WHAT WE’RE DEFENDING
A Letter from Makkah
In Response to the Open Letter
from Sixty American Intellectuals
There is nothing worse
than violating moral values such as freedom and peace, except that the elite
group which has chosen itself as defenders of these values are willing
instruments of despotism and violence; and nobody is worse than politicians who
hurl themselves and their peoples into the flames of hostilities and wars,
except for educators and academics who justify what they do. If this is the case
in the land of freedom and democracy, then it is a case of inversion in the
world of values, worse than the disaster of destroying a building or the
killing of a few thousand people in the material world.
If sixty
Soviet intellectuals in the days of Stalin gathered in support of his
dictatorial methods it would have been the defect would have been obvious, but
in any case it would still be less evil than the gathering of sixty
intellectuals from the free world to support something of that sort.
The American
president’s announcement of the beginning of second phase of the so-called “war
on terrorism” coincided with the publication of the letter from sixty American
academics justifying this war. Similarly, his announcement of the “axis of
evil” coincided with the announcement of the intellectuals in which they
identified the evil faction which –according to them- is a threat to the entire
world, and in which they claimed that the events of September 11 were an attack
on freedom, which corresponded to the opening of the President’s address
concerning the crisis. The address was in the language of revolutionary
declarations:
“In the name
of universal human morality, and fully conscious of the restrictions and
requirements of just war, we support our government’s, and our society’s
decision to use force of arms… with one voice we say that the victory of our
nation and its allies in this war will be decisive. We fight to defend
ourselves, but we also believe that we fight to defend these universal
principles of human rights and human dignity, which form the best hope for
humankind.”
If the World
believed their claim to represent the American nation, then it would dash the
greatest hopes for a nation which is considered to be a leader of the free
world. However, something that provides a small glimmer of hope in the basic
good in human nature, is that these sixty do not represent the nation on whose
behalf they speak. Rather, most of them are members of the well-known movement
rejected by most intellectuals and people, and even perhaps, by some members of
the American administration. Nevertheless, the sixty do not merely speak in the
name of their nation, but have delegated themselves to speak in the name of
followers of the World Religions (Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Hindus), but
instead of warning about extremism in every culture and religion, and that
violence only begets retaliatory violence, they claim that the only danger to
the followers of these faiths –and to the entire world- is the Islamic movement
in all its divisions, of which the “Al-Qaeda” organization is described as only
one of its arms. Nor were they satisfied with making misleading
generalizations, but had to plainly lie when they said that this movement
“openly professes its desire and increasingly demonstrates its ability to use
murder to advance its objectives.”
They went
beyond accusing the Islamic movement to accusing Muslim governments of “tolerating” or sometimes even supporting
these movements.
Doubtlessly,
fair and good persons in America and throughout the world –even those who have
gone beyond accusing Al-Qaeda to convicting them- will reject this false
accusation against an international religious movement which possesses diverse
forms, locations and means, and whose general aim is to return its community
and the world to the light and justice of Islam: the same Islam which produced
the first and greatest of humane civilizations in history: a civilization which
reached from the Pacific Ocean in the East, to the Atlantic in the West, in
which a level of human dignity and religious freedom was achieved whose light
had not yet shined in the darkness of Europe which instead, turned toward
revolutionary violence in order to achieve slogans which in Islamic
civilization were universal rights like water and air –for all sons of man.
This is what
we believed when we first saw the open letter, and now our suspicions have been
confirmed by the release of a letter from 128 American intellectuals who oppose
it, in which they accuse the war against terrorism and its supporters of
racism.
For this
reason, this letter of ours ought to be understood as a clarification of that
of which these signatories are ignorant, or which they chose to ignore, and a
reminder of that which they forgot. It is not meant to be either a refutation
of the distortions against the modern Islamic movement, or a critique of
American values–that would require a long and detailed presentation- it was
written in the hope that they will reexamine and realize their error in the basic
subject matter of the letter. That is, support for the so-called “war against
terrorism” in the name of what they call: “universal values” -a campaign that
targets the Islamic World because of its Islamic character, without
equivocation.
We are
encouraged in this hope because of glimpses of truth found in the letter which our ethics require us to assume to be
from the sincerity of its writers.
In actuality,
the tendency to racism of the sixty signatories (which is most unfortunate)
goes beyond denying the status of Islamic values to dispute the values of the
West itself:
“No other
nation has forged its core identity –its constitution and other founding
documents, as well as its basic self-understanding- so directly and explicitly
on the basis of universal human values.”
When John
Smith founded the Colony of Virginia in 1607 he said, “Heaven and Earth never
agreed to better frame a place for human habitation.” Thus, have four centuries
passed without changing this idea of superiority, as if the people of the West
–at least- did not know that this nation was produced by a revolution against
the most stable of Western democracies, arrogating to itself the slogans of
those French intellectuals whose thought provided the foundation for the later
French revolution, so as to found the most bloody and racist society in human
history.
The modern
American empire is not necessarily what was intended by its founding fathers,
just as it is not fair to claim that the American people are fully satisfied
with and supportful of the imperial military establishment in Washington.
Rather, it is they who are the victims of a tremendous deception. Nevertheless,
they are responsible (as is any free people) for what they believe and do. For
this reason, it is their duty to judge the actions of this establishment
according to ethics and values, not to believe those who would disguise them
with false ethical and moral garments, and provoke their tendency toward
discrimination and superiority to silence their conscience.
Otherwise,
they will be tricked into abandoning universal values, by [the claim that] they
are their first discoverers and their truest representatives, when the general
feeling of the peoples from whom the Americans learned their values, tends
toward the complete opposite. Thus, the danger, which currently concerns the
protectors of freedom in Britain
and other nations, is that their countries will abandon some of their firm,
democratic values in imitation of the American example of restricting freedoms.
This reversal shows that American arrogance, which is acknowledged by the sixty
intellectuals, has also cast its shadow on the world of logic, and when it is
the logic of the mighty which asserts itself and there is no choice for others
but to submit, that is the tragedy!
Nearly two
hundred years ago Hegel claimed that the end of the dialectic of history had
been achieved under the shadow of the mighty Prussian emperor. Marx stole this
idea and announced that the end would only come with the establishment of the
Proletarian state. When Lenin established this state he made that belief the
cornerstone of revolutionary thought which overran half of this planet, and at
the end of the century, Professor Fukuyama (whose fingerprints are clearly seen
on this open letter) seized upon the fall of the empire of the Proletariat and
made the last state to be not Prussia or Russia, but America. At this point,
amazingly, he agrees with the “born-again” types one of whom was Reagan
(creator of the slogan “Evil Empire” which today has become the “Axis of
Evil”), who believe in the coming Millennial Kingdom which they believe will
begin around the year 2000. It is as if this were a surprising proof for
Hegel’s critics among the German and other philosophers who claim that he took
his idea of the “end of history” from Christianity!
This
intellectual detour to fabricate philosophical foundations for superiority over
others demonstrates a skewed central attitude, which does not allow any
consideration for others or their values, but it conceals this by summoning the
other to belief in values of which they suppose themselves to be the creators
or discoverers.
There is
another question about the role of Professor Samuel Huntington, author of the
theory of the “clash of civilizations” whose fingerprints are also clear in
this letter, and who represents the other face of the crisis of American
intellectuals who rejoice in the fulfillment of their prophecies, even if it
comes about through the destruction of several nations of the world.
The answer in
short, is that the Millennial Kingdom which the fundamentalist right in America
believe in, will only be achieved through blood that will be as deep as a
horse’s bridle for a distance of 200 miles during the slaughter of Armageddon,[1]
which the fundamentalists believe will be the decisive victory of the good,
Christian West over the evil, Muslim East, with the participation of 400
million men as well-known fundamentalist Jerry Falwell claims.[2]
From this we
may understand how both Huntington
,Fukuyama and
others came to meet on the soil of the current all-out war against Islam with a
group of other well-known members of the American right.
From this we
may also understand the lack of signatures from Americans such as Noam Chomsky,
Ramsey Clark, Paul Findley others who represent another, more just face of America to a
world frightened by the somber countenance of American arrogance. Since the
meeting at the “lake of blood.” necessarily excludes them (and necessarily
excludes most Americans whom we believe are among the greatest lovers of truth
and justice in the world, which has been proven by their great care to learn
about Islam after the incidents of 11 September instead of drifting along with
the media uproar created by the political administration through the means of
the media deception unit exposed by , as indeed these sixty intellectuals have,
unfortunately, drifted.
Not
surprisingly, the events of 11 September are the last in a list of “terrorist
attacks” which the sixty intellectuals cite as evidence that the just and free America (in
their view) is under attack by the enemies of justice and freedom. But the
strange thing (in our view and the view of every seeker of truth and justice)
is the absence of the other list, or what may be called the elimination from
existence of the other pan in the scales of justice. This was not done by the
leaders of the Pentagon, but by the hands of intellectuals who want to
monopolize the discussion of values, or rather, to dictate values for the world
which are –in their opinion- the loftiest values and fairest scales.
The Creator
of the world has revealed that He has perfected its creation in justice, and
that it is the duty of man to establish human life on justice also. According
to this, people who do not measure with a just measure are in collision with
the laws of universe, not just with the human preachers of justice:
The
Most-Merciful, it is He Who has taught the Qur’an. He created man. He taught
him eloquent speech. The sun and the moon upon their courses, and the stars and
trees bow down. Heaven He has raised high, and the scales of justice He has set
down: that you may not transgress the scales. So establish weight with justice,
and do not fall short on the scales. –Qur’an 55:1-9
The truth is
that the other list is too heavy for any scales no matter how large, since
Hiroshima alone would fill it to overflowing, so where will we place the other
examples of America’s pure and just war, such as Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War…?
Speaking of
the Gulf, my conscience forces me to interrupt here in order to whisper to the
consciences of the sympathetic mothers among the group such as Ms. Aird. While
signing along with these three men and the others, how did you set aside the
noblest of feminine emotions and forget the two million Iraqi children devoured
by diseases caused by the vicious biological war against Iraq ? Is that
not enough to make you think seriously before signing onto the justification
for American bombing of the children and women of Afghanistan, which used
weapons of mass destruction previously unknown to the world, putting thousands
of them to death while they lie sick and starving, so isolated in their steep
mountains that they never heard of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, or
Al-Qaeda?
Perhaps questions
such as this are called for:
Why did the
atomic bomb target the general hospital
of Hiroshima Baghdad targeted for a bombing in which 1,500
women and children were obliterated in an unprecedented hell-on-earth? Why did
the bombing of Kabul
target the Red Cross relief warehouse, turning their food and medicine into ash
before the eyes of millions of the miserable poor? If that was an accident,
then what does the repetition of the same mistake demonstrate to the world of
values? If it was done on purpose, then does it have any place in the world of
values?
Next, you
ask, “what are we fighting for?”
We accept
this question as a starting point for awakening the mind and conscience, and
taking account of the soul, but as a prelude intended to defend immoral
behavior in opposition to the conscience of the world, the nation, and Muslims,
there is no point in theoretical discussion.
The case here
is not a philosophical problem, or a theological issue, these are moral and
ethical values which we are able to test by going down to the real world and
seeing how these values take form in Kabul and Mazar Sharif after the guns go
silent, then we will know what values you were actually fighting for.
In the
Gospel, Jesus said, “By their fruits you shall know them.” The American
constitution, which is the embodiment of American values, remained preserved
like a holy relic of the middle ages until the following two amendments were
enacted: the first prohibiting alcoholic drinks, and the second which abrogated
the prohibition. Although the second is a clear example of the defeat of values
before the power of destructive lusts, that is not the point. The point is that
American values in Afghanistan
have been completely reversed. The conquering Crusaders have given the Afghani
people the good news that alcohol and its accompanying vices are permitted.
Despite the fact that it is human nature to deviate, those who responded to
this type of values were a minority among the Afghani people. At the same time
American values expressed themselves in tangible proof when they did everything
to oppose democracy by giving power to armed gangs from among the ethnic and
religious minorities with a bloody history frequently mentioned by the
Americans themselves. They immediately set about destroying morals and behavior
standards through the temptations of freedom, until it became clear that the
government of the Taliban were of more advanced values then those who removed
prohibition from the American constitution, and that the people of Afghanistan
in welcoming prohibition were of a higher standard of morality and ethics than
the American people who rejoiced at the cancellation of prohibition, and have
never since reconsidered it.
Three months
were enough to end these vaporous [new] values, when the Minister of Justice of
the temporary government in Kabul
announced under the pressure
of popular demand, that the application of the Islamic Law that the Taliban
applied is unavoidable, including the punishment for drinking alcohol. Opium
growers’ and dealers’ sense of the smell of American values was truer than that
of many of those who fervently support those values, since they quickly
proceeded to return to Afghanistan following the American occupation,
anticipating a new future for their humanitarian work, and an opening of the
American market which is the largest market for this plague.
George
Bernard Shaw made the sarcastic comment on the duplicity of Western values: “I
can forgive Alfred Nobel for having invented dynamite, but only a fiend in
human form could have invented the Nobel Prize. “Similarly, the Afghani people
may forgive the Americans for bombing the warehouses of food supplies,
targeting orphanages, and their other actions in the name of the so-called
“just war,” even the prisoners in the Ganjee? Fortress and in Cuba, but they
will never forgive their insult to the values in which they believe and their preference
of arbitrary, man-made values which are neither stable or just, and their
attempt to drag them down to the lowest American values, both in war and peace.
Furthermore,
the Islamic World may reluctantly come to understand the arrogance of the American
administration, and its blundering and abuse, by considering it to be the
pharaonic tendency of all historic empires, but it absolutely will not accept
American intellectuals teaching us Islamic values, and setting themselves up as
preachers of these values simply because a very small number of Muslims did –or
are accused of doing- an action that is minor in comparison to what the
American governing institutions have done in all the inhabited continents for
nearly a full century, with the very important distinction that no Muslim,
whether moderate or extremist, ever thought of harming America before America’s
bias toward the Zionist entity and offering it every support for its terrorism
and violence, and before America attacked more than one Islamic country and
proceeded to classify the states as “supporters of terrorism”, and the “axis of
evil” on the basis that the Muslims are at the head of the list and its target,
which is what the open letter from the sixty intellectuals came to consecrate
with a philosophical consecration.
We do not
claim that what the signatories wrote was a Freudian slip. But there may have
been an attempt to deceive the twinge of conscience when morality is evoked,
not in the inhumanity of war, but in the military tribunals and treatment of
prisoners, and the restrictions against the media and concealing of factual
information from the people, such as when the CNN news network has two separate
broadcasts, one for domestic consumption, and one for overseas, reminiscent of
the media in Eastern Europe during the Communist era.
However, we
cannot ignore the fact that we are in a situation similar to the situation of
the Popes, bishops and kings of Europe during
the Middle Ages who sent crusade after crusade against the Islamic East. The
current Pope has apologized to the Islamic World for those wars, but we believe
these intellectuals ought to be ahead of their time and present a similar
apology for what the American administration is doing to the Muslims, and
therefore open the door to dialogue and understanding between the two religions
and two civilizations. Unfortunately, they chose another path, and it may take
centuries for us to hear this apology, if such values that call for one even
exist.
The open
letter contains historical and philosophical generalizations in need of a
thorough examination, but we are not prepared to enter into a debate about
philosophy or theology, not only because of the lack of space, but also because
of our absolute conviction that we must believe in and accept as fact, all that
is true and just, no matter what its source, and that we must reject all that
is false and unjust, no matter where it is from. Except that the problem, which
we shall consider forthwith, is that they ascribe absolute truth to the temporary
historical situation of a particular nation, in a particular stage in history,
calling it “universal moral principles,” which is a claim any nation can make.
The result will only be to transfer wars from the battlefield to the world of
values, which contradicts the apparent intention of this letter as stated in
its conclusion. That is, unless we believe the Zionist journalist, Thomas
Friedman, who clearly states that it is the cultural war which is more
important to America ,
and that changing the social system, regime, and school curriculum is the most
important part of the battle with the Islamic world. In that case, “universal
values” become a means, not a goal. The reader has a right dispute this, so we
will leave off this possibility and discuss the subject based on historical
facts and logic.
The logical
basis of this great claim is lost for a simple reason: the principle on which
these universal truths are based is the principle of “natural law.” It is
unacceptable to rely on invoking an obscure principle like natural law whose
existence is hard to prove, let alone accepting it in the most complicated
problem to face mankind.
Rather,
historical reality bears witness that the theories which have done the worst
injustice to human rights were able, and are able, to base themselves on this
principle.
Ricardo, in
his justification of capitalist greed which was the primary motive for the
colonial conquests in human history, depended on it, as did Malthus and Bentham
in forbidding charity and benevolent treatment of the poor in violation of the
greatest human values, more shocking than Darwin’s decision that natural law is
established on the principle that life is a struggle and survival is for the
fittest, which became the philosophical basis for the destructive wars and
totalitarian systems of Modern Europe. As for the founding fathers of America , they
only cited it due to their belief that it was the most modern theory, just as
if someone today believed in the “end of history” for example.
It is well known
to researchers that Thomas Jefferson and those who worked with him borrowed the
terminology of the Declaration of Independence from the ideas of English
philosophy, especially John Locke, and from the founders of the ideology of the
French revolution such as Rousseau and Montesquieu. At that time, the idea of
natural law and natural rights was in vogue.
The origin of
the problem for them and other social philosophers was the lack of a doctrine
and law on which Western thought, which aspired to freedom from “ecclesiastical
theocracy,” might build, and to which it might refer for judgment. This lack
caused them to invent philosophical bases on which to construct.[3] A
comparison is in order at this point, between the Islamic World possessed
(beyond practical experience) a great legacy of revealed texts and explanatory
legal codes which carefully defined universal moral truths and provide detailed
laws governing human interactions six centuries before the promulgation of what
the English call “the Magna Carta. Europe did
not seriously attempt to emulate Islamic Law or even borrow from it, until the
Napoleonic Code of 1804, that is, a generation after the Declaration of
Independence of 1776.
To clarify
this we will take an example from the values that you mention, which can be
summed up in two words: “freedom and equality;” two old slogans, your
discussion of which, contains nothing new. Which, moreover, were not the
invention of the Founders. More importantly, these two values cannot possibly
be derived from the vague principle of natural law in pure logic, let alone in
the real world. Similarly, a little deep thought shows that they are
contradictory –not complimentary- values. Here lurks the danger, as the events
which transpired after the French Revolution (the revolution which clearly
exalted these two slogans in the West) clearly confirm. For this reason the
world historian Toynbee says:
“Human
history may be summed up as a struggle between these two opposing principles:
the principle of freedom and principle of equality.”
Since man is
unable to define the limits between these two opposing principles, or rather,
between the freedom of each party in the branches of human relationships
(governor and governed, husband and wife, one state and another, minority and
majority, etc.), and since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been
able only to provoke a new debate of the problem (from its proclamation until
now its interpretation has been disputed, and most totalitarian and violent
regimes unabashedly describe themselves as democratic.) Quotes such as Martin
Luther King’s about the “arc of justice” is most like describing water as
“water.” Similarly, the letter’s quotation of Augustine is exceeded in
eloquence by the quote in Gospel of one who is better than and antedates
Augustine, Christ –peace be upon him- but it is only an ideal for ethical
guidance. For this reason, there is no alternative but for all of humanity to
return to an absolute detailed, universal source, or to borrow the phrase of
Duguit, the Dean of French jurists:
“It is not
possible for man to legislate for man. Rather, that is possible only for an
unseen absolute power beyond the power of all mankind.”
This source
is found in divine revelation preserved from alteration, and this is found only
in Islam, and only in Islam because it is the Faith of all the prophets, and
all the divine messages to humanity. In the shade of its law, freedom, justice
and equality are achieved according to all their criteria and definitions, and
in their most advanced forms and practices. This does not mean to equate the
current state of Muslims to the ideal of Islam, we affirm the contrast between
the two. Not, by way of the open letter which differentiates between “Muslims”
and “Islamicists,” but on the basis that the human soul is bound to the earth
until faith raises it to heaven. We are not speaking of nationalism here, as
the signatories do, but of an international religion which is more widely
spread throughout the world than any other faith. They claim that it is
possible for anyone to become an American, however, the reality [of that claim]
does not escape anyone. In fact, however, anyone can become a Muslim, and that
is the true tie that can bind all of humankind. Islamic values are the common
denominator of the positive facets of all civilizations. Not only because of
the Islamic influence on most known world cultures, but because no matter how
large the circle of Islam grows, it does not claim to encompass within itself
all truth and justice, as many in the West may suppose (perhaps due to the
errors of some Muslims in their understanding or presentation of Islam).
Rather, it understands out of certitude that as one of the principles of
Islamic Law states, “Wherever justice lies, there is God’s Law,” and, “Wisdom
is the lost property of the Believer, wherever it may be found, he may lay
claim it.” The greatest truth of Islam is the exclusive devotion of worship and
service to God alone, without taking any partners beside Him. Yet Islamic
doctrine clearly and unequivocally states that it is the religion of all
prophets, and specifically the religion of Abraham, and that Muhammad –blessing
and peace be upon him- is only the reformer and interpreter of the Faith of
Abraham.
For this
reason, Islamic jurists, and even the Orthodox Caliphs, never ceased to utilize
any source no matter what its origin. Moreover, the Prophet himself –blessing
and peace be upon him- accepted laws that conflicted with Arab custom derived
from the practices of the Romans and Persians, as did the voluminous and
detailed books of the Muslim jurists concerning war and its laws based on
verses of the Qur’an, hadiths of the Prophet –blessing and peace be upon him,
and practical examples from the Prophetic biography and the history of the
Orthodox Caliphs whose rule was the most just ever seen in history after the
rule of the prophets. The great openness of Islamic civilization went beyond
the barriers in whose fetters modern civilization still stumbles. There was no
racial discrimination or immigration and travel restrictions to prevent a
delegation of pagan Turks from Central Asia
from presenting their claim to the Caliph in Damascus against the general of the Muslim
army that conquered their land. Even earlier, a Coptic Christian came to Medina to complain to the
second Orthodox Caliph about the deeds of his latter’s son. In both cases the
judgment was in favor of the plaintiff!
It is not
surprising that these and many similar cases occurred, the amazing thing is
that people of that era were not surprised by them because what they saw and
heard of Islamic justice caused them to be ordinary events. In contrast, we
find that the American administration has given a stern warning to the American
media not to publish the views of Mullah Muhammad ‘Umar concerning the
situation. Justice demands that those who claim to uphold it allow
opportunities to hear the other side. Justice is the stronger even if it is
weak, and weak is the oppressor even if he is strong. That the huge American
media arsenal of Voice of America Radio would be restrict the half-hour
broadcast of the opposing side is a decisive proof of the killer’s weakness
with which God strikes down tyrants no matter how mighty they may be.
Otherwise, why would the mass media fear the effect on an informed public of
the statement of a person frequently discredited by the same media as stupid
and simple-minded?
When Islamic
belief opened the gate to independent inquiry and research concerning the rules
of justice in any situation within the unified framework of values disciplined
by the religious texts and universal principles derived from them, it set down
the firm rule upon which justice between men is established, and on which the
claimant bases his claim. Therefore, the law requires hearing the claim just as
it grants opportunity to respond to it. Thus, humanity opened for the first
time, the gate of complementarity and mutual responsibility to protect the
dignity of each human being, by granting the right to anyone –whoever he may
be- to bring suit against anyone –whomever he may be. Not on an abstract,
literary basis as is the case of international human rights organizations, but
on a compulsory, enforced basis that could not be violated even by the supreme
leader of all the Muslims.
Thus, Islam
made the entire Islamic society something closer to a universal organization
for human rights. Because of this, Islamic society avoided –despite its vast
territory- the type of factional quarreling represented by the formation of
pressure groups such as unions, parties and organizations for each faction,
trade, or class, let alone the war between the sexes!
It also
avoided much of the tension in international relations which constantly
produces wars that deplete both sides. The nation which has this for its law
must be as far removed as possible from the “theocracy” which drowned Europe during the Middle Ages. Insomuch as theocracy, as
a license to kill from God –as happened to ___________ as well as to the
Muslims in the name of the Crusades, is considered apostasy in Islam in the
case of those who believe in it, and an attack on the exclusive attributes of
divinity for those who make such a claim. The Prophet –blessing and peace be
upon him- himself is only conveys a message from God, and clearly and
unequivocally stated that he judged according to his opinion in a case, and
that his judgment may coincide with what is actually just in the case, or it
may not. He did not know the unseen, and therefore, he could not responsible:
“You come to me with your disputes, and perhaps one of you is more convincing
in argument than the other so I judge in his favor according to what I hear
from him. If I ever grant to someone what is rightly his brother’s, I am only
granting to him a piece of Hellfire.”[4]
Thus, the
discussion of the advantages of American secularism over theocracy becomes
meaningless if it is connected with Islam, since identical or superior
advantages are found in and encouraged by Islam in its universal summons to
search for truth wherever it may be found, to fight superstition, blind
traditionalism and bias for one’s own opinion, and to discard tyranny and
despotism in every form, while preserving the greatest of divine blessings upon
mankind and the greatest human achievement: faith in God and obedience to his
perfect and just world law.
Secularism
may be the better of the two evils in the case of the West, but none of its
causes exist in Islam.
Thus, Islamic
civilization was the vessel for many different examples of civilization, not
only during its golden age, but even in recent eras. In all due humility,
nobody from this civilization claimed that it represents the end of history, or
that it exemplifies universal values. Rather, these values flow within the
universal entity of the Islamic community as blood flows within the body.
Let us take India and Spain as
examples, since original Islamic principles were preserved in both places
despite the severe decline from the peak of justice at the time of the Orthodox
Caliphate. Muslims ruled India
for eight centuries in which all people were equal there before the Islamic
Law, free in practicing their beliefs. Neither Hindu nor anybody else was
forced to change his beliefs. Rather, there was a degree of social harmony
which both the British Raj and the secular Congress party government after it
were unable to achieve -a failure which led to the arrival of Hindu extremists
to government, and the committing of horrible crimes against mosques and
churches alike. As for Spain
-which was another mode of civilization- it suffices to mention without
elaboration the religious and academic freedom that flowered there in contrast
to the severe fanaticism of nearby Europe . It
is sufficient for us to merely recall the Catholic inquisition that followed
the fall of Islamic civilization there, and the total annihilation of its
cultured people at the hands of those who learned the basics of civilization
from them. Perhaps it would be appropriate to mention the example that many
Muslims and non-Muslims hold to be the worst in Islamic history: the example of
the Turks. This was the example that
Martin Luther used to cite as the ideal of freedom of belief in contrast to the
blind papist tyranny. He was amazed that a Turk could be a Jew or Christian,
not only a Muslim, and that every Muslim could read the Qur’an at the time when
the Pope alone reserved the right to interpret the Gospel and prohibited its
translation.
This inspired
his 95 theses that he nailed to the door of the church at Wittenburg, which
came to embody the Protestant doctrine upon which the United States
was founded. Istanbul
was an international center of culture in which all religions and philosophies
coexisted, not only in its architectural advancement that dazzled ambassadors
and travelers then (and continues to do so), but also its moral and cultural
advancement.
It is enough
to know that the worst period of violence and violation of human rights in Turkey is
associated with the removal of Islamic law, and the imitation and
implementation of Western secular nationalism and legal systems from the end of
the nineteenth century until the present. Yet secular Turkey is the
second-place strategic ally of America
after Israel .
In general,
we say that Islamic justice and values are not founded on a philosophical opinion,
or political theory, but that they are established on the imitation of the
prophets, especially Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad –blessing and peace be
upon them all. That is sufficient in itself to be the true universal values,
and therefore, it is the duty of every person to morally be a Muslim,
regardless of whether he is a Muslim, Christian, Jew, or follower of any other
religion.
The
difference between Islamic values, and those found in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, is very great. Islam does not make dignity, freedom, justice,
and legal equality to be rights that must be sought, but duties whose execution
is incumbent on both plaintiff and defendant. Moreover, it is incumbent on
others to strive to enforce them on both parties, and to advise each individual
of his rights should he be unaware of them, and to protest against the other
party if he should reject those rights.
In contrast,
the undefined terms and vague indications of values in the statements of the
American founding fathers, and the authors of the International Declaration of
Human Rights, and other social philosophers since the European Enlightenment
until today, and in contrast to the absence of discussion of international
relations and foreign policy in the American constitution (since it is no more
than the document of a local alliance at a particular stage of an isolated
people whose features had yet to be completed, such as these can never be
universal) in contrast to all of that we say that in the divine book -the
Qur’an- we find hundreds of clear and explicated verses defining accurately and
in detail, the values which all humanity must apply in sincere service to God -
not as eyeservice or pretense- since He will judge them because of it on the
Day of Judgment:
Humanity, We have created you all from a
single male and female, and made you nations and tribes, that you may know each
other. Truly, the most noble among you is he who is most righteous. For God is
All-Knowing, All-Aware. –Qur’an 49:13
There is no compulsion in Religion: Truth is clearly
distinguished from falsehood; so whoever rejects idols and believes in God has
grasped the firmest handle, which will never break. For God is All-Hearing,
All-Knowing. –Qur’an 2:256
Those who believe, those who are Jews, the Christians and
the Sabeans, who believe in God and the Last Day, and do righteous works, shall
have their reward with their Lord. They shall have no fear, nor shall they
grieve. –2:62
Say: “Followers of the Bible, let us come to common terms
between you and us: that we shall worship none but God; and worship none other
beside Him; and that none of us shall set up lords from among ourselves other
than God. “ If they then turn back, say: “Then bear witness that we are
Muslims.” –3:64
All food was lawful for the Children of Israel except that
which Israel
forbade for himself before the Torah was revealed. Say: “Bring the Torah and
read it if you are truthful.” Thereafter, whoever forges a lie about God, it is they who are
wrongdoers. Say: “God speaks the truth, so follow the Faith of Abraham who
departed from idolatry and worshipped none beside God. –2:93,94
Believers, fulfill your covenants. Lawful for you are the
beasts of cattle other than those which are recited to you. But game animals
are forbidden to you while you are within the sacred precincts or in the state
of pilgrimage. For God decrees as He will. Believers, do not violate God’s
sacred rites, nor the sacred month, nor the sacrificial animals, nor the
garlands [which mark such animals], nor the security of those at the Holy House
seeking the favor and acceptance of their Lord. But when you are outside the
sacred precincts then hunt. Do not let the hatred of some people who prevented
you from entering the Holy Mosque lead you to hostility. Help each other in
righteousness and piety, but do not help each other in sin and hostility. Fear
God: for God is severe in punishment. –Qur’an 5:1,2
Believers, stand firmly for God, witnesses for justice. Let
not the hatred of others lead you away from fair treatment. Be just: that is
nearest to piety. Fear God. For God is All-Aware of what you do. 5:8
Stand firmly, witnesses for God even if it may be against
yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, whether rich or poor it is God who
can best protect them. So do not follow
your vain desires and depart from justice. If you distort justice or refuse to
do it, God is All-Aware of what you do. –4:135
Say: “Come, let me recite what your Lord has forbidden you”:
Do not worship anything beside Him, and be kind to your parents. Kill not your
children from fear of want –We provide sustenance for you and for them. Do not
approach indecent acts whether openly or in secret. Take not life, which God
has made sacred, except by legal right. That is His commandment to you, that
you may learn to reason.
Do not approach the property of the orphan unless to improve
it, until he reaches maturity. Give the full and fair measure and weight. We
place no burden on any soul, but that which it can bear. When you speak, be
just, even if it may concern a close relative. Fulfill God’s covenant. That is
His commandment to you, that you may remember.
This is My straight path, so follow it. Do not follow the
other paths that will cause you to scatter away from His path. That is His commandment
to you, that you may be righteous. –6:151-153
Your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him, and be
kind to your parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in you
lifetime say not one word of contempt, nor repel them, but speak to them in
terms of honor. In mercy lower over them the wing of humility, and say: “My
Lord, have mercy on them even as they cherished me in childhood.”
Your Lord knows well what is within your souls: if you will
be righteous, He is Most Forgiving to those who repent.
Give your kindred their rights, and the poor and the
wayfarer; but do not squander away your wealth. For the wasteful are brothers
of the devils, and the devil is ungrateful to His Lord. If you must turn away
from them seeking the mercy your expect from your Lord, yet speak to them a
word of kindness. Be neither stingy withholding your hand to your neck, nor a
spendthrift stretching out his hand as far is it can go, or you will become
blameworthy and destitute. Your Lord sends forth abundant or limited sustenance
for whom He will. For of His servants He is All-Aware, All-Seeing.
Do not kill your children from fear of want: We shall
provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Truly, killing them is a great
sin.
Do not approach adultery. For it is an indecent act and an
evil path.
Nor take life –which God has made sacred- except by legal
right. If anyone is wrongfully killed, We grant to his heir authority: but let
him not be excessive in taking life; for he is assisted [by the Law].
Do not approach the property of the orphan except to improve
it, until he reaches maturity; and fulfill the covenant, for covenants must be
accounted for.
Give full measure when you measure, and weigh with a
straight balance; that is better and a more fair in the end.
Do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. Surely,
the hearing, sight and mind, each will be questioned.
Do not walk proudly upon the earth; for you can neither rend
the earth asunder, nor reach the mountains in height. All of these are evil and
detested before your Lord.
These are some of the wisdom revealed to you from your Lord.
Make no other god to be worshipped beside God, so that you will be cast into
Hell, blameworthy and rejected. –17:23-39
Have you seen him who turns away, gives a little, then
hardens his heart? Does he have knowledge of the unseen so that he can see? Has
he not been told of that which is in the books of Moses, and of Abraham who was
loyal? That none can bear the burdens of any other; that man can have nothing
but what he strives for; and that he will see the fruits of his striving; then
will he be reward the full reward. –53:33-41
Say: “I admonish with only one thing: That you would stand
forth for God in pairs or singly and think. Your companion is not possessed. He
is only a warner sent to you before a severe chastisement.” –34:46
Say: “Who grants you sustenance from the heavens and the
earth?” Say: “God; and either we or you are rightly guided or in manifest
error.” –34:24
Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not
initiate hostilities. For God does not love transgressors. –2:190
God does not forbid you regarding those who do not fight you
for your Faith, and do not drive you out of your homes, from dealing with them
kindly and justly. For God loves those who are just. –60:8
Among the people is one whose speech about the life of this
world may dazzle you. He calls God to witness what is in his heart; but he is
the most contentious of enemies. When he turns away, he strives everywhere to
spread corruption in the land and to destroy crops and progeny. But God does
not love corruption. When it is said to him, “Fear God, “ his arrogance leads
him to more sin. Hell is
sufficient for him, and evil resting place indeed. –2:204-206
If you fear treachery from any people, pay them back in
kind; for God does not love the treacherous… But if they incline towards peace,
incline towards it also, and trust in God; for it is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.
8:58,61
(The righteous) give food out of love of God, to the poor, the
orphan, and the captive. –76:6
Not all of them are alike: among the followers of the Bible
are a group who are upright, reciting God’s revelations throughout the night,
bowing down in submission. 3:113
Among the followers of the Bible are some who, if entrusted
with a treasure, would readily pay it back; and among them are some who, if
entrusted with a single coin, would not pay it back unless you were to stand
constantly by them demanding. That is because they say: “we are not held to
account for what we do to the gentiles,” but they speak a lie against God when
they know the truth. 3:76
Among the followers of Moses is a group who guide towards
truth, and by the truth do justice. 7:159
Those who reject God and His messengers, and desire to
separate between God and his messengers, saying, “we believe in some and reject
some,” desiring to take a middle course, it is they who are truly unbelievers;
and We have prepared for unbelievers a humiliating chastisement. But to those
who believe in God and His messengers, and make no distinction between any of
the messengers, We shall soon give them their rewards. For God is
Oft-Forgiving, Ever-Merciful. –4:150-152
If only the
followers of the Bible had believed and been righteous, We would indeed have
atoned for them their evil deeds and admitted them to gardens of bliss. If only
they had acted according to the Torah, the Gospel, and that which has been
revealed to them from their Lord, they would surely have received provision
from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them is a group who are on
the right course, but evil are the deeds of many of them. 5:65,66
Perhaps it is
appropriate to move on to another issue in order to discover the truth about
the disciplined freedom of Islam, a lighter topic which is still a sensitive
issue: the issue of sex and sexuality. American values and laws restricted even
the mention of unambiguous sexual terms and referral to the sexual organs until
the beginning of the twentieth century. Some European novels that contained
such terms were restricted from publication until the sixties. The famous
Kinsley report and other medical and sociological studies until today make
clear that many Americans suffer from great ignorance about sexual subjects!
On the other
hand, the Prophet –blessing and peace be upon him- who was most chaste in
speech and impeccable in manners, spoke about it in clear detail. Moreover, the
Qur’an itself speaks about this subject in words that are at the same time both
clear and respectful, and many Muslim authors, both ancient and modern, devoted
whole books, or chapters of their books to this discussion which are available
to everyone. Modern medical specialists are amazed to discover how these works
combined scientific biological, physiological and anatomical knowledge, as well
as sound psychological and behavioral guidance in descriptive terms that are
neither prudish nor trivial. Western experience is divided between total
suppression with its source in monastic celibacy, and unrestricted arousal taken
from the Freudians and others, while Islamic society is generally free from
both.
In general,
Islamic civilization did not know of censorship of thought and writing in any
subject, of which the rare instances of book burning only serve as evidence. If
Giordano Bruno, Galileo, or others like them were able to immigrate to the
nearest Muslim country, they would not have been subjected to any
persecution. As for Spinoza, his
situation can be compared to his Jewish coreligionist Moses Maimonides [whose
high position within the government of Islamic Egypt gave him security and
freedom to express his opinions]. Despite the fact that Israel is taken as an
example of democracy by many Americans, let us ask the Jewish Falasha
immigrants there from whom they receive better treatment, from the Muslims of
their homeland and within Israel, or from the [European] members of their own
religion?
In order to
shed more light on the matter, there is no harm in pointing out the events that
have happened in the past, and continue to happen in the states of the African
lake region [Burundi
and Rwanda ].
Islam has become a safe asylum for both sides in the repulsive racial wars
there, and Western missionaries are bewildered at the nearly four million from
both tribes [Hutus and Tutsis] who have embraced Islam. In his address on a
national occasion in 2000, the Rwandan president expressed his great admiration
for Islam, and his surprise at its greatness, and the speed with which it
extinguished the fuse of hostility and hatred between people. The Islamic Mufti
of Rwanda (who translated the address for this writer) said to me, “the
President was about to publicly announce his embracing of Islam, and I am in
the daily expectation that he will do so.”
If we go back
to the history of the founding fathers of the United States we discover that it
was a very different matter:
The United
States was founded on a clear conflict between puritan ethics (of the
Calvinists) and their genocidal tendency because of which millions of human
beings among the native peoples were sacrificed, something which (along with
other evidence ) provides confirmation that the founders were inspired to this
barbaric holocaust by the law of the maculated text of the Torah, by following
the same principles which it is claimed that God commanded Joshua to follow in
his wars against the Philistines.
When the
groups of colonists were able to become a national force, the violence was
quickly directed toward the original peoples from whom the colonists came,
especially the English. The American War of Independence was a revolution of
white Protestants against a white, Protestant government. This proves that it
had no ethical meaning other than continuation of the principle of expansion
and conquest, the principle shared by both the [British] government and the
colonists. If the matter had been one of values such as freedom and democracy,
it would have been most appropriate out of all the governments of the West, to
obey the English government, which was indisputably, the most democratic and
open to debate of all the colonial powers. Without praising British
colonialism, we can say that the people of other colonies rejoiced at the news
of the British defeat of the Portuguese and Spanish for this reason. Then why
did the branch revolt against the root? What lit the fuse of revolution was
none other than the Sugar Law of 1764 and the [infamous] Tea Tax. Both parties
fought over a land that did not belong to either, and human rights had neither
mention nor effect!
The third
feature besides exterminating millions of the native people, and fighting a
democratic government in a civil war, is the most repulsive of features which
formed the American national existence: hunting down and enslaving human beings
simply because God created them a different color!
I do not know
why the sixty intellectuals failed to praise the morality of America’s freeing
the slaves, although this claim is similar to their claiming universal values
and just war in that each is a late justification for a long and painful
situation which cannot be justified any more than you can shield yourself from
the sun with the palm of your hand. The phrase, “All men are created equal,”
with which Jefferson begins the Declaration of
Independence was not used in the context of inventing or discovering universal
values, but was only an expedient argument for the equality of the white man of
the American colonies with the white man in the motherland. It never included
people of color or women. The Americans took nearly two centuries to pass civil
rights legislation and end racial discrimination during the Johnson
administration.
At the time
that civil rights advocates were seeking to achieve the end of racial
discrimination through legislation (which is only theoretical, as evidenced by
subsequent and continual incidents) they sought to void the racist laws which
were then fully in effect and enforced with the great popular support. As a
quick example we recall that the constitution of the State of Mississippi , section eight concerning
education, paragraph 207 required separation of white children from Negro
children so that each race shall have its own schools.
Section ten
concerning reformatories and prisons, paragraph 225 required the legislature to
take appropriate measures to separate white prisoners from black prisoners.
Section
fourteen, general laws, paragraph 263 declared marriage between a white person
and a Negro, Mulatto, or a person of one-eighth Negro blood to be unlawful and
void.
Perhaps more
surprising than the laws of the State of Mississippi
is the following text:
“Whoever
prints, publishes, or distributes printed, typewritten, or handwritten
materials inciting the population to consent to social integration and marriage
between white and black, or presenting arguments or proposals of this kind, his
activity is considered an offense punishable by law by a fine not to exceed
five hundred dollars, or imprisonment for a term not to exceed six months, or
both.”
In a document
presented to the United Nations in February, 1948 titled: “An Appeal to the
World,” the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People stated
that similar laws to those of the State of Mississippi were applied in
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana,
Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, and that similar but less severe laws were
applied in Delaware, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, and that
there were eight northern states that forbade intermarriage between whites and
blacks: California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, and
Utah.
The appeal
then continues to detail the wrongs borne by people of color in the United
States stating that in twenty of the country’s states there was [at that time]
mandatory segregation of white and black pupils, while the laws of the State of
Florida require school books reserved for black pupils to be stored separately
from school books reserved for white pupils. In fourteen of the country’s
states, the law required segregation of white train passengers from black train
passengers, while the laws of eight states require the establishment of
separate compartments for whites and blacks. As for buses, segregation was
required in eleven states. There were laws requiring the segregation of white
and black patients in hospitals, and in eleven states, mental patients are also
segregated according to color and race. Segregation was required between whites
and blacks in prisons and reformatory institutions in eleven of the states of
the Union .
There were laws
mandating the segregation of whites from blacks in too many aspects to list
them all. However, narrating some examples is sufficient to clarify the extent
of the oppression which pursued the colored races with the force of law. In Oklahoma , the law mandated
separate telephone booths for Negroes. In Texas , it was illegal for white wrestlers to
fight black wrestlers, and in North
Carolina , it was not permitted for Negro and White
workers to work on the same floor in textile plants, nor is it permitted for
Negroes to enter and exit from the same doors from which Whites enter and exit.
Before September 11, 2001 , America had
another September of historical events in the year 1957, when President
Eisenhower ordered the unfortunate 101st airborne division to invade
the state of Arkansas
and remove 10,000 –strong Arkansas National Guard. He announced to the public
that he was taking these measures to remove the disgrace which was exposed to
the entire world, especially the Communist world, that human rights in America
were useless when the governor of the state insisted that he would not permit
black children to enter white schools, rejecting the ruling of the Federal
Court with the excuse that integration would cause chaos and bloodshed in the
state, and that the state would need a five-year transition period beginning
the integration of kindergartens in the year 1963.
During the senior Bush’s Presidency the worst race riots since the 60’s in Los Angeles were sparked
by Police brutality in the arrest of Rodney King that shocked the President
when he witnessed it on film. Similar incidents occurred during the Clinton
Presidency in New York
and Cincinnati .
Each incident stirs up a long history of deep-rooted racism which indicates
that moral values are a slogan that is quickly forgotten because the basis of
those values is not true faith in God. We can compare this to the situation in
Islam:
At the largest gathering ever seen in ancient Arab history, the Prophet made
his farewell pilgrimage in the company of the Arab rulers and the leaders of
their tribes. The entire assembly was eager to see the Messenger –blessing and
peace be upon him- especially the rulers of Yemen who had recently embraced
Islam and come a long way. They were
extremely surprised when they first glimpsed him. What they saw was the face of
a prophet, not the face or appearance of a king: He was sitting on his camel
along with his freed black slave Usama ibn Zayd who was sitting behind him.
This is something that any Arab leader would have disdained to do –even if the
man was no longer a slave. A year previous one of the rulers, Wa’il ibn Hajr
refused to sit on the same camel with Mu’awiya ibn Abi Sufyan, who would one
day become the Caliph of the Muslims.
The Prophet –blessing and peace be upon him- then delivered the greatest
sermon glorifying, confirming and describing human rights known in history. He
repeated a similar message on the second day (Eid al-Adhha) and the third day.
In one excerpt from it he says:
“Humanity! Do you not share one Lord and one father? Truly, there is no
superiority for the Arab over the non-Arab, nor the non-Arab over the Arab, nor
White over Black, nor Black over White, except by piety.[5]
One of the chiefs of the tribe of Quraysh purchased a luxurious robe owned
by the famous Yemeni ruler, Dhu Yazin before embracing Islam. He presented it
as a gift to the Prophet –blessing and peace be upon him, but he refused to
take it without paying its fair price. After buying it he gave it as a gift to
Usama ibn Zayd. The Arabs were shocked to see the robe of Dhu Yazin worn by a
freed slave. This chief of Quraysh[6]
departed in awe of what he had seen. It is narrated that the rulers of Yemen freed
thousands of slaves during that season out of faith in God, and in imitation of
God’s Messenger. In this manner, Islam transformed the values of the Arabs and
other peoples, and dissolved discrimination without creating an uproar. Those
who had been slaves yesterday became rulers, scholars and leaders whose high
position and honor was unmatched even by the Caliphs and their sons. If the
author so desired, he could fill numerous volumes with such narrations.
Before Islam the law of the jungle reigned supreme. According to it
restraining from violent revenge was a shameful weakness. One of the Arab poets
mocked a certain tribe:
“A tribe
that does not violate its covenants,
And does not
a mustard seed of harm to anyone!”
But the companions of the Prophet were educated by the Qur’an, which taught
them to be steadfast in the truth:
“Be patient and endure as the most determined of the prophets endured.”
About
controlling one’s temper, the Prophet –blessings and peace be upon him-
counseled:
“The truly strong
man is not he who fights, but he that controls his anger.”[7]
In this
fashion, justice, kindness and helping the oppressed became the standards by
which societies were judged.
A group of
the early Muslims fled from the persecution of the idolaters to Ethiopia . When
they returned after a long absence, the Prophet –blessings and peace be upon him-
asked them to speak about the wonders they had seen in that country. They said:
“While we
were sitting there one day an old woman passed by carrying a water jug on her
head, when a boy came by and placed his hand between her shoulder blades and
pushed it onto her knees and broke her jug. When she got up she looked at him
and said, ‘You will know, you double-crosser, when God’s footstool comes down,
when all mankind is gathered together, and their hands and feet are made to
speak about their deeds, then you will know what is to become of me and you
before Him tomorrow!’”
The Prophet
replied, “She spoke the truth, yes, she spoke the truth! How can Allah sanctify
a nation whose weak do not take their satisfaction from their mighty ones?”[8]
Was your
modern version of the Roman Empire built on
the skulls of ten million Indians and slaves, or twenty million? If we add the
number of slaves who died during transport or during the hunt does it reach 40
million or 100 million? Estimates vary. The number itself does not interest us.
The Qur’an states an absolute law: Whoever takes even one life unlawfully, it
is as if he killed all humankind!
The readymade
American excuse for these atrocities is that some Americans called for freeing
the slaves and that they fought the supporters of slavery and eventually won.
But they purposely distort the causes of emancipation. It was not out of belief
in human equality and dignity as some of them try to portray, because neither
side disputed the idea that blacks were inferior to whites! The dispute was
whether these inferior people had the right to freedom, and whether it would be
more beneficial to the country’s reputation and economy?
This
detestable belief went to–and still remains at- a level that is difficult for
Muslims especially to comprehend, in which even houses of worship are
segregated, each race having its own churches, and a black minister in a white
church is almost unheard of.
There are
some facts that are very difficult for Muslims to interpret. Muslim Imams who
have worked in American prisons (whose work itself bears witness to Islamic
values and the necessity of them for reform of humanity) have noted the high
percentage of blacks among those sentenced for drug crimes. This seems to
contradict the official statistics of the Department of Health and Human
Services which indicate that there are five times as many drug addicts among
whites as there are among blacks. The confusion is partially cleared up when we
see that police patrols in America
have a dual purpose: to defend the freedom of whites, and to detect crime among
blacks. But how do we interpret the statistics that show that there were twice
as many blacks as whites arrested during the seventies, while in the nineties
there were five times as many arrested!
The answer is
that since most blacks are poor, they tend use a cheaper form of drug [crack
cocaine] while whites use the more expensive form, and Congress passed
legislation imposing stiffer penalties only on the cheaper form.
Through this
legal oppression –if that is the correct expression- I will add another cause
for the increase in black prisoners and clear up the confusion.
When the
novel “Roots”[9] was made
into a film, statistics say it was seen by more than 130 million Americans!
Why?
It was not
simply because it was a horrible tragedy, but because of the shock that a
tragedy of that magnitude had been covered up so long by high-sounding slogans!
The film
irritated a deep wound in the human conscience that quickly shredded the thin
layer of deception and falseness with the dawn of the truth.
According to
the novel, the author discovered that he was Muslim because his ancestor who
was hunted down by the “civilized” whites, was Muslim. He was able to trace the
event back so that he was able to meet his Muslim relatives seven generations
removed in Gambia ,
who spoke to him about his kidnapped ancestor –the same story that was told to
him by his grandmother!
When Columbus arrived at the
“Moro”[10]
Coast of Cuba
and saw a minaret he exclaimed, “My God, there are mosques even in China !”
Yes, there
were mosques there built in the Andalusian style, with the motto [of Muslim
Granada] “There is no victor but God,” written above their prayer niches. The
Muslims were the first victims of ethnic cleansing on both sides of the Atlantic : on the eastern side they were hunted down and
enslaved, and on the western side Muslim natives were exterminated as part of
the campaign of extermination of the native people.
Today,
two-billion people of different skin-colors but who share a common faith,
believe that America still strives to enslave them –but with more advanced
means and slogans, and that their grandchildren will someday will remember that
and perhaps have revenge.
There are
some in Afghanistan
who hope that even sooner Mullah Muhammad Umar will return, and that George
Bush will in a few years be nothing- and the entire matter is up to God alone.
What about
the Jews?
Violence against and extermination of the adversary
has been a necessary token of many people since Cain killed Abel, but in all of
history there has never been a less violent civilization than Islam, which,
because of the Qur’an, believes that justice is an absolute value, unaffected
by difference of faith, color, race, or any of the other bases which man uses
to discriminate, and that God has granted every human being a safe refuge which
none can deny him in this world.
The Muslim is
protected by his faith, the non-Muslim is protected by his covenant with the
Muslims, those under truce are protected by treaty, and those at war are
protected by the conditions of legitimate war including the conditions of just
cause and mercy, which caused those lands which were conquered by the Muslims
to consider the Islamic conquest to be a delivery from darkness into light, and
from servitude to freedom, and willingly and eagerly embraced the faith of the
conquerors, learned their language, and merged with them as much as they could
because of what they had learned of the merits of Islam.
Because of
this, the Islamic countries remained a refuge for persecuted peoples throughout
the world, if the scholars and thinkers, and millions who were burned at the
stake by European civilization (represented both by the Church and politically
motivated violence) been able to flee to the nearest Muslim country, they would
have found safety there (as thousands of Jews did).
Let us take
the clearest example of this: the Jews who are the greatest in hostility
towards Muslims as divine revelation tells us, and as history and reality bear
witness. Let us briefly examine the treatment of the Jews in Islam, and their
treatment in Europe and America :
In Islam they
were given such care as they never experienced in any country, by reason of
their being “People of the Book.” The Prophet –God bless him and grant him
peace- who was the most just and merciful of men, responded to their ignorant
behavior with kindness, and to their intrigues with justice, and as much as
possible, he forgave and accepted the apologies of those who did wrong to him,
despite the fact that he endured a great deal of persecution and betrayal at
their hands, such as their murder plots against him in which they poisoned his
food, and conspired with his enemies on several occasions. It suffices that
they rejected him as they rejected Christ –peace be upon him- before, despite
the clear signs and proofs concerning the truth of his message, and his
overcoming the many difficult tests and trials from their Rabbis, and despite
the witness of some of their scholars who embraced his faith.
Despite all
of that, he never departed from fair treatment of them, and the dispute never
took the form of racial discrimination. The Qur’an itself resolved this by
demonstrating that good and evil are found in every nation, and that it is
never right to say that one people is pure and holy and the other is unclean,
as the Jews claim, which was commonly held during the pre-Islamic age of
ignorance, and was prevalent in modern Europe .
Rather, mankind (or the nation) sanctifies or pollutes itself. Each individual
is accountable before God at the resurrection. There are many clear and
unambiguous verses about this:
It is not according to your desires nor the desires of the
followers of the Bible: Whoever does evil will be requited accordingly, nor
will he find besides God any protector or helper. If any do works of
righteousness as a believer, whether they be male or female, they will enter
paradise, and not the least amount of injustice will be done them. Who is
better in faith than one who submits his face to God and does good, and follows
the faith of Abraham –turning away from idolatry? For God did take Abraham as
his friend. –4:123-125.
Not all of them are alike: among the followers of the Bible
are a group who are upright, reciting God’s revelations throughout the night,
prostrating themselves. 3:113
Among the followers of the Bible are some who, if entrusted
with a treasure, would readily pay it back; and among them are some who, if
entrusted with a single coin, would not pay it back unless you were to stand
constantly by them demanding. That is because they say: “we are not held to
account for what we do to the gentiles,” but they speak a lie against God when
they know the truth. 3:76
Among the
followers of Moses is a group who guide towards truth, and by the truth do
justice. 7:159
Thus, every
Muslim must believe that those Jews who believed in Moses –peace be upon him-
were the most favored people of their time. Later, those who believed in Jesus
–peace be upon him- were the most favored people of their time. Later, those
who believe in Muhammad –God’s blessing and peace be upon him- are counted
among his companions, who are the most favored people until the end of the
world. Any Muslim who rejects the three messages, or any one of them are not
all of the same level of morality. Some of them are sinners and others are
virtuous. Some are disloyal, and some are loyal. Some are dishonest, and some
are honest. Some are just, and some are unjust.
Muslims do
not claim to have a monopoly on justice, but acknowledge it in those
non-Muslims who embrace it, as they acknowledge the injustice of those Muslims
who cast it aside.
The Prophet
sent some of his companions to Ethiopia
during the time before the establishment of the Islamic state, because its
Christian king at that time allowed no one to be treated unjustly. Similarly,
‘Amr ibn al-‘As bore witness that the Christians of Europe where the most
resistant people to the tyranny of kings, and the most compassionate to the
poor and the widows.[11]
As for Muslim rulers whom all Muslims agree to have been tyrants, they are too
many to count.
Islam severed
the subject of racism at its root when it forbade boasting of ones ancestors
and descendants even if it were the truth. It forbade rivalry based on
legitimate and praiseworthy titles such as whether one were from the Muhajirun
(the first Muslims from Makkah who later emigrated to Madinah) or the Ansar
(those who later became Muslims in Madinah who welcomed and assisted the Makkan
immigrants), let alone such aspects as race or color.
In the
Prophetic biography a well-known event occurred between the Muslims and the
Jews in the Madinah marketplace. A Jewish man wanted to cause chaos by igniting
a rivalry with the Muslims. He loudly swore by “Him who favored Moses over all
mankind.” One of the Muslims answered him, “By Him who favored Muhammad over
all mankind.” Trouble was ready to break out when the Prophet –God’s blessing
and peace be on him- put an end to the problem by saying to the Muslims, “Do
not make me better than Moses.”
With Islam,
human beings are able to give justice its due while defending themselves from
the unavoidable hostilities of those who oppose them and deny them their
rights:
The Prophet
–blessings and peace be upon him- sent one of his companions to the Jews of
Khaybar to receive the money that they had agreed to pay according to their
treaty with the Muslims. They attempted to bribe the companion, but he refused
saying, “By God, God’s Messenger is the most beloved person to me, and by God,
you are the most detested people to me, but I cannot love him and wrong you in
any way!”
The long
history of Islam bears witness that the Jews were not persecuted, but just the
opposite, except on rare occasions. The Caliphs and Sultans usually had good
relationships with the Jews and gave them preferential status above the Muslims
for worldly reasons, to the extent that many Muslims complained and the
scholars of Islamic Law criticized the rulers for it.
As for
European history –without excusing the Jews- it is a chain of persecution of
the Jews so long that it is difficult to measure. Rather, it is difficult to
understand or believe some of the persecution. Besides the deep-rooted
hostility and continued campaigns against them initiated by the Pope, we find
Luther, whose teaching was influenced by Judaism, advised his followers at the
end of his life to burn the Jewish ghettos of Germany . For this reason, some
researchers consider the Nazi holocaust to be an extension of the
Protestant-inspired persecution, let alone the Catholic! (Story of Civilization
v26)
The
ecclesiastical councils, the Popes, and bishops of every sect sought to prove
their faith and piety by issuing laws to punish and expel them, and to
excommunicate Christians who dealt with them. In every land and church groups
were formed whose sole act of worship was to burn the Jews unless they
converted to Christianity. This occurred in France , Spain , Germany and elsewhere, and when the
Black Plague struck, all of Europe was overrun
by violent waves of Jewish extermination, to the extent that 510 Jewish
communities were destroyed in the mid-15th century. Some historians
estimate that not even one in five Jews escaped the destruction. All of that
because of the accusation that the plague was caused by the Jew’s “poisoning
Christian wells,” despite the fact that it was a worldwide epidemic.
The
atrocities committed against them (as well as against the Muslims) by the
Inquisition are so well known it is not necessary to mention them. In reality,
hatred of Jews was so firmly planted within the deepest recesses of the
Christian soul as to be beyond the limits of logic, and totally stripped of any
cause, as was also the case of Jewish hatred for Christians. Among the evidence
of this, is that European dictionaries used the word “Jew” not as a name for a
sect of people with their own religion, but as a description for evil, malice,
treachery, greed and filthiness. That is quite apparent in literature when the
greatest English playwright, Shakespeare, wanted to choose a character to
represent these attributes, he chose the Jewish “merchant of Venice,” and when
their great novelist, Charles Dickens wanted to show the worst type of
demoralizing education he also chose a Jewish character in “Oliver Twist.” The
level of hatred rose so high that Jews began to hate themselves. This happened
to many intellectuals such as Marx and Freud, and before them, to Spinoza.
This is an
appropriate point at which to mention the distinction of Arabic literature in
this regard. Offensive attributes are not personified by race or religion in
Arabic literature, they are simply used by themselves to describe whomever they
describe, whether Caliphs, ministers, judges, teachers, or commoners, no matter
what their religion, such as in “Kitab al-Bukhula’” (Book of Misers), “Al-Humuqa’wal-Mughafilin ” (Fools and Idiots), “Al-Majanin”
(The Insane), or “As-hab al-Hafuwat” (Committers of Gaffes).
As for America ,
whoever claims that it was founded on equality and freedom, its founders tried
to be too clever to resort to holocausts, and too fair to kill every child like
Pharoah. They were satisfied to try to cut off the problem at its roots by
suggesting outlawing the immigration of Jews to American.
During the
Constitutional Convention of 1787 Benjamin Franklin is said to have made his
well-known speech:
"I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect
this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. The menace,
gentlemen, is the Jews.
In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered
its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated
themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to
undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting
to its restrictions; have built up a state within the state; and when opposed
have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of
Spain and Portugal.
For over 1,700 years, the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in that they
have been exiled from their homeland, as they call Palestine
If you do not exclude them from these United States, in their Constitution, in
less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in such great numbers that they
will dominate and devour the land and change our form of government, for which
we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives our substance and jeopardized
our liberty.
If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be
working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they will be in the
counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not
exclude Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves.
Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will nor how many
generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas
do not conform to an American's, and will not even thou they live among us ten
generations. A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace
to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this
Constitutional Convention."
Tamerlane may
have been the worst ruler in the history of Islamic civilization, but he never
reached that level of racism. The Jews lived in his capital of Samarqand just
as they live today in Washington .
(Story of Civilization v26)
Without
doubt, whoever reads modern European history must acknowledge the level of
religious freedom achieved in the United States with fewer losses of life than
that in Europe, except that there is a terrible type of religious coercion
practiced by and supported by millions of Americans under the eyes and ears of
the government, intellectuals, and rights organizations, and which is moreover,
supported by most charities in American society: evangelization in which a
morsel of food or a dose of medicine is placed before the mouths of those
suffering from hunger or pain, and they are told, “if you express your faith in
Christ and accept [original] sin, the
crucifixion, and the atonement, then take this morsel or this dose, or else…”
To prove that
this sort of coercion is not the exception, we should understand that 30
billion dollars a year is spent on foreign missions, and that thousands of
people and dozens of supporting universities, institutes, and broadcasting
organizations are all working in this area.
There is a
further example difficult to interpret in light of so-called religious freedom:
Did John Walker, the American youth who accepted Islam and went to Afghanistan,
err in his understanding of American freedom, or does this freedom have obscure
and flexible limits which can be expanded to include the Israelis who plotted
terrorist activities inside America, and narrowed so as not to understand what
the actions of this innocent young man?
If it is his
duty (according to American values) for a person to fight alongside his
coreligionists and fellow citizens, then what if the problem with the Muslim
volunteers who fought along with the Taliban? And why were these atrocities
committed against them in Mazar Sharif and Cuba ?
But if what
is illegal is for a person to fight people of his own nationality and religion,
then what are the actions of John Walker, who may never fired a weapon, in
comparison to the butchery of the Northern Alliance
who killed thousands or tens of thousands of their own people?
If only
American justice has stopped at this indecent double standard, but it went
beyond that to that which is not in the power of any human: seeking to change
Muslim’s beliefs within their own country in their school curriculum, and by
forbidding the third pillar of their faith: charity, in the name of rooting out
terrorism.
We ask you,
does this request have even the smallest connection with justice and religious
freedom? Or anything else mentioned in your letter?
What about the Events of September 11th?
Readers of
your letter were surprised to read that “the killers of September 11 issued no
particular demands; in this sense, at least, the killing was done for its own sake.”
This is without doubt, an insult to the intelligence of millions of people from
all over the world who heard and saw the leader of the accused group speaking
about the tragedy of the Palestinian people and the crimes of America in Iraq
and other places, connecting American security to the security of the
Palestinians. This connection appears in a great number of testimonies: in the
statements of world leaders, in those of the leadership of the United Nations,
in reports of the international media, in a American opinion polls in which 68%
of the American public opinion wanted a solution for the Palestinian problem,
even in the statements of the President Bush, Secretary Powell, and Secretary
Rumsfeld speaking about solving the problem and establishing a Palestinian
state, and about concern to improve the political and economic situation of the
Islamic world whose troubles can be attributed to American policy. Bush’s
repeated refusal to connect the two problems is only a response to the clear
demand heard by the world, and understood by most of its leaders, the European
Union being only one example of that.
So why then
the recourse to this fallacy? Why this attempt to discover their motives while
denying that they ever issued particular demands?
The very next
paragraph us the answer. The whole purpose of the smoke screen around their
demands is only a means to say that the attackers targeted America because
it is free and democratic, just as the American president stated from the
beginning and has repeated many times since. This causes the reader to feel
sorry for the position these intellectuals are in, and reminds one of Soviet
biologists who altered the results of their research to serve Marxist ideology.
But they were forced to do so, while these sixties have voluntarily presented
this fallacy to support the statements of their president.
So as not to
be unfair, we will ask them only one question:
Why was the
Palestinian problem absent from the open letter when it is the fundamental
current problem that preoccupies the entire world, America in particular?
Let us listen
to the other side of America ,
the side which recognizes and faces the truth, proposing solutions that achieve
America ’s
interests –not Muslim or Palestinian interests. As long as Americans don’t
understand the cause of the disaster they will never arrive at a correct
solution. This point of view was expressed by David Duke in a long article from
which we have provided the following excerpt dealing with the issue at hand
(knowing that this man cannot be accused of loving Arabs, we do not agree with
his well-known opinions on other topics.)
Why was America
attacked?
It is vital
that we know why bin Laden and millions of others around the world have come to
hate America America
Perhaps we
should have enough courage to consider the possible reasons why so many might
hate us. Only when we have all the facts, rather than cute little clichés like
“They were attacking freedom,” can we decide the best way we can protect our
people in the future…
Too many
American politicians have treasonously betrayed the American people by blindly
supporting the leading terrorist nation on earth: Israel
I will show
you documentary evidence that during the last 50 years Israel America Israel United States Israel
The
Jewish-dominated American mass media and the Israeli-controlled politicians do
not want the American people to fully realize the incredibly high price America Israel September 11, 2001 , even President Bush repeated the
absurd lie, alleging the attack happened because they hate the fact that we are
free. If, as the media says, bin Laden is behind the terrorism, then they know
that the attack occurred not because he hates freedom. Just three years ago,
ABC television and PBS Frontline interviewed bin Laden during the time of the Clinton America
They
(Americans) have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government,… it is Israel America America
For
over half a century, Muslims in Palestine
Duke then
comments:]
Notwithstanding any
of his alleged crimes, bin Laden has never in his entire life uttered a word
against Democracy! The media invented the lie about attacking Democracy to hide
the real truth; that America Israel Mideast . The
unanimity of the media in propagating this huge lie without contradiction
should make every thoughtful person suspect that Americans are not getting the
whole truth from the media…
After going
into a lengthy list of Israeli terrorism, Duke then goes on to cite evidence of
Israeli complicity in the September 11 attacks:
The Washington Times ran a story on September 10, 2001 about a
68-page study issued by the U.S. Army School for Advanced Military Studies
(SAMS). The study, issued by the elite Army officer’s school, detailed the
dangers of a possible U.S. Army occupational force in the Mideast .
Here is article’s comment about the study’s view of the Israeli Mossad:
Of the Mossad, the
Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: "Wildcard. Ruthless
and cunning. Has capability to target U.S.
Duke then
comments:
Ironically,
within 24 hours of the story’s publication, the World Trade
Center
Duke then
presents what he calls solid evidence implicating Mossad which we will not go
into here, since it is not our purpose to either prove or disprove it as much
as it is our purpose to prove what is –in our opinion- the purposeful sophism
of the open letter of sixty intellectuals.
Not only do we
cite his evidence, but we will also cite other evidence reported in the
American and Israeli press, as well as the International press:
1)
The case of five Israelis who
filmed the attack while it happened, as was reported in American, Israeli, and
other sources.
2)
The case of the arrest of six
Israelis in two cars who had in their possession pictures and maps of nuclear
reactors in Florida and the Alaskan pipeline, as well as “suspicious devices.”
3)
The suspicious trading in airline
and insurance stocks at the New York Stock Exchange just prior to the events.
This is a well-known occurrence which is under investigation, and it is only
one piece of evidence that the Israelis at least, had prior knowledge of the
events.
Let us repeat
that we do not mean to exonerate them the one who has been accused and convict
someone else, we simply want to direct your attention to the values by which
the American administration and the American media operate.
This and other
evidence has been totally ignored while the media empires have rushed to accuse
Muslims, and to spread anything that would cause them alone to be charged,
despite the existence of wide gaps and glaring inconsistencies. We can’t blame
the press for its ignorance since its bias is well-known, but we can’t believe
that none of our sixty intellectuals have heard any such as the following:
1) The passenger list published by the airlines contained no Arabic
names, in contrast to the list published by the government.
2) Some persons whose names (of the accused) were announced have
been definitively proven to be either previously deceased, or living in their
home countries.
3) The dependence on evidence such as copies of the Qur’an found in
their cars or homes, or the chance discovery of a letter sprinkled with
Christian terms not known to or used by most Muslims.
4) The steel pillars were melted in the fire at the World Trade
Center
5) The accused were young men who entered America a few
months earlier, coming from the poorest country in the world, and received
limited training in aviation. But the plot that was carried out was of a very
high level of sophistication and required advanced technology, consideration of
weather predictions, and skill in making amazingly professional maneuvers of
the aircraft, in addition to the possession of detailed intelligence that
caused the Secret Service to believe that the President’s plane was targeted
while in the air, so that reporters onboard were ordered not to use their cell
phones and to completely turn them off for fear of signaling the position of
the plane.
Many commentators from America and other countries believe
that a professional espionage organization on the level of Mossad used those
young men and took advantage of their readiness for death in order to achieve
its objectives. That in itself is not important to us, we only relate this to
ask the sixty signatories:
Is there nothing here that might cast a doubt –and
we only say a doubt- and cause you to avoid rushing to judgment, while justice
demands that the weakness in the evidence against one party strengthens the
case against the other party.
It was expected that our American
intellectuals would avoid entangling themselves in the same blunders and
contradictions as the American administration which were ridiculed by many
commentators throughout the world, when millions asked: “Has another suicide
bomber turned up alive today like yesterday?”
“Did the President give another
speech today which Powell or Rumsfeld will have to contradict tomorrow? Each
denies the statements of the other, who should we believe? Why did the
government cover up the incidents which occurred near the White House on the
day of the attacks?”
“If the attackers goal was to
attack freedom, why didn’t they attack one of the nations which is more free
than America ?
Why did they choose the Pentagon and World
Trade Center America ?”
They expected intellectuals to
correct the President’s information; first by informing him that the Taleban
are not a group of musicians, and finally, by advising him to delay pulverizing
an exhausted, weak people before complete evidence is provided.
We know that the American
government had prepared in advance to attack Afghanistan, and we suppose that
the sixty intellectuals will not dispute that, but in any case there is no
disputing that justice dictates proving the accusation, that the punishment be
in proportion to the crime, and that punishment should be limited to those who
committed the crime only, even if doing so takes time. Even if we assume that the need for vengeance
caused the Americans to hurry the decision to fight a war, what is wrong with
reconsidering it now? And why shouldn’t these intellectuals be the ones to
raise their voices about it?
Justice demands granting pardon
and atonement for wrongdoing. If America had done so it would have been
able to point to it as a witness to the world that it is brave, free, and just.
Then the signatories would be able to talk!
If only America had the
characteristics of the Prophet of mercy and justice, Muhammad –blessing and
peace be upon him- who publicly renounced the actions of his great general,
Khalid ibn al-Walid who fought a hostile tribe of idolaters, but the tribe
claimed that there was a confusion of words during the battle. The Prophet gave
the benefit of the doubt because of their presumed innocence and therefore,
denounced the actins of Khalid and paid compensation for those of the tribe
killed during the battle.
As for mercy and preferring
pardon, we know of no place for these in American politics or values, since
these belong to the prophets and their followers alone. The idolaters killed
seventy Muslim men and the Prophet promised to kill a like number of them, but
when God granted him victory and he returned to Makkah and some of the Muslims
said, “Now the Prophet –blessings and peace be upon him- will revenge those
Muslims who were killed.” But the Prophet –blessings and peace be upon him-
recited to them the verse: “If you punish, then punish in proportion to the
harm done you, but if you will be patient, then it is better for those who are
patient.” He then said, “No, we will be patient and have mercy,” and pardoned
all of them except for a very small number who committed particular crimes.
The conditions which you mention
for just war are good, even if they don’t reach the level of precision and
detail defined by Islamic law, but the question is, “does your government
observe these conditions?
Who among you can say, “yes” when
the entire world knows the answer is “no?”
You indicate that the no war is
better than war, and that war is not legitimate if it is possible to avoid it
by negotiations or mediation. Good words! Haven’t you heard of the principle by
which your government rejected the neutrality of any other party, let alone
negotiations with its opponents themselves?
Did it not announce to the world
that it must either be with America
in all its beliefs and actions, or with the terrorists? Yet you announced, “In
the name of universal human morality…we support our government’s …decision.”
Let us leave aside justice and
values and ask a pragmatic question: What has America profited from this
arbitrary principle?: hypocritical statements from world leaders along with an
increase in resentment and hatred in all parts of the world.
Wouldn’t it be better for your
government to admit that rather than continuing to repeat it?
You openly accuse a group and
then divide the world into those who are for and those who are against, with no
possibility of neutrality, and no room for discussion. Then you dare to ascribe
to it the attributes of universal human morality and just war!
This is not the first time in the
history of American wars even if it is the most arbitrary. During the Gulf War America
rejected the Arab solution despite the fact that it was an entirely Arab
matter.[12]
Furthermore, have you examined
the statements of your own officials? Of course not, since you have added
things which none of them ever said, when you said that the Islamic movements
openly professes its desire and ability to use murder, and its willingness to
use chemical and biological weapons…
Who made this statement? When and
where?
Do you want the world to forgive
your government’s deeds and lies because they pale in comparison with your own
deeds and lies?[13]
Who is Your Problem With?
It is most unfortunate when the
view of sixty intellectuals in this age of easily accessible communications
-when a researcher can access the newest publications in a matter of seconds-
is nearly identical to the view of Islam of the European clergy of the Dark
Ages!
Whatever the level of intolerance
of the ancients, it is worse for modern people to continue the same
pattern. Persisting in a sin is worse
than committing it, especially when the means of ceasing are readily available.
When McVeigh blew up the Federal Building Oklahoma City , the investigators possessed
detailed information about his physical description as well as his [political]
affiliation. Yet hundreds, or perhaps thousands of reporters, thousands of
miles from the site, spoke about “middle-eastern features,” and an Islamic
connection without any official or unofficial source. Even the Pentagon
announced the need for Arabic translators to work in interrogation. Finally
when Clinton spoke of the total innocence of Arabs and
Muslims in the matter, most of them ceased their disparagement of Islam, and
harassment of Muslims. But, when Goldstein massacred people at prayer in the
Mosque of Abraham [in Hebron ],
did they Americans speak about “Zionist terrorism”? Or did they simply talk of a crime committed
by a Jewish individual? And that is only one of many examples.
On the other hand, if we supposed
that all terrorist incidents in America
for a century had been the work of an extremist Islamic organization, would
that excuse accusing all Muslims in general or Islam itself?
Or for example, why did the
Japanese media not accuse the Chinese or the Communists of carrying out the
terrorist incident in the Tokyo Metro? And that they did that because Japan is free
and advanced? Was it stupidity on their part, or was it because of God bestowed
a different level of justice on all them? Or is it that the American media,
along with the American administration, has its own definition of justice?
Why is it that the British media
do not attack Catholicism every time there is an incident in Northern Ireland ?
Aren’t the Catholics the traditional enemies of the Protestants? Isn’t the war
there clearly a religious war? Hasn’t the competition between them for converts
in Africa led sometimes to burning missionary
centers and even bloodshed?
The
“Al-Qaeda” organization –if there actually is an organization- never claimed to
be a part of the Islamic movement. Nor has anyone of the Islamic movement said,
before or after September 11th, that that organization was part of
them. In fact, some of them have gone to excess in condemning them, especially
in America
and its allies. They have even denied that it has any connection to Islam at
all!
Yet, the
signatories state that this organization is but one arm of the Islamic
movement! Exactly as if a Muslim writer claimed that a group such as the
skinheads or the Irish Republican Army were only one arm of the International
Christian movement which includes the Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox,
Quakers, Mormons, Baptists, etc.
This exposes
their real problem, which is in reality their problem with Islam, not with the
Islamic movement. Even if we supposed that all Muslims in the world became
Americans in every aspect, every incident will still be attributed to them from
the first moment! What do you suppose is the cause of this? Is it reason and
academic research? Or is it the residue within the unconscious that rushes out,
completely bypassing the conduits of reason, which some scholars believe to be
deeply rooted violence and made-up enemies within the European psyche mentioning
this unforgettable advice:
In order to
make the problem clearer let us take the example of the devil. People, without
excusing criminals or relieving them of any of their responsibility for their
actions, attribute such actions to the devil since the origin of all sin is his
temptation and enticement. Thus, he has come to be the incarnation of absolute
evil. As you see, the great amount of misinformation and misconceptions about
Islam has caused the people of the West (with a few exceptions) to see Islam as
the incarnation of evil in their deepest feelings, even if they know
intellectually that there are good and evil in every religion. Because of this
the Western mind has no problem in attributing any evil deed to Islam, despite
the knowledge of its actual innocence. For example, the Jim Jones [suicide]
incident had no relation to Islam whatsoever, but if a book came out today or
tomorrow saying that it was an Islamic act since Islam is the embodiment of
evil and excuses such deeds, many people would accept it without discussion.
When [the
boxer] Muhammad Ali visited the ruins of the World Trade
Center
The Church
used to interpret the “number of the beast –666” in the book of Revelation (the
Apocalypse of John) as being Islam, and it seems that this interpretation, or a
trace of it, remains within the minds of their descendants –even thought they
are secularists.
Thus the open
letter is contradictory. It uses the voice of reason when it distinguishes
between Islam and that which was done by some Muslims, and between Jihad and
terrorism; and it uses the cumulative voice of its hereditary culture within
the unconscious whose errors are simply compounded by deception of the official
media when it describes all Islamic movements as terrorists, or even more, when
the term “international terrorism” is applied only to Muslims.
Do we believe
that Islamic Civilization is absolutely perfect, or that the Islamic movements
are infallible? No Muslim says that. Absolute perfection belongs only to the
essence of Islam –in its doctrines, values and laws. Infallibility belongs only
to the Prophet himself–God’s blessing and peace be upon him- in the message
which he delivered from God, and then to the Muslim community as a whole an
ideal person following the Prophet. They are only infallible in that they
cannot all agree on an error, despite the small number of them who are true and
upright.
All Muslims
know, whether they are common people, governments, movements, or nations, that
the gap between the reality of the Islamic community and true Islam is the driving
reason and only purpose for the existence of the Islamic reform movements. For
this reason, all the Islamic movements strive -each according to its own
distinct understanding and methodology- to bring the community back to the
Islamic values that are in reality, as we have seen, the universal values, not
to the destroy those values as the signatories to this open letter claim.
Acknowledging
this is the key to a great opportunity for dialogue between these movements and
the West. That is, based on Western recognition of the positive role they have,
and their true representation of the Islamic peoples. Will the signatories to
this letter or others do so? I do not believe it would be very difficult for
those who love the truth and desire the welfare of humanity, as long as they
are sincere.
The hostile
stance towards Islam was firmly established in American policy before September
11 and afterwards. The American war against terrorism has only confirmed that
fact more firmly for Muslims. The rest is yet to be seen( 42).
If this
inequity, or better yet, antagonism was limited to the Palestinian problem it
could be said to be the result of the Zionist lobby in America, or if it was
limited to Afghanistan it could be said to be the result of the presence there
of Al-Qaeda. But when it is directed towards all Muslim countries and
minorities, then how can we interpret it? To clarify this point, let us take
six examples divided into two categories, from which we will deduce our
results.
First, two
countries: The (former) Soviet Union , and China . Both are
former enemies of America ,
and each contains minorities who demand this right. In the first nation are the
Baltic countries on one side and in the Islamic nations of the Caucasus on the other. The second nation contains the
Buddhists of Tibet on one side, and the Muslim [regions of China ] on the
other.
The opposite
examples are India
and the Philippines
on one hand, and Indonesia
and Sudan
on the other. The first two have Muslim peoples who demand separation, while
the last two have non-Muslim minorities who demand the very same thing.
The firm
American position is:
1)
Strong support of independence for
the Baltic states , and ignoring the Islamic
republics, even sometimes rejecting them and saying nothing about the racist
extermination which the Russians carry out there.
2)
Strong support of the Tibetan
Buddhists, while ignoring the situation of the Muslims of China, despite the
fact that there are ten times as many of them.
3)
Treating the separatist movements
of Kashmir and the Southern
Philippines as terrorists and declaring war on them.
4)
Strong support for the separatist
movements in Indonesia
and Sudan .
If the
signatories can offer any interpretation for this other than bias against Islam
then please do so!
If they
suppose that modification of terms such as “Islamic” and “Islamicist” is
sufficient to avoid the problem, than that is an even bigger problem.
If they
believe there is no reason to even mention the extremist fundamentalist and
racist organizations in America ,
extremist racist organizations in Europe ,
Hindu fundamentalist organization in India , and religious fundamentalist
groups of Japan
-in their vast number and infinite variety- then there is no benefit in
dialogue with them.
If they felt
that it was appropriate to mention them but simply overlooked it, than the
dialogue with the Islamic movements can begin with their public apology for
singling them out, or rather, for accusing them at all.
As Muslims it
does not concern us whether America
was authorized to commit the atrocities that it commits against us as you
claim, or not authorized as was plainly stated by officials including the
Democratic representative from Ohio ,
Dennis Kucinich. What you should know if your government insists on making war
on us with every means, and everywhere in the world –is what we’re defending.
Conclusion:
We are
certain that justice is an absolute value, that it is not permitted to take a
life which is sacred to God, whether in the name of God or in the name of
American values, that it is possible for us to a word of agreement as was
revealed by God, and to reconcile based on our common welfare. On the basis of
the lives of the holy prophets Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad –the
blessing and peace of God be upon them all- and in application of the text of
the Holy Qur’an: we express to you our readiness to debate with that which is
best, and to meet with you individually or as a group, in our country or in
America.
We will send
our opinion to each of you, as well as to other intellectuals, and we will
treat your opinions with every care.
Our Islam
commands that all our actions be devoted as worship of God, and to endeavor to
make them right as much as possible. For this reason, we would like to thank
all those who have helped us to achieve this goal, and demonstrate our
willingness to correct any error in our statements, to clarify any
misconception, and to discuss any other subjects which we may have omitted.
I advise you
-and myself- to be sincere with God, and to be certain that we will be asked
concerning what we say and do, to accept that truth no matter what its source,
and to interpret the statements of others according to the best possible
interpretation. All of us will die, but the truth will remain forever.
Dr. Safar
Al-Hawali
sralhawalimakkah@hotmail.com
_________________________________________________________________
Endnotes:
Fundamentalists:
1)
Only in America are there people who desire to see the planet turned
into a mass of fire and ash, and openly strive with all seriousness for this
horrific end, using the most modern and advanced media to bring the good news
of it to all mankind. Only in America Mideast , in hopes that it might be the beginning of the
end. If they hear of attempts to achieve peace, they use every means to
convince the American government that avoid it and cancel it. Their desire for
the end of the world is based their belief that Jesus will raise them to heaven
without tasting death, to witness the destruction from above the clouds. 40% of
Americans believe the world will end in the battle of Armageddon. 20% believe
that it will end in their lifetimes. They seek to interpret texts of the Bible
to refer to current events year by year, month by month, and day by day. Every
time they err in predicting the end they simply start from scratch. There may
be no stranger sites on the worldwide web than theirs. Despite the dozens of
incidents committed or attempted by their followers annually, such as murders,
bank robberies and blowing up federal installations, yet they are a part of
American culture and stand for conservative American values, fighting
liberalism with all their might. Whenever anyone of them is arrested, he alone
is accused, without assigning guilt to the movement that produced him. For the beliefs of well-known fundamentalists
concerning Armageddon see: Falwell’s sermons at trbc.org. and Pat Robertson’s
at his CBN website.
2)
The other pan of the scale:
In
the letter only one side is given: the operations directed against Americans,
but there have been only a few thousand victims of such operations. The other
pan of the scale is that history proves America
1)
The killing of millions of its native peoples.
2)
The killing of millions of African slaves.
3)
The killing of millions of civilians during the two world wars,
including:
·
The incineration of thousands of civilians in Germany and Japan (more
than sixty cities in which more than 400 thousand people were killed, including
100 thousand in Tokyo alone.
·
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima
·
The atomic bombing of Nagasaki
(these
last two require no comment).
In
general, if the victims of these two wars were tens of millions, America
3)
After World War II America Southeast Asia (Korea Vietnam Laos Cambodia China
4)
Iraq America America
To
say nothing of the pollution of the environment whose effects may not be seen
for years, and will not cease for hundreds or thousands of years as a result of
the dropping of millions of tons of depleted uranium and other internationally
prohibited weapons. It is an unprecedented, endless war of barbaric
annihilation. All to help God’s chosen people and the “men of peace” that lead
them such as General Sharon, who more closely resemble the hosts of the Assyrian
spoken of in the prophecies of the Bible!
5)
Palestine: Overlooking the continual support the Zionist state receives
for its wars with the Arabs, we do not hesitate to say that the American
government –without paying the smallest heed to justice- boastfully stands
alone in support of the barbaric Israeli massacres to which the Palestinian
people are subjected to, and absolutely reject all international decisions and
diplomatic norms –casting aside all values and morality: a disgraceful and
outrageous situation which no conscientious person can ignore. The Zionist
barbarians use advanced America
6)
The Balkans: American justice in the Balkans is based on equality
between the murderer and his victims. America Europe
under its wings.
7)
The farce of the war against terrorism: The American government
violated international laws and humane
norms –let alone divine law- in everything having to do with this war: An war
without sufficient evidence, without United Nation’s authorization, refusal of
mediation or neutrality, the use of deadly and prohibited weapons previously
unheard of, the targeting of mosques, and centers for humanitarian aid and the
media, barbaric slaughter of civilians on the slightest pretext or without
pretext, killing of surrendering troops, violating the rights of prisoners,
invoking special laws in conformity with the desires of the administration,
imposing a government rejected by the people, covering up information and
imposing censorship of the American press itself, conflicting goals which
become increasingly vague and are changed from day to day, preventing the
expression of opposing opinions in the media, and finally, the issuing of the a
supporting letter by certain intellectuals.
The
preceding are some types of American warfare, as for the other wars –it is not
possible to calculate the victims or to justify it according to any concept of
justice.
One
type is the war by proxy which has been fought in most African countries, in
the states of Central and South America , and
in the states of South-East Asia and other
places. America makes use of local
commanders which have no regard whatsoever for justice and only serve “Uncle
Sam,” if any of them fail, America disposes of him and his forces, and looks
for a new replacement.
Most
of the victims of this type of warfare are hostile neighboring countries or
those in which America
Another
type is the war of intrigue which is fought in over fifty countries. Its
operations include: kidnapping of leaders, revolutions, inciting riots,
supporting separatists, and supporting corrupt totalitarian regimes. Many of
these states are allies of America America
The
victims of this type are the allied or neutral nations, elected governments,
and nationalist leaders.
Another
type is economic warfare: Many studies say that although Americans are 5% of
the population of the world, then 95% of the population is affected by American
economic warfare: between those millions who die of hunger to the bankruptcy of
institutions of national production. The fact is that millions of Americans are
also affected by it. The only ones who profit are the monopolistic
conglomerates and those nations who cooperate with them.
To
achieve the interests of these conglomerates –especially the arms manufactures-
America
If
the administration is unable to create a war for some reason, it cancels or
delays some of its nuclear arms agreements, then uses the threat to national
security to finance imaginary projects to be implemented by these corporations.
Another
type is biological warfare: Despite the high secrecy that surrounds this evil
type of warfare, the Aids virus has exposed it to some extent. Dr. Len
Horowitz, graduate of Harvard shook up world public opinion with evidence that
Aids and Ebola are both products of the American biological war laboratories.
Endless
wars and endless justice!
[1] See
Grace Halsell’s “Prophecy and Politics”
[2] Prophecy
and Politics: the End is Near.
[4]
Al-Bukhari and Muslim.
[5] Musnad
of Imam Ahmad.
[6] His name
was Hakim ibn Hazam.
[7] Al-Bukhari
and Muslim.
[8] Narrated
by several companions including Jabir, this version of whose narration is found
in Ibn Hiban.
[9] By Alex
Hailey.
[10] Moro or
Moorish is the Spanish and Portuguese term for Muslims. Similarly, Magellan
called the Philippines
“Moro, as well as the nation of Mauritania ,
and the Canary Islands . Some scholars claim
that “America ”
itself originates from the name Marrakesh
or Morocco .
[11] Sahih
Muslim.
[12] The
white paper published by the Jordanian government is the best source for this,
the suit filed by former Attorney General, Ramsey Clark also corroborates this.
[13]
From personal experience I can attest to
this weakness in keeping to the subject of quotes, Samuel Huntington attributes a statement to
me in his book, “Clash of Civilizations (pg 249) which was taken out of context
so that the intended meaning is lost.
تعليقات
إرسال تعليق