A cartoon, drawn by a Bangladeshi Muslim, led to killing of nine Christians by angry Muslims in Nigeria. This is nothing new in Islam.
Recently, a 20-year-old Bangladeshi Muslim cartoonist sketched a cartoon that appeared in a Bangla newspaper. It was intended to caricature the local culture where everyone tends to add “Muhammad” before their name. In the cartoon, when an elderly Muslim priest asks a little boy carrying a cat, what was its name; the boy answers, ‘Muhammad Cat.’ This created outrage among Bangladeshi Muslims. The leader of Khelafot Andolon (Caliphate Movement) Maulana Ashraf stated that: “the cartoon indicates disgrace of the Muslim prophet by naming a cat ‘Muhammad'. Similar to the Danish Cartoon incident prophet Muhammad has been defamed in Muslim majority Bangladesh.” The head cleric of Bangladesh’s National Mosque, said: "This is a grievous offense, this is dangerous."…
Article comments
26 - alessandro
I often like to say - sorta playfully - that world history was on a collision course with Iraq anyway. One way or another in some form, Iraq (as it always seemed to be) was going to be the center (hub if you will) of where all the dynamics and players came to meet in one possible final embrace. Next stop? Democracy? Oblivion? Status quo? Who knows?
27 - Irene Wagner
Franco, I'm not so much sharp as older and a little bit wiser than I was, and still not wise enough to know what that middle way should be.
Yes, keep at it, for enemies, for brothers in chains, for "all in authority" -- even for Hillary or anyone else who isn't Ron Paul :( should that come to pass...
God bless you.
28 - sam
Mohammed's Sword
By URI AVNERY
Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.
Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306--exactly 1700 years ago--encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.
The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, "walked to Canossa", standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope's castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.
But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week's speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush's crusade against "Islamofascism", in the context of the "Clash of Civilizations".
* * *
IN HIS lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God's actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.
As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this "war of civilizations".
In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?
To support his case, the Pope quoted--of all people--a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had--or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt)--with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".
These words give rise to three questions:
(a) Why did the Emperor say them?
(b) Are they true?
(c) Why did the present Pope quote them?
* * *
WHEN MANUEL II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.
At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. In 1453, only a few years after Manuel's death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.
During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.
In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim "Axis of Evil". Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.
* * *
IS THERE any truth in Manuel's argument?
The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur'an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant verse 257) which says: "There must be no coercion in matters of faith".
How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur'an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes--Christian, Jewish and others--in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.
Jesus said: "You will recognize them by their fruits." The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to "spread the faith by the sword"?
Well, they just did not.
For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.
True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.
In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith--and they were the forefathers of most of today's Palestinians.
* * *
THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the "spreading of the faith by the sword"?
What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi ("Spanish") Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.
WHY? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the "peoples of the book". In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service--a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion--because it entailed the loss of taxes.
Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith.
* * *
THE STORY about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims--the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.
Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?
There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of "Islamofascism" and the "Global War on Terrorism"--when "terrorism" has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush's handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world's oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers' expedition becomes a Crusade.
The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?
Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is one of the writers featured in The Other Israel: Voices of Dissent and Refusal. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's hot new book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.
29 - Franco
#28 " sam
Interesting reading sam.
But I have studied much on this subject matter, and the more I study the more questions that come up.
But one thing never changes no matter what is best posed to you in a question.
If what you say is true, then way dose the Quarn say to find them and kill them. And way, if one is once a Muslim, they have to be killed if they convert to Christianity?
30 - sam
Concept of Jihad
in the Qur'an
by Abdul Rehman
[Originally, I wrote this article as a 'comment' on a Islamophobia spreading forum viz. Jihad Watch of Robert Spencer... it has become a very good article for understanding the doctrine of Jihad as well as to remove Islamophobia from the hearts of non-muslims.]
Before interpreting the Qur'an, you need to know the Rules of Interpretation of the Qur'an.
Usul-e-Tafseer
There is a science of Interpretation of the Holy Qur'an, known as Usul-e-Tafseer. Usul means principles and Tafseer is derived from the root word `Fussaira' meaning to explain. Thus Usul-e-Tafseer means the rules of interpretation of the Holy Qur'an.
The most important things which one should know before interpreting the Qur'an are the following sayings of the Prophet (P.B.U.H.) :-
Abdullah ibn Abbas (R.A.A.) reported that Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) said: "Whoever says something in interpreting the Qur'an based on his own opinion should find his place in the Fire." (Tirmidhi)
Jundub, May Allah be pleased with him, reported that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: "Anyone who speaks on the Qur'an by his own opinion and is right is still wrong." (Abu Dawud)
The knowledge of Tafseer was given to the Prophet (P.B.U.H.) and it was described by him:-
"And We have also sent down unto you (O Muhammad P.B.U.H.) the reminder and the advice (the Qur'an), that you may explain clearly to men what is sent down to them, and that they may give thought." [Surah An-Nahl 16:44]
This verse tells us two things:-
(i) The correct interpretation of the Qur'an was described by the Prophet (P.B.U.H.) himself
(ii) Giving one's own thoughts on the Qur'an is after the description of the Prophet (P.B.U.H.) This means that the meaning of a particular verse cannot be circumscribed by one's own thoughts; it should be in the light of the Prophet's (P.B.U.H.) sayings.
So, to understand a verse, we should first take into account all the verses related to that matter. Then, we must search the Prophet's (P.B.U.H.) traditions/sayings/actions (henceforth, Hadith [plural: Ahadith]) Then, the Companions (R.A.A.) and the Successors (R.A.) were the experts and their sayings must be taken into account. After searching all these, we still do not find anything, we can interpret an ayah (verse) according to the principles of the Arabic language and after that one can use deliberation & deduction. All these constitute what are known as "The Sources of Tafseer."
Sources of Tafseer
These are 6 in total and are enumerated below:-
(1) The Qur'an itself
(2) The Ahadith
(3) The Sayings of the Companions (R.A.A.)
(4) The Sayings of the Successors (R.A.)
(5) The Arabic language
(6) Deliberation & deduction
Types of Tafseer
Thus tafseer can be divided into two main types:-
(1) Tafseer bil Riwayah i.e. tafseer based on authentic reports.
(2) Tafseer bil Ra`y i.e. tafseer on one's own thoughts and opinions; this is concerned Haram (forbidden.)
Differences in Tafseer
One may raise a question here: `Why are there differences in the interpretation of Qur'an between the scholars?' The reasons are:-
- Disregard for isnad (chain of transmission of a tradition)
- Genuine mistake in comprehension
- Interpretation based on unconscious preconceived notion
- Multiplicity of meanings in the revelation from Allah
- Difference in the rules regarding the reports (Ahadith)
One may also raise another question here: "Isn't it possible for someone to do an interpretation, from the six sources, which completely distorts the meaning of the Qur'an?" The answer is to base tafseer upon previous Tafaseer (plural of Tafseer.) Whenever someone coins a new interpretation for any verse, which has not been mentioned by any previous scholar, it is a sign of going astray from the correct meaning!
Important Note: The above rules of interpretation are specifically for Aayat-e-Ahkamaat i.e. verses dealing with commandments. The rules for interpreting other verses, for example, verses dealing with worldly knowledge, is not the same as for the verses dealing with commandments of Shari'ah.
One can read the following article regarding more knowledge of Usul-e-Tafseer
This was only the Prologue for my interpretation of the verses regarding Jihad; if you haven't understood it or did not read it completely/carefully, then I request you to go back and do it now!
Concept of Jihad
Now, we come to the real task of interpreting the verses related to Jihad. We first enumerate the conditions under which Jihad is prohibited (Haram.)
Conditions under which Jihad is prohibited
(i) We find in Surah al-Anfaal, the following verse:-
"But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and (put your) trust in Allah. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower." [Surah Anfaal 8:61]
This verse shows that you cannot attack a nation if it "inclines to peace." This means that launching Jihad against someone is prohibited if a Muslim nation has signed a peace treaty with it.
(ii) In Surah at-Touba, we find the following verse:-
"Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger; (2) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture: until they pay the Jezyah `Ayn Yaden Wa Hum Zaghiroon' " [Surah Touba 9:29]
I have retained some words in Arabic, because, if I translated them literally, this may cause someone to misinterpret the ayah. Remember, you cannot interpret an ayah, according to the 5th source i.e. the Arabic language, until you have searched the first four sources.
When we search the first four principles, we find that we cannot translate those words literally. Imam Shafi'i, who was of the successors (Taba'i Tab'ieen) and was a Mujtahid fi Shar'ah (highest rank of scholar), said regarding this ayah that in this ayah, `Yadeh' is in the meaning of power/authority/sovereignty and `Ayn' means "due to." Furthermore, `Zaghiroon' means that the non-muslims start obeying the common law (not any Personal law; they can follow their personal law.) This saying of Imam Shafi'i is also cited in Tafseer Ma`ariful Qur`an of the late Grand Mufti of Pakistan & president of Darul Uloom Deoband, Mufti Muhammad Shafi Usmani.
Thus the ayat, if correctly explained, means that you cannot fight the citizens of a non-Muslim state (dhimmis) as long as they pay Jezyah (a low tax) and obey the General law of that Muslim country. In matters of personal law, they are free to follow their religion. Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) allowed the non-Muslims to follow their personal laws; he (P.B.U.H) accepted their marriages as valid and allowed them to eat pork and drink wine. [Cf. Ma'ariful Qur'an - English Edition, Mufti Muhammad Shafi, Vol.3, p.157]
Thus we came to know that the citizens of a non-Muslim state (dhimmis) are 100% safe and protected, if they fulfill their obligations i.e. paying Jezyah and obeying the common law.
Note: Those non-Muslims who did not fight personally against a Muslim army, in the battlefield, but, now their land has been conquered by the Muslims, THEY WILL BECOME DHIMMIS i.e. RESPECTFUL CITIZENS. They are NOT "Maal-e-Ghaneemat" (Booty of War) meaning that they do NOT become slaves or liable to death penalty. Those Spencer-type characters who spread such a misconception are themselves astray, because, they fail to distinguish b/w Maal-e-F`ay and Maal-e-Ghaneemat...
(iii) Below is one of those ayahs which are most-often misinterpreted by non-Muslims:-
"Then when the Sacred Months (The 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them [in Mecca and Medina], and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform Salah and give Zakah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." [Surah at-Touba 9:5]
This ayah which if taken literally and out of context may make an "ignorant" non-Muslim jump out of his seat, but, actually it is being detached from the very next ayah, which is:-
"And if anyone of the polytheists seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear The Word of Allah (Qur'an), and then escort him to where he can be secure..." [Surah at-Touba 9:6]
From this ayah, we came to know that if a non-Muslim comes to a Muslim state after taking permission, which now-a-days is in the form of VISA/Passport, then it is incumbent upon the Muslims to protect him/her, until he/she reaches his own state/country. Such a non-Muslim who has entered a Muslim state after taking permission is known as "Mustam'ain" in the Islamic Fiqh.
I once read a review posted on Amazon by some non-Muslim; he wrote:-
"To proceed to clarify some issues, let me use an example. The honorable late President John F. Kennedy during his Presidency and while the US was going to war with Vietnam said something to the effect, `Defend your country, show courage and galor, and fight all vietnamese whereever you see one.' So do you still fight a vietnamese when you see one? No, this command was for that instance only. Hence, in the Quran, when Allah The AlMighty says: `fight the non-believers wherever you see one' falls in the same category."
(iv) From many verses of the Qur'an and ahadith, it becomes clear that if someone accepts Islam by saying the "Kalima" then it is prohibited to launch Jihad against him/it.
Types of Jihad
These were the conditions under which Jihad is impermissible; thus only two types of Jihad is permissible:-
(i) Defensive (Defa'i) Jihad
(ii) Offensive (Iqdami) Jihad
Defensive Jihad is self-explanatory i.e. if a non-Muslim state has attacked a Muslim state, they can do Jihad against them. When a non-Muslim state attacks a Muslim state, it is obligatory upon the Muslims of that country, as many as are required, to do Jihad; if that state alone does not posses enough power, the obligation of Jihad extends to neighbouring countries. If even they do not posses enough power, the obligation extends to their neighbours and this obligation can extend, if required, to the all the Muslim states.
Offensive Jihad can be undertaken if the four conditions mentioned above are not fulfilled, for example, a non-Muslim state violates the peace treaty, etc. It can also be undertaken if a non-Muslim state is forcibly trying to convert Muslims to non-Muslims or stopping Muslims from preaching the teachings of Islam PEACEFULLY (Daw'ah.) According to some scholars, Offensive Jihad is impermissible in the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar too.
Then, there are other conditions which must be observed during Jihad, the details of which can be found in the books of Islamic Fiqh, for example, it is impermissible to fight with or kill women, children, aged ones, disabled, etc. Furthermore, it is impermissible to destroy crops, cut trees, destroy someone's house, property, cattle, do un-Islamic acts like raping women or burning people or torturing them in any way, etc. If you want to know more, I can refer you to some books regarding these issues.
Spreading Islam at the edge of the sword
Someone may ask here: Isn't it obligatory upon the Muslims to compell non-Muslims to convert to Islam? The answer is a big NO!!! There are 100% clear and explicit verses to answer this question directly:-
(1) "Let there be no compulsion in religion..." [Surah al-Baqarah 2:256]
(2) "Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity.
It is only as regards those who fought against you on account of religion, and have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out, that Allah forbids you to befriend them. And whosoever will befriend them, then such are the wrong-doers." [al-Mumtahinah 60:8-9]
(3) "...And (O Muhammad P.B.U.H.) say to those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and to those who are illiterates: (Arab pagans) `Do you (also) submit yourselves (to Allah in Islam)?' If they do, they are rightly guided; but if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message..." [Aal-e-Imran 3:20]
(Noteworthy is the fact that if they turn away, our duty is to convey plainly; our duty is NOT to force them!)
(4) "Then if you turn away, you should know that it is Our Messenger's duty to convey (the Message) in the clearest way." [Surah al-Maida 5:92]
(5) "The Messenger's [i.e. Muhammad's (P.B.U.H.)] duty is but to convey (the Message.) And Allah knows all that you reveal and all that you conceal." [Surah al-Maida 5:99]
(6) "The Messengers said: `Our Lord knows that we have been sent as Messengers to you,
And our duty is only to convey plainly (the Message).'" [Yaseen 36:16-17]
(7) "And if you deny, then nations before you have denied (their Messengers.) And the duty of the Messenger is only to convey (the Message) plainly." [Surah al-Ankaboot 29:18]
(8) "...(O Muhammad! P.B.U.H.) Say: `The signs are only with Allah, and I am only a plain warner.'" [Surah al-Ankaboot 29:50]
(9) "So remind them (O Muhammad P.B.U.H.), you are only a one who reminds.
You are NOT a DICTATOR over them [i.e. polytheists of Mecca]." [al-Ghashiyyah 88:21-22]
These are only some of the verses which answer off that objection. The Qur'an is filled with such verses! Despite this fact, some people for their ulterior motives & reaping political benefits, don't hesitate to take their eyes from these verses, either deliberately or due to their less knowledge and thus spread Islamophobia and end up astray.
Let me point out that this interpretation was not done by me. The above description was actually an English translation of a Bayan (lecture) given by The Grand Mufti of Pakistan, Mufti Muhammad Rafi Usmaani (R.A.) at madrassa "Darul Uloom Karachi."
So, would you still prefer the opinion of a deviant, non-Muslim, false-scholar to the Grand Mufti of Pakistan? Do you ever prefer a quack to a doctor? If no, then why don't you agree with the above given interpretation? Can you point out any defect or error?
DIFFERENCE B/W MAAL-E-GHANEEMAT & MAAL-E-F`AY
Maal-e-Ghaneemat refers to those swords, shields, tools, etc. which have been taken/picked up from the site of the battle.
Maal-e-F`ay refers to the people, lands, etc. over which victory has been acheived.
Thus only the swords, shields, etc. which were picked up at the site of the battle will be divided among the Mujahiddeen & become their private property and the fifth-part of this Maal-e-Ghaneemat will be given in charity.
THE REST OF THE LAND WHICH HAS BEEN CONQUERED AFTER THE BATTLE IS MAAL-E-F`AY. IT IS NOT A PRIVATE PROPERTY OF THE MUJAHIDDEEN!!!!!
Dhimmis
THE PEOPLE OF THAT LAND WILL BECOME RESPECTFUL CITIZENS, WHO ONLY HAVE TO OBEY THE GENERAL LAW & PAY A SMALL TAX (JEZYAH), IN WHICH RELIEF IS GIVEN TO THE POVERTY STRICKEN. THIS JEZYAH IS TAKEN FOR THE PROTECTION OF THEIR LIFE, SHELTER, FOOD, ETC. WHICH IS PROVIDED TO THEM BY THE MUSLIM STATE. SUCH PEOPLE ARE CALLED DHIMMIS.
Dhimmi--not an abuse
YOU CONSIDER THE WORD `DHIMMI' TO BE INSULTING ONLY BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ARABIC AND ARE FOOLED BY OTHERS. DHIMMI LITERALLY MEANS A PERSON WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY OF PROTECTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY SOMEONE ELSE. IN THIS CASE, A NON-MUSLIM IS A DHIMMI IN A MUSLIM COUNTRY, BECAUSE, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PROTECTION OF HIS FOOD, SHELTER, LIFE, ETC. IS ON THE MUSLIM STATE; FOR ANY HARM TO IT, THE MUSLIM STATE WILL BE RESPONSIBILE FOR PROVIDING JUSTICE!!!
DHIMMI IS A RESPECTFUL WORD FOR NON-MUSLIMS AS IT SHOWS THAT THEIR RIGHTS CANNOT BE NEGLECTED! LOOK AT THIS HADITH:-
Narrated `Amr bin Maimun: `Umar (after he was stabbed), instructed (his would-be-successor) saying, "I urge him (i.e. the new Caliph) to take care of those non-Muslims who are under the protection of Allah and His Apostle in that he should observe the convention agreed upon with them, and fight on their behalf (to secure their safety) and he should not over-tax them beyond their capability." [Sahih Bukhari, Vol.4, Bk.52]
(Umar R.A.A. was breathing his last, but, he was not worried of who killed him; rather, he was worried about the dhimmis!!! One can easily approximate the amount of care which non-muslims are given in a TRUE muslim state!)
ALAS! SOME PEOPLE, FOR REAPING PERSONAL BENEFITS, HAVE CREATED MISUNDERTSANDINGS! DHIMMIS COULD FOLLOW THEIR PERSONAL LAWS UNDER A ISLAMIC STATE, BUT, THEY MUST FOLLOW THE GENERAL LAW OF THE MUSLIM COUNTRY AND PAY JEZYAH.
Taliban's interpretation of Jihad
It is pertinent to note here that the above interpretation of Jihad is the one done by the Deobandi sect--to be precise, by Mufti Muhammad Shafi (RA) who used to be the president of Darul Uloom Deoband. [Darul Uloom Deoband is the heart of Deobandi sect.]
According to GlobalSecurity.ORG, Deobandi sect was involved in inspiring the 'Taliban movement'. If this is true, then the poor lads will have to confess that the Taliban do follow the above interpretation of Jihad--which clearly excludes terrorism from Jihad.
Furthermore, according to an edict issued by the Darul Iftaa (lit. doorway to answers) of Darul Uloom Deoband, "Jihad, in no way, means to convert non-Muslims forcibily to Islam." [Edict No. 670, dated 5/8/1427 A.H., issued by Mehmood Hasan, Habib-ur-Rehman, Kafeel-ur-Rehman & Muhammad Zafeer-ud-din -- Muftis of the Darul Iftaa]
Another important edict
Mufti Muhammad Rafi Usmani (RA), the current Grand Mufti of Pakistan, said in an interview with BBC:-
"Two wrongs don't make a right in Islam...
If non-Muslim kill innocent citizens of a Muslim country, this does NOT give Muslims the right to kill innocent non-Muslims of that state."
Again, this is a very important thing to note. This practice was completely abolished by the Prophet (SAW) himself.
In those times, when a person of one tribe was killed by a person of the other tribe, the people of the first tribe would kill anyone of the second tribe for revenge. This was declared as a practice of Jahaliyyah (ignorance) and was declared prohibited.
A partial truth is worst than a complete lie
This is a very important thing to note; the media uses this trick to fool people and spread Islamophobia. I give you an example...
Mufti Ebrahim Desai wrote the following in a fatwa (lit. answer, pl. fataawa) that:-
"Osama bin Laden is our Muslim brother and a practicing Muslim.
Since, the edict was issued after 9/11, it is very easy to fool the Westerns that look, Muslims support Osama! This is a partial truth--it is more badder than a lie, because, you can verify a partial truth.
What 99.99% people don't get a chance to see is the following statement of the same Mufti:-
"Whoever was responsible for the 9/11 tragedy is guilty of a great injustice - even if he was a Muslim.
Did you see this?! The dirty trick used by most Islamophobia spreaders is to quote partially true things which are even dangerous than complete lies!
Kafir--not an abuse
Now-a-days, the word 'kafir' is considered to be an abuse by almost everyone. Is it really so? The answer is NO. The word 'kafir' is derived from the root word 'kufr' which means to deny; thus the word 'kafir' literally means a denier. Technically, it means a person who denies the Prophethood of Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) There are many Christian missionaries and evangelists who feel proud in denying the Prophethood of Muhammad (P.B.U.H.), but, the same people object as to why are they being called kafir. These people should be happy and feel proud to be called kafir!
As 'kafir' means a person who denies the Prophethood of Muhammad (P.B.U.H.), there is nothing bad or wrong in calling non-Muslims as the kuffar (plural of kafir). Furthermore, if we don't call them kafir (pl. kuffar) , what should we call them? Most importantly, what is wrong in calling them kafir?
There is nothing bad in it... actually, the Islamophobia spreading media takes advantage of the ignorance of non-Muslims of the Arabic language and raise such misconceptions which have got nothing to do with the truth. Think out yourself as to how much absurd it is to object the word kafir!
(Any questions should be mailed to the author.)