A VIEW

(My ramblings on Islam vs. terrorism - this article, with bad English grammars, I sent to the White House, the Bushies)

 ă FARITHAL B SAHARI 10 2002


 

"There is enough light for one who wants to see" Imam Ali

 

Terrorism ….

does not, never, exist in Islam.

 

Islam…

promotes peace, tolerance, and understanding.

 

 

Even in war Islam shows its gentle nature. As instructed by the Prophet,

 

"Do not kill a decrepit old man, a young infant, a child, or a woman; do not be dishonest about booty, but collect your spoils, do right and act well, for Allah loves those who do well"

 

 

Throughout history, Islam is a religion most dynamic, most tolerant. Spread not through sword, but through the divine value it emits. This fact was even recognized by Gandhi in his writing to Young India,

"I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place in Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self- affacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every trouble."

 

Islam spreads by noble ways. The methods as said by Imam Ali k.r.w. are:

"Silence will create respect and dignity;

justice and fairplay will bring more friends;

benevolence and charity will enhance prestige and position;

courtesy will draw benevolence;

service of mankind will secure leadership and good words will overcome powerful enemies"

 

Lets us substantiate the claims that Islam truly a peaceful and tolerant religion with the following factual, historical reports…

 

1. UMAR ABD AZIZ.

Immediately after Umar ibn Abdul Aziz was elected Khalifah (caliph) in 717 A.D., a delegation of men from Samarqand (Uzbakistan) saw him and represented that the general of the Islamic armies, Qutaibah, had unjustifiably stationed his army men in the town in their midst. Khalifah Umar ibn Abdul Aziz wrote to the governor of Samarqand that he should appoint a tribunal to judge and settle the dispute between Qutaibah and the people of Samarqand. If the judgement of the tribunal goes against the army chief and his men are asked to vacate they must do so at once. The governor appointed Jami’ ibn Hadhir Albaji as judge for enquiry. After the enquiry was over, he, though himself a Muslim, passed the judgement that the Muslim army must vacate the town. He also remarked that the commander of the Muslim forces ought to have served an ultimatum of war to the city, and according to the Islamic Law relating to war, he ought have canceled all the treaties with them so that the people of Samarqand could get time to prepare for the war. "Sudden attack on them without warning was unlawful."

When the people of Samarqand witnessed this state of affairs, they were convinced that this was an unparallel case in the history of mankind .... the state keeping its Commander-in-Chief and the armies under such strict discipline and control, bound by lofty moral principles. And consequently they decided that fighting against such a people would be futile. Rather, they came to regard it as mercy and a blessing from God. Therefore, they agreed to live with the Islamic army in Samarqand.

Just imagine. An army conquers a city and enters it. The inhabitants of that city complain to the victorious government and the judges of that government decide the case against the victorious army, and order its externment, saying that they could not live there without the consent of the people of that city. Can either the ancient or modern history of mankind point out any war in which the fighting men kept themselves so strictly bound by the moral code, and followed such lofty principles of truth and justice, as demonstrated by the sons of our civilization? In so far as my own knowledge is concerned, not one among the nations of the world can be pointed out which demonstrated such lofty morals.

 

2. Khalid & Abu Ubaidah

Islamic armies conquer Damascus, Hams and the remaining towns of Syria and according to the terms of the treaty they realize some amount of tax for the protection of the life and property of the citizens and the defense of the country (634 A.D., within two years after Prophet Muhammad SAW). But later the Muslim leaders received news that Heraclius had brought a big army which he was anxious to bring against the Muslims. Therefore they decided to bring together their own scattered armies in various conquered towns to concentrate at one point to face the hordes of Heraclius with joint effort. So in keeping with this decision our armies started leaving the towns of Hams, Damascus and other towns. Khalid in Hams, Abu Ubaidah in Damascus and other generals in other towns addressed the citizens thus:

"The money or monies we had realized from you was meant for the protection of your lives and properties, and also to defend your lands from outside aggression. But we are sorry to inform you that we are parting with you and since we would not be able to protect and defend you, we are returning the amounts of taxes collected from you."

To this the citizens said in reply:

"God be with you and bring you back victorious. Your governance and your justice and equity have enamored us, since the Romans in spite of being our coreligionists, we have bitter experience of their oppression and tyranny. By God! If they had been in your position they would not have returned a copper out of the taxes collected from us. Rather, they would have taken away everything they could from here belonging to us."

Even in our so-called civilized period it is like that. If an army has to vacate a station, it does not leave there anything that the enemy could utilize to advantage. But is there a single example of the practice of the victorious armies of Our civilization, in the entire history of mankind. By God! If I had no faith in lofty values, and did not believe in their success or like the politicians of the modern age, considered it necessary to keep morals and principles dominated by the political interests, I would have said that the leaders of our armies stuck to lofty values and love of principles due to their unawareness and simplicity. But it is a fact that they were really true Believers and did not like to say things they could not put into practice.

 

3. Sheikh-al-Islam Ibn Taimiyah

When the Tartars made a sudden assault on Syria and took countless men from Muslims, Jews and Christians as prisoners, Sheikh-al-Islam Ibn-e-Taimiyah talked to the Tartar Chief about the release of the prisoners. The Chief gave his assent for the release of the Muslim prisoners but refused to do so in the case of the Jews and the Christians. But Sheikh-al-Islam did not agree and insisted on the release of the Jews and the Christians, who, he told him, were the Zimmis (Dhimmis) of the Islamic state and were bound to them. They could not let even one individual remain in captivity whether he belonged to their own community or from those living with them under a covenant.

 

 

4. Treatment of the Christian 'Heroes' of Crusades

Contrary to this, who does not know What the Christian 'heroes' have been doing during the crusades. During the middle ages (1095-1291) when these wars were thrust on us, we fulfilled our contracts and they never let a chance of treachery slip by. We habitually overlooked their Mischiefs but they always took revenge. We were careful to Save human life as much as possible but they shed so much blood that it ran into knee-deep pools. But these merciless brutes prided in their shameful deeds, rejoiced and gloated over them.

When these heroes of the crusades in their second onslaught reached Ma’rah-al-No’man, the inmates were compelled to lay down arms. But before Surrendering the town to the crusaders they made the responsible leaders of the invaders guarantee the safety of their lives and property. But what actually happened ? Those ferocious wild beasts on entering the city perpetrated such crimes of cruelty, oppression and tyranny whose dreadfulness would make the children old. Some English historians who participated in this war have stated that the number of those slain was a hundred thousand souls, young and old, men and women.

After this the crusaders advanced towards Bait-al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) and besieged the civilian population. Fully convinced that they would be vanquished, they took a pledge from the supreme commander of the invading armies, Tankard, for the protection of their lives and properties. He gave the citizens a white banner to be hoisted over the Aqsa Mosque and advised them to enter that haven for their safety. And they were assured of safety of everything, in every way .... And then the invaders entered the town. But Ah! What a horrible shambles this sacred city was converted into! Ah, what horrid crimes were perpetrated!

The citizens of Bait-al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) took refuge in the Aqsa mosque, on which the banner given to them by Tankard was hoisted according to his instructions. This sacred mosque was packed to capacity with old men, women and children. And then came the holocaust. Those who had blighted their word to protect their lives and properties and given them the banner of peace, entered the holy mosque and slaughtered all those frail and defenseless old men, children and women like goats and sheep. The place of worship was filled with human blood and touched the knees of the butchers. Thus slaughtering the citizens, they according to their own mode of thinking, sanctified the city, washed as it was with blood. The public highways and streets were littered with human skulls. Everywhere amputated limbs and other organs and deformed bodies were lying with no one to mourn or bury them. Men of our armies have stated that in the Aqsa mosque alone seventy thousand people were slaughtered, among whom, apart from women and children, there was a large number of learned men and devout persons. The English historians too have not denied these shameful deeds of their co-religionists. Rather, they state these feats of theirs with great pride.

5. Salahuddin (Saladin) Ayyubi

Ninety years after this dreadful slaughter and bloodshed, Salahuddin Ayyubi conquered Baital-Maqdis (Jerusalem). Shall I tell you what he did with the inhabitants of this sanctum? About a hundred thousand western people lived there. The conqueror guaranteed security of life and property to them, and taking a small amount not from every one but only from those who could easily pay it, and allowed them to leave the town. They were also given respite for forty days for preparation before departure. In this way eighty-four thousand persons left the town in perfect safety, who went to 'Akka and other towns to their friends, relatives and co-religionists. A large number of them were exempted from payment of ransom, and his (Salahuddin's) brother Malik Adil paid the ransom for two thousand persons from his own pocket and the treatment meted out to the women, far from expecting it from a conqueror of today, it would be unimaginable to him.

And when the Christian patriarch wanted to leave the place, the Sultan permitted him to do so. He had much wealth amassed through Churches, synagogues, Sakhrah, Aqsa, and ceremonies on the occasion of Easter whose count is known to God alone. Some counselors advised Salahuddin to confiscate his wealth, but the Sultan told them that he could not go back upon his blighted word. He realized the same amount of ransom from him also as he had realized from an ordinary person. But what caused a fourfold increase in his honor and glory on the occasion of the conquest of Baital-Maqdis (Jerusalem), was his mode of action in the process of evacuation of the Christians of the sanctum. He provided guards for the safe transit of the evacuees. The escorts had instructions to take them to the Christian habitations of Saur and Saida to their co-religionists in perfect safety. And all this in face of the entire Christian world standing in arms against the Muslims. Can any one be sure of his being awake (and not dreaming) when hearing all this? But this is not the whole story.

Let us tell you the rest of it. There were several women who had paid ransom, came to the Sultan and stated that their husbands, fathers and sons had either been killed in the battle or were in captivity. They had no one to look after them, nor were there any place where they could seek shelter. They were weeping and wailing. Seeing them tearful, the tender-hearted Sultan burst into tears himself. He ordered that after enquiry whoever of the husbands or sons or fathers of these women were in captivity should be released. And those whose guardians had been killed were given liberal compensation. These women where ever they went praised the Sultan loudly. And when after scrutiny the prisoners were released, they were also permitted to go to Saur, Akka and other places to their co-religionists.

Let us hear also what treatment was meted out to the Christian evacuees from Baital-Maqdis to their brethren in nearby towns. Some of them went to Antioch but the administrator of that city refused entry to them. And they went about wandering in search of shelter and support, and finally it was the Muslims who offered them refuge. One contingent went to Tripoli (Lebanon) which was ruled by the Latin peoples. But even they did not allow them entry, and drove them away from their premises after robbing them of all their worldly goods they had been allowed to take with them by the Muslims.

Salahuddin's benevolent treatment of the western Christians during the crusades prima facie appears a tale. If the western writers had not been amazed at the noble nature and lofty morals of this great hero of Islam, the world would have certainly found room to accuse our historians of exaggeration. The westerners themselves make mention of the event that when Salahuddin learnt of the illness of Richard, the great and the most valiant general of the crusaders, he sent his personal physician for his treatment and sent him also such fruits that were not easily available at that time of the year and he could not procure them. This happened while hostilities were on in full fury, and the armies of both the parties were engaged in a life and death struggle. The western writers also state that a woman approached the camp of Salahuddin, and wailing and weeping she complained to him that her child had been snatched away from her by two Abyssinian soldiers. Salahuddin himself was moved to tears by the pitiable condition of the woman, and then and there appointed a military officer for enquiry who searched out the woman's child and escorted it to her. And she was escorted to her camp at his bidding. Dare any one say even in face of all this evidence that the morality of our civilization relating to the fighting forces and wars is not humane.

 

6. Sultan Muhammad II

When Sultan Muhammad II conquered Constantinople (1453) he entered the cathedral of St. Sophia where all the priests had gathered to seek refuge, met them very courteously and assured them that he would support every reasonable request from them and they had no reason to be frightened. Those who had sought shelter there out of fear, should rest assured and return to their homes with an easy conscience. Later Muhammad II attended to the various problems of the Christians and solved them. He gave them assurance that they could follow their personal laws, religious obligations, and the customs and usages of their particular churches. Not only that he authorized the priests to freely elect their patriarch (Bishop). And they elected Jenadeus. On this occasion the Sultan also ordered celebrations with great pomp and show which were usually made during the Byzantine rule. He said to the patriarch that in his capacity of a patriarch he was his friend at all times and at all places, and he should derive full benefit of all those rights and privileges his predecessors had enjoyed. After that the Sultan offered him a beautiful steed as a gift and detailed one of his body guards for his protection, and high-ranking government officials escorted him to his palace that the Sultan had got built for him. Then the Sultan proclaimed that he had sanctioned the laws of the orthodox church and the patriarch shall protect them. All the goods of archaeological interest and abandoned articles picked up by the people on the occasion of the conquest, he purchased from them and restored to the churches and other concerned institutions.

Sultan Muhammad, the conqueror meted out this treatment to the Christians even when there was no treaty arrived at between him and the Christians at the time of the conquest of Constantinople which he might have been obliged to fulfil. This privilege and support was kindly offered by him purely on grounds of his generosity and benevolent nature. It was due to this kind treatment of his that the people of Constantinople felt that under the new Islamic regime they were living in greater peace and religious freedom than under their former Byzantine rulers.

 

7. The Uthmani Rulers

Similarly, the Uthmani rulers continued with kind treatment of their Christian subjects in the conquered neighboring lands, for example in the Bulgarian and the Greek states, when such treatment was not meted out to them anywhere in Europe itself, so much so that in Hungary and Transylvania the followers of Cliffon and the unitarian Christians of Transylvania, instead or Submitting themselves to the tyrannic rule of the extremely bigoted sect of Christians of the house of Habsburg, they preferred to live under the Turkish authority and rule for a long time. (Habsburg or Hapsburg: German family, named after the Castle of Habsburg near Aaran in Switzerland, to which belonged the rulers of Austria and many of the Holy Roman Emperors from 1273 to 1918. The Protestant sects of Silesia longed to attain religious freedom under the Muslim rule.

 

8. Fanaticism of the Christians Themselves Against the Christians

So much about the generous treatment meted out by Sultan Muhammad, the conqueror, to the Christians attached to the Cathedral of St. Sophia, and how benevolently he granted rights to the Christians of Constantinople. Now let us also hear what the European Christians did to their own brethren, the orthodox Christians when they conquered Constantinople in 1204 A.D. And instead of my telling about it in my own words, I would like to quote the statement of Pope Innocent III. He says:

"The duty of the followers of Jesus and the supporters of his faith was to turn the edges of their swords towards the greatest enemy of Christianity (i.e., Islam). But it is a pity they shed the blood of the Christians themselves, which was religiously forbidden to them. But they did not care at all for it, and shed much blood. They neither respected the faith, nor discriminated between the sexes nor had they any regard for age, or youth in this bloodshed. They committed fornication and. adultery in broad daylight. The nuns, mothers of children and virgins found themselves equally helpless before these lustful creatures and the sensual beasts of this army, so to say, devoured (ravished) them. These robbers and plunderers did not stop at robbing the king and other aristocrats of their riches, but ravaged and plundered the lands and other properties of the Churches. They' desecrated the churches also, robbing them of the sacred portraits, crosses and holy relics."

And the well-known historian Charl-Dale writes:

"This army, intoxicated with power, entered the Cathedral of St. Sophia, destroyed the holy books and trampled under foot the portraits of the martyrs. A corrupt woman was occupying the chair of the patriarch, and she started singing loudly. All traces of religious knowledge were effaced from the city, and the gold and silver statues were destroyed to provide material for their gold and silver coins."

And the monks who were eye-witnesses to these painful scenes have put up their evidence thus:

"The fact is that the followers of Muhammad had never meted out the treatment to this city which it met at the hands of the monks, the votaries of Christ."

Yes. Certainly the Muslims did not do any such thing when they conquered this town (Constantinople), as evidenced by the behavior of Sultan Muhammad Fateh. And the Muslims, so long as they were believers, could not manifest narrow mindedness and even approach such shameful deeds of religious bigotry, as were perpetrated by the Roman Catholic followers of Christ against other followers of his, subscribing to the orthodox Catholic faith.

 

 

 

9. Treatment of Muslims in Andalusia (Spain)

I would not like to take up in detail the story of the Muslim Conquerors of Andalusia (Spain) and their generous treatment of the minorities of that country, affectionate behavior and extreme regard for their feelings, nor would compare it with the treatment the Muslims met at the hands of the Spaniards, when they took over the last surviving Muslim state of Granada. And they did all that in face of the treaty with Muslims comprising about sixty provisions, about the protection of their faith, their mosques their honor and dignity and their properties and so many other things. But they did not fulfil any of their pledges, nor met any responsibility in their behalf. Rather, they did not desist even from murder of innocent peoples and took possession of their properties. Again, within thirty years of the fall of Granada, Europe declared in 1534 A.D. that all the Mosques be converted into churches. So we find that within four years of declaration the Muslims were totally wiped out of Spain. ...This is how Christians of Spain made good their blighted word" .... and that was our fulfilment of pledges!

 

 

Nowaday, Islam is labeled as a ‘fundamentalist’ & ‘terrorist’ religion.

 

Those term has brought about a distorted impact on the image of Islam.

 

The impact of the terms is obvious from the following quotation from one of the most influential            Western Encyclopedias under the title

Fundamentalist':

 

“The term fundamentalist has ... been used to describe members of militant Islamic groups."

 

Why would the media use this specific word, so often with relation to Muslims? What most of people don't realize is that the term Fundamentalist is actually derived from a series of essays published from 1910 to 1915 under the title The Fundamentals by British and American evangelists. The purpose of this 12-volume collection was to determine which churches, according to the authors, held up to genuine Christian doctrine and the ones that did not. Nevertheless the term fundamentalist, in the Christian world, is synonymous with the 'Bible Thumpers' and the tele evangelists. To apply the same terminology to Muslims is neither fair nor valid.

 

 

Jewish control media & corporations play an active role in giving a misinterpreted view on Islam.

 

Instances are,

 

1. CBS's "Eye on America" report claimed that Chicago Muslims are drug dealers, insurance frauders, and gang-bangers.

2. PBS's "Jihad in America", which was produced by Israeli agent Steven Emerson, claimed that all Islamic fundamentalists in America are potential terrorists.

3. Reader's Digest, a well known and respected international periodical, slandered Islam and Muslims through a series of scandalous articles, including December 1993's "Terrorist Among Us," January 1994's "All in the Name of Islam", and January 1995's "Holy War Heads our Way."

4. Nike was hoping to profit from Islam. Their issue in 1997 of Air Nike, with the Air written in a way resembling "Allah" in Arabic, was met with disgust and protests from the Muslim communities. In America they were eventually withdrawn, although in Australia they continue to be sold, and Nike Australia has ignored repeated pleas for the removal of this highly offensive product.

5. In America, Anheuser-Busch's Budweiser beer TV commercial in December 1994 featured a female actress with "Bismillah Ar Rahman Ar Rahim" written in Arabic across her chest on a revealing tank top outfit.

6. The Washington Post articles stating that "Islamic Fundamentalism is an aggressive revolutionary movement as militant and violent as the Bolshevik, Fascist and Nazi movements of the past."

7. A popular columnists scream out that there is an "urge to identify Islam as an inherently anti-democratic force that is America's new global enemy now that the cold war is over"

8. Australian politician, Graeme Campbell declared that "I don't want the Islamic people in my country, and certainly not fund. If that makes me a racist, then I am a racist.5"

9. Washington Post’s Columnist Stephen Rosefield had the audacity to say "yes, Muslims were hastily held responsible. This is despicable and dangerous. Yes, I admit that the first thought that came to my mind was also that it was an act of Muslims. But our such a reaction is not the outcome of any ignoble prejudices. This is not an issue of the picture of Islam. It is based on facts [i.e. fault lies with the Muslims]. Muslims indulge in acts of terrorism, consider it as legitimate and Muslim governments back terrorist activities. We cannot close our eyes in the name of friendship and fairplay. Though it is now known that the Americans too can be terrorists, [what is different with us is that]our government is against them." [In subdued words, he admits] "yes, our government should desist from acts of unlawful killings abroad which are termed as acts of terrorism and which damage our moral reputation." (daily The News, April 30, 1995)

10. Any Muslim, who wants to practice his/her religion and expresses the pious desire to live under the banner of Islam, is labelled a fundamentalist or  extremist. Any Muslim man who walks down a busy street in London or Paris (and Paris moreso) with a beard and a scarf on his head, is looked upon as being a terrorist who's probably got an AK47 stashed somewhere on his person. Muslim women who are veiled can't go anywhere in the Western world without being   taunted as being oppressed or being mad (for covering up).

 

11. A number of years ago, when the Oklahoma City bomb went off, a headline in one of the newspapers, 'Today' [11], summed up this attitude. With a picture of a fire fighter holding a dead child in his arms, the

headline read: "In The Name of Islam"  Time has of course proven that this bigoted assumption was incorrect, as Timothy McVeigh, a right wing radical now faces the death penalty for the crime.

Mad ?

No word ?

Muslims everywhere were enraged…

This should be so when one is insulted.

Yet, Muslims lacked power and capable leaders to stand against those denigrations against Islam.

Muslims longed for the loss golden era where justice prevails, where Islam rules with peace, and its dignity preserved…

The loss of the Islamic dignity has come about through the loss of the Khilafah, for it was the Khalifah who threatened to send an army of men whose length would reach between Baghdad and the doors of Rome if a single Muslim woman was not freed from the hands of the Roman army.

Even during the last days of Sultan Abdul Hameed's reign, he did not waver in his defense of Islam. A play based on the writings of Voltaire was being staged in France and Britain titled "Mohammad or Fanaticism", deriding the character of the Prophet (s.a.w) through the Zayd/Zainab issue. When the Khalifah was informed of the play, his ambassador to France warned the government of the serious political repercussions which would follow if it was continued. France promptly stopped the play, so the group went to England. When the same warning was issued to England, the reply was that the tickets were sold out, and banning the play would be an infringement on the freedom of its citizens. So the following edict was issued by the Sultan, saying in no unclear terms:

"I will issue an edict to the Islamic Ummah declaring that Britain is attacking and insulting our Prophet. I will declare Jihad..."

Upon receiving this ultimatum, the claim for freedom of speech was forgotten, and the performance quickly stopped.

 

 

In the present days, the West has successfully portrayed Islam as the new ‘bogeyman’ of the world after the cold war.

 

Today, Western systems are all geared towards fighting an endless battle against everything Islam

stands for.

 

Why the fear?

Is it justified in singling out Islam to be feared when according to a recent US State Department report, Patterns of Global Terrorism, issued earlier this year, 272 terrorist events occurred in Europe, 92 in Latin America and 45 in the Middle East. Sixty-two anti-US attacks occurred in Latin America last year, 21 in Europe and 6 in the Middle East. These numbers represent the terrorist trend and not an anomaly, whereby the majority of perpetrators are not linked to the Middle East or Islam. The Red Army Faction in Germany, the Basque Separatists in Spain, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, the Shining Path in Peru and the National Liberation Army in Columbia are not viewed with the same horror as terrorist groups of Muslim background.

Is it justified in singling out Islam as a terror when on May 29, 1993, terrorists torched a Muslim house in Solingen, Germany. Two women and two girls were burnt alive, one jumped out of the window but succumbed to her injuries. This family was settled in Germany for the last 20 years. This was not the first incident of this kind (nor would it be the last!). In November, 1992, fire bombs were thrown at two Muslim houses in Molln, a city near Hamburg. A woman and two girls were burnt alive in their beds and nine persons, though with serious burns, survived. On May 01, 1995, at a rally of presidential candidate Li Pan in Paris, three ‘skinheads’ killed a Moroccan Muslim, Ibrahim, by throwing him into the River Sen and then themselves melted away in the crowd [Had a Christian house been burnt in Pakistan, then...].

 

The Americans as well as the Europeans, since long, have made themselves to believe that they are so civilized and protectors of human rights that it is simply impossible to commit any terrorist activities. Only ‘outsiders’ do it. It is clear which ‘outsiders’ they mean.

 

For them Islam is guilty until proven innocent.

 

The Truth?

 

Islam…

 

The very name Islam comes from the Arabic root word 'salama' which means peace. Islam is a religion which is based upon achieving peace through the

submission to the will of Allah. Thus, by this very simple linguistic definition, one can ascertain as to what the nature of this religion is. If such a religion is based on the notion of peace, then how is it that so many acts done by its adherents are contrary to peace? The answer is simple. Such actions, if not sanctioned by the religion, have no place with it. They are not Islamic and should not be thought of as Islamic.

 

Human Life…

Human life is so precious according to Islam that "murdering an innocent person is just like the massacre of the whole of humanity" (Surah al-Ma’idah).

A Muslim is the one who protects others’ life, property and honor through his deeds and speech (Sahih al-Bukhari).

This applies equally to both Muslims and non-Muslims. Even if a polytheist (mushrik) asks for protection during Wartime, he has to be provided protection and led to his own place. (Surah al-Tauba).

Killing of someone who is asking for peace and reconciliation, is forbidden. Setting a prisoner free is desirable. There is no room for beating him while tied up. Excesses against women, children, the old, the handicapped and the sick and burning of the crops and the factories is not allowed even during the times of war.

 

So what we, as Muslims, could do?

 

As for Muslims, our task is a hard and uphill battle. On an individual level, we should always seek to maintain the highest caliber of character and morality. On a society level, we should continue to provide pure and easily accessible material on Islam, through any media channel available. If we see a wrong being committed, our duty is to correct that wrong, no matter the consequences. With the demise of the Khilafah, this role is now even harder. For non-Muslims, they cannot see Islam and its vibrant system in action on a large scale. They cannot compare its superiority with other models because it is not being implemented. Only the return of the Khilafah could put a significant dent into the anti-Islam movement, and raise awareness to the world community on what Islam stands for.

Islam has always been a solution to humanity, at the individual and group level. Islam guards the honour and rights of each sex. It solidly prohibits any factor which could harm anyone is society, and its laws don't change to accommodate any current trends, election prospects, or the whims of the leaders. Racial discrimination is something the West has only come to terms with in the late 60's, where in Australia, Aborigines were given the right to vote in 1967. Yet Islam gave all nationalities equal rights. Corruption, theft, deceit, fornication, sexual abuse, and disrespect to parents and elders are all not tolerated. Islam forbids discrimination in judging, and had a superior Justice system which the West is adopting progressively. No person is given favours, there are no concessions available from any leader, president, army official or police chief. Women have custody rights if it is considered preferable for the child. A person is considered innocent before proven guilty, and guilt needs to be firmly established.

Remember that…

 

The Believer is most superior in his understanding and his concept of the nature of the world, for the belief in One God, in the form which has come to him from Islam, is the most perfect form of understanding, the greatest truth. The picture of the world which this Faith presents is far above the heaps of concepts, beliefs and religions, and is not reached by any great philosophers, ancient or modern, nor attained by idolaters or the followers of distorted scriptures, nor approached by the base materialists. This picture is so bright, clear, beautiful and balanced that the glory of the Islamic belief shines forth as never before. And without doubt those who have grasped this knowledge are superior to all others.

 

(ithal2002 @ all right reserved.…….internal circulation only)