By Ahmad Jamal El-Ahmad.
The ultimate objective in any endeavor is truth and relative context. I hope this small contribution succeeds in this all too personal journey.
ABSTRACT
More than any other groups in the United States, the American conservative establishment along with prominent right-leaning news outlets aggressively pursue opportunities to impugn the religion of Islam (seemingly at any cost) as being synonymous with extremism, and unabashedly attempt to portray its doctrines to be premised upon radical ideology. This paper pursues an objective context-driven argument countering the biased misleading narrative relating Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to extremism and violence. It is a comprehensive comparative analysis of Islam and the Judeo-Christian faith relative to factors of perception and the cognitive cultural constructs that impose upon reasoning; addressing in considerable detail perceived affiliations with radical thought and violence, biased misquotes and misinterpretations that overwhelm the public narrative and general misunderstanding of Islam in the West.
CONTENTS
I. Introduction
II. Factors of Perception: An Overview
A. Cultural Parameters
B. Mindsets
III. Origins of Terrorism
A. Individuals, Organizations and the Masses
B. Challenges of Terrorism
1. Why it occurs
2. How to understand it
IV. The Compatibility of Islam and Terrorism
A. Context of the Argument
B. The Qur’an
1. Analyzing the context of the verses
2. Judeo-Christian faith: comparative assessment
V. Conclusion
———————————————————————————————————-
INTRODUCTION
The religion of Islam has been vilified as being synonymous with terrorism in some mainstream media circles and by many in Western political establishments. This erroneous perception of Islam is due primarily to the misinterpretation of selective verses in the Qur’an by those who seek to impugn the religion as being prone to violence, specifically terrorism, in order to achieve its objectives; and by radicalized individuals and extremist groups seeking to acquire some form of legitimacy in pursuit of their causes by offering “divinely-inspired justification” for their violent actions.
Religion by its inherent nature places adherents of all faiths including non religious people on a relative continuum. Within this continuum varying social and behavioral contexts exist that in principle serve as unifying factors underlying some of the most important foundational concepts of human behavior. However those same unifying factors, through varying cultural perceptions and applications, have created ideological divisions leading to intense rivalries and rhetorical exchanges, sometimes including violent confrontations. It becomes necessary to offer an assessment of the dynamics between culture, human behavior and concepts of perception in part because the latter (perception and behavior) are direct products of the former (culture). Additionally, a basic understanding of these relationships and how they influence the debate about Islam and terrorism is essential in order to prime the reader to understand critical aspects of the information contained in this paper. The association of terrorism and extremism with Islam persists because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the Qur’anic text and its core values by critics of the religion; verses are often referenced by these critics of Islam in their attempts to (mis)analyze their contexts.
Many distinguished scholars of religion and leading academic experts on terrorism, sociology and psychology agree that religion is not a root cause of terrorism (Louise 2006, 139). It is understood though that religion serves as a powerful rallying cause for some terrorists and extremists, and effectively disguises their underlying cultural and socio-political sentiments and agendas (Louise 2006, 140). This paper will dissect some of the more popularly referenced and cited Qur’anic verses by both critics of Islam and the extremists in order to challenge the notion held by many that Islam is a “rogue religion” that cultivates terrorist mindsets, and to counter the extremists’ misinterpretation of these texts. It is hoped that rather than understand the analysis as an argument favoring or defending any one religion, the reader will perceive its mission as one that seeks to clarify truth from falsehood, opinion from fact, and biased research from a neutral pursuit of truth. This paper does not claim any new breakthroughs. Rather, it employs a common sense approach to comprehending the factors of influence that some can be susceptible to combined with a thorough analytical breakdown of the assertions, “facts” and overall message behind critics’ statements and perceptions. Maintaining objectivity must remain in consistent use throughout any assessment. The ability to remain emotionally detached in providing appropriate and relative interpretation of findings is paramount.
FACTORS OF PERCEPTION
Without a doubt we live in a world in which every single aspect of humanity including man’s endless quest to unravel the mysteries of divinity is inherently subject to perception. Thus in short, perception is everything. It dictates methods of understanding and subsequent courses of action. Perception can be the source of noble causes driving international cooperation or it can be the impetus leading nations to misunderstanding and violent confrontations. Human nature is such that man’s perceptions are generally dictated by and achieved within cultural contexts. Consider that one is born into practicing a particular culture long before beginning to practice religion. Humans learn to eat culture specific food, begin wearing traditional attire and exhibit cultural norms long before the onset of religious education. Furthermore, through everyday living experiences humans selectively absorb the events around them and apply the knowledge gained to living their individual lives. Human beings become culturally primed to perceive matters within whatever contexts they have been used to. Glen Fisher notes that, “The cultural lens affects the way actions are defended or rationalized . . . .” (Fisher, 56) In other words people will invariably resort to a sequence of reasoning based upon what they know best, their cultural experiences. It is within these familiar parameters that humans judge what level of importance to allocate to issues encountered and in what ways to react to them. Accordingly, what people perceive to be a proper and reasonable reaction on their part is actually due more to the cultural cognitive constructs already in place within their psyche than anything else. The challenge in countering this method of reasoning lies in persuasion, being able to influence another’s mental environment enough for them to yield to an alternative approach and a culturally “untouched” rationale. The reality of the matter is even if individuals are willing to consider an alternate approach to reasoning, are they capable of achieving it within the constructs of their realities?
In his research in Mindsets: The Role of Culture and Perception in International Relations, Glen Fisher writes:
“The way we perceive is much more locked in than we realize…..” (Fisher 1997, 24)
He goes on to elaborate that:
“We perceive very selectively in accordance with the structure of cognitive constructs . . . . . . We tend to perceive in a way that will disturb our established cognitive system as little as possible and to interpret what we perceive in a manner consistent with our own particular mindset. We do not easily accommodate discordant facts.” (Fisher 1997, 24)
The dilemma here is, if “…we do not easily accommodate discordant facts”, is it because we are unable to do so due to the contextual and perceptive limitations that exist within our cultural realities? Or is it a case of deliberate unwillingness simply because each of us believes that the views, beliefs and perceptions we hold are what matters and are also beyond doubt? Is a belief, view or perception true because one has lived life adhering to those principles or is it true as a result of being supported by proper logic that follows a sound reasoning process? Divisions among societies are created mainly within cultural contexts and subsequent actionable interpretations. One has only to look at the religions of the world to understand this “universal truth”.
The message of Jesus (pbuh) can be summed up in one statement, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” And yet, with the plethora of denominations and sub-denominational groups all preaching a unique true way to God, and in many instances rejecting and dehumanizing non-followers of the faith, the original concept appears to be lost amidst the self-ordained “chosen few”.
Similarly the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (pbuh), stated:“None of you is a true believer until he loves for his neighbor/brother that which he loves for himself” (An-Nawawi, hadith# 13, http://www.isna.net/Islam/pages/An-Nawawis-Forty-Hadiths.aspx). Yet there still exists animosity and violent confrontations between the Sunnis and Shias.
The problem may lie in man’s seemingly perpetual desire to shape sociopolitical narratives in order to accommodate personal views or group perspectives. In an attempt to control his environment or project ideologies upon others, whether through malice or with good intent, man seems to deviate from and pervert the original “perfect reasoning” of humanity’s respective faiths (from a religious perspective), claiming in the process that this is the best or only way forward. In applying a culture-specific perception to challenges humanity faces, not only is man claiming righteousness by reasons of historical practice and cultural interpretation, but is simultaneously setting up cognitive boundaries that will inevitably trigger defensive measures (some rational and others irrational) subconsciously designed as a response to “foreign reasoning” . These types of perspective filters and cultural mindsets seem to dominate reasoning and serve as blue prints for human interaction and understanding on a tribal, national, regional and international scale.
ORIGINS OF TERRORISM
The subjects of Islam and terrorism have intrigued many, from government leaders and experts in international organizations to scholars in academic institutions. “Islamic terrorism”, an unfortunate misnomer, has quickly become one of the most talked about and researched phenomena of our time. The concept of terrorism by itself is not new; it has been around for thousands of years. Although its manifestations have differed over the years, its overall objectives have more or less remained the same. Organizations and individuals utilizing terrorism as a tool for change have embarked upon psychological campaigns using symbols, rhetoric and rallying causes that were and continue to be designed to attract the attention, sympathy and support of respective general populations. Some organizations have consistently cultivated a sense of ethno-national pride or an image of standing up for the oppressed and the weak. Perhaps by this, extremists desire to offer a more meaningful and legitimate image to those on the outside who may not agree with their strategies and tactics but nevertheless may understand the humanitarian aspect of their organizational behavior.
Terrorists and extremists rarely see themselves or understand their actions as immoral or wrong. Despite the extreme nature of their tactics, they often refer to themselves as “freedom fighters”, “holy warriors”, “revolutionaries”, “urban guerrillas” etc (Hoffman 1998, 29); and in many instances throughout history, justifying wholesale violence on a massive scale as a means to “bring democracy” and to open markets to foreign countries. This has been a common thread of all terrorist and extremist organizations, including Western governments, dating as far back as 1794 when the French revolutionary or extremist (subject to perception) Robespierre issued a statement announcing the objectives of the “regime de la terreur”. He explains terror or extremism as being evil only if it stands alone void of any virtue or common cause for the welfare of the people. His reasoning offers an argument that seeks to bridge a “by any means necessary” approach with the goal of fulfilling the ideals of democracy and social justice; as long as a rebellion or revolution has those ideals as its ultimate objective then, according to Robespierre, the movement is worth the sacrifices even through terrorist and extreme tactics (Palmer 1970, 126).
This deft manipulation of genuine struggles for justice, peace and indigenous-inspired democracy was eagerly absorbed by the masses of the time. It continues in many instances today in the West and Middle East; perhaps being perceived, although historically never successful, as the most effective approach utilizing the least amount of time necessary to accumulate hard-to-achieve and time consuming goals. Robespierre, like many after him in government and society at large, was able to provide “instant gratification” in an attempt to bring about social justice and instill virtues and principles of fair government that were lacking in France at the time (Ibid), and historically around the world. One of his more famous quotable and even noble statements goes as follows:
“We want an order of things …in which the arts are an adornment to the liberty
that ennobles them, and commerce the source of wealth for the public and not of monstrous opulence for a few families …In our country we desire morality instead of selfishness, honesty and not mere ‘honor’, principle and not mere custom, duty and not mere propriety, the sway of reason rather than the tyranny of fashion, a scorn for vice and not a contempt for the unfortunate …” (Palmer 1970, 124).
In his book Inside Terrorism, Bruce Hoffman describes Carlo Pisacane, the Italian noble turned extremist, as a “passionate advocate of federalism and mutualism”(Hoffman 1998, 16). Pisacane provided the argument for extremist activities within this context:
“…people will not be free when they are educated, but educated when they are free”(Hoffman 1998, 17).
And he offered that sensational violence as witnessed through terrorism was in some instances necessary to inform the people of injustices, the need for action, and to bring their attention to the ideals and reasons behind a revolution. Similar arguments were made by ethno-national/secular militant organizations.
Groups such as the Palestinian Liberation Organization under Yasser Arafat (PLO) who fought and continue to struggle for liberation from occupation, and other groups who were then fighting against colonial authority in Kenya, Algeria and other parts of Asia came to be known internationally as “freedom fighters” because of the political nature of their respective movements (Hoffman 1998, 25). However, also during this period, the term “terrorist” was being marketed and pushed as a label for the so-called “freedom fighters” by the colonial masters represented at the time by England, France and the newly created Zionist State Of Israel (see,1967 UN Sec Council Resolution 242 on Israel). As Arafat argued in his address to the U.N. General Assembly in 1974, the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter was the cause each sought to pursue. His reasoning: one who seeks the freedom of his country and that of his people from foreign occupation, oppression and injustice can never be called a terrorist (see, Yasser Arafat Speech to the UN Gen Assembly, Nov 13, 1974). Arafat’s actions, and that of other occupied peoples around the world, occasionally relied on violence against both military and civilian targets; their methods served to alienate them from some members of the international community who either could not grasp the fundamentals of the struggle for freedom or believed in other more diplomatic channels to achieve results.
If one were to understand terrorism within the context of retaliating with violence against an occupying force (as proposed by colonial powers and recent occupying entities; with more punitive emphasis given to retaliatory violence to occupying forces than to the reality of the “occupation”), then one must include Jewish groups within Palestine who were among the so-called terrorists seeking to be relieved of the British and to effectuate a massive relocation, including eradication, of indigenous Palestinian population through violence. Groups such as Hagana, Irgun and Stern Gang, classified as terrorist organizations and whose members later served in Israeli governments, through their terrorist activities between late 1944 through 1947 were largely responsible for forcing the British to withdraw as an occupying force from Palestine, thus freeing up channels for the mass influx of fellow Jews to Palestine from the diaspora, primarily Europe. Even with the withdrawal of British military forces from Palestine, Irgun continued their terrorist attacks through 1948; this time however their targets were indigenous civilians (see, Database of Terrorist Incidents, http://www.cdiss.org/documents.htm).
For the most part, terrorism occurs within the contexts of reactionary measures designed to demonstrate (among other things) a powerful show of discordance with government laws and/or policies, a frustrated defiance of the status quo (whether national or international, political, social, economic or religious) or a distrust of a uni-polar system of power as evidenced in the last few decades. Terrorism and extremism have always been and will likely continue to be reactions to perceived situations, not pre-emptive measures of defiance. It is with this base foundation from which one must proceed to bring a relative understanding to the subject.
THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF ISLAM AND TERRORISM
Is Islam synonymous with terrorism? Is Islam a cause of terrorism because of the “undeniable truth” critics claim to understand or is it simply a matter of using cultural filters to perceive only that which supports pre-existing suspicions (this is called satisficing; see Heuer, Psychology of Intelligence Analysis)? The answers to these questions can be set up to support arguments on either side of the issue; it all depends upon the approach, the perceptive filter employed and the factual understanding of the issue (or lack thereof). However, in bringing a realistic understanding of Islam to task and by utilizing reasoning based upon its doctrines and the interpretation of its Prophet (pbuh), one may see that Islam is as synonymous with terrorism and extremism as is democracy; one may also see that Islam is a terrorist-producing religion in as much as Christianity and Judaism are.
So much of our value systems are fused with an almost automatic emotional response to issues; to the extent that they permeate what may otherwise be a reasonable comprehension of a particular matter. It is an almost instant reaction that goes unnoticed as it is occurring at any given point. However, its resulting effect is as powerful as any mind altering drug available. The major difference being that the effects of drugs tend to wear off over time, whereas mindsets and perceptions often develop strength over time and anchor themselves in consciousness by reasons of cultural practices and cognitive constructs.
In bringing Islam to task on its “relation” with terrorism one must identify and differentiate two elements within the contexts of religious studies: 1) religious values emanating from a supposed divine source, and 2) adoption and personal/group interpretation of those values based upon educational background, cultural realities and personal experiences. To remotely consider terrorists to be acting upon Islamic values risks grouping over 1.6 billion Muslims under the category of “potential terrorists” simply because they adhere to the same values. As is evident in the American Muslim community’s relationship with the federal government immediately after 9-11, the majority of Muslims not only felt alienated but were actually spied upon, manipulated in some instances, and even falsely entrapped in order to prove faulty assumptions and stereotypical generalizations made within the law enforcement community and fueled by well funded, media savvy Islamophobes.
Consider the following statement by a college professor and author of an essay on Islam,
“From its very birth, it (Islam) has had as its goal the subjugation of the masses and the elimination of all who dare to oppose it. Its founding prophet provided a model for terror as he slaughtered thousands throughout the Arabian countryside, and its holy book unashamedly advocates the use of any means necessary in the defense of Islam” (Davisson 2006, 6).
This statement reflects a biased, wholly inaccurate and factually unsubstantiated selective interpretation of historical events that occurred in the history of Islam. It is true of every historical event that, should it be taken out of its original context, its occurrence and significance can be made to seem other than what it actually was. Historically speaking, there is not a single account of either a pre-emptive strike or an actual offensive military campaign that was undertaken by the Prophet of Islam (pbuh) in order to spread the faith. Assuming that he never acted on his own and always received “inspiration” from God, then one would understand the implications of the following verse from the Qur’an after years of being subject to discrimination and violence:
“Permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged and, verily, God has indeed the power to succor them; those who have been driven from their homelands against all right for no other reason than their saying, ‘Our sustainer is God!” (Surah 22:39-40, Holy Qur’an).
It is clear from this verse that prior to its revelation the Prophet (pbuh) did not engage in or have authority to wage any kind of military action in any context against anyone. As far as the events occurring after its revelation, one must first understand the meaning of the verse as it applies to directing the subsequent actions of Muhammad (pbuh).“Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged……”, as is evident, this verse clearly states the intention of the actions it calls for and puts it into a context that cannot be misunderstood. To wage war against those who wage war against you is undoubtedly a defensive measure designed to protect oneself or defend others against aggression. It would be unfair and misleading to characterize such a verse in terms of permitting Muslims to wage “offensive” battles for Islam. Islam’s context for any kind of battle is strictly a defensive action nothing more and nothing less. The following verse is amongst the many cited by critics as supportive of Islam-inspired terrorism:
“…and fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you…And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out, and persecution is severer than slaughter…”(Surah 2:190,191, Holy Qur’an).
It seems to be a very disturbing piece of literature. However, this verse which appears in the Holy Qur’an under Surat Al Baqara, verse 190 and 191 respectfully, stands incomplete and out of context as quoted above. In order to be fully understood the verse should be read beginning from verse 190 and ending in verse 196. Omissions of passages, whether deliberate or not, in the middle and at the end of this quote transforms this verse into a “motivation for terrorists” that the critics of Islam often cite. It plays right into the hands of those who seek to vilify Islam as a religion of violence. Reading the verse in its entirety and in its original context, it becomes possible to discern its intended message as opposed to the one strategically implied by the critics and by extremists. The verse in its entirety without any alterations reads as follows:
190. “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.” 191. “And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque,unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.” 192. “But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” 193. “And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. But if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.” 194. “The prohibited month for the prohibited month,–and so for all things prohibited,–there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.” 195. “And spend of your substance in the cause of Allah, and make not your own hands contribute to (your) destruction; but do good; for Allah loveth those who do good.” 196. “And complete the Hajj or ‘umra in the service of Allah. But if ye are prevented (From completing it), send an offering for sacrifice, such as ye may find, and do not shave your heads until the offering reaches the place of sacrifice. And if any of you is ill, or has an ailment in his scalp, (Necessitating shaving), (He should) in compensation either fast, or feed the poor, or offer sacrifice; and when ye are in peaceful conditions (again), if any one wishes to continue the ‘umra on to the hajj, He must make an offering, such as he can afford, but if he cannot afford it, He should fast three days during the hajj and seven days on his return, Making ten days in all. This is for those whose household is not in (the precincts of) the Sacred Mosque. And fear Allah, and know that Allah is strict in punishment” (Surah 2:190-196).
Segments of this verse were highlighted in order to assist the reader in understanding the differences between the original and complete verse as opposed to the strategically incomplete one. Even though verses 195 and 196 are not in direct relation to the “fighting” nature of the preceding 4 verses, nevertheless they form an integral part of the entire surah and cannot be omitted.
As can be clearly deduced, the omission of parts of the verse falsely places it in a position of declaration of war and merciless persecution. However, once studied in its complete context, it becomes obvious that the message behind this verse is one of a defensive nature, “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors,” “but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them,” “but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.” A “transgressor” as defined by wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn is “someone who violates a law or command.” To elaborate upon this definition consider that in order to “violate a law or command” one must first initiate an action; by definition, initiating an action intended to break a law would be considered an offensive behavior, one that cannot be understood as a defensive action. Since the verse in question is prohibiting Muslims from “transgressing” the limits set forth by God (as claimed by Muslims), then it is to be understood that they cannot, by order of “divine mandate,” proceed to mount an offensive military campaign.
In another commonly-quoted verse from the Qur’an, the same strategy of text omission or manipulation can be seen:
“…Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a horrible murdering. 33:62. Such has been the course of Allah (God) with respect to those who have gone before; and you shall not find any change in the course of Allah” (Surah 33:61,62, Holy Qur’an).
Again, the powerfully negative impact of the verse is all too salient. The resulting shock is enough to push the average individual to conclude that Islam is indeed a rogue religion. However, put in its entirety and original context, the reader will read this verse as follows:
“33:60 – Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them: Then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbors for any length of time: 33:61 – They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy). 33:62 – (Such was) the practice (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime: No change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah” (Surah 33:60-62, Holy Qur’an).
In the former text, one is unable to discern the subject that is being referred to as “they”. The reader is left guessing in order to fill that void; the logical sequence of reasoning (as perhaps some anti-Islam critics hope) would then be followed: that the “they” probably refers to non-Muslims. Nothing can be farther from the truth when the verse is read in its entire context. It becomes clear that “they” is referring to “…those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the city…” “They” includes Muslims and non-Muslims; it is an unambiguous statement. One must also pay attention to specific terms that elevate the context of the verse beyond an individual level to one that operates within a judicial and legislative plane.
To understand the intended meaning of this verse and to appreciate its implications, the term “sedition” will be interpreted as it pertains to government and rule of law.wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn defines sedition as, “an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government”. Similarly, Congress offers this elaboration on the term: “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.” (Seehttp://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C115.txt)
Having established an understanding of “sedition”, it becomes prudent to tie it in to the verse in question, specifically line 33:60, “…those who stir up sedition in the City.” We therefore understand that in any society and under any government, including that of the United States of America, one who “stir(s) up sedition in the city” is inciting illegal action against the rule of law and/or governing order. That can be seen as either a coup attempt or an act of treason depending upon the nature of the incitement. The U.S.“Alien Registration Act” is a piece of legislation that clearly specifies in no uncertain terms the criminal nature of seditious activity within the United States. It defines an offender of this law as one who:
“Knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence” (United States Alien registration Act of 1940 Title I, sect 2,3).
Clearly, sedition back then seems to be as it is now; not specifically different under Islamic rule in the period of Muhammad’s (pbuh) existence. Intending to place the entire verse into its proper interpretation, consider the text of line 33:62, “(Such was) the practice (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime.” Elaborating on its referencing of “those who lived aforetime”, Islam refers to Christians and Jews as “people of the book.” The Qur’an explains to Muslims the importance of following the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) and Moses (pbuh). The following verse puts Muslims’ belief in God’s prophets (pbut) into perspective:
Say ye: “We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma’il (Ishmael), Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord: we make no difference between one and another of them: and we bow to Allah (in Islam)” (Surah 2:136, Holy Qur’an).
Accordingly, when the former verse referred to “(Such was) the practice (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime,” it was relating to events that occurred during the time of the prophets before Muhammad (pbuh), among them were Moses (pbuh) and Jesus (pbuh) respectively. One can pick a number of verses in the Old and New Testaments that occurred within similar contexts as did the “seditions” verse in order to understand the significance of their commonality with the Qur’anic verse. Bearing in mind that, as critics tend to impose a negative perception of selected verses of the Qur’an, so would one be tempted to draw similar conclusions of the Biblical verses mentioned due to the “violent” nature of the events they explain. However, the reader is directed to understand them within the context they are presented and not judge them based upon “personal” beliefs. The reader is also encouraged to perceive the following Biblical verses as well as the Qur’anic “seditions” verse as participating in a larger picture of how God is “believed” to have operated throughout history; although it is almost impossible to find anti-Islam critics referring to these verses in the Holy Bible. The Biblical verses mentioned are as follows:
“And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho…And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle…And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him, But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves” (Numbers 31, King James Holy Bible).
According to www.jewishgates.com, “the definitive source for Talmudic learning,” the orders of Moses to “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him, But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves,” came from God. It was due in part to the people of “Peor” and specifically the local pagan women who were responsible for seducing a number of Jewish men into illegal and immoral sexual conduct designed to reverse God’s favor on Israel (See, The Debacle at Shittim at:http://www.jewishgates.com/file.asp?File_ID=944). Moses is also said to have ordered the following action against those Jews who committed these sinful sexual acts:
“God said to Moses, Take the people’s leaders, and impale them before God, facing the sun. This will reverse God’s display of anger against Israel” (Numbers 25:4, King James Holy Bible).
Following the trail of “Gods displeasure” with his creation and the subsequent role of the prophets (pbut) in meting out His judgments and punishments, the New Testament quotes Jesus (pbuh) as saying:
“Men think, perhaps, that it is peace which I have come to cast upon the world. They do not know that it is dissension which I have come to cast upon the earth: fire, sword, and war. For there will be five in a house: three will be against two, and two against three, the father against the son, and the son against the father. And they will stand solitary” (Gospel of Thomas, King James Holy Bible).
This quote can also be referenced in the Gospel of Luke as follows:
“I have come to set fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until the ordeal is over! Do you suppose I came to establish peace on earth? No indeed, I have come to bring division. For from now on, five members of a family will be divided, three against two and two against three; father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother…” (Gospel of Luke, King James Holy Bible).
And in the Gospel of Matthew:
“You must not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a son’s wife against her mother-in-law; and a man will find his enemies under his own roof” (Gospel of Matthew, King James Holy Bible).
In bringing a more accurate and contextually relevant account of religious history to task as well as a detailed analysis of popular misperceptions, the intention is to distinguish between what is considered “religious fact” from that which is intended to manufacture hate and contribute to disinformation and the mis-education of the general populationregarding a religion that is not all that foreign from the Judeo-Christian faith. To tie all these verses under a central theme, it is paramount that the reader perceives the common thread that is apparent among the three faiths just quoted. For one, Judaism, Christianity and Islam (are perceived to) demonstrate the actions of a loving God. At the same time however, they also showcase the wrath of that same God in common logic; similar to those actions parents might exhibit with their disobedient offspring albeit under less punitive contexts. It may be an inherent reality that one employs their perceptive tools in judging and comprehending non familiar subjects. But consider that it is also a sign of a carefully developed and accommodating intelligence when one seeks to understand elements of a foreign concept through common interest factors rather than rely on those factors that, owing to ambiguity, lead concerned parties in opposite directions within the spectrum of mutual understanding.
Explaining the variables that influence international relations, Glen Fisher posits that we“need to make better use of what is known about differing patterns of perceiving and reasoning.” This is called, as he states, a “mindset” (Fisher 1997, 2). His goal was to seek out reasons or justifications for the way people perceive and behave in relation to global issues. He quotes Webster’s dictionary definition of “mindset” as being a “fixed mental attitude formed by experience, education, prejudice, etc” (Fisher 1997, 2). As individuals, we may firmly believe that our perceptions and understanding of a subject matter are as close to the truth as possible. However, in reasoning this way we shut the door on more appropriate and relative channels of perception which quite possibly could demonstrate the erroneous position of self-righteousness we have occupied all along. It seems counter-productive to pursue comprehension of a non-familiar issue based upon individual or collective experiences and cultural realities. The fact that a matter may be foreign in terms of our understanding should alert us to the ill-advised sole use of our culturally accepted norms of reasoning to address it. A potentially better judgment would be to pursue alternate routes that, although unfamiliar, may eventually allow for a fair perspective on the issue being presented.
Should one abandon the values and beliefs they hold to be true? This can be answered in two ways. First, those values and beliefs should not be abandoned as long as they apply to the universal principles of equality and the ethical standards necessary when pursuing truth. Furthermore, they must not be cast aside if they arouse in us a conscious awareness of the undeniable factors and variables that may influence our perceptive logic; in this case, those values and principles may serve to alert individuals in cases where they may succumb to such culturally primed perceptions. On the opposite end of the spectrum, when one positions themselves on a self-righteous platform in order to analyze and judge issues, it becomes necessary to consider whether or not one’s beliefs and personal methods of understanding serve to obstruct the pursuit of unbiased reasoning. Being self-righteous does not by itself disqualify an individual from understanding foreign concepts and perspectives. It does however present an elevated risk in that it creates a “you vs. them” scenario, and one risks solidifying an already limited comprehension of the information available for analysis simply by assuming this position. As a measure of caution, it then becomes reasonable to curtail feelings of self-righteous indignation (in the case of this paper “self-righteous indignation” takes on a religious connotation) even if it means temporarily abandoning one’s “undeniable truths” relating to values and beliefs for the sake of a more accurate method of reasoning. In comparing global patterns of logic (as can be seen in UN General Assembly deliberations), Fisher noted that: “reasoning itself follows differing patterns…of logic” (Fisher 1997, 56). He elaborates on culture’s role in laying the blue print for how ideas are connected to produce whatever patterns of logic are considered normal for that society. Similarly, critics’ and extremists’ behavior reflects a perceptive lens that does not accommodate competing alternatives of understanding. Personal beliefs and cultural perceptions have entrenched their reasoning in a defiant and non-compromising position. This renders their ability to discern fact from opinionated perceptions completely unacceptable; this is evident in the Evangelical establishment’s sustained attacks on Islam.
The Evangelical religious establishment has been an unfair, biased, and extremely harsh critic of the Islamic faith, and as the Reverend Franklin Graham stated, it (Islam) is a “very evil and very wicked religion” (See, McMahon 2006,http://www.cfr.org/publication/11341/#2.).Reverend Graham along with like-minded critics go to great lengths impressing upon the general public to judge Islam according to their particular perceptions and to the “violence apparent” in the verses of the Qur’an, and to further hold the religion accountable for the independent actions of extremists who claim strict adherence to Islam.
It should be noted that there is a fundamental difference between the terms used to describe terrorists; they are in fact diametrically opposed to one another in every manner conceivable. There is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist, it is a misnomer. The term (Islamic terrorist) does not distinguish the perpetrator from the religion; as such, the religion suffers the consequences of the terrorists’ actions. Islam is subsequently unjustly perceived as being a primary source and inspiration for individuals who commit acts of violence, become criminal insurgents or are judged to be acting against international norms. The term does not allow for individual accountability of one’s actions. It ignores a fundamental scientific fact, that not a single individual on this planet has the same psychological and cognitive constructs as another. People are as unique from each other as are their finger prints. The term condemns the whole (Islam) based upon the actions of a unit (Muslim). Employing a more relevant term such as “Muslim” (this is also debatable albeit less punitive than the alternative) terrorist facilitates identifying and holding responsible the individual perpetrator(s), subsequently distancing them to some degree from the main body of Islam. The term “Muslim” describes an individual adherent of the Islamic faith.
A Muslim ascribes to the principles of Islam as an individual for as long as he/she wants to, when he/she wants to and in whatever context he/she wants to. However, his/her actions do not define the religion itself. Why? It is quite simple. As a resident of the United States, one is obligated to abide by the rule of law (assume this rule of law to be religion) and has a responsibility to carry out activities as an upstanding citizen. Even though there is an obligation to follow the law, one cannot be forced to do so due in part to one’s free will. Offenders can be punished by the law for failing to adhere to it (as was demonstrated in the “violent” verses in the Bible and in the Qur’an), but the fact still remains that an individual is capable (not to be confused with having the right to) of doing what he/she wants, when he/she wants, where he/she wants and to whom he/she wants. An unwillingness or failure to follow the rule of law should not be misunderstood as an intrinsic flaw in the law. Rather, that rogue elements exist who need to be brought to justice. The same applies to Muslim terrorists. If the actions of individual priests involved in the child molestation scandals are not being attributed to the principles of Christianity, then neither should the actions of individual or groups of Muslims be attributed to the principles of Islam. It is that simple. However, as mentioned earlier, we live in a world in which cultural indoctrination rules and one may end up believing the “facts” they want to believe, regardless of whatever actual truths exist in opposition to those believed “facts.”
In a survey conducted by the Pew Forum, it was discovered that Evangelicals, more than any other American group, have an aggressively negative perception of Islam and Muslims (See, http://pewforum.org/publications/surveys/inter-religious-understanding.pdf.). If the world is indeed supposed to judge Islam according to the “Biblical standards” as Reverend Graham would suggest, then it would be just to note that Christianity also fails those same “standards.” The similarities in religious “violence” among the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths have already been explained. The following is an almost identical account of the “violent orders” supposedly issued by God as they appear in the Bible and the Qur’an.
“If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, “ Let us go and serve other gods”, unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from your God. . . .” (Deuteronomy 13:7–11, King James Holy Bible).
“They hope that you will reject faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they). So do not take friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from what is forbidden). If they become renegades, seize them and kill them wherever you find them. (In any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks, except for those who join a group with whom you have a (peace) treaty or those who approach you with hearts calling upon them to be neutral. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you and do not fight you, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then Allah has opened no way for you (to fight them). You will find others who wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people. Every time they are sent back to temptation they succumb to it. If they do not withdraw from you or give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and kill them wherever you find them. In their case, We have provided you with a clear argument against them” (Surah 4:89-91, Holy Qur’an).
It should be clear to the reader that if Christianity and Judaism were to be judged along the same lines as Islam, both will inevitably end up in the same position as Islam. This does not mean that any of the religions mentioned herein are evil or that they advocate terrorism and violence. They should be seen however, as establishing rule of law and providing for judgments within a religious context. The manipulation of quotes and/or omission of texts in order to support pre-existing perceptions has been made salient.The following verse from the Qur’an explaining one of the reasons for creation is a sobering reminder of our duties to one another.
“O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah (God) is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).” (Surah 49:13, Holy Qur’an).
When judged through the correct contextual analysis of its verses in the Qur’an, the foundation of Islam stands on firm ground; insisting through the logic of its message and the reasoning of its Messenger (pbuh), that it is a way of life undoubtedly opposed to terrorism in all its forms. The association of terrorism and extremism with Islam persists because of a well funded anti-Islam propaganda campaign by Islamophobes;not to mention a fundamental misunderstanding of these Qur’anic texts and the core values they espouse by critics of the religion. The nature of Islam, as evidenced through the proper comprehension of its verses, counters the reasoning and actions of extremists who attempt to justify and legitimize their methodologies by attributing their rationale to the religion, and who contribute significantly to the negative stereo-typing of Muslims in general and to Islam specifically by tailoring specific verses from the Qur’an to support their respective extreme agendas. Simply put, “There is no compulsion in religion” (Surah 2:256, Holy Qur’an).
CONCLUSION
If we are to understand mankind’s existence in ways other than to seek out our common bonds, the common interests that unite us, then we succumb to the destructive practices that befell the so-called great empires and cultures of the past. Given that our differences are a part of our common existence, they should not however be a source of animosity and unfounded conflicts. We fund marine biologists to study the life in our oceans so that we may understand that which is different and unknown. We encourage space exploration in order to seek out possibilities of alien life and unknown systems of galaxies and that which is different from what we know. We pursue knowledge of the flora and fauna species in the Amazon to better gauge their benefits to mankind and to understand the unknown that exists high up in the canopies of greenery. We explore the wilds of Africa and Asia in hopes of comprehending the beasts that intrigue us.
Yet, when it comes to exploring our differences as people, our unknowns, we expose the ugliness of our shortcomings. We showcase intolerance for common sense reasoning; we display behavior that reflects the mental capacity of the very animal kingdom we claim to be superior to. We manipulate and strategize, often times at the expense of truth and for the sake of being proven right beyond all measures of reason. It is only through positive familiarity with one another and genuine cooperative pursuits of factors of truthful understanding that societies progress and begin to lay the foundations for future generations.
No individual is compelled to practice anything other than what is familiar to them. No individual is compelled to accept methods of reasoning they deem unsuitable for themselves. However, there are inherent responsibilities that one must shoulder should they feel the need to “educate” others on issues of global importance. There are ethical standards by which the intellectuals of every society must live by; across the globe, these values are similar and in some cases identical. Truth is valued by most individuals in every society and in every culture.
Humanity has common interests. It has a shared foundation of responsibility, accountability and common origin. We must not abandon our similarities in order to expose differences for the sake of claims of superiority and righteousness. The measure of a religion or belief system is not to be found in the actions of its individual adherents. The measure of a religion is encountered in the universality of its message, the doctrine of equality it espouses and the claim of the common origin and uniqueness of all people. As human beings, we will inevitably come up short on many occasions and in many endeavors. Man is unequivocally not the measure by which religion should be judged.
The opposite is perhaps a more definitive and authoritative standard; that religion is the measure by which humanity should always be judged. Whether it is acknowledged or not, religion is the cornerstone for our most basic laws and general civil order structure. One need not practice or belong to a particular faith to realize and understand this.
