Islam and Polygamy -II

Polygamy, in the sense of having more than one wife at the same time, has been one of the chief issues due to which severe criticism has been directed against Islam. Non-Muslims decry Islam for permitting polygamy and allowing a man to have up to four wives at the same time, thus debasing women and slighting their status in society.

It should be made clear that polygamy is allowed in Islam only as an exception. It is succinctly so stated in the Glorious Quran (which means): "And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) one only." [Quran 4:3] 

This is the only verse in the Glorious Quran that speaks of polygamy and it is evident that it does not enjoin polygamy; it only permits it  bound by certain conditions. First, polygamy is allowed permissible in general, but it becomes more recommended only when there are orphans to be cared for by an uncle or a relative, that relative may marry the mother of these orphans if he feels that he cannot do them justice unless he is bound by marriage to their mother.

Such a marriage would enable him to care for the orphans and have free access to them without fearing social slander. This is an acceptable social condition that caters for the welfare of the orphans and the dignity of women. 

Another condition is imposed in the same verse, which limits this marriage to the man who feels that he can do justice to his wives. He should provide them with similar dwelling places, similar food and clothing and give them the same physical attention. If he feels unable to do so, he should be satisfied with one wife.

The value of this permission for polygamy becomes evident in times of war when men die on the battlefields and women are left behind to feed and care for their children. Many of these women may not possess the qualifications for the humblest job. The last resort for such women would be prostitution with all its negative physical, social, moral and psychological consequences. 

When Islam permits polygamy, it preserves a woman's dignity and humanity and cares for the social moral and economic well-being of orphans. The same principle applies when the number of women exceeds that of men in society. This would lead to moral depravity, which threatens the very essence of civilization.

It may be argued that the modern State can make other arrangements for the maintenance of widows and orphans. That may be true, but the State cannot provide them with a family life; in Islam, the family is considered the real source from where all the good qualities of love and affection spring, which are the greatest asset of society and civilization. Even if it be “half a home” that the woman and children find in a polygamous family, it is better than having no home at all.

Monogamy is without doubt the right form of life under normal conditions, but when abnormal conditions are brought about by the presence of more females than males monogamy fails, and it is only through a limited form of polygamy that this difficulty is faced.

It may be further argued that polygamy, which has been instituted by Islam as an exception and a remedy, has been largely abused by sensual people. That is true, but there are people in every society who abuse any institution, however necessary that may be to the healthy growth of human society. In countries where polygamy is not allowed, the sensuality of man has invented a hundred other ways of giving vent to his carnal desires and these comprise a far greater threat to the security and welfare of society than the abuse of polygamy.

Rather than debasing women or belittling their status in society as some feminists claim, Islam recognizes the position of women to be equitable to that of man when it comes to worship and accountability. Allaah Almighty Says (what means):   "And whoever does good deeds, whether male or female, and he (or she) is a believer-these shall enter the Garden." [Quran 4:124]

In some cases, polygamy is a practical solution and a better alternative. When a man's wife suffers from a chronic disease and fails to respond to her husband's physical needs, Islam offers two alternatives: divorce or polygamy. Many wives would commend the second alternative, as it saves them the humiliation of being without any means of income, particularly if they have no jobs to support themselves. 

The same thing applies when it is proven that the wife is sterile and the husband longs to be a father. According to Islam, he can divorce his wife or take another wife who can bear him children. The second alternative may prove most convenient to the sterile wife.

The question may be raised, what if the husband is sterile or suffers from a chronic incurable disease, would the wife entertain the same right and have a second husband? The answer is no, for practical reasons. Most of the societies all over the world are patriarchal where the father assumes the leading role. If the mother assumes the lead, this would be a backward step to the savage matriarchal age. 

This system is still dominant in a few backward tribes in Africa, Latin America and Asia. Besides the confusion that would prevail in the household as a result of having more than one husband, there would emerge the problem of relating the children to the father, who can decide who is the real father of the child if there are more than one husband? Problems of inheritance and moral values would emerge in due time. 

Islam forbids a woman from having more than one husband at the same time. However, if the husband is sterile or suffers from a chronic disease that prevents them from consummating a conjugal life, the wife may ask for divorce and marry another man.

In societies where women outnumber men, there would be two alternatives: polygamy or prostitution. It is natural for every human being to seek a mate for various psychological, social, economic and sexual reasons. If that mate were not available due to certain reasons such as females outnumbering males, monogamy would not solve the difficulty. The supernumerary women would seek physical satisfaction in adultery and economic support in prostitution. 

If society permits polygamy, such a woman would enjoy a dignified life where her physical and economic needs are satisfied without losing self-respect or social acceptance. Her children would enjoy the protection and the care of a father. It may be argued that in such case she would have “half a husband”, but that is better than having no husband, no protection and no roof over her head.

Monogamy and polygyny

The question remains why a male-dominated society should be so opposed to polygyny when such a large number of its married members practice a form of it by engaging in illicit or casual relationships. Some males self-righteously assert that monogamy is maintained to protect the rights of women. But, since when has the western male been concerned about women's rights? 

Western society is riddled through and through with socio-economic practices which oppressed women and led to the upsurge of women's liberation movements in recent years, from suffragettes of the early nineteen hundreds to those of recent times. The reality is that monogamy protects the males right to play around without any responsibility, since the incidence of infidelity among them is usually much higher than among females. 

The introduction of birth control pills and easy access to abortions opened the door to illicit sex and, resultantly, the female became tempted to join in on the 'fun'. In spite of her natural and general inclination towards meaningful relationships, she became caught up in the so-called sexual revolution. However, she is still the one who suffers from the side effects of the pill, coil and the loop or the trauma of abortion in much the same way as she suffered in the past - the shame of childbirth out of wedlock. 

Meanwhile, the male continues to enjoy himself worry-free, aside from the recent plagues of venereal disease, herpes and AIDS, which are now causing many to reassess their sexual habits. Males in general, continue to be protected by monogamy, while prostitutes, call girls, mistresses, secretaries, models, actresses, store clerks, waitresses and girlfriends remain as their playground. 

The fact is that polygyny is vehemently opposed by male-dominated Western society because it would force men into fidelity. It would encourage them to take socio-economic responsibility for the fulfilment of their polygynous desires and provide protection for the weaker members of society, women and children, from mental and physical abuse. Some might argue that if the stigma of illegitimacy were removed, the problem could be solved without having to resort to the legalisation of polygyny. 

However, every child has a natural desire to know its parents and the resulting chaos in ancestry could easily lead to incestuous relationships. Females have a vested interest in institutional polygyny because of the obvious socio-economic protection it provides, for the preponderance of females in the world is an established fact. The death-rate at birth is much higher for boys, and women as a whole live longer than men; not to mention the large numbers of men who die daily in various wars around the world. 

Thus, although the ratio may vary from country to country, the results are still the same - women outnumber men. This apparent imbalance has been further aggravated by the fact that homosexuality appears to be more frequent among men than among women. Hence, there are more females competing for a diminishing number of males. Consequently, there will always remain a large segment of women unable to fulfil their sexual and psychological needs through legitimate means in monogamous societies. Their presence in an increasingly permissive society also contributes to the breakdown of Western family structure. 

A strong family structure is an absolute requirement for a strong and healthy society. And the only way that the family can remain strong and responsive to the needs of its male and female members is through the Islamic form of marriage, of which polygyny is a part.

The Monogamous marriage system, clearly, does not take into consideration the real needs of human society. It limits possibilities for both men and women while claiming to protect the latter. Instead of providing protection for women, it provides a hypocritical shield for men to hide behind while favouring a wife to the detriment of a girlfriend or vice versa. Islam has a complete marriage system, which takes into account all the human variables and provides men and women with viable options.

To deny the validity and legality of polygyny is tantamount to denying the comprehensiveness of the Islaamic marriage system and the wisdom of the Divine Decree. It is not possible that everything in life should happen according to our feelings and desires. Nor is it possible to live without experiencing pain. 

On the contrary, Allaah has stated in the Noble Quran that Muslims shall be tested. He says what means: "And We will surely test you with something of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth and lives and fruits, but give good tidings to the patient." [Quran 2:155] and: "Do the people think that they will be left to say: 'We believe' and they will not be tried?" [Quran 29:2] 

Neither tests nor pain, whether physical or emotional, can be avoided in this life. Nor can any aspect of the Islaamic system be negated merely to justify a particular individual's or group's opinions. Although polygyny may be painful for some women, it is also beneficial for other women and society as a whole. Muslims must accept the whole of Allaah's message and submit to the fact that Allaah's Wisdom is superior to our opinions.

By: Dr. Bilal Philips

Islam and non-Muslim communities

It has always been said that the attitude of non-Muslim communities towards Islamic rule is a critical and delicate question, which many people hesitate to discuss for fear of causing dissension between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Let us be frank with the Christians of the Islamic East and put to them these questions: What do they fear from the rule of Islam? Are they afraid of the holy texts of Islam or of the manner of their application? As for the provisions, we may quote the Holy Quran (what means): “God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them, for God loves those who are just.”  [Quran 60: 8].

And (what means): “The food of the people of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the people of the book” [Quran 5:5].

We should also refer to the general principle in Islamic jurisprudence: “They shall have the same obligations and rights as we”. The Islamic holy texts enjoin Muslims to treat non-Muslims in a kind and fair manner. Apart from the rights and obligations involving worship, they are equal to Muslims with respect to all other rights and obligations related to social life and the rights of citizens. In addition, Islamic faith strives to strengthen the links connecting the non-Muslims to visit them and to eat their food, which is the custom of close friends.

Moreover, Islam tries to make the relationship grow closer by permitting inter-marriage with people of the Book, the strongest social bond, between Muslims and non-Muslims. As to the practical application of the Islamic holy texts, we quote a European Christian, who cannot be accused of bias or prejudice, Sir T.W. Arnold in his book The Preaching of Islam:

“That force was not the determining factor in these conversions, may be judged from the amicable relations that existed between the Christian and the Muslim Arabs. Muhammad himself had entered into treaty with several Christian tribes, promising them his protection and guaranteeing them the free exercise of their religion and to their clergy undisturbed enjoyment of their old rights and authority”. (pp. 47-48).

He goes on to say:

“From the examples given above of the toleration extended towards the Christian Arabs by the victorious Muslims of the first century of the Hijrah and continued by succeeding generations, we may surely infer that those Christian tribes that did embrace Islam, did so of their own choice and free will”. (P.51).

“When the Muslim army reached the valley of Jordan and Abu `Ubaydah pitched his camp at Fihl, the Christian inhabitants of the country wrote to the Arabs, saying: “O Muslims, we prefer you to the Byzantines, though they are of our own faith because you keep better faith with us and are more merciful to us and refrain from doing us injustice and your rule over us is better than theirs, for they have robbed us of our goods and our homed”. (P.55).

He also tells us: “Such was the state of feeling in Syria during the campaign of 633-639 CE in which the Arabs gradually drove the Roman army out of the province. And when Damascus, in 637 CE set the example of making terms with the Arabs, and thus secured immunity from plunder and other favorable conditions, the rest of the cities of Syria were not slow to follow. Emessa, Arethusa, Hieropolis and other towns entered into treaties whereby they became tributary to the Arabs.

Even the patriarch of Jerusalem surrendered the city on similar terms. The fear of religious compulsion on the part of the heretical emperor made the promise of Muslim toleration appear more attractive than the connection with the Roman Empire and a Christian government, and after the first terrors caused by the passage of an invading army, there succeeded a profound revulsion of feeling in favor of the Arab conquerors.” (p.55). This is the evidence given by a Christian scholar on Islam. What is it then that the Christians fear from Islamic rule?

It may be that the Christians are afraid of Muslim fanaticism. If this is true, it seems that they have no idea of what fanaticism is. Here are a few examples of fanaticism. Courts of inquisition set up by the Christian Church were primarily meant to exterminate the Muslims of Spain. The said courts tortured Muslims in a monstrous way, which had never been experienced before. People were burned alive, their fingernails were pulled off, their eyes were put out and their limbs were amputated. This torture was inflicted in order to force the people to change their religion and adopt a particular Christian creed.

Have the Christians of Islamic East ever suffered such treatment?

Massacres are carried out for the extermination of Muslims in Europe, Yugoslavia Albania Russia or countries under European rule such as North Africa Somalia Kenya Zanzibar or in other countries like India and Malaya. Such massacres are staged sometimes on the pretext of the purging of ranks and sometimes for the maintenance of peace and security.

Another significant example is the treatment of Muslims in Ethiopia which has ancient historical, geographical, cultural and religious links with Egypt. It has a mixed population of Muslims and Christians. Although Muslims account for 35 to 65 percent of the total population there is not a single school where Islamic faith or Arabic is taught.

Private schools, which the Muslims open at their own expenses, are subjected to exorbitant taxes and inconveniences that lead to their closing, thus disheartening those who may think of opening new schools. In this way, Islamic teaching is confined to a primitive way of teaching.

Until very recently – just before the Italian invasion – a Muslim who could not pay a debt to his Christian creditor was taken in slavery by the Ethiopian Christians. The Muslim was caught, sold and tortured within sight of the government. It goes without saying that there is not a single Muslim in the cabinet or in any key post to represent one-third of the population. Have the Christians of the Islamic world ever experienced such a treatment? Would they accept reciprocal treatment?

That is real fanaticism.

The Communists believe that the real existence of man is essentially an economic existence. If so, have the Christians living in Islamic countries ever been denied the right to acquire and dispose of property or to amass wealth? Have they ever been denied, on account of their religious belief, the right to have education, to join public service or promotion to higher public posts?

As for the moral and spiritual existence, it should be stressed that the Christians living under Islamic rule have never been subjected to any form of religious persecution -- with the exception of the very rare incidents engendered by the British colonialists for sowing dissension and diversion. It is alleged that the imposition of tribute on non-Muslims is the result of religious discrimination. The best refutation of this baseless accusation lies in the words of T.W. Arnold, who says: “On the other hand, when the Egyptian peasants, although Muslim in faith, were made exempt from military service, a tax was imposed upon them as on the Christians in lieu thereof”.

“As stated above, the Jizyah was levied on the able-bodied males, in lieu of the military service they would have been called upon to perform had they been Musalmans; and it is very noticeable that when any Christian people served in the Muslim army, they were exempted from the payment of this tax. Such was the case with the tribe of al-Jurajimah, a Christian tribe in the neighborhood of Antioch who made peace with the Muslims, promising them to be their allies and fight on their side in battle, on condition that they should not be called upon to pay Jizyah and should receive their proper share of the booty”.

From this it is clear that the imposition of tribute is not the result of any religious discrimination. The truth is that the tribute was imposed on all those who did not take part in military service regardless of their religious belief. It would be useful to refer in this respect to the following Holy verse (which means): “Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and feel themselves subdued”. [Quran 9: 29]. 

It should be pointed out that this verse refers to non-Muslims who wage war against Islam. It does not apply to the non-Muslims living in Islamic countries.

In conclusion, I should like to warn that the seeds of dissention between Muslims and non-Muslims living in Islamic countries are sown by colonialists as well as by Communists. The Communist devils address each community in accordance with its particular aspirations.

They address the working classes saying: “If you adopt Communism we shall hand over all factories to you”; while speaking to peasants, they promise to give them the lands. On talking to unemployed graduates they say: “If you become Communists you will get the jobs that fit in with your qualifications”.

As for the youth suffering from sexual repression, the Communists promise them a free society, where every one can act as one likes without intervention by law or subjection to traditions. The Communists address Christians in the following manner: “If you adopt Communism we shall destroy Islam, the religion that discriminates among people on account of their religion”. However, the Quran says (what means): “It is a grievous thing that comes from their mouths as a saying, for, what they say is nothing but falsehood” [Quran 18: 5].

It cannot be said that Islam distinguishes among people on account of their religion, because Islam confers the essential rights on all people without any distinction. Islam brings all people together on a purely human basis and at the same time guarantees them absolute freedom to adopt the religion of their choice, under its own care and protection.

Besides, as the Christians of the East are also anxious to retain their historical links with Muslims and protect their mutual interests, let us hope that they would not listen to these propagandists or dissenters.

By: Muhammad Qutub

Islam and freedom of thought

During the course of a discussion I was told:

"You are not liberal" 

"Why?" I asked him.

"Do you believe in the existence of a God?" He enquired.

"Yes, I do."

"Do you pray and fast for Him?"

"I do". 

"Well, then you are not liberal".

Thereupon I asked him:

" How do you say that I am not a freethinker?"

"Because you believe in nonsense that has no existence at all," he told me.

"And you? What do you believe in? What do you think created universe and life?" I asked him.

"Nature!"

"But what is Nature?"

"It is the secret power that is limitless but has got manifestations which can be perceived by the sense organs," he said.

At this I said: "I understand by this statement of yours that you prevent me from believing in an Unknown Power because you want me to believe in another equally unknown power. But the question is that why should I disown my God for the sake of another equally unknown but false god, especially in the one I find peace, tranquillity and comfort, whereas the false god of Nature neither answers my call, nor comforts me?"

This in short is the case of the 'progressives' who talk about freedom of thought. For them freedom of thought is synonymous to freedom of disowning one's God. This is, however, not freedom of thought but freedom of atheism. Starting with these premises, they accuse Islam of restricting the freedom of thought simply because it prohibits atheism. But the question is: Is freedom of thought and atheism one and the same, and is atheism really a necessary precondition to the freedom of thought?

Misled by the history of European liberalism they overlook the fact that if certain local circumstances necessitated the spread of atheism in Europe this does not mean that the same thing should happen everywhere in the world.

There is no doubt that the image of Christianity as presented by the church in Europe with its suppression of science, torturing of scientists and passing on a set of lies and superstitions in the name of the word of God drove the free thinkers of Europe to atheism. The intellectuals of Europe had to choose between two irreconcilable attitudes: the natural belief in God or the belief in theoretical and practical scientific facts.

The European intellectuals found in Nature a partial escape from the dilemma. So they said to the church: 'Take back your God in whose name you enslave us and impose on us burdensome exactions and subject us to tyrannous dictatorship and superstitions. The belief in your God wants us to lead the ascetic life of hermits and recluses; we refuse to do your bidding. We shall, therefore, have a new God who possesses most of the qualities of the first God but who has no church to enslave us, nor does He impose on us any moral, intellectual or materialistic obligations as your God does'.

But in Islam there is no such thing as may drive people to atheism. There are no dilemmas which puzzle the mind. There is only one God; He has created all beings and all will return to Him. It is a clear and simple concept, which even the naturalists, and atheists may find hard to reject or doubt.

In Islam, there are no churchmen such as the European church had. Religion is the common property of all, and every Muslim is entitled to benefit from it as much as his natural, spiritual and intellectual equipment may permit. All people are equal and they are treated, as they deserve to be, in the light of their deed in life. The most honoured of all people are the God-fearing individuals whether they are engineers, teachers, workmen or craftsmen. Religion is not, however, one of these so many occupations. There are no professional churchmen in Islam, so that Islamic worship is observed without the intercession of a churchman. 

Still, it is necessary that some people should specialise in the study of jurisprudence and law on which public order is based. The status such specialists in Islamic jurisprudence and constitutional law enjoy is not more than that which their counterparts in other countries do. They are not entitled to any authority or class prestige over the people. They are just the jurisprudents and counsels of the state. It may be pointed out here that Al-Azhar is a religious institute but it does not have, as the churchmen did, the authority to burn or torture people. 

All that Al-Azhar can do is to challenge and criticise an individual's understanding of religion. On the other hand, anyone from outside can easily challenge and criticize Al-Azhar's understanding of religion, for Islam is not the monopoly of any individual or class. Only those persons are considered as an authority on questions of religion who, in the light of their deep understanding of it, apply it to practical life regardless of their own professions.

When the Islamic rule is established, the 'Ulamaa' (Islamic scholars) will not automatically become the governors or ministers or head of departments. The only change is that the system of rule will be based on Islamic Sharee'ah (law) - the law of God. The engineers will continue to be charged with the engineering works, the doctors will be responsible for medical affairs, the economists will direct the economic life of the community with the only change that the Islamic economy alone will then provide them with the guidelines.

History bears witness that neither the Islamic faith nor its system of rule ever came into conflict with science or the application of its theories. No scientist in Islam has ever been burnt or tortured for discovering or announcing a scientific fact. True science is not in conflict with the Islamic faith and the belief that God created everything. Islam calls on people to study space and earth and to meditate on their creation in order to discover the existence of God. It should be remembered that many Western scientists who did not believe in God came to discover His existence through proper scientific research.

There is nothing in Islam which may drive people to atheism. The advocates of atheism in the East are but blind followers of their erstwhile colonialist masters. They want to be given the freedom to attack the faith and all kinds of worship and to urge people to abandon their religion. But why do they want such freedom? In Europe people sought to attack religion in order to liberate their minds from superstition and to free people from oppression and tyranny. 

If Islamic faith already gives them all the freedom they need to have or they clamour for, why should they attack it? The truth is that these so-called liberals are not interested in the freedom of thought but are rather more interested in spreading moral corruption and uncontrolled sexual anarchy. They use freedom of thought as a mask to hide their base motives. It is no more than a camouflage in their hideous war against religion and morality. They are against Islam not because it restricts freedom of thought but only because it stands for the liberation of mankind from the dominance of its baser passions.

The advocates of "free thinking" allege that the Islamic system of rule is dictatorial because the state has vast powers. The worst of it, they say, is that the state enjoys immense power and authority in the name of the faith which has a very great attraction for the people. So they blindfoldly subject themselves to its tyrannical rule. Thus, they conclude, these vast powers lead to dictatorship and the common people are made slaves with no right to think for themselves. Freedom of thought is lost forever. None dare challenge the rulers and he who does is accused of rebellion against religion and God.

These false accusations are best refuted by referring to these verses of the Holy Quran; Allaah says what means: "…And their affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves…" [Quran: 42:38] and: "…And when you judge between people to judge with justice..." [Quran: 4:58]

Abu Bakr  may  Allaah  be  pleased  with  him the first Caliph, said: "Obey me so long as I obey God and His Prophet. But if I disobey God or the Prophet I shall no longer be entitled to your obedience."

'Umar  may  Allaah  be  pleased  with  him addressed the Muslims saying: "Put me right if you discover any crookedness in me." One of the audience retorted: "By God Almighty! If we had found any crookedness in you, we will put you right with our swords."

It is true that oppression and tyranny ruled in the name of religion. It is also true that such oppression still dominates in some countries in the name of religion. But is religion the only mask used by dictators? Did Hitler rule in the name of religion? It is now admitted even in Russia that Stalin was a tyrant and a dictator who ruled over a police state. But did Stalin rule in the name of religion? Do all tyrants and dictators including Mao Tse-tung, Franco, Malan in South Africa Chiang Kai-shek in Nationalist China, dominate on behalf of religion? There is no doubt that the twentieth century which has managed to get rid of religious domination has witnessed the most monstrous dictatorships which beguile mankind by attractive names no less sacred than religion.

No one would defend dictatorship; no man of free intellect and conscience would approve of it. But any noble principle can be exploited and used as a mask to hide personal ambitions. The French Revolution witnessed the most heinous crimes being committed in the name of liberty. Hundreds of innocent people have been imprisoned, tortured or murdered on behalf of the constitution. 

Should all constitutions be annulled then? Oppression and tyranny dominated some countries in the name of religion. Should we, therefore, abandon all religions? It would be right to abandon religion if religion as such were to advocate oppression and injustice. This cannot be said of Islam, which established the noblest examples of pure justice and equity, not only among the Muslims themselves but between Muslims and their fatal enemies as well.

Tyranny is best fought by teaching the people to believe in God and to respect freedom, which is defended and safeguarded by religion. Such people would not allow the ruler to commit injustice, but will keep him within the limits of his legal powers. I do not think that any system has ever aimed at the establishment of justice or the opposition of tyranny as much as Islam did. Islam made it a duty of the people to put the ruler right if he is unjust with the condition that no bigger calamity occurs as a result of trying to execute the change. The Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allaah exalt his mention ) said: "He who witnesses any vice should change it." He also said: "A word of justice uttered before an unjust ruler is the greatest of Jihaad (holy war)." 

In conclusion, we would like to drop a word of advice to these "progressive free thinkers". The true way of liberation is not the abandonment of religion but in giving people the revolutionary spirit which abhors injustice and rectifies the unjust. This spirit is essentially the spirit of the Islamic people.

The Muslim-Christian dialogue - II

In reply to your demand to allow Christians in Saudi Arabia to both perform their prayers and build churches in the same manner Muslim minorities are given such religious freedom, we would like to call your attention to a great deal of fallacy in this comparison:    

1. Muslim minorities in the West are mostly indigenous. A significant part of their population acquired citizenship while the rest are permanently-residing landed immigrants. It is a fallacy, therefore, to compare work groups contracted for a limited period and subject to conditions of their contracts with the indigenous Muslims or those who have acquired citizenship in the West. 

2. Muslim minorities in the West, excluding the Vatican of course, enjoy less freedom than the Christian minorities in most Muslim countries such as Egypt, Syria, Turkey and others as they (Muslim minorities in the West) still suffer from harassment in the simplest of its religious privacy and practices such as veiling and education in schools and universities. You must have learned that some universities in the West have started to confine certain scientific fields of specialisation to indigenous Christians! 

3. Another fallacy appears in your saying that the Muslims in Rome, the cradle of the Catholic Denomination, were permitted to build a large mosque and cultural centre and this would require that Muslims would act in kind. Rome is the capital of Italy and is neither a capital of the Vatican nor a part of its geographical exclusivity. What is acceptable is a comparison between Italy and Egypt, for instance, where churches and Papal Councils are in Cairo and Alexandria. Comparisons can be made also with Istanbul, Damascus, Morocco, and many Muslim counties. 

4. You have also asked the following question: "Are some Gulf countries as well as Yemen not but a part of the Arabian Peninsula and, therefore, a part of the geographical exclusivity of Islam? If the answer is in the affirmative, then why have Muslims of these countries accepted churches being built on their territory? Does this not mean that exclusivity is a Saudi understanding not shared by the rest of Muslims even in neighbouring Arabian Peninsula countries?" 

Indeed Yemen and the Gulf countries form a part of the Arab Peninsula and, thus, are included in the geographical exclusivity of Islam. These countries have the same firm belief as the Saudis in this principle but, unlike Saudi Arabia, they at a certain time of their history were subjected to British and other imperialism and thus became unable to have their suzerainty over their own religious and political affairs. In such circumstances, imperialism, in a direct challenge to the will of their people, built these churches out of its wish to reaffirm its political presence through a reaffirmation of its religious presence. 

Therefore, the people in these countries did not in reality permit the building of these churches. The real builder was in fact British imperialism, which contravened the norms, traditions and faith of these subjugated people. However, with the grace of Allah, the middle of the Peninsula, i.e. Saudi Arabia was immune from any foreign imperialism. Throughout its history, it has remained governed by its own people, who are strict adherents of Islam, thanks to Allaah. Saudi Arabia, consequently, was not subject to the violations which beset the fringes of the Arab Peninsula. We would like to confirm that it has beforehand been agreed not to tackle cases of certain countries but general cases. 

5. Having replied candidly to your questions, we also have our own queries (regarding, inter alia), the following issues:

1- You know that we always confirm, through crystal-clear texts from the Quran and the Sunnah, our firm belief in all the Prophets and Messengers of Allaah and all their Holy Books. This firm belief is part and parcel of our conviction in the Holy Quran and our Prophet. However, we have so far neither heard nor read any declaration from your side about your belief that Muhammad  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allaah exalt his mention ) is the Prophet of Allaah and Seal of Messengers, that the Holy Quran is a divine book which represents Allaah's complete religion, and contains what had been revealed before, to all Messengers. 

The Second Ecumenical Lodge issued, however, a statement describing Muslims as people of faith and that, on the Day of the Hereafter, they are saved. But this is a general statement which is nowhere from real recognition of Islam and Muslims. Accordingly, you are asked to clearly proclaim your belief in Muhammad as a Prophet and Messenger, that he is the Seal of all Prophets and Messengers, that the Holy Quran is a true book of Allaah and that it is the ending Message containing all divine teachings to mankind. 

2- You believe that the Jews harmed the Messiah, attacked him and, according to you, they even crucified him. They also harmed his mother, Virgin Mary, accused her of prostitution and of dishonour. Yet, we do not find a single Evangelist mission from you among the Jews! You even went as far as absolving them from Christ's blood and from crucifixion, which is against your own belief and religious emblem, the cross, symbol of Christ's tragedy with the Jews. Compare this attitude with the thousands of missions sent by you to Muslim societies with the view to proselyte Muslims or to keep them away from Islam! Is this how you have rewarded our belief in Jesus, and his blessed mother and our reverence to his divine message? 

3- You very much highlighted news of Christian minorities in the Islamic and Arab World, and demanded more freedoms and rights for them. We, however, have not heard you uttering one single word concerning calamities from which the Christian Palestinians in occupied Palestine (in Bethlehem, Hebron, Jerusalem and others) are suffering. This takes place at a time when they are exposed to semi-genocide. Most of them have left their homes. Their churches have been destroyed. They have been deprived from practicing their rituals. Archbishop Kapuchi is now a refugee in Rome, after being expelled from Palestine. There are even others like him such as Archbishops Qarmash, Johan, and others. Is your overlooking of the tragedy of the Christians in Palestine not a kind of sympathy with the Jews on the expense of the rights of Muslims and Christians in Palestine?

4- Jews have contravened the sacredness of Abraham's Shrine which is attributed to the father of Prophets, Ibraaheem (Abraham)  may  Allaah  exalt  his  mention. They have killed Muslims while performing their prayers, shed blood, torn and trodden Holy Quran books but we did not hear any word of condemnation from you or at least a journalistic query of condolences to Muslims regarding the most atrocious massacre and attack on the faith and faithful in Palestine!

Does this not demonstrate your sympathy with the Jews at the expense of Muslims and their religious and national rights in Palestine?

5- How do you justify the American Congress' decision of making Jerusalem an eternal capital for Israel as a result of the large demonstration organised by the American Churches including Catholic and non-Catholic ones? About one million of these churches' followers participated in the above demonstration. Consequently, how do you want us to understand this integration between the Church's attitude and that of the Congress? Is this not a clear demonstration of hatred to Islam and Muslims as far as their most immediate affairs are concerned? The Vatican did not issue any denunciation regarding this damaging stance about the Muslims of the world, which constitutes a flagrant attack on the rights of Palestinian Christians and Muslims. Is this not a clear alignment with the increasing Jewish aggression and injustices?  

6- Had it not been that you opened up this venue of dialogue, we would not have reacted in kind. However, we are fully prepared to present the many examples of wrongs in the Christians' stance about Islam and Muslims. We are equally prepared to answer all your written questions. We have no feeling of embarrassment vis-à-vis any query, be it religious, cultural or historical. We hope that you have same level of preparedness and non-embarrassment with regards to any questions addressed to you about your religious values or your past and present attitudes about Islam and Muslims.

The #Muslim_Christian_dialogue - I

Allaah Almighty has perfected for us our religion, and completed upon us His favour and has chosen Islam to be our religion. Our belief in His Oneness and in the Messengers whom He sent to His creation is a part of our Islamic creed.

    

For some time, Muslims and Christians lived together in harmony. Muslims have always been committed to the glorious principles laid in Islam and stated in the Holy Quran; Allaah says what means: "There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion ..." [Quran: 2:256], and "For you is your religion, and for me is my religion." [Quran: 109:6] Unfortunately, the Jews succeeded in poisoning this cordial relationship and in instigating disorder whenever possible.

Discussions, argumentation, encounters and accusations arose, and this and other reactors led to the following well-known three expressions in this Muslim and Christian context: Dialogue, Christianisation, and persecution.

In its practice of Christianisation, or missionary work, the Christian West resorted to unlawful means crowned by western imperialism of Muslim states. This imperialism was effectively doing lip service to missionary work. Missionaries succeeded in camouflaging imperialists' goals. Their evangelism was introduced in combination with food, dress, medicine and book. In the aftermath of the collapse of communism in Muslim Albania, Muslims tired out therein by hunger, were handed the Bible together with food!

    

Military imperialism came to an end, only to be replaced by cultural and economic invasion. Many among us are now adopting the Westerners' mentality, priding themselves in speaking their languages, importing their way of life, modelling themselves after them and praising their culture! 

Persecution is a big lie being an illusion created by those Christians who are hiding their real motives. However, Allaah says what means: "…And Allaah is predominant over His affair, but most of the people do not know ..." [Quran: 12:21]

The Vatican was so enthusiastic for an Islamic-Christian dialogue that it founded a special office in 1967 called: "The Papal Council for Inter-religious Dialogue."

    

Though the ultimate goal of this dialogue is to bolster the effectiveness of religion, deepening its spiritual hold in the family and society and bringing back absent principles and values, the Vatican's Church totally missed the point of proper dialogue when it declared that dialogue serves at the end of missionary work. This meant opening up of new horizons to evangelise Muslim societies through dialogue!

    

Consequently, we, in the following, mention a specimen for Muslim-Christian dialogue showing vividly the extent of the Jews' control over Christian thinking in both the West and the USA. 

    

Dr. Khalid Uksha, a Jordanian Christian responsible for Islamic affairs at the Papal Council – Vatican, said: "I request that the colleagues in the Islamic delegation be patient because of our repeated questioning of Saudi Arabia's prevention of building churches on its soil, in spite of the fact that there is now around half a million Catholics together with a similar number from other Christian denominations (in that country). This prevention leads us to the belief that the Christian minority in Saudi Arabia is deprived from its religious rights and from performing its worship unlike Muslim Minorities in the Christian West."

The above query was replied to as follows: 

1. "We assure our colleague, Dr. Khalid, and all other members of the Catholic delegation that repetition of this query neither embarrasses nor annoys us. The aforementioned prevention is non-negotiable, being a matter of principle. This is a case of faith which has been clearly expounded in our Islamic system according to the Holy Quran and the Sunnah. 

2. In reply to this query, we have always confirmed that we Muslims, and you also at the Catholic Church, believe that each faith should have its geographical exclusivity, which no other faith would share. This is in order that complete freedom and independence would be guaranteed for such a faith on its soil. 

For instance, you have geographical exclusivity for Catholicism within the Vatican. Further, you have proclaimed that the Vatican is the state of Catholic denomination, and patron of its followers worldwide. To ensure the freedom and exclusivity of Catholicism, you prevented any coexistence within the Vatican of any other faith or denomination. Moreover, you even disallowed building of churches there affiliated to Protestants, Orthodox and others, let alone building a single mosque for Muslims.

Similarly, we Muslims apply this sound principle condoned by our Islamic law. In his traditions, our Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allaah exalt his mention ) confirmed that the entire Arabian Peninsula represents geographical exclusivity for the Islamic faith. No other faith should coexist with it within the same area. This allows full freedom for our religion, whereas outside the peninsula, churches are built adjacent to mosques in the Muslim lands. Therein, Christians are enjoying their full religious and national freedom. 

The Leader of the Faithful, the second Caliph 'Umar bin Al-Khattaab  may  Allaah  be  pleased  with  him refrained from entering the 'Resurrection Church' to pray in and said: "I fear that Muslims would say: here is the place 'Umar prayed… and turn this place into a mosque." 

As you may know, this Church's keys are until now kept with a Muslim family as a result of an accord reached by Christian denominations regarding this matter to end the feud which ensued regarding who would be honoured with the possession of its keys.

    

We have no wish to argue with you concerning your claim that in Saudi Arabia there are one million subjects affiliated to different Christian denominations, out of which there are half a million Catholics. This figure is very much exaggerated and needs utmost accuracy. We, however, would like to confirm that in Saudi Arabia there is not a single non-Muslim who acquires permanent residence.

All non-Muslims, including Christians and others, have entry visas to carry out temporary work. Their work contracts stipulate that they should respect norms and laws of the State. As it is known, all parties of the contract are bound by its context. Consequently, if a non-Muslim feels that the non-existence of a church is going to represent a religious problem for him, then he is free not to continue his work. 

As far as performing his prayers privately, a Christian is fully free to do so whether at home or in embassies and consulates. Saudi Arabia's system allows opening private schools for the communities affiliated to embassies and consulates.

Freedom in Islam and in democracy

There is no word that nations have called for, spoken about in length, and desired fervently in their hearts more than freedom. People have delivered speeches about it, written books on the subject, composed newspaper columns in support of it, and have raised banners calling for it; they have made it an objective for which all other matters could be sacrificed. On many occasions, people have keenly called for it while being unaware of what they wished to get from it.

This has remained the case until it became the means by which politicians achieved their political aims and personal interests, and used their apparent pursuit of it to attract people’s attention and gain their support. In many cases, this claimed pursuit of freedom has become a means and a justification to destroy any real freedom and wage wars against many nations.

It was made to sound as if democracy is the way to achieve such freedom, because democracy is founded upon freedom; thus the proponents of this ideology have made having a democratic system mandatory for achieving freedom; they argue that one leads to the other, and must exist in order for the other to do so; therefore, one who loves freedom must call for democracy and love it, and vice versa. Such people also claim that, consequently, whoever hates democracy and is an enemy of it is also an enemy of freedom.

The questions that arise here are: does democracy (as practiced by the Western nations) truly achieve the freedom that mankind desires and requires? Does it even raise the level of freedom that people enjoy? What is the type of freedom that democracy achieves for nations, and where are its boundaries? Is an American or a European truly free? Are the lives that they live in their nations ones of freedom, or even partly so?  Does Islam oppose the principle of freedom or does it approve of it and call for it? If Islam does approve of it, then how does it deal with it and expect people to practice it, and what are the permissible types of freedom within Islamic boundaries? Also, is freedom in Islam the same as that in democracy, or are they different? Which one of the two 'freedoms' is more realistic and coincides with the sought freedom, the one in Islam or the one in democracy?

All these questions and many others force one to compare between freedom as Islam presents it and calls for it - how it was practiced under Islamic rule for fourteen hundred years and is still being practiced today, and how freedom is practiced in democratic systems, and how contemporary countries and nations apply it.

This comparison must be made in order to see which of the two is more beneficial, more realistic, more honest and closer to the truth.

The limited human mind is what defined freedom in democracy and decided what is good and what is bad in it according to what its desires and lusts imposed, which entails that freedom in democracy becomes limited at times and broadens at others, depending on what the decision makers feel is beneficial at the time.

This means that the nations who practice such systems become experimental laboratories and are in a state constant flux regarding what is allowed and what is not.

In Islam on the other hand, freedom is clearly defined and its limits and boundaries have been set by Allaah alone, who is the infallible Creator of all mankind Whose Qualities are perfect and beyond defect, weakness or incapability. He is All-Knowing of the condition of His creation and Knows best what their requirements are and what suits them.

Thus, freedom in Islam has a distinct feature, which is stability - what was permissible in Islam fourteen hundred years ago remains so until the Day of Resurrection.

In Islam, every person knows what he can and cannot do as well as the areas in which there is room for manoeuvre, according to what Allaah has permitted. Furthermore, freedom in Islam is underpinned by ultimate justice and authority because it comes from Allaah, contrary to that defined by democracy, which is man-made and therefore fallible and subject to shortcomings and injustice. In democracy, the limits of freedom move within the circle that has been defined by human legislators.

In democracy, freedom is opposed to and conflicts with whatever is defined as evil by human legislators, which, due to their limited knowledge and abilities, entails the inclusion of much evil in the circle of what is good and allowable. It also implies that much good will be included in the circle of the evil and forbidden.

Under democracy, many evil things have been made permissible based on its definition of freedom, but were later found to be immoral and oppressive, which caused them to then be prohibited. Likewise, many matters that were later found to be beneficial were initially prohibited, and this constant fluctuation causes the concept of freedom in democracy to be undermined and belittled.

Conversely, in Islam, freedom is opposed to and conflicts with whatever Allaah has defined as evil due to His comprehensive Knowledge and infallibility. Allaah has only permitted what is good and beneficial for mankind and has prohibited only that which is evil and dispraised. Consequently, the range of freedom in Islam is only from what is good to what is praiseworthy.

Freedom in democracy only serves to enslave people to one another - people who should in reality be slaves to Allaah only; it causes people to be under the control of others who may be lower in status than themselves; those who are in control are the ones who set their rules and forbid and allow them whatever they wish – all that those who are under such control can do is to submit and obey. What type of freedom is this which entails enslavement to other humans?

In Islam, freedom frees man from enslavement to other humans to the comprehensive enslavement to Allaah Alone. One might argue that both are forms of enslavement, so what is the difference?

- Allaah is the Creator; He provides for man, facilitated the universe for him and guided him to the right path; therefore, Allaah alone has the right to be worshipped and man should be grateful to Him and obey His commandments. Worshipping the Creator gives the slave might, honour and dignity, while on the other hand, being enslaved by other humans who are weak and incapable is a form of oppression and punishment.

- Man was created with the natural disposition of being a slave, so if he is not a slave to Allaah, then he will certainly become a slave to another human, and this is a false state of affairs, regardless of the form it takes and the status of the human who he is enslaved to.

- Worshipping Allaah represents the ultimate freedom because it frees one from being enslaved to other false gods. In democracy, freedom places man under varied types of pressures and external strains that make him lose a great portion of his freedom of thinking and choice.

Examples of these pressures are the media; the pressure of fulfilling his lusts using different means to do so; the pressure of earning provisions, which is one of the greatest that people face; the pressure that politicians and religious leaders place upon people, and how some of these people fabricate and alter facts; the pressure of intoxicants and drugs, which are now widespread; and the latest pressure, which is the threat to anyone who refuses to give in to the instructions that have been set to deal with the phenomenon of 'terrorism,' which is a powerful means of placing great pressure upon people.

These types of pressure deprive man from a great deal of the freedom of choice, freedom of thinking and freedom of adopting opinions that he would have taken if these pressures did not exist. These pressures deprive man from his freedom, despite the claim of some who live under such a system to be free.

The contemporary tyrants do not need to exert much effort to accomplish what they wish from other nations; all they have to do is apply some of these pressures for a short period, and sure enough, other nations usually surrender to their requests. These pressures are referred in the Quran.

Allaah Says (what means): “Those who were oppressed will say to those who were arrogant: 'Rather, [it was your] conspiracy of night and day when you were ordering us to disbelieve in Allaah and attribute to Him equals.' But they will [all] confide regret when they see the punishment; and We will put shackles on the necks of those who disbelieved. Will they be recompensed except for what they used to do?”  [Quran 34: 33] They plot continuously, day and night, in a way that prevents one from having an opportunity to pause and think correctly in order to be guided to a sound decision.

In Islam, man is freed from all external pressures and effects that may limit or even deprive him from his freedom of choice and decision. Islaam frees man from all such pressures.

In democracy, freedom exposes man to all evils, corruption, and everything else that would ruin his good morals and pure nature; it causes him to become inclined towards aggression and abnormality. Its similitude is like that of a person driving a car without brakes who is also negligent of other drivers and pedestrians, therefore, he would slam into others and cause many accidents.

On the other hand, in Islam, freedom is a cause for one to adopt the finest and most courteous morals and behaviour, it does not allow one to transgress in any way and preserves man’s health, faith and thinking; its similitude is like that of one who drives a car with excellent brakes and who stops where he is supposed to and drives only when it is safe to do so.

Freedom in democracy appears as if it is a gift that man gives to another fellow human, and it is as if he has the right to give him as much of it as he desires and whenever it suits him. In Islam however, it is a right that Allaah has granted to His slaves, and no human has the right to deprive others from it except for a reason that is legislated by Allaah.

The words of ‘Umar,  may  Allaah  be  pleased  with  him clearly reflect this when he said: “Who gave you the right to enslave others when they were born free?”

This is freedom in democracy and in Islam, so which is worthier for the title?

Allaah Says (what means): “…And remain on a right course as you are commanded and do not follow their inclinations...” [Quran 26:15]

The light of the truth and the fire of misconception

We live in a disturbed world. We encounter waves upon waves of darkness. One who searches for the truth will struggle to see it, except for he upon whom Allaah bestows His mercy and guides to it.

There are a multitude of television channels that people are exposed to today, to the extent that the average university graduate watches six hundred (600) hours of television annually. Eighty percent (80%) of teenagers consider television as their main source of information, to say nothing of the effects of the internet. This is how great the effect of this device is on them, to the point that one of those surveyed stated that he flips between fifty two (52) television channels daily.

Add to this other means, whether, text, audio or video, that influence people's minds, and we come to realise that there is an immense negative effect.

It is a common tool that has always been used by the enemies of Islam. They do not touch upon any aspect of our religion except that they arouse misconceptions regarding it, and this represents a round in the battle between the followers of the truth and the followers of falsehood.

Man’s natural disposition is to follow Islam as Allaah Says (what means): “So direct your face [i.e., self] toward the religion, inclining to truth. [Adhere to] the Fitrah [i.e., natural disposition] of Allaah upon which He has created [all] people…” [Quran 30: 30] This is what the enemies of Islam have launched a war against, in an attempt to divert people from our religion. In a Sacred Hadeeth, the Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allaah exalt his mention ) narrated that Allaah Says: “I have created people upon natural disposition (Islam), but the devils then divert them from their religion and deem lawful for them what I have prohibited and command them to associate with Me that for which I have not sent down authority.”

The situation has stemmed into people being divided into two groups: those who believe and those who disbelieve. This is the wisdom of Allaah, as He Says (what means): “And if your Lord had willed, He could have made mankind one community; but they will not cease to differ.” [Quran 11: 118] A group of people will go to Hell and a group will go to Paradise. This is based on His ultimate wisdom. Hell will be filled, as Allaah Says (what means): “…And the word of your Lord is to be fulfilled that: 'I will surely fill Hell with jinn and men all together.'” [Quran 11: 119] Allaah has addressed both Hell and Paradise and informed them that He will admit into each enough inhabitants to fill them.

Allaah has distinguished the people of the truth from those of falsehood saying (what means): “Not equal are the blind and the seeing. Nor are the darkness and the light. Nor are the shade and the heat. And not equal are the living and the dead. Indeed, Allaah causes to hear whom he wills, but you cannot make hear those in the graves. You [O Muhammad] are not but a warner.” [Quran 35: 19-23]

This propagation of misconceptions through satellite television channels, radio stations, magazines and newspapers is such a dangerous development that it could lead to mass confusion and disorder; it may thereby kill people’s hearts so that they may no longer possess the ability to distinguish the truth.

It is the will of Allaah that he established proof against mankind by revealing His books and sending His messengers, the Quran being the last and final proof against His creation. Allaah Says (what means): “And thus We have revealed to you an inspiration of Our command [i.e., the Quran]. You did not know what is the Book or [what is] faith, but We have made it a light by which We guide whom We will of Our slaves...” [Quran 26: 52]

It is the light of guidance and the rescue for those who are exposed to such misconceptions. Allaah Says (what means): “Allaah is the Light [i.e., the source and bestower of light and enlightenment] of the heavens and the earth. The example of His light [i.e., guidance] is like a niche within which is a lamp. The lamp is within glass, the glass as if it were a pearly [white] star lit from [the oil of] a blessed olive tree, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil would almost glow even if untouched by fire…” [Quran 24: 35]

These misconceptions and falsehoods which the disbelievers propagate are described by Allaah as (what means): “But the disbelievers – their deeds are like a mirage in a lowland which a thirsty one thinks is water until, when he comes to it, he finds it nothing but finds Allaah before him, and He will pay him in full his due; and Allaah is Swift in Account. Or [they are] like darknesses within a deep sea which is covered by waves, upon which are waves, over which are clouds – darknesses, some of them upon others. When one puts out his hand [therein], he can hardly see it. And for he for whom Allaah has not granted light – for him there is no light.” [Quran 24: 39-40]

Some people are deafened to hearing the truth and blinded from seeing it, they can never be guided to it. There are, however, others for whom Allaah opened their hearts and guided to the truth; these people acknowledged and accepted this and are alert to what Allaah has revealed. Such people can clearly see the truth and easily recognise it, and this is the light that Allaah addressed in the abovementioned (thirty-fifth) verse of chapter An-Noor.

Imaam Ibn Al-Qayyim  may  Allaah  have  mercy  upon  him stated: “Belief is complete light, and produces light, and the abode of this light is the slave's heart and soul; disbelief is utter darkness and leads to darkness, the place of which is also in the heart and soul… When one whose heart is filled with light reads the Quran, he feels as if its meanings were written in his heart.”

One of the ways of Allaah is His decree that conflict would always exist between the followers of the truth and those of falsehood, as He Says (what means): “…And if it were not for Allaah checking [some] people by means of others, the earth would have been corrupted…” [Quran 2: 251] This is something that is continuous, but the final victory and good end will be in favour of the believers, as Allaah Says (what means): “Allaah has written [i.e., decreed]: 'I will surely overcome, I and My messengers' …” [Quran 58: 21]

Allaah willing, nobody can mislead with a misconception one whose heart is pure and upon the sound nature on which he was created. When a misconception presents itself to a believer whose heart is filled with light that he derives from the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of the Messenger  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allaah exalt his mention ) such a believer will strike truth upon the falsehood and it destroys it, causing it to vanish.

True happiness and guidance lies in following the way of the Messenger  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allaah exalt his mention ) and real misery is the fruit of differing from his way. Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah  may  Allaah  have  mercy  upon  him said: “The message (of Muhammad  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allaah exalt his mention )) is light and life for the universe, and is the way to its reformation. If life and light are missing, life becomes dark and cursed, except for the parts of it on which the message was revealed. Likewise is the case for the slave: unless the light of the message has risen in his heart and has affected him, he will live in darkness until death.”

The door of misconception was closed during the time of the Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allaah exalt his mention ) and during the caliphate of Abu Bakr  may  Allaah  be  pleased  with  him but it was burst open by the assassination of ‘Umar  may  Allaah  be  pleased  with  him. It was then that religious innovations began to appear, and the companions of the Messenger  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allaah exalt his mention ) who had remained resisted them resiliently. Things have continued to deteriorate from that time until misconceptions have prevailed.

Allaah with His comprehensive Knowledge knew that such misconceptions would appear, which is why He has instilled refutations for them in the Quran. For example, a man once approached one of the Companions  may  Allaah  be  pleased  with  him holding a bone of a dead person and then crushed it in front of him, asking: “Can your Lord revive this after what I have just done to it?” Allaah then revealed the following verses (which mean): “Does man not consider that We created him from a [mere] sperm-drop – then at once he is a clear adversary. And he presents for Us an example and forgets his [own] creation. He says: 'Who will give life to bones while they are disintegrated?' Say: 'He will give them life who produced them the first time; and He is, of all creation, Knowing.'” [Quran 36: 77-79]

Also, the disbelievers claimed that the Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allaah exalt his mention ) was receiving and relating the Quran from a non-Arab carpenter in Makkah, so Allaah revealed the following verse (which means): “And We certainly know that they say: 'It is only a human being who teaches him [i.e., the Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allaah exalt his mention )].' The tongue of the one they refer to is foreign, and this [recitation, i.e., Quran] is in a clear Arabic language.” [Quran 16: 103]

The enemies of Islam have not left a single field except that they have aroused misconceptions regarding it, even when it comes to Allaah, an example of which is the claim of the Christians that Allaah is one of three (i.e., the concept of trinity).

An important contemporary example of mass misconception is globalisation, and this is something that we must all combat. Under the pretext of this, everything is allowed, including television channels that propagate Christianity and attack Islam, the Quran and the Messenger  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allaah exalt his mention ) and some of these attacks are claimed, deceitfully of course, to be based on authentic prophetic narrations from Al-Bukhaari. People therefore watch this and complain of thereby becoming confused.

It is important, therefore, that a Muslim distances himself from misconceptions and refuses to expose himself to them; he must leave the matter of refuting misconceptions and debating with those who propagate them to the scholars. How can a Muslim who believes in Allaah and the Last Day attend gatherings or locations in which misconceptions are discussed and expose his eyes to the prohibited matters that occur in them and then complain of being confused? When one watches any of the multitudes of satellite television channels that propagate misconception, he is committing a prohibition, because Allaah Says (what means): “And when you see those who engage in [offensive] discourse concerning Our verses, then turn away from them until they enter into another conversation. And if Satan should cause you to forget, then do not remain after the reminder with the wrongdoing people.” [Quran 6: 68]

Imaam Ash-Shawkaani  may  Allaah  have  mercy  upon  him said: “This verse includes a stern reminder to those who undermine sitting with innovators who play with the words found in the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah and who distort the correct usage of words. The very least that one is required to do regarding such people is to abandon sitting with them, which is an effortless action.”

We have seen some of these cursed gatherings, refuted falsehood and supported the truth on many occasions to the best of our ability, but even those who are well founded upon knowledge have problems when they sit with the people who propagate such filth. Therefore, if a common man allows such people to talk and sits and listens to them, he will certainly become confused.

Misrepresenting Islam

The Problem of Jizyah:

One of the problems raised by missionaries and orientalists is the imposition of the Jizyah on all non-Muslims. This institution has been so misinterpreted and misexplained that even the non-Muslims feel that it is some kind of religion-based discrimination against them. This is not the case. All the Jizyah amounts are to be a financial obligation placed upon those who do not have to pay the Zakaat. As the ratio of these two taxes is the same, it is obvious that the Jizyah is simply a technique used by Islamic governments to make sure that everyone pays his fair share. If the term 'Jizyah' is too offensive to non-Muslims, it can always be changed: ‘Umar bin Al-Khattaab  may  Allaah  be  pleased  with  him levied the Jizyah upon the Christians of the Bani Taghlib and called it Sadaqah (alms) out of consideration for their feelings.

The noted historian Sir Thomas W. Arnold in his Call to Islam, states:

"This tax was not imposed on the Christians, as some would have us think, as a penalty for their refusal to accept the Muslim faith, but was paid by them in common with the other Thimmies or non-Muslim subjects of the state whose religion precluded them from serving in the army, in return for the protection secured for them by the arms of the Mussalmans, (i.e. the Muslims). When the people of Hirah contributed the sum agreed upon, they expressly mentioned that they paid this Jizyah on condition that: 'The Muslims and their leader protect us from those who would oppress us, whether they be Muslims or others.’"

In his covenant with the people of certain cities near Al-Hayrah, Khaalid bin Al-Waleed  may  Allaah  be  pleased  with  him recorded: “If we are able to protect you, we deserve the collection of Jizyah; otherwise, we shall not offer you protection."

The seriousness with which the Muslims took their covenants with the non-Muslims is well illustrated by the following incident. During the reign of the second caliph, ‘Umar bin al-Khattaab  may  Allaah  be  pleased  with  him the Roman emperor, Heraclius, raised a huge army to repel the Muslim forces. It was, thus, incumbent upon the Muslims to concentrate their efforts on the battle. When the commander of the Muslims, Abu ‘Ubaydah  may  Allaah  be  pleased  with  him heard this news, he wrote to his officials in all conquered cities in Syria and ordered them to return the Jizyah which had been levied in those cities. He also addressed the public saying; “We are returning your money because we know that the enemy has gathered troops. By the terms stipulated in the covenant, you have obliged us to protect you. However, since we are now unable to fulfil these conditions, we have returned to you what you paid to us. We shall abide by the terms agreed upon in the covenant, if Allaah helps us to rout the enemy”. Thus, a huge amount was taken from the state treasury and returned to the Christians, making them very happy. They prayed for and blessed the Muslim commanders. They exclaimed: “May Allaah help you to overcome your enemies and return you to us safely. If the enemy were in your place, they would never have returned anything to us, rather they would have taken all our remaining property!"

The Jizyah was also imposed on Muslim men who could afford to buy their way out of military service. If a Christian group elected to serve in the state’s military forces, it was exempted from the Jizyah. Historical examples of this abound: the Jarajima, a Christian tribe living near Antioch (now in Turkey), by undertaking to support the Muslims and to fight on the battle front, did not have to pay the Jizyah and were entitled to a share of the captured booty. When the Islamic conquests reached northern Persia in 22 A.H., a similar covenant was established with a tribe living on the boundaries of those territories. They were consequently exempted from Jizyah in view of their military services.

Other examples are to be found during the history of the Ottoman Empire: the Migaris, a group of Albanian Christians, were exempted from the Jizyah for undertaking to watch and guard the mountain ranges of Cithaeron and Geraned (which stretch to the Gulf of Corinth). Christians, who served as the vanguard of the Turkish army for road repairs, bridge construction and so on were also exempted. As a reward, they were also provided with some lands, free of all taxes. The Christians of Hydra were exempted when they agreed to supply a group of 250 strong men for the (Muslim) naval fleet. The Armatolis, Christians from southern Romania, were also exempted from the tax, for they constituted a vital element in the Turkish armed forces during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The Mirdites, an Albanian Catholic clan who lived in the mountains of northern Scutari, were exempted on the condition that they would offer an armoured battalion in wartime. The Jizyah was also not imposed on the Greek Christians who had supervised the building of viaducts, which carried water to Constantinople, nor on those who guarded the ammunition in that city, as just compensation for their services to the state. However, Egyptian Muslim peasants exempted from military service were still required to pay the Jizyah.

How was Islam spread? - II

The exemplary life-style of Muslim individuals

Besides many other reasons which are responsible for the spread of Islam, it is the exemplary life-style and unceasing efforts of individual Muslims to transmit the message of Islam throughout the world which lie at the root of the conquest of the hearts by Islam. Islamic universalism is closely associated with the principle of Amr Bil-Ma'roof (enjoining the good) for Islam is to be spread by Muslims by means of Amr Bil-Ma'roof. This principle seeks to convey the message of Islam to all human beings in the world and to establish a model Islamic community on a world-wide basis. The Islamic community is introduced by the Quran as a model community: "Thus, We have made of you a nation justly balanced, that you might be witnesses (models) for the peoples, and the Messenger has been a witness for you." [Quran, 2:143]

A Muslim or the Muslim community as a whole thus has a goal to achieve: This is the spread of Islam, conveying the truth to the remotest corners of the world, the eradication of oppression and tyranny and the establishment of justice all over the world. This requires the Muslim to lead an exemplary life, and thus the moral and ethical values of Islam have usually played an important part in the spread of Islam. Here follow the impressions of the influence of Islamic ethics on black Africans had by a Western writer of the nineteenth century:

How does Islam change the nations that have accepted it?

As to the effects of Islam when first embraced by a Negro tribe, can there, when viewed as a whole, be any reasonable doubt? Polytheism disappears almost instantaneously; sorcery, with its attendant evils, gradually dies away; human sacrifice becomes a thing of the past. The general moral elevation is most marked; the natives begin for the first time in their history to dress, and that neatly. Squalid filth is replaced by some approach to personal cleanliness; hospitality becomes a religious duty; drunkenness, instead of the rule, becomes a comparatively rare exception...chastity is looked upon as one of the highest, and becomes, in fact, one of the commoner virtues. It is idleness that henceforward degrades, and industry that elevates, instead of the reverse. Offences are henceforward measured by a written code instead of the arbitrary caprice of a chieftain - a step, as everyone will admit, of vast importance in the progress of a tribe. The Mosque gives an idea of architecture at all events higher than any the Negro has yet had. A thirst for literature is created and that for works of science and philosophy as well as for commentaries on the Quran. (Quoted from Waitz by B. Smith, Muhammad and Muhammadanism, pp.42-43)

The tolerance of Islam

The tolerance of Islam is another factor in the spread of Islam. The British historian Toynbee praises this tolerance towards the People of the Book after comparing it with the attitude of the Christians towards Muslims and Jews in their lands. (A Historian's Approach to Religion, p.246) T. Link attributes the spread of Islam to the credibility of its principles together with its tolerance, persuasion and other kinds of attractions. (A History of Religion) Makarios, Orthodox Patriorch of Antioch in the seventeenth century, compared the harsh treatment received by the Russians of the Orthodox Church at the hands of the Roman Catholic Poles with the tolerant attitude towards Orthodox Christians shown by the Ottoman Government and prayed for the Sultans. (T. Link, A History of Religion)

This is not the only example of preference by the followers of the religions for Muslim rule over that of their own co-religionists. The Orthodox Christians of Byzantium openly expressed their preference for the Ottoman turban in Istanbul to the hats of the Catholic cardinals. Elisee Reclus, the French traveler of the nineteenth century, wrote that the Muslim Turks allowed all the followers of different religions to perform their religious duties and rituals, and that the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Sultan were more free to live their own lives than the Christians who lived in the lands under the rule of any rival Christian sect. (Nouvelle Geographie Universelle, Vol. IX) Popescu Ciocanel pays tribute to the Muslim Turks by stating that it was luck for the Romanian people that they lived under the government of the Turks rather than the domination of the Russians and Austrians. Otherwise, he points out, "no trace of the Romanian nation would have remained." (La Crise de L'Orient)

How did Muslims behave towards the people of the conquered lands?

The Muslim's attitude towards the people of the conquered lands is quite clear in the instructions given by the rightly-guided Caliphs  may  Allaah  be  pleased  with  them:

Always keep fear of God in your mind; remember that you cannot afford to do anything without His grace. Do not forget that Islam is a mission of peace and love. Keep the Noble Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allaah exalt his mention ) before you as a model of bravery and piety. Do not destroy fruit-trees nor fertile fields in your paths. Be just, and spare the feelings of the vanquished. Respect all religious persons who live in hermitages or convents and spare their edifices. Do not kill civilians. Do not outrage the chastity of women and the honor of the conquered. Do not harm old people and children. Do not accept any gifts from the civil population of any place. Do not billet your soldiers or officers in the houses of civilians. Do not forget to perform your daily prayers. Fear God. Remember that death will inevitably come to everyone of you some time or other, even if you are thousands of miles away from a battle field; therefore be always ready to face death. (Andrew Miller, Church History)

A historical episode which Balazuri, a famous Muslim historian, tells about how pleased the native people were with their Muslim conquerors is of great significance:

When Heraclius massed his troops against the Muslims, and the Muslims heard that they were coming to meet them, they refunded the inhabitants of Hims the tribute they had taken from them, saying: "We are too busy to support and protect you. Take care of yourselves." But the people of Hims replied: "We like your rule and justice far better than the state of oppression and tyranny in which we were. The army of Heraclius we shall indeed, with your help, repulse from the city." The Jews rose and said: "We swear by the Torah, no governor of Heraclius shall enter the city of Hims unless we are first vanquished and exhausted." Saying this, they closed the gates of the city and guarded them. The inhabitants of other cities - Christians and Jews- that had been capitulated did the same. When, by God's help, the unbelievers were defeated and Muslims won, they opened the gates of their cities, went out with the singers and players of music, and paid the tribute. (Futuh al-Buldan)