Friday, March 29, 2024
04:03 PM (GMT +5)

Go Back   CSS Forums > Off Topic Section > Islam

Islam Invite to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better. Truly, your Lord knows best who has gone astray from His Path, and He is the Best Aware of those who are guided." Holy Qur'an 16:125

Reply Share Thread: Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook     Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter     Submit Thread to Google+ Google+    
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old Monday, October 10, 2011
mano g's Avatar
40th CTP (DMG)
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2011 - Merit 51
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Islamabad
Posts: 681
Thanks: 771
Thanked 1,424 Times in 486 Posts
mano g is a splendid one to beholdmano g is a splendid one to beholdmano g is a splendid one to beholdmano g is a splendid one to beholdmano g is a splendid one to beholdmano g is a splendid one to beholdmano g is a splendid one to beholdmano g is a splendid one to behold
Default Jihad—the Struggle

"And the servants of (Allah) Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, hey say, Peace!"

(Al-Furqân 25:63)



Jihad is maintained as sixth article of Islam by a majority of Muslim scholars. Importance of Jihad is established and unquestionably accepted in all of Islamic schools of thought. The word Jihad has been derived from the infinitive jahada (JHD), which literally means ‘to struggle, to strive, or to make an effort’. Hebrew equivalent of the root word is most probably dîyn (to struggle/strive) and the noun can be equated with meribah (strife or provocation). The word in question, if taken in its Islamic context, means "the strife in the name of God for the privilege and dissemination of the religion of peace and submission". Checking the traditional misconception of the West concerning this issue, we proceed to examine the suborbital meanings of Jihad.



The struggle as a religious institution in Islam is of two kinds i.e. ‘Jihad-e-Asghar and Jihad-e-Akbar’ (the lesser struggle and the greater struggle). The point to be noted here is that the 'greater or major struggle' i.e. Jihad-e-Akbar is executed against one’s inherent self, and the end purpose of this type of Jihad is to annihilate the unfair instinct and innate capacity for evil that may behaviorally prove harmful to the rest of mankind. Hence, it is like a limitedly done instructive act of mortification, which does not involve ascetic practices or the need of monasteries. On the other hand, the 'lesser struggle' (Jihad-e-Asghar) is concerned with the use of sovereign power against the riotous folk—the power being similar to the sovereignty of a state. The lesser struggle is thereby conditionally conducted against the division of mischievous individuals who are always prone to threat the socio-political order of society and are also hazardous to the very existence of human life. Thus, Jihad is divisible in internal and external factors, whereof the former being the superior one. The latter type of Jihad has further subdivisions that are respectively applicable in certain accorded or adapted circumstances in due proportion. This is the sovereign right of the state to police its jurisdiction, while internationally United Nations Organization undertakes the exactly same job. Islam gives the right of Jihad, the sovereign right to police, to the most central agency of Islamic Shari’ah that Glorious Qur'an terms as "Ulul-Amr'. Therefore, Jihad-e-Asghar i.e. the use of power is an exclusive prerogative of state, and in this pretext, US is also doing Jihad against the menace of terrorism to safeguard the world-peace. The use of power, if just and justified, is thereby an essential factor to draw balance in every society, which counters the force of opposition and the difference between the force used by the opposite poles being the legitimate and illegitimate use of power.



The conception of the so-called Holy War, which actually was originated among the Christians of Middle Age, has been garbled with the chaste concept of Jihad by the Western Orientalist scholarship and media. Nonetheless, Jihad has an entirely diverse hermeneutics as well as scope of connotation. There is no space for such terminology as Holy War in Islamic theology nor do Muslims believe in slaughtering human beings as an act perceived to be sacred. Glorious Qur'an and the bulk of Hadith literature do not accommodate anything like sacrum bellum, "Holy War". Glorious Qur’an, in fact, condemns unjust warfare, killing, and all kinds of aggression.[1] Interestingly, the Arabic word for holy war is "Herb-e-Muqaddasah", which has not even once occurred throughout the text of Glorious Qur'an. The best way to defend a religious disclaimer is the citation from the most central scripture of that particular religion. We will also follow the same track to elude any discrepancies and misconceptions, which have already damaged the real face of the conception and fostered the tension due to mistranslations and analyses by amateurs. Glorious Qur'an has employed the both noun and the root of Jihad as many as 36 times, and quite surprisingly, none of them invokes for human slaughter and the Western taboo namely 'terrorism'.[2] However, if we still emphasize on the aspect of sword’s use as the only implication of Jihad, it would be entirely incoherent connotation in regard to Qur’an and Sunnah, hence a sheer injustice to the spirit of the concept. Jihad does not only call for war, but it also speaks for integrated peace, since it is perfectly applicable in peace times with its moral and ethical agencies. Use of power is only a minor aspect of the Islamic conception of Jihad fi Sabeelillah, "struggle in the way of God".



During the last quarter of the 20th century, the label of religious fundamentalism has been pasted upon both practicing and nominal Muslims. Whatever the truth behind World Trade Center tragedy, Muslims were taken as the exclusive culprits of this act of terror. The population of the world has been successfully deceived after the occurrence of 9/11 whence the taboo of ‘fundamentalism’ became an insignia of Islamic World. The gradual increase of anarchy in international peace is constituted by multifarious elements in its background. Like the eruption of volcanic lava, which runs through different processes to become a homogeneous fluid, the layer of terrorism must be a reaction to certain pressing factors that catalyzed the hatred against Western suppression and pulling Muslims in an undeclared armed struggle. First of all, we need to review the disorder on economic grounds. After the collapse of Communism, the Occidental capitalistic system of economics—a system which is like a hungry serpent—has perpetrated a halt on the economy of the poor nations. Muslim nations among these curbed economies Muslim are on the primary level. To remove the hunger of this selfish serpent, the industrial countries profoundly exploit the resources of poor nations—as we have already seen in colonial period, and a tide of insurrection against mammon worship is quite a natural phenomenon thereof. Post 9/11 US expeditions against Afghanistan and Iraq are perfect examples of reserving natural resources to secure a better industrial and stable capitalistic future.



Let us trace back the historical background of the term ‘fundamentalism’ in order to expose the distortion intentionally done to pose a threat against the growing Islam. The word fundamentalism was never in practice prior to the 20th century in its current format. In 1902, American Bible League issued a series of 12 tracts to defend the inerrancy of Bible, and these tracts were given the title of “The Fundamentals”. The theme emerged in the tracts had a long history beginning from 1830s (American Millenarian Movement), and it was a consequence of the liberal criticism on Bible, which caused to expose the invalidity and fallibility of Bible. These tracts were continually issued between 1910 and 1920 in USA with some abundant issues in 1919 and 1920. Later, the Fundamentalism disguised in the form of a militant party that rehearsed terror in United States’ denominational conflict.[3]



It must be an amazing but questionable issue that Muslims are labeled with the peculiarly Christian traits that were neither originated nor practiced among or by Muslims. The author believes that it is, by and large, a disillusion wrongly held by most of the non-Muslim population of the world either being ignorant of the truth or deliberately neglecting the original militancy—the well couched universal terrorism by a single state or more accurately by a specific bloc.



The more popular catchword in vogue at present is ‘terrorism/terrorist’, which is used to pinpoint the character of Muslims in special. There is no exception for a Muslim—be he a freedom fighter or a patriot defender of his own state in wartimes—to escape the Western media's couched terminology, since it was coined to achieve the assumed goals. We, however, again need to excavate the historicity and the sense of the word in question to locate the context of its historical use.



The word terrorism was appeared in its primitive form during the French Revolution. It was used to project a system of government adopted during the French Revolution and afterwards for a decade (1789-1799) in France. The purpose of using the slogan ‘Regime de la Terreur’ (Reign of Terror) was to promote democracy and to purge the society after revolution. But the desired purposes were never achieved and the word Terreur, thereof, proved a symbol of excessive violence and needless bloodshed. Terrorism, however, could not become a positively usable word owing to its chaotic nature, and its connotation always remained of negative. Nevertheless, terrorism was not a widely accepted and used word until the near end of 19th century when a Russian group inherited this word to safeguard the vested interests of theirs. This group was of revolutionists who were struggling against the monarchist rule of Russian Czars to secure the future of Bolshevik labors. The adoption and the circumstantial adaptation of a French word, therefore, certainly assisted them to have a violent identification of their struggle, and its repulsive effects on the monarch.[4]



Terrorism, however, remained always an antigovernment unofficial term, which, in most, was used for the political purposes. Now, terrorism is considered a severe crime in the whole world, but the nature of punishments varies. The so-called religious terrorism (identified as Islamic Terrorism) was cloned after the collapse of Soviet Union in 1989. Since there was no Cold War anymore, therefore Muslims were chosen as a new target to keep up the declining moral of militant United States. The very post Cold War terrorists were conferred upon with the charming Islamic title of Jihadis when they were busy in fighting against the US’s declared enemy Russia. Indeed, Communism was a serious threat to capitalistic bloc whose supreme broker was USA herself; it was, therefore, quite essential to disengage Russian economy by terminating its magnitude.



After a brief survey of the background of illusory propagation against Islam, it seems absolutely necessary to mirror over biblical teachings about ‘slaughtering in the name of God’.

“When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities, which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: but thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord they God hath commanded thee.”

(Deuteronomy 20:13-17)



Biblical teachings for a ‘chosen people’ are poisonous to the rest of human race, which speak but only of the henotheism of Israelites. Sentences like ‘save alive nothing that breatheth’ exhibit the savagery of Biblical teachings, which undoubtedly are not less than rebuke to human rights and individual freedom of faith. We are astonished to hear the commandment of killing even those beings whose guilt is ‘breathing’ only, and every mind ought to reflect that this does nowhere befit or accord to the modern philosophy of life.



When we flip over the pages of Bible, we frequently come across with such verses that not only explicitly narrate the brutality of the ‘chosen people’ of God but also provoke for the use of sword, which is a symbol of savaging power. All the savagery, as the Bible stands witness for it, had been conducted in the name of or for the Lord whom our Christian friends profess as merciful and love absolutely belying the scriptural teachings. We, however, have a reverse situation when we go through the text of Holy Qur’an, where it becomes crystal clear that Glorious Qur’an uses no savage language nor does it command to kill the humanity. There is no provocation for war in Holy Qur’an but for self-defense, but even then, as the author has already mentioned, the imageries of battlefield weapon have found no place in Qur’anic text.



A reading through the below listed verses from the book of Joshua would ascertain the irony of biblical mercy. Joshua instructed to his people:

“But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the Lord: they shall into the treasury of the Lord: So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpet…and they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.”

(Joshua 6:19-21)



It makes no sense when we call for the booty to be preserved for the deity and the humanity is hanged on the edge of sword to be torn into pieces. In the above quoted verses of Joshua, the prophet whom this book is attributed, commands the ‘chosen race of Israel’ not to touch any gold, silver, or the precious vessels of brass and iron for all that is the property of Lord who needs neither any wealth nor property due to his metaphysical nature, whereas the living human beings who strictly speaking need as well as deserve Lord’s mercy and blessing are slain for the joy of the henotheist Israelites. Lord’s mercy has not spared even the infants whose only guilt is their belonging to Canaanites, the nation that never recommends the Lord of Israelites.



Another verse from the Ezekiel reads likewise:

“And to the others He (Lord) said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women.”

(Ezekiel 9:5-6)



In a similar way, we collide with numerous scriptural quotes that directly convey the message of warfare and killing (Joshua 16:10, Numbers 31:1, Judges 21:10, Ezekiel 11:8, 12:14, Jeremiah 49:37, Hebrews 12:29, Deuteronomy 20:10, Job 12:21, Psalm 94:1, Luke 12:49, 19:27, Matthew 10:34 etc.). The author believes that nobody from among the biblical scholars is able to evade these facts and figures deduced from the ‘Word of God’. Deviation from truth may likely multiply their problems with the Scriptures, which is already occupied with serious errors. However, if one tends to avoid such commandments saying that the canon of Old Testament has been abrogated and the canon of New Testament has replaced the abrogated commandments, then one must be aware of Jesus’ own words regarding the Law. Jesus had nothing new with him for the Israelites except the Mosaic Law, which he came to ratify and renovate.

“For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not in his writings, how shall ye believe me words?”

(John 5: 45-46)



Eventually, we are sure that what Moses said, Jesus never differed with. This way, Christianity has no right to call for peace when Christian Scriptures command to kill whatever breathes, and if Christians show negligence to such verses of Bible, as most often apologetics act, it would mean they are intentionally proving their Scriptures to be misfit for our times. If anyone, however, is still wishful for viewing New Testament’s precepts in this case, he should have a reading in Jesus’ personal statement of his mission quoted in Matthew 10:34-36, which reads:

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. “

(Matthew 10:34-36)


Not deviating from the subject of New Testament's incitation for violence, we just look into more examples from its text. Since propositions demand verdicts, which always come, in the matter of religious debate, from the most fundamental sources, hence Christianity always needs verdicts directly from Greek New Testament for the approval of doctrinal beliefs. Accusing Islam of terrorism would demand a direct verdict from Qur'anic text, and if a premise lacks such verdict, the offence would be reversed outright. By quoting from New Testament, we are just reversing the offence of Christian propagation that can justifiably enable us mirror over bleak facets of Christian doctrine. Luke records Jesus in his gospel saying what usually Christians forget to take notice of.



"For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

(Luke 19:27)



Since KJV is an archaic translation of early 17th century, its style of language, sentence structure, and grammatical construction are dissimilar to the modern use of English; we will therefore rely upon some latest version owing to its modernistic style of English for a better apprehension. NIV Bible should stand the best choice to discern truth promptly.



"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

(NIV Luke 19:27-28)



Gospel of Luke outfits on another instance when Jesus invoked his audience for violence. Since the words of Jesus are always in first person—most often imperative, we must therefore consider the fact that the founder himself preached violence, the act of terrorism in word's modern sense. If we are reluctant to embrace these words to be Jesus' own words, the authenticity of Gospel, then, readily falls into dubiety. If Christian apologists still find the latter argument to be indigestible, they must accept violence to be necessary evil and cease accusing Muslims. Luke records the commandment of violence in his 22nd chapter which reads:

"He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

(NIV Luke 22:36)



Let us forget the biblical teachings for the time being, and get into the teachings of the models of Christian creed. At first glance, the institution of Papacy, being the office of Pontifex Maximus, should be exposed owing to the distinctive historical role it has demonstrated. No one can deny the disturbance and the destruction this institution has menaced with its might in different ages. No one among Muslims and Christians would be ignorant of the name ‘Crusade’ for it is the pivotal warring scenario peculiar to both of the largest religions of the world. Pope Urban the Second kindled the fire of practical hatred against Muslims in the hearts of European Christians in 11th century CE, which never extinguished in three following centuries, and its enormous aftershocks can be felt even today. Contemporary European empires embraced Pope’s words, and carried on this task to liberate the ‘Holy Land’ from ‘infidels’ by force. Peoples from all over the Europe, both rich and poor, gathered under the Crusading flags. Mobs of crusaders flowed towards East with violently emotional determination to wipe out whatever they see on the road to Jerusalem---which they actually came true of by persecuting both believers and non-believers. This barbarism of crusaders, nevertheless, is a part of history, which includes mass persecution of Christians as well.[5]



For the interest of readers, the author will quote here an excerpt from an atheistic booklet that brings out the blatant contradiction between Church's teachings and practices. The so-called followers of Christ have left no available tool to be used for self-projection and intrinsic defamation of Jesus, for they have been ever since the first century in the possession of entirely opposite to what Jesus actually said. If Jesus said, “Love thy neighbour”, Christians killed and banished their neighboring compatriots; and if Jesus said, “Love thy enemy”, Christians thrust wars on the weaponless people of other religions. For instance, the massacre of Muslims in Jerusalem after the Christian conquest of Jerusalem in CE 1099 can be taken as a perfect testimony of history for this argument; whereas, on the same occasion, the Jews of Jerusalem were ordered either to embrace Christianity or leave the Holy Land. Similarly, the banishment of Muslims from Spain in 15th century, which was followed by mass killing, may well support to unmask the historical role of Christianity. Such acts are the specific characteristics of Pauline Christianity and not that of original divine commandments, but the most sorrowful thing is that these misconducts have even defamed the impeccable Prophet of God. The present author will invite the readers to go through the excerpt listed immediately below:

“He (Jesus) does what each Christian religious rogue, gangster and Mafiosi ever is used to perpetrating: Preaching and instigating hatred and destruction as his infamous schmucks did respectively do so against pagan philosophy -- even until today the measure of all things in philosophy!”[6]



The problem of the dark past of Christianity is a phenomenon that is exclusively pasted upon Catholics in most, and other Christians do not think that Christianity itself was responsible for such repulsive acts as counted. It is true to a great extent, of course, but the thing to be kept in mind is that Papal Christianity was the only face of Christianity in Middle Ages; hence, it was Christianity whether Catholic or any other, which conducted mass genocide of the ‘heathens’. If one still assumes Protestantism is a moderate cult keeping no violence in it, the author would be then in need to quote here the verdicts of Martin Luther against the Jews, which he issued when got aback by the rigid negation of the Jews. The self-contradicting writings of Martin Luther, the famous reformer of Protestant Reformation, have a great advocacy for our case:

“For they (Catholics) have dealt with the Jews as if they were dogs and not human beings. They have done nothing for them but curse them and seize their wealth. I would advise and beg everybody to deal kindly with the Jews and to instruct them in the Scriptures; in such a case we could expect them to come over to us. We must receive them kindly and allow them to compete with us in earning a livelihood…and if some remain obstinate, what of it? Not everyone is a good Christian.”[7]



But as soon as the expectations of Martin Luther regarding the conversion of Jews failed, his hypocrisy could not remain hidden anymore, and he suddenly burst out without being merciful. In a later pamphlet entitled "Concerning the Jews and their Lies", he advised eight vindictive steps to be taken against the Jews. The list of eight actions ensues:

Burn all synagogues
Forbid Jews to travel
Destroy Jewish dwellings
Forbid Jews to charge any interest on loans to non-Jews and confiscate Jewish property
Confiscate the Jews’ holy books
Force Jews to do physical labor
Forbid the rabbis to teach
Expel the Jews from the provinces where Christians live [8]



Samuel Graham, in his book ‘The Origins of the Bible’ admits the vehemently malevolent policies of Protestant leaders towards the religious opponents, who in appearance championed the cause of individual freedom of religion. What were the real intents of these alleged Reformers?—have been nicely depicted in Samuel Graham’s terse language;

“The Protestant Reformation continued the Christian use of violence as a means of attaining the spiritual ends. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin approved of the killing of their religious enemies. The Jews were persecuted and killed by all the major Christian parties.”[9]



A balanced study of the historical facts clearly shows in what way Christian models have been dealing with both infidels and heretic Christians since the time of Constantine’s conversion. Early and medieval centuries stand witness for the brutality and inhuman attitude displayed by the Church Fathers using the prerogative of theocratic might, which they exploited to control the activities of the non-believers, the cult followers, and sometimes even the believers, the so-called heretics. Christians, using their newly gained political power, not only killed the most influential Sun-worship cultic teacher, Hypatia, but also burnt the heathen library of Alexandria about half a century after Constantine’s death. And this way, they destroyed almost all of the cultic records that could possibly expose pagan, Sky-Scriptural Christian origins[10]. Catholicism is no exception in this debate, as generally it is asserted, for all of the Christian impulses and movements found roots from the identical mainstream. During medieval ages, words like heretic and bewitched were official certificates to hang someone publicly. These practices of human hunting were zealously pursued during the periods of Inquisition and Puritanism.



On the other hand, we also ought to weigh Muslims’ treatment of the Jews and other minorities in Islamic states for a balanced approach to the impartial result. Since Jews are regarded as the most offensive of all non-Muslims to Islam, Muslims should naturally be justified in feeling hostility for the Jews. Despite the fact of long-held reciprocated hatred, the history bears witness of a mild and humanitarian behavior of Muslims towards their Jewish compatriots. Other minorities including Christians and Zoroastrians, similarly, enjoyed full freedom of religious practices and political rights in Darussalam, “the House of Islam”. Both Jews and Christians were far more independent under the Caliphate than under their brethren living in Byzantine territories. Karen Armstrong rightly notes the fact of Muslims’ tolerance and reverence for the “People of the Book” during the period of early Islamic expansion, though she is wrong in her opinion that Muslims considered Islam to be exclusive for the descendents of Ishmael. “Once the Arabs had left the peninsula”, says Armstrong, “they found that nearly everybody belonged to the ahl al-kitab, the People of the Book, who had received authentic scriptures from God. They were not, therefore, forced to convert to Islam; indeed, until the middle of the eighth century, conversion was not encouraged.”[11] It is strange that some restrictions on the religious life of Judo-Christian population have been frequently attributed to Caliph Umar. But the fact is that Caliph Umar was a man of unprejudiced nature, who had an exceedingly great reverence for the Scriptures as well as people of the two other divine religions. It is very interesting that the same Umar was once found with a codex of Torah when the Prophet immediately intervened and advised him to first understand Glorious Qur’an. Prof. Arnold offers a beautiful defense to the chaste conduct of Caliph Umar:

“A later generation attributed to ‘Umar a number of restrictive regulations which hampered the Christians in the free exercise of their religion, but De Goeje and Caetani have proved without doubt that they are the invention of a later age.”[12]



In a similar way, Ottoman rulers did not distinguish between their Muslim and Jewish or Christian subjects, and its evidence can still be verified in Turkey where a large Jewish community is still settled. Moorish Spain had been a great source of learning for the people coming across the Europe. Jews, who thitherto had no mentionable sense of philosophy, learnt much of philosophy and other disciplines of knowledge in Spain. Maimonides (d. 1204 CE), a Jewish philosopher, was born and educated at Cordova; some of the resources describe that famous Jewish philosopher Spinoza nourished upon Maimonides’ philosophical notions. Let us reason together about the circumstances and religious atmosphere of Islamic countries in the heyday of Islamic civilization. The author hopes that the conclusion would be entirely different from that of what is propagated by the West today. No learning is possible without peaceful atmosphere and calm society, and if a religious minority is concerned, it naturally becomes more difficult for the people of minorities to grow and learn freely in turbulent circumstances. Bertrand Russell, a celebrated philosopher and qualified political analyst, gives the full credit of national and international peace and spread of learning to Islamic civilization. Russell writes in his monumental book, History of Western Philosophy:



“Throughout the Middle Ages, Jews had no part in the culture of Christian countries, and were too severely persecuted…It was only among the Mohammedans, at that period, that Jews were treated humanely, and were able to pursue philosophy and enlightened speculation. Throughout the Middle Ages, the Mohammedans were more civilized and more humane than the Christians. Christians persecuted Jews, especially at times of religious excitements; the Crusades were associated with appalling programs. In Mohammedan countries, on the contrary, Jews at most times were not in any way ill treated.”[13] (Emphases mine)



History records hundreds of other accounts of Pax Islamica, of which we can currently present but a few. Surprisingly, the historians and the quoted witnesses are Christians almost in every case; hence, such unbiased writings seem the best concurrent testimonies to soften the hearts of Western populace for Islam and counter the present hegemony of Western media. Professor Thomas Arnold lists in his magnum opus “The Spread of Islam in the World” a letter of a Nestorian patriarch of eighth century named Isho'yabh III, which he addresses to certain Simeon. A passage in the letter quickly catches our attention and we are compelled to look through this amazing praise of Muslims by a Christian ecclesiast. Arab in the letter is synonymous to Muslim. Thus, Nestorian patriarch writes therein:

"And the Arabs, to whom God at this time has given the empire of the world, behold, they are among you, as ye know well: and yet they attack not the Christian faith, but, on the contrary, they favour our religion, do honour to our priests and the saints of the Lord, and confer benefits on churches and monasteries."[14]



The passage exhibits a tendency of thanksgiving and respect for the Caliphate and ordinary Muslims—naturally revered as the upper stratum of the-then religiously mixed society. The letter on its behalf represents the thinking of Arabian Christians about Muslims in early centuries of Islamic civilization. If such was the appreciation of a Christian theologian, what would be the response of Christian laity to Muslims' benevolence in Darussalam? Certainly, Christians of Arabia including those of Holy Land would prefer the just rule of Muslims to the reign of brethren. Christians' welcome of Islamic forces on each instance of their entry in Jerusalem would seem exaggerative if we portray the episodes of reception in true spirit. The episode of CE 1244—the year when Muslims recaptured the city never to loose again—suffices to depict the ardent welcome of Muslims rulers by their Christian subjects of Holy Land, but the words of Professor Arnold are so impressive and objective that the present would rather quote him in verbatim:

"The native Christians certainly preferred the rule of the Muhammadans to that of the Crusaders, and when the Jerusalem fell finally and for ever into the hands of the Muslim (A.D. 1244), the Christian population of Palestine seems to have welcomed the new masters and to have submitted quietly and contentedly to their rule."[15]



Presently, the conduct of some self-professed Muslims is in most cases regarded as the overall behavior of Islam, and it is argued on these grounds, though in an a priori manner, that Qur’an and Hadith invoke for violence. The best possible solution of this problematic and ill-proportioned allegation is a healthy but impartial survey of Qur’an—the bedrock of Islam, which cannot wholly be conduced in the limited space of the book. Hence, the author would exhort all of his readers to conduct a personal survey of Qur’an and Hadith by ignoring all hearsays. We will, nevertheless, attempt to view here the precepts of Glorious Qur’an concerning peace, war, violence, slaughter etc. in brief.



Interestingly, Glorious Qur’an proves to be standing on the peak of mercy and bestowal while rendering all the essential rights to mankind. Readers would be stunned to learn that the ancient weaponry tool called ‘sword’ has not occurred in the text of Qur’an even for once. There may be some indirect references without naming the device for war purposes. However, these particular references are ascribed either to Israelite Prophet David or other similar warriors of ancient history. We are already aware of the fact that David was a warrior king who brought Israelites an unprecedented glory with his sword, which they had never enjoyed previously. It is why Qur’an refers to this specific Hebrew personality when it alludes to the then most lethal weapon namely sword. However, none of the unnamed references instigate for warfare. Moreover, we do not find any mention of other contemporaneous weapons and/or war-systems in Qur’an nor do the chivalry of Arabs and tribal war tales constitute a share in its lengthy text. The period of Prophet Muhammad was an age of inter-tribal wars that may well be termed as civil wars, and the pre-Islamic poetry is overabundant with such figures of speech that rhetorically denote horrifying picture of battles and urge for the ruthless massacre of the foes. Ayyâm al-'Arab being the most corresponding analogy of pre-Islamic epic poetry, which, as one of the masterpieces of all times Arab world’s literature, gives expression to individual heroism and tribal hostilities[16]. War epics and heroic legends are necessary characters of the history, which may better be understood as 'cultural heritage', of all antiquity and medieval nations—be they Jews, Christians, Muslims or Hindus. The poetry of every literary language of past reflects excessively the presence of war-oriented vocabulary. The case of Arabs was, by no means, an exception. They were a proud and politically unbridled people until the very outset of Islam; hence, chivalric heroism was a crucial part of their national nature. Arabian poets had evolved a poetic style peculiar to battlefield namely Rajz, which would consist of four or six meters in the line and was primarily meant for the incitation of warriors' chivalric impulse. It was utterly impossible for an Arabian poet or litterateur of Jâhiliyyah to avoid effects of the contemporary thought and characteristics of stereotypical heroism in his literary creation; hence, Qur’an must have been an identical type of literary piece containing excessive imagery of war and massacre if it were merely a human creation. What is the nature of Qur’an?—must be a matter of deep concern to evaluate its divine origin. Glorious Qur’an is the exclusive bedrock of all Islamic genres, and it stands above from all the literary masterpieces of Arabic, avoiding all pre-Islamic religious, social, tribal, and heroic influences. Arabic language, despite the genius of lively literati, could not bring forth any masterpiece of literature equivalent to Glorious Qur’an. The literary style of Qur'an, in fact, introduced an entirely new literary strand in Arabic, which was non-existent in the richest language of the world prior to Qur'an, and the Arabs were spellbound to listen to this classic of its own form that they wee never acquainted with. The new discipline of Qur'anic language bedazzled Arabian wit, and they clearly sensed the pressing weight of God's speech what Karen Armstrong calls "human language crushed and splintered under the divine impact".[17]



The richness of Arabic language can be grasped from the variety of vocabulary reserved for the sword alone, which oversteps the digit of 50. But the thing that causes us to sink in wonder is the complete absence of war-oriented devices, heroic incitement, and the preservation of barbaric tribal code from the greatest piece of Arabic literature namely Qur'an. Interestingly, Glorious Qur'an introduces new war-code based upon ethical precepts that minutely corresponds with modern statutes and UN resolutions.



"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the one that heareth and knoweth (all things)."

(Al-Anfâl 8:61)



Mercy of God is manifest in the person of Prophet Muhammad and his righteous conduct bears the best testimony for this description of Qur'an. Further, Glorious Qur’an, the speech of God, is gifted to mankind alongside Muhammad as guidance; hence, this double blessing of God frames the religion of 'peace and mercy' as the final testament for mankind. Glorious Qur’an declares that Prophet Muhammad is the absolution of mercy:

“We have sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures.”

(Al-Anbiyâ 21:107)



It sounds astounding to a Muslim mind that at the same time when Glorious Qur’an esteems the person of Prophet Muhammad, the teachings of New Testament Bible denigrate the person of Jesus by its unrealistic and belittling quoting of the facts. For instance, let us examine the language ascribed to Jesus in New Testament:

“And Jesus rebuked him, saying, hold thy peace, and come out of him.”

(Luke 4:35)



Be God’s mercy upon Luke who uses so profane words while referring to a great envoy of God. Prophets never rebuke anyone nor do they hurt the questioners, because Prophets are sent for guidance of mankind. Muslims cannot, by any means, believe that Prophets can commit sin of rebuking and/or getting short-tempered; we should, however, never wonder if Christians believe. In addition to this, the picture of New Testament Jesus makes him into a rash and ill-tempered youth who seems alien to polite attitude. Apart from several occasions of rebuking and chiding, he becomes extremely furious towards his mother, calls gentiles dogs and swine, and refuses to listen and cure people outside of Israelite genome.



Today, the modern West is becoming mad in the hostility of Islam unlike ever in past. Western world is very cautious about the miraculous rapid growth of Islam within the bowels of Europe, which at length, has caused them burn into the crusading fire of hatred and prejudice. Apart from the apparent religious grounds, there are many hidden political, social, and economic goals that can only be achieved when Islam is smacked as an unholy hostile force. The mammon of Capitalism gradually liberates Western people from the old bonds of Judeo-Christian Civilization. Biblical scholars are fully aware of this hazardous situation, which hitherto has proved an uncontrollable beast to them; therefore, they need Christian zealots who may restore the inclusive belief in the primacy as well as supremacy of Jesus Christ. After the collapse of communist giant Soviet Union, West’s masterminds and think tanks have successfully invented an old-cum-new common enemy of every Westerner. This common enemy is Islam, which as they have assured every individual, is a severe threat to the very bases of Western Civilization. Fervent Western electronic media, print media, and verbal sermons of priests are adding real fuel to the fire, which consequently, have hypnotized European and American common men. The fear of Islam’s speedy growth and its magical dominance over Western spiritually hollow minds can be sought in every newly printed book, articles of dailies, and Sunday sermons. Western World is preparing for a new Crusade that, as Christian fundamentalists propagate, can either be the famous Armageddon. Every Western individual who is not a Muslim is deeply paranoid with Islamo-phobia. This state of psychosis has so intensely afflicted Western thought that any future compromise or agreement of certain type between Muslim East and Judeo-Christian West seems entirely unfeasible and impossible. All this is being done under the guile of ‘hatred of Muslims for the West especially United State, and over-projection of the concept of Jihad’. In this context, a very peculiar example is Hal Lindsey, a noted Christian scholar and author of some twenty best sellers—the substance of every book is mal-propaganda of an intense magnitude against Islam and the process of Islamization, which concludes on acute urge for the perfect annihilation of Islamic ideology. In his book “The Everlasting Hatred”, Hal Lindsey goes to an extent in his animosity of Islam that supposedly no Orthodox Muslim can be malicious of Christians or Jews of such an extremity. The only problem with this so-called successful or many the-like authors, which the present author could understand from their writings, is their ignominious prejudice for the ever-growing rate of the acceptance of Islam in the West and potential increase in reverence for Muhammad—that can possibly cause their heads blast away at any coming moment. The tragedy of these belying alleged scholars, however, is that neither of them is the president of United States, hence they are unable to launch any universal operation for the extermination of ‘love for Muhammad and belief in Qur’an’. Quoting of the excerpts for evidence from the writings of Hal Lindsey will stand a testimony in the favor of this ongoing debate. He writes with an unsurpassed malignity;

“The possibility of a global holocaust increases on a daily basis. If it isn’t Islamic/Hindu conflict in South Asia, it’s the Islamic Jihad against America and the American declaration of war against Islamic terror… it (global war) might break out over the Islamic Jihad against Israel. America and Israel have little in common with India—apart from a representative democratic political system—and virtually nothing in common spiritually, but all share a common enemy: Islam. At this moment in history, Islam represents the single greatest threat to the continued survival of the planet the world has ever seen.”
__________________
what humbugs we r,who pretend to live for beauty and never see the dawn :)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jammu And Kashmir Dispute Gul-e-Lala International Relations 1 Monday, September 02, 2019 04:02 PM
The Law of War and Concept of Jihad in Islam Zoyee Muslim Law & Jurisprudence 0 Tuesday, February 23, 2010 12:43 PM
Plz try to correct this! maiji Islam 7 Thursday, September 13, 2007 04:23 PM
Jihad In The Modern Era: Heavenly Happiness Islamiat Notes 0 Friday, June 22, 2007 01:58 PM


CSS Forum on Facebook Follow CSS Forum on Twitter

Disclaimer: All messages made available as part of this discussion group (including any bulletin boards and chat rooms) and any opinions, advice, statements or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of CSSForum.com.pk (unless CSSForum.com.pk is specifically identified as the author of the message). The fact that a particular message is posted on or transmitted using this web site does not mean that CSSForum has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message. We encourage visitors to the forum to report any objectionable message in site feedback. This forum is not monitored 24/7.

Sponsors: ArgusVision   vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.