your [presence] here in Jerusalem, especially during these difficult days. Israel has experienced through her existence many difficulties. Therefore, whenever we see people that care, that are involved, and who show this by deeds, and by words - we appreciate this.[[92]]

ICEJ claim that their Feast of Tabernacle celebration is the largest single annual tourist event in Israel. In 1996, in rebutting criticism of their theological position, the ICEJ repudiated those who refused to acknowledge the central place of Israel within God’s continuing purposes:

While Gentile believers have been grafted into that household of faith which is of Abraham (the commonwealth of Israel), replacement theology within the Christian faith, which does not recognize the ongoing biblical purposes for Israel and the Jewish People, is doctrinal error.[[93]]

The ICEJ emphasises that contemporary events are the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy concerning Israel. They distinguish the Church from Israel, speaking in 1993 of “the former and latter rains”[[94]]. Whereas the New Testament emphasises in Ephesians 2:14 that Jesus Christ has “made the two one” so that, according to Galatians 3:28, in Christ there is now “neither Jew nor Greek”, the ICEJ insist on maintaining a distinction and superior status for those of Jewish ethnic descent who remain, even apart from faith in Jesus Christ, the chosen people, “His Jewish sons and daughters.”[[95]] In 1993 they claimed:

In no uncertain terms God has made known His intention to regather the scattered Jewish people and to plant them in the land with His “whole heart and soul” (Jeremiah 32:41). We believe that in the present massive wave of Soviet Jewish immigration to Israel (almost 400,000 since September 1989), the world is witnessing one of the most startling prophetic fulfilments of our time - one that should deeply touch the heart of every Bible-believing Christian and provoke him to action. Since its inception in 1980 the vision for the release of Soviet Jewry has been a vital aspect of the work of the ICEJ. Along with a growing number of Christians internationally, we have seen the Soviet Jewry issue as pivotal in God’s unfolding plan for Israel and the nations... It is an amazing fact that God, through His prophets, long ago ordained that He would use Gentiles to bring back His Jewish sons and daughters.[[96]]

The ICEJ have taken their religio-political hermeneutic somewhat further than most dispensationalists and effectively reinterpreted the Great Commission. In place of proclaiming the message of Jesus Christ which is according to Romans 1:16 and 2:9-10, ‘to the Jew first’, they have substituted a social gospel serving the expansionist political agenda of the modern state of Israel.

In the same sense that the first apostles were commissioned by the Lord to be his witnesses from Jerusalem to the uttermost parts of the earth, we also feel compelled to proclaim the word of Israel’s restoration, and the Christian’s response to it, to every country and in every place where there are believers.[[97]]

The ICEJ has repeatedly identified uncritically and unconditionally with the position of the right wing of the Likud party, using the Bible to defend Israel’s military settlement and colonisation of Syria’s Golan Heights and the Occupied Territories despite international criticism. The ICEJ has also remained implacably opposed to the aspirations of the Palestinians for political autonomy, a shared Jerusalem, or the right of return for refugees who have lost their property and land through war or confiscation.

Not surprisingly, the ICEJ is repudiated by the indigenous Christian Palestinian community, its theology regarded as nothing less than apostasy,[[98]] and “an anachronistic return to the Judaizing tendency the early church rejected at the first ecumenical council, recorded in Acts 15.”[[99]]

7. Diversity and Contradiction within Contemporary Dispensationalism

A new generation of younger dispensationalists among the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary have attempted to redefine their movement as 'progressive dispensationalism'.[[100]] Perhaps sensitive to criticisms of classical dispensationalism, they distance themselves from what they regard as the 'naïveté' of the founder's vision,[[101]] distinguishing the classical dispensationalism of Chafer and Ryrie[[102]] from 'Scofieldism',[[103]] as well as from 'the popular 'apocalyptism' of Lindseyism'.[[104]] They regard themselves as 'less land centred' and less 'future centred'.[[105]]

Classical dispensationalism, however, remains strong within conservative circles. Ryrie is sceptical of these recent developments, and their attempt at any revisionism. He describes the position of theologians such as Blaising and Bock as 'neo-dispensationalist' and holding to what he terms a 'slippery' hermeneutic.[[106]]

Ryrie also distinguishes what he terms 'normative' dispensationalism from 'Ultradispensationalism'. This latter tendency is rooted in the teaching of Ethelbert W. Bullinger (1837-1913) and his successor Charles H. Welch, who, according to Ryrie, have merely carried dispensationalism to its 'logical extremes'. Ultradispensationalists hold for instance, that the Church did not begin at Pentecost but in Acts 28 when Israel was set aside; the Great Commission of Matthew and Mark is Jewish and therefore not for the Church; the Gospels and Acts describe the dispensation of the law; only the Pauline prison epistles, that is Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, relate to the Church age; water baptism is not for the Church age; and Israel, not the Church, is the Bride of Christ.[[107]] Their teachings are perpetuated today by the Berean Bible Society, Berean Expositor and Berean Publishing Trust.[[108]]

Like Hal Lindsey, other contemporary dispensationalist writers appear to compete with one another to present the most accurate and timely interpretation of contemporary events as they unfold. We close by noting five key writers in this vein.

Billy Graham's father-in-law, Nelson Bell, the editor of the prestigious and authoritative mouthpiece of conservative Evangelicalism, Christianity Today, appeared to express the sentiments of many American Evangelicals when, in an editorial in 1967 he wrote:

That for the first time in more than 2,000 years Jerusalem is now completely in the hands of the Jews gives a student of the Bible a thrill and a renewed faith in the accuracy and validity of the Bible.[[109]]

Charles Dyer, professor of Bible exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary, in his book, The Rise of Babylon, includes photographs allegedly showing Saddam Hussein’s reconstruction of Babylon to the same specifications and splendour as Nebuchadnezzar.[[110]] Dyer warns that this is evidence that Hussein plans to repeat Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Israel, the only Arab ever to have done so. 'The Middle East is the world's time bomb, and Babylon is the fuse that will ignite the events of the end times.'[[111]]

John Walvoord, professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology and Chancellor of Dallas Theological Seminary, as well as the author of the million copy best-seller, Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis,[[112]] writes in an earlier book Israel in Prophecy:

In the present world scene there are many indications pointing to the conclusion that the end of the age may soon be upon us... In this generation. Never before in the history of the world has there been a confluence of major evidences of preparation for the end.[[113]]

In their provocatively titled book, Ready to Rebuild which is about the 'Imminent Plan to rebuild the Last Days Temple,' Randall Price and Thomas Ice summarise the theological perspective of contemporary dispensationalism toward Israel and the future.

After centuries of persecution and dispersion, Jews are back in their land and pursuing the rebuilding of the Temple with increasing fervor. This fascinating, fast-moving overview of contemporary events shows why the Temple is significant in Bible prophecy and how, more than ever, Israel is ready to rebuild.[[114]]

Lastly, Mike Evans, founder and president of Lovers of Israel Inc., offers biblical justification for the continuation of American support for Israel. In his book, Israel, America's Key to Survival, he writes:

Only one nation, Israel, stands between Soviet-sponsored terrorist aggression and the complete decline of the United States as a democratic world power... Surely demonic pressure will endeavour to encourage her to betray Israel. This must not happen. Israel is the key to America's survival. For God has said of the nations who will oppose Israel, "Yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted... I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curseth thee..."(Isa.60:12; Gen. 12:3)... As we stand with Israel, I believe we shall see God perform a mighty work in our day. God is going to bless America and Israel as well. It is not too late. I believe this is the greatest hour to be alive, and the key is unity, standing tall, proclaiming with a voice of love our commitment to the House of Israel, and to the God of Israel.[[115]]

8. Conclusions

Karen Armstrong is not alone in tracing within dispensationalism evidence of the legacy of the Crusades. They have, she claims, 'returned to a classical and extreme religious crusading.'[[116]] Rosemary Radford Ruether also sees the danger of this kind of fundamentalism in its, 'dualistic, Manichaean view of global politics - America and Israel together against an evil world.'[[117]] Kenneth Cragg comments satirically,

It is so; God chose the Jews; the land is theirs by divine gift. These dicta cannot be questioned or resisted. They are final. Such verdicts come infallibly from Christian biblicists for whom Israel can do no wrong-thus fortified. But can such positivism, this unquestioning finality, be compatible with the integrity of the prophets themselves? It certainly cannot square with the open peoplehood under God which is the crux of New Testament faith. Nor can it well be reconciled with the ethical demands central to law and election alike... Chosenness cannot properly be either an ethnic exclusivism or a political facility.[[118]]

The Middle East Council of Churches which represents the indigenous and ancient Oriental and Eastern Churches, has also been highly critical of the activities of dispensationalists.

[They] ...force the Zionist model of theocratic and ethnocentric nationalism on the Middle East... [rejecting]... the movement of Christian unity and inter-religious understanding which is promoted by the churches in the region. The Christian Zionist programme, with its elevation of modern political Zionism, provides the Christian with a world view where the gospel is identified with the ideology of success and militarism. It places its emphasis on events leading up to the end of history rather than living Christ's love and justice today.[[119]]

Clarence Bass makes this assessment of dispensationalism.

No part of historic Christian doctrine supports this radical distinction between church and kingdom. To be sure they are not identical; but dispensationalism has added the idea that the kingdom was to be a restoration of Israel, not a consummation of the church... In the light of this principle, it is legitimate to ask whether dispensationalism is not orientated more from the Abrahamic Covenant than from the Cross. Is not its focus centred more on the Jewish kingdom than on the Body of Christ? Does it not interpret the New Testament in the light of Old Testament prophecies, instead of interpreting those prophecies in the light of the more complete revelation of the New Testament?[[120]]

Whether intentionally or otherwise, dispensationalism is being used today to give theological justification to what the United Nations regards as racism[[121]] and the denial of basic human rights; supporting the ethnic-cleansing of Palestinians from their historic lands; endorsing the building of Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories; inciting religious fanaticism by supporting the rebuilding of a Jewish Temple on Mount Moriah; dismissing moderate Jewish opinion willing to negotiate land for peace; and advocating an apocalyptic eschatology likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It is therefore not surprising that among the indigenous Christians of the Holy Land especially, dispensationalism is regarded as a dangerous heresy, an unwelcome and alien intrusion, advocating an exclusive Jewish political agenda and undermining the genuine ministry of justice, peace and reconciliation in the Middle East.

12 December 2000 -By John Scott:

Stephen Sizer

Footnotes

[1][[1]] Foreword to John Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth (Brentwood, Tennessee, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991), p. ix.

[2][[2]] C. I. Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (Philadelphia, Philadelphia School of the Bible, 1928)

[3][[3]] Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago, Moody Press, 1965), pp. 39-40.

[4][[4]] Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago, Moody Press, 1995) p. 54.

[5][[5]] Charles Dyer, The Rise of Babylon, Signs of the End Times (Wheaton, Illinois, Tyndale House, 1991), p. 189.

[6][[6]] Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago, Moody Press, 1965), p. 48.

[7][[7]] Ryrie, Dispensationalism., p. 137.

[8][[8]] W. Ward Gasque, ‘Marcion,’ The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, J. D. Douglas, gen. ed. (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1978), p. 620.

[9][[9]] J. N. Darby, The Hopes of the Church of God (London: G. Morrish, n.d.), p. 106.

[10][[10]] C. I. Scofield, Scofield Bible Correspondence Course, 19th edn. (Chicago, Moody Bible Institute), p. 23.

[11][[11]] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas, Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107.

[12][[12]] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, Dallas Seminary Press, 1975), Vol. 4. pp. 315-323.

[13][[13]] Darby, Collected Writings., Vol. 11, p. 363

[14][[14]] C.I. Scofield, Scofield Bible Correspondence Course (Chicago, Moody Bible Institute, 1907), pp. 45-46.

[15][[15]] Ryrie, Dispensationalism., p. 40. Emphasis added.

[16][[16]] Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Findlay, Ohio, Dunham, 1958), p. 529.

[17][[17]] S. Lewis Johnson, ‘The Paralysis of Legalism’ Bibliotheca Sacra (April/June 1963), p. 109. Cited in Gary DeMar and Peter J. Leithart, The Legacy., p. 24.

[18][[18]] L. S. Chafer, ‘Dispensationalism,’ Bibliotheca Sacra, 93 (October 1936), 410, 416, 446-447. Quoted in Daniel P. Fuller, Gospel and Law, Contrast or Continuum? The Hermeneutic of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology (Grand Rapdis, Michigan, Eerdmans, 1980), pp. 24-25.

[19][[19]] Ernest R. Sandeen, “Toward a Historical Interpretation of the Origins of Fundamentalism,” Church History 36 (1967), 70. Cited in Gerstner, Wrongly., p. 100.

[20][[20]] John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1979), p. 25.

[21][[21]] Keith A. Mathison, Dispensationalism, Rightly Dividing the People of God? (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1995), back cover.

[22][[22]] Michael Horton, ‘The Church and Israel’ Modern Reformation May/June (1994), p. 1.

[23][[23]] Hal Lindsey, Israel and the Last Days (Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House, 1983), pp. 20-30.

[24][[24]] Gary DeMar & Peter J. Leithart, The Legacy of Hatred Continues, A Response to Hal Lindsey’s The Road to Holocaust, (Tyler, Texas, Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), p. 26. See also Grace Halsell, Prophecy and Politics: Militant Evangelists on the Road to Nuclear War (Westport, CT, Lawrence Hill, 1986), p. 195.

[25][[25]] Lisa Pevtzov, 'Apocalypse Now, Operation Conquest - The Temple Mount Yeshiva', The Jerusalem Post Magazine, 18 February 1994, p. 6.

[26][[26]] 'Considerations on the Nature and Unity of the Church of Christ' later called 'the Brethren's first pamphlet.' by W. Blair Neatby, in A History of the Plymouth Brethren (London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1901), p. 18.

[27][[27]] Iain H. Murray, The Puritan Hope: Revival and the Interpretation of Prophecy (Edinburgh, Banner of Truth, 1971), p.191.

[28][[28]] Ryrie, Dispensationalism. pp. 63, 65-71.

[29][[29]] Ryrie, Dispensationalism., p. 67.

[30][[30]] Wagner, Anxious for Armageddon (Scotdale, Ontario, Herald, 1995), p. 89.

[31][[31]] Harry A. Ironside, The Mysteries of God (New York, Loizeaux Brothers, 1908), pp. 50-51. Cited in Daniel P. Fuller, Gospel and Law (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, 1980), p. 13.

[32][[32]] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 68.

[33][[33]] J. N. Darby, 'The Apostasy of the Successive Dispensations.' The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Vol. 2, Ecclesiastical No. 1. William Kelly, ed. (Kingston on Thames, Stow Hill Bible and Trust Depot, 1962). pp. 124-130.

[34][[34]] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, pp. 68, 71.

[35][[35]] C. I. Scofield, 'Introduction,' The Scofield Reference Bible (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1909), p. 5.

[36][[36]] J. N. Darby, 'The Covenants.' Collected Writings., Doctrine I. Vol. III. William Kelly, ed. (Kingston on Thames, Stow Hill Bible and Trust Depot, 1962). p. 68.

[37][[37]] J. N. Darby, 'Reflections Upon the Prophetic Inquiry, and the Views Advanced in It', Collected Writings., Prophetic I, Vol. II. pp. 6-7.

[38][[38]] Roy Coad, A History of the Brethren Movement. (Exeter, Paternoster 1976),

[39]p. 129.

[40][[39]] James Barr, Escaping from Fundamentalism (London, SCM, 1984), p. 6.

[41][[40]] J. N. Darby, 'The Character of Office in The Present Dispensation' Collected Writings., Eccl. I, Vol. I, p. 94.

[42][[41]] J. N. Darby, ‘The Hopes.,’ The Collected Writings, Prophetic I, Vol. II, p. 380.

[43][[42]] J. N. Darby, ‘The Hopes.,’ The Collected Writings, Prophetic I, Vol. II, p. 379.

[44][[43]] Clarence Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism. (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans

[45]1960), p. 27.

[46][[44]] Donald Wagner, 'Beyond Armageddon'. The Link (Americans for Middle East

[47]Understanding) Vol.25 No.4 October/November (1992), p. 4.

[48][[45]] Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Philadelphia, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1945), p. 267. Fuller, Gospel., p. 1.

[49][[46]] Gerstner, Wrongly., p. 43.

[50][[47]] Scofield, Scofield., fn. 4, p. 5.

[51][[48]] Scofield, Scofield., Introduction to the Scofield Reference Bible, p. iii.

[52][[49]] C. I. Scofield, Addresses on Prophecy (New York, Chas. C. Cook, 1914), p. 13.

[53][[50]] Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 20.

[54][[51]] Scofield, Scofield., p. 989

[55][[52]] Scofield, Scofield., fn. 2, p. 1115. Emphasis added.

[56][[53]] Scofield, Scofield., p. 1002.

[57][[54]] Scofield, Scofield., p. 1115.

[58][[55]] Scofield, Scofield., p. 1252.

[59][[56]] Scofield, Scofield., fn. 1, p. 922.

[60][[57]] Bruce L. Shelly, 'Niagara Conferences', The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church ed. J. D. Douglas. rev. edn. (Exeter, Paternoster Press, 1978), p. 706.

[61][[58]] Resolution included as Appendix A in Ernest Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism British & American Millenarianism 1800-1930 (Chicago, University Chicago Press, 1970).

[62][[59]] William E. Cox, An Examination of Dispensationalism (Philadelphia, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1974), p. 55-56.

[63][[60]] Craig A. Blaising 'Dispensationalism, The Search for Definition' in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, The Search for Definition ed. Craig A. Blaising & Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1992) p. 21.

[64][[61]] Gerstner, Wrongly., p. 46

[65][[62]] Hal Lindsey, The 1980’s: Countdown to Armageddon (New York, Bantam, 1981), p. 179.

[66][[63]] Hal Lindsey, The Final Battle (Palos Verdes, California, Western Front, 1995), back cover.

[67][[64]] Hal Lindsey, The Apocalypse Code (Palos Verdes, California, Western Front, 1997), back cover.

[68][[65]] Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth (New York, Bantam, 1970), back cover.

[69][[66]] Hal Lindsey, The Road to Holocaust (New York, Bantam, 1989), p. 195. For other statistics see George Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1991) p. 77, and Michael Lienesch, Redeeming America: Piety and Politics in the New Christian Right (Chapel Hill, North Carolina, North Carolina Press, 1993), p. 311.

[70][[67]] Lindsey, Planet Earth-2000, Will Man Survive? (Palos Verdes, California, Western Front, 1996), Rev. Edn. p. 3

[71][[68]] Lindsey, Final., p. xiii

[72][[69]] Lindsey, Apocalypse., back cover.

[73][[70]] Lindsey, Planet Earth The Final Chapter, back cover.

[74][[71]] Lindsey, Apocalypse., p. 37. Compare with Darby, Collected Writings., Prophetic I, Vol. II. pp. 6-7, 108.

[75][[72]] Lindsey, Late., p. 184.

[76][[73]] Lindsey, Planet., pp. 15-16.

[77][[74]] Satan is Alive and Well on Planet Earth (London, Lakeland, 1973); The Terminal Generation (New York, Bantam,); The 1980’s: Countdown to Armageddon (New York, Bantam, 1981); Combat Faith (1986); The Road to Holocaust (New York, Bantam, 1989); Planet Earth-2000, Will Man Survive? (Palos Verdes, California, Western Front, 1994); The Final Battle (Palos Verdes, California, Western Front, 1995); The Apocalypse Code (Palos Verdes, California, Western Front, 1997);

[78][[75]] Lindsey, 1980’s., back cover.

[79][[76]] Lindsey, Final., front cover.

[80][[77]] Lindsey, Late., p. 155; Louis Goldberg, Turbulence Over the Middle East (Neptune, New Jersey, Loizeaux Brothers, 1982), p. 172.

[81][[78]] Lindsey, Israel., pp. 31-48.

[82][[79]] Lindsey, Late., pp. 56-58.

[83][[80]] Lindsey, Final., pp. 250-252.

[84][[81]] Lindsey, Planet., p. 264.

[85][[82]] Lindsey, Final., p. 184.

[86][[83]] Lindsey, Final., pp. 255-7.

[87][[84]] J. N. Darby, 'The Rapture of the Saints and the Character of the Jewish Remnant,' Collected Writings, Prophetic. IV, Vol. II, p. 154.

[88][[85]] Lindsey, Road., back page. Refuted by Gary DeMar and Peter J. Leithart, The Legacy of Hatred Continues: A Response to Hal Lindsey’s The Road to Holocaust (Fort Worth, Dominion Press, 1989)

[89][[86]] Lindsey, Road., p. 3

[90][[87]] Hal Lindsey, International Intelligence Briefing (Palos Verdes, California, HLM)

[91][[88]] Wagner, Anxious., p. 25.

[92][[89]] Prepare Ye the Way of the Lord (Jerusalem, International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, 1991), brochure.

[93][[90]] Wagner, Anxious., p. 100.

[94][[91]] Johann Lukoff, A Christian Response to Israel (Jerusalem, ICEJ, 1985).

[95][[92]] International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (Jerusalem, ICEJ, 1993), p. 7.

[96][[93]] International Christian Zionist Congress Proclamation, International Christian Embassy, Jerusalem. 25-29 February 1996.

[97][[94]] International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (Jerusalem, ICEJ, 1993), p. 15.

[98][[95]] International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (Jerusalem, ICEJ, 1993), p. 9.

[99][[96]] International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (Jerusalem, ICEJ, 1993), p. 9.

[100][[97]] International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (Jerusalem, ICEJ, 1993), p. 22.

[101][[98]] Revd Audeh Rantisi of Ramallah, in a taped interview, May 1999.

[102][[99]] Wagner, Anxious., p. 104.

[103][[100]] Ryrie, Dispensationalism. p. 214; Craig A. Blaising & Darrell L. Bock, ed. Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1992); Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton, Victor, 1993); Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1993)

[104][[101]] Blaising & Bock, Dispensationalism., p. 19.

[105][[102]] Charles C. Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune, New Jersey, Loizeaux Brothers, 1953); Dispensationalism Today (Chicago, Moody Press, 1965); Dispensationalism (Moody Press, Chicago, 1995)

[106][[103]] Blaising & Bock, Dispensationalism., pp. 21-23.

[107][[104]] Ibid., pp. 14-15.

[108][[105]] Darrell Bock, cited in 'For the Love of Zion,' Christianity Today, 9 March 1992, p. 50.

[109][[106]] Ryrie, Dispensationalism., pp. 171, 175, 178.

[110][[107]] Ibid., p. 199.

[111][[108]] Charles Welch and Stuart Allen, Perfection or Perdition, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews (London, The Berean Publishing Trust, 1973)

[112][[109]] Wagner, Beyond., p. 4.

[113][[110]] Dyer, Rise., pp. 128-129.

[114][[111]] Ibid., rear cover.

[115][[112]] John Walvoord, Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1990)

[116][[113]] John Walvoord, Israel in Prophecy (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1962), p. 129.

[117][[114]] Ice & Price, Ready., back cover.

[118][[115]] Mike Evans, Israel, America's Key to Survival (Plainfield, New Jersey, Logos, 1980), p. 221.

[119][[116]] Karen Armstrong, Holy War, The Crusades and Their Impact on Today's World (London, Macmillan, 1988), p. 377.

[120][[117]] Rosemary Radford Ruether & Herman J. Ruether, The Wrath of Jonah, The Crisis of Religious Nationalism in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (San Francisco, Harper, 1989), p. 176.

[121][[118]] Kenneth Cragg, The Arab Christian, A History in the Middle East (London, Mowbray, 1992), pp. 237-238.

[122][[119]] MECC, What is Western Fundamentalist Christian Zionism? rev. edn. (Limassol, Cyprus, Middle East Council of Churches, 1988), p. 13.

[123][[120]] Clarence Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1960), pp. 31,151.

[124][[121]] cited in Regina Sharif, Non-Jewish Zionism, Its Roots in Western History (London, Zed, 1983), pp. 1, 120.

[+/-] show/hide this post
Islam Explained
Religions of the world can be broadly categorized into Semitic religions and non-Semitic religions. Non-Semitic religions can be divided into Aryan religions and non-Aryan religions.

Semitic religions

Semitic religions are religions that originated among the Semites. According to the Bible, Prophet Noah (pbuh) had a son called Shem.

The descendents of Shem are known as Semites. Therefore, Semitic religions are the religions that originated among the Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, Phoenicians, etc. Major Semitic religions are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All these religions are Prophetic religions that believe in Divine Guidance sent through prophets of God.

Non-Semitic religions

The non-Semitic religions are further subdivided into Aryan and non-Aryan religions:

Aryan Religions

Aryan religions are the religions that originated among the Aryans, a powerful group of Indo-European speaking people that spread through Iran and Northern India in the first half of the second Millenium BC (2000 to 1500 BC).

The Aryan Religions are further subdivided into Vedic and non-Vedic religions.

The Vedic Religion is given the misnomer of Hinduism or Brahminism. The non-Vedic Religions are Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc.

Almost all Aryan religions are non-Prophetic religions.

Zoroastrianism is an Aryan, non-Vedic religion, which is not associated with Hinduism. It claims to be a prophetic religion.

Non-Aryan Religions

The non-Aryan religions have diverse origins. Confucianism and Taoism are of Chinese origin while Shintoism is of Japanese origin.

Many of these non-Aryan religions do not have a concept of God. They are better referred to as ethical systems rather than as religions.


Islam and Muslims

Islam, the root of which is Silm and Salam which means peace. Salam may also mean greeting one another with peace.

One of the beautiful names of God is that He is the Peace. It means more than that: to live in peace with God, within one's self, with other people and with the environment. Islam is a lifestyle choice. A Muslim is supposed to live in peace and harmony with all these segments; hence, a Muslim is any person anywhere in the world whose allegiance and loyalty are to God.

It is the way of life that all Prophets through out history have taught, from those known in the Western world such as Abraham, Moses and Jesus to those sent to other parts of the earth like Salih, Shu'ayb . The last and final Guide was Muhammad, who lived in sixth century Arabia.

Muslims and Arabs

The followers of Islam are called Muslims. Muslims are not to be confused with Arabs. Muslims may be Americans, Europeans, Arabs, Turks, Persians, Indians, Pakistanis, Malaysians, Indonesians, Africans, Chinese, or other nationalities.

An Arab could be a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew or an atheist. Any person who adopts the Arabic language is called an Arab. However, the language of the Koran (the Holy Book of Islam) is Arabic. Muslims all over the world try to learn Arabic so that they may be able to read the Koran and understand its meaning. They pray in the language of the Koran, namely Arabic. Supplications to God could be in any language.

While there are one billion Muslims in the world there are about 200 million Arabs. Among them, approximately ten percent are not Muslims. Thus Arab Muslims constitute only about twenty percent of the Muslim population of the world.

Allah the one and only God

Allah is the name of the One and Only God. Allah has ninety-nine beautiful names, such as: The Gracious, The Merciful, The Beneficent, The Creator, The All-Knowing, The All-Wise, The Lord of the Universe, The First, The Last, and others.

He is the Creator of all human beings. He is the God for the Christians, the Jews, the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the atheists, and others. Muslims worship God, whose name in arabic is Allah. They put their trust in Him and they seek His help and His guidance.

Mohammad

Mohammad was chosen by God to deliver His Message of Peace, namely Islam. He was born in 570 C.E. (Common Era) in Makkah, Arabia. He was entrusted with the Message of Islam when he was at the age of forty years. The revelation that he received is called the Koran, while the message is called Islam.

Mohammad is the very last Prophet of God to mankind. He is the final Messenger of God. His message was and is still to the Christians, the Jews and the rest of mankind. He was sent to those religious people to inform them about the true mission of Jesus, Moses, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham.

Mohammad is considered to be the summation and the culmination of all the prophets and messengers that came before him. He purified the previous messages from adulteration and completed the Message of God for all humanity. He was entrusted with the power of explaining, interpreting and living the teaching of the Koran.

Source of Islam

The legal sources of Islam are the Koran and the Hadith. The Koran is the exact word of God; its authenticity, originality and totality are intact. The Hadith is the report of the sayings, deeds and approvals of the Prophet Mohammad. The Prophet's sayings and deeds are called Sunnah. The Seerah is the writings of followers of Mohammad about the life of the Prophet. Hence, it is the life history of the Prophet Mohammad which provides examples of daily living for Muslims.

Some Islamic Principles

Oneness of God:

He is One and the Only One. He is not two in one or three in one. This means that Islam rejects the idea of trinity or such a unity of God which implies more than one God in one.

Oneness of mankind:

People are created equal in front of the Law of God. There is no superiority for one people over another. God made us of different colors, nationalities, languages and beliefs so as to test who is going to be better than others. No one can claim that he is better than others. It is only God Who knows who is better. It depends on piety and righteousness.


Oneness of Messengers and the Message:

Muslims believe that God sent different messengers throughout the history of mankind. All came with the same message and the same teachings. It was the people who misunderstood and misinterpreted them.

Muslims believe in Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Ismail, Jacob, Moses, David, Jesus, and Mohammad. The Prophets of Christianity and Judaism are indeed the Prophets of Islam.


Angels and the Day of Judgment:

Muslims believe that there are unseen creatures such as angels created by God in the universe for special missions.

Muslims believe that there is a Day of Judgment when all people of the world throughout the history of mankind till the last day of life on earth, are to be brought for accounting, reward and punishment.


Innocence of Man at Birth:

Muslims believe that people are born free of sin. It is only after they reach the age of puberty and it is only after they commit sins that they are to be charged for their mistakes. No one is responsible for or can take the responsibility for the sins of others. However, the door of forgiveness through true repentance is always open.

State and Religion:

Muslims believe that Islam is a total and a complete way of life. It encompasses all aspects of life. As such, the teachings of Islam do not separate religion from politics. As a matter of fact, state and religion are under the obedience of Allah through the teachings of Islam. Hence, economic and social transactions, as well as educational and political systems are also part of the teachings of Islam.

Practices of Islam

God instructed the Muslims to practice what they believe in. In Islam there are five pillars, namely:

Creed (Shahada):

The verbal commitment and pledge that there is only One God and that Mohammad is the Messenger of God, is considered to be the Creed of Islam.

Prayers (Salat):

The performance of the five daily prayers is required of Muslims.

Fasting (Saum):

Fasting is total abstinence from food, liquids and intimate intercourse (between married couples) from dawn to sunset during the entire month of Ramadan.

Purifying Tax (Zakat):

This is an annual payment of a certain percentage of a Muslim's property which is distributed among the poor or other rightful beneficiaries.

Pilgrimage (Hajj):

The performance of pilgrimage to Makkah is required once in a life time if means are available. Hajj is in part in memory of the trials and tribulations of Prophet Abraham, his wife Hagar and his eldest son Prophet Ishmael.

What does Islam teach?

Islam calls humanity to the service of the One, Omnipotent Creator, Who is known as "Allah, " (The Deity) in the Arabic language. It further instructs people on how they may live together in peace and harmony regardless of race, class or beliefs. The unity of purpose brought by all previous religious guides is highlighted as well as traditional morality, the equality of the sexes before God and the virtues of patience and humbleness.

Where do these teachings come from?

Muslims have two major sources from which they derive their religious teachings. The first is a book known as "the Koran," the direct Revelation of God to His last Prophet, the blessed Mohammad. The second source is the collected sayings and pronouncements of the Prophet which are complimentary to the Revelation. These are known as "the Hadith."

What about Mohammad? Who was he?

Mohammad (pbuh) was born in Arabia in the year 570. His father's name was Abdullah and his mother's was Aminah. Abdullah died before his son was born and his mother died when he was yet a small child. He was first placed under the care of his grandfather and then later his uncle, who raised his nephew as his own.

As a boy, Mohammad (pbuh), disliked the prevailing custom of idol worship practiced by his people. How many a night he must have paused to watch the stars and endless plains, while tending his uncle's flocks, and wondered at the real Creator of it all. He shunned the mischief of his fellow youth and soon developed a reputation for honesty, generosity and compassion.

When he was a young man he took employment in the merchant trade and soon distinguished himself for his excellent managerial skills, which resulted in an offer of marriage from his wealthy, widowed employer, the noble lady Khadija. He was 25 and she was 40 when they got married. Their marriage was based upon love friendship and trust

Though time and circumstances had changed as he grew older and wiser, Mohammad (pbuh) still remained restless for the truth and he began to retreat to the solitude which could only be found outside the city of Mecca. He often went to a mountain where he would sometimes spend days thinking and contemplating about God, reality and the Divine way of life. Then on one glorious day, the Almighty revealed words of inspiration to him through His angel, Gabriel.

"Read!" the angel commanded him, "Read in the name of your Lord who created man from a clinging embryo..."

This was Mohammad (pbuh), for all his truthfulness, patience, piety and spirit, commissioned as the last and final Prophet of God to humanity. Though many trials, tests and triumphs lay ahead of him, he always called people to the service of the One God, to shun myths and idols and to do unto others only what is good and right. He always lived a frugal life, and even after all of Arabia was liberated from the darkness of ignorance, he, as the ruler, still slept on a reed mat and mended his own clothes.

He taught a new standard to people and brought civilization to an area of the world where it had long ago passed by. His lips moved with the Revelation of God and his life put its precepts into practice. Though persecuted by the idol worshipers for thirteen years in Mecca and followed faithfully by the believing citizens of Medina for ten thereafter, he remained unto his death a devoted father, husband, leader and Prophet. He was given the title of "Mercy to the worlds" by God Himself in the Quran and anyone who has studied the details and adventures of his life must necessarily declare the same. This man Mohammad (pbuh) is truly the hero of his age as well as an inspiration to ours.

Do Muslims worship Mohammad like Christians do Christ?

No. Mohammad (pbuh) was only a man among men who received the special favor of God. No true Prophet of God taught that any man must be worshipped, as if any human body could contain the infinite. God instructs us in the Quran about him thus:

"Mohammad is no more than Messenger. Many were the Messengers who passed away before him..."(3:144.)

How does Islam compare with Christianity and Judaism?

Islam, was taught by all Prophets whether their race was Jewish, Chinese, African, Arab or Cheyenne.

Accordingly, Moses, who is regarded as the pivotal figure in Judaism, and Jesus, who is the central personality of Christianity, both taught Islam to their peoples. The teachings of these great Messengers of God did not go unchanged, however, over the centuries, and one can find that many practices, beliefs and customs practiced by the adherents of those faiths today differ from the original purity of their founder's message.

Mohammad (pbuh), simply brought the last installment of self-surrender (Islam) to the world in order to correct earlier corruption in humanity's knowledge of the truth. So if the roots of Judaism and Christianity are the same as Islam, why does Islam seem so exotic and strange?

The problem is two-fold. On the one hand, there are people in the world who claim to be Muslims, but who do not follow the ethical or religious teachings of the faith. Unfortunately, the media has a universal fascination with negative news and a reluctance to highlight the positive. On the other hand, much of what we read and learn about Islam in the west is written, interpreted and presented by those who either know very little about Islam and the Muslim world. or are even hostile towards it.

An even more important area of misunderstanding lies in the basic assumptions about religion that the Western world and the Islamic world make. Because of the West's negative experience with religion, an alternate ideology known as secular-humanism had to be established to allow science, rationalism and free thought to flourish. Islamic civilization, in contrast, never impeded science nor the development of human thought, so a break between secular values and religious ones never occurred. This is why Islam is often mix-labeled "Theocratic." Education and improvements in global awareness, however, are slowly wearing down barriers to understanding, but it will require some effort from all of us to finally reach a point of tolerance and mutual good-will.

Where do Muslims Live?

Muslims live in every country and region on earth from Norway to Malaysia and Morocco to Mexico. Muslims form a large percentage of the population in Russia, China, India, and Eastern Europe.

Some Islamic lands are Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Malaysia, Egypt and Nigeria. Arab Muslims form a small minority of the worldwide Muslim population. There are nearly six million Muslims in North America alone. That's more than the population of some states such as Alaska, Nevada and Rhode Island.

How does one become a Muslim?

There are no elaborate rituals or ceremonies to perform to enter Islam (Self-Surrender to God), for Islam is the faith of reason, and therefore it takes an exercise of reason to become a Muslim. Simply by declaring and believing in one's heart the following phrase:

"There is no object of devotion save God and Mohammad is the Messenger of God,"

one thereby is a believer. As a consequence of making this statement sincerely, everything an individual did that was wrong or unethical in his life up to that point, is forgiven by God, no matter what it was. From that moment onwards, the slate is cleared and you begin life again as a new person.


Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, relates that the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: "Islam is based on five articles:

1. To bear witness that there is none worthy of worship save Allah and that Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is the Messenger of Allah.

2. To observe Prayer (Salat).

3. To Pay Zakat (Alms giving)

4. To perform the Pilgrimage to the House of Allah (Hajj).

5. To Observe fasting during Ramadhan." (Bukhari)

Abdullah ibn Amr bin Aas, may Allah be pleased with them, relates that the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said:

"A Muslim is one against whose tongue and hands other Muslims are secure, and an Emigrant is one who departs from what Allah has forbidden." (Bukhari)

bibliography:

1. The Holy Qur'an. Abdullah Yusuf Ali (trans.) Amana Corp. Brentwood, 1983.
2. Mohammad. Martin Lings Inner Traditions, Rochester, 1983
3.Towards Understanding Islam. Abul A'la Maududi, ICNA Book Service, New York, 1990.
4. Jesus: A Prophet of Islam. M. Ataur Rahim Presidency of Islamic Research, Ifta and Da'wah, Riyadh, 1984.
5. The Bible, the Qur'an and Science. Maurice Bucaille Seghers, Paris. 1987.
6. The Road to Mecca Mohammad Asad Dar al Andalus, Gibraltar, 1980.
7. Categorization of major world religions - by Dr Zakir Naik

links
Understanding Islam and Muslims
Introduction to Islam
introducing islam
Forty Hadith
The Islam Page

[+/-] show/hide this post
Islam : Fundamental Articles of Faith
The true, faithful Muslim believes in the following principal articles of faith:

A muslim believes in One God, Supreme and Eternal, Infinite and Mighty, Merciful and Compassionate, Creator and Provider. This belief, in order to be effective, requires complete trust and hope in God, submission to His Will and reliance on His aid. It secures man's dignity and saves him from fear and despair, from guilt and confusion. The reader is invited to see the meaning of Islam as explained above.

A muslim believes in all the messengers of God without any discrimination among them. Every known nation had a warner or messenger from God. These messengers were great teachers of the good and true champions of the right. They were chosen by God to teach mankind and deliver His Divine message. They were sent at different times of history and every known nation had one messenger or more. During certain periods two or more messengers were sent by God at the same time to the same nation. The Holy Qur'an mentions the names of twenty-five of them, and the Muslim believes in them all and accepts them as authorized messengers of God. They were, with the exception of Muhammad, known as "national" or local messengers. But their message, their religion, was basically the same and was called ISLAM, because it came from One and the Same Source, namely, God, to serve one and the same purpose, and that is to guide humanity to the Straight Path of God. All the messengers with no exception whatsoever were mortals, human beings, endowed with Divine revelation, and appointed by God to perform certain tasks. Among them Muhammad stands as the Last Messenger and the crowning glory of the foundation of prophethood. This is not an arbitrary attitude, nor is it just a convenient belief. Like all the other Islamic beliefs, it is an authentic and logical truth. Also, it may be useful to mention here the names of some of the great messengers like Noah and Abraham, Ishmael and Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, may the peace and blessings of God be upon them all. The Qur’an commands the Muslims thus:

"We believe in God, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes; and that which was given to Moses and Jesus, and that which was given to all prophets from their Lord. We make no discrimination between one and another of them, and we bow to God "(2:136, cf. 3:84; 4:163-165; 6:84-87).

The true Muslim believes, as a result of article two, in all the scriptures and revelations of God. They were the guiding light which the messengers received to show their respective peoples the Right Path of God. In the Koran a special reference is made to the books of Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus. But long before the revelation of the Koran to Muhammad some of those books and revelations had been lost or corrupted, others forgotten, neglected, or concealed. The only authentic and complete book of God in existence today is the Koran. In principle, the Muslim believes in the previous books and revelations. But where are their complete and original versions? They could be still at the bottom of the Dead Sea, and there may be more Scrolls to be discovered. Or perhaps more information about them will become available when the Christian and Jewish archaeologists reveal to the public the complete original findings of their continued excavations in the Holy Land. For the Muslim, there is no problem of that kind. The Koran is in his hand complete and authentic. Nothing of it is missing and no more of it is expected. Its authenticity is beyond doubt, and no serious scholar or thinker has ventured to question its genuineness. The Koran was made so by God Who revealed it and made it incumbent upon Himself to protect it against interpolation and corruption of all kinds. Thus it is given to the Muslims as the standard or criterion by which all the other books are judged. So whatever agrees with the Koran is accepted as Divine truth, and whatever differs from the Koran is either rejected or suspended. God says:

'Verily We have, without doubt, sent down the Koran, and We will assuredly guard it’ (15: 9; cf. 2:75- 79; 5: 1 3-14, 41, 45, 47; 6:91 ; 41:43).

The true Muslim believes in the angels of God, They are purely spiritual and splendid beings whose nature requires no food or drink or sleep. They have no physical desires of any kind nor material needs. They spend their days and nights, in the service of God. There are many of them, and each one is charged with a certain duty. If we cannot see the angels with out naked eyes, it does not necessarily deny their actual existence, There are many things in the world that are invisible to the eye or inaccessible to the senses, and yet we do believe in their existence. There are places we have never seen and things like gas and ether that we could not see with our naked eyes, smell or touch or taste or hear; yet we do acknowledge their existence. Belief in the angels originates from the Islamic principle that knowledge and truth are not entirely confined to the sensory knowledge or sensory perception alone,(16:49-50; 21:19-20. see also the references in article two above).

The true Muslim believes in the Last Day of Judgment. This world will come to an end some day, and the dead will rise to stand for their final and fair trial. Everything we do in this world, every intention we have, every move we make, every thought we entertain, and every word we say, all are counted and kept in accurate records. On the Day of Judgment they will be brought up. People with good records will be generously rewarded and warmly welcomed to the Heaven of God, and those with bad records will be punished and cast into Hell. The real nature of Heaven and Hell and the exact description of them are known to God only. There are descriptions of Heaven and Hell in the Koran and the Traditions of Muhammad but they should not be taken literally. In Heaven, said Muhammad, there are things which no eye has ever seen, no ear has ever heard, and no mind has ever conceived. However, the Muslim believes that there definitely will be compensation and reward for the good deeds, and punishment for the evil ones. That is the Day of Justice and final settlement of all accounts.

If some people think that they are shrewd enough and can get away with their wrong doings, just as they sometimes escape the penalty of the mundane laws, they are wrong, they will not be able to do so on the Day of Judgment. They will be caught right on the spot defenseless, without any lawyer or counsel to stand in their behalf. All their deeds are visible to God and counted by His agents. Also, if some pious people do good deeds to please God and seem to get no appreciation or acknowledgment in this temporary world, they will eventually receive full compensate on and be widely acknowledged on That Day. Absolute Justice will be done to all.

Belief in the Day of Judgment is the final relieving answer to many complicated problems of our world. There are people who commit sins, neglect God and indulge in immoral activities, yet they seem to be "superficially" successful in business and prosperous in life. And there are virtuous and God-minded people, yet they seem to be getting less rewards for their sincere effort, and more suffering in the present world. This is puzzling and incompatible with the Justice of God. If the guilty people can escape the mundane law unharmed and, in addition, be more prosperous, what is, then, left for the virtuous people? What will promote the cause of morality and goodness? There must be some way to reward goodness and arrest evil. If this is not done here on this earth-and we know that it is not done regularly or immediately it has to be done some day, and that is the Day of Judgment. This is not to condone injustice or tolerate mischief in this world. It is not to sedate the deprived or comfort their exploiters Rather, it is to warn the deviants from the Right Path and remind them that the Justice of God shall run its full course sooner or later (see, for example, the previous references).

The true Muslim believes in the timeless knowledge of God and in His power to plan and execute His plans. God is not indifferent to this world nor is He neutral to it. His knowledge and power are in action at all times to keep order in His vast domain and maintain full command over His creation. He is Wise and Loving, and whatever He does must have a good motive and meaningful purpose. If this is established in our minds, we should accept with good Faith all that He does, although we may fail to understand it fully, or even think it is bad. We should have strong Faith in Him and accept whatever He does because our knowledge is limited and our thinking is based on individual or personal considerations, whereas His knowledge is limitless and He plans on a universal basis.

This does not in any way make man fatalist or helpless. It simply draws the demarcation line between what is God's concern and what is man's responsibility. Because we are by nature finite and limited, we have a finite and limited degree of power and freedom. We cannot do everything, and He graciously holds us responsible only for the things we do. The things which we cannot do, or things which He Himself does, are not in the realm of our responsibility. He is Just and has given us limited power to match our finite nature and limited responsibility. On the other hand, the timeless knowledge and power of God to execute His plans do not prevent us from making our own plans in our own limited sphere of power. On the contrary, He exhorts us to think, to plan and to make sound choices, but if things do not happen the way we wanted or planned them, we should not lose Faith or surrender ourselves to mental strains and shattering worries. We should try again and again, and if the results are not satisfactory, then we know that we have tried our best and cannot be held responsible for the results, because what is beyond our capacity and responsibility is the affair of God alone. The Muslims call this article of Faith the belief in ‘Qadaa’ and ‘Qaday’, which simply means, in other words, that the Timeless Knowledge of God anticipates events, and that events take place according to the exact Knowledge of God (Koran, for example, 18:29; 41:46; 53:33-62; 54:49; 65:3; 76:30-31).

The true Muslim believes that God's creation is meaningful and that life has a sublime purpose beyond the physical needs and material activities of man. The purpose of life is to worship God. This does not simply mean that we have to spend our entire lives inconstant seclusion and absolute meditation. To worship God is to know Him; to love Him; to obey His commandments; to enforce His law in every aspect of life; to serve .His cause by doing the right and shunning the evil; and to be just to Him, to ourselves, and to our fellow human being and To worship God is to "live" life not to run away from it. In brief, to worship God is to imbue ourselves with His Supreme Attributes. This is by no means a simple statement, nor is it an oversimplification of the matter. It is most comprehensive and conclusive. So if life has a purpose and if man is created to serve that purpose, then he cannot escape the responsibility. He cannot deny His existence or ignore the vital role he has to play. When God charges him with any responsibility, He provides him with all the required assistance. He endows him with intelligence and power to choose his course of conduct. Man, thus, is strongly commended by God to exert his utmost to fully serve the purpose of his existence. Should he fail to do that, or misuse his life or neglect- his duties, he shall be responsible to God for his wrong deeds (see 21:17-18; 51:56-58, 75:37).

The true Muslim believes that man enjoys an especially high ranking status in the hierarchy of all the known creatures. He occupies this distinguished position because He alone is gifted with rational faculties and spiritual aspirations as well as powers of action. But the more his rank excels, the more his responsibility grows. He occupies the position of God's viceroy on earth. The person who is appointed by God to be His active agent, must necessarily have some power and authority, and be, at least potentially, endowed with honor and integrity. And this is the status of man in Islam; not a condemned race from birth to death, but a dignified being potentially capable of good and noble achievements. The fact that God chose His messengers from the human race shows that man is trustworthy and capable, and that he can acquire immense treasures of goodness (2:30-34; 6:165; 7:1 1; 17:70-72, 90-95).

The true Muslim believes that every person is born "Muslim". This means that the very course of birth takes place in accordance with the Will of God, in realization of His plans and in submission to His Commands. It also means that every person is endowed with spiritual potentialities and intellectual inclinations that can make him a good Muslim, if he has the right access to Islam and is left to develop his innate nature. Many people can readily accept Islam if it is properly presented to them because it is the Divine formula for those who want to satisfy their moral and spiritual needs as well is their natural aspirations, those who want to lead a constructive and sound life, whether personal or social, national or international. This is so because Islam is the universal religion of God, the Maker of human nature, Who knows what is best for human nature (30:30; 64:1-3; 82:6-8).

The true Muslim believes that every person is born free from sin and all claims to inherited virtue. He is like a blank book. When the person reaches the age of maturity he becomes accountable for his deeds and intentions, if his development is normal and if he is sane. Man is not only free from sin until he commits sin, but he is also free to do things according to his plans on his own responsibility. This dual freedom: freedom from sin and freedom to do effective things, clears the Muslim's conscience from the heavy pressure of Inherited Sin. It relieves his soul and mind from the unnecessary strains of the Doctrine of Original Sin.

This Islamic concept of freedom is based upon the principle of God’s justice and the individual's direct responsibility to God. Each person must beat his own burden and be responsible for his own actions, because no one can expiate for another’s sin. Thus, a Muslim believes that if Adam had committed the First Sin, it was his own responsibility to expiate for that sin. To assume that God was unable to forgive Adam and had to make somebody else expiate for his sin, or to assume that Adam did not pray for pardon or prayed for it but it was not granted, would be extremely unlikely and contrary to God’s mercy and justice as well as to His attribute of forgiveness and power to forgive. To assume the said hypothesis, would be an audacious defiance of common sense and flagrant violation of the very concept of God (see the references in article nine above; Qur’an, 41:46; 45:15; 53:31-42; 74:38; the Concept of Sin below):

On this rational basis as well as on the authority of the Koran, the Muslim believes that Adam realized what he had committed and prayed to God for pardon, as any other sensible sinner would. It is also on the same basis, the Muslim believes, that God, the Forgiving and Merciful, granted Adam pardon (2:35-37; 20:117-122). Hence, the Muslim cannot possibly accept the doctrine that Adam with the whole human race had been condemned and unforgiven until Jesus came to expiate for their sins. Consequently, the Muslim cannot entertain the dramatic story of Jesus' death on the cross just to do away with all human sins once and for all.

Here the reader must be cautioned against any wrong conclusions. The Muslim does not believe in the crucifixion of Jesus by his enemies because the basis of this doctrine of crucifixion is contrary to Divine mercy and justice as much as it is to human logic and dignity. Such a disbelief in the doctrine does not in any way lessen the Muslim’s reverence for Jesus, or degrade the high status of Jesus in Islam or even shake the Muslim's belief in Jesus as a distinguished prophet of God. On the contrary, by rejecting this doctrine the Muslim accepts Jesus but only with more esteem and higher respect, and looks upon his original message as an essential part of Islam. So let it be stated, again, that to be a Muslim a person must accept and. respect all the prophets of God without any discrimination. The general status of Jesus in Islam will be further discussed in a later chapter.

The true Muslim believes that man must work out his salvation through the guidance of God. This means that in order to attain salvation a person must combine Faith and action, belief and practice. Faith without action is as insufficient as action without Faith. In other words, no one can attain salvation until his Faith in God becomes dynamic in his life and his beliefs are translated into reality. This is in complete harmony with the other Islamic articles of Faith. It shows that God does not accept lip service, and that no true believer can be indifferent as far as the practical requirements of Faith are concerned. It also shows that no one can act on behalf of another or intercede between him and God (see, for example, the Koran, 10:9-10; 18:30; 103:1-3).

The true Muslim believes that God does not hold any person responsible until He has shown him the Right Way. This is why God has sent many messengers and revelations, and has made it clear that there would be no punishment before giving guidance and sounding the alarm. So, a person who has never come across any Divine revelations or messenger, or a person who is insane is not held responsible to God for failing to obey the Divine instructions. Such a person will be responsible only for not doing what his sound common sense tells him to do. But the person who knowingly and intentionally violates the Law of God or deviates from His Right Path will be punished for his wrong deeds (4:165; 5: 16 & 21; 17: 15).

This point is very important for every Muslim. There are many people in the world who have not heard of Islam and have no way of knowing about it. Such people may be honest and may become good Muslims, if they find their way to Islam. If they do not know and have no way of knowing, they will not be responsible for failing to be Muslims. Instead, the Muslim who can present Islam to such people will be the ones responsible for failing to invite them to Islam and show them what Islam is. This calls upon every Muslim throughout the globe not only to preach Islam in words but also -and more importantly-to live it in full (see, for example, the Koran, 3: 104;16:125).

The true Muslim believes that in human nature, which God created, there is more good than evil, and the probability successful reform is greater than the probability of hopeless failure. This belief is derived from the fact that God has tasked man with certain assignments and sent messengers with revelations for his guidance. If man were by nature a hopeless case impossible to reform, how could God with His absolute wisdom assign him responsibilities and invite him to do or shun certain things? How could God do that, if it were all in vain? The fact that God cares for man and takes a stand in his interest proves that man is neither helpless nor hopeless, but is more appreciative of and inclined to good than otherwise. Surely with sound Faith in God and due confidence in man miracles can be worked out, even in our own times. To understand this properly, one has to carefully study the relevant Passages in the Qur’an and reflect on their meanings.

The true Muslim believes that Faith is not complete when it is followed blindly or accepted unquestioningly unless the believer is reasonably satisfied. If Faith is to inspire action, and if Faith and action are to lead to salvation, then Faith must be founded on unshakable convictions without any deception or compulsion. In other words, the person who calls himself a Muslim because of his family traditions, or accepts Islam under coercion or blind imitation is not a complete Muslim in the sight of God. A Muslim must build his Faith on well-grounded convictions beyond any reasonable doubt and above uncertainty. If he is not certain about his Faith, he is invited by God to search in the open book of Nature, to use his reasoning powers, and to reflect on the teachings of the Koran. He must search for the indisputable truth until he finds it, and he will certainly find it, if he is capable and serious enough (see, for example, the Koran, 2:170; 43:22-24).

This is why Islam demands sound convictions and opposes blind imitation. Every person who is duly qualified as a genuine earnest thinker is enjoined by Islam to employ his faculties he fullest extent. But if a person is unqualified or uncertain of himself, he should pursue his thinking only as far as limits can take him. It will be quite in order for such a person to rely only on the authentic sources of religion, which are sufficient in themselves, without applying to them any critical questioning of which he is incapable. The point is that no one call himself a true Muslim unless his Faith is based on strong convictions and his mind is clear from doubts. Because Islam is complete only when it is based on strong convictions freedom of choice, it cannot be forced upon anybody, for will not accept this forced faith. Nor will He consider it a true Islam if it does not develop from within or originate from free and sound convictions. And because Islam insures freedom of belief many non-Muslim groups lived and still live in the Muslim countries enjoying full freedom of belief and conscience. The Muslims take this attitude because Islam forbids compulsion in religion. It is the light which must radiate from within, because freedom of choice is the cornerstone of responsibility. This does not exempt the parents from responsibility for their children. Nor does it condone their being indifferent to the spiritual welfare of their dependents. In fact, they must do everything. Possible to help them to build a strong inspiring faith.

To establish Faith on sound grounds, there are various parallel avenues. There is the Spiritual approach which is based mainly on the Qur’an and the Traditions of Muhammad. There is also the rational approach which eventually leads to Faith in the Supreme Being. This is not to say that the Spiritual approach lacks sound rationality. Nor is the rational approach deprived of inspiring spirituality. Both approaches, in fact, complement one another and may well become in a state of lively interaction. Now if a person is sufficiently equipped with sound rational qualities, he may resort to the rational approach or to the Spiritual approach or to both, and may be confident that his conclusion will be right. But if a person is incapable of profound inquiry or is uncertain of his reasoning powers, he may confine himself to the Spiritual approach and-be contented with the knowledge he can derive from the authentic sources of religion. The point is that whether one uses the Spiritual approach or the rational technique or both, one will in the end come to Faith in God. All these avenues are equally important and accepted by Islam, and when property channeled, lead to the same end, namely Faith in the Supreme Being (Koran, 5:16 17; 12:109; 18:30; 56:80).

The true Muslim believes that the Koran is the word of God revealed to Muhammad through the agency of the Angel Gabriel. The Qur’an was revealed from God piece by piece on various occasions to answer certain questions, solve certain problems settle certain disputes, and to be man’s best guide to the truth of God and eternal happiness. Every letter in the Qur’an is the word of God, and every sound in it is the true echo of God’s voice. The Koran is the First and most authentic Source of Islam. It was revealed in Arabic. It is still and will remain in its original and complete Arabic version, because God has made it His concern to preserve the Qur’an, to make it always the best guide for man, and to safeguard it against corruption (cf. 4:82; 15:9; 17:9; 41:41-44; 42:7, 52-53).

In testimony to God's conservation, the Qur’an is the only Scripture in human history that has been preserved in complete and original version without the slightest change in style or even punctuation’s. The history of recording the Koran, compiling its chapters and conserving its text is beyond any doubt not only in the minds of the Muslims but also in the minds of honest and serious scholars. This is a historical fact which no scholar from any faith who respects his knowledge and integrity has ever questioned. As a matter of fact, it is Muhammads’ standing miracle that if all mankind were to work together they could not produce the like of one Koranic chapter (2:22-24; 11:13-14; 17:88-89).

The true Muslim believes in a clear distinction between the Qur’an and the Traditions of Muhammad. The Koran is the word of God whereas the Traditions of Muhammad are the practical interpretations of the Koran. The role of Muhammad was to convey the Koran as he received it, to interpret it, and to practice it fully. His interpretations and practices produced what is known as the Traditions of Muhammad. They are considered the Second Source of Islam and must be in complete harmony with the First Source, namely the Koran, which is the Standard and the Criterion. If there be any contradiction or inconsistency between any of the Traditions and the Koran, the Muslim adheres to the Koran alone and regards everything, else as open to question because no genuine Tradition of Muhammad can ever disagree with the Koran or be opposed to it.

Remarks

In this discussion of the cardinal articles of Faith in Islam, we have deliberately differed from the Traditional view on the subject. We did not confine them to five or six articles. Instead, we tried to include as many Principles as was possible. But it should be pointed out here that all the articles of Faith mentioned above are based upon and derived from the teachings of the Koran and the Traditions of Muhammad. More verses from the Koran and many parts of the Traditions could have been quoted to show the foundation of these articles of Faith. This was not done because of the limitations of space. However, the Koran and the Traditions of Muhammad are available references for any detailed study.

We have also kept to a minimum the use of Western terminology and technical language like predestination, fatalism, free will, and so on. This was done deliberately because we wanted to avoid confusion and technicalities. Most of the technical terms used in religion among non-Arabic speaking people lead to misunderstanding, when applied to Islam, and give wrong impressions. It would be impossible to serve the purpose of this work if foreign terms were adopted and applied to Islam. If we were to use the alien religious terminology here, we would have to add many qualifications and comments to clarify the picture of Islam. This also would have required much more space which we could not possibly afford under the circumstances. So, we tried to explain things in ordinary simple language, and this same course will be followed in the remainder of the book.

Taken from: Islam in Focus by Abdul Ati.

[+/-] show/hide this post
A Dhimmis Introduction to Wahhabism
salafism/"wahhabism" is continually portrayed in the media as being a foreign, unsound creed that is based upon irrational precepts which contradict common sense. we are led to believe that salafism is an erroneous creed which leads to extremism and terrorism. we are told that salafism is unsuitable for these times, and that it differs from "mainstream" islam. as such, we are led to believe that it is not genuinely islamic in its nature.

this situation is compounded by the fact that those journalists who had only heard about islam prior to september 11 have now suddenly become experts in religion and are writing newspaper articles about islam and salafism. their major claim which is repeatedly mentioned is that osama bin laden is a "wahhabi", only because he was born in saudi arabia. this one-dimensional viewpoint overlooks the fact that not everyone who lives in saudi arabia is salafi ("wahhabi") in belief and methodology, just as not everyone who lives in england is a member of the anglican church.

therefore, the reader is invited to examine the main beliefs of the "wahhabi"/salafi creed for themselves, and to carefully consider whether the depiction of the salafi creed they have been given is an accurate one or not. are the fundamental beliefs of a salafi muslim contradictory to mainstream islam, or do they in actuality represent and defend the true conventional beliefs of the prophet muhammad ? are these beliefs something illogical, extreme and unsuitable for these times, or do they in actuality appeal profoundly to mankind's natural instinct on a universal basis?

in order to come to an accurate understanding of the world-view of "wahhabism", it is necessary to examine the crux of the orthodox "wahhabi" creed

the reader will notice that the word "wahhabi" is always indented with quotation marks. those who are labelled with this word do not themselves use this term, as it is used as a means of belittlement. the correct way of referring to them is by terming them salafis, as they are those who adhere to the way of the salaf - the prophet muhammad and his companions.

following the way of the salaf is the way which has been legislated in the koran and sunnah, the very sources of islam. the prophet said to his daughter fatimah:

"Indeed, I am for you a blessed Salaf."

when asked about which was the correct and acceptable way of understanding islam, the prophet replied by saying:

"That which I and my companions are upon."

similarly, god says in the koran that He is pleased with the companions

"and also those who follow them exactly (in faith)."

as such, he said regarding the prophet and his companions:

"So if they believe as you (the Salaf) believe, they are indeed rightly guided."

all of the orthodox scholars of islam followed the way of the salaf in understanding religion. early scholars such as imam al-awzaa'ee, who died 157 years after the prophet's emigration to medina, said:

"Be patient upon the Sunnah, and stop where the people (i.e. the Salaf) stopped, and say what they said, and refrain from what they refrained from, and follow the path of your righteous Salaf; for verily, sufficient for you is what was sufficient for them."

today, one of the famous sunni schools of jurisprudence is named after a scholar named abu haneefah. millions of muslims all over the world ascribe themselves to his school of jurisprudence; those who the media would term "mainstream" muslims. regarding adherence to the salafi methodology, he said,

"Adhere to the narrations and way of the Salaf, and beware of newly invented matters (in religion), for all of it is innovation."

the orthodox scholars who came after these early generations also followed the understanding of the salaf in religious matters. imam ath-thahabi said:

"It is authentically related from ad-Daraqutni (a scholar from approximately 1,000 years ago) that he said: There is nothing more despised by me than 'ilmul-kalaam (innovated speech and rhetoric). I (adh-Thahabee) say: The man never entered into ’ilmul-kalaam, nor did he enter into argumentation (i.e. philosophy), he did not delve into that. Rather, he was Salafee (a follower of the Salaf)."

the present day scholars who stick to the mainstream understanding of islam also ascribe themselves to the way of the salaf. shaykh saalih al-fawzaan is considered to be one of the most knowledgeable of scholars alive today. regarding salafism, he made the following remark:

"It is not a party from amongst the various parties… Hence Salafism is a group of people who are upon the way of the Salaf, upon what the Messenger (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) and his Companions were upon; and it is not a party from amongst the contemporary groups present today."

the media claim that salafis/"wahhabis" believe that all those who do not follow their form of islam are "heathens" is a tall tale. salafis believe that those muslims who do not follow the understanding of the salaf are not adhering to these and other clear texts. as such, they do not fall under the above mentioned koranic verse as being "rightly guided." salafis distinguish between those who fall into religious innovation and those who fall into disbelief.

when considering the proofs which are contained within the koran and sunnah and the statements of all the orthodox scholars of islam from the earliest generations to the present time, it becomes obvious that it is a great blunder for the media to refer to salafism as being a new movement called "wahhabism" which came about only two centuries ago during the time of muhammad ibn abdul-wahhab in saudi arabia.

"So after the truth, what else can there be, save error?" [Koran 10:32]

link
the wahabbi myth

[+/-] show/hide this post
Islam and Evolution
what does islam tell us about the nature of mankind, are we to believe in intelligent design or evolutionary theory. maybe both are compatible?

many muslims wonder about the theory of biological evolution, the theory that living species on earth today are descended from others in the past, and that the present diversity of living species we see is a result of descent with modification over the course of numerous generations.

muslims also wonder about one of the main processes that evolutionary theory proposes to explain how evolution takes place, the process of natural selection. this is the idea that the individuals within a populations of living organism vary in their individual traits, they are not exactly alike, and that the organisms which are most successful at leaving descendants will pass on their unique traits to the next generation at the expense of the traits possessed by less successful organisms in the population, thereby contributing to a long term gradual change in the suite of traits found within the population.

to start with, it is not the intention in this article to discuss the scientific implications of evolutionary theory. the aim is to explore the issue from the perspective of islamic teachings.

muslims must ask:

does the theory of evolution,and likewise the theory of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution, conform to islamic teachings or conflict with them?

is a muslim allowed to believe in evolution as a scientific theory as long as he or she accepts that god is behind it?

is a muslim allowed to believe in human evolution? if not, how can we explain the fossils of upright, bipedal, tool-using apes with large brains that have been discovered?

one must re-emphasize that the concern here is not with examining the scientific merits of the theory of evolution. what one wants to know is what islamic teachings have to say about the idea. whether evolution is true or false scientifically is another matter altogether.

when one looks at the sources of islam, the koran and sunnah, we see that, with respect to human beings living on the earth today, they are all descendants of adam and eve.

god also says:

“o mankind! we have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. verily, the most honorable of you with god is the one who is the most god-fearing.” (sûrah al-hujûrât:13)

the prophet (peace be upon him) identified the "male" mentioned in this verse as being adam. he said:

“human beings are the children of adam and adam was created from earth. god says: ‘o mankind! we have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. verily, the most honorable of you with god is the one who is the most god-fearing’.” [sunan al-tirmidhî (3270)]

we also see that god created adam directly without the agency of parents.

god says:

“the similitude of jesus before god is as that of adam; he created him from dust, then said to him: ‘be’ and he was.” (sûrah âl `imrân: 59)

we also know that eve was created from adam without the agency of parents.

in the koran, god states clearly:

“o mankind! be careful of your duty to your lord who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women.” (sûrah al-nisâ’: 1)

therefore, the koran tells us that adam and his wife were the father and mother of all human beings living on the earth today. we know about this by way of direct revelation from god.

the direct creation of adam (peace be upon him) can neither be confirmed nor denied by science in any way. this is because the creation of adam (peace be upon him) was a unique and singular historical event. it is a matter of the unseen and something that science does not have the power to confirm or deny. as a matter of the unseen, it is believed because god informs us about it. the same for the miracles mentioned in the koran. miraculous events, by their very nature, do not conform to scientific laws and their occurrence can neither be confirmed nor denied by science.

what about other living things, besides the human beings living on the earth today? what about plants, animals, fungi, and the like?

when we turn our attention to this question, we find that the koran and sunnah do not tell us much about the flora and fauna that was present on the earth before or at the time of adam and eve’s arrived upon it. the sacred texts also do not tell us how long ago adam and eve arrived upon the earth. therefore, these are things we cannot ascertain from the sacred texts.

the only thing that the koran and sunnah require muslims to believe about the living things on earth today is that god created them in whatever manner he decided to create them.

god says:

“god is the creator of all things and over all things he has authority.” (sûrah al-zumar: 62)]

indeed, god states specifically that he created all life forms:

“and we made from water all living things.” (sûrah al-anbiyâ’: 30)

we know that “god does what he pleases.” god can create his creatures in any manner that he chooses.

therefore, with respect to other living things, the koran and sunnah neither confirm nor deny the theory of biological evolution or the process referred to as natural selection. the question of evolution remains purely a matter of scientific enquiry. the theory of evolution must stand or fall on its own scientific merits, and that means the physical evidence that either confirms the theory or conflicts with it.

the role of science is only to observe and describe the patterns that god places in his creation. if scientific observation shows a pattern in the evolution of species over time that can be described as natural selection, this is not in itself unbelief. it is only unbelief for a person to think that this evolution took place on its own, and not as a creation of god. a muslim who accepts evolution or natural selection as a valid scientific theory must know that the theory is merely an explanation of one of the many observed patterns in god’s creation.

as for the fossil remains of bi-pedal apes and the tools and artifacts associated with those remains, their existence poses no problem for islamic teachings. there is nothing in the koran and sunnah that either affirms or denies that upright, brainy, tool using apes ever existed or evolved from other ape-like ancestors. such animals may very well have existed on earth before adam’s arrival upon it. all we can draw from the koran and sunnah is that even if those animals once existed, they were not the forefathers of adam.


bibliography
prepared by the research committee of islamtoday.net under the supervision of sheikh `abd al-wahhâb al-turayrî|

link
biological evolution an islamic perspective

[+/-] show/hide this post
Women in Islam
the condition of women before islam

islam came at a time when women all over the world were being oppressed and exploited. the most any society would accord to women was to admit that they were part of the human race. women remained in this state without protesting or rebelling against it. no one else was to do so either. nor were there any social or economic developments that would require a betterment of womens status in society.

when islam came, it proclaimed womens rights and equality with men. it established for women all of the rights to bring women out of the miserable state that they in and elevate her to the noble status that women deserved. how did this happen?

equality between men and women in islam

islam establishes the principle of equality between men and women in all aspects of life that they are equal in, because both of them are equally human. it does however distinguishes between them in some areas, taking into consideration the natural differences between them and the special qualities that each of them has.

equality between men and women in islam is derived from the following considerations:

equality in their human origins: islam conclusively establishes that all human beings have a common origin. this fact is mentioned in many verses of the koran:

o mankind, fear your lord who created you from a single soul and created from it its mate and brought forth from the two of them many men and women.”

o mankind, verily we created you from a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes so you may know one another. verily the most honorable of you with god are the most righteous.”

equality in their common destiny:

islam also establishes that all of mankind is going to return to god who created them, and everyone – male and female – is going to be recompensed for his or her worldly deeds. they will receive well if they did good and they will be requited with evil if they did evil. god says:

and every one of you will come to him alone on the day of resurrection.”

a human being will have nothing except for what he does. and his deeds will be seen. then he will be recompensed fully.”

so their lord accepted of them their supplication and answered them: ‘i will never allow the work of any of you to be lost, male or female. you are from each other.”

whoever works righteousness as a believer, whether male or female, we will truly give a good life and we shall pay them a reward in proportion to the best of what they used to do.”

women's rights in islam

we should point out that human rights in islam are not merely rights but are religious obligations. this means that it is obligatory for every person to protect them and restore them if they are taken away. it is equally obligatory upon society to make sure that every individual can enjoy his or her rights to the fullest.

islam has secured for the woman every human right. this includes her intellectual, religious, social, economic and political rights.

intellectual and religious rights

islam has guaranteed every man and woman the right to think and believe as they choose. it considers thinking and investigating to be an obligation upon every human being. there are numerous verses in the koran that encourage people to think about and investigate the phenomena both in the world around them and in the wonder of life itself. god says:

do they not look in the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all the things that god has created?

"say (o muhammad): “behold all that is in the heavens and the earth.’ but neither signs nor warners benefit those who do not believe.”

"say: “‘travel in the land and see how god originated creation.”

"say (o muhammad): “i exhort you to one thing only: that you stand up for god’s sake together and individually and reflect: there is no madness in your companion (muhammad).”

as for the right to one’s own belief, islam has guaranteed it and forbidden anyone to compel another to change his or her belief. god says:

there is no compulsion in religion. verily, the true path is clearly distinct from error.”

so, will you (o muhammad) then compel mankind so they will become believers?

you (o muhammad) are merely a warner. you are not a dictator over them.”

the koran threatens those who persecute believing men and women in order to turn them from their faith:

verily those who persecute the believing men and women and then do not turn to god in repentance, they will have the punishment of hell, and they will have the punishment of the fire.”

from all of these texts, the independent religious identity of the woman becomes quite clear. no one else can impose upon women what she should believe. women must, of her own free will, decide what to believe. god says:

o you who believe, if believing women come to you as emigrants, examine them. god knows best their faith. then, if you ascertain that they are true believers, do not send them back to the disbelievers.”

o prophet, if believing women come to you to give you their pledge that they will not associate anything in worship with god, nor steal, nor commit fornication, nor kill their children, nor commit slander, nor forge falsehood (to making illegitimate children belong to their husbands), nor disobey you in goodness, then accept their pledge and ask god to forgive them. verily, god is oft-forgiving, most merciful.”

o wives of the prophet! whoever of you commits manifest lewdness will have a double punishment. this is easy for god. and whoever of you is obedient to god and his messenger and works righteous deeds will be given a double reward.”

when islam came, women accepted islam and made the emigration to madinah, even though their fathers, husbands, and the rest of their male relatives remained disbelievers. umm habîbah, the daughter of abû sufyân, accepted islam and emigrated in spite of the fact that her father was one of the leaders of the disbelievers. even when her husband abandoned islam, she remained steadfast in her belief.

fâtimah, the daughter of al-khattâb, became muslim before her brother `umar did and was the cause for him accepting islam, because of her faith and because she stood up to him when he found out about her becoming a muslim and wanted to abuse her.

umm kulthûm, the daughter of `uqbah b. abî mu`ît, accepted islam and emigrated in spite of the fact that every member of her family remained polytheists.

there were many women who accepted islam and were the reasons for their husbands accepting islam. umm sulaym – the wife of abû talhah al-ansârî – and umm hakîm bint huzâm – the wife of `ikrimah b. abî jahl – were among these women.

social and economic rights

not only does islam recognize a womans right to think and believe as she likes, it considers women to be active members of society who can make a valuable contribution. islam, therefore, secures for women many rights, including the right to an education, the right to own property and to use it at her own discretion, and the right to work.

the right to an education: in islam, seeking knowledge is a religious duty upon every man and woman. this is because knowledge is integral to islamic life. in the light of knowledge, a person’s eyes are opened. this person can then worship the lord with proper insight and understanding. god says:

read in the name of your lord who created. who created the human being from a clot. read, and your lord is the most generous. who taught by the pen. who taught the human being what he knew not.”

knowledge is a gift from god to every human being. consequently, it is a right granted to all. no man or woman may be barred from it. the woman’s right to knowledge is exactly the same as a man’s. she must know the teachings of her religion and may acquire a deep understanding thereof. the verse mentioned above is addressed to all humanity, ordering them to read and to learn. it was the first verse of the koran to be revealed. it does not differentiate between men and women.

this is what women enjoyed since the first days of islam’s history. women used to compete with men in attaining knowledge at the mosque and at the houses of god’s messenger. their strong desire for knowledge made the women ask the messenger to set aside a special day for teaching them, above and beyond the general lessons that were open to women and men alike. god’s messenger did, in fact, set aside a special day to remind them and to teach them.

due to the care given by women and the attention to knowledge given by islam, many great scholars, jurists, writers, and poets appeared among the women during the era of the companions and the successors, and during every era of islamic history.

the right to own and dispose of property: this is established by the koran in many of its verses. god says:

men have a share of what they earn and women have a share of what they earn.”

men have a share of what their parents and relatives leave behind, and women have a share of what their parents and relatives leave behind, whether the estate be small or large – a legal share.”

and give to the women their dowries with a good heart; but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, take it and enjoy it without fear.”

there is consensus among the scholars of islam that all economic activities of a woman, like buying, selling, leasing, giving gifts, and giving collateral, are legally valid and that she has a completely independent economic existence.

the right to work:

in islam, a woman can practice any occupation that she chooses, as long as that occupation is lawfully permitted for men and women to engage in. there is no restriction placed upon her in this. from the dawn of islam, women engaged in many occupations such as commerce, agriculture, and manufacturing.

a woman came to god’s messenger and said to him: “i am a woman who engages in buying and selling.” she then asked him for the legal rulings pertaining to some of the commercial transactions that she used to engage in.

another woman came to him complaining that one of the men forbade her from working on her farm. god’s messenger said: “go work your date palms; for perhaps you might give some charity or do acts of righteousness.”

the right to inheritance:

when islam established inheritance for the woman, it was the first time in history that women were able to enjoy this right. the koran establishes for her this right in a number of its texts. god says:

men have a share of what their parents and relatives leave behind, and women have a share of what their parents and relatives leave behind, whether the estate be small or large – a legal share.”

god commands you regarding your children’s (inheritance): to the male a portion equal to that of two females; if there are only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is half. for parents, a sixth share for each if the deceased left children. if there are no children and they are the only heirs, the mother has a third…”

you have half of what your wives leave if they have no children, but if they leave a child, then you receive a fourth of that which they leave after payment of legacies that they may have bequeathed or debts. they have a fourth of what you leave behind if you leave no child, but if you leave a child, they receive an eighth of that which you leave after payment of legacies that you may have bequeathed or debts. if the man or woman whose inheritance is in question has left no other heirs, but has left a brother or a sister, each one (if no more than two) gets a sixth, but if they are more than two, they share in a third.”

if a man dies leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance. if the deceased is a woman who left no child, then her brother inherits from her. if they are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance…”

the right to marry:

islam establishes for the woman the right to have a choice as to whom she will share her life with. god says:

and do not prevent them from marrying their (former) husbands if they mutually agree on a reasonable basis.”

when have fulfilled their term (of waiting after the death of their husbands), there is no sin on you if they if they dispose of themselves in a reasonable manner.”

god’s messenger (peace be upon him) said: “a previously married woman has more rights over herself, and a virgin must have her permission sought.”

there are cases where god’s messenger annulled the marriages of women who were married against their will.

political rights

in spite of the newness of this terminology, we find, if we review the islamic texts and look back on the experience of the early muslim societies, that islam has established for the woman rights that can be labeled political rights. among these are the following:

the right to give consultation:

there are many verses in the koran that establish the principle that muslim affairs, in general, are to be based on mutual consultation. it is the business of the muslims to exchange opinions and consult each other on these matters. god says:

and consult them in the affairs.”

and their affairs are by mutual consultation.”

these general texts pertain equally to both men and women.

we find that god’s messenger would consult his wives on issues of general import. for example, he consulted with umm salamah on the occasion where he had ordered his companions to shave their heads and come out of their pilgrim state at hudaybiyah. they did not do so, because they hated turning away from mecca without making pilgrimage to it. she advised him to shave his own head and sacrifice, so he did so and all the others hurried to follow suit. he then praised her and commended her for her keen intellect.

we find that the group of people led by `abd al-rahman b. `awf who were active in selecting `uthmân as caliph was comprised of both men and women, whereby “they came to the ladies in their private rooms to seek their consultation with regards to selecting `uthmân.” this is what we find in the historical source works. it indicates to us that even those women who remained concealed in their dwellings were consulted on the matter.

emigration and giving allegiance:

muslim women emigrated to abyssinia and to madinah. this emigration was equivalent to what we refer to today as seeking political asylum.

this was a time when the muslims were being oppressed in mecca and were forbidden from expressing their views and calling to their faith. they emigrated, seeking a place where they would be afforded the opportunity to practice their rites and express their beliefs. the first place the muslims chose to go to was abyssinia, because at that time it was ruled by a king who never oppressed anyone in his domain.

muslim women emigrated during this time, sometimes unaccompanied, like umm kulthûm bint `uqbah b. abî mu`ît and umm salamah did during the women’s emigration. this is mentioned in the koran:

o you who believe, if believing women come to you as emigrants, test them.”

as for the oath of allegiance, it is a political and religious pact between the muslims and god’s messenger that is an expression of their faith in the messenger and their political affiliation with his cause. the following verse talks about the oath of allegiance given by women:

o prophet, if believing women come to you to give you their pledge that they will not associate anything in worship with god, nor steal, nor commit fornication, nor kill their children, nor commit slander, nor forge falsehood (to make illegitimate children belong to their husbands), nor disobey you in goodness, then accept their pledge and ask god to forgive them. verily, god is oft-forgiving, most merciful.”

this list includes a clause of political significance: “nor disobey you in goodness

enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong:

the koran has established the role of the believing women in enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong. god says:

the believers, men and women, are protectors of one another; they enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong.”

this duty, just as it includes the responsibility to rectify social ills, also has political dimensions that manifest themselves in giving advice and admonition to those holding political power.

[+/-] show/hide this post
Islam and Homosexuality
human nature is essentially good, it has many elements and each one has the potential to bring benefits. muslims believe that every human action leads to consequences. good actions entail good results, and evil actions entail evil consequences. some of these consequences may not become known for many years after a certain action. the consequences of some actions will become manifest only after death when one enters a new, everlasting life.. a common mistake among humans is that if they don't see any negative consequences for their actions they consider it harmless.

a sin is committed when someone causes harm to themselves or to others or to any part of creation. the guilt depends on the intention of the sinner. in its most extreme form someone does deliberately harmful and destructive acts rejecting any appeals to do what is for their own benefit never mind what is beneficial for others.

they may claim that it makes no difference anyway since existence is pointless and therefore have no gratitude for the benefits they have in life.

the contrast to this is someone who tries to improve himself/herself, others and all of creation. they believe in god and are always grateful to him for all they have in life. their works to improve creation flow from their will to please god.

why does the perfect god allow sin?"

the world is filled with wonderful opportunities brilliantly disguised as intractable problems.

human beings can only reach virtues by choosing with their free will not to pursue vices. if a computer is programmed to always tell the truth we wouldn't call it virtuous. to appreciate light there must be darkness. to appreciate life there must be death. we cannot learn unless we make some mistakes. indeed god does have absolute knowledge of all things and has power over all things and he does love human beings.

the bad in the world should be seen, not as inherently bad but rather as lessons for humanity from which it must learn and through which we appreciate the value of good things as and when we earn them through our efforts.

human beings have the capacity to sin largely as a result of having the capacity to plan. when someone plans their efforts, they need to be able to suppress their natural desires for a time. this is quite different from animals who live from moment to moment obeying their perceptions of the present and their instinctive drives. this is indeed a dramatic difference. human beings are able to look to the future - conceptualise it and form an intention to act. this conscious intention can override even the most powerful of our instincts. through it we have capacity to cause ourselves harm in the short term in order to realise the greater good in the long term. as an inevitable part of this we gain the potential to cause ourselves harm, i.e. the potential to sin.

we cannot see clearly into the future. what we do instead is to believe in some future circumstances and direct our actions accordingly. taking planning to its logical limits we would try to do what is for the good over all time and certainly for our entire life (in this world and the next). this is the core of trying to do what is morally right.

in attempts to understand what the future will bring, human beings have searched for ever better explanations for what they encounter of reality. this search is part of morally good thinking. the fact that we can never fully know the future is analogous to the fact that we can never really know god. god is something in the 'unseen' part of reality, as is the future.

islamic studies on homosexuality.

the aim of natural sexuality is procreation. lawful and natural sexual relations between man and woman has been designed by god to preserve the human race here on earth. the koran forbids any sexual relationship other than in a marriage between a man and a woman.

is it possible for muslims to talk about homosexuality in terms acceptable to their religion. this is a primary question that needs to be answered if muslims and non-muslims are to discuss homosexuality and other related issues. it is also important for muslims who want to discuss these issues among themselves for example, in conjunction with sexual education within the muslim community.

the term sexuality and homosexuality are not a terms found in the koran. however, the concepts of sexuality and homosexuality can be directly perceived from texts from the koran. there are two separate words for heterosexual sex relations inside and out of islamic wedlock: nikah and zina.

there is no separate or special word in the koran for homosexual sex relations. the koran recalls the acts against the people, from the prophet lot, with a general term meaning bad things.

what those bad acts exactly were, can be found in the texts of the koran.one of them is penetrating (ya'tun) males. this sexual activity, forbidden by the koran, is referred to in the koran with the verb (ya'tun) and followed by a noun as object. in islamic texts, (liwata) is the acceptable term for 'penetrating males '. lesbian sexual acts are referred to with the same verb (ya'tun), only in the feminine form and followed by the noun (fahisha). this is a general term and means 'great sin'.

the story of prophet lot, finds mention in several koranic passages:

the people of Lot rejected the apostles. behold, their brother Lot said to them: "Will ye not fear (God)? "I am to you an apostle worthy of all trust. "So fear God and obey me. "No reward do I ask of you for it: my reward is only from the lord of the Worlds. "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, "And leave those whom God has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!" They said: "If thou desist not, O Lot! thou wilt assuredly be cast out!"
He said: "I do detest your doings." "O my Lord! deliver me and my family from such things as they do!" So We delivered him and his family,- all Except an old woman who lingered behind. But the rest We destroyed utterly. We rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): and evil was the shower on those who were admonished (but heeded not)! Verily in this is a Sign: but most of them do not believe. And verily thy Lord is He, the Exalted in Might Most Merciful.” Koran 26:160-175


from these passages we learn that god saved lot and the righteous ones of his family, and rained on the rest a shower of brimstone, so they were utterly destroyed. this is mentioned in the koran not only for the sake of information, but mainly to serve as a warning to anyone who dares to repeat such acts.

the story of lot is not specifically about same sex sexuality and/or same-sex relationships. the story is about a people who are punished for committing several forms of unlawful (sexual) behaviour, including widespread promiscuity, bestiality, paedophillia, inhospitality towards guests as well as abuse of power, rape and intimidation.

other views have it that in the story of lot, which is similar to other stories about the rejection of a prophet (noah, ibrahim, musa), the people are punished not just for a particular sin or sins but for rejecting their prophet. from these analyses it can be concluded that the verses in the story of lot are not referring to homosexuality in the sense of same sex sexuality or relationships as we understand them in the west today.

the term that islamic scholars use for sexual relations between women (sihak) is not in the koran but instead in the pronouncements of the prophet. islam considers lesbian sexual acts (sihak) an unacceptable form of sexual activity.

same sex intercourse is prohibited in islam which teaches that such intercourse is a violation of the natural boundaries set by god. note that homosexuality, as an attraction, is not against the sharia , which governs the physical actions, and not the inner thoughts and feelings. it is the physical action of same sex intercourse that is punishable under the sharia.

this brief explanation from islamic sources make clear how important it is to study islamic terms if we want to study homosexuality from an islamic perspective. in order to discuss homosexuality in a manner acceptable in islam, the views on homosexuality according to islam and based on islamic literature have been considered. this point of view can be divided into six points:

muslim scholars are unanimously in agreement that islam rejects homosexual acts. however, it only becomes punishable when anal sex occurs in public (or is obvious, meaning where others can witness it).


islamic punishment for anal sex in public varies according to the situation.there is a light and a heavy punishment.


the juridical tradition has written that anal sex can only be punished if four witnesses saw the actual penetration with their own eyes and are prepared to act as witnesses. the sanction is actually against having sex in public, because the punishment is also applicable to heterosexual acts in public.


the rule about four witnesses weighs heavily. an accusation by someone without four witnesses (as evidence) is also punishable.


above all, the islamic law is only applicable for muslims who live in a country with an islamic tradition and where islamic law in implemented.


the islamic view of homosexuality doesn't limit itself to strict statutory regulation. islam recognizes that the sex drive is inherent in everyone. islam has complete views concerning feminine and masculine homosexuality.


the above rules and summaries come from islamic literature, written in arabic and discussed in the koran.comparable summaries can be found in various koran exegeses and other islamic sources, in the languages of the muslim world.

these ideas are familiar with those who know islam and one should recognise the nuances of the debate of this subject. the image surrounding islam and homosexuality depends upon the way in which people manage the above mentioned rules in discussion. when people stress the punishability of homosexual sex (as discussed in the point one) and negate the condition of public acts and the nature of human sexuality, they draw a much more negative picture than muslim scholars intended. both the four witnesses rule and the pre-condition that islamic law is only applicable in strict islamic countries are very important.

these laws have no consequences for the gay and lesbian lives (of muslim or non-muslims) in the united kingdom, the west or in not very strict muslim countries.

historically the punishment for the sexual act has been less severe compared to its abrahamic counterparts:judaism and christianity. the koran states that if a person commits the sin they can repent and save their life, though there are hadiths that later prescribe the death penalty. early islamic cultures, especially ones where homosexuality was entrenched into their pagan culture were renowned for their lenient attitudes towards homosexuality. the result was a religion that allowed love between those of the same gender as long as they did not have sexual intercourse. ibn hazm, Ibn daud, al-mutamid, abu nuwas , and many others used this edict to write extensively and openly of love between men while proclaiming to be chaste. however, in order for the transgression to be proven, at least four men or eight women must bear witness against the accused, thus making it very difficult to persecute those who did not remain celibate in the privacy of their homes

the intended meaning of "same-sex intercourse" is sexual intercourse between two or more men, or sexual intercourse between two or more women. it does not mean the act of masturbation, nor does it have anything to do with nocturnal emissions, both of which are considered to invalidate wudu (washing prior to prayer) and require the muslim to take a full bath or shower before his or her next prayer, but are not otherwise punishable under sharia.

the view point is indeed islamic but not practiced by all muslims in their daily lives. islam is practiced and interpreted in different ways by muslims from different cultures. In turkey and in egypt, the religion is the same but the people give it different meaning. the local cultures give islam its own turkish or egyptian flavor.

in daily practice, people from the same culture have different opinions on the subject. islamic scholars and sexual freedom fighters try to influence these opinions in a number of ways. but because homosexuality is not a word found in the koran, the discussion quickly becomes difficult.

even intellectuals with islamic backgrounds use the same terms but give them different meanings. the term al-shuzuz al jinsi (literally translated as the sexual deviation) is used by arabs (incorrectly) as a synonym for homosexuality.

the general public does not understand the literal translation for homosexuality al-jinsiya al mithliah or junusiyya. as a result, the arabic newspaper (aljisr) in th netherlands uses the more negative al shuzuz al jinsi instead of junusiyya. the consequences of this are obvious! it is possible to relativise these consequences in the context of the emancipation process, but the difference in the meaning of the different terms which are wrongly used as synonyms remains too great to be acceptable. that shows the importance of researching the origins of the perception of homosexuality as a sexual deviation in order to make discussion possible.

the differences between the islamic view of homosexuality and the cultural viewpoint of muslim cultures on this subject is hopefully a bit clearer; islam considers homosexuality a sin but many muslim cultures view it as a sexual deviation as well as a sin. in addition to the aforementioned, there are also less well known nuances for muslims concerning homosexuality. because these give a more positive image of homosexuality, they are unfortunately maybe viewed with suspicion. advocates of this line of thought are suspected of all sorts of ulterior motives and often oppressed. for example, mohammed jalal kishk's book of stories entitled 'muslim's ideas about sexuality' .

the author gives his views on sexuality and homosexuality in paradise. because of its rosy descriptions, the book first had to be examined by an islamic commission chosen by al- azhar. the commission was objective enough to release the book. but the egyptian media was ruthless in its contempt the book, the members of the commission and al- azhar university.

the above examples, especially the last, clearly illustrate that homosexuality can be discussed in muslim circles, but it remains a sensitive subject. this sensitivity must be kept in mind, especially when providing informational services on homosexuality. when discussing these issues in a muslim forum it is helpful to keep in mind that information should not clash with islamic values and it should be made clear that islamic ideas are respected, whether people personally agree or not. to achieve this, it is important to be open to advice and criticism from islamic scholars and from the muslim community. above all, the information that is provided must be clear on the sources of that information.

islamic models in this synopsis, two themes come out 'questioning homosexuality' and 'the islamic law'. these two points seem to overlap one another. the first discusses the relation between god and the individual; the responsibility for ones behavior lies with the individual. society is not responsible for what occurs in private. the second theme is concerned with the relationship between society and the individual. in this case, responsibility for individual acts lies with the individual and society (where these acts occur). society involves itself with the consequences of these actions on society. from an islamic point of view, the differences are certainly legitimate.

a clearer idea of islam, thus develops more understanding. there is an approach to discussing homosexuality that is acceptable to islam.

there is no doubt that in islam homosexuality is considered 'sinful'. homosexuality as far as islam is concerned is a profound mistake - as are all sins if they are not intending to do wrong.

people become homosexuals because of their environments and maybe due to some genetic factors. however without the evidence of the genetic input at this time one should consider other issues such as the environment during puberty. suggestions, ideas & strange dreams are symptoms of confused attempts to understand new and blunt sexual desires and are rashly interpreted as defining someone as being one sexuality or another. if these conclusions are accompanied by actual homosexual acts they are even more strongly reinforced.

human instincts can be subjected to acts of will. sexuality is a choice of identity which follows choices of action which follow from choices of what to have sexual fantasies about. human beings are especially able to control their thoughts, entertaining some and dismissing others. however, if this free will is not recognised it is easy to get into a cycle of thinking which starts from accepting a hypothesis about yourself as true rather than as a possible choice (even if the options are sometimes difficult). for example: "i am lazy " could be supposed true by someone. when the person who thinks this lies around in bed in the morning he observes this inaction as evidence of the statement "i am lazy." as he repeatedly chooses to do so the evidence mounts and the idea becomes fixed in his identity. it may even have physical manifestations and change his physiology and psychology. this process can easily occur for any idea good or bad about the self which is based largely on evidence resulting from ones own action.

the idea may be "i am 'gay'" or "i am content" or "i love eating lots of food". the truth is - you are what you choose to be; you do what you choose to do; you think what you choose to think.

there may be long time delays between the causing choices and the effects but anyone can change themselves. there are reformed ex-drug addicts, reformed ex-compulsive gamblers and . in all these sins prevention is 1000 times better and much easier.

it has been suggested that homosexuality is genetically inherited and that those who have this 'pre-disposition' are victims of it not sinners of any sort. however, there are other things which are possibly genetically influenced to give predispositions to for example gambling or alcoholism . it could also be argued (and has been) that it is programmed into men's genetics for them to be unfaithful to their partner. all these things don't make it the right thing to do, nor does it prevent these things from being regarded as sinful. drinking alcohol will still be regarded as sinful in islam even if you have a predisposition to be an alcoholic. the trick as every post alcoholic will tell you is never touch another drop after you quit - it is a long slippery slope - your life is better without it.

once a certain desire is connected to your identity strongly and you get in some way hooked on it, it will always be easy to return to it - you are unable to forget the satisfaction. the difficult task is remembering the bad side of the desire, such as hangovers, lost money, self loathing or a simply sense of loss because of what you missed out on. but if you are to change for the better, you must remember this and the past desires you bound up with your identity can become disconnected from what you choose to become.

man is required to exercise restraint and overcome his emotional, biological demands, etc. and manage the disturbances within him. he, as a member of the highest species of god's creation, is under moral obligation to control the dictates of his lust - whether such lust directs him towards unnatural or natural avenues - and refrain from smearing his soul and intellect in 'unlawful' indulgence.

we know that for a muslim this life is a test . everyone of has his/her own test. for example someone may be born blind, but that person is expected to live his/her life according to god's law. others are born poor, short, tall, weak, missing fingers, etc but all of them are expected to follow god's law. some men or women may never marry in their life, or spend part of their life without a spouse. the koran advises they still have to live a chaste life and avoid any sexual contacts outside a marriage. they have to suppress their sexual feelings to follow god's law. it is a major test and not an easy one for many.

in essence only those who submit to god will do everything they can to follow his law. they know that their salvation and eternal happiness rests in doing so. this is a principle of faith not just for islam but chrsitianity, judaism and other faith systems.

for a person who asks, "why me?" god is the most merciful and just (Koran 16:90) and he will give each person a fair test and a fair chance. he assigns the tests to suit each person and the belief that he will never burden any soul beyond its means (Koran 23:2).

"We have cited for the people in this Koran all kinds of examples, but most people insist upon disbelieving". (Koran 7:89)

"We have cited in this Koran every kind of example, but the human being is the most argumentative creature". (Koran 18:54)

"We have cited for the people every kind of example in this Koran, that they may take heed". (Koran 39:27)

the spouses that god has made from among ourselves are those that aid in producing children. since the spouses in homosexual relationship would not produce children they are not the spouses god made from among ourselves

"And God made for you spouses from among yourselves, and produced for you from your spouses children and grandchildren, and provided you with good provisions. Should they believe in falsehood, and turn unappreciative of God's blessings?" (Koran16:72)

[+/-] show/hide this post
The Bible Unearthed
archeology has long been considered a good friend of the hebrew bible. just as heinrich schliemann's discoveries proved that homer's stories were not purely mythical, so archeological discoveries in old testament lands have been taken to demonstrate that the bible is history rather than legend.
although for centuries textual critics have realized that the old testament represents the editing together of several texts produced at different times by different groups, until the 1970s most archeologists continued to accept its accounts at face value. in the 1970s a new trend emerged as archeologists began to treat discoveries in the holy land as they would those anywhere else. concentrating on israel's ancient history itself, rather than solely on its biblical associations, they used artifacts, architecture, settlement patterns, animal bones, seeds, soil samples, anthropological models drawn from world cultures, and other modern methods to produce a description based on scientific evidence
the bible opens its account of the jewish people with the wandering of the patriarchs, beginning with abraham. said to be a babylonian from ur in what is now southern iraq, according to genesis abraham moved northwest to haran in southern turkey, where the voice of god told him to go south into canaan. the bible traces all the nations of the region to his family.
the moabites and ammonites derive from his nephew lot; the jews and southern arabs from abraham's sons, isaac and ishmael respectively. there follow isaac's sons esau -- father of the edomites and other desert tribes -- and jacob; thenjacob's twelve sons, each of whom ruled one of the twelve tribes of israel. one son, joseph, is sold into slavery in egypt. during a famine the rest of the family, seeking relief there, discover that joseph has risen high in the pharaoh's favor. after jacob's death, the children of israel remain in egypt.
what archeological evidence is there concerning these biblical figures?
although the bible provides a great deal of specific information, the search has proved unsuccessful. discrepancies in details are significant because such "specific references in the text to cities, neighboring peoples, and familiar places are precisely those aspects that distinguish the patriarchal stories from completely mythical folktales. they are crucially important for identifying the date and message of the text". for example, camels were not commonly used as beasts of burden in the near east until the seventh century BCE, and the philistines did not settle in canaan until after 1200 BCE. excavation of several sites mentioned as prominent in genesis sometimes show that in the early iron age they were insignificant or nonexistent, but by the late eighth and seventh century BCE had become important.
analysis shows, moreover, that the genealogies of the patriarchs and the nations deriving from them represent "a colorful human map of the ancient near east from the unmistakable viewpoint of the kingdom of israel and the kingdom of judah in the eighth and seventh centuries BCE. these stories offer a highly sophisticated commentary on political affairs in this region in the assyrian and neo-babylonian periods". the bible also gives a dominant role to judah in genesis, even though at that time it was insignificant:
it is now evident that the selection of abraham, with his close connection to hebron, judah's earliest royal city, and to jerusalem . . . was meant also to emphasize the primacy of judah even in the earliest eras of israel's history. the patriarchal traditions must be considered as a sort of pious "prehistory" of israel in which judah played a decisive role.
the very early history of the nation, delineate ethnic boundaries, emphasize that the israelites were outsiders and not part of the indigenous population of canaan, and embrace the traditions of both the north and the south, while ultimately stressing the superiority of judah.
rather than a chronicle or history, evidence indicates that this part of genesis was a national epic created in the seventh century BCE which successfully joined many regional legendary ancestors into one unified tradition.
a second series of biblical events revolves around the slavery of the jewish people in egypt, the miraculous escape of 600,000 led by moses, their wandering in the wilderness for forty years, their swift conquest of the promised land under joshua, and the slaughter of all the original inhabitants.
these events, memorialized in major jewish festivals, occupy four of the first five books of the bible traditionally attributed to moses. physical evidence and historical texts confirm that canaanites had traditionally settled in the prosperous east delta region of egypt, particularly in times of drought, famine, and war. some came as landless conscripts and prisoners of war, others as farmers, herders, or tradesmen. egyptian historians tell of the hyksos, canaanite immigrants who became dominant in a great delta city and were forcibly expelled by the egyptians around 1570 BCE. after the hyksos expulsion, the egyptian government controlled immigration from canaan closely and built forts along the eastern delta and at one day intervals along the mediterreanean coast to gaza. these forts kept extensive records, none of which mention the israelites or any other foreign ethnic group entering, leaving, or living as a people in the delta.
biblical scholars place the exodus in the late thirteenth century BCE, and up to that time there is only one mention of the name israel, despite many egyptian records concerning canaan. nor is there any archeological evidence for a body of people encamping in the desert and mountains of sinai in the late bronze age:
sites mentioned in the exodus narrative are real. a few were well known and apparently occupied in much earlier periods and much later periods after the kingdom of judah was established, when the text of the biblical narrative was set down in writing for the first time. unfortunately for those seeking a historical exodus, they were unoccupied precisely at the time they reportedly played a role in the events of the wandering of the children of israel in the wilderness.
archeology also reveals dramatic discrepancies concerning the military campaign of joshua, dated between 1230-1220 BCE, when the powerful canaanite kings were supposedly destroyed and the twelve tribes inherited their traditional territories. abundant late bronze age egyptian diplomatic and military correspondence and other existing texts give detailed information about canaan, which was closely administered by egypt at that time for a period of several centuries. the canaanite cities were small and unfortified jericho and some of the other cities mentioned were even unsettled altogether and the total population of canaan probably did not exceed 100,000. while in fact many canaanite cities were burned and destroyed in the thirteenth century BCE, evidence points to widespread causes affecting also prosperous cultures in greece, turkey, syria, and egypt. a major factor was mysterious, violent invaders known as the sea people, who included the philistines. in 1185 BCE the last king of ugarit (a large port on the coast of syria) wrote that "enemy boats have arrived, the enemy has set fire to the cities and wrought havoc. my troops are in Hittite country, my boats in lycia, and the country has been left to its own devices" . a contemporary egyptian inscription states that "the foreign countries made a conspiracy in their islands. . . . no land could stand before their arms" (ibid.).
in evaluating the biblical account
the book of joshua offered an unforgettable epic with a clear lesson how, when the people of israel did follow the law of the covenant with god to the letter, no victory could be denied to them. that point was made with some of the most vivid folktales the fall of the walls of jericho, the sun standing still at gibeon, the rout of canaanite kings down the narrow ascent at beth-horon recast as a single epic against a highly familiar and suggestive seventh century background, and played out in places of the greatest concern to the deuteronomistic ideology. in reading and reciting these stories, the judahites of the late seventh century BCE would have seen their deepest wishes and religious beliefs expressed.
if the israelites did not flee egypt and invade canaan, who were they? after the arab-israeli war of 1967, jewish archeologists began to thoroughly explore, map, and analyze the hill country of judah, looking for settlement patterns, evidence of lifestyles, and changes in demography and the environment.
these surveys revolutionized the study of early israel. the discovery of the remains of a dense network of highland villages all apparently established within the span of a few generations indicated that a dramatic social transformation had taken place in the central hill country of canaan around 1200 BCE. there was no sign of violent invasion or even the infiltration of a clearly defined ethnic group. instead, it seemed to be a revolution in lifestyle. in the formerly sparsely populated highlands from the judean hills in the south to the hills of samaria in the north, far from the canaanite cities that were in the process of collapse and disintegration, about two hundred fifty hilltop communities suddenly sprang up. here were the first israelites.
further research showed that there had been two previous waves of settlement: first in the early bronze age around 3500 BCE, peaking at about 100 villages and towns, which were abandoned around 2200 BCE; and again in the middle bronze age shortly after 2000 BCE, resulting in 220 settlements ranging from villages to towns and fortified centers, comprising perhaps 40,000 people.
this period ended sometime in the sixteenth century BCE, and the highlands remained sparsely populated for 400 years. the israelite settlements of around 1200 BCE contained 45,000 people in 250 sites, climaxing in the eighth century BCE with 160,000 people in over 500 sites. during settled times, farming was common; in unsettled times, herding sheep and goats dominated, a pattern found throughout the middle east. as canaanite cities collapsed, the pastoralists in the hills were forced to grow their own grain and produce, resulting in settlements.
thus,the emergence of early israel was an outcome of the collapse of the canaanite culture, not its cause. and most of the israelites did not come from outside canaan they emerged from within it. there was no mass exodus from egypt. there was no violent conquest of canaan. most of the people who formed early israel were local people the same people whom we see in the highlands throughout the bronze and iron ages. the early israelites were irony of ironies themselves originally canaanites!
the authors hold in this connection that the stories in the book of judges about conflicts with the canaanites such as those concerning samson, deborah, and gideon may be authentic memories of village conflicts and local heroes preserved as folktales, combined and recast for later theological and political purposes
thirdly, the bible tells of the golden age of the united kingdom of israel ruled over by a judean monarch, first david and then his son solomon. it describes a renowned empire spreading from the red sea to the border of syria, the splendor of jerusalem and the first temple built by solomon, as well as other magnificent building projects. this united kingdom then split into israel in the north and judah in the south.
does archeology confirm this picture? despite legendary exaggerations and elaborations, the belief is that david and solomon did exist but as minor highland chieftains ruling a population of perhaps 5,000 people. no archeological evidence exits around 1005-970 BCE for david's conquest or his empire, nor in solomon's time (ca. 970-931 BCE) is there any evidence of monumental architecture or of jerusalem as more than a village:
as far as we can see on the basis of the archaeological surveys, judah remained relatively empty of permanent population, quite isolated, and very marginal right up to and past the presumed time of david and solomon, with no major urban centers and with no pronounced hierarchy of hamlets, villages, and towns.
there is no trace of written documents or inscriptions, nor of the temple or palace of solomon, and buildings once identified with solomon have been shown to date from other periods. current evidence refutes the existence of a unified kingdom: "The glorious epic of united monarchy was -- like the stories of the patriarchs and the sagas of the Exodus and conquest -- a brilliant composition that wove together ancient heroic tales and legends into a coherent and persuasive prophecy for the people of Israel in the seventh century BCE"
kingdom of david and solomon according to the bible
the history of israel and judah from 930 to 440 BCE based on archeological evidence, comparing it with the biblical account. shows that the northern and southern kingdoms were always separate and independent. because of topography and natural resources, israel to the north was always more populous, cosmopolitan, prosperous, and therefore desirable to foreign conquerors, while judah long remained poor, sparsely populated, and isolated. the old testament material about this era was written from the viewpoint of the judean royalty and deuteronomistic priests with their religious reforms: insistence on the worship of one imageless god in the temple at jerusalem and the complete separation of a united jewish people from surrounding peoples. there is much evidence that such monotheistic demands were an innovation in both judah and israel, where worship of subsidiary gods and goddesses, as well as the heavenly bodies, was traditional. nor were they adopted widely by the people, who continued to worship using goddess figures in their homes. the deuteronomistic account, the authors hold, is a cautionary epic joining elements from various regions to serve seventh-century judean interests. later, after the babylonian exile, it was refashioned to meet new (though in many ways similar) conditions, resulting in the accounts we have today.
in summing up the significance of these recent findings, "the historical saga contained in the bible . . . was not a miraculous revelation, but a brilliant product of human imagination" and its argued that the bible's integrity and, in fact, its historicity, do not depend on dutiful historical "proof" of any of its particular events or personalities . . . the power of the biblical saga stems from its being a compelling and coherent narrative expression of the timeless themes of a people's liberation, continuing resistance to oppression, and quest for social equality. it eloquently expresses the deeply rooted sense of shared origins, experiences, and destiny that every human community needs in order to survive.
for centuries, however, jews, christians, and moslems have believed that events in their religious history are recorded in the old testament. even today many continue to believe that the biblical account is literally true, or at least basically accurate. scholarly findings in archeology, textual analysis, history, and newly translated ancient documents all point to a reality which may be difficult for many traditional and fundamentalist believers to reconcile with a faith that depends on biblical events, promises, prophecies, and revelations being historical facts. nonetheless, this knowledge represents a new dawning in our understanding of these religions and their ancient history.
in a final analysis israel, judah and samaria were simply canaanite states that arose out of indigenous canaanite culture and not from the invasion of a mythical people called the hebrews. israel was a small canaanite state that briefly achieved a golden age, reaching its' height of power and glory in the reign of king ahab and queen jezebel. the house of david never ruled in israel, it ruled over the canaanite state of judah.
david and solomon were probably tribal chiefs in the hill country that became the kingdom of judah. jerusalem was the capital of judah not of israel. in the time of david and solomon, jerusalem was an unimportant very small town with no great temple. the major cult centres were farther to the north in the cities of israel. in fact the great cities of canaan that were previously attributed to the solomon were built by israeli kings like ahab.
it was under king josiah that the bible was finally written and something resembling modern judaism begins to take shape in the 7th and 8th centuries bc. it is a political document that is designed to glorify the josiah and to connect him falsely with the golden era when the state of israel briefly rose up as a powerful and advanced civilized centre. the bible is essentially a work of propaganda, weaving historical fragments and myths of various canaanite peoples into a powerful justification for josiah's rule and expansionist policies.
simply stated, european jews, middle rastern jews, and palestinians are brothers and sisters and share a common canaanite ancestry. there were a small number of voices amongst the early zionists who were against the creation of a separate jewish state in the region. they lost out to the bigger faction lead by david ben-gurion, who suffered from the disease of european colonialism. ben-gurion and those in his camp saw the natives of the region as an obstacle to be eliminated. european jews are simply europeanized canaanites; palestinians, whether muslim, christian or jewish were simply arabised canaanites.
modern genetic research is proving this same ancestry.
because of zonism, jews lost the chance to return to palestine and re-connect with the palestinians who are the people that have carried forward the culture of ancient canaan. it is the zionists who created a rift between family, where there should have been friendship and cooperation. it is modern zionism that disconnected me from my roots not connected me. it is that movement that even stole the spiritual base of judaism and associated it for the first time in two thousand years with aggression and oppression of others.
it is the zionists who through their acts of ethnic cleansing and on-going violence have made enemies out of people who share a common ancestry. the disease of european colonialist thinking prevented them from seeing how much the palestinians had to share with us of the ancient cultures and common heritage. those who came from europe may have had the advantage of european technology, but the palestinians had something far more valuable that the zionists treated with contempt and discarded.
the ancient canaanites had a great culture. from their culture springs judaism, christianity and islam. their culture as expressed by the canaanite civilizations of judah and israel exerts more influence on great portions of humanity than does that of far greater military powers and empires of the ancient world. where the myths and religions of other ancient civilizations of the middle east are no longer believed or practiced by many people, the religious heritage of judah is practiced in the form of christianity, islam and judaism by something approaching two billion people on every inhabited continent. when can one recognize and accept a profound common heritage, and move towards lasting peace and justice in the middle east.

links
archaeology and the old testament

bibliography
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.


[+/-] show/hide this post
Ever Wonder Why ?
why a jew can grow his beard and he is just practicing his faith and he has his freedom? but when a muslim does the same, he is an extremist and terrorist!

why a nun can be covered from head to toe and she is respected for devoting her self to god? but when muslimah does the same she oppressed and they are reactionary!

when a western women stays at home to look after her house and her childrten she is respected because of sacrificing herself and doing good for the family? but when a muslim woman does so by her will and choice, even when islam does not prevent muslim women from work they say 'she needs to be liberated'!

any girl can go to university wearing clothing as she wants because it is representing her rights and freedom? but when muslimah wears hijab she is prevented from entering that university!

when a child dedicates himself to a subject he has potential. but when he dedicates himself to islam he is hopeless!

when a christian or jew kills someone religion is not mentioned, but when muslim is charged with a crime, it is islam that goes to a trial!

when someone sacrificing himself to keep others alive, he is a noble, one and all respects him. but when a palestinian do that to save his son from being killed, his brother's arm being broken, his mother being raped, his home being destroyed, and his mosque being violated. he gets the title of terrorist! why? because he is muslim!

when there is a trouble we accept any solution? except if the solution is in islam, we refuse without having a look at the solution.

when someone drives a perfect car in a bad way no one blames the car. but when any muslim makes a mistake or treats people in a bad manner - people say "islam is the reason"!

without looking to the tradition of islam, without reading the koran or sunnah, why do people believe what the newspapers, politicians say. but question what the koran teaches! - link

[+/-] show/hide this post
Women of islam - the veil
there is so much dhimmi disinformation and ignorance with respect to women and islam that it is difficult to tackle all the misperceptions and misconceptions at once.

the first thing to say is that women are abused regardless of religion, colour and ethnicity wherever they live. customs, traditions , societal pressures all have a role as does religion in determining the position of women in society and in the home.

in the west we would like to believe that we are without bias or oppression, that we choose equality over inequality, justice over injustice , yet we do have a societal attitude that denies women equality and justice.

in our politics weas a society prefer not to vote for women, we have to positively seek to change the rules so that more women are represented in our political parties. why is it that in a society that claims womes rights we cannot arrive at anything close to 50% representation in our parliament?

we still pay women less than men, an estimated 30% less. women are more likely to be employed in low paying menial jobs, in our corporates women rarely manage to get beyond a glass ceiling. why is that the case?

we kill a minimum of 2 women a week in the uk , we call it 'domestic' violence rather than 'honor' killing that we vilify elsewhere. we have 240 rape cases going to court and less than 5% achieve a conviction. are we to believe that 95% of women in our society are liars? there is an estimated 1 million women abused a year and it is said that 1 in 4 women have been abused in their life at least once. we have 40 000 underage teenage pregnancies a year.

we prefer to have our women semi naked in demeaning and undignified images in our daily newspapers and this abuse of women continues through out society, from advertising to the music industry, media, the workplace and in the home.

if we are so liberal and 'just', why is there an underlying mysogeny existing in our society?

in the west the greatest symbol of women's oppression and servitude is the veil or the head cover of muslim women. this perception has been carefully nurtured not just by the media but by politicians.

what is interesting is the hostility from some women in the west, and yet most curiously they would not and do not dare to try the burkha once in their lives, in order to have the experience and therefore a better understanding. what is it they are afraid of? wearing a burkha alone doesnt make you a muslim, they have the choice not to wear it ever again.

they see the person wearing the burkha, however they do not see the world from inside of the burkha. they do not see the world as viewed by the wearer that they so denigrate and denounce.

westerners are often puzzled to see muslim women covering their bodies more than muslim men do, and see that as a proof of the woman's inferior status. islam lays out a dress code for both male and female believers, but the requirements for covering are different:

a man is to cover from navel to knee, and wear opaque, loose clothing (tight jeans are out of the question); women cover more, everything but face and hands. these differences are due to inherent differences between men and women.

the point to covering is not just about the idea of sexual attraction but that islam respects marriage and family values. islam prefers that these be expressed between a husband and wife inside the privacy of the home. a public space free of sexual tensions is seen as a more harmonious and peaceful place for human beings, men and women, to interact, do business, and build a healthy civilization.

some feminists argue that to believe in male female differences is to accede to women's oppression, because it is these differences which have been used to stop women from realizing their potentials. islam recognises that men and women are different, but equally states that women and men are equal in islam.

the koran unequivocally states that men and women are equal in the eyes of god. men and women were created from a single soul, and are both the trustees of god on earth (koran 2:30), individually responsible and accountable for their actions.

the view that men and women have inherent differences is a source of the conflicting understanding of women's position in islam for those in the west . equality does not have to mean sameness, and western presumptions that if men and women are not doing something in an identical manner they must be unequal is clearly not valid. during the prophets lifetime women were very actively involved in the community, in business, in fighting wars, in scholarship and so on. the prophet (sunnah), used to mend his clothes, sweep his house, and perform other housework.

islam emphasizes the equality of all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender or social status. islam has prescribed different roles and responsibilities for men and women, with each gender complementing the other. centuries before the modern world recognized women's rights, islam acknowledged the equality of the two genders, and abolished the barbaric ritual of burying infant daughters alive, an outrageous crime practiced before the time of the prophet muhammad.

islam made women aware of their rights and gave them an identity, freedom, and independence. these rights, among others, include the right to inherit, to own property, to obtain a divorce, to collect a dowry, and to gain child custody. regarding the equality of the genders, the koran states:

"Surely the men who submit and the women who submit, and the believing men and the believing women, and the obeying men and the obeying women, and the truthful men and the truthful women, and the patient men and the patient women and the humble men and the humble women, and the almsgiving men and the almsgiving women, and the fasting men and the fasting women, and the men who guard their private parts and the women who guard, and the men who remember Allah much and the women who remember-Allah has prepared, for them forgiveness and a mighty reward." Koran (33:35)

god states in koran:

"Thy Lord hath decreed that ye worship none but Him, and that ye be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in thy life, say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, but address them in terms of honor." Koran (17:23)

god has given great impedance to women and for that reason he orders their children to address them in terms of honor.

the veil, burkha and scarf.

in the judaeo christian tradition according to rabbi dr. menachem m. brayer (professor of biblical literature at yeshiva university) in his book, 'The Jewish woman in Rabbinic literature', it was the custom of jewish women to go out in public with a head covering which, sometimes, even covered the whole face leaving one eye free. he quotes some famous ancient rabbis saying:

" It is not like the daughters of Israel to walk out with heads uncovered" and "Cursed be the man who lets the hair of his wife be seen....a woman who exposes her hair for self-adornment brings poverty."

rabbinic law forbids the recitation of blessings or prayers in the presence of a bareheaded married woman since uncovering the woman's hair is considered "nudity". dr. brayer also mentions that:

"During the Tannaitic period the Jewish woman's failure to cover her head was considered an affront to her modesty. When her head was uncovered she might be fined four hundred zuzim for this offense."

dr. brayer also explains that veil of the jewish woman was not always considered a sign of modesty. sometimes, the veil symbolized a state of distinction and luxury rather than modesty. the veil personified the dignity and superiority of noble women. it also represented a woman's inaccessibility as a sanctified possession of her husband. the veil signified a woman's self-respect and social status. women of lower classes would often wear the veil to give the impression of a higher standing. the fact that the veil was the sign of nobility was the reason why prostitutes were not permitted to cover their hair in the old jewish society. however, prostitutes often wore a special headscarf in order to look respectable.

jewish women in europe continued to wear veils until the nineteenth century when their lives became more intermingled with the surrounding secular culture. the external pressures of the european life in the nineteenth century forced many of them to go out bare headed. some jewish women found it more convenient to replace their traditional veil with a wig as another form of hair covering. today, most pious jewish women do not cover their hair except in the synagogue. some of them, such as the hasidic sects, still use the wig.

what about the christian tradition? it is well known that catholic nuns have been covering their heads for hundreds of years, but that is not all. st. paul in the new testament made some very interesting statements about the veil:

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels,the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head" (I corinthians 11:3-10).

st. paul's rationale for veiling women is that the veil represents a sign of the authority of the man, who is the image and glory of god, over the woman who was created from and for man. st. tertullian in his famous treatise 'On The Veiling Of Virgins' wrote:

"Young women, you wear your veils out on the streets,so you should wear them in the church, you wear them when you are among strangers, then wear them among your brothers..."

among the canon laws of the catholic church today, there is a law that requires women to cover their heads in church. some christian denominations, such as the amish and the mennonites for example, keep their women veiled to the present day. the reason for the veil, as offered by their church leaders, is that:

"The head covering is a symbol of woman's subjection to the man and to God"

which is the same logic introduced by st. paul in the new testament.

from all the above evidence, it is obvious that islam did not invent the head cover. however, islam did endorse it. the koran urges the believing men and women to lower their gaze and guard their modesty and then urges the believing women to extend their head covers to cover the neck and the bosom:

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty......And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms...." (koran 24:30,31).

the koran is quite clear that the veil is essential for modesty, but why is modesty important? the koran is still clear:

"O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their bodies (when abroad) so that they should be known and not molested" (koran 33:59).

this is the whole point, modesty is prescribed to protect women from molestation or simply, modesty is protection. thus, the only purpose of the veil in islam is protection. the islamic veil, unlike the veil of the christian tradition, is not a sign of man's authority over woman nor is it a sign of woman's subjection to man.

the islamic veil, unlike the veil in the jewish tradition, is not a sign of luxury and distinction of some noble married women. the islamic veil is only a sign of modesty with the purpose of protecting women, all women.

the islamic philosophy is that it is always better to be safe than sorry. in fact, the koran is so concerned with protecting women's bodies and women's reputation that a man who dares to falsely accuse a woman of unchastity will be severely punished:

"And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations)- Flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors" (koran 24:4)

compare this strict koranic attitude with the extremely lax punishment for rape in the bible:

" If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives"(deut. 22:28-30)

one must ask a simple question here, who is really punished?

the man who only paid a fine for rape, or the girl who is forced to marry the man who raped her and live with him until he dies?

another question that also should be asked is this: which is more protective of women, the koranic strict attitude or the biblical lax attitude?

some people, especially in the west, would tend to ridicule the whole argument of modesty for protection. their argument is that the best protection is the spread of education, civilised behaviour, and self restraint. we would say: fine but not enough.

if 'civilization' is enough protection, then why is it that women in north america dare not walk alone in a dark street - or even across an empty parking lot ? if education is the solution, then why is it that so many respected universities have a 'walk home service' mainly for female students on campus? if self restraint is the answer,then why are cases of sexual harassment in the workplace reported on the news media every day? a sample of those accused of sexual harassment, in the last few years, includes: navy officers, managers, university professors, mps, court justices.

in canada as an example a woman is sexually assaulted every 6 minutes, 1 in 3 women in canada will be sexually assaulted at some time in their lives, 1 in 4 women are at the risk of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime, 1 in 8 women will be sexually assaulted while attending college or university, and a study found 60% of canadian university-aged males said they would commit sexual assault if they were certain they wouldn't get caught.

something is fundamentally wrong in the society we live in. a radical change in the society's life style and culture is absolutely necessary. unfortunately, women alone will be paying the price. actually, we all suffer but as k. gibran has said,

"...for the person who receives the blows is not like the one who counts them."

therefore, a society like france which expels young women from schools because of their modest dress is, in the end, or holland that wants to deny the burkha, simply harming itself. it is one of the great ironies of our world today that the very same headscarf revered as a sign of 'holiness' when worn for the purpose of showing the authority of man by catholic nuns, is reviled as a sign of 'oppression' when worn for the purpose of protection by muslim women as a matter of choice and preference. another irony which is more sinister is that we now by denying the wearing of the veil or burkha to these women in our societies are oppressing these women in the real sense. we actively choose to deny their freedom of choice, their democratic right to wear the clothing that would choose for themselves - link

useful links
women in islam versus women in the judaeo christian : tradition the myth and the reality
armani backs burkha
misrepresenting women in islam
theres enough room under the burka for personal choice

[+/-] show/hide this post
Islam and War
like christianity, islam permits fighting in self defense, in defense of religion, or on the part of those who have been expelled forcibly from their homes. it lays down strict rules of combat that include prohibitions against harming civilians and against destroying crops, trees and livestock. as muslims see it, injustice would be triumphant in the world if good people were not prepared to risk their lives in a righteous cause.

one reads in the koran:

"Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love transgressors." (Qur'an 2:190)

"And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers." (koran 2:193)

"If they seek peace, then you seek peace. And trust in God for He is the One that hears and knows all things." (koran 8:61)

war is therefore the last resort, and is subject to the rigorous conditions laid down by the sacred law. the often misunderstood and overused term jihad literally means "struggle" and not "holy war" (a term not found anywhere in the Qur'an). jihad, as an islamic concept, can be on a personal level inner struggle against evil within oneself; struggle for decency and goodness on the social level; and struggle on the battlefield, if and when necessary.

war is a social necessity

no doubt war is a social necessity which nations practice in order to solve their social problems which defy peaceful solution. human communities have plunged into fights not only for the mere accomplishment of material aims but for the achievement of moral needs as well. some historians explain that in the absence of war, progress and civilization would have been hindered in some nations.

hegel, a pioneer of the study of historical development, for instance, says that change can take place only when there are opposing forces which struggle against one another so that a new product, stronger than the rest, issues from the clash. this view was later adopted by marx and engels, and the favor of the koran in this regard springs from the fact that it offered this view fourteen centuries ago:

"Had God not checked one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed have been full of mischief; but God is full of bounty to all the worlds" (2:251).

but islam recognized war as a means to solve some social problems at a time when tyranny was the sole obstacle in the face of the call for justice.

after having attained a certain level of scientific and cultural progress, western countries still tend at present to solve their problems by way of war. hence, on the human level, one cannot see why islam should have disallowed was fourteen centuries ago, while it intended to bring about general development, both on the religious and social scene. this refutes the view of hostile people who claim that islam is a "military religion" and that "it spread only with the might of sword" -- meaning to distort the reality of islam. in the "encyclopedia of islam," mcdonald says, "Spreading the teachings of Islam with the might of the sword, is the religious duty of every Muslim." in the following the author will try to refute this false accusation.

the view of judaism and christianity of war

a look at the ancient religions shows that Judaism imposes war on its adherents to protect their existence and to spread their rule and conquests in the earth based on public massacres and the extermination of the people in the conquered countries. In the fifth Book of the psalms, one reads:

"When the Lord lets you into a land to rule it, after having destroyed nations before, see that you fight its people until you annihilate them all, and never make a covenant with them or feel pity for them."

christianity then came and made a complete prohibition of war. in the gospel of matthew, christ says:

"I tell you: Do not resist the wicked, and if one slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other."

similarly, those in favor of absolute prohibition of war, rely on the words of christ to peter:

"Return your sword to its sheath, for all those who grab the sword, shall by the sword be slain."

some christians sacrificed their lives in the cause of prohibiting war, rather say the prohibition of the military profession itself. other christians made tremendous efforts to reconcile biblical teachings and the necessities of the state, and their efforts resulted in a differentiation between permissible war and prohibited war. a war is fair and just, according to them, when it is declared by the prince or ruler, provided his motive is truthful without greed or cruelty. in the fourth century, that is after having established a state under the leadership of constantine the roman emperor, christianity had to use force in order to uproot paganism from the roman empire.

islam's call for peace

in international law, there is a set of well-established rules concerning the obligations of nations toward each other in times of war and peace. the first of these is that a country should base its relations with other countries on terms of peace so that it may exchange benefit and cooperate with others in order to promote humanity to utmost perfection. peaceful ties like these, they say, should not be broken except in extreme urgencies that necessitate war, provided that all peaceful steps have failed in terminating the cause of dispute.

this is what islam has always been working for, and the relations of muslims with others are primarily based on peace and confidence. islam refuses the killing of people merely because they embrace a different faith, nor does it allow muslims to fight against those who disagree with them on religious questions. it urges its followers to treat such people kindly:

"God forbiddeth you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them. God loveth those who are just" (60:8).

in another place, God says:

"If they withdraw from you and fight you not, but (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then God alloweth no way for you (to war against them)" (4:90).

we also have:

"If the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God" (8:61).

instructions like these pave the way for the establishment of peace, and go in harmony with the present tendency to set down principles that call for the abolishment of war.

islam, in fact, makes of peace a special greeting which muslims exchange whenever they meet by saying, "Peace be unto you" (Assalamu 'Alaykum). the muslim also utters this statement at the end of every prayer; he concludes his prayer by addressing those praying with him with the words:

Peace be unto you with God's Mercy!

comparison between islam and the international law concerning war

islam permits war but keeps it within the limits of mercy at which the twentieth century civilization has not yet been able to arrive, not even to come near to. islam has set down certain rules, the most merciful and considerate to people, and required people to observe them.

such rules go in line with the principles of international law in many ways, but differ in that they are divine rules legalized through religion and executed through the faith of muslims. the principle of international law lack this authority that ensures putting them into practical effect. scholars even say that considering international rules as laws is a kind of leniency. a law is a law only when it is supported by some force that ensures its performance, and there is no such force for international law. the muslim rules, though they aim at justice and mercy, have the faith of muslims as an authority to ensure their being carried out.

a. international law determines that the citizens who are not regular members of an army are not considered as fighters, and hence should not be inflicted with harm; only regular soldiers (or armed men engaged in a war) are considered as fighters.

the shari-iah agrees on this point, for the koran says:

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God loveth not transgressors" (2:190).

it is an act of transgression to when believers fight those who do not fight them, people like their enemy's children and wives, as well as their sick, old and clergy.

in the raid of mu'tah, the prophet instructed his men, while about to set on,

"Never kill a woman, a weak infant, or a debilitated old person; nor burn palms, uproot trees, or pull down houses!"

b. international law forbids killing the wounded, torturing the enemy, destroying them by treachery or deception, or using bombs, missiles or weapons which add to their torture. it also prohibits the poisoning of wells, rivers and foods; it recommends that the corpses of the dead be respected, and prohibits any severity or mayhem be inflicted on them, regardless of the nationality of dead people.

islam applies the same principles, for when the prophet appointed an army or troop leader he instructed him to be always god-fearing, and added:

"Never transgress limits, or take your enemy by surprise or perfidy, or inflict atrocities or mutilation, or kill infants!"

abu bakr, the first caliph in islam, instructed his senior officer oussama, saying,

"Never betray, or transgress your limits, or take the enemy by surprise or perfidy, or inflict atrocities or mutilation upon them; nor kill young babies or old people or women; and never injure or burn palms or cut down a fruitful tree, or slay a sheep, a cow or a camel unless it is for your food!"

c. international law prescribes a number of principles regarding the proper treatment of captives. they should not be killed, injured, ill-treated or humiliated if they surrender or if they are deprived of their freedom.

islam also urges on the polite treatment of captives in general, and god commends the righteous who treat such people hospitably, saying:

"And they feed, for the love of God, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive, (saying), 'We feed you for the sake of God alone; no reward do we desire from you, nor thanks'" (76:8-9).

the prophet was generous to his captives, but in return fir his setting them free he asked them to teach muslim infants writing.

the poll tax (jizya)

the jizya or poll tax is a personal tax levied on non-muslims in a muslim state, and as such it resembles the zakat (alms tax) which is levied on muslim citizens by the muslim state. the poll tax is levied so that all the capable non-muslim citizens of the state can contribute, each from his own money, to the general welfare of the state, and that in return for this, they can enjoy their rights as nationals of this state, including compensation from the muslim exchequer when they are in need.

valor and mercy are not forgotten here, as the poll tax is not collected from the weak and poor. in his message to the people of hijra, khaled ibn al-walid says,

"When a person is too old to work or suffers a handicap, or when he falls into poverty, he is free from the dues of the pull tax; his sustenance is provided by the Muslim Exchequer."

in his book "al-kharaj," abu yusuf says,

"No Jizya is due on females or young infants."

when the dues of the poll tax are paid by these people, they have to be supported, protected, granted a freedom of faith, and treated on a footing of justice and equality with muslims. they are called "dhimmis" (the arabic origin, meaning security, protection and custody) because the said rights are guaranteed by god and his apostle, and such was the custom the muslim leaders followed in dealing with the dhimmins. in his book "futooh al-buldan" (conquests of countries), al-balathiri comments on this saying,

"khaled ibn al-walid, on entering damascus as a conqueror, offered a guarantee of security to its people and their properties and churches, and promised that the wall of the city would not be pulled down, and none of their houses be demolished. it was a guarantee of god, he said, and of the caliph and all believers to keep them safe and secure on condition they paid the dues of the Jizya."

the poll tax is a small sum of money indeed when compared to the services the muslim state offers to protect the dhimmis and support the army in charge to keep them safe from others' assaults. in his book "al-kharaj," abu yusuf gives the following reports:

"After getting on peaceful terms with the people of Syria and collecting the dues of the Jizya and the Kharaj, news reached Abu 'Ubeida that the Byzantine had amassed their troops to attack him. The effect of this was great on Abu 'Ubeida and the Muslims. He sent messages to the rulers of cities with whose citizens he had made peace, asking them to return to their subjects the paid dues of the Jizya and Kharaj, with an instruction to tell these: 'We hereby return to you the money you have paid us, because of the news of the enemy troops amassed to attack us, but, if God grants us victory against the enemy, we will keep up to the promise and covenant between us.' When this was delivered to the Zimmis and their money returned to them, they told the Muslims: May God bring you back to us and grant you victory over them!"

in his book, "the spirit of laws," on dealing with the taxes levied by the government, montesqieu says, "such levied taxes were one reason for the strange facility which the muslims faced during conquests. people, then, preferred instead of being subjected to an endless series of fines which entered the rich imagination of greedy rulers to submit to the payment of a minimal tax which can be fulfilled and paid with ease."

those who seek protection

among the principles of islam which reveal tolerance toward the enemy in the time of war, is that it allows individuals and groups of the enemy who actively fight against islam, to get in touch with muslims and to reside in muslim lands under the protection of a law which is known in the muslim shari-iah as the "law of protection." islam ensures the protection of such people and requires muslims to protect them with all they can afford as long as they are in muslim territories. it even offers them certain privileges and releases them from certain obligations which muslims have to observe.

the purpose of this law of protection is to give these people a chance to learn the truth about islam. in this way, muslims could effectively spread the message of their faith. the origin of this lies in god's words:

"If one of the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the Word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure" (9:6).

one may add with a scholar that

"if they accept the Word, they become Muslims and brethren, and no further question arises. If they do not see their way to accept Islam, they will require double protection: (1) from the Islamic forces openly fighting against their people, and (2) from their own people, as they detached themselves from them. Both kinds of protection should be ensured for them, and they should be safely escorted to a place where they can be safe."

islam deals with this point at length and permits the muslim individuals to protect and settle a covenant with one or a group of non-muslims. this measure of protection and guarantee on his part is to be respected, for the prophet says:

"The guarantee of all Muslims is one, and it may be fulfilled by the weakest of them."

Islam also confirms guarantees reached by women, who typically do not do the fighting, for the prophet once addressed Um Hani' saying:

"We will protect all those to whom you offer your protection!"

islam does not make specific demands regarding such measures, except that which ensures safety to muslims, like making certain that those under protection have no force or resistance of their own, and that there is no likelihood of a tendency on their part to spread intrigue or spy on muslims. to this effect, islam confirms the right of the leader to annul an individual's right for protection if this annulment be for the general good of muslims.

covenants in islam

treaties have always been an important means to strengthen relations and settle disputes peacefully. they are based on mutual confidence between parties, without which peace collapses.

islam reserves special respect to treaties and allots to them all possible guarantees, so that muslims may rise with such treaties above personal desires and passions. in the view of islam, it is not necessary that, if situations arouse dispute between muslims and their opponents, it should only leave to them a choice between embracing Islam, paying the poll tax, or joining in a war.

this is why, in many koranic verses, islam requires muslims to abide by their covenants:

"Fulfill (every) engagement, for (every) engagement will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning)" (17:34).

in describing the qualities of truthful believers, God says that they are

"those who faithfully observe their trusts and their covenants" (23:8).

in the view of koran, refusal to keep up trusts is like rejecting the virtues of humanity:

"The worst of beasts in the sight of God are those who reject Him and will not believe. They are those with whom thou didst make a covenant, but they break their covenant every time, and they have not the fear (of God)" (8:55-56).

by honoring covenants with others, islam does not mean to gain colonial authority or make stratagems to cheat people so as to attain strength over other nations but to establish peace:

"Fulfill the Covenant of God when ye have entered into it, and break not your oaths after ye have confirmed them and after ye have amde God your surety; for God knoweth all that ye do. And be not like a woman who unravelleth the yarn which she hath spun, after it hath become strong. Nor take your oaths to practise deception between yourselves because of a nation being more numerous than another" (16:91-92).

the koran charges muslims to keep up their covenants, even if it might prevent them from rushing to the dupport of their brethren who live in a non-muslim state with whom they have a treaty of mutual alliance, though also the koran considers that muslims, in spite of their different races and nationalities, constitute one nation, and that every aggression inflicted on one muslim community is an aggression against the islamic nation as a whole. god says:

"But if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them except against a people with whom ye have a treaty of mutual alliance. And (remember) God seeth all that ye do" (8:72).

however, if such people violate the terms of the treaty, the muslims are allowed to fight them:

"But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith, then fight ye the chiefs of Disbelief for their oaths are nothing to them
that thus they may be restrained" (9:12).

testimony of some western scholars on the muslim conquest

in his book "civilization of the arabs," dr. gustav lebon says,

"The reader will find, in my treatment of the Arabs' conquests and the reason of their victories, that force was never a factor in the spread of the Qur'anic teachings, and that the Arabs left those they had subdued free to exercise their religious beliefs. If it happened that some Christian peoples embraced Islam and adopted Arabic as their language, it was mainly due to the various kinds of justice on the part of the Arab victors, with the like of which the non-Muslims were not acquainted. It was also due to the tolerance and leniency of Islam, which was unknown to the other religions."

in another place of his book, dr. lebon adds,

"The early Arab conquests might have blurred their common sense and made them commit the sorts of oppression which conquerors usually commit, and thus ill-treat the subdued and compel them to embrace the Faith they wanted to spread all over the globe. Had they done so, all nations, which were still not under their control, might have turned against them, and they might have suffered what had befallen the Crusaders in their conquest of Syria lately. However, the early Caliphs, who enjoyed a rare ingenuity which was unavailable to the propagandists of new faiths, realized that laws and religion cannot be imposed by force. Hence they were remarkably kind in the way they treated the peoples of Syria, Egypt, Spain and every other country they subdued, leaving them to practisetheir laws and regulations and beliefs and imposing only a small Jizya in return for their protection and keeping peace among them. In truth, nations have never known merciful and tolerant conquerors like the Arabs."

he further explains,

"The mercy and tolerance of the conquerors were among the reasons for the spread of their conquests and for the nations' adoptions of their Faith and regulations and language, which became deeply rooted, resisted all sorts of attack and remained even after the disappearance of the Arabs' control on the world stage, though historians deny the fact. Egypt is the most evident proof of this. It adopted what the Arabs had brought over, and reserved it. Conquerors before the Arabs the Persians, Greeks and Byzantine could not overthrow the ancient Pharaoh civilization and impose what they had brought instead."

then in another place he adds,

"A few impartial European scholars, who are well-versed in the history of the Arabs, do confirm this tolerance. Robertson, in his book "Biography of Charlequin," says that the Muslims alone were the ones who joined between Jihad and tolerance toward the followers of other faiths whom they had subdued, leaving to them the freedom to perform their religious rites."

in his book "history of the crusades," michel michaud says,

"islam, besides calling for Jihad, reveals tolerance toward the followers of other religions. It released the patriarchs, priests and their servants from the obligations of taxes. It prohibited, in special, the killing of priests for their performance of worship, and Omar Ibn Al-Khattab did not inflict harm on the Christians when he entered Jerusalem as a conqueror. The Crusades, however, did slay Muslims and burn the Jews when they entered the city."

in his book, "islam: impressions and studies," count de castri says,

"After the Arabs yielded to, and believed in the Koran, and people received enlightenment through the True Religion, the Muslims appeared with a new show to the peoples of the earth, with conciliation and treatment on basis of free thinking and belief. The Koranic verses then succeeded one another, calling on kind treatment, after those verses in which warnings had been addressed to the heretic tribes... Such were the instructions of the Apostle after the Arabs had embraced Islam, and the Caliphs who seuueeded Mohammed followed his example. This makes me say with Robertson that the people of Mohammed were the only ones who combined kindness to others and the pleasure of seeing their Faith spread. It was this affection that pushed the Arabs on the way of conquest, a boubtkess reason. The Qur'an spread its wings behind its victorious troops that invaded Syria and moved on like a thunderbolt to North Africa, from the Red Sea to the Atlantic, without leaving a trace of tyranny on the way, except what is inescapable in every war, and never did they massacre a nation who rejected Islam ...

The spread of Islam and the submission to its authority seem to have another reason in the continents of Asia and North Africa. It was the despotism of Constantinpole which exercised extreme tyranny, and the injustice of rulers was too much for people to bear ...

Islam was never imposed by sword or by force, but it got into the hearts of people out of longing and free will, due to the talents of stimulation and captivation of people's hearts, lodged in the Koran."

many historians admit that the spread of islam among the christians of the eastern churches, was mainly due to a feeling of dissatisfaction that arose from the doctrinal sophistry which the hellenistic spirit brought over to christian theology. it was also due to the abundance of good that such eastern christians found in islam, and due to its ability to rescue them from the disorder they were struggling in. in caetani, for instance, one reads,

"Known for its preference of simple and plain views, the East suffered, religiously, a great deal from the evil consequences of the Hellenistic culture which turned the refined teachings of Christ into an ideology rampant with complicated doctrines and doubts. This led to the rise of a feeling of despair, and even shook the very foundations of religious belief. When, at last, news suddenly came from the desert of the New Revelation, such Eastern Christianity, being torn by inner splits, was shattered... Its foundations were shaken, and, due to such doubts, the clergy of the church were taken by despair. Christianity was incapable, after this, of resisting the appeals of the New Faith which eliminated, with a mighty blow, all the trivial doubts and offered graceful, positive qualities in addition to its doubtless, simple and plain principles. It was then that the East forsake Christ and threw itself into the lap of the Prophet of Arabs." - link

[+/-] show/hide this post
Jihad is not an Holy War
it fascinates me that so many in the west, that so many non-muslims only appear to have the ability to apply one set of values , one set of perceptions , one philosophy when considering islam and its values and meanings.

they use the language of their culture and tradition , they apply their concepts of war and peace of democracy and freedom. they have little or no time to understand or acknowledge that there is an alternative perception or set of values, that are as valid as theirs.

they dont appear to want to concede that their ignorance of an alternate world view exists. they dont want a context other than the one that has been instilled into them from the day of their birth, through their education and by the very society they exist in.

they may have an arrogance through wealth and technology, that is money and electronic tools but not education, learning or a link with their natural environment or community.

jihad is one of those issues that is widely misunderstood by the western mind , media and politicians, sometimes its deliberate sometimes its ignorance.

islam upholds the values of reason, balance and responsibility in the conduct of its worldly affairs. there is nothing arbitrary about its legal provisions relating to matters of war, peace, international relationships and the rule of law. in this area there is considerable agreement between Islamic law and the legal systems currently practiced throughout the world. in addition to the real possibility that these legal systems were profoundly influenced by the legal heritage of islam, this commonality can be explained by the fact that the protection and endorsement of basic human rights form the cornerstone of islamic legislation.

the international community has come to agree, through the institution of the united nations, on a body of human rights and interests which islam has always endorsed. this ought not to surprise anyone if the basic realism, rationality and pragmatism of islamic law is recognized.

the critics of islam, however, insist that islam and muslims are openly hostile and intolerant towards communities other than their own. they refer to the koranic verses that exhort the believers to fight the infidels, they point to the battles of early islam and the eventual confrontation between the crusaders and the saracens or moors, and now, the contemporary stereotype of the arab "terrorist".

it must be noted that many orientalists might object to this characterization of their views on the question. indeed many of them subscribe to more nuanced positions. more recent scholarship has completely abandoned the emotionally-charged vocabulary of earlier orientalism. it remains true, however, that islam is still imagined as threatening, fanatical, violent and alien by significant sections of the world's media.

in formulating an answer to all of this, it is crucial to focus on a general definition of islam, so as not to fall into any misunderstanding about jihad and its place within the din (faith). the common expression that islam is a 'way of life' has become hackneyed to the point where we can well do without it. islam is more accurately described as 'establishing the kingdom of heaven on earth.'

this latter statement must be carefully understood if we are to avoid the superficial moralizing or equally misleading literalism that characterizes much contemporary thinking about islam. it is far from desirable to simply quote, as an apparent show of understanding, scriptural support for this or that personal opinion we may have about a particular subject. neither is it enough to use koranic or prophetic texts without adequate knowledge of the human situation and cultural milieu in which they were revealed and first applied, as well as the precedence of some verses over others based on order of revelation or abrogation.

in other words, context and circumstance of koranic revelation and hadith are crucial in coming to terms with jihad. it is an error to judge islam and muslims in the light of the kind of 'jihad' that has fallen victim to ideological tendencies. the critic also has to be wary of the interpretation of 'jihad' which is projected, and sometimes imposed, by the selective 'religious reformism' so rampant today. they ignore central aspects of islam’s intellectual heritage, selectively repress important figures and disregard islam's impeccable history of adherence to the standards of law and justice in affairs of state.

looking through the news today, one finds many references to an alleged 'jihad against the west.' a libyan was convicted for the lockerbie bombing; bin Laden's alleged co-conspirators are on trial in manhattan. do these cases represent the true meaning of jihad in islam?

the evidence from the koran and the practices of the prophet muhammad provide the answer: a resounding 'no.'

muslims are commanded in the koran to "enjoin good and forbid evil"(9:112).

the koran describes jihad as a system of checks and balances, as a way that god set up to 'check one people by means of another.' when one person or group transgresses their limits and violates the rights of others, muslims have the right and the duty to 'check' them and bring them back into line. there are several verses of the koran that describe jihad in this manner. among them:

"And did not God check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief; but God is full of Bounty to all the worlds" (2:251).

islam never tolerates unprovoked aggression from its own side; muslims are commanded in the koran not to begin hostilities, embark on any act of aggression, violate the rights of others, or harm the innocent. even hurting or destroying animals or trees is forbidden. war is waged only to defend the religious community against oppression and persecution, because "persecution is worse than slaughter" and "let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression"

the koran describes those people who are permitted to fight:

"They are those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right, for no cause except that they say, 'Our Lord is God.' Did not God check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of God is commemorated in abundant measure..." (22:40).

note that the verse specifically commands the protection of all houses of worship. finally, the koran also says, "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:256). forcing someone at the point of a sword to choose death or islam is an idea that is foreign to islam in spirit and in historical practice. there is absolutely no question of waging a 'holy war' to 'spread the faith' and compel people to embrace islam; that would be an unholy war and the people's forced conversions would not be sincere.

however, muslims should 'strive' for the freedom to choose and practice their faith, free from persecution and oppression.

jihad:

in the linguistic sense, the arabic word 'jihad' means struggling or striving and applies to any effort exerted by anyone. the term strive or struggle (jihad) may be used for/by muslims as well as non-muslims; it is an arabic word the root of which is jahada, which means to strive for a better way of life. the nouns are juhd, mujahid, jihad, and ijtihad. the other meanings are: endeavor, strain, exertion, effort, diligence, fighting to defend one's life, land, and religion.

in the west, 'jihad' is generally translated as 'holy war,' a usage the media has popularized. according to islamic teachings, it is unho;y to instigate or start war; however, some wars are inevitable and justifiable.

if we translate the words 'holy war' back into arabic, we find 'harbun muqaddasatu,' or for 'the holy war,' 'al-harbu al-muqaddasatu.' however, no researcher or scholar will be able to find the meaning of 'jihad' as holy war in the koran or authentic hadith collections or in early islamic literature.

unfortunately, some muslim writers and translators of the koran, the hadith and other islamic literature translate the term 'jihad' as 'holy war,' due to the influence of centuries-old western propaganda. this could be a reflection of the christian use of the term 'holy war' to refer to the crusades of a thousand years ago. however, the arabic words for 'war' are 'harb' or 'qital,' which are found in the koran and hadith.

clearly jihad should not be confused with holy war; the latter does not exist in islam nor will islam allow its followers to be involved in a holy war. the latter refers to the holy war of the crusaders.

jihad is not a war to force the faith on others, as many people think of it. it should never be interpreted as a way of compulsion of the belief on others, since there is an explicit verse in the Qur'an that says:

'There is no compulsion in religion' al-koran: al-baqarah (2:256).

jihad is not a defensive war only, but a war against any unjust regime. if such a regime exists, a war is to be waged against the leaders, but not against the people of that country. people should be freed from the unjust regimes and influences so that they can freely choose to believe in god.

not only in peace but also in war islam prohibits terrorism, kidnapping, and hijacking, when carried against civilians. whoever commits such violations is considered a murderer in islam, and is to be punished by the islamic state. during wars, islam prohibits muslim soldiers from harming civilians, women, children, elderly, and the religious men like priests and rabbis. it also prohibits cutting down trees and destroying civilian constructions.

for muslims the term jihad is applied to all forms of striving and has developed some special meanings over time. the sources of this development are the koran. the koran and the hadith use the word 'jihad' in several different contexts which are given below:

1. recognising god and loving him most :

it is human nature to love what is seen with the eyes and felt with the senses more than the unseen reality. the creator of the universe and the one god. he is the unseen reality which we tend to ignore and not recognize. the koran addresses those who claim to be believers:

"O you who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for protectors if they love disbelief over belief; whoever of you takes them for protectors, such are wrong-doers. Say: if your fathers, and your children, and your brethren, and your spouses, and your tribe, and the wealth you have acquired, and business for which you fear shrinkage, and houses you are pleased with are dearer to you than God and His Messenger and striving in His way: then wait till God brings His command to pass. God does not guide disobedient folk." (9:23, 24)

it is indeed a struggle to put god ahead of our loved ones, our wealth, our worldly ambitions and our own lives. especially for a non-muslim who embraces islam, it may be a tough struggle due to the opposition of his family, peers and society.

2. resisting pressure of parents, peers and society :

once a person has made up his mind to put the gode above all else, he often comes under intense pressures. it is not easy to resist such pressures and strive to maintain dedication and love of god over all else. a person who has turned to islam from another religion may be subjected to pressures designed to turn him back to the religion of the family. we read in the koran:

"So obey not the rejecters of faith, but strive (jahidhum) against them by it (the koran) with a great endeavor." (25:52)

3. staying on the path steadfastly :

god says in the koran:

"and strive (jadihu) for God with the endeavor (jihadihi) which is His right. He has chosen you and has not laid upon you in the din (religion) any hardship..." (22:78)

"And whosoever strives (jahada), strives (yujahidu) only for himself, for lo! God is altogether independent of the universe." (29:6)

as for those who strive and struggle to live as true muslims whose lives are made difficult due to persecution by their opponents, they are advised to migrate to a more peaceful and tolerant land and continue with their struggle in the cause of god. god says in the koran:

"Lo! As for those whom the angels take (in death) while they wronged themselves, (the angels) will ask: 'In what you were engaged?' They will way: 'We were oppressed in the land.' (The angels) will say: 'Was not God's earth spacious that you could have migrated therein?'" (4:97)

"Lo! Those who believe, and those who emigrate (to escape persecution) and strive (jahadu) in the way of God, these have hope of God's mercy..." (2:218)

god tests the believers in their faith and their steadfastness:

"Or did you think that you would enter Paradise while yet God knows not those of you who really strive (jahadu), nor knows those (of you) who are steadfast." (3:142)

"And surely We shall try you with something of fear and hunger, and loss of wealth and lives and fruits; but give tidings to the steadfast." (2:155)

we find that the prophet muhammad and his clan were boycotted socially and economically for three years to force him to stop his message and compromise with the pagans but he resisted and realized a moral victory.

4. striving for righteous deeeds :

god declares in the koran:

"As for those who strive (jahadu) in Us (the cause of God), We surely guide them to Our paths, and lo! God is with the good doers." (29:69)

when we are faced with two competing interests, it becomes jihad to choose the right one, as the following hadith exemplify:

"Aisha, wife of the Prophet asked, 'O Messenger of God, we see jihad as the best of deeds, so shouldn't we join it?' He replied, 'But the best of jihad is a perfect Hajj (pilgrimage to Makkah).'" (Sahih Al-Bukhari #2784)

at another occasion, a man asked the prophet muhammad :

"'Should I join the jihad?' He asked, 'Do you have parents?' The man said, 'Yes!' The Prophet said, 'Then strive by serving them!'" (Sahih Al-Bukhari #5972)

yet another man asked the messenger of god :

"'What kind of jihad is better?' He replied, 'A word of truth in front of an oppressive ruler!'" (Sunan Al-Nasa'i #4209)

the messenger of god said:

"...the mujahid (one who carries out jihad) is he who strives against himself for the sake of God, and the muhajir (one who emigrates) is he who abandons evil deeds and sin." (Sahih Ibn Hibban #4862)

5. having courage and steadfastness to convey message of islam :

the koran narrates the experiences of a large number of prophets and good people who suffered a great deal trying to convey the message of god to mankind. for examples, see the koran 26:1-190, 36:13-32. in the koran, god specifically praises those who strive to convey His message:

"Who is better in speech than one who calls (other people) to God, works righteous, and declares that he is from the Muslims." (41:33)

under adverse conditions it takes great courage to remain a muslim, declare oneself to be a muslim and call others to islam. we read in the koran:

"The (true) believers are only those who believe in God and his messenger and afterward doubt not, but strive with their wealth and their selves for the cause of God. Such are the truthful." (49:15)

6. defending islam and the community :

god declares in the koran:

"To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to defend themselves), because they are wronged - and verily, God is Most Powerful to give them victory - (they are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right - (for no cause) except that they say, 'Our Lord is God'..." (22:39-40)

the koran permits fighting to defend the religion of islam and the muslims. this permission includes fighting in self-defense and for the protection of family and property. the early muslims fought many battles against their enemies under the leadership of the prophet muhammad or his representatives. for example, when the pagans of quraysh brought armies against prophet muhammad , the muslims fought to defend their faith and community. the koran adds:

"Fight in the cause of God against those who fight against you, but do not transgress limits. Lo! God loves not aggressors. ...And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against transgressors." (2:190, 193)

7. helping people that might not be muslim :

in the late period of the prophet muhammad's life, the tribe of banu khuza'ah became his ally. they were living near makkah which was under the rule of the pagan quraysh, prophet muhammad's own tribe. the tribe of banu bakr, an ally of quraysh, with the help of some elements of quraysh, attacked banu khuza'ah invoked the treaty and demanded prophet muhammad to come to their help and punish quraysh. the prophet muhammad organized a campaign against quraysh of makkah which resulted in the conquest of makkah which occurred without any battle.

8. removing treacherous people (despots) from power :

god orders the muslims in the koran:

"If you fear treachery from any group, throw back (their treaty) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms. Lo! God loves not the treacherous." (8:58)

prophet muhammad undertook a number of armed campaigns to remove treacherous people from power and their lodgings. he had entered into pacts with several tribes, however, some of them proved themselves treacherous. prophet muhammad launched armed campaigns against these tribes, defeated and exiled them from medina and its surroundings.

9. defending through pre-emptive strikes :

indeed, it is difficult to mobilize people to fight when they see no invaders in their territory; however, those who are charged with responsibility see dangers ahead of time and must provide leadership. muhammad , had the responsibility to protect his people and the religion he established in arabia. whenever he received intelligence reports about enemies gathering near his borders he carried out preemptive strikes, broke their power and dispersed them. god ordered muslims in the koran:

"Fighting is prescribed upon you, and you dislike it. But it may happen that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. And God knows and you know not." (2:216)

10. gaining freedom to inform, educate in an open and free environment :

god declares in the koran:

"They ask you (Muhammad) concerning fighting in the Sacred Month. Say, 'Fighting therein is a grave (offense) but graver is it in the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its inhabitants. Persecution is worse than killing. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith, if they can..." (2:217)

"And those who, when an oppressive wrong is inflicted on them, (are not cowed but) fight back." (42:39)

to gain this freedom, prophet muhammad said:

"strive (jahidu) against the disbelievers with your hands and tongues." (Sahih Ibn Hibban #4708)

the life of the prophet muhammad was full of striving to gain the freedom to inform and convey the message of islam. during his stay in makkah he used non-violent methods and after the establishment of his government in madinah, by the permission of god, he used armed struggle against his enemies whenever he found it inevitable.

11. freeing people from tyranny :

god admonishes muslims in the koran:

"And why should you not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? - Men, women, and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You, one who will protect; and raise for us from You, one who will help.'" (4:75)

the mission of the prophet muhammad was to free people from tyranny and exploitation by oppressive systems. once free, individuals in the society were then free to chose islam or not. prophet muhammad's successors continued in his footsteps and went to help oppressed people. for example, after the repeated call by the oppressed people of spain to the muslims for help, spain was liberated by muslim forces and the tyrant rulers removed. after the conquest of syria and iraq by the muslims, the christian population of hims reportedly said to the muslims:

"We like your rule and justice far better than the state of oppression and tyranny under which we have been living."

essentially jihad is an effort to practice religion in the face of oppression and persecution. the effort may come in fighting the evil in your own heart, or in standing up to a dictator. military effort is included as an option, but as a last resort and not 'to spread islam by the sword' as the western stereotype would have you believe. (2:190-193). therefore, if non-muslims are peaceful or indifferent to islam, there is no justified reason to declare war on them.

the defeated rulers of syria were roman christians, and iraq was ruled by zoarastrian persians.

what should muslims do when they are victorious?

muslims should remove tyranny, treachery, bigotry, and ignorance and replace them with justice and equity. they should provide truthful knowledge and free people from the bondage of 'associationism' (shirk, or multiple gods), prejudice, superstition and mythology. muslims remove immorality, fear, crime, exploitation and replace them with divine morality, peace and education. the koran declares:

"Lo! God commands you that you restore deposits to their owners, and if you judge between mankind that you judge justly. Lo! It is proper that God admonishes you. Lo! God is ever Hearer, Seer." (4:58)

"O you who believe! Stand out firmly for God's witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to Piety and fear God. And God is well acquainted with all that you do." (5:8)

"And of those whom We have created there is a nation who guides with the Truth and establishes justice with it." (7:181)

"Lo! God enjoins justice and kindness, and giving to kinsfolk, and forbids lewdness and abomination and wickedness. He exhorts you in order that you may take heed." (16:90)

"Those who, if We give them power in the land, establish prescribed prayers (salah) and pay the poor-due (zakah) and enjoin right conduct and forbid evil. And with God rests the end (and decision) of (all) affairs." (22:41)

did islam spread by force swords or guns?

the unequivocal and emphatic answer is no! the koran declares:

"Let there be no compulsion (or coercion) in the religion (Islam). The right direction is distinctly clear from error." (2:256)

here is a study of the question of the spread of islam by a christian missionary, T. W. Arnold:

"...of any organized attempt to force the acceptance of islam on the non-muslim population, or of any systematic persecution intended to stamp out the christian religion, we hear nothing. had the caliphs chosen to adopt either course of action, they might have swept away christianity as easily as ferdinand and isabella drove islam out of spain, or louis xiv made protestantism penal in france, or the jews were kept out of england for 350 years. the eastern churches in asia were entirely cut off from communion with the rest of christiandom throughout which no one would have been found to lift a finger on their behalf, as heretical communions. so that the very survival of these churches to the present day is a strong proof of the generally tolerant attitude of mulim governments towards them" .

islam does not teach, nor do muslims desire, conversion of any people for fear, greed, marriage or any other form of coercion.

in conclusion, jihad in islam is striving in the way of god by pen, tongue, hand, media and, if inevitable, with arms. however, jihad in islam does not include striving for individual or national power, dominance, glory, wealth, prestige or pride. - M. Amir Ali, Ph.D.

references:
1. For the sake of simplicity and easy reading, masculine pronouns have been used throughout this brochure. No exclusion of females is intended.
2. Haykal, M. H., the life of muhammad, Tr. Ismail R. Faruqi, American Trust Publications, 1976, p. 132.
3. Haykal, pp. 216, 242, 299 and 414 for the Battles of Badr, Uhud, Al-Khandaq and Hunayn, respectively.
4. Haykal, p. 395 for the conquest of Makkah.
5. Haykal, pp. 245, 277, 311 and 326 for campaigns against the tribes of Banu Qaynuqa', Banu Al-Nadir, Banu Qurayzah and Banu Lihyan, respectively. Also, see p. 283 for the Battle of Dhat Al-Riqa'.
6. Haykal, pp. 284, 327, 366, 387, 393, 443 and 515 for the Battles of Dawmat Al-Jandal, Banu Al-Mustaliq, Khayber, Mu'tah, Dhat Al-Salasil, Tabuk and the Campaign of Usama Ibn Zayd, respectively.
7. Hitti, Philip K., history of the arabs, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1970, p. 153.
8. Arnold, Sir Thomas W. the preaching of islam, a history of the propagation of the muslim faith, Westminister A. Constable & Co., London, 1896, p. 80.

useful links:
jihad in the koran and sunnah
spiritual significance of jihad
jihad a misunderstood concept
about islam
understanding jihad
what does jihad mean
jihad explained

[+/-] show/hide this post
A Dhimmi's Basic Guide to Zionism & Judaism
zionism has developed into a fundamentalist ideology, which has little relationship to judaism.

The first most important point to be made is that Jews are not a separate race, they are not a Race in any sense of the word, further more there is no evidence that Jews are not related and are not part of the same diaspora of the 'arab' mid east as christians muslims and those without faith. There are no races in the human species. Jews are followers of the faith of Judaism.

The second most important point is that Israel was borne out of terrorism and terrorists and some of its terrorist leaders became leaders of Israel.

First Published: September 2001:

Since biblical times Jewish communities lived in Arab lands, in Persia, India, East and North Africa and indeed in Palestine. With the destruction of the Temple and the final fall of their state in 70 AD many Jews were taken out of Judea and hence to Rome and the Diaspora. Many poorer Judeans, however (such as subsistence farmers), were able to stay in Palestine. (Some of them had converted to Christianity and were one of the earliest Christian groups.)

Modern research suggests that when Islam arrived in the area in 633 AD many of these Jews converted and that they form a considerable part of today's Palestinians. These various communities were on the whole well integrated into their respective societies and did not experience the persecutions that later became so prevalent in Europe.

In Palestine, for instance, Muslims repeatedly protected their Jewish neighbours from marauding crusaders; in one instance at least, Jews fought alongside Muslims to try and prevent crusaders from landing at Haifa's port, and Salah al-Dinl-din, after re-conquering Jerusalem from the crusaders, invited the Jews back into the city.

The Jews in Spain under Moorish rule flourished and experienced a renaissance mirroring that of the great Islamic civilisation and culture at the time. As Christianity spread from the north of Spain, Jews were again protected by Muslim rulers until the fall of Granada - the last Moorish kingdom to pass into Christian hands - when both Jews and Muslims were expelled at the end of the 15th century (Jews in 1492 and Muslims 10 years later).

Most of the Jews from the Iberian peninsula settled in North Africa and the lands under Ottoman rule, including Palestine, and continued their peaceful co-existence with Muslims in those countries. The bulk of Portuguese "converted" Jews (these were forced conversions and such Jews were called Marranos, i.e. pigs, by Jews who had fled or who preferred to die for their faith) settled in Amsterdam, presumably because they had long established trading connections in that city. In 1655 they were invited to Britain by Oliver Cromwell. Most of them were glad to resettle since at the time the Netherlands had just freed itself from the Spanish yoke and the shadow of the dreaded inquisition was still uncomfortably close.

The fate of Jewry in European countries was very different: persecutions, killings and burnings were widespread and Jews were forced to live in closed ghettos, particularly in the Russian Empire, where they were confined to the "Pale of Jewish" (?) settlement, an area which consisted of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Byelarus or White Russia. Anyone who wished to move outside these borders needed special permission. However, by the mid-19th century some of the more progressive Jewish communities had established themselves in the big cities of St. Petersburg, Moscow and Kiev.

In central and western Europe religious tolerance, followed by the granting of full citizen rights and emancipation, came relatively early, in the wake of general liberalization. However, Russian rulers remained opposed to any liberalization, including religious tolerance and emancipation, and as late as 1881 Tsar Alexander the third initiated a series of particularly vicious pogroms to divert unrest amongst the population, at a time when Britain, for instance, boasted of a Jewish prime minister.

Total segregation was not always imposed from outside, however; frequently it was enforced from within by highly authoritarian rabbis who exercised absolute power over their congregations, often including the right to life and the imposition of the death penalty. Thus it was a major decision for anyone to leave these congregations and to look for a broader education (known as "enlightenment"). In eastern Europe enlightenment was a relatively late phenomenon and it found expression initially in the mid-19th century, in a revival of Hebrew language and literature and in the modern idea of Jews seeing themselves as a people.

This distinction between a people and a religion was of course disapproved of by the Orthodox Jews, who still today regard Hebrew as a sacred language to be used solely for prayers and religious studies and the Jewish people and religion as indivisible. The concept of the Jews as people closely mirrored the relatively new European idea of a homogeneous nation state. An exception to this was the socialist "Bund" organisation whose members rejected nationalism and later Zionism.

Some of these early proto-Zionists, calling themselves "Hovevei Zion" (Lovers of Zion), started the first settlements in Palestine in the 1870's, and a larger number of immigrants followed after the Russian pogroms of 1881-82.

These settlers distinguished themselves by their deliberate segregation from the indigenous population and their contempt for local customs and traditions. This naturally aroused suspicion and hostility in the locals. This exclusivity was largely based on a sense of superiority common to Europeans of the time, who believed they were the only advanced and truly civilised society and in true colonial fashion looked down on "natives" or ignored them altogether.

However, beyond that there was also a particular sense of superiority of Jews towards all non-Jews. This belief in innate Jewish superiority had a long tradition in religious Jewish thinking, central to which was the notion of the Jews as God's chosen people. Moshe Ben Maimon (Maimonides) had been an exponent of this theory and quite often thinkers with a more humane outlook, e.g. Spinoza, were excommunicated.

The accepted thinking in the religious communities was that Jews must on no account mix with gentiles for fear of being contaminated and corrupted by them. This notion was so deeply ingrained that it quite possibly still affected, albeit subconsciously, those Jews who had left the townships and had become educated and enlightened. Thus the early settlers from eastern Europe transferred the "Stettl" (townlet) mentality of segregation to Palestine, with the added belief in the nobility of manual labour and in particular soil cultivation. In this they had been influenced by Tolstoy and his writings.

The "father" of political Zionism, Theodore Herzl (1860-1904), came from a totally different perspective. Dr. Herzl was a Viennese, emancipated, secular journalist who was sent by his editor to Paris in 1894 to cover the Dreyfus affair.

Dreyfus had been a captain in the French Army who was falsely accused and convicted of treason (although he was acquitted and completely cleared some years later). The case brought to light the strength of a strong streak of anti-Semitism prevalent in the upper echelons of the French Army and in the French press, with profound repercussions in emancipated Jewish circles. Herzl himself despaired of the whole idea of emancipation and integration and felt that the only solution to anti-Semitism lay in a Jewish Homeland. To that end he approached various diplomats and notables, including the Ottoman Sultan, but mainly European rulers, the great colonial powers of the time, and was rewarded for his efforts by being offered Argentina or Uganda by the British as possible Jewish Homelands.

Herzl would have been quite happy with either of these countries, but when the first Zionist Congress was convened in Basle in 1897, he came up against Eastern European Jewry, by far the greatest majority of participants, who, although broadly emancipated and enlightened, would not accept any homeland other than the land of Zion.

Not only had some of them already settled in Palestine, there were strong remnants of the religious/sentimental notion of a pilgrimage and possibly burial in the Holy Land. The last toast in the Passover ceremony is "Next year in Jerusalem"; although this was a religious rather than a national aspiration, it was common amongst the Orthodox communities to purchase a handful of soil purporting to come from the Holy Land to be placed under the deceased's head. (Orthodox Jews at that time completely rejected any Jewish political movement and did not attend the congress.)

Herzl was quick to realise that unless he accepted the "Land of Zion", i.e. Palestinian option, he would have hardly any adherents. Thus the Zionist movement started with a small section of Jewish society who saw the solution to anti-Semitism in a return to its "roots" and in a renewal of a Jewish people in the land of their ancestors.

In his famous book "Der Judenstaat" (The State of the Jews) Herzl wrote that the Jews and their state will constitute "a rampart of Europe against Asia, of civilisation against barbarism," and again regarding the local population, "We shall endeavour to encourage the poverty-stricken population to cross the border by securing work for it in the countries it passes through, while denying it work in our own country. The process of expropriation and displacement must be carried out prudently and discreetly--Let (the landowners) sell us their land at exorbitant prices. We shall sell nothing back to them."

Max Nordau, an early Zionist, visited Palestine and was so horrified that the country was already populated that he burst out in front of Herzl: "But we are committing a grave injustice!"

Some years later, in 1913, a prominent Zionist thinker and writer, Ahad Ha'am (one of the people), wrote: "What are our brothers doing? They were slaves in the land of their exile. Suddenly they found themselves faced with boundless freedom ... and they behave in a hostile and cruel manner towards the Arabs, trampling on their rights without the least justification ... even bragging about this behaviour."But the dismay of Nordau and others at the injustices to, and total lack of recognition of, the indigenous population was silenced and indeed edited out of Jewish history and other books, as was some of Herzl's writing.

The Zionist slogan of "a land without people for a people without land" prevailed and within a matter of a few years the immigrants became "sons of the land" (Bnei Ha'aretz), whereas the inhabitants became the aliens and foreigners.

Following renewed efforts and lobbying after Herzl's death, the Balfour Declaration in 1917, which granted Zionists a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, set the official seal of approval on their aspirations. Protests and representations by local Arab leaders were brushed aside. Lord Balfour wrote in 1919: "In Palestine, we do not even propose to consult the inhabitants of the country. (Zionism's) immediate needs and hopes for the future are much more important than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who presently inhabit Palestine."

Settlements grew slowly for a long time, but the systematic buying u