Islam for All the Destruction

Islam

For all the destruction and bloodshed inflicted upon the world by Muslim fanatics, Islam is, in essence and in its original form, not a violent religion.

Burhan, Faysal. The Prophet of Islam and the Jews: Basis of Conduct, Acceptance,

Respect and Cooperation. Institute of Arabic and Islamic Studies, 2007. Retrieved on November 21, 2007 from www.islamic-study.org/Islam%20%Denounce%20Violence.htm

http://www.islamic-study.org/Islam%20%Denounce%20Violence.htm

The author writes about the basis of conduct as taught by the Koran. The Islamic faith is founded on certain principles. These include free will and choice, peaceful dialogue, acceptance and understanding, disapproval of terrorism and non-violence. Every Muslim is bound to conduct intellectual dialogue with others to establish and improve relations. Islam teaches Muslims to be kind, tolerant, and understanding and to develop bonds with all people. The Koran teaches that the purpose of creation is for people to deal with one another with kindness and that piety is the best virtue. It condemns intolerance, prejudice and bigotry. It also opposes discrimination according to color, creed, national origin and religion. The Muslim is supposed to exhibit this conduct in all of his affairs. Islam teaches proper behavior, control of anger, patience, justice and care towards one's spouse and other family members, the young and the old, friends and enemies, and the environment. A Muslim is required to be wise, sensitive, humble and considerate. The lack of tolerance towards those who are non-Muslims is, under Islamic law, a grave offense.

Islam most certainly disapproves of terrorism, the author continues. It considers the human soul sacred. It does not tolerate bloodshed, prejudice or discriminatory practices or behavior. Indiscriminate killing is expressly forbidden by Islam. It does not in any way approve of killing any race of innocent people, whether Christians, Jews or any other religious group. Prophet Muhammad himself clearly taught so.

Khan, Maulana Wahiduddin. Non-Violence and Islam. Symposium on Islam and Peace,

Non-Violence International and the Mohammad Said Farsi Choir of Islamic Peace:

American University, 2007

The Islamic religion teaches non-violence. The Koran says that God does not love violence. Violence or "fasad" is action, which produces disruption of the social system and loss of lives and property. God thus loves non-violence. He hates violent activity, which destroys lives and property. The entire spirit of the Koran resonates with this principle. It encourages patience above all Islamic virtues and promises immeasurable reward for it. A patient action is non-violent. It considers this "hadith" of non-violence superior to the violent method. By the law nature, everything associated with violence is bad and everything associated with non-violence is good. It is everyday experience that violent activities create hatred among men and non-violent activities conduce to love. Violence destroys while non-violence builds and preserves. Enmity comes out of violence, while friendship develops from non-violence. Negative values derive from the method of violence in dealing with others, while positive values grow out of the method of non-violence. The method of violence creates problems for people, while the method of non-violence allows them to seek out opportunities. Hence, violence equates with death, while non-violence equates with life.

The Koran and the "hadith" ascribe great importance to jihad. Jihad means struggling to the utmost, but the struggle is non-violent. The Koran's interpretation of jihad is an ideological struggle to win people's hearts and minds, using the tenets of Islam. Opposed to jihad is qital, which is violent activism. The Prophet of Islam observed non-violence all his life. The non-violent method has a distinct advantage over the violent method in that nothing is wasted. The opportunities can be explored to their best extent. On the other hand, the violent method dissipates activities in armed conflicts. Militant actions disrupt social traditions. The non-violent method or approach can be initiated and prolonged or preserved without incurring any damage on tradition. Improving or replacing system with the use of violent activism has been found to be counter-productive. One coup d'etat can only be followed by another, no matter how justifiable the objective. The acceptable revolution must allow gradual and beneficial changes and this can only be through non-violence.

Islam has attained great success with the use of non-violent methods. One example is the Prophet's adoption of pacifism or non-violence in the first 13 of his 23 years of prophethood. In the 13 years in Mecca, there were many issues, which could have led to clashes and bloodshed. Yet the Prophet confined himself to the peaceful spread of the words of Allah. In the same first 13 years of dawah work, men of high moral distinction join the Islamic fold and later formed the history of Islam. These men included Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman and Ali. Another example was the near-confrontation between the Quraysh leaders and the Prophet in Mecca. Rather than react and retaliate, the Prophet secretly migrated to Medina. Migration is another form of non-violent activism. This peaceful option led to the establishment of a powerful center of Islam in Medina. The history of Islam would not have evolved if he took the other option. His opponents, however, decided to wage war against the Prophet. But in response, he accepted all their conditions and offered a 10-year peace treaty. It was a distinctive victory in Qur'an. The peace treaty was the first of a series of activities, which ultimately led to the conquest of Mecca and the entire Arabia.

The Prophet distinctively taught in plain words that, despite tyrannical and unjust rule, Muslims should not use swords against them. They should prefer to escape to the mountains and by all means avoid political clash and confrontation. His dogma was so clear the Muslim ulema formed a consensus, which outlawed insurrection.

The author asserts that Islam as an eternal religion is a peaceful religion. Islam is fundamentally based on peace and non-violence. Modern times and thought have rejected communism, Nazism and fascism for their use of violence. Islam, in principle, the author says, is a religion of nature. As such, it has rejected violence from the start. Instead, it upholds peace. Records show that it has played an important part in the development of humanity. Muslim today seem far off from the expectations of their faith. Their aggressive or violent attitude itself accounts most of all for their being displaced in modern times. Present-day Muslims are short-tempered and get easily provoked when things do not go the way they think or want. While not all Muslims are violent, those who are not do not disown or condemn those who are. The involved Muslims may be directly responsible, but the Islamic shariah itself makes uninvolved Muslims indirectly responsible. Muslim religious secular leaders are specifically responsible for the current violent approach of modern-day Muslims. They teach their young how to respond with violence to problems they face. The violent approach of their ulema is at the root of their violent mentality, which, in turn, has alienated them from others everywhere. This shows that they no longer observe the original ideal of universal brother taught by their faith.

The author points out that gleaning from the bloody acts of Muslims today, Islam is thought to be a religion of violence. But Verse 5:32 of the Koran specifically declares that "whoever kills a human being should be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind. If Muslims would stop their violent activities, others would be able to appreciate what Islam really teaches in its original form.

Samir Khalil Samir. Islam Condemns Violence? AsiaNews CF, 2005. Retrieved on November 21, 2007 at http://www.asianews.it/indexphp?l=en&art=4055

The author comments that the Islamic world does not follow clear principles but contradicts itself. Muslims say that Islam is peace and tolerance but evidence says otherwise. The Islamic faith intermingles with politics, even in the Koran. It has not even determined whether violence is legitimate or not in itself. Those who claim that Islam is a religion of peace are really opportunists who detest and fear a strong anti-Islam in the West. They come to the defense of the politics of Muslims and always find something to condemn in the West. Islamic violence grows out of the mix of religion and politics. Religion and politics should be separated. This is something the West can do by refusing Islamic requests made in Europe on head coverings, acceptable meat, freedom of Islamic teaching and freedom of mosques. The requests are really only a form of terrorism, cultural terrorism, that is. They are aimed at culturally "islamisizing" citizens.

Omar, Rashied. Islam and Violence. The Ecumenical Review: World Council of Churches, April 2003

The series of dramatic and bloody world events at the beginning of this century points to and reinforces the already extensive perception that Islam is in some way linked with terrorist violence. In order to achieve greater accuracy of perception, the author writes about the need to analyze the teachings of Islam in the Koran, the conduct of the Prophet, and the current global political situation. Analysis shows that the religious dimension, Islam, is the root of contemporary terrorist violence. For their part, Muslim apologists categorically deny the connection and the concept itself. They contend that all the violent activities implicating Muslims are distortions and departures from the true and noble teachings of Islam.

Virtually all Muslims admit that Islam is not a pacifist tradition, while it allows and legitimizes the use of violence under certain conditions. This condoning of the use of violence is not exclusive to Islam All religions have their respective concept and justification of what is meant or what constitutes a "just war." The author argues that the religious legitimization of violence does not occur in what he describes as a socio-historical vacuum. He borrows the interpretation of Graham Fuller of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA. Fuller said that if a society and its politics are violent and unhappy, its mode of religious expression will tend to be the same.

The Koran teaches that the just war is always evil but that it is sometimes necessary to fight to avoid persecution. Warfare was entered into in early days out of desperation because the leader was not allowed to display weakness towards his enemies in battle. The Koran allows people to retaliate, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. However, it also ascribes greater merit to giving up on revenge in the "spirit of charity." It stresses that hostilities should quickly come to an end the moment the enemy seeks peace. Muhammad demonstrated in the peace treaties he initiated in lieu of violence.

Jihad is often wrongly understood or equated with aggressive "holy war." The West thus has come to perceive Islam as a religion of violence and terrorism. The persistent and biased use of the terms "holy war" and "fundamentalism" by Western Christian scholars and critics presents problems in interpreting current movements within Islam. It deviates further from reality and becomes another obstacle to attempts at forging understanding between Muslims and Christians, following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

The mystical traditions of Islam present the greatest form of "jihad" or personal "jihad," which is to purify one's soul and refine one's disposition. This is the greater struggle according to the prophetic tradition or hadith. Muhammad advised his companions to advance from the lesser jihad of physical fighting to the higher or greater jihad of disciplining the self. The Sufis concept of the jihad was the spiritual struggle to tame the lower impulses and base instincts in human nature. A reductionist version became popular whereby jihad was justified only in defense. Critics have deplored the classical doctrine as erroneous as it violated some of the basic and essential Islamic principles on the Islamic ethics of war. They argued for the recovery of an alternative interpretation of jihad as a peaceful covenant of co-existence. This was practiced by the Prophet himself. Unfortunately, this alternative approach was moved to the background or ignored by partisan interpretations of classical Muslim jurists. Scholars have called on contemporary Muslims to reclaim this Sufi tradition. If done, it can expand and increase resources to settle conflict and build peace.

The author explains the occurrence of violent conflicts in the contemporary world implicating Muslims and Islam. The global order is neither just nor perfect. Islam strongly emphasizes social justice and is not a pacifist religion or tradition. There are influential extremists within Muslim ranks. International media have allied with Muslim extremists. The author concludes that the current violent image of Islam and the unquestionable occurrence of violence in many parts of the Muslim world should not hide the reality that other traditions and religions share that just concept of violence.

Krauthammer, Charles. Violence and Islam. Washington Post: washingtonpost.com, 2002. Retrieved on November 21, 2007 at http://www.well.com/~bernie/muslimviolent.htm

People's interpretations of religions change with time. In the process, they resort to the support of Scripture to defend their position. History shows that Islam went through contrasting periods of both violence and tolerance. In 1492, the Ottomans welcomed and nurtured expelled Jews from Catholic Spain. In contrast today, the Arab world wages the deadliest anti-Semitic propaganda since the time of Nazi Germany. The actions of Muslims in the world today speak louder than the words or teaching of the Koran. It tells the world that Islam is bloody. Some of the most vicious forms of violence are committed throughout the world by Muslims in the name of Islam. At the recent Miss World riot in northern Nigeria, they destroyed a newspaper's offices, massacred innocent Christians and issued a fatwa on the author of the article they found offensive. Their genocidal activities in Sudan against the Christian and animist blacks in the south include mass starvation, bombing of hospitals and slavery. In Pakistan, they attack Christian churches and kill parishioners. In Lebanon, they shot a caring Christian nurse for "proselytizing." The Abu Sayyaf Muslims in the Philippines kidnap and behead hostages as part of their terrorist campaign in the predominantly Catholic country. The Pakistani-Kashmiri terrorism against Hindu India, Chechen terrorism in Russian-Orthodox Moscow and Palestinian terrorism against the Jews and the September 11, 2001 bombing of the Twin Towers in New York further illustrate the violent behavior of Muslims on account of Islam. Attention is focused on the bloodshed involved in these activities rather than on the peaceful existence of other Muslims who possess civilized behavior.

The author wonders if this is not explained by the loss of Islam's rightful place half a millennium ago. Al Qaeda forces under Osama Bin Laden want to restore it through revenge and redemption, intimidation and terror. The United Nations attribute this bent for power to the Arab's failure to modernize. The leader of the largest Muslim society traces Islamic radicalism to failure of self-respect and self-identity and the failure of moderate leaders. They do not have the courage to challenge fellow Muslims who destroy for the sake or in the name of Islam. Blood will continue to flow until this majority learns or decides to speak.

Jacoby, Jeff. Muslim Violence. The Boston Globe: The New York Times Company, 2006. Retrieved on November 21, 2007 at http://www.boston.com/news/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/09/20/muslim_violence

Leaders of Muslim fanatics urge their followers during evening prayers to kill anyone on the spot who offends their Prophet. The Pope spoke of Islam's having a dark history of violence. This offended Muslim fanatics and they since yearned for his death. They bomb churches and attack innocent Christians in his place. Pope Benedict, in a speech at the University of Regensburg, said that religious faith not contained by reason can develop into savagery. Byzantine emperor Manuel II condemned Islam's militancy as "only evil and inhuman" in ordering its spread by the sword. British Muslims cried out that Islam would conquer Rome and that the Pope should be subjected to capital punishment. Iraq's radical Mujarideen's Army, the arsonists in the West Bank and the Sword of Islam all raged against the Pope and vowed vengeance. There were many other manifestations and cases of the same violent behavior and reactions.

In each case, fanatic Muslims claim that Islam has been insulted and vengeance is the only rightful response. Freedom of speech is not the issue. While they insult Christianity, Judaism and other religions, they allow no one to insult Islam or their Prophet back. It is a double standard. While no faith should be insulted, the true basis for the rage is the innate tendency to violence, terror and bloodshed among these fanatics. They release this savagery in the name of their religion on the one hand and the silence of the rest of the Muslims in deterring it, on the other.

Introduction

Islam is the monotheistic religious system of Muslims, founded in Arabia in the seventh century and based on the teachings of Muhammad and laid down in the Koran (WorldNet Princeton University 2006). It is more a whole way of life than a religion observed on Sundays, according to some observers. The Koran teaches a peaceful and patient way of life, which Prophet Muhammad displayed his whole life. But the principles of the Koran and the very interpretation of the Islamic tradition have undergone changes through the years. Politics has mixed with religion. The conditional justification of a jihad has made it a qital, or violent activism. A new brand of insecure secular leaders has developed. They teach young Muslims an entirely new thinking and new attitude, which is intolerant. They have adopted a new way of restoring their lost rule through terrorism, violence and bloodshed.