Dr. John Andrew Morrow

By Kevin Barrett on May 24, 2017

Editor’s note: I hate the Empire’s “good Muslims vs. bad Muslims” BS. It is a direct descendent of the “good injuns vs. bad injuns” dichotomy that fueled the genocide of Native Americans. “Good injuns” were the ones that sold out to the whites and were complicit in their own genocide. “Bad injuns” were the ones who resisted the genocide.

So I consider myself a “bad Muslim,” following in the warpath of the “bad injuns.” I am at all out war with the genocide against Islam and Muslims launched by the false flag atrocity of 9/11/2001. I support legitimate armed resistance against aggression everywhere. And I have eyes and can see that virtually the entire Islamic world is locked in a struggle against outside aggression. As Huntington said, “Islam has bloody borders” – because the Muslim-majority lands are weak and vulnerable to predation by aggressors. I strongly support an emergency military build-up by the Muslim Ummah, using asymetrical warfare of various kinds (mainly ideological and based on speaking truth to power) to put an end to that aggression. The obvious focal point of this jihad is in Occupied Palestine.

So I don’t consider myself “moderate” in the sense of “willing to tolerate aggression, oppression, and injustice.” I would much rather die fighting back than cave in to injustice, and in that event would be happy to take as many oppressors with me as possible. I believe the Qur’an’s promise that those who die resisting oppression have been promised a very high station in Paradise.

The whole ideological war on Islam is designed to legitimize aggression against Muslims and to criminalize Muslim self-defense. That is what 9/11 was designed to achieve. It did not succeed. Aggression is and will always be the supreme war crime, hated by God. And self-defense is by definition legitimate.

That said, I am appalled by examples of idiocy, obscurantism and cruelty, regardless of whether or not the culprits are Muslim. And there are plenty of cruel, obscurantist idiots hiding their ugly actions behind “religious” rationalizations. As John Andre Morrow suggests in this article, it is indeed people whose interpretation of Islam follows the Salafi-Wahhabi-Takfiri orientation who are disproportionally represented among the cruel, obscurantist idiots. Fortunately these people are in a small minority. Unfortunately, they are backed by vast amounts of Rothschild-petrodollar-supporting oil money from the Persian Gulf, mainly “Saudi” Arabia.

One of the worst aspects of some Salafi-Wahhabi-Takfiris is their violation of traditional Islamic tenets against targeting civilians (i.e., terrorism). Terrorism is an age-old military tactic, and it is being used wholesale against Muslims today. But it is wrong,  haram, hated by God. We must only target the enemy, the guilty, the oppressors – never the innocent.

In the article below, Dr. Morrow points out that the vast majority of  “Islamic terrorism” today targets Muslims, who make up 90% of its victims. That is because it is engineered synthetic terrorism, a strategy created by Benjamin Netanyahu and Bernard Lewis at the 1979  Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism to wage war on Islam in general, and Israel’s enemies in particular. 9/11 was the propaganda stunt that launched their orchestrated campaign to link the concepts “Islam” and “terror.”

In any event, it takes at least moderate courage to criticize the Salafi-Wahhabi-Takfiris and their powerful Saudi masters. So I salute eloquent Muslim scholars like my recent radio guest Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl, and the author of the article below, John Andrew Morrow, who are sounding the alarm about this pernicious fifth column afflicting the Muslim Ummah.

Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor

How Moderate are Moderate Muslims? The Facts Speak for Themselves

(A Refutation of Hussein Aboubakr’s Video “Where are the Moderate Muslims?”)

By Dr. John Andrew Morrow

After every new terrorist attack in the West, that is falsely committed in the name of Islam by so-called Muslims, some left-wing liberal politicians reassure us that the crime in question does not reflect the true nature of mainstream Islam while some right-wing conservative politicians seize the opportunity to scapegoat all Muslims and demonize an entire world religion.

There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world today. The believe in One God. They believe in the Prophets of God, including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. They believe in the Books of God, the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an. They believe in the Day of Judgment and Heaven and Hell. Muslims pray, fast, give charity, perform pilgrimage to the Holy land, promote the good, and forbid the wrong.

When I speak, I speak for over 1 billion Muslims: followers of traditional, civilizational, and classical Islam. For some, however, Muslim moderates are few and far between, if not entirely non-existent. If they support terrorism and the shariah, and oppose fundamental rights and freedoms, where, then, are the moderate Muslims? The facts, the full facts, speak for themselves.

According to Europol, there were 2,131 terrorist attacks in the EU between 2006 and 2010. So-called Muslims committed 0.3% of them. Between 2011 and 2014, there were 747 attacks: less than 1% of them were attributed to so-called Muslims. According to the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, there were 2,400 terrorist attacks on US soil between 1970 and 2012: 60 of these were committed by so-called Muslims, namely, 2.5%.

According to the FBI, the Global Terrorism Database, and other reliable sources, terrorists represent approximately 0.001% of the population of the Muslim world. According to the Gallup Poll, so-called Muslim extremists, who are not terrorists per se, account for 7% of the population. There is no doubt that most Muslims are moderate, law abiding, citizens. Anyone who argues otherwise is dishonest, duplicitous, and deceptive.

How moderate are moderate Muslims? Given the allegations made by Islamophobes, it would seem to be a fair question. Let me start by telling you something of my own story. I was raised in a middle-class home in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. I am Michif-Otipemisiwak, the Free People, the People who own themselves, Les Gens Libres, a proud member of the Métis Nation, an Amerindian, an indigenous person, and a Muslim.

I am one of the millions of Westerners who have embraced Islam over the past century. 80% of converts to Islam in the West are women and many of them are university-educated professionals. We are not extremists. When I speak, I speak for over 1 billion Muslims: followers of mainstream, traditional, civilizational Islam; the majority of Muslims: followers of Classical Islam.

Anyone who claims that “every day that passes on the Islamic Nation without a Caliphate is a sin;” anyone who claims that “the failure and miseries of the Muslim world started the moment we Muslims gave up conquests and wars against infidels;” anyone who claims that “our prosperity depended on conquering new lands and converting new believers;” and anyone who claims that “anyone who leave the faith must die” does not come from a moderate Muslim family.

Why do I distinguish between Muslims and so-called Muslims? The reason is simple. Almost 100% of terrorist actions committed in the name of Islam are committed, not by Muslims, but by Salafi-Wahhabi-Takfiris.

93% of the Islamic World is made up of orthodox Muslims: Sunnis, Shiis, and Sufis. 7% of the Islamic World is made up of Salafi-Wahhabi-Takfiris. They are the people that are referred to in the West as Islamists, Jihadists, and Islamo-Fascists.

They are the followers Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, a radical reformist from Arabia, who lived two hundred years ago. These heretics believe that they are the only true believers and that orthodox Muslims are infidels whose should be put to the sword.

Whether it is the Taliban, al-Qaedah, Boko Haram, al-Shabab, al-Nusrah or ISIS, all these terrorists share the same Satanic ideology. According to a Gallup Poll, over 93% of Muslims condemn these criminals and extremists.

Did Muslims celebrate 9/11 with joy? Absolutely not. Did Takfiri-Wahhabi terrorists relish in the death and destruction of September 11th. I am sure they did.

According to the Gallup Poll, however, so-called Muslim radicals account for 7% of the Muslim population. Over 93% of Muslims condemn these extremists. Why? Because Muslims bear the blunt of their terror.

In 2011, the US government’s National Counter-Terrorism Center reported that “Muslims suffered between 82 and 97% of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years.”

The Takfiris or “Radical Islamists” target Christians and Yazidis; however, most of their victims are orthodox, mainstream, Muslims. In fact, Muslims make up 95% of the victims of terrorism.

While it is true that some, but not all Muslim jurists, believed that adulterers should be stoned to death, that is the very same punishment found in the Bible. As we read in Deuteronomy 22:22: “If a man is discovered committing adultery, both he and the woman must die. In this way, you will purge Israel of such evil.”

And while it is true that some, but not all Muslim jurists, believed that the punishment for homosexual intercourse was death, that is the very same punishment found in the Bible. As read in Leviticus 20:13: “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (Leviticus 20:13)

If Islam is extreme, then so is Judaism and Christianity. If there are no moderate Muslims, then there are no moderate Jews and Christians.

While it is true that large numbers of Muslims in Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and Nigeria believe that apostates should be put to death, the very same punishment exists in Judaism.

Most Muslims, like most Jews, would recognize that rejecting belief in One God, and becoming an atheist or a polytheist, results in spiritual death, few of them, however, would pick up a rock and stone someone.

There are those who, in acts of academic dishonesty, focus on the fact that many Muslims from the Middle-East and South Asia support the death penalty for apostasy. However, they conveniently ignore the broader picture.

71% of Tunisian Muslims, 73% of Thai Muslims, 78% of Tajik Muslims, 83% of Turkish Muslims, 82% of Indonesian Muslims, 85% of Bosnian and Russian Muslims, 89% of Kosovar Muslims, 92% of Albanian Muslims, and 96% of Kazakh Muslims oppose the death penalty for people who leave Islam.

The problem is not religious. The problem is a combination of cultural, historical, political, economic, and educational factors. The problem is complex. However, there is a direct correlation between Saudi influence and the spread of extremism. There is also a direct link between military intervention in the Muslim world and the spread of terrorism in the region. Conflict and chaos are the breeding ground for Islamist terrorists.

Rather than try to terrify non-Muslims by claiming that most Muslims believe in the shariah, we need to define our terms. When Islamophobes speak of the shariah, they invoke medieval corporal punishment: lashing, stoning, and beheading. When Muslims speak of shariah, they speak of the law. So, yes, most Muslims believe in obeying the law.

When a Muslim asks another Muslim whether he follows the shariah, he is asking whether that person prays, fasts, and gives charity; not whether that person goes around chopping off hands and heads. The shariah is to Muslims what the Halakha is to Jews or Canon Law is to Catholics. It’s like asking: “Do you keep kosher?” or “Do you go to mass?”

According to the Pew Research Center, 60% of white evangelical Protestants say that the Bible should be the guiding principle in making laws in the United States. One Public Policy Poll found that 57% of Republicans wanted to dismantle the Constitution and establish Christianity as the official religion and the Bible as the law of the land.

Are Evangelical Christians who wish to live a Biblical life extremists? Are Orthodox Jews who live according to the Torah and Talmud extremists? Are the Amish, Mennonites, and Hutterites extremists because they live according to Biblical principles? The real extremists, some would argue, are the secular fundamentalists who wish to deprive believers of their religious rights.

When Muslims say that they favor making the shariah the official law in their country, they are not speaking of the perverted version of the shariah proposed by “Islamo-Fascists.” They are speaking about the traditional interpretations of Islamic law which are updated and adapted to modern times.

In fact, when surveyed, Muslims express widespread support for democracy and religious freedom. When tallied, over 60% of Muslims support democracy. When asked about religious freedom, 92.6% of Muslims asserted that it was a good thing.

When Muslims speak of shariah, they speak of a free, democratic state, which protects religious freedom, but which is based on the moral and ethical principles found in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition. They believe in an Islam that provides rights as opposed to a fake Islam that deprives people of rights.

Anyone who claims that “most of the world’s Muslims believe that any acts of violence against Israel, including suicide bombers in buses and restaurants, are justified” is a liar. As the Pew Research Center confirms, most Muslims oppose extremism, terrorism, and suicide bombing. If one were to dig deeper, one would find that virtually all the so-called Muslims who support indiscriminate violence and terror are radical Islamists and Jihadists with ideological roots in Saudi Arabia.

If there are no Muslim moderates, or Muslim moderates are few and far between, why is it that the overwhelming majority of Muslims have a negative view of ISIS?

According to the Pew Research Center, 79% of Indonesians, 84% of Palestinians, 95% of Jordanians, and 100% of Lebanese Muslims repudiate the death-cult that is Daesh. As the Pew Research Center confirms, most Muslims oppose extremism, terrorism, and suicide bombing.

In some cases, Muslims are more moderate than non-Muslims. Take, for instance, the issue of military attacks against civilians. 78% of American Muslims oppose them compared to 58% of American Christians and 52% of American Jews.

As for the stereotype that Muslims are all anti-Israel, think again. According to a Gallup Poll, 81% of Muslim American and 78% of Jewish Americans believe that an independent Palestinian state should co-exist alongside of Israel.

Saying that Radical Islamists and Jihadists are terrorists does not make one an Islamophobe. I do it all the time and I am a committed Muslim.

Putting all Muslims in the same boat, painting them with the same brush, falsifying facts, and trying to convince people that even educated, unveiled, and accent-free Muslim women are extremists is the epitome of Islamophobia.

It is Islamophobic to assert that the Muslim world, as a whole, is currently dominated by bad ideas and bad beliefs.

It is Islamophobic to assert that millions of Muslims fail to denounce terror because they, themselves, are not moderates. They do so all the time. Muslim voices, however, are muffled out by the mainstream media.

It is Islamophobic to assert that the word “moderate,” as we understand it in the Western world, does not apply to Muslims.

It is also Islamophobic to assert that Muslims collectively oppose fundamental rights and freedoms.

Moderate Muslims do not number in the millions. There is over one billion of them. They are the critical mass.

The Muslim world is not a grey zone where you cannot distinguish between friend from foe. It is critical to distinguish between the masses of Muslim human beings from the tiny minority of sub-human terrorists.

The traditional values of Islam are perfectly compatible with the traditional values of the Western world; Judeo-Christian values and Humanitarian values.

The principles of the Prophet influenced the European Renaissance, the Napoleonic Code, the American Constitution, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Prophet Muhammad produced the first constitution in the political history of humanity. The Covenants of the Prophet were the first to enshrine modern notions of civic and human rights.

Radical Fake Islam is a deadly disease. It is a cancerous tumor that is attached to the body of Islam. It is a contagious virus that has entered the bloodstream of Islam. It does not belong to the body. It will debilitate, destroy, and kill it. It must be amputated. It must be annihilated by means of antibiotics. The sooner that the cancerous tumor is surgically removed; the sooner that the bloodborne pathogen is neutralized, the better it will be for both Muslims and non-Muslims.

Dr. John Andrew Morrow (al-Ustadh al-Duktur Ilyas Islam) is an Amerindian Muslim leader and a proud member of the Métis Nation. After embracing Islam at the age of 16, he became both a Western academic and a traditional Muslim scholar. He is the author of a large body of scholarly works, the most influential of which is The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World. His websites include www.covenantsoftheprophet.com andwww.johnandrewmorrow.com. His videos and lectures can be found on The Covenants of the Prophet Channel on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqM3-puvWuKuCEJsDQDZFrA. His Facebook accounts include @johnandrewmorrow and @covenantsoftheprophet. He can be followed on Twitter @drjamorrow.

Related Posts:

By Kevin Barrett on May 24, 2017

Editor’s note: I hate the Empire’s “good Muslims vs. bad Muslims” BS. It is a direct descendent of the “good injuns vs. bad injuns” dichotomy that fueled the genocide of Native Americans. “Good injuns” were the ones that sold out to the whites and were complicit in their own genocide. “Bad injuns” were the ones who resisted the genocide.

So I consider myself a “bad Muslim,” following in the warpath of the “bad injuns.” I am at all out war with the genocide against Islam and Muslims launched by the false flag atrocity of 9/11/2001. I support legitimate armed resistance against aggression everywhere. And I have eyes and can see that virtually the entire Islamic world is locked in a struggle against outside aggression. As Huntington said, “Islam has bloody borders” – because the Muslim-majority lands are weak and vulnerable to predation by aggressors. I strongly support an emergency military build-up by the Muslim Ummah, using asymetrical warfare of various kinds (mainly ideological and based on speaking truth to power) to put an end to that aggression. The obvious focal point of this jihad is in Occupied Palestine.

So I don’t consider myself “moderate” in the sense of “willing to tolerate aggression, oppression, and injustice.” I would much rather die fighting back than cave in to injustice, and in that event would be happy to take as many oppressors with me as possible. I believe the Qur’an’s promise that those who die resisting oppression have been promised a very high station in Paradise.

The whole ideological war on Islam is designed to legitimize aggression against Muslims and to criminalize Muslim self-defense. That is what 9/11 was designed to achieve. It did not succeed. Aggression is and will always be the supreme war crime, hated by God. And self-defense is by definition legitimate.

That said, I am appalled by examples of idiocy, obscurantism and cruelty, regardless of whether or not the culprits are Muslim. And there are plenty of cruel, obscurantist idiots hiding their ugly actions behind “religious” rationalizations. As John Andre Morrow suggests in this article, it is indeed people whose interpretation of Islam follows the Salafi-Wahhabi-Takfiri orientation who are disproportionally represented among the cruel, obscurantist idiots. Fortunately these people are in a small minority. Unfortunately, they are backed by vast amounts of Rothschild-petrodollar-supporting oil money from the Persian Gulf, mainly “Saudi” Arabia.

One of the worst aspects of some Salafi-Wahhabi-Takfiris is their violation of traditional Islamic tenets against targeting civilians (i.e., terrorism). Terrorism is an age-old military tactic, and it is being used wholesale against Muslims today. But it is wrong,  haram, hated by God. We must only target the enemy, the guilty, the oppressors – never the innocent.

In the article below, Dr. Morrow points out that the vast majority of  “Islamic terrorism” today targets Muslims, who make up 90% of its victims. That is because it is engineered synthetic terrorism, a strategy created by Benjamin Netanyahu and Bernard Lewis at the 1979  Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism to wage war on Islam in general, and Israel’s enemies in particular. 9/11 was the propaganda stunt that launched their orchestrated campaign to link the concepts “Islam” and “terror.”

In any event, it takes at least moderate courage to criticize the Salafi-Wahhabi-Takfiris and their powerful Saudi masters. So I salute eloquent Muslim scholars like my recent radio guest Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl, and the author of the article below, John Andrew Morrow, who are sounding the alarm about this pernicious fifth column afflicting the Muslim Ummah.

Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor

How Moderate are Moderate Muslims? The Facts Speak for Themselves

(A Refutation of Hussein Aboubakr’s Video “Where are the Moderate Muslims?”)

By Dr. John Andrew Morrow

After every new terrorist attack in the West, that is falsely committed in the name of Islam by so-called Muslims, some left-wing liberal politicians reassure us that the crime in question does not reflect the true nature of mainstream Islam while some right-wing conservative politicians seize the opportunity to scapegoat all Muslims and demonize an entire world religion.

There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world today. The believe in One God. They believe in the Prophets of God, including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. They believe in the Books of God, the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an. They believe in the Day of Judgment and Heaven and Hell. Muslims pray, fast, give charity, perform pilgrimage to the Holy land, promote the good, and forbid the wrong.

When I speak, I speak for over 1 billion Muslims: followers of traditional, civilizational, and classical Islam. For some, however, Muslim moderates are few and far between, if not entirely non-existent. If they support terrorism and the shariah, and oppose fundamental rights and freedoms, where, then, are the moderate Muslims? The facts, the full facts, speak for themselves.

According to Europol, there were 2,131 terrorist attacks in the EU between 2006 and 2010. So-called Muslims committed 0.3% of them. Between 2011 and 2014, there were 747 attacks: less than 1% of them were attributed to so-called Muslims. According to the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, there were 2,400 terrorist attacks on US soil between 1970 and 2012: 60 of these were committed by so-called Muslims, namely, 2.5%.

According to the FBI, the Global Terrorism Database, and other reliable sources, terrorists represent approximately 0.001% of the population of the Muslim world. According to the Gallup Poll, so-called Muslim extremists, who are not terrorists per se, account for 7% of the population. There is no doubt that most Muslims are moderate, law abiding, citizens. Anyone who argues otherwise is dishonest, duplicitous, and deceptive.

How moderate are moderate Muslims? Given the allegations made by Islamophobes, it would seem to be a fair question. Let me start by telling you something of my own story. I was raised in a middle-class home in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. I am Michif-Otipemisiwak, the Free People, the People who own themselves, Les Gens Libres, a proud member of the Métis Nation, an Amerindian, an indigenous person, and a Muslim.

I am one of the millions of Westerners who have embraced Islam over the past century. 80% of converts to Islam in the West are women and many of them are university-educated professionals. We are not extremists. When I speak, I speak for over 1 billion Muslims: followers of mainstream, traditional, civilizational Islam; the majority of Muslims: followers of Classical Islam.

Anyone who claims that “every day that passes on the Islamic Nation without a Caliphate is a sin;” anyone who claims that “the failure and miseries of the Muslim world started the moment we Muslims gave up conquests and wars against infidels;” anyone who claims that “our prosperity depended on conquering new lands and converting new believers;” and anyone who claims that “anyone who leave the faith must die” does not come from a moderate Muslim family.

Why do I distinguish between Muslims and so-called Muslims? The reason is simple. Almost 100% of terrorist actions committed in the name of Islam are committed, not by Muslims, but by Salafi-Wahhabi-Takfiris.

93% of the Islamic World is made up of orthodox Muslims: Sunnis, Shiis, and Sufis. 7% of the Islamic World is made up of Salafi-Wahhabi-Takfiris. They are the people that are referred to in the West as Islamists, Jihadists, and Islamo-Fascists.

They are the followers Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, a radical reformist from Arabia, who lived two hundred years ago. These heretics believe that they are the only true believers and that orthodox Muslims are infidels whose should be put to the sword.

Whether it is the Taliban, al-Qaedah, Boko Haram, al-Shabab, al-Nusrah or ISIS, all these terrorists share the same Satanic ideology. According to a Gallup Poll, over 93% of Muslims condemn these criminals and extremists.

Did Muslims celebrate 9/11 with joy? Absolutely not. Did Takfiri-Wahhabi terrorists relish in the death and destruction of September 11th. I am sure they did.

According to the Gallup Poll, however, so-called Muslim radicals account for 7% of the Muslim population. Over 93% of Muslims condemn these extremists. Why? Because Muslims bear the blunt of their terror.

In 2011, the US government’s National Counter-Terrorism Center reported that “Muslims suffered between 82 and 97% of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years.”

The Takfiris or “Radical Islamists” target Christians and Yazidis; however, most of their victims are orthodox, mainstream, Muslims. In fact, Muslims make up 95% of the victims of terrorism.

While it is true that some, but not all Muslim jurists, believed that adulterers should be stoned to death, that is the very same punishment found in the Bible. As we read in Deuteronomy 22:22: “If a man is discovered committing adultery, both he and the woman must die. In this way, you will purge Israel of such evil.”

And while it is true that some, but not all Muslim jurists, believed that the punishment for homosexual intercourse was death, that is the very same punishment found in the Bible. As read in Leviticus 20:13: “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (Leviticus 20:13)

If Islam is extreme, then so is Judaism and Christianity. If there are no moderate Muslims, then there are no moderate Jews and Christians.

While it is true that large numbers of Muslims in Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and Nigeria believe that apostates should be put to death, the very same punishment exists in Judaism.

Most Muslims, like most Jews, would recognize that rejecting belief in One God, and becoming an atheist or a polytheist, results in spiritual death, few of them, however, would pick up a rock and stone someone.

There are those who, in acts of academic dishonesty, focus on the fact that many Muslims from the Middle-East and South Asia support the death penalty for apostasy. However, they conveniently ignore the broader picture.

71% of Tunisian Muslims, 73% of Thai Muslims, 78% of Tajik Muslims, 83% of Turkish Muslims, 82% of Indonesian Muslims, 85% of Bosnian and Russian Muslims, 89% of Kosovar Muslims, 92% of Albanian Muslims, and 96% of Kazakh Muslims oppose the death penalty for people who leave Islam.

The problem is not religious. The problem is a combination of cultural, historical, political, economic, and educational factors. The problem is complex. However, there is a direct correlation between Saudi influence and the spread of extremism. There is also a direct link between military intervention in the Muslim world and the spread of terrorism in the region. Conflict and chaos are the breeding ground for Islamist terrorists.

Rather than try to terrify non-Muslims by claiming that most Muslims believe in the shariah, we need to define our terms. When Islamophobes speak of the shariah, they invoke medieval corporal punishment: lashing, stoning, and beheading. When Muslims speak of shariah, they speak of the law. So, yes, most Muslims believe in obeying the law.

When a Muslim asks another Muslim whether he follows the shariah, he is asking whether that person prays, fasts, and gives charity; not whether that person goes around chopping off hands and heads. The shariah is to Muslims what the Halakha is to Jews or Canon Law is to Catholics. It’s like asking: “Do you keep kosher?” or “Do you go to mass?”

According to the Pew Research Center, 60% of white evangelical Protestants say that the Bible should be the guiding principle in making laws in the United States. One Public Policy Poll found that 57% of Republicans wanted to dismantle the Constitution and establish Christianity as the official religion and the Bible as the law of the land.

Are Evangelical Christians who wish to live a Biblical life extremists? Are Orthodox Jews who live according to the Torah and Talmud extremists? Are the Amish, Mennonites, and Hutterites extremists because they live according to Biblical principles? The real extremists, some would argue, are the secular fundamentalists who wish to deprive believers of their religious rights.

When Muslims say that they favor making the shariah the official law in their country, they are not speaking of the perverted version of the shariah proposed by “Islamo-Fascists.” They are speaking about the traditional interpretations of Islamic law which are updated and adapted to modern times.

In fact, when surveyed, Muslims express widespread support for democracy and religious freedom. When tallied, over 60% of Muslims support democracy. When asked about religious freedom, 92.6% of Muslims asserted that it was a good thing.

When Muslims speak of shariah, they speak of a free, democratic state, which protects religious freedom, but which is based on the moral and ethical principles found in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition. They believe in an Islam that provides rights as opposed to a fake Islam that deprives people of rights.

Anyone who claims that “most of the world’s Muslims believe that any acts of violence against Israel, including suicide bombers in buses and restaurants, are justified” is a liar. As the Pew Research Center confirms, most Muslims oppose extremism, terrorism, and suicide bombing. If one were to dig deeper, one would find that virtually all the so-called Muslims who support indiscriminate violence and terror are radical Islamists and Jihadists with ideological roots in Saudi Arabia.

If there are no Muslim moderates, or Muslim moderates are few and far between, why is it that the overwhelming majority of Muslims have a negative view of ISIS?

According to the Pew Research Center, 79% of Indonesians, 84% of Palestinians, 95% of Jordanians, and 100% of Lebanese Muslims repudiate the death-cult that is Daesh. As the Pew Research Center confirms, most Muslims oppose extremism, terrorism, and suicide bombing.

In some cases, Muslims are more moderate than non-Muslims. Take, for instance, the issue of military attacks against civilians. 78% of American Muslims oppose them compared to 58% of American Christians and 52% of American Jews.

As for the stereotype that Muslims are all anti-Israel, think again. According to a Gallup Poll, 81% of Muslim American and 78% of Jewish Americans believe that an independent Palestinian state should co-exist alongside of Israel.

Saying that Radical Islamists and Jihadists are terrorists does not make one an Islamophobe. I do it all the time and I am a committed Muslim.

Putting all Muslims in the same boat, painting them with the same brush, falsifying facts, and trying to convince people that even educated, unveiled, and accent-free Muslim women are extremists is the epitome of Islamophobia.

It is Islamophobic to assert that the Muslim world, as a whole, is currently dominated by bad ideas and bad beliefs.

It is Islamophobic to assert that millions of Muslims fail to denounce terror because they, themselves, are not moderates. They do so all the time. Muslim voices, however, are muffled out by the mainstream media.

It is Islamophobic to assert that the word “moderate,” as we understand it in the Western world, does not apply to Muslims.

It is also Islamophobic to assert that Muslims collectively oppose fundamental rights and freedoms.

Moderate Muslims do not number in the millions. There is over one billion of them. They are the critical mass.

The Muslim world is not a grey zone where you cannot distinguish between friend from foe. It is critical to distinguish between the masses of Muslim human beings from the tiny minority of sub-human terrorists.

The traditional values of Islam are perfectly compatible with the traditional values of the Western world; Judeo-Christian values and Humanitarian values.

The principles of the Prophet influenced the European Renaissance, the Napoleonic Code, the American Constitution, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Prophet Muhammad produced the first constitution in the political history of humanity. The Covenants of the Prophet were the first to enshrine modern notions of civic and human rights.

Radical Fake Islam is a deadly disease. It is a cancerous tumor that is attached to the body of Islam. It is a contagious virus that has entered the bloodstream of Islam. It does not belong to the body. It will debilitate, destroy, and kill it. It must be amputated. It must be annihilated by means of antibiotics. The sooner that the cancerous tumor is surgically removed; the sooner that the bloodborne pathogen is neutralized, the better it will be for both Muslims and non-Muslims.

Dr. John Andrew Morrow (al-Ustadh al-Duktur Ilyas Islam) is an Amerindian Muslim leader and a proud member of the Métis Nation. After embracing Islam at the age of 16, he became both a Western academic and a traditional Muslim scholar. He is the author of a large body of scholarly works, the most influential of which is The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World. His websites include www.covenantsoftheprophet.com andwww.johnandrewmorrow.com. His videos and lectures can be found on The Covenants of the Prophet Channel on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqM3-puvWuKuCEJsDQDZFrA. His Facebook accounts include @johnandrewmorrow and @covenantsoftheprophet. He can be followed on Twitter @drjamorrow.

Related Posts:

mercredi 24 mai 2017
Par John Andrew Morrow
SHAFAQNA – Après chaque nouvelle attaque terroriste en Occident, faussement commise au nom de l’Islam par des hérétiques ou des mercenaires, des politiciens tentent de profiter de la tragédie en faisant de tous les musulmans des boucs émissaires et en diabolisant toute une religion mondiale, alors même que plus de 90% des victimes de Daech sont des musulmans, qu’ils sont en première ligne pour les combattre et que les crimes commis par l’Occident ou Israël, principaux soutiens du takfirisme et du wahhabisme, ne sont (légitimement) pas imputés au christianisme ou au judaïsme. Le Dr John Andrew Morrow présente des faits avérés sur l’Islam et les musulmans.
Traduction : fr.shafaqna.com
Selon le Pew Research Center, 93% du monde islamique est composé de sunnites, chiites et soufis. Ce sont les musulmans orthodoxes. 7% du monde islamique sont composés de Salafistes, Wahhabis et Takfiris. Ce ne sont pas des musulmans orthodoxes. Ce sont des hérétiques. Ce sont les personnes désignées en Occident comme des islamistes, des jihadistes et des islamo-fascistes. En termes statistiques, il n’y a absolument aucun doute que l’écrasante majorité des musulmans sont tout aussi respectueux des lois que les membres de toute autre foi monothéiste. Quiconque prétend autre chose est malhonnête et trompeur…
[Ceux qui stigmatisent les musulmans] invoquent le fait que de nombreux musulmans du Moyen-Orient et de l’Asie du Sud soutiennent la peine de mort pour l’apostasie. Cependant, ils ignorent commodément l’image plus large. 71% de musulmans tunisiens, 73% de musulmans thaïlandais, 78% de musulmans tadjiks, 83% de musulmans turcs, 82% de musulmans indonésiens, 85% de musulmans de Bosnie et de Russie, 89% de musulmans du Kosovo, 92% de musulmans albanais et 96% des musulmans kazakhs s’opposent à la peine de mort pour les personnes qui quittent l’Islam…
Plus de 60% des musulmans soutiennent la démocratie. Si cela semble faible pour certains, c’est parce que les musulmans ont été victimes de fausses démocraties depuis la fin de l’époque coloniale. Si 40% s’opposent à la démocratie, c’est la « démocratie » des dictateurs et des monarques militaires à laquelle ils s’opposent, ainsi que la « démocratie » de l’invasion et de l’occupation occidentales. Interrogés sur la liberté religieuse, 92,6% des musulmans ont affirmé que c’était une bonne chose. Comme le confirme le Pew Research Center, la majorité des musulmans s’opposent à l’extrémisme, au terrorisme et aux attentats suicide…
Dénoncer les islamistes radicaux et les djihadistes n’est pas un acte islamophobe. Je le fais tout le temps et je suis un musulman pratiquant. Mettre tous les musulmans dans le même sac, les peindre grossièrement, falsifier les faits et essayer de convaincre les gens que même les femmes musulmanes éduquées, non voilées et sans accent sont des extrémistes, c’est l’exemple même de l’islamophobie. Il est également islamophobe de prétendre que les musulmans ne se mobilisent pas pour dénoncer la terreur islamiste parce qu’ils ont secrètement une sympathie pour les terroristes. Faux ! Ils le dénoncent tout le temps, par millions. Les voix musulmanes, cependant, sont systématiquement censurées par les médias dominants.
Combien de personnes ont entendu parler du Code d’honneur musulman de l’ISNA (Société Islamique d’Amérique du Nord)? Il dénonce l’extrémisme et la violence.

Combien de personnes ont entendu parler de la Fatwa contre le terrorisme et les attentats-suicides ? Publiée par le Dr Muhammad Tahir al-Qadri en 2010, elle affirme que « le terrorisme est le terrorisme, la violence est la violence, ils n’ont pas leur place dans l’enseignement islamique et aucune justification ne peut être fournie pour eux. » En 2014, il a affirmé que « L’idéologie de Daech revient à de la mécréace pour l’Islam. C’est un anti-Islam, opposé aux enseignements du Prophète de l’islam. »
Combien de personnes ont entendu parler de l’Initiative des Pactes ? Inspirée par Les Pactes du Prophète Muhammad avec les Chrétiens du monde, ce mouvement international de musulmans est impliqué dans la protection des juifs, des chrétiens et des musulmans persécutés et a été à l’avant-garde de la guerre idéologique contre Daech.
Combien de personnes ont entendu parler de la Fatwa de Bin Bayyah ? En septembre 2014, Cheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah, l’un des savants les plus influents de l’Islam sunnite, a promulgué une longue fatwa condamnant Daech.
Combien de personnes ont entendu parler de la Lettre à Baghdadi ? Sortie en septembre 2014, c’est une réfutation méticuleuse de Daech. Elle a été signée par plus d’une centaine d’éminents spécialistes de l’Islam et dirigée personnellement vers le chef du faux Etat islamique.
Combien de personnes ont entendu parler du Message d’Amman ? Publié en novembre 2004 et signé par 200 chercheurs islamiques de plus de 50 pays, il appelle à la tolérance dans le monde musulman.
Combien de personnes ont entendu parler de la Déclaration de l’Organisation de coopération islamique ? Publiée en 2014, elle déclare que Daech n’a « rien à voir avec l’Islam » et a commis des crimes « qui ne peuvent être tolérés ».
Combien de personnes ont entendu parler de la Fatwa d’al-Azhar ? Émise en 2014, elle affirme que Daech est « un danger pour l’Islam ».
Combien de personnes ont entendu parler de la Déclaration de la Ligue arabe ? Publiée en 2014, elle dénonce les « crimes contre l’humanité » commis par Daech.
Combien de personnes ont entendu parler de la Fatwa qui a été émise par le premier clerc turc, le Mufti Mehmet Gormez ? Émise en 2014, elle affirme que Daech « fait des dégâts considérables» contre l’Islam et les musulmans.
Combien de personnes ont entendu parler des condamnations contre Daech émises par le CAIR (Conseil pour les relations islamo-américaines) ? Depuis 2014, ils ont condamné à maintes reprises Daech comme « non-islamique et moralement répugnant ».
Combien de personnes ont entendu parler de la Déclaration faite par le Conseil musulman de la Grande-Bretagne ? Emise en 2014, elle affirme que « la violence n’a pas sa place dans la religion. »
Combien de personnes ont entendu parler de la Fatwa publiée par le Conseil de jurisprudence de la Société islamique d’Amérique du Nord ? Publiée en 2014 et signée par 126 éminents musulmans, elle affirme que les actions de Daech ne sont en aucun cas représentatives des enseignements de l’Islam.
Combien de personnes ont entendu parler la Fatwa commune sunnite-chiite édictée par 100 Imams britanniques ? Emise en 2014, elle décrit Daech comme un groupe « illégitime » et « cruel ».
Combien de personnes ont entendu parler de la Déclaration publiée par le Conseil des affaires publiques musulmanes ? Publié en 2014, elle condamne Daech et appelle les musulmans à « s’opposer à l’extrémisme ».
Combien de personnes ont entendu parler de Nahdlatul Ulama ? C’est la plus grande organisation islamique au monde, représentant 50 millions de musulmans indonésiens. En 2014, la NU a lancé une campagne mondiale contre l’extrémisme et le wahhabisme.
Combien de personnes ont entendu parler des pensées de Cheikh Muhammad al-Yaqubi sur Daech ? Dans une interview menée en 2014, il a affirmé que « Daech n’a aucune nationalité. Sa nationalité est la terreur, la sauvagerie et la haine. » En outre, il a affirmé que « Baghdadi va tout droit en enfer. »
En 2015, Cheikh al-Yaqubi a publié une conférence intitulée Rejeter Daech : une réfutation de ses fondations religieuses et idéologiques. Dans sa brochure, il déclare que Daech constitue la menace la plus grave que l’Islam ait jamais rencontrée [ce qui est également la position de Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, Sayed Ali Khamenei, Sayed Sistani, etc., qui sont enpremière ligne du combat contre Daech].
Combien de personnes ont entendu parler du djihad qui a été déclaré par le Groupe de Jeunes Musulmans au Royaume-Uni en 2015 ? Ils ont déclaré que des groupes comme Daech n’ont « aucun lien avec l’islam ou la communauté musulmane ».
Combien de personnes ont entendu parler de la Fatwa de masse contre Daech ? Publiée en décembre 2015, elle a été signée par plus de 100 000 clercs musulmans en Inde, au Bangladesh et au-delà, et approuvés par des millions de musulmans.
Combien de personnes ont entendu parler de la Déclaration de Marrakech ? Publiée en 2016 et signée par des centaines de grands dirigeants musulmans, elle exprime leur engagement collectif à l’égard des droits humains, civils, religieux et aux droits des communautés minoritaires dans les pays musulmans.
Last but not least, combien de personnes ont entendu parler de la Déclaration de Grozny qui a excommunié les Salafistes-Takfiris ? Une Fatwa commune émise en Tchétchénie en 2016 par, entre autres, le Grand Cheikh d’Al-Azhar, la plus haute autorité de l’Islam sunnite, a déclaré explicitement que « les Salafistes-Takfirists, Daech (le soi-disant « Etat islamique ») et les groupes extrémistes similaires « n’étaient pas ‘musulmans’ ». [Et la liste est encore longue, et s’étend à toutes les communautés musulmanes d’Orient et d’Occident].
Il est crucial de faire la distinction entre les masses d’êtres humains musulmans et la minuscule minorité de terroristes sub-humains. Les valeurs traditionnelles de l’Islam sont parfaitement compatibles avec les valeurs traditionnelles du monde occidental : valeurs judéo-chrétiennes et valeurs humanitaires. Le Prophète Muhammad a produit la première Constitution dans l’histoire politique de l’humanité. Les Pactes du Prophète ont été les premiers à consacrer les notions modernes de droits civiques et humains. Les principes du Prophète ont influencé la Renaissance européenne, le Code napoléonien, la Constitution américaine et la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme.
L’Islam orthodoxe, traditionnel, dominant, civilisationnel et classique n’a pas besoin d’être réformé. Il doit être guéri d’une maladie, d’une innovation toxique, appelée salafisme takfiri, une tumeur cancéreuse attachée au corps de l’Islam. Elle n’appartient pas au corps. Elle veut affaiblir, détruire et tuer le corps. Il faut l’amputer. Plus tôt la tumeur cancéreuse sera enlevée chirurgicalement, mieux ce sera pour les musulmans et les non-musulmans.
Dr John Andrew Morrow, fier musulman, pour l’Initiative des Pactes, mouvement international de protection des victimes de Daech.

May 24, 2017

By Dr. John Andrew Morrow for the Covenants Initiative

Muslims are routinely accused of failing to denounce terrorism. In reality, they are at the forefront of over 300 efforts to oppose extremism, fundamentalism, and violent fanaticism that is committed in the name of Islam by criminals who are outside of its fold.

Although it would be overwhelming to list all these initiatives, the thirty most significant ones have been selected to share with all concerned human beings. Muslims and non-Muslims are encouraged to familiarize themselves with these efforts, to inform others of them, and to support them to the best of their abilities.

  1. ISNA’s Muslim Code of Honor: http://www.isna.net/muslim-code-of-honor
  2. A Common Word Between Us and You: http://www.acommonword.com
  3. Shoulder to Shoulder: http://www.shouldertoshouldercampaign.org/
  4. Dr. Qadri’s Fatwa against Terrorism and Suicide Bombing: http://www.quranandwar.com/FATWA%20on%20Terrorism%20and%20Suicide%20Bombings.pdf
  5. Dr. Qadri’s Fatwa Against ISIS: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/isis-is-a-terrorist-state-not-an-islamic-one-tahir-ul-qadri/1/624929.html
  6. The Covenants Initiative: https://covenantsoftheprophet.wordpress.com/2013/08/11/the-covenants-initiative/
  7. The Genocide Initiative: https://www.change.org/p/all-political-players-the-genocide-initiative
  8. Shaykh Bin Bayyah’s Fatwa against ISIS: http://binbayyah.net/english/2014/09/24/fatwa-response-to-isis/
  9. The Letter to Baghdadi: http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/
  10. The Amman Message: http://ammanmessage.com/
  11. The Statement by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation: http://binbayyah.net/english/2014/09/24/fatwa-response-to-isis/
  12. The Fatwa from Al-Azhar: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/02/04/Al-Azhar-calls-for-killing-crucifixion-of-ISIS-terrorists-.html
  13. The Statement of the International Union of Muslim Scholars: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20140705-prominent-scholars-declare-isis-caliphate-null-and-void/
  14. The Statement from the Arab League: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/636033/arab-league-confront-isis-now
  15. The Fatwa of Mufti Mehmet Gormez: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-turkey-religion-idUSKBN0FR16120140722
  16. The Statement of CAIR: https://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/12551-cair-condemns-isis-violence-and-rejects-calls-to-join-extremists-fighting-abroad.html
  17. The Statement of the Muslim Council of Great Britain: http://www.mcb.org.uk/not-in-our-name-british-muslims-condemn-the-barbarity-of-isis/
  18. The Fatwa of the Fiqh Council of North America: http://fiqhcouncil.org/node/69
  19. The Joint Sunni-Shiite Fatwa by 100 UK Imams: http://wilayah.info/en/sunni-and-shia-british-imams-denounce-isis-together-in-new-video/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Bd0Y6qWmlA
  20. Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq: http://www.heyetnet.org/en/index.php/aciklamalar/item/974-statement-no-1007-on-the-expulsion-of-iraqi-christians-from-the-city-of-mosul-by-islamic-state
  21. The Declaration Against Extremism by the Muslim Public Affairs Council: https://www.mpac.org/issues/national-security/mpac-rejects-isis-repugnant-crimes-against-humanity.php
  22. Saudi Arabia’s Council of Senior Scholars: http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKBN0HC0XL20140917?sp=true
  23. The Statements from Nahdlatul Ulama from Indonesia:
    1. http://www.worldreligionnews.com/issues/indonesias-largest-islamic-organization-denounces-isis
    2. http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/asia/indonesia-extremism/
    3. htps://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/world/asia/indonesia-islam-nahdlatul-ulama.html?_r=0
    4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/indonesian-muslims-counter-isis_us_565c737ae4b072e9d1c26bda
  24. Shaykh Yaqubi’s Refuting ISIS: http://www.refutingisis.com/
  25. Historic Islamic Edict Fatwa on Joining ISIS/ISIL by the Islamic Supreme Council: http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.com/historic-islamic-edict-fatwa-on-joining-isis-isil/
  26. The Muslim Youth Group’s Jihad Against Extremism: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/young-british-muslims-declare-own-jihad-against-isis-and-other-terrorists-who-hijack-islam-10146534.html
  27. The Statement by Dr. John Andrew Morrow: http://www.jewishpost.com/news/American-Imam-Issues-Fatwa-Against-ISIS.html
  28. The Mass Fatwa by 100,000 Muslim Clerics from India, Bangladesh, and beyond:
    1. http://www.voanews.com/a/fatwa-endorsed-by-bangladeshi-islamic-scholars-aims-to-curb-terrorism/3384976.html
    2. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/more-than-1-lakh-bangladeshi-clerics-sign-anti-terror-fatwa/1/695764.html
  29. The Marrakesh Declaration: http://www.marrakeshdeclaration.org/marrakesh-declaration.html
  30. The Grozny Declaration: http://chechnyaconference.org/material/chechnya-conference-statement-english.pdf

Dr. John Andrew Morrow is an indigenous inhabitant of Turtle Island and a member of the Michif-Otipemisiwak. He professed Islam at the age of 16. He is both a Western academic with a PhD from the University of Toronto and a recognized Muslim scholar. He has authored over thirty scholarly books, the most impactful of which is The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World. His websites include www.covenantsoftheprophet.com and www.johnandrewmorrow.com. His videos and lectures can be found on The Covenants of the Prophet Channel on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqM3-puvWuKuCEJsDQDZFrA. His Facebook accounts include @johnandrewmorrow and @covenantsoftheprophet. He can be followed on Twitter @drjamorrow.

 

Introduction

Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah was a Prophet. He was a Messenger of God. He was the Seal of the Prophets. This is something agreed upon by all Muslims: La ilaha illa Allah / Muhammadan Rasul Allah: there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.

Prophethood

Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah was a nabi or a prophet, namely, a person sent to preach the Word of God; a person who was following in the footsteps of his prophetic predecessors. He did not preach a new religion; he preached the primordial religion, Islam, submission and surrender to the One and Only God, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe.

Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah was also a rasul or a messenger, namely, a person who was sent with a scripture, a book from God, a revelation, and a code of law. He came forth, not only with ‘aqidah or beliefs but with shari‘ah or law, a comprehensive social, political, and economic system. Islam is a complete way of life.

Unlike the prophets and messengers who preceded him and unlike the founders of other faith traditions, which focus on governing themselves, Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, also focused on how Muslims should interact with others.

If one reads the Old Testament, and one study the Halakha, one sees that that Jewish Law was concerning primarily with regulating the lives of Jewish people.

If one reads the New Testament, and studies Canon Law, one sees that Christian law was concerned primarily with regulating the lives of Christian people. There is little in the Judeo-Christian tradition regarding the rights of non-Jews and non-Christians. There is little with regards to the manner we should treat different faith communities.

For many religions, both Eastern and Western, it was pretty much: “Follow my way or I will send you on the highway to Hell.” Although the belief system and code of conduct of believers was clearly delineated, the rights of unbelievers were often reduced to the right to die. In many cases, it boiled down to “Convert the unbelievers or kill them all.”

Pluralism

Islam, however, came to the scene with an entirely novel and unique approach: pluralism. Unlike many other religions that insisted that salvation was for them and them alone, Islam insisted that salvation was within the reach of all righteous monotheists. So long as one believed in God, and one did good deeds and avoided evil deeds, one had hope in the mercy of Almighty God. As Almighty Allah, says in the Holy Qur’an:

Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve. (2:63)

As Mustafa Akyol, the author of The Islamic Jesus, has observed:

The fact that the Qur’an promised salvation to [the Sabians], along with Jews and Christians, reflects a theological liberality in early Islam that most contemporary Muslims would have a hard time to even consider. (68)

I have studied Islam for over three decades. I too was taught that only Muslims were believers and that only Muslims went to Heaven. I was taught that Christians were mushrikin or polytheists. I was taught that the People of the Book were kuffar or infidels who were destined to eternal damnation in Hell. I studied all the so-called Muslim authorities who misrepresented and misinterpreted the Qur’an to suit their intolerant purposes.

I read all the so-called “authentic” traditions that extremists use to justify denying non-Muslims basic civil and human rights. I read all the so-called authoritative commentaries of the Qur’an that present an intolerant image of Islam. I can assert, openly, and unabashedly, that the extremist, fundamentalist, exclusivist, absolutist, fascist and supremacist interpretation of Islam is false. It represents a re-invention of Islam. It is not the Islam of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs. It is not the Islam of the Prophet Muhammad. And it most certainly is not the Islam of the Qur’an and the Islam of Almighty Allah.

Political Responsibility

When the Messenger of Allah established himself in Madinah, he consulted with Jews, Muslims, and polytheists, and created a constitution, the first of its kind in the political history of humanity. Known as the Covenant of Madinah, it placed all citizens on equal footing with equal rights and obligations. The citizens of the city-state of Madinah consisted of Jews and Arab non-Muslims. They numbered in the tens of thousands. Muslims, however were a minority during the early days of Muhammad’s rule: they numbered in the hundreds. Nonetheless, the Prophet proclaimed that they were a ummah wahidah, a single community, a constitutional confederation.

The term mu’minin or believers is used almost a thousand times in the Qur’an. As Mustafa Akyol recognizes, the term “was a broad umbrella that could incorporate all monotheists” (68). In the Constitution of Madinah and in the Covenants of the Prophet, the Messenger of Allah described the People of the Book as mu’minin or believers. And this makes perfect logical sense: anyone who believes in God is a believer. When the Messenger of Allah referred to his followers, those who embraced Islam, he used the term muslimin or Muslims. The Prophet spearheaded a movement of believers and created a Confederation of Believers. The rightly-guided Caliphs used the title Amir al-Mu’minin, Leader of the Believers, not Amir al-Muslimin, Leader of the Muslims. They were the leaders of all the citizens of the Ummah.

As Mustafa Akyol explains, “The existence of different religious traditions on earth is not an aberration but, quite the contrary the very will of God” (102). As we read in the Holy Qur’an,

And we have sent down the Book to you [Muhammad] with truth, confirming and conserving the previous Books. So judge between them by what God has sent down and do not follow their whims and desires deviating from the Truth that has come to you.

We have appointed a law and a practice for every one of you. Had God willed, He would have made you a single community, but He wanted to test you regarding what has come to you. So compete with each other in doing good. And every one of you will return to God and He will inform you regarding the things about which you differed. (5:48)

This is pluralism plain and simple, a condition or system in which various groups, principles, sources of authority or religious traditions co-exist in respect and tolerance. It is pluralism as defined by Diana L. Eck: energetic engagement with diversity; active seeking of understanding across lines of difference; encounter of commitments; and the language of dialogue.

One day, when the Prophet Muhammad was in Madinah, a delegation of Christians visited him from Najran. They debated and discussed religious matters. They agreed on some issues. They disagreed on other issues. When it came time for the Christians to perform their prayers, they excused themselves to leave the mosque. The Prophet Muhammad insisted that they pray in his mosque as it was a place of prayer and a house of God. And so the Christians prayed and celebrated mass in the mosque of the Prophet. This event is meticulously documented in Muslim sources. Not only is it authentic, it is exemplary. It is the very embodiment of Islamic ethics. Compare that to the actions of ISIS.

There are two visions of Islam that confront us today: an Islam of peace, mercy, tolerance, love, equality, and justice; and an Islam of war, cruelty, intolerance, hatred, inequality, and injustice; an Islam of terrorism, bloodshed, violence, misogyny, and bigotry. Forgive me if I have enough sense of decency and humanity to side with the former, True Islam, and repudiate all those who side with the latter which is nothing less than Anti-Islam. Muslims, true Muslims, must agree to disagree, not only with non-Muslims, but with each other. Had Allah willed, He would have made us all the same. He did not decree uniformity by means of barbarity, like ISIS wants to impose, but diversity and plurality under the wings of mercy. As Almighty Allah says in the Holy Qur’an:

O humankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted. (49:13)

The Qur’an abolishes sexism. The Qur’an abolishes racism. The Qur’an abolishes absolutism. It calls upon different religious traditions to “compete with each other in righteousness” (5:48). It calls upon different religious traditions to defer their differences to the ultimate judgment of God. It is what is known as irja or “postponement;” namely, deferring religious differences to the afterlife.

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, never converted people by force. As Almighty Allah says in the Holy Qur’an, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256). Consequently, the Messenger of Allah invited people to Islam. If they accepted Islam, alhamdulillah, praise be to Allah. If they preferred to keep their religion, masha’ Allah, it was the will of Allah. Perhaps they would come into Islam in the future, insha’ Allah, if it is the will of Allah. The Prophet was perfectly clear on the subject. As he wrote in the Treaty with the Kings of Himyar, cited in the Sirah of Ibn Ishaq:

If a Jew or a Christian becomes a Muslim, he is a believer with his rights and obligations. He who holds fast to his religion, Jew or Christian, is not to be turned from it. (643)

As Abu al-Fath al-Samiri, wrote in the Continuation of his chronicle,

The Prophet of Islam did not cause anyone distress throughout his life. He would present his belief before the people, accepting anyone who came to him, [yet] not compelling one who did not.

According to this 14th century Samaritan scholar, “Muhammad never mistreated any of the followers of the Law.” He also related a tradition transmitted by Samaritan elders that stated that: “Muhammad was a good and mighty person because he made a treaty of friendship with the Hebrew People.”

If the People of the Book did not wish to embrace Islam, Almighty Allah called upon them to follow their scripture firmly. As we read in the Holy Qur’an: “So let the followers of the Gospel judge according to what God has sent down in it” (5:47). This is exactly what the Messenger of Allah did. He judged Jews on basis of the Torah; Christians on the basis of the Gospel; and Muslims on the basis of the Qur’an. And that is precisely what the Rightly-Guided Caliphs did. As Imam ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, said when he assumed the Caliphate:

Question me before you lose me. Question me, for I have the knowledge of those who came earlier and those who will come later. If the cushion (on which a judge sits) was folded for me (to sit on), I could give judgements to the people of the Torah by their Torah, to the people of the Gospels by their Gospels, to the people of Psalms by their Psalms and to the people of the Furqan (i.e. Qur’an) by their Furqan, so that each one of these books will be fulfilled and will declare, “O Lord, indeed ‘Ali has given judgement according to Your decree.

Conclusions

This is Islam, true Islam, the Islam of Allah, the Islam of the Prophet, and the Islam of all true Muslims. It is a religion that soothes the soul. It is a religion that satisfies the intellect with certainty. It is a religion based on ethics and morality. It is a religion of piety and righteousness. It is a religion that provides people with rights as opposed to depriving people of rights. It is a religion of personal growth and development; a religion of social justice.

Dr. John Andrew Morrow is an Amerindian Muslim leader and a proud member of the Métis Nation. After embracing Islam at the age of 16, he became both a Western academic and a traditional Muslim scholar. He is the author of a large body of scholarly works, the most influential of which is The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World. His websites include covenantsoftheprophet.com and johnandrewmorrow.com. His videos and lectures can be found on The Covenants of the Prophet Channel on YouTube. His Facebook accounts include @johnandrewmorrow and @covenantsoftheprophet. He can be followed on Twitter @drjamorrow.

The Muslim Post <style type=”text/css”>.wpb_animate_when_almost_visible{opacity:1;}</style>

By Charles Upton

In early May of 2017, the Library of Congress in Washington DC released digital copies of the Covenants of the Prophet. The precious documents were among the 1,687 manuscripts that were microfilmed at the Eastern Orthodox Monastery of St. Catherine’s on Mount Sinai in 1949. Part of the LOC’s collection for over nearly seventy years, the Covenants of the Prophet were only previously available to researchers who requested to view them in person.

When Dr. John Andrew Morrow visited the Library of Congress in November of 2014 to study and make digital copies of the Covenants of the Prophet, Margaret Kieckhefer, the Senior Information and Reference Specialist, was stunned: “You are the only scholar who has consulted the Covenants of the Prophet. All the other scholars who come here are only interested in the Christian manuscripts.”

For years, the Covenants of the Prophet were the personal treasure trove of Professor Morrow. As far as other scholars were concerned, the Muhammadan Covenants could only be found at St. Catherine’s Monastery in Egypt. “Considering that many Covenants of the Prophet were destroyed by fanatics and extremists in the past, and that the terrorists of our times are determined to destroy them, I was relieved to know that copies of them were safely stored in the Library of Congress,” explained Morrow.

Reaction to the release of the Covenants of the Prophet has been mixed. As Dr. Morrow expressed, “I am both sad and glad that these invaluable documents have been placed online under public domain. In the past, I had a monopoly over the manuscripts. This allowed me control over content. Anyone who wished to work in the field had to work with me directly or indirectly. Now, the field is wide open to both friends and foes alike. I am glad, however, that other academics will have access to these primary sources and I hope that they will stimulate scholarship for centuries to come.”

Rachida Bejja, a supporter of the Covenants Initiative, viewed the public dissemination of the Covenants of the Prophet as positive: “Prior to the publication of The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World, there was virtually no knowledge of these documents and even less interest. I am convinced that the Library of Congress published the Covenants of the Prophet online in response to the popularity of Professor Morrow’s ground-breaking book.”

Héctor Horacio Manzolillo, a political commentator and analyst, was far more cynical regarding the public release of the Covenants of the Prophet. “Dr. Morrow is a pioneer in this field. He published The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World in 2013. In 2017, he was set to publish Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christian Communities of His Time in over a dozen languages along with the 2-volume Islam and the People of the BookCritical Studies on the Covenants of the Prophet. As was well-publicized, he was planning to publish the collection of Muhammadan Covenants he had gathered from Mount Sinai and other archives. That project has been scuttled by the Library of Congress. Their timing is certainly suspicious. It is as if they stabbed Dr. Morrow in the back. If they had the Covenants of the Prophet since 1950, why are they just making them available to the public at this very moment?”

In the mind of Manzolillo, the reason behind the release is clear: “The Covenants of the Prophet are an inconvenient truth. They were hidden for centuries. It was thanks to the work of Dr. Morrow that they were resurrected and made relevant. Since the enemies of truth cannot silence Morrow’s voice, they want to drown it out by opening the floodgates; namely, by financing scholars-for-dollars to refute his findings and marginalize his scholarship. The Covenants of the Prophet present a previously ignored societal model that poses a threat to existing power structures. By championing the Muhammadan Covenants, Morrow has made enemies, not only of non-Muslims but of Muslims as well. Whether they are Sunnis or Shiites, the states they have created are inconsistent with the teachings of the Prophet. They tried to ignore Morrow’s findings but they failed. They tried to co-opt Morrow’s findings but he stood firm. Now they seek dilute his findings and re-direct research to castrate the Covenants of the Prophet, make them apolitical, and transform them into ‘historical curiosities’ without practical applications.”

Whether one is positive or negative when it comes to the decision of the Library of Congress to publicly release the Covenants of the Prophet from the Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai, the scholarly foundations established by Dr. John Andrew Morrow will remain firmly entrenched. His academic accomplishments have inspired scores of scholars, including the likes of Abdurrahman Abou al-Majd, Eduardo Wassim Abou Ltaif, Zafar Bangash, Kevin Barrett, Bouchra Belgaid, Craig Considine, Mohamed Elkouche, Rosinda Etchegoyen, Naglaa Hassan, Evangelos Katafylis, Qasim Rashid, Reza Shah-Kazemi, Muhammad Sultan-Shah, Walaa Nasrallah, and Ahmed El-Wakil, among many others who are following in his scholarly footsteps.

As Héctor Manzolillo explained, “Considering the socio-political implications of the Covenants of the Prophet, this scholarly interest is precisely what the powers-that-be wanted to prevent. They have used every means possible to convince people in Higher Education and in high-ranking political positions that the Muhammadan Covenants were forged by monks to protect their lives and to obtain other benefits from Muslim rulers. When the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World was published in 2013, articles and ‘scholarly’ studies surfaced alleging that the treaties in question were false and, indirectly, that Morrow was a liar because he based his findings upon them. Nonetheless, the sun continues to spread its light: the importance and veracity of the Covenants of the Prophet continues to spread in all directions: north, south, east and west. Since the truth of the treaties continues to spread, it seems that a new tactic has been developed to negate their importance and impact, particularly in the field of international politics, since the Covenants demonstrate, once and for all, that all the terrorism that is attributed to Muslims and which is devastating entire regions of the planet is un-Islamic. It has nothing to do with Islam. In fact, it is the invention of the enemies of Islam.”

When asked to help guide students and scholars through the massive collection of manuscripts, Dr. Morrow was as gregarious as ever: “Researchers should be pointed to the main page of the collection: (https://www.loc.gov/collections/manuscripts-in-st-catherines-monastery-mount-sinai/about-this-collection). The reel titled Arabic Firmans 1-48. Covenants of the Prophet and Decrees(https://www.loc.gov/item/00279389013-ms) contains five copies of the Covenant of the Prophet in Arabic. The first three date from 1737-1738, 1778, and 1800-1801, while the final two are undated. Scroll 77: Arabic Firmans 961, Addendum, contains a copy of the Covenant of the Prophet in Arabic (https://www.loc.gov/item/00279389153-ms). Microfilm Turkish Scrolls, Reel 1681, however, contains a much larger collection. It features 43 copies of the Covenant of the Prophet in Ottoman Turkish. The documents in the reel date from the 16th century to the 20th century. They can be accessed via the following link:https://www.loc.gov/resource/amedmonastery.00279388975-ms/?sp=1&st=gallery. The reel titled Arabic Manuscripts 695 contains two copies of the Covenant of the Prophet in Arabic, copied in 1683-84. Finally, Arabic Manuscripts 696 contains a Covenant of the Prophet, in Arabic and Turkish, that was copied in 1561 (https://www.loc.gov/item/00279388963-ms).”

As Dr. Morrow observed, the Covenants of the Prophet from St. Catherine’s Monastery are not the only treasures in its library’s ancient collection. “There are thousands of decrees and edicts from Fatimid Caliphs and Ottoman Sultans, along with Muslim jurists from the major schools of jurisprudence, that require meticulous study. Many of them explicitly confirm the rights and freedoms that the Prophet Muhammad granted to the monks of Mount Sinai.” Asked if he had any closing words for this article, Professor Morrow shook his head and said: “The Library of Congress, for good or bad, has released some of its riches. I pray they will prove profitable to investors in the hereafter instead of being squandered by pirates in search of worldly pleasure.”

Charles Upton was born in 1948. His books include Day and Night on the Sufi PathVirtues of the ProphetReflections of TasawwufThe System of Antichrist, and, with Dr. John Andrew Morrow, The Words of Allah to the Prophet Muhammad: Forty Sacred Sayings. He is also the conceiver of the Covenants Initiative, an international movement of Muslims to protect persecuted Christians, based on Dr. Morrow’s book The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World. In 1988, he embraced Islam. Since that time, under two shaykhs, he has followed the Sufi path.

By the Covenant Initiative

SHAFAQNA – 1) MUSLIMS ARE HUMAN BEINGS. 1.6 billion people profess the Islamic faith. 1 out of every 5 people on the planet is a Muslim.

2) MUSLIMS ARE DIVERSE. The Muslim community is as diverse as the Christian community. There are Muslims from every imaginable race, nationality, language, and culture.

3) MUSLIMS, LIKE ALL HUMAN BEINGS, HAVE SHORTCOMINGS. Like Jews, Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus, Muslims have virtues and vices. This is a fundamental part of the human condition.

4) MOST MUSLIMS PRACTICE TRADITIONAL, CLASSICAL OR CIVILIZATIONAL ISLAM. The mainstream Muslim majority practices moderate forms of Islam. They are Sunnis, Shiites, and Sufis.

5) TRUE ISLAM REJECTS EXTREMISM. Both the Qur’an and the Prophet Muhammad explicitly condemn religious extremism

6) TERRORISTS ARE A MINORITY. According to the FBI, 0.001% of so-called Muslims are terrorists.

7) EXTREMISTS ARE A MINORITY. According to the FBI, 7% of so-called Muslims support “Radical Islam.” According to the Pew Forum, the overwhelming majority of Muslims oppose ISIS and other terrorist groups.

8) RADICAL ISLAM IS NOT ISLAM. Extremists and terrorists all follow the Salafi / Wahhabi / Takfiri ideology, a radical re-interpretation of “Islam” that surfaced in Saudi Arabia less than two centuries ago.

9) MUSLIMS ARE THE GREATEST VICTIMS OF TERRORISM. Although they target Christians and Yazidis, the greatest victims of so-called “Radical Islam” are Muslims, particularly Shiites, Sufis, and traditional Sunnis. They represent 95% of the victims of terrorism.

10) MOST MUSLIMS ARE LOYAL, LAW-ABIDING, CITIZENS. Most Muslims are concerned primarily with providing for their families and their future. They are our greatest allies against the extremists and terrorists.

11) MANY MUSLIMS ARE ACTIVELY (NOT JUST PASSIVELY) OPPOSING THE TERRORISTS. There are literally hundreds of declarations, fatwas and ongoing campaigns by Muslims to combat terrorism, throughout the Muslim world and in the United States. One anti-ISIS edict was signed by 100,000 Muslim clerics. Another was issued by an Indonesian organization that represents over 50 million Muslims.

12) THE SALAFI-WAHHABI-TAKFIRIS HAVE BEEN EXCOMMUNICATED. In August of 2016, in Grozny, Chechnya, a group fatwa was issued by the Grand Shaykh of al-Azhar University, the highest authority in Sunni Islam, and several Grand Muftis (also seconded by the Russian Council of Muftis), declaring that the “Salafi / Takfirists… Daesh” and “other extremists” are “not Muslim.”

Conceived by Charles Upon (Sidi Akram), the Covenants Initiative was inspired by The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World by Dr. John Andrew Morrow (Sidi Ilyas Islam). Initially established as an international Muslim movement to protect persecuted Christians, the Covenants Initiative expanded its mandate to protect all  victims of Takfiri terrorism, be they Ahl al-Kitab or Ahl al-Qiblah. The central website of the Covenants Initiative is www.covenantsoftheprophet.com. It also operates the Covenants of the Prophet Channel on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqM3-puvWuKuCEJsDQDZFrA. Its Facebook page is @covenantsoftheprophet

By Dr. John Andrew Morrow

(al-Ustadh al-Duktur Ilyas ‘Abd al-‘Alim Islam)

Why don’t Muslims speak out against terrorism? It is as much a question as it is a statement. It implies that Muslims do not denounce terrorism because they implicitly support it. This is a logical fallacy. According to the New America Foundation, white, right-wing, so-called Christian extremists have killed more than twice as many Americans on US soil than so-called Muslim Jihadists. I have never heard Caucasian, Christian, Americans speak out against white supremacist terrorism. I don’t expect them to.

Asking Muslims if they support ISIS is as idiotic as asking white Christians if they support the Crusades, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, the Genocide of Native Americans under the name of Christ as Manifest Destiny, the Genocide of the Aboriginal inhabitants of Australia, the Spanish Inquisition, Western colonialism and imperialism, the Salem Witch Trials, segregation, Jim Crow, the lynching of over 5000 African Americans by “good God-fearing Christian,” the Biblically-justified apartheid in South Africa, the KKK and other white Christian supremacists, the Serbian Orthodox Christians who attempted to exterminate the Muslims and Catholics in the former Yugoslavia, the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda that has butchered 100,000 people in the name of Christ, or the Christian militias in the Central African Republic that are exterminating and cannibalizing Muslims. I know full-well that no true Christian would support such inhumanity.

Although some Christians are ill-intentioned, most are simply ill-informed. In fact, according to a Brookings Poll, 40% of Americans believe that most Muslims oppose ISIS; 14% think most Muslims support ISIS, and 44% believe Muslims are evenly balanced on the issue.

Support for ISIS in the Muslim World – Perceptions vs Reality
Support for ISIS in the Muslim World – Perceptions vs Reality

The fact of the matter is that Muslims speak out. Muslims scream and shout. As a minority that makes up merely 1% of the US population, it is hard for Muslims to get heard.

How many people have heard of ISNA’s Muslim Code of Honor? It denounces extremism and violence.

How many people have heard of the Fatwa against Terrorism and Suicide Bombing? Issued by Dr. Muhammad Tahir al-Qadri in 2010, it states that “Terrorism is terrorism, violence is violence and it has no place in Islamic teaching and no justification can be provided for it.” In 2014, he asserted that: “The ISIS ideology is disbelief in Islam. It is anti-Islam; against the teachings of the prophet of Islam.”

How many people have heard of the Covenants Initiative? Inspired by The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World, this international movement of Muslims is committed to protecting persecuted Jews, Christians and Muslims, and has been at the forefront of the ideological war against ISIS.

How many people have heard of Bin Bayyah’s fatwa? In September of 2014, Shaykh Abdallah Bin Bayyah, one of the most influential scholars in Sunni Islam, passed a lengthy fatwa condemning ISIS.

How many people have heard of the Letter to Baghdadi? Released in September of 2014, is a meticulously detailed refutation of ISIS. It was signed by over one hundred of Islam’s leading scholars and personally directed to the leader of the fake Islamic State.

How many people have heard of the Amman Message? Issued in November 2014, and signed by 200 Islamic scholars from over 50 countries, it calls for tolerance in the Muslim world.

How many people have heard the statement from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation? Released in 2014, it declares that the Islamic State has “nothing to do with Islam” and has committed crimes “that cannot be tolerated.”

How many people have heard of the fatwa from al-Azhar? Issued in 2014, it states that ISIS is “a danger to Islam.” 

How many people have heard of the Statement from the Arab League? Released in 2014, it denounces the “crimes against humanity” carried out by ISIS.

How many people have heard of the fatwa that was passed by Turkey’s top cleric, Mufti Mehmet Gormez? Issued in 2014, it states that ISIS is “hugely damaging” to Islam and Muslims.

How many people have heard of the condemnations made against ISIS by CAIR? Since 2014, they have repeatedly condemned ISIS as “Un-Islamic and morally repugnant.”

How many people have heard of the declaration made by the Muslim Council of Great Britain? Released in 2014, it affirms that “violence has no place in religion.”

How many people have heard of the fatwa published by the Fiqh Council of the Islamic Society of North America? Issued in 2014, and signed by 126 leading Muslim scholars, it asserts that the actions of ISIS are in no way representative of the teachings of Islam.

How many people have heard of the Joint Sunni-Shiite Fatwa issued by 100 U.K. Imams? Released in 2014, it describes ISIS as an “illegitimate” and “vicious group.”

How many people have heard of the statement issued by the Muslim Public Affairs Council? Published in 2014, it condemns ISIS and calls upon Muslim to “stand against extremism.”

How many people have heard of Nahdlatul Ulama? It is the largest Islamic organization in the world, representing 50 million Indonesian Muslims. In 2014, the NU launched a global campaign against extremism and Wahhabism.

How many people have heard of Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqubi thoughts on ISIS? In an interview conducted in 2014, he asserted that “ISIS has no nationality. Its nationality is terror, savagery, and hatred.” Furthermore, he asserted that “Baghdadi is going to hell.”

In 2015, Shaykh al-Yaqubi published a lecture titled Refuting ISIS: A Rebuttal of its Religious and Ideological Foundations? In his booklet, he states that ISIS constitutes the most serious threat that Islam has ever faced.

How many people have heard of the jihad that was declared by the Muslim Youth Group in the UK in 2015? They declared that groups like ISIS have “no link with Islam or the Muslim community.”

How many people have heard of the mass fatwa against ISIS? Issued in December of 2015, it has been signed by over 100,000 Muslim clerics from India, Bangladesh, and beyond, and endorsed by millions of Muslims.

How many people have heard of the Marrakesh Declaration? Issued in 2016, and signed by hundreds of major Muslim leaders, it expresses their collective commitment to the cause of human, civil, religious, and minority rights in Muslim countries.

Last but not least, how many people have heard of the Grozny Declaration which excommunicated the Salafi-Takfiris?  A group fatwa issued in Chechnya in 2016 by, among others, the Grand Shaykh of Al-Azhar, the Grand Shaykh of Al-Azhar, the highest authority in Sunni Islam, explicitly declared that “Salafi-Takfirists, Daesh (the so-called ‘Islamic State’) and similar extremist groups” were “not Muslim”.

I can assert with confidence, dismay, and despair, that 99% of non-Muslims have never heard of these efforts. And though millions of Muslims have participated in them, countless millions more have never heard of them. This ignorance is a scandal.

The Pew Research Center, the Washington Institute, ORB International, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, and Zogby all confirm that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are opposed to ISIS.

Support for ISIS in the Muslim World)

I call upon all Muslims who oppose to ISIS, particularly those with sufficient resources to influence the mass media, to dedicate themselves to the publication of these and all other Muslim struggles against Daesh and their co-conspirators to the four corners of the earth. I also call upon our non-Muslim brothers and sisters to share this information with their family, friends, and communities. Millions upon millions have spoken out. It is up to all of us to spread the word.

Dr. John Andrew Morrow is an Amerindian Muslim leader and a proud member of the Métis Nation. After embracing Islam at the age of 16, he became both a Western academic and a traditional Muslim scholar. He is the author of a large body of scholarly works, the most influential of which is The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World.

His websites include www.covenantsoftheprophet.com and www.johnandrewmorrow.com.

His videos and lectures can be found on The Covenants of the Prophet Channel on YouTube. His Facebook accounts include @johnandrewmorrow and @covenantsoftheprophet. He can be followed on Twitter @drjamorrow.

BY: JOHN ANDREW MORROW   SOURCE: ISLAMICITY MAY 16, 2017 NO COMMENTS

Introduction

What good is religion if it is confined to private space? What good is religion if it fails to guide us in public life? We should not cast off our convictions, muzzle our morals, put aside our principles, and eject our ethics when we exit our homes. Almighty God, glorified and exalted be He, the Prophets, and the Messengers, peace and blessings be upon them, provided us with enduring values that are applicable at all times and all places. The Ten Commandments cannot be compromised. The Noble Eightfold Path cannot be compromised. The Golden Rule cannot be compromised. The Seven Grandfather Teachings cannot be compromised: humility, bravery, honesty, wisdom, truth, respect, and love, values that are becoming increasingly difficult for indigenous people to embody due to the soulless nature of secular society. So, woe to those who seek to bend and break universal moral values. They have no sense of the sacred.

The Qur’an and the Sunnah

The Prophet Muhammad provided us with guidance in matters of moral law, religious law, personal law, civil law, criminal law, environmental law, and international law. There are over 100 major fields of law: all of which have been addressed by the Hermit of Hira, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah.

Most Muslims read the Qur’an. And while it is wonderful to be able to read it in Arabic, Muslims should also make sure to study its meaning in a language they understand. When in doubt regarding its interpretation, Muslims consult the full-range of traditional commentaries of the Qur’an to see the full spectrum of readings. They should not rely on a single source. Most Muslims are familiar with Hadith literature. This is positive but perilous. Muslims should be extremely careful as to what they read. They should seek the guidance of traditional teachers. They should rely on reason and maintain moderation. They should focus on the spirit and not the letter.

If most Muslims read the Qur’an and some Muslims read the Hadith, few Muslims, however, have read, much less heard of, the letters, treaties, and covenants of the Prophet. The Messenger of Allah wrote (or dictated, as some prefer), hundreds upon hundreds of letters. This is a historical fact. It is indisputable. These documents are found in books of prophetic traditions, books of Qur’anic commentary, books of jurisprudence, and books of history. They form a fundamental part of our Islamic tradition and heritage. As Agapius of Hierapolis, a 10th century Christian author, acknowledged:

Their leader was a man called Muhammad, the son of ‘Abd Allah… He became their chief and king… Christians from the Arabs and others came to him and he gave them a guarantee of safety and wrote documents for them… All the people in opposition to him did likewise, I mean the Jews, the Zoroastrians, the Sabians, and others; they paid allegiance to him and took from him a guarantee of safety on the condition that they would pay him the poll-tax and the land-tax.

Ancient Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Samaritan, and Zoroastrian sources all confirm that the Prophet protected the lives, property, and places of worship of the People of the Book. Churches, monasteries, synagogues, and fire-temples, were all subject to protection.

The Letters, Treaties, and Covenants of the Prophet

If people wish to truly understand the Prophet Muhammad as a religious leader, as a diplomat, as a politician, and as a military strategist, they must absolutely study the letters, treaties, and covenants of the Prophet Muhammad and his extensive correspondence with Jews, Samaritans, Christians, and Zoroastrians.

Those who read Arabic should study Majmuʻah al-wathaʼiq al-siyasiyyah li al-ʻahd al-nabawi wa al-khilafah al-rashidah by Muhammad Hamidullah. Those who read Arabic should study Makatib al-Rasul by ‘Ali Ahmadi Minyanji. Those who read English should study Power Manifestations of the Sirah: Examining the Letters and Treaties of the Messenger of Allah by Zafar Bangash.

The most comprehensive source in the English language, however, is The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World. It is a work that provides an authoritative analysis of prophetic pluralism. After that, I would point readers to Islam and the People of the Book: Critical Studies on the Covenants of the Prophet, a forthcoming work that should be printed at some point in 2017.

Although I cannot possibly cite hundreds of letters from the extensive and impressive correspondence of the Prophet Muhammad, I will limit myself to reading the Master Template that he used when granting covenants of protection to the People of the Book as reconstructed and translated by Ahmed El-Wakil.

The Master Template of the Muhammadan Covenant with the Christians

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

This is a writ that Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib the Messenger of Allah has written to all Christians and to all the nations within which they reside to protect and to safeguard them because they are Allah’s trust among His Creation, so that there be evidence in their favor and for people to no longer have an excuse in front of Allah after the coming of the messengers. And Allah is All-Mighty and All-Wise.

He wrote it for the people of his creed and to all those who profess the Christian religion — in the Eastern lands and in the West, near and far, be they Arabs or non-Arabs, known or unknown — a writ which constitutes an authoritative covenant, a definitive decree and an established sunnah so that justice may prevail and for it to stand as an inviolable pact of protection.

He who observes it holds to the religion of Islam and is worthy of it. As for he who violates it and jeopardizes the covenant by opposing and transgressing what the Messenger of Allah has commanded therein, he has broken the covenant of Allah, denied His oath, and forsaken his protection thereby making himself subject to the divine curse, regardless of whether he be a Sultan or any other person among the Believers and the Muslims.

I have committed myself to granting the covenants and the pledges which have been requested of me and from all those who follow my creed among the Muslims. I give the Christians the covenant of Allah and His pledge and place them under the safeguard of His prophets, His chosen ones and His saints from among the Believers and the Muslims so that it be binding among the first and the last of them.

My protection and pledge is the most solid that Allah has taken from a prophet who has been sent or from an angel who is stationed near [the divine throne], thereby rendering mandatory the obedience, obligations and adherence to the covenant of Allah.

I protect their land with all my power, my horses, my men, my weapons, my strength and my followers among the Muslims from every region where the enemy lies, whether they be close by or far away, and regardless of whether the Muslims are at peace or at war.

I protect their surrounding areas and grant security to their churches, convents, houses of worship, the places of their monks and pilgrims, wherever they may be found, be they in the mountains or the valleys, the caves or the inhabited regions, the plains, the desert or in buildings, that I should safeguard them, their religion and creed wherever they may be found in the sea or on land, in the East or West in the same way that I protect myself, my entourage, and the people of my creed from among the Believers and the Muslims.

I place them under my protection and I give them my pledge and my security at every moment. I defend them from every harm, mischief and retribution. I am behind them, protecting them from every enemy who wishes us harm. I myself protect them by means of my helpers, my followers and the members of my creed because they are under my responsibility and my protected people whom I govern. I must therefore care for them and protect them of all harm so that it does not reach them unless it first reaches me and my Companions who with me defend the integrity of Islam.

I remove from them all mischief that people of the covenant have to bear of supplies which they give as loaned goods and as land taxes [kharaj] except what they voluntarily consent to and that they should neither be forced nor compelled in this matter.

It is not permitted to remove a bishop from his bishopric, a monk from his monastic life, a Christian from his Christianity, an ascetic from his hermitage, or a pilgrim from his pilgrimage. Nor is it permitted to destroy any part of their churches or their convents or to take parts of their buildings to construct mosques or homes for the Muslims. Whoever does such a thing will have violated the covenant of Allah, opposed His messenger and betrayed the protection granted to him by Allah.

It is not permitted to impose the jizyah or any kind of land tax [kharaj] on monks, bishops and those worshippers who by devotion wear woolen clothing or live alone in the mountains or in other regions secluded from human habitation.

The jizyah for those Christians who have not consecrated their lives to divine worship and who are neither monks nor pilgrims will either be at a rate of 4 dirhams per year or the provision of a garment to support the Muslims and to strengthen the Treasury. If the garment is too difficult for them then it will not be binding upon them unless they willingly consent.

The jizyah will not surpass more than twelve dirhams per year for landowners and proprietors of estates and large businesses at sea and at deep-sea — who exploit mines for precious stones, gold and silver — including those who are wealthy and powerful among those who have professed Christianity so long as they are inhabitants and residents of the land.

The traveler who is not a resident in the land and he who is a foreigner will not have to pay the land-tax [kharaj] or the jizyah except he who has inherited land over which the Sultan has a monetary right. He must pay the money as others do without there being any excesses and he should not be made to bear what is beyond his strength or means in the cultivation, development and harvest of the land. He should also not be taxed excessively and above the limit that has been set for landowners who are inhabitants of the land.

The people under our protection will not be obliged to go to war with the Muslims to face their enemies and to combat them. The reason for this is that they have been given our protection so that they be discharged of this obligation and it is therefore the Muslims who will be responsible for their safety and protection. The Christians will not be obliged to equip the Muslims for any of their wars against their enemies by means of weapons and horses unless they freely contribute of their own volition. Whoever does so will be the object of praise, reward, and gratitude, and his help will not be forgotten.

No one who follows the Christian creed will be forced to enter into Islam — and dispute not with them except with means that are better (Q29:46). They must be covered by the wing of mercy and all mischief and harm that could reach them, wherever they may find themselves and wherever they may be, must be repelled.

If a Christian were to commit a crime or an offense, Muslims must stand by his side, help him and support him. They must safeguard him and pay the penalty for his offense. They should encourage reconciliation between him and the victim to either help or save him.

The Muslims must not abandon the Christians and leave them without help and assistance since I have given them the covenant of Allah to ensure that they have the same rights and obligations as the Muslims. Furthermore, the Muslims have an obligation toward them with respect to the covenant, guaranteeing them the right of protection and safeguarding everything that is sacrosanct. They also have accepted that every mischief be removed from them and that they be bound to the Muslims so that they and the Muslims become partners with one another in the mutual rights and obligations that they share.

Christians must not be subject to suffer abuse in matters pertaining to marriages, except for what they themselves agree. Christian families should not be compelled to marry their girls to Muslims and they should not be subject to any maltreatment if they decline a suitor or refuse a marriage proposal. Such marriages should only take place if they desire them and with their approval and consent.

If a Muslim takes a Christian woman as a wife, he must respect her Christian beliefs. He must support her religious aspirations so that she may receive religious instruction from her [clerical] superiors and he must allow her to fulfill her religious obligations. He must not ever prevent her of this. He must also not force her to act contrary to her religion or abuse her so that she abandons it. If he does this, and forces her, then he has broken the covenant of Allah and violated the pledge [given to the Christians] by the Messenger of Allah, and in the sight of Allah he is among the liars.

The Christians hold the right to request assistance from the Muslims to help them repair their convents, monasteries or for any other matter pertaining to their religious affairs. The Muslims must help them without the aim of receiving any compensation: they should aim to restore that religion out of faithfulness to the covenant of the Messenger of Allah and as a gift and donation to them from Allah and His messenger.

In matters of war between them and their enemies, the Muslims must not employ any Christian as a messenger, guide, helper, informant, or for any other duty of war. Whoever obliges one of them to do such a thing will have committed an injustice, disobeyed the Messenger of Allah and become free of his protection. The Muslims must uphold the stipulations which Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib, the Messenger of Allah, has issued in favor of those who follow the Christian creed.

He has also placed conditions in their religion concerning their pact of protection which they must abide by as part of the covenant which they have contracted with him. Among other things, none of them are to support an enemy of war against the Muslims, either openly or covertly. They are not to shelter them in their homes from which they could await the moment to launch an attack. These enemies [of the Muslims] should never be allowed to halt in their regions, their villages, their places of worship, or in any other place belonging to their co-religionists. They must not provide any assistance to them by furnishing them with weapons, horses, men or other logistical support. They must not allow them to deposit any of their wealth or exchange any correspondences with them. They are not to host them as guests except that it should be in a monastery where they are seeking refuge and protection for their livelihoods and their religion.

The Christians must host the Muslims along with their mounts for three days and three nights when they halt among them. They must offer them wherever they may be located or stationed the same food that they consume. They are not obliged to do any more, for in fulfilling this obligation they have removed all harm and mischief that may reach the Muslims.

If one of the Muslims needs to hide in one of their homes or in one of their places of worship they must grant him hospitality, help him and stand by his side so long as the Muslim remains in hiding. They must conceal him from the enemy, not disclose his location and accommodate for all of his needs.

Whoever contravenes any of these conditions or transgresses them by altering them has freed himself of the protection of Allah and that of His messenger. The Christians possess the covenants and the pledges which I took from their priests, monks and from other Christians from among the People of the Book. It is the most solid trust that Allah and His prophet have placed on the community so that they may abide by what the Prophet himself has decreed upon them and upon all of the Muslims, to ensure their protection and as benevolence to them until the Hour arrives and the world comes to an end.  Whoever is unjust after this toward a protected person by breaking and rejecting the covenant, I will be his enemy on the Day of Judgment among all the Muslims.

Conclusions

What more could I possibly say? What on earth could I possibly add to the words of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. I am unworthy. His wisdom leave me completely and utterly speechless. Peace be upon the Prophet of Allah. Peace be upon the Messenger of Allah. And peace be upon all the followers of righteous guidance.

Dr. John Andrew Morrow is an Amerindian Muslim leader and a proud member of the Métis Nation. After embracing Islam at the age of 16, he became both a Western academic and a traditional Muslim scholar. He is the author of a large body of scholarly works, the most influential of which is The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World. His websites include http://www.covenantsoftheprophet.com and http://www.johnandrewmorrow.com. His videos and lectures can be found on The Covenants of the Prophet Channel on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqM3-puvWuKuCEJsDQDZFrA . His Facebook accounts include @johnandrewmorrow and @covenantsoftheprophet. He can be followed on Twitter @drjamorrow.

THE COVENANTS OF PROPHET VS SPANISH INQUISITION

03.04.2017
Geopolitica

The last critic to confront The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World prior to the publication of Islam and the People of the Book is Carlos Martínez Carrasco who published a review of the Spanish version of the former, El minarete y el campanario: los pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los cristianos del mundo in Miscelánea de estudios árabes y hebraicos (Vol. 66: 348-351) in 2017.

Rather than address questions of content as called upon by any reputable reviewer, Martínez Carrasco commenced with a personal attack, calling into questions my credentials, stating that it has never been more important to know an author prior to getting to know his work. He alleges that the Spanish translation of The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World “”is not an academic study with a methodology that is in accordance with the field of studies to which it corresponds.”

Martínez Carrasco claims that a review of my CV demonstrates that my academic training is distant from the field of Arabic and Islamic Studies. He observes, rightfully so, that I am a Professor of Foreign Languages, an expert in the Spanish language and Hispanic Studies, and that I completed a doctoral dissertation on The Indigenous Presence in Rubén Darío and Ernesto Cardenal (2000). He also claims that my interest in a field that is so different from my professional area of expertise is a result of my conversion to Islam at the age of 16, a personal journey that led me to complete studies in the Islamic Tradition both inside and outside of academia.

To Martínez Carrasco I say what Imam ‘Ali said to the Kharijites: “There is both truth and falsehood in what you say.” It is true that I completed a Bachelor’s degree in Spanish and French Language and Literature, along with an M.A. and a Ph.D. in Spanish American Literature. I have always been open about my academic accomplishments.

If I completed undergraduate and graduate majors in the Department of Spanish at the University of Toronto there was a reason: it was the only place where I could specialize in the three fields that fascinated me the most: Hispanic Studies, Native Studies, and Islamic Studies.

As a Hispanist, I studied the Spanish language and linguistics. I took courses in the history of Spanish, becoming perfectly well-versed in the Arabic influence on the Spanish language. As part of my academic training, I studied Spanish culture, history, and civilization, including the nearly 800 years of Arabic Muslim rule in al-Andalus. Consequently, I am perfectly well-versed in the history of Islamic Spain.

I obviously studied Spanish literature, including the influence it received from Arabic and Islamic literature. It is called Comparative Literature. It is what scholars like Luce López-Baralt do. One cannot compare two literary traditions unless one is an expert in both. Consequently, not only am I perfectly well-versed in Spanish literature, I am perfectly well-versed in Arabic literature. Hence, I am both a Hispanist and an Arabist.

I was introduced to Morisco literature by the distinguished Dr. Ottmar Hegyi when I was an undergraduate student. It was he who encouraged me to enter graduate school and complete a thesis on Aljamiado literature. I spent over a decade researching the topic in preparation for my dissertation; however, my mentor, Professor Hegyi, retired prior to its completion. That work, Shi’ism in the Maghreb and al-Andalus, is set to be published in the near future. It is a work that was researched and written while I was a graduate student at the University of Toronto.

Since the retirement of my mentor, an eminence in Aljamiado-Morisco literature and the influence of Islam on Spanish literature, left me without a thesis director, I decided to complete a thesis on The Islamic Presence and Influence in Pre-Columbian America, a work that bridged Hispanic and Islamic Studies. I completed all the research required and wrote a significant portion of my thesis only to learn that a sector of scholars did not consider it “politically correct.” They dogmatically embraced the notion that there was no contact with the Americas prior to Columbus. My work, in their view, was historical revisionism. I am sure they had anxiety attacks when it was established that the Norse had been traveling to these lands as early as the 10th century. Lance aux Meadows must have been a nightmare for them. Although I believe that some Muslims and Black Nationalists grossly exaggerate claims of African and Arab contact with the Americas, I have little doubt that some Arabs and Africans crossed the Atlantic prior to Columbus.

Rather than research myself out of existence, I decided to select a topic that was acceptable to all faculty members in the Department: The Indigenous Presence in Rubén Darío and Ernesto Cardenal. This subject bridged two interests: the Hispanic world and the indigenous world. And while the Islamic connection may not appear evident to outsiders, it should be noted that the work of Ernesto Cardenal is also influenced by Sufism and Political Islam. The fact that I specialized in the work of Ernesto Cardenal explains my authorship of Religion and Revolution: Spiritual and Political Islam in Ernesto Cardenal, a work that could only be completed by a person who is a specialist in both Hispanic literature and Islamic literature.

Martínez Carrasco might argue that I have no formal academic training in the field of Religious or Islamic Studies. This is false. I took courses in Religious Studies, Islamic Studies, and Philosophy at the University of Toronto. In fact, one of my professors was Dr. Solomon Alexander Nigossian, an Armenian Christian from Egypt who taught in the Department of Religion at the University of Toronto for decades. An accomplished academic, Nigosian authored many works on Islam. It was he who taught me the methodology employed in the field of Religious and Islamic Studies.

Martínez Carrasco also fails to mention that I completed post-doctoral studies in Arabic at various language institutes in the United States and Morocco. He fails to mention that I was never solely a Spanish Professor. I was a Professor of Spanish, French, and Arabic. In fact, I designed the entire Arabic major for a state university, including all the course offerings. What is more, I was hired by the University of Virginia to teach Religious Studies. I taught a course on Ibn Battutah as well as a course on Islam for its Semester at Sea program. Finally, all of my courses on Spanish Civilization and Culture included a component on the history of al-Andalus.

Although Martínez Carrasco treats it as irrelevant, I also completed the full cycle of traditional Islamic Studies both independently and at the hand of Muslim scholars from the Sunni, Shi’ite, and Sufi persuasions. I am widely recognized as an ustadh [professor of Islam], a shaykh [a Muslim religious leader], an ‘alim [religious scholar of Islam], and a hakim [Islamic herbalist]. These are not titles that I arrogantly assumed. They are titles that were granted to me by my peers.

Imam Ilyas Fawzy from al-Qarawiyyin University stated that “Your knowledge of Islam is profound.” Al-Shaykh al-Habib ‘Ali al-Jifri said that “Doctor John is very strong in Islamic Studies.” I am called upon to peer-review the works of Muslim jurists. Religious Authorities refer to me as a Religious Authority. This should suffice as proof of my qualifications. It is not necessary for me to list any more words of praise from fellow scholars and colleagues. Martínez Carrasco, however, would argue that the people I cite are clerics, as opposed to academics, as if priests, rabbis, and muftis were not reputable scholars.

I am far from being unique in combining both Hispanic and Islamic Studies. Other scholars who have done the same include Ottmar Hegyi, Luce López-Baralt, María Rosa Menocal, J.T. Cutillas-Ferrer, Maria Luisa Lugo Acevedo, Francisco Marcos Marín, T.B. Irving, L.P. Harvey, Gerald Albert Wiegers, A.G. Chejne, Vincent Barletta, Karima Bouras and the scores of scholars who specialize in Islamic Spain and Aljamiado-Morisco literature. I am an aljamiadista. That makes me a Hispanist, Islamologist, and an Arabist.

As Martínez Carrasco repeats, however, “I do not consider The Covenants of the Prophet… to be a study that is rooted in scientific criteria but rather a religious apology shrouded in pseudo-historical rhetoric.” In other words, the fact that I am a Muslim automatically excludes me from being an objective academic grounded in a scientific methodology. This is bigotry plain and simple. It is a discriminatory decree issued from a podium of prejudice. If being a Muslim disqualifies me from writing objectively about Islam, being a non-Muslim disqualifies Martínez Carrasco from writing about Islam. He subjectivity and hostility toward Islam is manifest.

After briefly describing the content of the book, Martínez Carrasco asserts that “From the first pages of the book, it is obvious that J.A. Morrow’s objective in The Covenants of the Prophet… is to whitewash the image of Muslims and defend them from those who accuse them of being extremists.”

Martínez Carrasco claims that The Covenants of the Prophet is a response to those who accuse Muhammad of being a bloody murderer who spread Islam by the sword. For this reason, claims the Spanish critic, I focus exclusively on the Covenants with the Christians while I am much more critical of the Jews. Apparently, this is because I live in “an eminently Christian environment.”

I am not an apologist. I do not have an agenda. I am an academic. I study sources and I let the sources speak for themselves. I have written and spoken about the gestation of The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World. Martínez Carrasco should have done some research prior to make such specious allegations. Although he went out of his way to check my background and judged my book on the basis of it, he failed to find out that I am as interested in the Covenants of the Prophet with the Jews, Samaritans, and Zoroastrians as I am in the Covenants with the Christians.

Martínez Carrasco complains that “the entire book revolves around the idea of Islam as a religion of peace that embraces and supersedes the previous monotheisms.” It is for this reason, argues Martínez Carrasco, that both Héctor Horacio Manzolillo and I draw attention to the need for an interreligious understanding in face of new challenges, such as the eco-genocide that is faced by the planet. In other words, Manzolillo and I are really Islamic dominionists. As Martínez Carrasco writes,

Despite this desire to go beyond religious differences between Christians, Jews, and Muslims, the pages devoted to analysis occult a rather dangerous message which should be drawn to attention. Perhaps it is worthwhile to remember that we are dealing with a work written by a convert to Islam. The work contains an underground ideological current that blames all evils on the materialism of Western civilization while, at the same time, contrasts the spirituality of the Arab world which is treated (erroneously) as a homogeneous block. This idea makes Morrow, unwittingly and unconsciously, a hostage to a colonialist vision that makes the Arabs an ahistorical people, oblivious to the changes experienced in the world over the centuries, which keeps them in a state of ‘innocence.’

I have never seen such a twisted interpretation in all my life. Since when do I confound Arabs with Muslims? I make that distinction very clear. I am the very last person to idealize Arabs and Muslims. I absolutely accept the Prophet Muhammad. I respect other authorities of Classical Islam. And I bash anyone and everyone who fails to adhere to primordial ethical principles.

What kind of person considers the Covenants of the Prophet with the People of the Book to be dangerous? On the contrary, I contend that those who oppose them are particularly perilous. And while I blame the West for its sins and shortcomings, I am also the first to sing its praises. And the same goes for the East, the North, and the South, I say it like it is. I give praise when praise is due and I criticize when I am compelled to do so. It is my duty as a responsible scholar and academic.

Martínez Carrasco alleges that Manzolillo’s criticism of democracy as some sort of panacea is an indication of the general tone of the work. How a comment made by the translator in the commendatory preface can apply to the work itself is incomprehensible. This is far from being a major or even minor theme in the study. Apparently, it offended the critic enough to him to ask readers to “come of their own conclusions.” In other words, Morrow and Manzolillo are opposed to democracy. The comments of the critic reek to high heaven.

If Martínez Carrasco had conducted proper research, he would know full well that Manzolillo and I strongly support participative and representative democracy and oppose all forms of dictatorship and despotism. Simply because we criticize the pseudo-democracy of the ancient Greeks and Romans and the corporatocracy that is falsely presented as democracy today does make us anarchist or totalitarian in political inclination.

Manzolillo’s comments certainly struck a chord for they remain a bone in Martínez Carrasco’s throat. He claims that the background of the book consists of a comparison between Western, liberal, parliamentary democracies and Islam as a political-religious entity. In the words of the critic,

J.A. Morrow argues that Greco-Roman democracy was based on slavery and was profoundly unequal while Islam, from its onset, was opposed to slavery, provided equality to all, believers and unbelievers, regardless of age and gender, which immediately makes Islam, according to the author, superior to democracies. Perhaps he forgets that that the traffic of slaves persists to this day in the Islamic world although actual figures are unknown. Morrow perhaps also forgets that he can write books like this one due to the rights that are granted to him by such a pernicious system as democracy.

There is no doubt in my mind that the vision of Islam promulgated by the Prophet Muhammad is far superior to the so-called democracies of the Greeks and Romans. In fact, when given a choice between early Islamic rule and Byzantine rule, most of the Jews, Samaritans, and Christians of the Middle East, North Africa, and the Iberian Peninsula opted for Islamic rule despite the fact that few if any Muslim rulers lived up to the standards set forth by the Messenger of Allah. Still, even with its shortcomings, the system of government implemented in Muslim lands granted rights, freedoms, and protections that only surfaced in the Western world in the 20th century.

If Martínez Carrasco had any sense of honesty, he would distinguish between the teachings of Islam preached by the Prophet and the un-Islamic practices of pseudo-Muslims. The Prophet Muhammad never owned slaves. He never encouraged his Companions to own slaves. He said that slave traders were the worst of human beings. He promoted and even mandated the liberation of slaves. Both he and his Companions freed tens of thousands of slaves. Based on a survey of early sources, it is estimated that they liberated 39,000 enslaved human beings.

Rather than bash Islam for the fact that some barbarians in places like Sudan, Chad, and Mali, engage in slavery, how about taking a long hard look in his own mirror, the West, where women and children are enslaved in staggering numbers. In the United States, over 100,000 girls are sold into sexual slavery every year. The numbers in Europe are comparable. ISIS sex slaves get plenty of media attention; however, they pale in comparison to the number of sex slaves in modern, Western, democracies. While an institution like slavery in parts of Black Africa that has not changed substantially since medieval times is one thing, it is another thing altogether for there to be sex slaves in Western Europe and the United States, the self-professed bastions of democracy and human rights, regardless of the fact that both forms of slavery, both Eastern and Western, are absolutely reprehensible.

Martínez Carrasco claims that “with such premises as a starting point, it is legitimate to believe that we are not dealing with a scientific study of historical facts based on textual evidence. On the contrary, what Morrow articulates is a clearly religious discourse that does not seek to establish a more or less rigorous understanding of the past, but rather a theological Truth, with everything that it implies.”

Martínez Carrasco insists that the theological discourse of The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World is evident in the incorrect use – out of ignorance – of historical terminology which is continually interpreted in a religious light. The critic alleges that my approach to Islamic sources is almost always acritical and that any hypothesis that questions the Islamic Canon is quickly dismissed as being the product of “spiritually insecure scholars.”

Although I do not have a degree in history, I was trained in historical methodology. I know full well how to handle sources. Hundreds of academics, including historians, have praised and endorsed The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World. Of course, such facts are ignored by certain cave-dwelling Spaniards. And in case Carrasco did not capiche, the Muhammadan Covenants do not form a part of the Islamic Canon. They were ignored. They were suppressed. They were extirpated. And they are now being revived. If the critic bothered to read the book in its entirety, rather than focus on a few words by the translator, he would know that I do not defend the status quo. On the contrary, I argue that the Covenants of the Prophet were concealed by so-called Muslim leaders who wanted freedom of action without having to truly take prophetic principles into consideration. In fact, I am relentless in my criticism of literalism, fundamentalism, and extremism.

Martínez Carrasco claims that I yearn for “the ‘golden age’ represented by the prophetic period during which Muhammad ruled; a Muhammad who is presented as a man of peace, an anti-colonialist, but who is simultaneously presented as a great military strategist.’”

Neither Manzolillo nor I yearn for a “golden age” of Islam. We are not Salafis who dream of an imaginary, legendary, and mythical Muslim utopia rooted in the 7th century. We value positive aspects. We criticize negative aspects. We realize that nothing is perfect. Since we live in the present, and plan for the future, we do not live in the past. We do, however, study the past in order to inform our understanding, to avoid previous mistakes, and to adopt strategies that will prove to be successful. We seek not to imitate. We seek not to replicate. We seek to derive principles and to apply them.

As for Muhammad, the man was well-rounded. He was a mystic but a man of the people. He was unlettered but erudite. He was powerful but humble. He could convey concepts to both formally trained scholars and to simple shepherds. He was caring and compassionate but he could be ferocious in battle. War and peace go hand in hand. If you want peace, you better prepare for war. This is reality. The Prophet Muhammad himself said, “I smile and I fight.” He came with the Word and the Sword but it was the sword of social justice.

Continuing with the same preposterous claim, Martínez Carrasco warns that “The discourse is masked by an alleged equidistance between the ‘black legend’ and the ‘pink legend.’ But what it really offers is an updated version of the second adorned with an argument that does not hold up to a critical analysis, such as the claim that it was Muhammad who elaborated the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.”

Unless one is familiar with Hispanic history, the reference to the “black legend” and the “pink legend” will be lost to most readers. In the Hispanic context, the “black legend” refers to the claims that the Spaniards committed genocide against the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas. In the Muslim context, the “black legend” mentioned by Martínez Carrasco would be the demonization of Islam and Muslims that was common throughout European history whereas the “pink legend” is the presentation of Islam, particularly in the Iberian Peninsula, which is depicted as some sort of “Golden Age.”

In the mind of the critic, The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World is simply a repackaged version of the “pink” or “rosy legend” that does not stand up to critical analysis. Once again, if the critic actually read or actually understood what he read, he would know that I praise the principles and protections that the Prophet provided in his Covenants with the Jews and Christians. I am impressed with those promises and privileges. I am only impressed with Muslim leaders inasmuch as they abided by them. In short, they are the litmus test that I use when assessing the Islamicity of so-called Islamic rulers.

As for Martínez Carrasco’s claim that I asserted that it was Muhammad who elaborated the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, I will allow my book to speak for itself. It reads: “While most Muslims and Christians are ignorant of the possibility, it appears that the first person to formulate the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was Muhammad himself, a fact conceded by both Catholic and Protestant theologians (Grassi 74). Some assert that the Prophet learned such doctrines from the Eastern Christians, but ignore the strong evidence that the Christians might in face have learned it from him” (13).

However, as any intelligent reader observes, it is not I who is making the claim, it is M. Grassi (Alfio) in his Charte Turque ou Organisation religieuse, civile et militaire de l’empire ottoman which was published in Paris in 1826. As for myself, I simply state that there is strong evidence to support this claim. The comment in question, which is completely peripheral to the study as a whole, completely and totally sidelined the critic who actually misrepresented that I wrote. Dumb or duplicitous? To quote Carrasco, I will let readers “come to their own conclusions.”

To conclude his Islamophobic review, Martínez Carrasco writes that: “The Covenants of the Prophet… should be placed on the opposite end of the spectrum of revisionists works that overemphasize the negative aspects of Islam. It pursues a legitimate objective, but it does so at the cost of falsifying the past, which does not lead to a better understanding of Islamic reality, but to its conversion into a sort of ‘lost paradise,’ a utopia hardly achievable, which reminds us of the poor capacity of Muslims to adopt to change, always hanging on to a past that paralyzes them.”

Although I disagree with virtually everything that Martínez Carrasco has to say, I proudly agree that The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World is far removed from revisionist works, namely, the works of academic termites, both Muslim and non-Muslim, who are determined to destroy the foundations of Islam. Far from “falsifying the past,” however, I shed a shining light on the past; I revive the past; and I revindicate the past. I present Islam as it truly was, as it truly is, and as it should always truly be. This may not be the “Islam” of the Saudis, the Salafis, the fundamentalists, the extremists, the literalists, the absolutists or the “Islam” of the liberals, the feminists, and the reformists. It is, however, the Islam of the Prophet: no ifs, ands, or buts.

As for the gross overgeneralization that Muslims, as whole, are incapable of adapting to change and Modernity, such stereotypes are unbefitting of a scholar of any rank or repute. Muslims face many challenges. They have struggled through colonialism and imperialism. They suffer from foreign intervention in their domestic affairs. They suffer from the soul-suffocating stench of Western debauchery, materialism, hedonism, and nihilism. And yet they survive and they thrive and they are filled with aspirations. As “backwards” as many Muslims may be, and despite of their moral shortcomings, I am proud that they represent the only major group that refuses to submit to militant secularism while other populations kneel eagerly, anxiously, and precipitously at the feet of Mammon.

Martínez Carrasco’s weakest point is that he focused his critique on the intentions of the author and the translator. This explains why he focused disproportionately on the prologue. Beside mentioning the chapters of the book and the topics they address, he does not provide any critique or any commentary — either in favor or against — of the book’s actual content. Instead of reviewing the book, he judges the intentions for which it was written. In other words, he does not care about the work. He does not care about evidence. Rather, he is only interested in denigrating the book based on the supposed intentions of Manzolillo and the fact that Morrow converted to Islam at the age of 16. Furthermore, by acting in such a fashion, it is Martínez Carrasco who shows his true intentions.

And since Carlos Martínez Carrasco commenced his book review by questioning my credentials, it is only fitting that I conclude my rebuttal with a critique of his credentials or, shall we say, the lack thereof. Mr. Carrasco is a “Licenciado en historia por la Universidad de Granada.” In other words, he holds a bachelor’s degree in history from the University of Granada. He does not have an M.A. He does not have a doctoral degree. He does not have a terminal degree. Mr. Carrasco is an “investigador del Centro de Estudios Bizantinos, Neogriegos y Chipriotas.” In other words, he is a researcher in the field of Byzantine, Neo-Greek and Cyprian Studies. He has no formal academic training in Religious Studies, Arabic Studies, or Islamic Studies. Mr. Carrasco is not an Assistant Professor. He is not an Associate Professor. And he is most certainly not a Full Professor. He is simply an Adjunct in the Department of Medieval History at the University of Granada. In terms of his academic achievements, he is the author of ten papers, two book reviews, and one lecture. He also wrote a novel.

If Carlos Martínez Carrasco wishes to critique my work, let him complete a M.A. and Ph.D. in Religious Studies, Arabic Studies or Islamic Studies. In fact, any terminal degree in a related field in the Humanities would do. And since I am also a shaykh and an imam, on top of being an academic, let Mr. Carrasco also become Father Carrasco, a Catholic priest or, if he prefers, a rabbi. That way, if he cannot critique my work as an academic, at least he can critique it as a cleric. And while he is at it, let him rise up in the academic ranks, becoming an Assistant Professor, an Associate Professor and then, a Full Professor or, as the rank is known in Spain, Profesor Titular. Let him also publish one hundred academic articles, presents dozens of scholarly papers and conference, and publish dozens of peer-reviewed books. Then, and only then, would Carlos Martínez Carrasco be my peer and be qualified to peer-review my books. And Allah is Just, All-Hearing, and All-Seeing.

Restoring The Balance
John Andrew Morrow
Cambridge Scholars Publishing
http://www.cambridgescholars.com
9781443890144, $81.95, HC, 235pp, http://www.amazon.com

“Restoring the Balance: Using the Qur’an and the Sunnah to Guide a Return to the Prophet’s Islam” by independent scholar John Andrew Morrow is a penetrating reflection upon the reality of Islam in the modern world. Addressing a myriad of pressing issues that impact Muslims in the East, West, North, and South, it tackles topics that are both difficult and troubling, threading its way through a mine-field of religious, cultural, and ideological issues with courage, balance, caution, and concern. In a world of extremes, which pits religious fundamentalists against radical reformists, “Restoring The Balance” calls upon Muslims to maintain the middle ground, using the Qur’an and the Sunnah to guide to a return of the Prophet’s Islam. Impressively well written, organized and presented, “Restoring The Balance” is additionally enhanced with the include of four appendices: The Covenants Initiative; The Genocide Initiative; Edict against ISIS; What Should Muslims Say to Donald Trump? An invaluable and much needed contribution to our national dialogue and our near term future under a Trump administration, “Restoring The Balance” is a critically important and unreservedly recommended addition to community and academic library collections in general, and Islamic Studies supplemental reading lists in particular.

Mid-West Review of Books Vol. 26. Number 12 (December 2016).

http://www.midwestbookreview.com/ibw/dec_16.htm

The Individual, Freedom of Choice and Tolerance in the Quran

Author: Azhar Aslam

GOG AND MAGOG VS. THE COVENANTS OF THE PROPHET

Source: Flickriver

Source: Flickriver
08.03.2017
A Consideration of the Geopolitics of Aleksandr Dugin in Light of the Metaphysics of René Guénon

The Landscape of Apocalypse

Anyone who is familiar with the eschatological doctrines of the major world religions, and who accepts their validity—though not necessarily their direct, literal, detailed applicability to historical conditions—must conclude that we are now living through the “latter days” of the present cycle. And one of the hallmarks of the latter days is a manifestation of the dark side of the dvandvas, the Sanskrit word for the “pairs of opposites”—the rise of titanic social forces in quasi-absolute polarization, forces which seem to represent true alternative visions of the human possibility, but which in reality are nothing more than opposing faces of the same decadence, the same “degeneration of the cosmic environment”, working together in secret collusion to divert the collective attention of the human race from the Reality and the Will of God.

Perhaps the most profound analysis we possess of the cosmological forces operating in the “end times” of a particular cycle-of-manifestation, forces which have their inevitable socio-political reflections, is the one presented by René Guénon in his prophetic masterpiece The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times [1945]. Guénon adopted the Hindu conception of the manvantara, the cycle of four yugas or world-ages in descending order of stability and integrity, ending with the Kali-yuga we presently inhabit, which itself ends in the dissolution of the cycle. The four yugas are roughly equivalent to the four ages in the Greco-Roman cosmo-conception: the Golden, the Silver, the Bronze and the Iron. In the Satya-yuga or Golden Age, space—simultaneity, or relative (aeonian) eternity—predominates over time. In the succeeding yugas time becomes more dominant, moving from a cyclical to a linear manifestation, until, in the Kali-yuga, form is eroded and finally dissolved in an ever-accelerating flow of linear time, until the arrival of the apocalypse, when space finally re-asserts itself and a new manvantara begins. Guénon supplemented the Hindu conception of the manvantara with the Aristotelian/Thomistic distinction between Essence and Substance, or Form and Matter. The Golden Age is the age of Essence or Quality, the Kali-yuga that of Substance or Quantity, and thus of materialism; Thomas Aquinas described the materia secunda, the most fundamental form of matter discernible in manifest (not principial) existence, as materia signata quantitate, “matter designated by quantity”. The present belief of “scientistic” humanity that the only meaningful statements we can make about anything whatever are quantitative measurements is a sign of the dominance of the Substantial Pole, as is the present socio-philosophical obsession to debunk what is called “essentialism”, defined as the supposedly erroneous belief that things, persons and situations possess intrinsic qualities. The Pole of Essence is the archetype of the masculine principle; though in itself it transcends hierarchy, it is the origin of the hierarchical conception of being and the hierarchical organization of society. Under the regime of Substance, however—the archetype of the feminine principle—vertical hierarchy is collapsed by a growing horizontal or “leveling” tendency, although an “absolute” horizontality (like an absolute verticality) can never be reached on the plane of cosmic manifestation.

Guénon also had something to say, notably in his book Traditional Forms and Cosmic Cycles, about the earlier phases of the present manvantara, particular those represented by the myths, or memories, of Hyperborea, the realm of the “North”, and Atlantis, the land of the “West”. Hyperborea occupied a higher and more integrated world-age than that of Atlantis, which—though it pre-dated the Kali-yuga—sowed the seeds of the present global degeneration of humanity, our collective will to deny the Spirit and our consequent capitulation to the dissolutionary forces of time and matter. (Interestingly enough, the same distinction between a Hyperborean northern-oriented tendency and an Atlantean western-oriented one is found in the teachings of Black Elk, holy man of the Oglalla Lakota [see Black Elk Speaks by John G. Neihardt, 1932, and Black Elk: Holy Man of the Oglala by Michael F. Steltenkamp, 1997].  According to the Lakota cosmo-conception, the north-south path is “the Good Red Road” and the east-west path “the Black Road of Difficulty”; the place where these two roads cross—as they do at any point on the earth’s surface—is wakan, holy.)

An inescapable aspect of the latter days is the near-complete severance of human and social realities from their eternal archetypes—which emphatically does not mean that these archetypes thereby disappear as the fundamental causal factors in the unfolding of history, only that they now operate in a secret, inverted and therefore ironic manner, exhibiting the quality of dark, fatal justice that the classical Greeks personified as Nemesis and the Furies. In the words of the Qur’an, Lo! Allah sendeth whom He will astray, and guideth unto Himself all who turn (unto Him), [13:27], and Allah is the best of plotters [8:29].

Higher orders of reality normally project themselves onto lower planes of being by means of polarity: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” [Genesis 1:1]; on the level of human life, this metaphysical principle manifests as sexual reproduction: “male and female created He them” [Genesis 5:2].. However, in the concluding phases of a particular cycle of manifestation, the meaning of polarity is inverted. Polarity becomes polarization. The weakening of the bond of communication between earthly human realities and their celestial archetypes results in various bifurcations based not on fertile polarity, but on the barren conflict which becomes inevitable when various contingent conditions falsely arrogate to themselves the prerogatives of the Absolute—a necessary result of the fact that the collective intuition of God, the only real and transcendent Absolute, is eclipsed. At the same time a collective obsession is born to annihilate all polarities, to achieve something like an earthly, material counterfeit of the Unity of God by eroding, denying, suppressing, and finally destroying all the true and necessary distinctions that make human life possible, including gender. The more radical and conflictive the false polarizations operating in the latter days become, the more insistent is the call to do away with all distinctions so as to pacify these titanic conflicts—yet the denial of all sexual, cultural, ethnic and religious distinctions only further inflames and infuriates those forces which would falsely absolutize these distinctions, and set them at war. Thus an unholy alliance of false polarity and (in Guénon’s phrase) inverted hierarchy—the “Right”—and false unity and equality—the “Left”—brings the cycle of manifestation to a close.

In the Book of Apocalypse, this polarization between and a false, imposed unity and various falsely absolutized distinctions is called  “Gog and Magog”—in the Qur’an,  “Yajuj and Majuj.” According to Apocalypse 20:7-8, “….when the thousand years are expired [the millennium during which the devil is bound, identified by Eastern Orthodox theologians as the church age], Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.” According to The Apocalypse of St. John: An Orthodox Commentary by Archbishop Averky of Jordanville, the meaning of Gog in Hebrew is “a gathering” or “one who gathers”, and of Magog “an exaltation” or “one who exalts”. “Exaltation” suggests the idea of transcendence as opposed to unity, “gathering” the idea of unity as opposed to transcendence. The implication, here, is that one of the deepest deceptions of Antichrist in the last days of the cycle will be to set these two integral aspects of the Absolute in opposition to each other in the collective mind, and on a global scale, in “the four quarters of the earth”. As for the economic and political expression of this barren satanic polarity, the false cohesion of left-wing tyranny, as well as today’s global capitalism, would fall under Gog, while both the false hierarchicalism of right-wing tyranny and the violent absolutism of the various “tribal” separatist movements opposed to globalism, both ethnic and religious, would come under Magog. In terms of religion, those liberal, historicist, evolutionist, quasi-materialist and crypto-Pagan theologies which emphasize God’s immanence as opposed to His transcendence are part of Gog, while those reactionary theologies which exalt transcendence over immanence, look on the material world as a vale of tears, denigrate the human body, and view the destruction of nature with indifference if not secret approval, since the best we can hope for is to get it all over with, are part of Magog. The conflict between the two is precisely the satanic counterfeit of the true eschatological conflict described in Apocalypse 19:11-20, between the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and the Beast with his false prophet. Those who can be lured to fight in a counterfeit war between elements which ought to be reconciled, because they are essentially parts of the same reality as seen in a distorting mirror, will miss their call to fight in the true war between forces which neither should nor can be reconciled: those of the Truth and those of the Lie.  (Globalism, insofar as it sets the stage for the emergence of Guénon’s “inverted hierarchy,” also contains the seed of Magog, while tribalism, as the common inheritance of all who are excluded from the global elite, holds the seed of Gog: in the latter days, no party or class or sector can long retain its ideological stability; the “rate of contradiction” approaches the speed of light.)

Atlantis and Hyperborea

According to legend, Hyperborea, the “Land Behind the North Wind,” the original homeland of the human race, was a land of eternal spring—a notion that was possibly suggested by early explorers’ tales of the arctic summer, during whose “white nights” the sun never sets; this “never-setting sun” was most probably the origin of the Hyperborean Apollo, one of whose epithets is Sol Invictus, “The Sun Unconquered.” Geology, however, shows us no sunken continent beneath the Arctic Ocean, which has led some to speculate that the North Pole once passed through Greenland, or some other point on the terrestrial globe. Yet a frozen wasteland, even if there were solid earth beneath it, is not a very hopeful candidate for the cradle of the human race—at least in terrestrial terms. It is much more likely that Hyperborea refers to a spiritual orientation than to a geographical area. The Siberian shamans, the traditional Chinese, the Zoroastrians, the Sabaeans, and certain esoteric groups within Islam consider the North, not the East, or the West (as with the Greeks and the Irish, at least on one level) to be their sacred point of orientation (or rather “boreation”). “Hyperboreans,” then, are those who point to the Pole as their celestial homeland. Dante Aligheri, in his Commedia, reveals himself to be a Hyperborean in this sense.  Arktos, the Greek word for “bear,” is the origin of our word Arctic, which is why the constellations circling the North Pole and called the Bears—and in the last cantos of Dante’s Purgatorio, the Great and Little Bears appear above Dante’s Arcadian Earthly Paradise at the summit of Mount Purgatory—which, according to earlier cantos is supposed to be in the southern hemisphere! (Hyperborea, however, may also have an historical, geographical significance, since it could designate an actual northern culture-area dominated by shamanism, comprising Siberia and possibly Finland, and including, along with various other Arctic and North American peoples, the bear-worshipping Ainu of the Japanese northern island of Hokkaido.)

As for Atlantis, whose historical reality is somewhat better attested than that of Hyperborea, the notion of a sunken continent in the Atlantic Ocean has no more hard geological evidence backing it up than the idea of a historical, geological Hyperborea. The same cannot be said, however, for the possibility of a Mediterranean Atlantis. A. G. Galanopoulos and E. Bacon in Atlantis: The Truth behind the Legend (1969),  J.V. Luce, in The End of Atlantis:  New Light on an Old Legend (1969), and Charles Pellegrino, in Unearthing Atlantis  (1991), theorize that Atlantis was actually the island of Thera or Santorini, situated west of the Mediterranean coast of the Holy Land, Thera being directly north of Crete. It is a volcanic island which, some time between 1450 and 1500 BC (though some date the event c.1628) violently exploded when the its erupting volcano split at the side, allowing an inrush of sea water. The resulting explosion was several times larger than that of Krakatoa, the most powerful volcanic event in recorded history, which was also destroyed in a steam explosion. This cataclysm devastated the Mediterranean coasts, sent a towering tsunami crashing over the island of Crete, darkened the sun with volcanic ash, and effectively destroyed the matriarchal Minoan maritime civilization. It began a series of migrations and wars, one of which was the invasion of the Greek peninsula by the patriarchal Doric tribes, the ancestors of the “classical” Greeks. Some scholars also theorize that the ten plagues (or some of them) which preceded the exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt were actually volcanic in origin: the hail mixed with fire, the turning of the Nile to blood along with the death of all the fish, the darkness which covered the land, can all be put down to the effects of volcanic cinders and ash. And the parting of the Red Sea, which later closed over the Pharaoh’s army, suggests the arrival of a tsunami, during which the sea-level first sinks and then catastrophically rises; such a tsunami would have been possible (or rather inevitable) if—as some think—Sinai was at that time a strait rather than an isthmus; it would certainly have been more feasible for the Children of Israel to have a crossed a narrow strait rather than the Red Sea as we know it today. And the “pillar of cloud by day and pillar of fire by night” that the Hebrews followed through the wilderness is a fair description of a rising volcanic plume.

Our major source for the Atlantis legend are the Critias and Timaeus of Plato, who recounts a history of the lost island supposedly based on an account that Solon heard from the priests of Egypt. Plato’s description of Atlantis as an island of concentric rings of land and water corresponds in some ways to the geology of Thera; and the legend that Atlantis was situated beyond The Pillars of Hercules—the Straits of Gibraltar—is possibly explained by the fact that Thera is in actually west of another formation, in the eastern Mediterranean, which is also named The Pillars of Hercules.

Nonetheless there are certain scholars who make a very good case for the historical existence of a Western Atlantis—simply by identifying Atlantis with North America, or the Americas as a whole. The Aztecs, we should remember, who are thought to have invaded and conquered the Toltec Empire of Mexico from a point of origin somewhere in the territory now claimed by the United States, named their former homeland as Aztlán—a word close enough to Atlantis to make one’s hair stand on end.

So according to this theory, I am in Atlantis now. But the continent I inhabit is certainly not sunken—unless we admit that it is sunk in materialism, overwhelmed (in William Blake’s words) by “the sea of Space and Time.” So—unless Atlantis was Thera—whence comes the legend of the lost Atlantis, perhaps symbolized in Greek legend by the runner Atalanta, the woman no man could catch?  A sunken continent may legitimately be compared to a woman who has forever denied her lovers any possible access to her—and what man can outrace the setting Sun? The men who raced Atalanta to win her hand, and lost, also lost their lives—this being the precise quality of the western “Atlantean” ethos, the land of “futurism,” where (in Guénon’s conception from The Reign of Quantity) time accelerates and form is destroyed. And in line with Guénon’s assertion that Hyperborean terms were later applied to Atlantis, one of the epithets of Atalanta is Arcadian. When she was finally outraced by her future husband Hippomenes, it was through the agency of three golden apples given him by Aphrodite from her own temple precincts in Cyprus, the last of which Atalanta stooped to pick up when Hippomenes threw it, thus breaking her stride. Golden apples immediately suggest the apples of the Hesperides, the Western Isles—and though the island of Cyprus is in the eastern Mediterranean, it is certainly west of the continental Near East.

But what of the American Atlantis hypothesized above? Ivar Zapp and George Erikson, authors of Atlantis in America (1998), maintain that “Atlantis” sank beneath the waves when, around 12,000 years ago, sea levels abruptly rose due to melting polar ice, thus inundating coastal America. The authors give evidence to support their contention that before that time America was host to an advanced maritime civilization capable of crossing the Atlantic. This theory is further supported by the fact that certain metis societies (inter-tribal medicine societies) among the Native Americans of North America claim that they were in contact with Europe in ancient times. Travel across the Atlantic was dangerous; few probably attempted it, but some likely did. Regular trade routes might or might not have been established, but holders and seekers of spiritual lore and technical expertise might well have attempted the journey, given that knowledge is weightless, and takes up no space.

Both the historical reality of Atlantis and the possibility that the Americas were populated (or de-populated) by sea can be found in the legends of the Hopi tribe of the North American Southwest. According to their myth of the cycle-of-manifestation, which has much in common with the analogous myths of other peoples, including the Hindus and the Greco-Romans, the Hopis emerged into the present “fourth world”, Tuwaqachi,  from the “third world” known as Kuskurza, which is related to the mineral palasiva, copper—a major constituent of bronze. So apparently Kuskurza (in Greco-Roman mythological terms) is the Bronze Age.  In Kuskurza the people overpopulate and use their reproductive power for evil—copper being identified, in traditional symbolism, with Venus, the erotic principle. They develop a high technology, live in cities, and fly on shields covered with hide known as patuwvotas—strikingly similar to the vimanas described in the Hindu Puranas—which they use as engines of war.  Kuskurza, like Atlantis, is destroyed by water; whole continents sink beneath the waves.

As the third world is about to end, Spider Woman—a figure who is something like the shakti or shekhina of Sotuknang, the Demiurge, the first created being, the active energy of Tiowa the Creator—tells the people to get inside of hollow reeds to escape from the flood.  She leads them in a migration over water, searching for the fourth world. (These floating reeds remind one of the Egyptian reed boat that Thor Heyerdahl used to cross the Atlantic in his Ra Expedition, thus proving that the Atlantic could have been crossed in archaic times, even before the development of more advanced vessels like the Phoenician trireme.)

After stopping at a continent which was not their true destination, they arrive at the fourth world, called Tuwaqachi, the World Complete, where life is hard. This is the world we presently occupy.  The mineral associated with the fourth world is the “mixed mineral” sikyapala, analogous to the iron mixed with clay which composed the feet of the statue dreamt of by King Nebuchadnezzar in the Book of Daniel—a figure with head of gold, chest and arms of silver, belly and loins of bronze and legs of iron, which is sometimes understood as embrematic of the four world ages. Its “feet of clay” represent of the instability of the cosmic environment hidden under outward strength and inflexibility of iron. Tuwaqachi, then, would seem to be the Iron Age.  The spiritual guardian of Tuwaqachi is Masaw, who was also the ruler of Kuskurza, the third “Atlantean” world, and who brought it to an end through his corruption. He is here because Tiowa decided to give him a second chance—a chance he seems to have wasted.  The Hopi myth clearly implies that this world too will be destroyed by the abuse of reproductive power and high technology.

 But can the Mediterranean and American Atlantises in any way be reconciled? Some legends of Atlantis speak of two Atlantises, an earlier and a later one. Zapp and Erikson’s submerged coastal America, then, might correspond to the earlier Atlantis, perhaps also recalled by the legend of Noah’s flood, and Thera to the later one, which might possibly be the origin of certain events recounted in Exodus. After the 900 years separating Plato from the most common date given for the the destruction of the Greek island, certain legendary material about the earlier Atlantis could well have become attached to the story of the destruction of the later one; the characterization “island continent” may in fact be the product of a confusion between the submergence of part of a continent and the destruction of an island.

The submergence of coastal America would have been either gradual or cataclysmic.  A slow melt of polar ice would not have destroyed the Atlantean civilization—unless it forced the coast-dwellers back into an interior occupied by hostile and militarily superior nations. They would always have had a coast, and time to move any cities inland. A fast melt would correspond more closely to the Atlantis legend as we know it. And if trans-Atlantic trade, however sporadic, had existed, its sudden disappearance would indeed have suggested—and actually represented—the destruction of a world, especially if the traders hailed from a civilization that was either spiritually higher or technologically more advanced than was the Old World in that age.

We are used to seeing the Mediterranean largely as a “closed sea” until the Vikings, and later the Renaissance explorers, opened the mind of Europe to the Atlantic and the New World. But the maritime technology that would have allowed Europeans to cross the Atlantic had been available since the Roman Empire, and even before that. Why (outside of the Roman colonization of Britain) was it never used? It is possible to speculate that the shock of the submergence of coastal America by melting ice, which would certainly have also submerged much of the coast of the Mediterranean, as well as the lands called Lyonesse in British legend—followed in later centuries by the destruction of Thera, which liquidated in one stroke the most advanced maritime civilization the Old World had produced up to that time—created a sort of collective taboo in the European psyche against sea-travel beyond the pillars of Hercules, and possibly against expansive maritime imperialism in general, which would have been viewed as actions likely to anger the gods. This taboo was effectively broken by the Vikings, relative newcomers in Western Europe, whose historical memory stretched back not to the archaic civilizations of the Mediterranean and Near East, but towards the heartlands of Asia—making them, in Dugin’s terms, something like “Atlantean rebels against Hyperborea”, partisans of a development that might in some way have been related to the ancient revolt of the kshatriya or warrior caste against the priestly brahmin caste spoken of by René Guénon, which he saw signs of in the Genesis account of the Tower of Babel.  Furthermore, the opening of the Atlantic and the New World to exploration during the Renaissance may have awakened long-buried memories of the Western Atlantis in the form of fantastic and legendary goals sought by some of the explorers and conquistadores: the Seven Cities of Cibola, and especially the Fountain of Youth, which clearly corresponds to the fountain of the water of life—or the water of creative manifestation—situated by Dante at the summit of Mount Purgatory, in the Terrestrial Paradise. (The taboo against “westering” appears in the “Atlantean” Canto 26 of Dante’s Inferno.)

The Atlantis and Hyperborea of Aleksandr Dugin

If I understand him correctly, Aleksandr Dugin divides the world geopolitically between the Eurasian Hyperborean Heartlanders—hierarchical and “Traditional” in René Guénon’s sense—and the Liberal, anti-Traditional Atlanteans, who might well be termed “the peoples of the sea”—the name the Israelites applied to the Philistines—and who seem to be centered in Britain and America. To posit these two collectives as representing an archetypal, cosmic opposition is entirely justified, in my opinion, and might be highly enlightening if done in the right way. American technocratic futurist Buckminster Fuller, for example, described the modern world as having been founded by “Renaissance pirates”. Yet the use of the term “Atlantean”, and the notion that the Atlanteans were a sort of archaic Liberals, needs to be rigorously qualified.

Leaving historical questions aside for the moment, I believe that there is a true archetypal opposition between Traditionalism and Liberalism, which appears to be based on the cosmic functions of the masculine and feminine genders, or rather the masculine and feminine principles. This opposition seems to have been unveiled—for a brief moment at least—in the recent presidential election in the United States. Hillary Clinton and the contemporary “Liberal Left” represent a feminization of the U.S. population, as indicated by the LBGTQ agenda, but more fundamentally by a rejection of traditional American individualism in favor of an unapologetic allegiance to, and virtual worship of, the “Maternalistic State” such that her defeat produced something on the order of a “metaphysical panic” among her followers, as if their Goddess, their very principle of reality, had died. As for Trump and the “Populist Right”, he clearly represents a rebellion against the Maternalistic State on the part of those identified with various oppressed aspects of the Masculine Principle, which is now experiencing a resurgence, though presently expressing itself in some ways as a mere self-caricature. When any true Spiritual Masculinity lacks cultural expression, the only collective identities available to the mass of  men are—to use the common American high school slang—the “jock” and the “nerd”: the man whose only mode of self-expression is physical conflict and brutality, and the man whose masculinity is limited to the technological application of abstract thought. Even the old-style economic hero, the predatory capitalist entrepreneur (like Donald Trump), has been de-potentiated as a cultural ideal under the Maternalistic State. And the idea that a man’s masculinity could be based on his allegiance to God, and that one possible expression of that masculinity might be an intellectual loyalty to eternal metaphysical principles, is almost totally suppressed in the contemporary English-speaking world; consequently, American motion pictures such as “A Man for All Seasons” (1966) and “Becket” (1964)—cinematic treatments of the English saints Thomas More and Thomas á Becket, both of whom might be described as spiritual/intellectual heroes—could never be produced today.

The Liberal Left has radically departed from the worldview and mores of the “traditional” U.S. Left of the 1980’s. In its elitism, its scorn for the working class, and its near-total suppression of class-based politics in favor a radical and dehumanizing social agenda based on race and gender, it begs for a new name—“Inverted Liberalism” perhaps? We have even heard anti-Trump “Liberal Leftists” characterize Donald Trump’s criticisms of the CIA as “treason”—a judgment that is diametrically opposed to the position taken by the less elitist and more populist Left of the 1980’s. Nothing in fact is left of Leftist or Marxist ideology in the traditional sense but the mouthings of a strictly academic “Left”, totally alienated from any sort of working-class movement, where the ideologies of race and gender have completely replaced those of class. This development is largely the product of a deliberate co-optation, by the economic and political powers-that be, of the Left as it existed in the 1960’s, 70’s and 80’s. Feminist Gloria Steinham even confessed that Ms. Magazine, the major feminist publication of the 1970’s, received funding from the CIA, who well understood that if the social conflict between the rich and the poor could be re-defined as a conflict between the men and the women, the liberation movements of the second half of the 20thCentury could be effectively suppressed—which they were.

As for the Populist Right, the disappearance of traditionally “masculine” jobs in agriculture and manufacturing1, along with the suppression of Spiritual Masculinity—as, for example, by the pedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church which has bankrupted whole archdioceses and exploded the traditional aura of sanctity surrounding the priesthood—has left

the Caucasian “marginalized majority” few avenues of political self-expression outside anti-immigrant,  anti-homosexual  and  anti-environmentalist  sentiments.  The rage of the present Trump administration and Republican Congress to liquidate every possible environmental protection law is,  on the archetypal level,  a rebellion of the  wounded  and insulted  Masculine

___________________________________

1Will the time come, or has it already arrived, when the only way for the men of the western world to express certain aspects of their archetypal masculinity—though only in severely limited and sometimes perverted forms—is through extreme sports, criminal violence, or the life of the mercenary soldier?

Principle against the worship of the Earth—the Great Goddess. Plato. In his Republic, analyzed the descending course of the present cycle of manifestation as a descent of political power down the ladder of the castes, from the Spiritual Intellectuals to the Warriors to the Plutocrats to the Demos, a course which has expressed itself in Western Civilization as the devolution of authority from the Popes and the Holy Roman Emperors to the national Kings and Nobles, from the Kings to the Bourgeoisie, and from the Bourgeoisie to the Proletariat. And in our own time we have seen a further devolution of authority, from the “solid” working class to (in some cases) the lumpen proletariat, as represented by such political figures as Arnold Schwartzneggar, and ultimately to the non-human world, to a mythologized “Earth-based” regime where animal and plant species are seen as “constituencies” and individual animals almost as citizens, leading to the denial of the centrality of the Human Form as the “axial” being for this planet: in Christian terms the bearer of the imago Dei; in Islamic terms, the holder of what the Qur’an calls the amana, the Trust. Under such a regime, the human race becomes no more than a pariah, an unbalanced and degenerate animal species guilty of environmental genocide. This is precisely what René Guénon saw, and predicted, for the end of the present cycle-of-manifestation in The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times: the short-lived triumph of the Substantial Pole—the Feminine Principle or materia—over the Essential Pole—the Masculine Principle or forma, resulting in the suppression of all formal distinctions in the “unity” of the Abyss.

It is against this sort of mental illness, this collective rejection of the human form, that the Populist masses have risen. (For a good picture of the nature of the regime against which they have risen, see The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy by Christopher Lasch. Lasch sees this revolt as the diametric opposite of the one analyzed by Jose Ortega y Gasset in his The Revolt of the Masses. In Ortega’s time the masses were progressive, the elites, traditional; in our time it is the masses who are more traditional, the elites who are “progressive”.) But since these masses are largely proletarian by background, they cannot represent a new phase of social authority and governance in any stable way—as if a basic reversal of the inevitable descent of the cycle-of-manifestation were somehow possible, which it is not. Consequently they are open to the development of the kinds of “inverted hierarchies” (to use Guénon’s term) that we saw in the Fascist movements of the mid-20th Century. In the defeat of Hillary Clinton by Donald Trump, we may in fact be seeing a reflection (one of many past, possible, and to come) of the prophesy in the Book of the Apocalypse where a luxurious, self-indulgent maritime mercantile empire, ruled by the Whore of Babylon, is overthrown by the Beast, the Antichrist—the very picture of the rebellion of a perverted Masculine Principle against a degenerate Feminine Principle. I certainly do not mean to imply by this analogy that Donald Trump is in any sense the Antichrist in person, only that—despite whatever may be positive in his policies—he is one of the many mirrors that will temporarily reflect the Antichrist archetype. Antichrist himself must be the overt hierophant of the final Satanic religion, and Trump in no way satisfies this definition. This Gog-Magog opposition can be clearly discerned in the present fighting styles of the Left and the Right in the United States, where the weapons of choice of the Left are moral superiority and shame, those of the Right, anger and fear. Who can deny that these are the traditionally-preferred tactics in the perennial battle of the sexes?

Given this sort of polarization between the “masculine/Traditional” and the “feminine/Liberal”, worldviews (the latter being the dominant myth of the European Union, the former of the rising nationalist reactions against it), how accurate is Aleksandr Dugin’s characterization of Atlantis as a regime of “archaic Liberalism”? This is a hard question to answer. Certainly a Mediterranean Atlantis, identifiable with the Minoan maritime civilization and its antecedents, shared with contemporary Liberalism the worship of the Feminine Principle. The American “Atlantis”, on the other hand—if we take the civilizations of Mesoamerica and the “mound-builders” of North America as Atlantean remnants—was strictly hierarchical, as accurately represented by the teocalli (in the Nahuatl tongue), the sacred pyramid. Priestesses were never dominant, and though the mythologies of these peoples included their Earth Goddesses, the masculine gods of War and the Sun, as well as the rather mysterious masculine figure of the Aztec Quetzalcoatl or the Mayan Kukulcán, held prominence2. Consequently, rather than proto-Liberalism per se, I would rather characterize the archaic West as founded on a sort of proto-Progressivism and Materialism—tendencies which have certainly become identified with Liberalism since the French Revolution, but which likely exhibited a quite different character in the Western Atlantis itself, perhaps one more mythically akin to the hierarchical bio-technocracy envisioned by Aldous Huxley in his Brave New World. Nonetheless, given that matter is cognate with mater, the initially masculine impulse toward “material progress”—so reminiscent of an adolescent boy’s rebellion against a stifling maternal influence (cf. the rebellion of the classical patriarchal Greeks against their matriarchal Minoan predecessors, so profoundly analyzed by Aeschylus in his play Orestes)—is ultimately destined to be recaptured by the Feminine Principle. In line with their “progress” toward the Substantial Pole, the French revolutionaries of the 18th Century established the worship of the Goddess of Reason in the Cathedral at Chartres; and American poet William Carlos Williams (1883-1963), in his book of historical essays In the

American Grain, has the spirit of the American heartland, the Goddess of the New World (new to Europe but in its own heart, ancient) address the Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto in the following terms:

_____________________________________

2Quetzalcoatl (his name in Nahuatl) or Kukulcán (his name in Mayan)—both words mean “Plumed Serpent”—is a strange deity, a god who incarnates a union of opposites. His serpent aspect is obviously related to the earth (and also, according to the speculation of American poet Charles Olson, the sea, insofar as he is a sea-serpent), while his feathered aspect, drawn from the brilliant green plumage of the quetzal bird, the royal bird of southern Mexico and Central America, relates him to the sky. As a union of opposite forces he is analogous in some ways to the Roman god Mercury, who, by virtue of his well-known caduceus, is also a “plumed serpent”. Various occult fantasts such as Ignatius Donnelly and Lewis Spence (both of whom wrote on the Atlantis legend), as well as Jose Argüelles, have associated the Mayan Pacal Votan—the mythical king and culture-hero of southern Mexico whose reputed tomb in Palenque I once visited—with Quetzalcoatl, and it is true that various Mexican and Mesoamerican kings, such as the Ce Acatl Quetzalcoatl (“One Reed Plumed Serpent”) of the Toltecs, took the god’s name as a title, possibly so as to define their royal/priestly function as pontifex between heaven and earth. Some have also claimed that “Votan” is the same name as that of the Teutonic god “Wotan”. This far-fetched speculation has found little support—outside the interesting fact that when the Romans in their wars with the Germanic tribes encountered Wotan, they synchronized him with Mercury, in view of a number of similarities. Even more interesting is the association of Pacal Votan with the Mesoamerican version of the legend of the Tower of Babel, in which René Guénon discerned the outlines of an ancient rebellion of the kshatriya caste against the priestly caste; Babel, like the pyramids of Mesoamerica, was likely also a ziggurat, a teocalli. Francisco Javier Clavijero quotes Francisco Núñez de la Vega, bishop of Chiapas, to the effect that “a certain person named Votan was present at that great building, which was made by order of his uncle, in order to mount up to heaven; that then every people was given its language, and that Votan himself was charged by God to make the division of the lands of Anahuac.” According to my own speculation, the Tower of Babel represents an illegitimate and consequently foredoomed attempt to re-establish Hyperborean spirituality, the “mass theophanic consciousness” of the Golden Age, in later Atlantean times through a syncretism of various national or tribal deities based upon imperial power alone—a plot to “take heaven by storm” that God did not sanction.

Courage is strength—and you are vigilant, sagacious, firm besides. But I am beautiful—as “a cane box, called petaca, full of unbored pearls.” I am beautiful: a city greater than Cuzco; rocks loaded with gold as a comb with honey. Believe it. You will not dare to cease following me—at Apalchi, at Cutifachiqui, at Mabilla, turning from the sea, facing inland. And in the end you shall receive of me, nothing—save one long caress as of a great river passing forever upon your sweet corse. Balboa lost his eyes on the smile of the Chinese ocean; Cabeça de Vaca lived hard and saw much; Pizarro, Cortez, Coronado—but you, Hernando de Soto, keeping the lead for four years in a savage country, against odds, “without fortress or support of any kind,” you are Mine, Black Jasmine, mine.

Speaking (while I still can) as an American, it is hard for me to believe that Russia, Iran, China can know this about us in the 21st Century—because it’s for damn sure we no longer know it about ourselves. In any case, I believe that the obsession of the unbalanced Masculine Principle to “conquer Nature” and dominate matter may in fact carry within it the seeds of a nature-worshipping Liberalism by which the Feminine Principle dominates the Masculine, matter dominates Man—a possibility that works to validate Dugin’s worldview. What began, under Rousseau, as a “Liberal” sense of liberation from the artificial strictures of society, under the influence of a generally “pastoral” view of the natural world (ironically, much in evidence at the royal court of Versailles) has in our own time, under the influence of the physical sciences, particularly genetics, become transformed into an oppressive and fatalistic sense of biological necessity, the furthest thing from any sense of human liberation. So expansive, masculine Solar empires like that of the Aztecs, insofar as they take the first steps on what will become (much later) the road of “progress”, enter the dimension of accelerating linear time, characteristic of the archetypal West, a tendency emblematic the latter days of the cycle-of-manifestation, and one whose ultimate destiny is dominance by, and submersion in, the archetypal Feminine Principle, the chaos of the Substantial Pole. This may indeed be another example of Guénon’s revolt of kshatriyas. The Toltec empire of Mexico was more essentially brahminical and priestly than the Aztec Empire that conquered it; the Aztecs adopted the sacerdotal trappings of the Toltecs in an attempt to legitimize what was, in fact, a warmaking kshatriya Empire pure and simple. A Hyperborean, brahminical empire, like that of China, is spiritually centered around the Pole Star, “the still point of the turning world” (in T.S. Eliot’s phrase), the visible point of eternity in the created order; this is a clear example of a regime that satisfied the definition of Dugin’s “Hierarchical Hyperborean Heartland.” Conversely a Solar kshatriya Empire, like that of Spain, follows the course of the Sun—which, instead of turning about a fixed point in the North, appears to follow a more-or-less linear track across the sky, from east to west. It is this basically Western spiritual orientation—the Anglo-Saxon version of which, in the imperial history of the United States, is the myth of “manifest destiny”—which inevitably takes the form of the worship of progress, the hopeless attempt to “reach the future” through endless acceleration. This obsessive “futurism” acts to sink the collective that embarks upon it ever more deeply into scientism, technocracy and materialism, ultimately leading to the veiling of the Pole of Essence or form and the dissolution of the collective in question in the Pole of Substance. Gold is a universal symbol of Essence or Quality.3 The Empire of Spain, however, quantified the vast supply of gold it appropriated from Mexico and the Inca lands—which had a sacred, symbolic value to the Amerindians, not a monetary one—thereby placing it in the service of the Pole of Substance, with the ultimate effect of creating runaway inflation and ruining the Spanish economy.

______________________________________

3In Canto XXII of the Purgatorio, the canto devoted to the sin of avarice, Dante has the Roman poet Statius quote Virgil’s line, “Why cannot you, O holy hunger for gold, restrain the appetite of mortals?” Jennifer Doane Upton, in her Ordeal of Mercy: Dante’s Purgatorio in Light of the Spiritual Path, explains “the holy hunger for gold” as “the ability to value something for what it is, for its essence, not for its pragmatic usefulness or its ability to satisfy desire”—in other words, for its quality, not its quantity.

Properly speaking, Hyperborea and Atlantis are successive phases of the cycle-of-manifestation. Aleksandr Dugin, however, identifies them as the archetypes of two contemporary human collectives. How legitimate is this identification? And can Hyperborea and Atlantis in any sense appear as alternatives that one might be called to choose between?

Yes and no. One of the aspects of the Substantial Pole, into whose “gravity well” the present cycle-of-manifestation is now falling, is that it acts as the “archive” of all the preceding phases of cycle. Just as the Essential Pole is in touch with the celestial plane—in Platonic terms, the plane of the intelligibles, the transcendent unity of the eternal archetypes of all things that are to appear in the course of cosmic manifestation—so the Substantial Pole is host to the accumulated psycho-physical residues of all that has come into existence during the course of the cycle, and consequently manifests a sub-hierarchical “unity” that is in some sense the inverted counterfeit of the meta-hierarchical unity of Essence. Under the influence of the Substantial Pole, the linear “progress” of social organization from form to form begins to be replaced by a chaotic tendency to draw upon any number of earlier forms, or rather upon various incomplete and distorted versions of them. This is in fact an imperfect foreshadowing of the “end of time” and the “reinstatement of space” predicted by René Guénon for the terminal point of the manvantara.

Gog and Magog vs. the Eschatological Conflict

Neither the Essential Pole per se nor the Substantial Pole per se can appear in cosmic manifestation. Just as the Essential Pole, the archetype of form and hierarchy, transcends manifestation because it lies above form and hierarchy, so the Substantial Pole, the archetype of matter, also transcends manifestation because it lies below matter. Therefore a sub-hierarchical unity of matter alone, entirely bereft of form—like a truly classless society—is not possible. And just as Communism saw the development of established party elites not foreseen in classical Marxism, so the universal leveling force of the Substantial Pole (seeing that a total suppression of Essence in the manifest world cannot in fact be achieved) inevitably gives rise to a hierarchical reaction. This reaction, however—as Guénon pointed out—must be inverted. The earlier, more hierarchically-ordered phases of the cycle cannot be re-established; they can only be counterfeited by a regime that exhibits the trappings and claims the prerogatives of the Pole of Essence, while in fact representing the most extreme possible capitulation to the Pole of Substance: the regime of al-Dajjal or Antichrist. A regime based on this sort of inverted hierarchy was in fact predicted by Guénon in The Reign of Quantity:

….one can already see sketched out, in various productions of an indubitably “counter-initiatic” origin or inspiration, the idea of an organization that would be like the counterpart, but at the same time also the counterfeit, of a traditional conception such as that of the “Holy Empire”, and some such organization must become the expression of the “counter-tradition” in the social order; and for similar reasons the Antichrist must appear like something that could be called, using the language of the Hindu tradition, an inverted Chakravarti [“turner of the wheel (of the law)”; universal king].

The titanic conflict between the regime of Substance and the reaction against it—both of which are equally manifestations of the last days of the Kali-yuga—is symbolized in the Book of the Apocalypse by “Gog and Magog”, and in the Qur’an by “Yajuj and Majuj”—who, according to the latter source, will slither down every slope [Q. 21:96]. That is to say, both the universal leveling-power of Substance and the reactionary attempt to re-establish hierarchy in opposition to it will form part of the same universal sinking tendency that characterizes the final days of the cycle.

The cosmic principle behind Gog and Magog appears in the I Ching as the sixth and last line of the hexagram Kun, which as a whole represents the archetypal Feminine Principle, the Pole of Substance. The text for that line is: “Dragons fight in the meadow; their blood is black and yellow.” This indicates a titanic inflation of the Feminine Principle, Yin, which invokes as a reaction the primal masculine Principle, Yang, such that they enter into a conflict in which both the primal powers are wounded.

Given that the latter days of the cycle are characterized by titanic conflicts between false alternatives which are ultimately expressions of the same universal degeneration, it would seem entirely justified to simply invoke the words of Christ, “my kingdom is not of this world”, enter into contemplative withdrawal from “the nightmare of history”, and concentrate all one’s resources upon the “unseen warfare” of the “greater jihad”. This stance is in fact presented as a viable option—or rather, a destiny willed for some by Allah—in the story of the “companions of the Cave” in the Surah al-Khaf, as well as in the hadith,  “There will be tribulations during which a sitting person will be better than the one standing, the one standing better than the one walking, the one walking better than the one running. Whoever exposes himself to these tribulations will be destroyed, so whoever finds a place of protection or refuge should take shelter in it” [Bukhari].

However, the Book of the Apocalypse also presents us a picture of the true eschatological conflict of the latter days, a battle of which the false conflict between Gog and Magog is a mere caricature. And Islamic eschatology universally predicts the rise of the Mahdi before the end of the cycle, who will establish justice and true religion, as well as the return of the Prophet Jesus, who is destined to slay the Antichrist. Therefore to simply wash one’s hands of the world and wait for the end is by no means the only option. To those who are able to place the will of God above both their own self-will and any worldly agenda—and the knowledge given by God above any worldly analysis—it may become possible (God willing) to play a role in the true eschatological, messianic conflict of the latter days: possible, and therefore necessary.

The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad

A belated introduction: I am a poet and a writer in a genre I call “metaphysics and social criticism”, one who has become more or less identified with the Traditionalist or Perennialist School of René Guénon, Ananda Coomaraswamy and Frithjof Schuon. By faith and practice I am a Sufi Muslim in the silsilah of Shaykh Ahmed al-‘Alawi of Algeria. In 2013 I made the acquaintance of Dr. John Andrew Morrow (Ilyas ‘Abd-al’Alim Islam), a Native American convert to Islam, originally Canadian, now a naturalized citizen of the U.S. This encounter was destined to have many powerful repercussions, both in my own life and far beyond it.

Dr. Morrow is known for his profound, detailed and ground-breaking researches on the covenants of Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of his time, and other “peoples of the book.” These covenants, a number of which Dr. Morrow has either newly discovered or rescued from obscurity, are treaties that the Prophet concluded with various Christian communities of his time; they uniformly forbid all Muslims to attack or rob or damage the buildings of peaceful Christians—or even prevent their Christian wives from attending Divine Liturgy and taking spiritual direction from their Christian elders—“until the coming of the Hour”, the end of the world. The bulk of Dr. Morrow’s research to date on these documents appears in his seminal book The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World [Angelico/Sophia Perennis, 2013], as well as a two-volume anthology edited by him and entitled Islam and the People of the Book: Critical Studies of the Covenants of the Prophet [forthcoming from Cambridge Scholars, 2017]. This much-needed scholarship has gone a long way toward resurrecting the Prophetic Covenants from obscurity, and throwing light on the just and equitable norms the Prophet laid down governing how Muslims were to treat Peoples of the Book and other religious minorities within the growing Islamic State. It has also struck a new chord in interfaith relations, one which is not dependent upon the norms of secular Liberalism, but springs directly from the Abrahamic tradition itself, as well as providing a powerful weapon to de-legitimize ISIS and other Takfiri terrorist organizations.

In addition to Dr. Morrow’s scholarly efforts, we are partners in the Covenants Initiative, an international movement of Muslims, based on The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World, to combat terrorism and protect persecuted Christians. The Initiative (which I initially conceived of) invites Muslims from all walks of life to accept these Covenants as legally binding upon them today. It has been signed by many prominent Muslim scholars, including a representative of al-Azhar University, and has been endorsed by such dignitaries as Ayatullah Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran, Pope Francis and the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.

In my view, the Covenants Initiative has begun to define a true exoteric expression and context for the relatively esoteric doctrine that Frithjof Schuon, following René Guénon, called “the transcendent unity of religions”. The transcendent unity of religions accepts all the great world religions as valid spiritual paths based on Divine Revelations, as indeed the Holy Qur’an, in the surah Al-Imran, 3-4 and 84, allows Muslims to believe. The transcendent unity of religions is opposed to syncretism, however, and sees all hopes and plans for world unity based on a One World Religion as both unrealistic and spiritually subversive. In my book The System of Antichrist: Truth and Falsehood in Postmodernism and the New Age [Sophia Perennis, 2001] I called for a “united front ecumenism”, according to which the world religions, putting aside various barren attempts to define a doctrinal common ground, would—while “agreeing to disagree”—unite to protect themselves and each other from the forces of false religion and militant secularism that threatened to destroy them all. I thought I would never have a chance to see such a movement in action, until I realized that the Covenants Initiative, begun in 2013, was a perfect example of the united front ecumenism I had called for in 2001, and that it was in fact a legitimate outer expression of the transcendent unity of religions, in a way that most Liberal ecumenical and interfaith initiatives are not. Many such “established” interfaith movements and organizations are heavily subsidized and semi-covertly directed by the governments and globalist foundations and think-tanks of the West. And insofar as they act to spread globalist ideology, they form one-half of a “pincers movement” aimed at weakening, controlling and ultimately liquidating all the world’s religions, the other half being the clandestine support provided by the Western nations, as well as various extra-governmental power-blocs and funding sources, to certain Takfiri terrorist armies—including elements of ISIS—as well as to the mercenary soldiers and their recruiters who continue to help organize and man these satanic organizations. If the religions can be induced, in the name of “tolerance”, to de-emphasize and deconstruct those Traditional doctrines that are considered to be “divisive”, they will lose their self-determination, step by step, and increasingly come to depend upon governmental and private patronage and direction; such radically weakened religious collectives will become less and less able deal with moral degeneracy and violent fanaticism in their ranks.4 At the same time, the exponential growth of interreligious violence will make it appear to many that the “repressive tolerance” of a One World Religion, or at least the federation of all the world’s religions under a single secular authority, is the only hope for establishing peace between the faiths—or what’s left of them. It is my belief that all of these elements form part of a single comprehensive plan, implemented over a period of several generations, whose ultimate goal is to wipe religion from the face of the earth.

The Devil hates all the revealed religions because he recognizes them as emanating a single Divine Source, the prime Object of his hate; thus the Darkness of This World, by its very hatred, testifies to the truth of the transcendent unity of religions, and challenges the religions to unite to oppose it. Here we can see one example of how traditional metaphysics and eschatology can generate socio-political praxis on their own, independent of any Liberal, Fascist, Marxist, Islamicist or Globalist ideology, or any permutation or combination thereof. The theoretical foundation of this praxis is the recognition of eternal metaphysical Principles, and the vision of history as the working out of these Principles in the dimension of time. To the degree that one recognizes, understands and identifies with such Principles, one is “in the world but not of it”, and consequently is not hampered by an unconscious identification with the world of conditions or any aspect of it, even including the collective social dimension of one’s own religion; only someone who is not identified with This World, and thus free of all partiality, can see it as it really is. This sort of transcendental objectivity allows the one who has achieved it to formulate effective strategic and tactical initiatives that take into account the entire situation he or she confronts, as well as the quality of the present historical occasion. It also makes it possible for that person to discern the Will of God in relation to both the objective situation and the various particular initiatives designed to address it, thus allowing him or her to reach relative certainty as to when, or if, a particular course of action should be embarked upon, and when, or if, it should be delayed or abandoned.

As for the content of the Covenants of the Prophet themselves—which comprise the many treaties that Muhammad concluded with Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, even pagans, and which include the pivotal Constitution of Medina—the most striking aspect of them, in terms of the present study,  is that,  to all intents  and purposes,  they exhibit  a seamless union between theocracy—“Tradition”—and democracy—“Liberalism”. They are announced and written in the name of Allah and claim divine inspiration as their origin; likewise they posit the Prophet Muhammad and his legitimate successors as the ultimate authority. On the other hand, they contain what is perhaps the first “universal declaration of human rights” in human history, written down more than a full millennium before what we, looking back to the French and American revolutions, might consider to be “its time”. The rights of women and minorities are clearly spelled out, and the socio-political implications of the Qur’anic principle of no compulsion in religion [Q. 2:256] are fully expressed and defined. Furthermore, viewing the matter specifically in geopolitical terms, the Arabian Pennisula and the greater Near East—appropriately enough!—constitute a kind of “Middle Kingdom”, situated (roughly speaking) between the “Atlantean” realm of coastal western Europe, the British Isles and the Americas—which naturally includes those nations in addition to Britain who explored and colonized the New World: Spain, Portugal, France and the Netherlands—and the “Hyperborean” heartland of Eurasia. (Aleksandr Dugin includes the whole of Western Europe in his “Eurasia”, but I believe that the Western-tending colonialist nations—at least since the Renaissance—should be included in the “Atlantean” rather than the “Hyperborean” culture area.) Is it any wonder, then, that the dialectical opposition between the Hyperborean ethos and the Atlantean one should be resolved by a divinely-inspired synthesis arising from the mid-point between them, in both doctrinal and geological terms? As we have already seen in the Lakota cosmo-conception as recounted by Black Elk, the point where the Good Red Road running north-south (the Hyperborean road) and the Black Road of Difficulty running east-west (the Atlantean road) intersect is wakan, holy—and it is from just such an intersection that the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad actually emerged.

____________________________________

4I fear that the Traditionalist/Perennialist school in the English-speaking world has failed to appreciate the danger of co-optation and covert control represented by their growing connection with “established interfaith”.

There is no denying that we live in apocalyptic times—which certainly does not mean that we must now “seize the apocalypse” and turn it to our own ends, a course of action that would be both impossible to accomplish and fatal to attempt. A Third World War between the Atlantean and Hyperborean collectives would be the final expression of the barren, titanic struggle of Gog and Magog, and would spell the end of the human race—so let’s not do it. Let’s do something else.

 The struggle between Gog and Magog is the satanic counterfeit of the true eschatological conflict between Christ and Antichrist, the call to which—given that “you know not the day nor the hour” [Matthew 25:13]—must arrive “as the lightning comes forth from the east and shines even to the west” [Matthew 24:27]. Only those who have died to the world can know God’s will for the world, and do it. Only they can tell the difference between the true and false war.

The re-discovery of the Covenants of the Prophet was (to me at least), entirely unexpected and providential. With the publication of The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World we may in fact be witnessing—unexpectedly, miraculously, at this extremely late date—the emergence of a third foundational source for the Islamic tradition, in addition to Qur’an and ahadith.

The re-appearance of the Covenants is also mysterious. To all appearances they are capable of providing a blueprint for the fundamental renewal of Islam after the ravages of colonialism, the fall of the Caliphate and the depredations of the Takfiri terrorists and their western sponsors.  It is even possible that they relate to Guénon’s belief that the Knights Templar were in touch with “the guardians of the Primordial Tradition” in Jerusalem. In Dr. John Andrew Morrow’s chapter “The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Armenian Christians of Jerusalem”, which appears in Islam and the People of the Book: Critical Studies in the Covenants of the Prophet, he quotes Bernard Falque de Bezaure to the effect that:

These firmāns [covenants of the Prophet] would become aḥadīth in the Muslim corpus known as the Sunnah and would later be transcribed in the houses of wisdom in Baghdād and Damascus. They later passed into the hands of the Umayyad, ‘Abbāsid, and Fāṭimid Caliphs…. These are also the documents that were given, in the eleventh century, by Michael, monophysite bishop and patriarch of Antioch [that is, by Michael the Syrian (d. 1199 CE), the Armenian Patriarch of Antioch, who was in office from 1166-1199 CE.], to the dynasty of Armenian kings, the Rupenids, and to Mleh, [Prince of Armenia r. 1170–1175 CE], the Master of the Templars of Armenia, in particular, at the same moment that the ‘Alawī-Hashashīn-Nusayrī documents entered the chain of Armanus in Sicily. These [latter] documents concern the mysteries of illumination of the ancient Christian and Jewish prophets as well as Muḥammad. They represent the foundations and the basis of the secret spiritual meditations that were given by Hugues de Payens, the ordained priest of the Saint Sepulcher, to the thirty-one proto-Templars cited in the Armenian chronicles of the aforementioned Michael the Syrian.

Dr. Morrow goes on to say: “Bernard Falque de Bezaure advances another astonishing and audacious theory; namely, that the secrets granted, and jealously guarded, protected, and transmitted by the Knights Templar and other secretive Christian societies, consisted of the Covenants of the Prophet Muḥammad. Since the Dome of the Rock [occupied by the Templars] contains some of the most ancient examples of early Arabic and Islamic writing, it is also likely that the complex contained precious documents from the dawn of Islām, including, apparently, copies of the Muḥammadan Covenants.” If true, this would certainly go a long way to corroborate Guénon’s belief that the Templars were in some sense the “guardians of the Primordial Tradition”, early exponents of the transcendent unity of religions.

According to Islamic tradition, a “renewer of the religion” is destined to appear at “the head of every century”. In view of this prophesy I have sometimes, only half-jokingly, addressed Dr. Morrow as muhiyuddin….and certainly the Covenants of the Prophet continue to spread widely through the Muslim world, often eliciting a heart-warming and enthusiastic response. However, from the practical, worldly point of view of realpolitic, the prospects for a total renewal of Islam at this late date (for nothing less is required) do not look very promising. All the traditional religious collectives are in a state of retreat due to the “degeneration of the cosmic environment” discerned and predicted by René Guénon for the latter days of the cycle, and the Islamic ummah is no exception. Nonetheless we must always remember that things that are difficult or impossible for us are easy for Allah: if He wills a renewal of Islam at this late date, then it will come to pass.

However, two other possible spiritual purposes may be discerned for the contemporary rediscovery of the Covenants. The first would be in order to give individual Muslims a chance to repent of their hatred of the other God-given religions instilled in them by corrupt and treacherous scholars. The second would be to prepare a remnant of Muslims—not necessarily limited to the Shi’a—to actively await the coming of al-Qaim al-Mahdi, who will establish justice and true religion, and the Prophet Jesus, who will slay al-Dajjal, the Antichrist.

Some Christians have been understandably suspicious of our reintroduction of the Covenants of the Prophet; it seems to them as if these documents might represent a covert attempt to re-introduce the notion of an Islamic Empire under which Christians would be relegated to dhimmi status once again. Our position, however, is that the Covenants possess a relevance and a force-of-law that transcends dhimmitude, since the Prophet declared them to be in force and incumbent upon all Muslims “until the coming of the Hour”, not simply until the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the last Muslim political entity which took the Covenants as the basis of official policy toward non-Muslim religious minorities. And it is clear that the Covenants of the Prophet incarnate Muhammad’s great love and respect for the Peoples of the Book—Christians in particular—which is entirely in line with the teachings of the Noble Qur’an. On the basis of these documents, we, as Muslims, offer the following pledge to Christians:

We the undersigned hold ourselves bound by the spirit and the letter of the covenants of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) with the Christians of the world, in the understanding that these covenants, if accepted as genuine, have the force of law in the shari‘ah today and that nothing in the shari‘ah, as traditionally and correctly interpreted, has ever contradicted them. As fellow victims of the terror and godlessness, the spirit of militant secularism and false religiosity now abroad in the world, we understand your suffering as Christians through our suffering as Muslims, and gain greater insight into our own suffering through the contemplation of your suffering. May the Most Merciful of the Merciful regard the sufferings of the righteous and the innocent; may He strengthen us, in full submission to His will, to follow the spirit and the letter of the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the world in all our dealings with them. In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds.

This pledge, which forms the heart of the Covenants Initiative, has been signed by many Muslim scholars and religious leaders from around the world. In terms of the needs of the Russian Federation and its allies, we believe that the Covenants Initiative, as well as our ongoing scholarship related to the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad, can serve to powerfully validate and support the declaration of The International Conference on Who are the Ahl al-Sunnah, promulgated in Grozny, Chechnya, in August of 2016, and the “Fatwa on Dangerous Sects” of The Council of Muftis of Russia, issued at the same time, both of which declare that the Salafi-Takfirists, Daesh—the so-called “Islamic State”—and similar extremist groups, are outside the Islamic fold.

پیشبرد هژمونی پوشالی آمریکایی با ژست مبارزه با تروریسم

کد خبر: ۳۵۷۴۰۲۵
تاریخ انتشار: ۲۷ بهمن ۱۳۹۵ – ۰۸:۳۷
پژوهشگر آمریکایی مطرح کرد:
گروه بین‌الملل: آمریکا یک اژد‌های دو سر است؛ آتش‌افروز و آتش‌نشان او آتش می‌افروزد و سپس تلاش می‌کند همان آتش را خاموش کند، آمریکا حامی گروه‌های تروریست اسلام‌گرا است و از سوی دیگر با ژست مبارزه با آن‌ها تلاش می‌کند، برنامه هژمونی پوشالی خود را پیش ببرد تا بدین ترتیب افکار عمومی را نیز با خود داشته باشد.
پیشبرد هژمونی پوشالی آمریکایی با ژست مبارزه با تروریسم

«جان اندرو مورو»، استاد تمام زبان‌های خارجی در کالج «Ivy Tech Community» آمریکا، نویسنده و پژوهشگر اهل ایالت کبک کاناداست که در زمینه مطالعات اسلامی، اسپانیایی و بومیان آمریکا تخصص دارد. این استاد کانادایی ـ آمریکایی مسلمان در گفت‌وگو با خبرگزاری بین‌المللی قرآن(ایکنا) پیرامون فرمان اخیر ترامپ درباره ممنوع کردن ورود مسلمانان به آمریکا به بیان نکاتی پرداخت؛ حکمی که باعث شده تا در داخل این کشور نیز انتقادها و تظاهرات گسترده‌ای علیه ترامپ صورت بگیرد و هم‌زمان چهره آمریکا در جهان اسلام بیش از پیش خدشه‌دار شود، چراکه امروز یک میلیارد و ۶۰۰ میلیون مسلمان به‌خصوص در قاره آسیا خشمگین از این اقدام نژادپرستانه هستند و نسبت به رئیس‌جمهور جدید ایالات متحده سوء ظن دارند و بسیاری او را مسلمان‌ستیز معرفی می‌کنند. این گفت‌و‌گو در ذیل از نظر می‌گذرد:

ایکنا: حکم ضد مهاجرتی ترامپ، رئیس‌جمهور ایالات متحده مبنی بر ممنوعیت ورود اتباع هفت کشور مسلمان‌نشین به آمریکا برای جامعه این کشور که خود را مدافع حقوق بشر و دموکراسی می‌داند، چه تبعاتی خواهد داشت؟
فرمان ترامپ، حکمی ضد مهاجرت نیست، آمریکا مهاجرت قانونی را منع نمی‌کند، مانند هر کشورِ دارای حاکمیت، آمریکا نیز حق دارد مرزها و مهاجرت خود را کنترل کند، هیچ کشوری در جهان وجود ندارد که مرزهای خود را به روی هر کسی و به هر میزان باز بگذارد. وقتی ترامپ می‌گوید کشوری که مرزهایش را تحت کنترل نداشته باشد، کشور نیست، حق دارد. یک کشورِ دارای حاکمیت اجازه نمی‌دهد دیگران آن را اشغال کنند.
حکم ترامپ علیه اتباع هفت کشور است که به زعم او بیشترین تهدید را علیه آمریکا دارند. حکم ترامپ حکمی کلی نیست که همه مسلمانان را هدف قرار بدهد، به یاد داشته باشیم که مسلمانان در ۴۹ کشور، جزء اکثریت بوده و در همه کشورهای جهان نیز حضور دارند.
من از اقدامات ترامپ دفاع نمی‌کنم، با این همه نباید فریب تبلیغات رسانه‌های لیبرال را خورد که علیه او جنگ راه انداخته و رسماً با او مخالفت می‌کنند.
به خاطر حکم ترامپ نیست که آمریکا دیگر مدافع حقوق بشر و دموکراسی به حساب نمی‌آید، این موضوع جدیدی نیست. کافی است از قربانیان تاریخ امپراتوری آمریکا، از بومیان، آفریقایی‌تبارها، از زنان، یهودیان، ایرلندی‌ها، ایتالیایی‌‌ها، کانادایی‌های فرانسوی‌تبار، کاتولیک‌ها، ژاپنی‌ها، سفیدپوستان فقیر آنگلوساکسون و همه کارگران بپرسید که درباره «دموکراسی» آمریکایی و دفاع آن از «حقوق بشر» چه فکر می‌کنند.
اگر توانستید، از قربانیان امپریالیسم آمریکا در آمریکای لاتین، در جزایر آنتیل، آسیای جنوب غرب، آفریقای شمالی و خاورمیانه هم بپرسید درباره «حقوق بشر» و «دموکراسی» آمریکایی چه نظری دارند.
آمریکا جنبه‌های مثبتی دارد ولی در کنار آن تاریخی شرم‌آور پر از تنفر، قتل عام، برده‌داری، استثمار، نژادپرستی، تمایز و تبعیض، تحقیر و امپریالیسم اقتصادی و سیاسی دارد؛ متأسفانه اغلب دولت‌های آمریکا پی‌در‌پی در طول قرن‌ها اصول قوانین اساسی را نقض کرده‌اند. حقوق بشر برای همه مردان و زنان است، آمریکا به جای آنکه یک جمهوری دموکراتیک باشد به یک امپراتوری مبدل شده ولی امپراتوری‌ها با دوام نیستند؛ امپراتوری آمریکا نیز در حال زوال است امیدواریم که «عدالت و آزادی برای همه» محقق شود.
چرا ترامپ تروریست‌های واقعی مثل عربستان و قطر را در فهرست کشورهایی که اتباع آن‌ها نمی‌توانند وارد آمریکا شوند، قرار نداده است؟
فهرست ترامپ که توسط اوباما تدارک دیده شده بود، فهرستی ابلهانه است، نباید تبعیض بر اساس ملیت و مذهب وجود داشته باشد، بلکه این تبعیض باید بر ایدئولوژی استوار باشد. قوانین آمریکا مهاجرت افرادی را که عضو حزب کمونیست بوده یا معتقد به دیکتاتوری و یا مرتکب جنایات جنگی شده باشد، منع می‌کنند. به جای ممنوعیت ورود شهروندان برخی کشورهای مسلمان باید ورود وهابی‌ها، ناصبی‌ها(دشمنان اهل‌بیت) و تکفیری‌ها به آمریکا ممنوع می‌شد. این افراد برای مسلمانان و غیر مسلمانان خطر واقعی هستند.
به یاد داشته باشیم ده‌ها هزار تروریستی که در سوریه و عراق می‌جنگند، از غرب می‌آیند. آن‌ها به خواست خود به غرب رفت‌و‌آمد می‌کنند. برای رفتن آن‌ها به خاورمیانه و برای ارتکاب جنایات جنگی ممنوعیتی وجود ندارد. آن‌ها بدون کمترین مشکل به اروپا و آمریکا باز می‌گردند و کسی از آن‌ها بازخواست نمی‌کند، از آن‌ها مسئولیت نمی‌خواهد، آن‌ها را محاکمه نمی‌کند، آن‌ها را به خاطر خیانت، جنایت جنگی و کشتار محاکمه و زندانی نمی‌کند به عکس آن‌ها با آغوش باز پذیرفته می‌شوند!
حداقل در آمریکای عصر اوباما، دولت آمریکا پذیرش تروریست‌های آمریکایی را که از خارج برمی‌گشتند، در دستور کار داشت. این امر ثابت می‌کند تروریست‌ها با آن‌ها همکاری دارند، اگر ترامپ می‌خواهد با این سیاست مقابله کند این گوی و این میدان.
اگر عربستان در فهرست ترامپ قرار ندارد برای آن است که منافع شخصی و اقتصادی «رئیس‌جمهور آمریکا» در میان است. اگر من ترامپ را به عنوان رئیس‌جمهوری خود قبول ندارم، به خاطر سیاست‌هایش نیست به این دلیل است که به عنوان یک بومی و به عنوان یک آمریکایی وجود این کشور را به رسمیت نمی‌شناسم.
آمریکا به هیچ ملتی تعلق ندارد؛ آمریکا به مردمان بومی این قاره تعلق دارد. اروپایی‌ها سرزمینی را که به آن‌ها تعلق نداشت، تصاحب کرده و فروخته‌اند. ما حقوق کسانی را که حقوق ما را به رسمیت نشناسند، به رسمیت نمی‌شناسیم. ما حاضر بودیم در این قاره با دیگران شریک شویم ولی آنها ما را محروم کرده‌اند؛ در سرزمین به سرقت رفته عدالت وجود ندارد.
در مورد عربستان ما می‌دانیم که این کشور سرمنشأ تروریسم است. ۱۵ نفر از ۱۹ تروریست تکفیری که حادثه ۱۱ سپتامبر ۲۰۰۱ را رقم زدند، شهروندان سعودی بودند. می‌دانیم که عربستان میلیاردها دلار برای ترویج ایدئولوژی وحشت تکفیری خرج می‌کند و تغذیه مالی بیماران روانی به اصطلاح اسلام‌گرا را در سراسر جهان بر عهده دارد. جای تردید نیست که داعش در خدمت آمریکا، اسرائیل، عربستان سعودی، قطر و ترکیه فعالیت کرده و می‌کند، حتی اگر به نظر برسد که این کشور‌ها تغییر استراتژی داشته باشند، جالب این جاست که سه کشور آخر(عربستان، قطر و ترکیه) در فهرست ترامپ قرار ندارند. مصر که مرکز سلفی‌های افراطی به حساب می‌آید نیز از این لیست غایب است.
آمریکا یک اژد‌های دو سر است: آتش‌افروز و آتش‌نشان او آتش می‌افروزد و سپس تلاش می‌کند همان آتش را خاموش کند، آمریکا حامی گروه‌های تروریست اسلام‌گرا است از سوی دیگر با ژست مبارزه با آن‌ها تلاش می‌کند، برنامه هژمونی پوشالی خود را پیش ببرد. این کشور بیشتر در تئوری(فرضیه) با تروریسم مبارزه می‌کند تا در عمل، تا بدین ترتیب افکار عمومی را نیز با خود داشته باشد. این بازی دوگانه شیطانی به از دست رفتن جان هزاران نفر در میان آتش می‌انجامد. آن‌ها قربانی الهه ثروت می‌شوند تا پرستندگان او ثروتمند‌تر شوند.
طرح ترامپ برای متحد شدن با روس‌ها، سوری‌ها و حتی ایرانی‌ها برای نابودی داعش طرح مناسبی بود، مشکل اینجاست که ترامپ در محاصره نئو‌محافظه‌کاران و صهیونیست‌های دو آتشه است و آن‌ها طرح و برنامه‌ای کاملا متفاوت دارند.
ترامپ به این افراد نیاز دارد ولی آن‌ها نیز متقابلا نیازمند ترامپ هستند. بنابراین ترامپ در جهت‌های مختلف به این سو و آن سو کشیده می‌شود.
او میان محور مقاومت(روسیه، سوریه و ایران) و محور ظلم(اسرائیل، عربستان و قطر) حق انتخاب داشت. اگر قرار بود بین ایران و عربستان یکی را انتخاب کند او قلمرو شیطان را به ایران ترجیح می‌داد. اگر چه آمریکایی‌ها «تئوری آشفتگی» را در جهان اسلام پیاده کردند ولی به نوبه خود از آن بی‌بهره نماندند. آمریکا به جهان سوم جدیدی مبدل شد که در آن دولت به اندازه دولت‌های آفریقایی بی‌ثبات است و رئیس‌جمهور آن مثل یک دیکتاتور نظامی عرب عمل می‌کند.
اتباع هفت کشور اسلامی که در فهرست ترامپ قرار دارند، چطور می‌توانند اعتراض کنند و چطور مسلمانان آمریکا می‌توانند از مسلمانان خارجی که کشورهایشان در فهرست ترامپ قرار دارد، به دفاع برخیزند؟  
آن‌ها اعتراض کرده‌اند و صدای خود را به گوش جهانیان رسانده‌اند. باید منتظر بود و دید چه پیش خواهد آمد. دولت، زیر فشار کوتاه می‌آید باید مخالفت کرد و صدای خود را به گوش‌های شنوا رساند.
اقدامات نمادین آمریکایی‌ها مثل حلقه‌های انسانی به دور مسلمانان در حال برگزاری نماز در فرودگاه‌ها یا نصب پیام‌های صلح و همبستگی با مسلمانان روی درب مساجد تا چه حد مؤثر خواهد بود؟
چنین اقداماتی بسیار سمبلیک هستند، آن‌ها همبستگی را به نمایش می‌گذارند و حاکمیت را تضعیف می‌کنند. این اقدامات بین همه جوامع پل‌هایی را ایجاد می‌کند؛ پل‌هایی که نژادپرستان سفید به نام ملی‌گرایی سعی در نابودی آ‌ن‌ها دارند. باید یک سؤال مهم را مطرح کرد: «این میلیون‌ها نفری که در تظاهرات شرکت می‌کنند، هنگامی که داعش مسیحیان، شیعیان، صوفی‌ها و سنی‌ها را قتل عام می‌کرد، کجا بودند؟ همچنین باید پرسید آیا واقعا می‌توان روی دوستی و همبستگی لیبرال‌های افراطی و لائیک‌ها حساب کرد؟»، به نظر می‌رسد این نوع افراد در قبال همبستگی خود چیزی انتظار دارند و آن به رسمیت شناخته شدن «شیوه زندگی» آن‌ها از طرف مسلمانان است. در عین حال امکان دارد که این اختلاف‌های حاشیه‌ای در برابر مشکلات بزرگ کنار گذاشته شود.
جامعه آمریکا تا چه حد با تصمیمات ترامپ علیه مسلمانان موافق است؟
جامعه آمریکا عمیقاً دچار تشتت است. این چیزی است که «جنگ فرهنگی» خوانده می‌شود. نیمی از جمعیت شامل پروتستان‌های محافظه‌کار است، در‌حالی‌که نیم دیگر لائیک‌ ـ لیبرال هستند، نیمی از آمریکایی‌ها موافق تصمیمات ترامپ هستند در‌حالی‌که نیم دیگر مخالف‌اند؛ حقیقت در دو سو قرار ندارد، حقیقت در میانه است. مردمی که مخالف ترامپ هستند، به همان اندازه کسانی که از او حمایت می‌کنند دچار گمراهی‌اند، اما باید برای ایجاد آشتی براساس اصول اخلاقی جهانی کار کنیم. در غیر این صورت بیم تبدیل «جنگ فرهنگی» به «جنگ داخلی و تمدنی» وجود دارد و ما انسان‌های معتقد در میانه دو نیروی شر قرار گرفته‌ایم، باید دعا کنیم که امام عصر، حضرت مهدی(عج) و یارانش از جمله حضرت مسیح(ع) ظهور کنند، در غیر این صورت امیدی برای بشریت و کره خاکی وجود ندارد.
خبرنگار: پروانه صالحی

L’Amérique combat les terroristes en théorie plus qu’en pratique

9:49 – February 09, 2017
Code de l’info: 3462317
Pour le professeur américain, John Andrew Morrow, les Etats-Unis soutiennent les groupes terroristes islamistes pour avancer son agenda hégémonique en les combattant.
L’Amérique combat les terroristes en théorie plus qu’en pratique
Lors d’une interview accordée à l’Agence Internationale de Presse Coranique (IQNA), il évoque le soutien américain aux terroristes qui partent des Etats-Unis et de l’Europe, en Syrie et en Irak, soulignant l’accueil réservé par ces pays à ces terroristes en rentrant.
A ce propos il nous a dit : « On ne les interroge pas. On ne les charge pas. On ne les juge pas. On ne les condamne pas à la prison ou à la mort pour trahison, crimes de guerre et génocide. Au contraire, on les accueille avec les bras-ouverts! Aux États-Unis, sous Obama au moins, l’administration américaine encourageait la “réintégration des combattants terroristes américains qui retournent de l’étranger.” Cela démontre que les terroristes travaillent pour eux. » Ce que vous lisez, ce sont les réponses que le professeur américain a données à nos questions.
 Quelles sont les conséquences du décret anti-migratoire de Trump sur la société américaine qui se considère comme défenseur des droits de l’homme et de la démocratie?
Il ne s’agit pas d’un décret anti-migratoire. Les États-Unis permettent l’immigration légale. Comme n’importe quel pays souverain, l’Amérique a le droit de contrôler ses frontières et son immigration.  Rappelons-nous qu’il y a 16 pays musulmans qui interdisent l’entrée de juifs israéliens. Alors, ne soyons pas hypocrites. Il n’y a aucun pays au monde qui laisse ses frontières ouvertes à n’importe qui et en n’importe quelle quantité. Trump a amplement raison quand il affirme qu’un pays qui ne contrôle pas ses frontières n’est point un pays. Un pays souverain ne se laisse pas envahir.
Le décret de Trump est dirigé envers les ressortissants de sept pays qui, soi-disant, produisent le plus de terroristes « islamistes » et qui représentent, soi-disant, la plus grande menace envers les États-Unis! Ce n’est pas un décret général qui viserait tous les musulmans. Souvenons-nous que les musulmans sont majoritaires dans 49 nations et se trouvent dans presque tous les autres pays de la planète. Ils ne sont pas exclus de voyager aux États-Unis.
Je ne défends point les actions de Trump. Néanmoins, il ne faut pas se laisser duper par la propagande des médias libéraux qui lui ont déclaré la guerre et qui est devenu l’opposition officielle. Les États-Unis ont un grave problème avec l’immigration clandestine et avec le terrorisme étranger et domestique. Il faut donc agir intelligemment et non stupidement en considérant toutes les conséquences. L’aspect humanitaire doit aussi être considéré. On ne détruit pas des familles dans notre quête pour protéger des familles. On fait notre possible pour faire le plus de bien et faire le moins de tort.
Ce n’est pas à cause du décret de Trump que les États-Unis ne sont plus les défenseurs des droits de l’homme et de la démocratie : ils ne l’ont jamais été. Ce n’est rien de nouveau. Vous n’avez qu’à demander aux victimes historiques de l’Empire Américain : aux autochtones, aux Africains, aux femmes, aux juifs, aux irlandais et aux italiens, aux canadiens français, aux catholiques, aux japonais américains, aux pauvres blancs anglo-saxons, et aux ouvriers ce qu’ils pensent de la « démocratie » américaine et de sa défense des « droits de l’homme ». Et quand vous y êtes, demandez donc aux victimes de l’impérialisme américain en Amérique Latine, aux Antilles, en Asie du Sud-ouest, en Afrique du Nord, et aux Moyen-Orient ce qu’ils pensent des « droits de l’homme » et de la « démocratie » américaine.
L’Amérique a amplement de bienfaits mais elle a aussi une histoire honteuse de haine, de génocide, d’esclavage, d’exploitation, de racisme, de ségrégation, de discrimination, de misogynie et d’impérialisme économique et politique. Les principes constitutionnels sur lesquelles les États-Unis sont fondées sont exceptionnels et admirables. Hélas, la plupart des administrations américaines les ont violés sans cesse pour des siècles. Les droits de l’homme, c’est pour tous les hommes et les femmes y-compris. Au lieu d’être une république démocratique, les États-Unis sont devenus un Empire. Mais, les Empires ne durent point et l’Empire Américain est en plein déclin. Nous ne prions point pour sa destruction mais pour sa salvation avec « justice et liberté pour tous. »
Pourquoi Trump n’a pas placé les vrais terroristes comme l’Arabie Saoudite ou le Qatar sur la liste des pays dont les ressortissants sont interdits d’entrer sur le sol américain?
La liste de Trump, qui a été préparée par Obama, n’oublions-pas, est idiote. On ne devrait pas discriminer à base de nationalité ou de religion. On devrait, quand même, discriminer à base d’idéologie. Les lois américaines interdisent l’immigration de personnes qui étaient membres d’un parti communiste, qui croient au totalitarisme, ou qui ont commis des crimes de guerre. Au lieu d’interdire les citoyens de certains pays majoritairement musulmans, on devrait interdire les salafistes, wahhabites, nasibites et takfirites d’entrer sur le sol américain. Voilà la véritable menace envers musulmans et non-musulmans.
Souvenons-nous que des dizaines de milliers de terroristes qui se battent en Syrie et en Irak viennent d’Occident. Ils rentrent et sortent d’Occident à leur gré. Ils ne sont point interdits d’aller au Moyen-Orient pour commettre des crimes de guerre. Ils reviennent en Europe et aux États-Unis sans le moindre problème. On ne les interroge pas. On ne les charge pas. On ne les juge pas. On ne les condamne pas à la prison ou à la mort pour trahison, crimes de guerre et génocide. Au contraire, on les accueille avec les bras-ouverts! Aux États-Unis, sous Obama au moins, l’administration américaine encourageait la « réintégration des combattants terroristes américains qui retournent de l’étranger. » Cela démontre que les terroristes travaillent pour eux. Si Trump veut mettre fin à cette politique cinglée, bienvenu soit-il.
Si l’Arabie Saoudite n’apparaît pas sur la liste de Trump, c’est question d’intérêt personnel et économique du « Président » des États-Unis. Et si je ne reconnais pas Trump comme mon Président, ce n’est pas à cause de ses politiques, c’est par ce que, en tant qu’autochtone et en tant qu’amérindien, je refuse de reconnaître l’existence même de ce pays. L’Amérique n’appartient à aucune nation : elle appartient aux peuples originaires de ce continent. Les Européens ont volé et vendu de la terre qui ne leur appartenait point. Du point de vue des Premières Nations, les Inuits et des Métisses, nous ne reconnaissons pas les droits de ceux qui ne reconnaissent pas nos droits. Nous étions prêts à partager ce continent mais on nous l’a pris en échange pour des miettes. Il n’y a point de justice sur terre volée.
En ce qui concerne l’Arabie Saoudite, nous savons très bien que c’est la Mère de la Bête. Quinze des dix-neuf terroristes takfiristes qui ont commis les attentats du 11 septembre 2001 étaient citoyens saoudiens. Nous savons bel et bien que l’Arabie Saoudite dépense des milliards de dollars pour promouvoir l’idéologie de la terreur takfirite et qu’elle finance les psychopathes islamistes autour du monde. C’est un fait établi que Daesh travaille ou travaillait pour le compte des États-Unis, d’Israël, de l’Arabie Saoudite, du Qatar, et la Turquie, même si ce dernier pays semble avoir changé de stratégie. Curieusement, ces trois derniers pays ne figurent pas sur la liste de Trump. L’Égypte, le centre même des salafites extrémistes, est notablement absent car, pour le soi-disant Président des États-Unis, ce n’est pas bon pour les affaires.
L’Amérique est un dragon à deux têtes. L’Amérique est un pyromane et un pompier. Elle allume le feu et essaie de l’éteindre ensuite. L’Amérique soutient les groupes terroristes islamistes pour avancer son agenda hégémonique en les combattant, en théorie plus qu’en pratique, pour gagner l’opinion publique. C’est un double jeu diabolique qui coûte des centaines de milliers de vies musulmanes qui sont pris au milieu du carnage. Ils sont sacrifiés sur l’autel de Mammon pour enrichir ses adorateurs.
L’idée de Trump de s’allier avec les Russes, les Syriens et peut être même les Iraniens pour détruire Daesh était bonne. Le problème c’est que Trump est encerclé de néo-conservateurs et de sionistes acharnés qui ont un agenda complètement diffèrent. Trump a besoin d’eux mais ils ont besoin de lui aussi. Alors, Trump se voit tiré dans de nombreuses directions différentes. Il avait le choix entre l’axe de la résistance, la Russie, la Syrie et l’Iran, et l’axe de l’oppression, Israël, l’Arabie Saoudite et le Qatar. Si le choix était entre l’Iran et l’Arabie Saoudite, Trump parait avoir choisi le Royaume du Mal au lieu de la République Bien-Intentionnée. Si les Américains ont imposé la « théorie du chaos » dans le monde musulman, il semble qu’ils viennent d’être servis. Bienvenue en Amérique. Le nouveau Tiers-Monde ou le gouvernement est aussi instable qu’en Afrique Noire et le président agit comme un dictateur militaire arabe. C’est l’ultime ironie.
Comment les ressortissants des sept pays musulmans figurant sur la liste concernée par le décret peuvent manifester leur protestation? Comment les musulmans américains peuvent défendre les musulmans étrangers concernés par le décret anti-migratoire?
Ils ont protesté. Ils se sont fait entendre. Le décret de Trump a été mis en arrêt. Nous attendons voir la suite. Le pouvoir cède sous pression. Il faut donc s’organiser, manifester, se faire entendre et se faire écouter.
 Dans quelle mesure les gestes symboliques comme les chaînes humaines autour des musulmans en prière dans les aéroports sont efficaces?
De telles actions sont très symboliques. Elles démontrent énormément de solidarité. Elles affaiblissent l’autorité. Elles aident à construire des ponts entre toutes les communautés qui sont visées par l’extrême-droite, par ces suprématistes blancs qui se présentent faussement comme des nationalistes. Mais, il faut se poser une question importante : où étaient ces millions de manifestants pendant que les escadrons de la mort de Daesh exterminaient les chrétiens, les chiites, les soufies, et les sunnites traditionnelles? Il faut aussi se demander si nous pouvons véritablement compter sur l’amitié et la solidarité des GLBTT, les ultra-libéraux et des laïques. Il se peut que je me trompe, mais cela semble être un mariage de convenance qui coûtera cher. C’est-à-dire, les activistes en question vont vouloir quelque chose de retour : la reconnaissance de leur « mode-de-vie » de la part des musulmans. Il est également possible que, face aux grands problèmes, les différences secondaires soient mises de côté.
 A quel point la société américaine est favorable aux mesures prises par Trump contre les musulmans ?
La société américaine est profondément polarisée. C’est ce qui s’appelle la “guerre culturelle.” La moitié de la population consiste de protestants conservateurs tandis que l’autre moitié consiste de laïques libéraux. La moitié des américains sont favorables aux mesures prises par Trump tandis que l’autre moitié s’y oppose. En réalité, la vérité ne se trouve pas dans les extrêmes : la vérité se trouve au centre. Les gens qui opposent Trump sont aussi égarés que les gens qui le soutiennent. Nous devons donc travailler envers la réconciliation fondée sur des principes éthiques universels. Dans le cas échéant, je crains que la « guerre culturelle » devienne une « guerre civile et civilisationnelle. » Et nous, les croyants, nous nous trouverons au milieu de deux forces du mal en essayant d’identifier le moindre de mal. Mais, souvenons-nous, le moindre mal est quand même un mal. Nous prions donc pour le retour de Jésus et de l’Imam Mahdi, sans lesquels, il n’y a point d’espoir pour l’humanité et la planète qui nous donne la vie.

RENEWING THE COVENANT: THE ACHTINAME OF MUHAMMAD

RENEWING THE COVENANT: THE ACHTINAME OF MUHAMMAD

 

 

SHAFAQNA – The following key-note address was delivered by Dr. John Andrew Morrow on Sunday, February 5, 2017, at Baab ul-Ilm Mosque and Community Center in Leeds, United Kingdom, as part of a program titled “Renewing the Covenant,” organized on the occasion of Visit My Mosque Day.

 The event featured recitation of the Qur’an by Maulana Noorul Hasan, a welcome by Chairman Rasool Bhamani, the 40ththeatrical performance of The Achtiname of Muhammad by the Ridhayatullah Theatre Group, an acclaimed play based on Dr. John Andrew Morrow’s best-selling book, The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World, which was adapted for the stage by Ali Panju.

The complementary showing of the theatrical performance was followed by a keynote address by Sheikh Arif Abdul Hussain, the founder and director of the Al Mahdi Institute in Birmingham, who focused on the universality at the heart of the spiritual traditions of the world, as well as a keynote address by Dr. John Andrew Morrow.

 Dr. John Andrew Morrow completed his PhD at the University of Toronto where he acquired expertise in Hispanic, Native, and Islamic Studies. He pursued post-graduate and studies in Arabic and has completed traditional Islamic seminary studies at the hands of a series of Sunni, Shii, and Sufi scholars.

 Dr. Morrow has spent over a decade and a half in the United States working at various universities, achieving his Professorship at Ivy Tech. He is also the Director of the Covenants Foundation, an organization dedicated to promoting Islamic unity, protecting persecuted Christians, and improving relations between Muslims and members of other faiths. The transcript of his speech is as follows:  

” A‘udhu billahi min al-Shaytan al-rajim. Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim. Alhamdulillahi rabb al-‘alamin. Wa salatu wa salam ‘ala  ashraf al-mursalin, Muhammad al-Amin, sayyidina wa habibina wa nabiyyina, wa ‘ala alihi, al-tayyibin wa al-tahirin, ila yawm al-din.

I take refuge in Allah from Satan, the Rejected. In the Name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. May peace and blessings be upon the best of the messengers of Allah, Muhammad, the Truthful and the Trustworthy, our master, our beloved, and our prophet, and upon his family, the good, the pure, until the Day of Judgment.

I send you greetings of peace: al-salamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu and the warmest of welcomes: ahlan wa sahlan.

I would like to thank the Ridhayatullah Theatre Group for producing a precious play based on my book, The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World, a work that has been referenced in approximately 500 articles, reviews, and interviews, over the past three years, and which has inspired an international Muslim movement, the Covenants Initiative, which is committed to protecting the People of the Book, Shiites, Sufis, traditional Sunnis, and anyone else who is persecuted by Takfiri terrorists at home and abroad.

The Covenants Initiative, which calls upon Muslims to abide by the treaties that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, concluded with the People of the Book — Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians — has been signed by hundreds of leading Muslim scholars, academics, and activists, as well as many mosques, associations, and international organizations.

The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World inspired the Genocide Initiative which played an important part in the passing of the Fortenberry in the US House of Representatives; a resolution that charges ISIS with genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World helped inspire the Marrakesh Declaration on the rights of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim-majority states.

The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World helped inspire the creation of an information center, at the heart of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which is devoted to counter-radicalization.

The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World has been warmly received by Pope Francis, Patriarch Theophilos the Third, Patriarch Bartholomew, and the Holy Council of Fathers from St. Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai.

The book in question is being provided, free of cost, to the Muslim 500; namely, to the 500 most influential Muslims in the world.

The book in question has been translated into Spanish and is slowly making its way into the hands of Roman Catholic clergy in the Hispanic world.

The book in question has been translated into Italian and is slowly making its way into the hands of Roman Catholic clergy in Italy.

The book in question has been translated into Arabic and will be provided to the 500 most influential Arabic-speaking scholars in the Muslim world. Insha’ Allah, God-willing, all of the Grand Muftis of the Sunnis will receive copies as will all of the Grand Ayatullahs of the Shiites.

I am pleased to announce that the Six Covenants of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, will soon be published in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Dutch, Russian, Turkish, Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Tamil, and Bahasa Indonesian by Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Consequently, the Muhammadan Covenants will soon find their way into libraries around the world in the major languages of the world where they will be available, for generations to come, to students and scholars alike.

I am also pleased to announce that Islam and the People of the Book: Critical Studies on the Covenants of the Prophet will, insha’ Allah, God-willing, be published later this year in the UK. The work features over thirty studies on the treaties of the Messenger of Allah, may God shower him with countless blessings and grant us his intercession, authored by an international team of leading Muslim scholars. This is a two-volume reference work that is over one thousand pages long. May it serve as a source of guidance. Amen. Ilahi amin ya rabb al-‘alamin.

The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World has inspired a museum exhibit titled “Muslims, Christians, and Jews: An Exhibit of Covenants and Coexistence” organized by the International Museum of Muslim Cultures, based in Jackson, Mississippi. Insha’ Allah, God-willing, this half a million-dollar exhibit will tour from museum to museum throughout the United States and abroad.

Last but not least, the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World has also inspired a play, The Achtiname of Muhammad, which has received rave reviews, and which revives a long and rich tradition of Islamic theatre.

Believe it or not, the Western world used to turn to us, Muslims, for art, culture, literature, and science. Now, by and large, Muslims merely turn to Hollywood or Bollywood in search of entertainment. Let’s stop being imitators and start being creators and innovators. Let’s be leaders and not followers. Young Muslims! We are counting on you. Rise to the occasion. The Ummah of Muhammad needs you. You are the foundations of a New Future.

I have viewed segments of this performance on several occasions and have been both pleased and humbled. The script, the directing, the staging, the set, the music, the lighting, and the acting, are all, in my expert opinion as a literary and theatrical critic, admirable.

Let’s send a loud salawat to everyone involved in this inspiring project. Salawat ‘ala Muhammad wa ali Muhammad. May peace and blessings be upon the Prophet and his Family.

So alhamdulillah wa shukralillah, praise be to God and thanks be to God, that the Covenant of the Prophet, the Achtiname of Muhammad, is being revived during these dark days of Daesh, Boko Haram, al-Shabab, and similar psychopaths and alhamdulillah wa shukralillah, praise and thanks be to God, that the Covenant of the Prophet is being resurrected during these dark days of Donald Trump and other right-wing racists and fascists who have suddenly been rebranded as nationalists.

We live in a world of extremes and a period of profound polarization. On the one hand, we have ultra-liberal, anti-religious, globalist, modernist, secularists. On the other hand, we have radical, religious fundamentalists, nationalists, and extremists.

The political pendulum has certainly swung. The proponents of liberalism, globalization and demoralization are facing defeat and are in full retreat. The proponents of conservatism, nationalism, populism, and reactionism are making aggressive inroads.

Although many Muslims view Western politics as a choice between evils, they are as foolish to put their faith in the left as they are to put their faith in the right. It is as foolhardy to side with amoral liberals as it is to side with immoral conservatives. As Muslims, we must always stand up for the primordial ethical principles that have been passed down by all the prophets and messengers of God.

Who would have thought that we, Muslims, partisans of the Prophet and proponents of true, traditional, civilizational Islam, would find themselves as the voice of moderation amid two extremes that threaten both people and the planet that provides for them.

As disheartening as social, political, and economic developments may be, it is heartening to know that young, committed, Muslims, continue to spread beauty despite the ugliness that surrounds us.

Although the Muslim world soared to unprecedented heights from the 7th century to the early 20th century, the collapse of Islam as a political power has been devastating, pushing some people to place faith in Political Islam, Islamism, and Jihadism, with the vain aim of reconstituting the Caliphate.

As we have seen in Somalia, Nigeria, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and beyond, their naïve dream has become a nightmare. Although Muslims can, and must, strive to create societies that are rooted and guided by the principles of the Prophet, Islam is not limited to politics. Islam is built from the bottom up: not top down. As we read in the Holy Qur’an: “Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in their hearts” (13:11).

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, did indeed create an Islamic State, a Muslim State or to be precise, an Ummah or Confederation; however, it was not the first thing that he did. The Messenger of Allah, ‘alayhi salawatu wa salam, blessings and peace be upon him, prepared the foundations of that future state by creating a civil society.

After the triumph of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, Imam Khomeini was approached by Islamists who asked him to assume the title of Caliph and to describe his system, not as an Islamic Republic, but as a Caliphate. He refused point blank. And the Sunni Islamists withdrew their support.

Imam Khomeini had no delusions. He knew full well that the only people who were authorized to reinstitute the Caliphate or Imamate and the only people who were authorized to create the Government of God on Earth were the Prophet Jesus and Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi, may Almighty Allah hasten their reappearance.

Ya mawlana ya Sahib al-zaman

Al-ghawtha, al-ghawtha, al-ghawtha,

Adrikni, adrikni, adrikni

Al-sa‘ata, al-sa‘ata, al-sa‘ata

Al-‘ajal, al-‘ajal, al-‘ajal 

O our Master, O Master of the Time!

Help! Help!

Rescue me! Rescue me! Rescue me!

This moment! This moment! This moment!

Hasten, hasten, hasten!

Although the Muslim world was once a star-studded sky, it is only a fragment of what it once was. Fortunately, there are a few twinkling stars that remain, and one of those is the production of this play, The Achtiname of Muhammad.

For many of us, both scholars and laypeople, the Covenant of the Prophet came as a surprise, and a welcome one at that. Time and again, people ask: “Why have I never heard of this before?” Even ‘ulama’, Muslim scholars who studied for thirty years in the hawzah ‘ilmiyyah or Islamic Seminary ask this very same question. The answer is simple: neglect. It is simply not part of the curriculum that is focused, overwhelmingly, on fiqh, jurisprudence, or personal applications of religious practices as opposed to administration of society.

The Prophet Muhammad, sallalahu ‘alayhi wa alihi wa sallam, may peace and blessings be upon him and his Family, had an ambitious plan and an enlightened project for this Ummah. He wrote a constitution, the Covenant of Madinah, the first of its kind in the history of humanity: a veritable milestone. He established clear rules of governance that form the foundation of Islamic law and jurisprudence. He formulated domestic and foreign policies in the Covenants of Protection that he provided to Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and other communities. These are full-fledged Charters of Rights and Freedoms.

The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, prepared to shoot a socio-economic and political rocket into the future. Unfortunately, at the very moment he launched it, a power-hungry party pushed the projectile off-course. Although the rule of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman was relatively close to that of the Prophet in terms of the manner in which they treated non-Muslims, it swerved, ever so slightly, from his sublime Sunnah. When Imam ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, assumed his rightful role as Caliph, he made every attempt to correct the course of the rocket: however, as he himself admitted, the damage that was done by the previous rulers was permanent and the common people were not prepared to be straightened.

As the distance between the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and the projectile increased, so did the divergence in its direction. Over time, the rocket moved more and more off course. At times, there were relatively righteous rulers, who tried to steer the projectile toward its ultimate target and goal. The Ottomans, for example, placed the Covenants of the Prophet at the heart of their legal system.

Ultimately, however, the Young Turks, who were ultra-nationalist secularists at the service of the Western world, decided to destroy the missile, decisively destroying the Ottoman Empire in the process and effectively ending the political power of Islam in the world. The consequences were cataclysmic. We have not ceased to suffer since.

As Sunni scholars themselves admit, righteousness left the Ummah with the end of the rightly-guided Caliphs. Shiite scholars would also agree. After Imam ‘Ali, peace be upon him, the First Imam and the Fourth Caliph, we had a succession of kingdoms, dynasties, and empires, directed by kings, monarchs, and emperors.

Since there were no truly rightful political rulers after Imam ‘Ali, may Allah bless his radiant countenance, Shiite Muslim scholars focused on all the other subjects that are taught today in Islamic seminaries. Since Islam was not truly the law of the land, the treaties and covenants of the Prophet, ‘alayhi salawatu wa salam, blessings and peace be upon him, were sidelined as irrelevant to the time and inapplicable.

Where Shiites did hold power, in Persia for example, during the Safavid dynasty, we see several Shahs recognizing, renewing, and implementing the Covenants of the Prophet. Shah ‘Abbas the Great, the Fifth Safavid Shah, who died in 1629, officially renewed the Achtiname of Muhammad. So, don’t buy this baloney that the Covenant of the Prophet is a forgery and that it is not part of Muslim Tradition.

The Achtiname of Muhammad is cited in part or in whole in over 179 sources from the 7th century to the 21st century. It has been authenticated by thousands of Islamic legal authorities, mujtahidun and muftun, over the ages. It was also identified as genuine, re-issued, and renewed by the rightly-guided Caliphs, many of the Umayyads, ‘Abbassids, as well as all of the Fatimids, the Ayyubids, the Mamluks, most of the Safavid Shahs, and all of the Ottoman Sultans.

The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad was once common knowledge to most Muslims, most Christians, and most Jews. Ah, but the times they do a-change.

With the advent of Western colonialism and imperialism in Africa, North Africa, the Middle East, the Indian Subcontinent, and Southeast Asia, Muslims no longer ruled themselves.

As conquered people who were ruled by Europeans, the Covenants of the Prophet were of little consequence. What is more, these very imperialists destroyed the educational system in the Islamic world leading to unprecedented levels of illiteracy so much so that many Muslims lost touch with their own religious tradition.

When the imperialists were forced to leave, they left behind their lackeys: kings, sultans, despots, and military dictators who ruled in the only way they knew: the way that they had been ruled by European occupiers. The leaders of the Muslim world are the illegitimate offspring of colonial masters. The political, economic, social, and legal systems that we see in the Muslim world were all instituted by Western Europeans. That’s their legacy.

In the decades and centuries that passed, the Western world has evolved. The problem with the Muslim world is that much of it is stuck in the past: in a colonial past. Some of it has one foot in 7th century Jahiliyyah or Ignorance and another foot in 21st century Jahiliyyah or Ignorance. And yet some of it is more Westernized than the West.

“Why haven’t we heard of the Covenants of the Prophet before?” The answer is obvious: it is as plain a day. We have not heard of the Covenants of the Prophet because we have not ruled ourselves according to the method of the Prophet.

In some parts of the world, like the former Ottoman Empire, traditional Islamic rule only disappeared one hundred years ago. You have no idea how much damage was done. We are still picking up the pieces.

In other parts of the world, such as India, Muslims have not lived according to traditional Islamic rule for several centuries. No wonder there is so much ignorance when it comes to how we should rule ourselves and how we should treat the minorities in our midst.

The destruction of the traditional educational system in the Muslim world created a void: that void was filled by a new ideology: Salafism, Wahhabism, and Takfirism, spread by means of billions of Saudi petro-dollars.

We may not have billions and trillions at our disposal. But we have one thing that these enemies of God and humanity do not have: faith, truth, and constancy.

Wa al-asr

Inna al-insana lafi khusr

Ila al-ladhina amanu wa ‘amilu al-salihati

Wa tawasa bi al-haqq

Wa tawasa bi al-sabr 

By time,

Indeed, humankind is in loss

Except for those who have believed and done righteous deeds

And advised each other to truth and advised each other to patience. (103: 1-3)

Ya Rahman! Ya Rahim!

Bi haqqi Muhammad wa alihi al-tahirin! 

Salawat ‘ala al-nabi al-karim 

Wa salamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullah ajma‘in 

By the Most Compassionate! By the Most Merciful!

By the Truth of Muhammad and his Purified Progeny

May peace and blessings be upon the most noble Prophet

And may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon you all.

By Catherine Shakdam and Dr. John Andrew Morrow

SHARE 

Facebook

 

Twitter

 

 

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE COVENANTS OF THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD

BYE BYE BARACK, O PAI DO BEBÊ DE ISIS

https://www.blogger.com/static/v1/jsbin/3032875878-ieretrofit.js
weblog mylife: BYE BYE BARACK, O PAI DO BEBÊ DE ISIS.

sexta-feira, 20 de janeiro de 2017

BYE BYE BARACK, O PAI DO BEBÊ DE ISIS.

       

20.01.2017
Aviso de impedir o apocalipse atingiu-me em 2010, quando fui notificado de um envio maciço de armas para, de todos os lugares, a Síria. Eu sabia então que “Merda estava indo para baixo na Síria.” Em outras palavras, eu sabia muito bem que as armas, em rota para a Síria através da Jordânia, não estavam destinados ao governo daquela nação.
Na época, eu assumi que as armas estavam sendo enviados para alguns traidores no Exército sírio e que um  golpe de Estado  estava se formando. Dentro de um ano, a operação real foi aparentemente revelada: uma insurgência estrangeira armada, treinada e apoiada contra o governo sírio.
Despachados da Jordânia, exércitos estrangeiros começaram a entrar na Síria. Enquanto alguns desses terroristas eram retirados de gangues salafitas, eles eram, em grande parte, soldados profissionalmente treinados, muitos dos quais eram mercenários.
Pegando o governo sírio e o aparelho de segurança fora de guarda, estes combatentes terroristas estrangeiros começaram a cometer atrocidades que a mídia ocidental, a serviço do Império, foi atribuída intencionalmente ao governo Assad.
O espetáculo enjoativo envolveu ataques a sunitas que foram acusados de alauitas, ataques a alauitas que foram atribuídos aos sunitas e ataques a cristãos que foram atribuídos aos muçulmanos. O objetivo era incitar a violência étnica, sectária e religiosa para que todo o país fosse consumido.
Mercenários estrangeiros, muitos dos quais nem sequer eram de origem muçulmana, torturaram, estupraram, mutilaram e mataram civis inocentes, e orgulhosamente transmitiram seus crimes através do ciberespaço através de uma rede construída anteriormente.
Durante os primeiros dias do conflito, eu assisti muitos desses vídeos e examinei o suficiente dessas imagens que eu poderia estômago. Eles trouxeram vivos flashbacks de meus dias trabalhando com comitês de solidariedade centro-americanos.
Os esquadrões da morte na América Latina tratavam a tortura, a mutilação e o massacre como formas de arte. Eles competiram entre si e tentaram superar um ao outro.
Como os demônios que haviam operado em El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala e em outros lugares, os demônios desencadeados sobre a Síria também gostavam de criar obras-primas de sangue, sangue e tripas.
Para aqueles que não estão familiarizados com o mundo perverso de assassinos de aluguel e os homens-machado das elites mundiais, os esquadrões da morte, como os homens-azarados, sempre assinam suas obras de arte. Eu vi o cuidado e consideração que entrou na criação de vídeos e imagens espalhafatosas.
Os psicopatas estrangeiros que invadiram a Síria apresentariam antes e depois fotografias de suas vítimas; Jovens, lindas, cristãs, cheias de sorrisos e irradiando vida e esperança; Que iriam contrastar, lado a lado, com fotografias de seus restos mutilados, brutalizados e violados.
Nenhum muçulmano faria tal coisa. Na verdade, nenhum ser humano faria tal coisa. Esta foi a obra de Satanás e Satanás sempre assina sua obra.
Sabia então, como sei agora, que os chamados “combatentes da liberdade”, que faziam uma “guerra de libertação” contra um “tirano opressivo que mata o seu próprio povo”, na realidade não passavam de assassinos em massa, criminosos e Armas de aluguel.
O conflito na Síria foi criado e orquestrado por agências de inteligência estrangeiras. A política era de “caos controlado”. Manter o mundo muçulmano fervendo a fogo baixo. Neutralizar potências regionais que poderiam representar uma ameaça aos interesses estrangeiros. Como Prof. Dr. Vladimir Prav explica em ” ” caos controlado “como uma ferramenta de luta geopolítica :”
De acordo com a “teoria”, o desmantelamento dos estados-nação já existentes, culturas tradicionais e civilizações pode ser conseguido por:
Desideologização da população;
* Dumping o “lastro” dos valores já existentes, e substituí-los com o seu próprio conjunto;
* Aumento das expectativas materiais, especialmente entre a elite;
* Perda de controle sobre a economia e sua destruição final;
* Ações ilegais por movimentos supostamente espontâneos que muitas vezes têm caráter étnico ou religioso.
Uma vez implementadas, essas políticas-chave levam a “revoluções de cores”.
” Teoria do caos controlado” é baseado na reforma da consciência de massa, visões de mundo, e a esfera espiritual, submetendo os indivíduos a meios modernos de manipulação. Trata-se de uma operação psicológica global que faz parte da globalização e que destrói a cultura da solidariedade e a substitui por um culto monetário e por estereótipos social-darwinistas sobre o papel do indivíduo na sociedade. A capacidade das massas para oferecer resistência através da auto-organização é assim diminuída.
Dado os efeitos de tais tecnologias, os atores do “caos controlado” perseguem dois objetivos:
Reduzir o tamanho da população eliminando aqueles que não são de uso para os arquitetos da nova ordem mundial. As reformas neoliberais provocam uma catástrofe demográfica, reduzindo as taxas de natalidade e aumentando as taxas de mortalidade. A revolução sexual, a propaganda do hedonismo, o individualismo e o consumismo reduzem as taxas de natalidade. O social-darwinismo ea indiferença ao sofrimento de pessoas próximas privam as pessoas de sua vontade de viver e aumentar as taxas de mortalidade. O grande número de pobres e desabrigados equivale a um mecanismo de eutanásia de facto, uma vez que as pessoas nestas categorias morrem rapidamente. Embora mais pessoas sejam derrubadas para substituí-las.
O objetivo de destruir uma nação afirma que a imposição de controle sobre elas é interceptada por corporações transnacionais, sindicatos de crime, organizações e instituições supranacionais, que respondem àqueles que empregam tecnologias de caos controladas. Esta tarefa combina “poder suave” com agressão militar bárbara (Iugoslávia, Iraque e Líbia). Esse processo facilita o controle dos agressores sobre os recursos financeiros, militares e de informação globais.
O objetivo das “guerras civis” artificiais na Líbia, na Síria e no Iraque era degradar a infra-estrutura e o potencial dos países da zona através da destruição em grande escala. Tal devastação facilita o roubo em grande escala de riqueza e recursos naturais, eliminando o maior número possível de vidas humanas.
Ao contrário dos ideólogos da Revolução Industrial, que precisava de uma grande piscina de trabalho para explorar, os ideólogos do 20 th e 21 st século têm um “excedente inútil” de vidas humanas no planeta. Como tal, eles estão determinados a exterminar o maior número possível deles para garantir que eles não representam qualquer inconveniente para a elite economicamente poderosa que tratam o genocídio como simplesmente um outro instrumento de sua caixa de ferramentas.
Ao invés de buscar a reconciliação entre os principais players de poder para o benefício da humanidade, as elites globais decidiram relançar uma nova Guerra Fria ou conflito mundial, envolvendo-se em guerras por procuração, não se importando que o preço custasse centenas de milhares de seres humanos vidas.
O mundo ocidental vem se engajando em um discurso duplo desde o primeiro dia. Tanto é auto-evidente para qualquer cidadão cínico doente de ser alimentado mentiras como porcos são alimentados slop. Mentiras levam a mais mentiras e logo um é tangled em uma teia de mentiras como um nó gordiano. Logo, não se pode livrar da falsidade.
Os meios de comunicação controlados pela empresa afirmam que a oposição síria consiste em “moderados”. Simplesmente porque a Al-Qaeda e Osama Ben Laden são menos extremistas dos extremistas em comparação com ISIS e Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi não os torna moderados. Não existe tal coisa como um terrorista “moderado”. O terrorismo, por definição, é o extremismo.
Quando o apoio financeiro para o ISIS aumentou, eles encheram suas fileiras com FSA e terroristas al-Nusra. Se ISIS cair fora de favor, como parece estar acontecendo, seus lutadores simplesmente irão juntar outras forças. Caso contrário, eles vão procurar oportunidades em outros países. Para mercenários, é tudo jogar por salário.
E enquanto o mundo inteiro está de braços abertos sobre o ISIS, a atitude da administração americana tem sido indiferente. Em 27 de janeiro de 2014, o presidente Obama comparou o exército terrorista a uma “equipe de JV”. Eles claramente não eram.
Em 7 de agosto de 2014, o presidente Obama afirmou com confiança que “Nós não vamos deixá-los criar algum califado através da Síria e do Iraque” e ainda assim ele fez exatamente isso.
Em 3 de setembro de 2014, o Líder do Mundo “Livre”, afirmou que ISIS era “problema gerenciável”. Mas claramente não era.
Em 10 de setembro de 2014, o líder americano prometeu degradar e destruir o ISIS. Ele não fez nada disso.
Em 17 de dezembro de 2015, ele tranquilizou os americanos afirmando que não havia “informações específicas e confiáveis sobre um ataque à nossa pátria”. E, no entanto, fomos atacados, mais e mais.
E enquanto o governo dos EUA pode alegar que eles estão liderando uma coalizão contra o ISIS, seus ataques contra o ISIS foram mornos e muitas vezes mal direcionados.
De fato, os pilotos norte-americanos se queixaram em 28 de maio de 2015, de que suas “mãos estavam amarradas” em uma luta “frustrante” contra o ISIS. Enquanto os soldados dos EUA estavam dispostos, ansiosos e ansiosos para lutar ISIS, eles foram ordenados a ficar para baixo.
Se quisermos acreditar em relatos do Iraque e do Irã, as forças armadas americanas bombardearam as milícias iraquianas e iranianas, impedindo-as de combater o ISIS e protegendo os comboios do ISIS fornecendo-lhes cobertura aérea.
A libertação de Mosul era apenas um golpe de publicidade destinado a provar que Hillary Clinton e os democratas eram duros contra os terroristas. A operação foi anunciada meses antes do tempo permitindo que os líderes ISIS escapar.
Se os analistas de inteligência estimassem que havia 100.000 terroristas ISIS espalhados pela Síria e pelo Iraque, apenas 5.000 permaneceram em Mosul quando o exército iraquiano, apoiado pela capa aérea dos EUA, atacou. Para onde foram os outros? Eles foram dados a passagem segura para a Síria onde eles deveriam ser usados para derrubar Assad.
Até o dia 26 de outubro de 2016, apenas dois meses até o fim de sua presidência, a secretária de Defesa de Obama, Ash Carter, afirmou que uma ofensiva para retomar o al-Raqqah do ISIS começaria dentro de semanas. Absolutamente nada foi feito e as bandeiras do ISIS continuam a voar sobre a capital do seu Reino das Trevas.
Se muitos americanos achassem que a “guerra contra o ISIS” do presidente Obama era desconfiada, eles tinham motivos para fazê-lo. O ISIS foi concebido sob a sua presidência. ISIS expandiu sob sua presidência. Ele descartou o perigo que Daesh colocou e, quando finalmente forçado a enfrentar o monstro que ele promoveu, ele fez promessas vazias para neutralizá-los, sem tomar medidas tangíveis para fazê-lo.
Em vez de lutar contra os terroristas que invadiram a Síria e o Iraque, o “Príncipe da Paz” teria fornecido mais de um bilhão de dólares em armas e, ao mesmo tempo, dar luz verde à Arábia Saudita, ao Catar e à Turquia Gastando somas astronômicas para apoiá-los.
De fato, em seu discurso de despedida, o presidente cessante dirigiu-se aos americanos, alegando falsamente que “nenhuma organização terrorista estrangeira planejou e executou com êxito um ataque à nossa pátria nos últimos oito anos”. Em que planeta ele vive?
O Presidente afirmou que “levamos dezenas de milhares de terroristas – incluindo Bin Laden. A coalizão global que estamos liderando contra a ISIL tirou seus líderes e tirou cerca de metade de seu território. O ISIL será destruído, e ninguém que ameace a América jamais estará seguro. “
Se o presidente estivesse tão decidido a aniquilar o ISIS, ele teria oito anos para fazê-lo. Os russos, que falam da conversa e andam a pé, realizaram mais em algumas semanas de campanhas contra o ISIS do que os americanos fizeram em quase uma década de retórica vazia e de uma ação meio ass.
Barack Hussein Obama pediu aos americanos para “ser vigilante, mas não com medo. O ISIL tentará matar pessoas inocentes. Mas eles não podem derrotar a América a menos que trahamos nossa Constituição e nossos princípios na luta. “Em outras palavras, ISIS e seus semelhantes estão aqui para ficar.
A completa e total falta de firmeza política de Barack Obama, suas políticas fracassadas, suas falsas promessas e sua obstinada recusa em agir contribuíram diretamente para a ascensão da extrema direita nos Estados Unidos e na Europa Ocidental.
Tão desprezível como muitos de seus pontos de vista podem ser, aparentemente, Donald Trump não foi enganado pela Casa Branca ou Casa das Mentiras Brancas nem foi enganado pela falsa notícia e propaganda produzida pelas elites globalistas que estavam determinadas a empurrar o conflito na Síria Não só em uma nova guerra fria, mas potencialmente em uma guerra quente final. Em qualquer caso, devemos esperar até que ele assume a presidência para ter uma idéia de quais serão suas políticas em relação à Rússia.
Desde o momento em que assumiu o cargo, Barack Hussein Obama estava obcecado por uma coisa: o seu legado. Como ele seria visto pela história? No que se refere ao presidente em exercício, suas realizações incluem reverter a recessão, impulsionar a economia, abrir os laços com Cuba, fechar o programa de armas nucleares do Irã, tirar Osama, legalizar o casamento gay, cuidar da saúde, combater o terrorismo e acabar com a tortura , Trabalhando para fechar o Gitmo e reformando leis para proteger a privacidade e as liberdades civis. Ele até afirmou comicamente que as relações raciais melhoraram sob sua presidência.
Para colocar as coisas em perspectiva, a economia sob Obama foi estagnada, os laços com Cuba foram um cop-out, o plano de armas nucleares do Irã era inteiramente fictício, o assassinato de Osama foi teatro, a igualdade de casamento, que é visto socialmente destrutivo pelos judeus tradicionais, Cristãos e muçulmanos, e uma tentativa de minar os fundamentos éticos da sociedade, era apenas uma conspiração para reunir votos liberais, Obamacare era uma catástrofe financeira, a luta contra o terrorismo era ilusória e ineficaz, a tortura permanecia desenfreada nos estabelecimentos penitenciários, os prisioneiros potencialmente inocentes Permanecem em Gitmo, com exceção de terroristas certificados que foram liberados para se juntar a Daesh e al-Qaeda na Síria, Iraque e Iêmen, o estado de vigilância é mais forte do que nunca, e as tensões raciais estão em um ponto alto. Então, o que, Sr. Obama, é o seu verdadeiro legado? Seu legado é ISIS. E você é seu o bebê-daddy.
Se podemos agradecer a Barack Hussein Obama por criar as condições que produziram o ISIS e garantir que eles continuem vivos e bem depois que ele deixa o cargo, só podemos esperar que Donald Trump cumpra sua promessa e limpe-os da face da terra em parceria , Talvez, com a Rússia, Síria, Egito e Irã. Isto é, se os lunáticos neoconservadores, os supremacistas brancos renomeados como nacionalistas e os fascistas republicanos não ferrem as coisas. E Deus é o melhor dos conspiradores. Quanto ao Senhor das Trevas, tudo o que posso dizer é adeus e boa libertação.

BYE BYE BARACK, THE BABY DADDY OF ISIS

20.01.2017
An Exclusive Article Published by Katehon

Warning of impeding apocalypse reached me in 2010 when I was notified of a massive shipment of weapons to, of all places, Syria. I knew then that “Shit was going down in Syria.” In other words, I knew full well that the arms, in route for Syria via Jordan, were not destined for the government of that nation.

At the time, I assumed that the weapons were being sent to some traitors in the Syrian Army and that a coup d’état was brewing. Within a year, the real operation was apparently revealed: a foreign armed, trained, and supported insurgency against the Syrian government.

Dispatched from Jordan, foreign death-squads started to flow into Syria. While some of these terrorists were drawn from Salafi gangs, they were, in large part, professionally-trained soldiers, many of whom were mercenaries.

Catching the Syrian government and security apparatus off-guard, these foreign terrorist fighters commenced to commit atrocities which Western media, at the service of the Empire, intentionally misattributed to the Assad government.

The sickening spectacle involved attacks on Sunnis that were blamed on Alawites, attacks on Alawites that were blamed on Sunnis, and attacks on Christians that were blamed on Muslims. The objective was to incite ethnic, sectarian, and religious violence so that the entire country would be consumed.

Foreign mercenaries, many of whom were not even of Muslim background, tortured, raped, mutilated, and murdered innocent civilians, and proudly broadcasted their crimes via cyberspace through a previously constructed network.

During the early days of the conflict, I watched enough of these videos and examined enough of these images that I could stomach. They brought back vivid flashbacks of my days working with Central American solidarity committees.

The death-squads in Latin America treated torture, mutilation, and massacre as art forms. They competed with one another and attempted to outdo one another.

Like the devils that had operated in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and elsewhere, the demons unleashed upon Syria also relished in creating masterpieces of blood, gore, and guts.

For those who are not familiar with the wicked world of killers-for-hire and the hatchet-men of the world elites, death-squads, like hit-men, always sign their works of art. I saw the care and consideration that went into the creation of lurid videos and images.

The foreign psychopaths who invaded Syria would present before and after photographs of their victims; young, beautiful, Christian girls, full of smiles, and radiating life and hope; which they would contrast, side by side, with photographs of their mangled, brutalized, and violated remains.

No Muslim would do such a thing. In fact, no human being would do such thing. This was the work of Satan and Satan always signs his work.

I knew then, as I know now, that the so-called “freedom fighters” waging a “war of liberation” against an “oppressive tyrant who kills his own people” were, in reality, nothing more than mass murderers, criminals, and guns-for-hire.

The conflict in Syria was created and orchestrated by foreign intelligence agencies. The policy was one of “controlled chaos.” Keep the Muslim world simmering at a low-boil. Neutralize regional powers that could potentially pose a threat to foreign interests. As Prof. Dr. Vladimir Prav explains in “‘Controlled Chaos’ as a Tool of Geopolitical Struggle:”

According to the “theory,” dismantling of the already existing nation-states, traditional cultures, and civilizations can be accomplished by:

* De-ideologizing the population;

* Dumping the “ballast” of the already existing values, and replacing them with one’s own set;

* Increasing material expectations, especially among the elite;

* Loss of control over the economy and its ultimate destruction;

* Unlawful actions by supposedly spontaneous movements which often have ethnic or religious character.

Once implemented, these key policies lead to “color revolutions.”

Controlled chaos” theory is based on reforming the mass consciousness, worldviews, and the spiritual sphere by subjecting individuals to modern means of manipulation. It amounts to a global psychological operation that is part of globalization and which destroys the culture of solidarity and replaces it with a cult of money and of Social-Darwinist stereotypes concerning the role of an individual in society. The masses’ ability to offer resistance through self-organization is thus diminished.

Given the effects of such technologies, the “controlled chaos” actors are pursuing two objectives:

Reducing the size of the population by eliminating those who are not of use to the architects of the new world order. Neoliberal reforms bring about a demographic catastrophe by reducing birth rates and increasing death rates. The sexual revolution, propaganda of hedonism, individualism, and consumerism reduce birth rates. Social-Darwinism and indifference to the suffering of close ones deprive people of their will to live and increase death rates. The large number of poor and homeless people amounts to a de-facto euthanasia mechanism, as people in these categories die quickly. Though more people are pulled down to replace them.

The objective of destroying a nation states that imposing control over them is intercepted by transnational corporations, crime syndicates, supranational organizations and institutions, which answer to those who employ controlled chaos technologies. This task combines “soft power” with barbaric military aggression (Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya). This process facilitates the aggressors’ control over the global financial, military, and information resources.

The aim of the artificial “civil wars” in Libya, Syria, and Iraq was to degrade the infrastructure and potential of countries in the zone through wide-scale destruction. Such devastation facilitates the large-scale theft of wealth and natural resources while eliminating as many human lives as possible.

Unlike the ideologues of the Industrial Revolution, who needed a large labor pool to exploit, the ideologues of the 20th and 21st century have a “useless surplus” of human lives on the planet. As such, they are determined to exterminate as many of them as possible to ensure that they do not pose any inconvenience to the economically powerful elite who treat genocide as simply another instrument from their toolbox.

Rather than seek reconciliation between major power-players for the benefit of humanity, the global elites decided to re-ignite a new Cold War or world-wide conflict, engaging in proxy wars, caring not that the price would cost hundreds of thousands of human lives.

The Western world has been engaging in double discourse from day one. So much is self-evident to any cynical citizen sick of being fed lies like hogs are fed slop. Lies lead to more lies and soon one is tangled in a web of lies like a Gordian knot. Soon, one cannot extricate oneself from falsehood.

Corporate-controlled media claims that the Syrian opposition consists of “moderates.” Simply because al-Qaeda and Osama Ben Laden are less extreme of extremists in comparison to ISIS and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi does not make them moderates. There is no such thing as a “moderate” terrorist. Terrorism, by definition, is extremism.

When financial support for ISIS swelled, they filled their ranks with FSA and al-Nusra terrorists. If ISIS falls out of favor, as appears to be happening, their fighters will simply join other forces. Otherwise, they will seek out opportunities in other countries. For mercenaries, it is all play for pay.

And while the entire world is up in arms about ISIS, the attitude of the American administration has been nonchalant. In January 27, 2014, President Obama likened the terrorist army to a “J.V. Team.” They clearly were not.

On August 7, 2014, President Obama confidently claimed that “We’re not going to let them create some caliphate through Syria and Iraq” and yet he did exactly that.

On September 3, 2014, the Leader of the “Free” World, claimed that ISIS was “manageable problem.” But clearly it was not.

On September 10, 2014, the American leader promised to degrade and destroy ISIS. He did nothing of the sort.

On December 17, 2015, he reassured Americans stating that there was no “specific and credible information about an attack on our homeland.” And yet we were attacked, over, and over again.

And while the US Government may claim that they are leading a coalition against ISIS, their attacks against ISIS have been lukewarm and often misdirected.

In fact, US pilot fighters complained on May 28, 2015, that their “hands were tied” in a “frustrating” fight against ISIS. While US soldiers were willing, eager, and anxious to fight ISIS, they were commanded to stand down.

If we are to believe reports from Iraq and Iran, the American armed forces have been bombing back Iraqi and Iranian militias, preventing them from fighting ISIS, and protecting ISIS convoys by providing them with air cover.

The liberation of Mosul was merely a publicity stunt aimed at proving that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats were tough on terrorists. The operation was announced months ahead of time allowing ISIS leaders to escape.

If intelligence analysts estimated that there were 100,000 ISIS terrorists spread throughout Syria and Iraq, only 5,000 remained in Mosul when the Iraqi army, supported by US air cover, attacked. Where did the rest go? They were given safe passage to Syria where they were supposed to be used to topple Assad.

As late as October 26, 2016, a mere two months until the end of his presidency, Obama’s Defense Secretary, Ash Carter, asserted that an offensive to retake al-Raqqah from ISIS would begin within weeks. Absolutely nothing was done and the flags of ISIS continue to fly over the capital of their Kingdom of Darkness.

If many Americans found President Obama’s “war against ISIS” suspicious, they had reason to do so. ISIS was conceived under his presidency. ISIS expanded under his presidency. He dismissed the danger that Daesh posed and, when finally forced to face the monster he fostered, he made empty promises to neutralize them while taking no tangible steps to do so.

Rather than fight the terrorists who invaded Syria and Iraq, the “Prince of Peace” is reported to have provided them with over one billion dollars in weapons while, at the same time, giving Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey the green light to continue spending astronomical sums to support them.

In fact, in his farewell speech, the outgoing President addressed Americans, falsely claiming that “no foreign terrorist organization has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland these past eight years.” Really, now? What planet does he live on?

The President asserted that “We have taken out tens of thousands of terrorists – including bin Laden. The global coalition we’re leading against ISIL has taken out their leaders, and taken away about half their territory. ISIL will be destroyed, and no one who threatens America will ever be safe.”

If the President was so adamant about annihilating ISIS, he had eight years to do so. The Russians, who talk the talk and walk the walk, accomplished more in a few weeks of campaigns against ISIS than the Americans did in nearly a decade of empty rhetoric and half-ass action.

Barack Hussein Obama asked Americans to “be vigilant, but not afraid. ISIL will try to kill innocent people. But they cannot defeat America unless we betray our Constitution and our principles in the fight.” In other words, ISIS and their ilk are here to stay.

Barack Obama’s complete and total lack of political fortitude, his failed policies, his false promises, and his stubborn refusal to act have contributed directly to the rise of the extreme right in the United States and Western Europe.

As despicable as many of his views may be, apparently, Donald Trump was not duped by the White House or House of White Lies nor was he deceived by the fake news and propaganda produced by the globalist elites who were determined to push the conflict in Syria not only into a New Cold War but potentially into a Final Hot War. In any event, we must wait until he assumes the presidency to get a sense of what his policies will be regarding Russia.

From the moment that he assumed office, Barack Hussein Obama was obsessed with one thing: his legacy. How would he be viewed by history? As far as the departing President is concerned, his accomplishments include reversing a recession, boosting the economy, opening ties with Cuba, shutting down Iran’s nuclear weapons program, taking out Osama, legalizing gay marriage, providing health care, fighting against terrorism, ending torture, working to close Gitmo, and reforming laws to protect privacy and civil liberties. He even comically claimed that race relations improved under his presidency.

To put things into perspective, the economy under Obama was stagnant, ties with Cuba were a cop-out, Iran’s nuclear weapons plan was entirely fictitious, the assassination of Osama was theatre, marriage equality, which is viewed as socially destructive by traditional Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and an attempt to erode the ethical foundations of society, was merely a plot to gather liberal votes, Obamacare was a financial catastrophe, the fight against terrorism was illusory and ineffective, torture remains rampant in correctional facilities, potentially innocent prisoners remain in Gitmo, with the exception of certified terrorists who were released to join Daesh and al-Qaeda in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, the surveillance state is stronger than ever, and racial tensions are at an all-time high. So, what, Mr. Obama, is your real legacy? Your legacy is ISIS. And you are its the baby-daddy.

If we can thank Barack Hussein Obama for creating the conditions that produced ISIS, and ensuring that they remain alive and well after he leaves office, we can only hope that Donald Trump will fulfill his promise and wipe them off the face of the earth in partnership, perhaps, with Russia, Syria, Egypt, and Iran. That is if the neo-con lunatics, white supremacists rebranded as nationalists, and republican fascists do not fuck things up. And God is the best of plotters. As for the Lord of Darkness, all I can say is goodbye and good riddance.

Islam in the West: Past, Present, and Future

Islam in the West: Past, Present, and Future

SHAFAQNA – By Dr. John Andrew Morrow (al-Ustadh al-Duktur Ilyas Islam)

Delivered in Phoenix, Arizona, on Saturday, December 24th, 2016, at the 46st Annual Muslim Students Association – Persian-Speaking Group Conference.
In the Name of Allah, the Creator. Allah is One and Muhammad is His Messenger. Praise be to Allah, the Most Loving, and peace and blessings be upon His Prophet, Muhammad the son of ‘Abd Allah, the Truthful and the Trustworthy, and upon his Holy Household.

The topic for today is “Islam in the West: Past, Present, and Future.” It is long overdue. So, hallelujah, l’chaim, and takbir. If you have no past, you have no future. So, let me school you on the history of Islam and in the Western world.

Ten to twenty percent of African slaves brought to the Americas were Muslims. Islam, however, did not survive slavery. Long before this land became Anglo-Saxon, it belonged to France and Spain. Colonization coincides with the suppression of Islam in Spain and the forced conversion of the Moriscos. As the historical record indicates, many of these conversos or converts, the Muslims who were coerced into becoming Catholics, fled to the New World where, they preserved, for as long as they could, their Islamic identity.

The first large wave of Muslim immigrants to the Western world took place in the mid 1800s and early 1900s during the gradual collapse of the Ottoman Empire. They came by the tens of thousands, primarily from what is now Syria and Lebanon. They settled in South Dakota, and North Dakota, where one of the first mosques was built in Ross in 1929. Several other waves of Muslim immigrants and refugees were to follow in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80, 90s, and the during the new millennium. They came from Syria and Lebanon. They came from India and Pakistan. They came from Iran and Iraq. And they came from Afghanistan and other countries.

Most of these immigrants made major mistakes. The earliest Muslim immigrants were so eager to integrate that they ended up assimilating. Although some families survive, most of them disappeared without leaving a trace. They all became Christians. Others established mosques that catered to members of their racial, linguistic, ethnic or cultural background. In short, they only cared about themselves. They could not care less about the entire Muslim community or even the broader society. But there was one man who did care and who did make a major difference: and that man was W.D. Fard.

Known by over 40 different names, including Wallace Dodd Fard and Wallace Fard Muhammad, this mysterious man settled on the Pacific Westcoast during the first decade of the 20th century. A proud man, he never hid his identity: he openly and proudly professed that he was a Muslim. He lived in Oregon. He lived in California. He served time in prison. And he eventually made his way to Detroit, Michigan, in 1930, where he founded the Allah Temple of Islam, what some of you know as the Nation of Islam.

W.D. Fard was a Muslim. He was of Greco-Turkish origin. He was probably a Bektashi, an Alevi or an ‘Alawi. He appears to have been some sort of Ithna-‘Ashari with Ghulat or extremist tendencies. Detroit had a huge Lebanese Muslim community at the time. Go to Dearborn and see for yourself. It was also right next to a huge African American ghetto.

Unlike his co-religionists, who never once thought of crossing the proverbial tracks, to preach Islam to oppressed, marginalized, exploited, and segregated African Americans, W.D. Fard visited them, mixed with them, ate with them, lived among them, talked to them, taught them, educated them, guided them, and brought them into the Nation of Islam.

The Nation of Islam was not Islam as we understand it. It was a mixture of black nationalism, Christianity, Islam, and a long list of ingredients that W.D. Fard and Elijah Muhammad mixed and cooked in a pot like gumbo. So, while I am very critical of certain ideas and aspects of the Nation of Islam, I give credit where credit it due. W.D. Fard loved black people. He combined his Islam with all kinds of questionable elements; however, he believed that such teachings were necessary to build up a broken people.

Recommendation Number One

Reach out to Non-Muslims. Islam is not private property. Shiism does not belong to the Lebanese. It does not belong to Iraqis. And it certainly does not belong to Iranians. Islam is a world religion. It was sent to Allah to all people. We are all required to invite people to Islam in the best of ways possible based on our abilities. This is the Sunnah of the Prophet and the Sunnah of the Imams. They all dispatched missionaries to spread the teachings of true Islam. Appeal to all but pay special attention to the poor, the weak, and the oppressed; to the economically-disadvantaged, to African Americans, to Hispanics and to American Indians.

Recommendation Number Two

Adopt an open-mosque policy. Islam is a world religion; not a cult. Mosques need to be open to all Muslims. Show some Islamic etiquette. Show some good manners. Show some hospitality. Be friendly. Be welcoming. Greet your fellow Muslims. Make them feel at home. Consider it customer service. Mosques also need to be open to non-Muslims. Invite individuals who are curious about Islam into your mosques. Provide a row of seats at the back.

Recommendation Number Three

Adopt a women-friendly policy. As Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq, peace be upon him, said: “Love of women is the morality of the prophets” (Kulayni, Tusi, Majlisi, Tabarsi, and Amili). He also said: “A persons’ faith does not increase unless his love for women also increases” (Kulayni and Qummi). Treat women with respect and reverence. Toss your cultural misogyny and sexism into the trash bin of history. The teachings of Islam are transmitted by women. If you want your children to lose their Islam, keep your women illiterate and ignorant. Women must always be welcome into mosques. The women’s section needs to be the same as the men’s section. Split the mosque down the middle. Do not exclude women from the mosque. And do not stuff them in a dirty closet. And for God’s sake, treat them with dignity. No more of this “Women’s section is over there!” How about: al-salaamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. How are you my dear sister? How may I be of service?

Recommendation Number Four

Adopt a representative, diverse, and equitable leadership policy. Mosques are not private property. They are not dynasties. Nepotism is prohibited in Islam. Leaders need to be elected. They need to be the best of the community and the best of the community can and should include women. Not only do I want to see women leading boards or sitting as board members, I want to see diversity: African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Caucasian Americans. Enough with monolithic mosques. Rely on Western scholars of Islam. Employ them in leadership positions.

Recommendation Number Five

Adopt an English language policy. Speak to the people in the language of the people. The language of the people is the language of the land. It will be the first language of your progeny. That is not to say that you cannot have programs in Arabic, Persian, Urdu or other languages. It does mean, however, that your main programs must all be in English or, at the very least, bilingual. As Almighty Allah says in al-Qur’an al-Karim:

We have not sent any Messenger except with the language of his people so he can make things clear to them. Allah misguides anyone He wills and guides anyone He wills. He is the Almighty, the All-Wise. (Qur’an 14:4)

The Prophet and the Imams spoke Arabic you will tell me. Yeah right. The Prophet spoke Arabic. The Prophet also spoke Persian. In fact, the Prophet, and the Imams, spoke every imaginable human language. The Prophet and the Imams trained missionaries. They sent their companions all around the world to spread the teachings of Islam. When they spoke to Arabs, they spoke in Arabic. When they spoke to Jews, they spoke in Hebrew. When they spoke to Christians, they spoke in Aramaic, Greek or Latin. When they spoke to the Persians, they spoke in Persian. When they spoke to the Berbers in North Africa, they spoke in Tamazight. Show us the same courtesy that the Prophet and the Imams showed to others.

Recommendation Number Six

Engage in interfaith and intrafaith work. Dialogue with Jews, Christians, Sunnis, and Sufis. Build bridges between believers. This is the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah enshrined in the Covenants of the Prophet.

Recommendation Number Seven

Make the mosque appealing to children, youth, and young adults. Make Islam fun and engaging. Give them good memories. Create a positive and progressive image of religion. It is called branding. Cater to the needs of the youth. Give them a voice. Give them the opportunity to organize. Give them the opportunity to lead. Prepare them to be our future leaders. Pave the way for them.

Recommendation Number Eight

Distinguish between your culture and your religion. Keep everything that is positive from your culture of origin and adopt everything that is positive from Western culture.

Recommendation Number Nine

Learn from the experience of others. Compared to the Sunni community, which has been solidly organized for a century, the Shiite community is much younger. It still struggles with issues that were resolved decades ago by the Sunni community. Abandon the idea of replicating your religious practices as they existed in your countries of origin. Unless you adapt and evolve you are going to go extinct. Your faith will fizzle out like a wet firecracker.

Recommendation Number Ten

Stop ignoring social issues. Stop pretending that they do not exist. Get rid of this “Holier than thou” attitude. Sunni Muslims openly speak about domestic violence, sexual abuse, alcohol abuse, mental illness, fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. Most Shiites refuse to deal with reality. Muslims are not superior to non-Muslims in any of these areas. These issues are just as prevalent in the Muslim community as they are in the non-Muslim community. In some cases, they are even higher.

In the US, the domestic violence rate against women is approximately 20% (Tjaden). Although some Muslim-majority countries have comparable rates, some are higher. In Syria, for example, 25% of married women have been beaten by their husbands (Zoepf). In a study conducted by the Turkish government, 40% of women report having been the victims of domestic violence (Jansen, Uner, Kardam et al.). In some parts of Egypt, 50% of women are battered by their husbands (Kharboush et al.). In Afghanistan, 85% of women report that they have experienced domestic violence in the past while 60% state that they suffer from serial violence on the part of their spouses (Human Rights Watch). While limited in scope, a study conducted by the World Health Organization found that 15% of women from the Iranian city of Babol were physically abused by their husbands,
42.5 were sexually abused, and 81.5% were psychologically abused within the past year (Faramarzi). These statistics are in line with those from the Iranian government. In fact, a study conducted by the Ministry of Higher Education and the Interior Ministry, reveals that 66% of Iranian women suffered some sort of domestic violence during the first year of their marriage. As for Pakistan, the rate of domestic abuse ranges from 50 to 95% (Tribune, Niaz, Ministry of Women’s Development, Price, Ansar Burney Trust, Amnesty International, United Nations, Ireland, Ali and Bustamante-Gavino, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, IRIN, etc.).

Illicit drug use in the US is approximately 10% (National Institute on Drug Abuse; National Institutes for Health). In some Muslim-majority countries, it is close to 15%. In fact, according to an article on the “Most Drug Addicted Countries in the World,” 14.32% of Iranians inhale or inject heroin. More conservative estimates place the rate of opiate addiction in Iran at 8% of the general population (Narconon). If we use this lower number, Afghans rank number one in opiate addiction in the world: the Iranians come in third place, the Azeris come in fourth, the Pakistanis come in seventh, and the Malays come in eighth (Griffiths).

Although the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the Shariah condemn the consumption and abuse of alcoholic beverages, many Muslims imbibe such forbidden liquids. The World Health Organization reports that Tunisians, Chadians, and Emiratis consume twice as much alcohol as Germans (Mamoun). Ironically, the average Iranian consumes more alcohol than the average Russian (24.8 liters versus 22.3 liters per year) (Mamoun). As Abdelhak Mamoun reports,

As for Arab countries, according to the latest report from the World Health Organization, the ranking comes as follows: Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates come first among Arab countries in the rates of their consumption of alcohol. Sudan comes third at a rate of 24.1 liters, Lebanon comes forth at a rate of 23.9 liters and then followed by fifth, Qatar, at a rate of 22.7 liters. Bahrain is ranked sixth at a rate of 21.2 liters and Morocco is ranked seventh at a rate of 17.10, eighth is Syria at a rate of 16.3 liters, ninth is Oman at a rate of 15.5 liters, tenth is Jordan at a rate of 15.2 liters, eleventh is Algeria at a rate of 10.9 liters, and 12th is Iraq at a rate of 9.1 liters.

As much as Muslims may condemn “the decadent West,” the abortion rate in the US is comparable to that of many Muslim-majority countries. The abortion rate in the United States is 20.8 per thousand live births (UN Data). In Indonesia, it is 26 per thousand (Sundawa; Hundley) while in Kazakhstan, it is 35 per thousand (UN Data). These two Muslims countries happen to have some of the highest rates of abortion in the world.

In the US, the rate of sexual harassment is 30 to 40%. Most studies speak of 1 in 4 or 1 in 3 American women being subject to unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks. In some Muslim-majority countries, it is much higher. In Tunisia, for example, 53.5 percent of women report being victims of psychological and physical violence, namely, being harassed by men, stalked, verbally insulted, and sexually harassed (Stop Street Harassment). As for Afghanistan, research conducted by Women and Children Legal Research Foundation reveals that 93% of women are harassed in public, 87% in workplaces, and 89% in educational institutions (Stop Street Harassment). Of all Muslim-majority countries, one has the worst reputation of all: Egypt, where over 99% of women are victims of sexual harassment (El Deeb; Tse; The Economist; Amin). And while some Muslims might argue that only “immoral” women are harassed, 72.5% of victims surveyed were wearing hijab, and some were even in full niqab (Zuberi). Such sickening behavior is normative in many Muslim-majority nations in the Maghreb and the Middle East.

Let us forget about adults for a moment and deal with Muslim youth here in the West. 51% of Muslim college students smoke tobacco (Ahmed et al., Family & Youth Institute). And I am not just talking about guys. 58.5% of male Muslim college students smoke; however, 33% of female Muslim college students smoke (Ahmed et al., Family & Youth Institute). But that is not a very big deal. It gets more serious when it comes to drinking and drugs. 49% of Muslim college students consume alcohol (Ahmed et al., Family & Youth Institute). 38% of Muslim college students use illicit drugs (Ahmed et al. Family & Youth Institute). 32% of Muslim college students smoke marijuana (Ahmed et al. Family & Youth Institute). If that does not offend Muslim sentiments, perhaps the statistics on sexual relations outside of marriage will.

54% of male Muslim college students fornicate (Ahmed et al. Family & Youth Institute). In many Muslim cultures that is encouraged. Go out, be a man: get some experience. And it is forgiven. Who do you think they are having sex with? Do you think they only sleep with non-Muslim girls? Well here is a hard-fact (no pun intended): 48% of female Muslim college students have sex out of marriage (Ahmed et al., Family & Youth Institute). And not just with Muslim guys. Many of them have sex with non-Muslims. And they get STDS. And they get pregnant. And they get aborted. But, of course, Muslim women are never forgiven. They are shunned. They are disowned.

“Oh, but the people you are talking about are bad Muslims; they are from bad families.” No, they are not: they come from all kinds of families. They come from liberal families. They come from conservative families. They come from irreligious families and they come from extremely religious families. Alcohol, drugs, fornication, and adultery impact Muslims from all walks of life. In fact, 67% of Canadian and American Muslims have had sex outside of marriage and of the remaining, 50% have considered it (FYI).

So, wake up, smell the coffee, and stop smoking opium. And I mean that literally. There are Qaris of the Qur’an who are addicted to heroin. There are hijab-wearing women who cheat on their husbands. There are “pious” Muslim men who beat their wives black and blue. And there are “religious” Muslim men, who regularly attend mosques, who sexually abuse children.

Stop living in la-la land. We are human beings. We are not infallible. If you think you are perfect and infallible, then I will offer you a free psychological assessment. We are all sinners: all of us. We cannot and must not shut sinners out of our community. What is a mosque but a place for repentant sinners? Why do we say astaghfirullah or “Forgive me Allah” all the time?

I am not going to throw a teenage girl out of a mosque because she does not wear hijab. I am going to embrace her with open arms. I am not going to turn away fornicators, adulterers, and people who struggle with substance abuse. But I am not going to leave them there either. I am not going to enable them. I will meet you were you are and help to build you up. That is the example of the Prophets and the Imams, peace and blessings be upon them all. Open your hearts and open your minds. As Almighty Allah says in the Glorious Qur’an:

O My slaves who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah, verily Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (39:53)

As the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

Indeed, before Allah created the creation, He decreed for Himself, ‘Indeed My Mercy prevails over My Anger. (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

Talk to your youth or let them talk to scholars who can relate to young people. Do not push them outside of Islam and outside of faith. As Almighty Allah said in the Holy Qur’an:

And never give up hope of Allah’s Mercy. Certainly, no one despairs of Allah’s Mercy, except the people who disbelieve. (12:87)

Recommendation Number Eleven: Be actively engaged at all levels of society. Embody the ethics and ideals of Islam. Serve the community, not just the Muslim community, not just the Shiite community, not just your sub-section of the Shiite community, serve the entire community. The Prophet was the Qur’an walking; he was no just the Qur’an talking. Had he just been the Qur’an talking, he would never have succeeded. He succeeded because he practiced what he preached. He lived Islam fully in all its dimensions. And it was the same for the Imams: they were an outpouring of good; loving, caring, kind, and compassionate. Love Allah by loving others; by loving your equals in creation; and by loving, caring, and protecting Creation; this planet, Our Mother.

If you want to build a strong community that maintains its Islamic identity, integrates well with the broader society, and can become a force for good, you will never succeed without the help, guidance, assistance, and wisdom of Western scholars of Islam. Use us before you lose us. You ignore and marginalize us to your own detriment. We need to work together: Eastern Muslims and Western Muslims, Muslims by birth and Muslims by choice, women and men, sisters and brothers; the youth, the middle-aged, and the elders for the collective good of the Muslim community, Western civilization, and the whole wide world. As the Prophet Muhammad taught, “There is no shame in religion.” It is time to put ta‘aruf, politeness, formality, and social hypocrisy aside, and speak frankly, openly, and honestly about the problems that impact us all. Otherwise, we are condemned to perpetuate the cycle of sin, darkness, and despair. I call you out into the open. I call you all to the light. I call you to confession, repentance, and atonement. I invite you to treatment, therapy, and healing. I call you to physical, psychological, and spiritual health.

Works Cited

Ahmed, Sameera, Wahiba Abu-Ras, and Cynthia L. Arfken. “Prevalence of Risk Behaviors among U.S. Muslim College Students.” Journal of Muslim Mental Health 8.1 (2014). Internet:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jmmh/10381607.0008.101?rgn=main;view=fulltext

Ahmed, Sameera, Sadiq Patel, Hanan Hashem. State of American Muslim Youth: Research & Recommendations. ISPU & The FYI, 2015. Internet: http://www.ispu.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ISPU_FYI_Report_American_Muslim_Youth_Final-1.pdf

Ali, T.S., and I. Bustamante-Gavino. “Prevalence of and Reasons for Domestic Violence among Women from Low Socioeconomic Communities.” Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, Vol. 13, No. 6, 2007; pages 1417-1421. Internet: http://applications.emro.who.int/emhj/1306/13_6_2007_1417_1426.pdf

Amnesty International. “Pakistan: Violence against Women Media Briefing.” Amnesty International.

Ansar Burney Trust. “Women’s Rights: Our Struggle to Fight for the Rights of Women.” Ansar Burney Trust. Retrieved 2006-12-29.

Amin, Shahira. “Is Egypt Doing Enough to Counter Widespread Sexual Harassment?” US News (March 8, 2016). Internet: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-08/is-egypt-doing-enough-to-counter-widespread-sexual-harassment

Country Ranker. “Most Drug Addicted Countries in the World.” Country Ranker. Internet:

http://www.countryranker.com/most-drug-addicted-countries-in-the-world/

Deeb, Bouthaina El-. Study on Ways and Methods to Eliminate Sexual Harassment in Egypt. New York: UN Women, 2013. Internet: Internet: http://www.dgvn.de/fileadmin/user_upload/DOKUMENTE/English_Documents/Sexual-Harassment-Study-Egypt-Final-EN.pdf

Economist, The. “Sexual Harassment in Egypt: Slapping Back.” The Economist (Nov. 21, 2015). Internet: http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21678788-women-still-face-constant-harassment-more-being-done-about-it-slapping

Family & Youth Institute. “Infographics: Pre-Marital Sex Among Muslim Youth.” Family & Youth Institute. Internet: http://www.thefyi.org/fyi-infographics/

Faramarzi, M. et al. “Prevalence and Determinants of Intimate Partner Violence in Babol City, Islamic Republic of Iran.” Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal 11 Nos 5 & 6 (September 2005) (World Health Organization). Internet: http://www.emro.who.int/emhj-list/emhj-volume-11-2005/vol11-issue56.html

Griffith, Sarah. “Drug Map Reveals the Substances Your Country is Addicted to.” Daily Mail (Nov. 30, 2015). Internet: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3333877/Drug-map-reveals-substances-country-addicted-Scotland-hooked-cocaine-Iceland-smokes-cannabis-opiates-rife-US.html

Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. State of Human Rights in 1996. Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, 1996: 30.

Human Rights Watch. Afghanistan: Ending Child Marriage and Domestic Violence. Human Rights Watch, 2013. Internet: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/Afghanistan_brochure_0913_09032013.pdf

Hundley, Tom. “Islam’s Abortion Debate.” Boston Review (Nov. 6, 2014). Internet: http://bostonreview.net/world/tom-hundley-indonesia-abortion-islam

Ireland, Corydon. “Horror, by Custom.” Harvard Gazette (April 28, 2010). Internet: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/04/horror-by-custom/

IRIN. “Pakistan: Domestic Violence Endemic.” IRIN: A United Nations Reporting Service (2008). Internet: http://www.irinnews.org/report/77226/pakistan-domestic-violence-endemic-awareness-slowly-rising

Jansen, Uner, Kardam, et al. Domestic Violence against Women in Turkey Turkish Republic Prime Minister Directorate General Office, 2009. Internet: http://www.hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/eng/dokumanlar/2008-TDVAW_Main_Report.pdf

Kharboush, Ibrahim F., Farzaneh Roudi-Fahimi, Hanaa M. Ismail, Heba M. Mamdouh, Yasmine Y Muhammad, May M. Tawfik, Omnia G. El Sharkaway, and Hassan N. Sallam. “Spousal Violence in Egypt.” PSB (September 2010). Internet: http://www.prb.org/pdf10/spousalviolence-egypt.pdf

Mamoun, Abdelhak. “Iraq Ranks 12 in Alcohol Consumption Rates among Arab Countries.” Iraqi News (Dec. 24, 2015). Internet: http://www.iraqinews.com/arab-world-news/iraq-ranks-12-alcohol-consumption-rates-among-arab-countries/

Mashad, Seif El-. “The Moral Epidemic of Egypt: 99% of Women Are Sexually Harassed.” Egyptian Streets (March 5, 2015). Internet: http://egyptianstreets.com/2015/03/05/the-moral-epidemic-of-egypt-99-of-women-are-sexually-harassed/

McCoy, Terence. “Egypt’s Sexual Harassment Pandemic.” The Washington Post (June 18, 2014). Internet: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/18/egypts-sexual-harassment-pandemic-and-the-powerlessness-of-hashtags/?utm_term=.be6825e27b8a

Ministry of Women’s Development. Battered Housewives in Pakistan. Islamabad: Ministry of Women’s Development, 1987.

Narconon. “Iran Drug Addiction.” Narconon International. Internet: http://www.narconon.org/drug-information/iran-heroin-drug-addiction.html

National Institute on Drug Abuse. “Drug Facts: Nationwide Trends.” NIH (June 2015). Internet: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends

National Institutes for Health. “10 Percent of US Adults Have Drug Use Disorder at Some Point in Their Lives.” NIH (Wednesday, November 18, 2015). Internet: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/10-percent-us-adults-have-drug-use-disorder-some-point-their-lives

Niaz, U. “Women’s Mental Health in Pakistan.” World Psychiatry 3: 60–2. PMC 1414670. PMID 16633458. Internet: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1414670/

Price, Susanna. “Pakistan’s Rising Toll of Domestic Violence.” BBC News (August 24, 2001). Internet: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1507330.stm

Stop Street Harassment. “Statistics – The Prevalence of Street Harassment.” Stop Street Harassment. Internet: http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/resources/statistics/statistics-academic-studies/

Sundawa, Shela Putri. “Why Indonesia Should Legalize Abortion.” The Jakarta Post (August 24, 2014). Internet: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/08/24/why-indonesia-should-legalize-abortion.html

Tjaden, Patricia; Thoennes, Nancy (November 2000). Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women. National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice. Internet: https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/183781.txt

Tse, Jen. “Closets Full of Dreams: Inside Egypt’s Sexual-Harassment Crisis.” Time (August 4, 2015). Internet: http://time.com/3924951/egypt-sexual-harassment-womens-closets/

Tribune, The. “Four in Five Women in Pakistan Face Some Form of Domestic Abuse: Report The Tribune (Pakistan) (March 2, 2011). Internet: http://tribune.com.pk/story/125993/four-in-five-women-in-pakistan-face-some-form-of-domestic-abuse-report/

UN Data. Abortion Rate. Internet: http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=GenderStat&f=inID%3A12

United Nations. In-Depth Study on all Forms of Violence against Women. United Nations, General Assembly. 6 July 2006. Page 40. Retrieved 16 Nov. 2011. Internet: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/61/122/Add.1

World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Alcohol and Health (2014). WHO. Internet: http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/en/

Zoepf, Katherine. “U.N. Finds That 25% of Married Syrian Women Have Been Beaten.” New York Times (April 11, 2006). Internet: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/world/middleeast/11syria.html

Zuberi, Hena. “Sex & the Ummah | Sexual Harassment: A Muslim Problem?” Muslim Matters (April 25, 2011). Internet: http://muslimmatters.org/2011/04/25/sexual-harrassment-a-muslim-problem/

Brothers in Faith

Brothers in faith

December 30, 2016

This year when I exchanged Christmas and New Year greetings on Facebook, some fellow travelers were upset. “Sir, is it okay to greet Christians?” a bewildered Facebook ‘friend’ asked.

I chose to ignore him. But that was not the end of it. There were similar messages on many WhatsApp groups, warning the believers against “aping the West”. The crux of these messages was this – since Christians believe Jesus was the son of God, greeting them on Christmas would be celebrating his birth and thus accepting a calumny against God. I was taken aback by the convoluted logic.

Others questioned the exchange of New Year greetings, arguing it’s wrong to mark the beginning of the ‘Christian’ calendar and that only the commencement of the Islamic new year beginning with Muharram should be celebrated. Even if much of the world, including Muslims, for all practical purposes follows the Gregorian calendar!

But it was the argument against Christmas greetings that really got my goat. It was not only steeped in ignorance about Islam’s strong affinity with Jesus, but it also betrays tolerance – a vital part of our faith.

How many of us know that there are as many as 71 verses in the Quran praising Jesus? Muslims believe in and love Jesus, just as they believe in Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Joseph and all other prophets – in fact their belief is incomplete without the reaffirmation of all prophets who preceded the last Prophet.

Although unlike Christians, Muslims do not believe that Jesus (Isa in Arabic) was the son of God, they have a very special bond with him. According to Islamic belief, Jesus was born to Virgin Mary (Maryam) and will return to earth to clear it of all evil including Dajjal (antichrist) and restore justice before the end of the world.

Muslims believe in the virtue of Mary, an entire chapter in the Quran is devoted to her – the only chapter named after a female figure. The Quran also says that Jesus performed miracles such as giving sight to the blind and raising the dead. Moreover, since in the long line of Messengers, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was preceded by Jesus, the Prophet always had a special relationship with him, talking about him with great fondness.

In the early days of Islam, when the new faith and its followers faced great adversity in Arabia, the first country that the Prophet turned to for protection for his persecuted followers was Abyssinia, present day Ethiopia, ruled then by King Negus (615 CE).        He believed that as ‘people of the Book’ and fellow believers, the Abyssinians would help the Muslims. And they did do it by sheltering Muslims in the face of great odds. King Negus firmly stood with his guests, rejecting all entreaties by the Meccans to throw out the asylum seekers.

This was something the Prophet and Muslims never forgot. When Islam conquered the whole of Arabia and beyond, the Prophet in turn extended the same protection to Christians when a delegation from St Catherine’s Monastery in Egypt sought his help in 626 AD.

Located at the foot of Mount Sinai, St Catherine’s is the world’s oldest monastery. Home to a large collection of rare manuscripts, second only to the Vatican, it is a world heritage site and a treasure trove of Christian history that has remained safe for 14 centuries under Muslim protection.

In an extraordinary charter granted to St Catherine’s Monastery, the Prophet promised protection to all Christians and obligated all Muslims to observe it:

“This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far – we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them because Christians are my citizens and by God, I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor [to disrespect] the sacredness of their covenants. No one [from] the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).”

The extraordinary charter imposes no conditions on Christians. This is a charter of rights without any duties. Far ahead of its time, it clearly protects the right to property, freedom of faith, freedom of work and security of people.

In 1517 AD, the Ottoman emperor Sultan Selim I reaffirmed the charter but took the original letter for safekeeping in Constantinople after giving the monastery certified copies of the rare document, bearing the handprint of the Prophet.

This was not an isolated example.   The Prophet offered the same protection to the Christians of Najran in Yemen.         When a 60-member delegation of Najran Christians – 45 of them scholars and priests – arrived in Medina in 631AD to meet the Prophet, he not only hosted them and asked Muslims to pitch their tents, he invited them to pray inside Masjid Nabawi – the Prophet’s mosque, one of the three holiest mosques in the world.

As Craig Considine argues in The Huffington Post, this had been the very first example of Christian-Muslim dialogue.       Although the Christian delegation left Medina choosing to follow their own path, they left with a written assurance from the Prophet that he would protect their lives, their homes, properties and above all, their right to practice their faith. And yes, they also requested him to send someone as his representative to adjudicate in their matters.

Considine, a Christian scholar, has repeatedly argued that unlike the modern concept of tolerance, the Prophet believed in genuine pluralism and practiced it in his interaction with all non-Muslims.

Dr John Andrew Morrow, in his book         The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World  (Angelico Press, 2013) attaches a great deal of importance to the charter given to Saint Catherine’s Monastery, holding it as a model for both Muslims and Christians. I am sure the Prophet would have offered the same kind of protection to people of other religious beliefs.

Given this remarkable history, isn’t it odd that today even a harmless exchange of greetings with Christians or for that matter with any community is frowned upon?

Since when and why have we become so rigid and small-minded in our ways?  Certainly Islam and its Prophet do not sanction such intolerance. Our faith cannot be so fragile and insecure that it feels threatened every time we exchange greetings with followers of other faiths.

The writer is a Middle East
based columnist.

Email: aijaz.syed@hotmail.com

Tolerance Is a Vital Part of the Islamic Faith

Tolerance Is a Vital Part of the Islamic Faith

muslim-boys-handshake-switzerland

An important article in The News International was published today. It touches on whether Muslims should greet Christians with Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. The author of the piece, Aijaz Zaka Syed, was taken aback by the convoluted logic that Muslims are “aping the West” by sending warm greetings to Christians. Syed claims that the argument against Christian greetings is steeped in ignorance about Islam’s strong affinity with Jesus, and that it is betrays tolerance – a vital part of the Islamic faith.

Addressing Muslims, Syed writes: “How many of us know that there are as many as 71 verses in the Quran praising Jesus?… The Quran also says that Jesus performed miracles…[and] the Prophet [Muhammad] always had a special relationship with him, talking about him with great fondness.”

Syed also points to 615 CE, when Prophet Muhammad turned to Christians for protection for his persecuted followers in Abyssinia, present day Ethiopia. King Negus firmly stood with Muslims, rejecting all entreaties by the Meccans to throw out the asylum seekers. This was something that Prophet Muhammad never forgot. When Islam swept across Arabia and beyond, Muhammad extended the same protection to all Christians in his midst.

I came across Syed’s important article because it discusses my Huffington Post article on the very first example of Christian-Muslim dialogue in 631 AD, when Prophet Muhammad hosted the Christians of Najran inside the Nabawi mosque. Syed writes: “Considine, a Christian scholar, has repeatedly argued that unlike the modern concept of tolerance, the Prophet believed in genuine pluralism and practiced it in his interaction with all non-Muslims.”

In conclusion, Syed argues: “Given this remarkable history, isn’t it odd that today even a harmless exchange of greetings with Christians or for that matter with any community is frowned upon? Since when and why have we become so rigid and small-minded in our ways? Certainly Islam and its Prophet do not sanction such intolerance. Our faith cannot be so fragile and insecure that it feels threatened every time we exchange greetings with followers of other faiths.”

Something Wicked this Way Comes: The Origin and Development of Takfirism

Something Wicked this Way Comes: The Origin and Development of Takfirism

SHAFAQNA – By Dr. John Andrew Morrow – Delivered in Phoenix, Arizona, on Friday, December 23rd, 2016, at the 46st Annual Muslim Students Association – Persian-Speaking Group Conference.

In the Name of Allah, the Avenger. Allah is One is Muhammad is His Messenger. Praise be to Allah, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe, and peace be upon his Prophet, Muhammad the son of ‘Abd Allah, and upon his purified progeny.

Takfirism begins and ends with Satanism. It begins with an act of rebellion and an act of defiance against the Creator. It begins with Any khayrun minhu or “I am better than he” (38:76), the wicked words of the wicked one, the cursed one, the one who defied the Divinity out of jealousy for humanity.

Takfirism begins and ends with Satanism. It begins with a believer, Iblis, a jinn who was raised and educated by angels, and who worshipped Allah for over five thousand years. Iblis believes in Allah. He has knowledge of certainty of Allah. How can he not? Iblis believes in the Prophets of Allah. He knows that Adam is the Prophet of Allah. He knows that Abraham is the Prophet of Allah. He knows that Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad are the Messengers of Allah. Iblis believes in the Imams of Allah. He knows full well that Allah appointed Twelve Imams after Muhammad ibn Abd Allah.

But mere belief does not make one a believer. A believer can be an unbeliever. I repeat: a believer can be an unbeliever because weak faith or the saying that “I believe in God but I do not practice any religion” is the equivalent of disbelieving despite verbally expression the contrary. Belief is acceptance that something exists. But belief is also trust, faith, and confidence in something. It requires both conviction and practice. As Almighty Allah says in al-Qur’an al-Karim:

The desert Arabs say, “We believe (amanna).” Say: “You do not as yet have true faith.” Rather say: “We have only submitted our wills to Allah (aslamna)” for not yet has true faith entered your hearts. (49:14)

So, Iblis is a believer in the sense that he acknowledges the existence of God, the Prophet, the Messengers, and the Imams; however, Iblis is an unbeliever because he does not place trust in them; does not have faith in them; does not have confidence in them; and does not submit to their command. He is a kafir or one who opposes truth. He israjim, rejected, and cursed. As Almighty Allah says in al-Qur’an al-Karim:

O you who have believed, enter into Islam completely [and perfectly] and do not follow the footsteps of Satan. Indeed, he is to you a clear enemy. (2: 208)

There is more to belief than acknowledging that something is true. You need to have confidence in it. You need to place trust in it. Belief is m‘arifah or knowledge. Iman; however, is not mere belief; it is not mere faith. Iman is an expression of amanah or trust. It is to believe in God, have faith in God, trust in God, and submit to God.

A mu’min is a person who has iman; who has faith and trust in God. A Muslim is one who submits to God. It is possible to be a mu’min, a believer in God, without being a Muslim. Likewise, it is possible to be a nominal Muslim without really being a mu’min. A kafir is not necessarily an atheist. Kufr comes from the root KFR which means to conceal and to cover up. It is the denial or rejection of something that is evident. A kafir is someone who opposes the Truth. A munafiq is not simply a hypocrite. Nifaq derives from nafaq, the tunnel or burrow of a rat: the escape route. The munafiq is one who undermines Truth. A fasiq is not simply an open sinner. The word derives from fisq which means “breaking an agreement” or “to leave or go out of.” The term fasiq is not only associated with breaking the law; it is broadly associated with kufr or concealing the truth. To understand Takfirism, we need to understand this terminology.

We need to understand that the simple profession of La ilaha ila Allah / Muhammadan Rasul Allah does not suffice to make one a real mu’min or a real Muslim. We need to understand that a person can proclaim that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger while being a kafir, a fasiq, and a munafiq. In Islam, one is not saved by faith alone. In Islam, salvation is determined by belief and action; faith and deeds.

The beginning of Takfiri ideology traces back to the time of the Prophet and the disrespect shown by Hurqus ibn Zuhayr, known as Dhu al-Khuwaysirah al-Tamimi al-Najdi. When the Messenger of Allah was dividing the spoils of war, he had the audacity to say: “O Messenger of Allah! Be just!” Can you imagine the audacity? Can you conceive of a more egregiously offensive insult?

The goal or ‘irfan or suluk is al-takhalluq bi asma Allah wa al-sifat; namely, to acquire the names and attributes of Allah. The Most Beautiful Names of Allah represent a 99-step plan toward spiritual perfection. The seeker strives to adopt a divine attribute. If Allah is Merciful, the seeker strives to become merciful. If Allah is the Loving, the seeker strives to become loving. If Allah is Patient, the seeker strives to become patient. If Allah is Wise, the seeker strives to become wise. In rare instances, a seeker can acquire all the attributes of Allah; thereby becoming al-insan al-kamil or a Perfect Human Being. This is what is called acquired isma’ or infallibility. The Prophets, the Messengers, the Imams, and certain ‘awliyya’ al-salihin, like al-Khidr, for example, were blessed with innate isma’ or infallibility.

The Messenger of Allah, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah, was a perfect human being. He was ma‘sum, endowed with incorruptible innocence, immunity from sin, and moral infallibility. In other words, he embodied and manifested all the names and attributes of Allah. So, if Almighty Allah is al-‘Adil, the Most Just, I swear by the Throne of Majesty that Muhammad Rasul Allah was the most ‘adil and just of human beings to walk the face of the Earth.

To question the qualities of the Messenger of Allah and to doubt his character is an act of irtidad or apostasy. It is an act of kufr, nifaq, and fisq. It turns one from a friend of Allah into an enemy of Allah. When Hurqus ibn Zuhayr said “Be Just” or “Fear God, O, Messenger of Allah” it was Satan that spoke, in the same fashion he spoke when he said Ana khayrun minhu or “I am better than he.” Hurqus ibn Zuhayr was the founder of the Khawarij; the leader of the Kharijites, the group that killed Imam ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. He was the the founder of a group that has caused fitnah and bloodshed in the Ummah of Islam for the past 1400 years. As the Messenger of Allah responded: “Woe to you! Who will be just if I am not just?” I repeat: “Woe to you! Who will be just if I am not just?” The Prophet then foretold:

There will come a time when a group of people will leave our ranks. They will recite the Qur’an with fervor and passion but its spirit will not go beyond their throats. They will kill the Muslims and spare the idol-worshippers. They will leave our ranks in the manner of an arrow when it shoots from its bow. If I live to witness their appearance, I will kill them as the people of ‘Aad were killed. (Bukhari and Muslim)

The hadith in question has been related by numerous Companions of the Prophet with slight variants. In another version, the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, says:

There will be division and sectarianism in my nation and a people will come with beautiful words and evil deeds…   They are the worst of the creation. Blessed are those who fight them and are killed by them. They call to the Book of Allah but they have nothing to do with it. Whoever fights them is better to Allah than them. (Abu Dawud)

This was not the only encounter the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, had with the Takfiris of his time. They were the same people who came to him with sores on their foreheads from prostrating to the extreme in obsessive-compulsive fashion. Some of these people refused to eat meat. Some refused to marry. And some who were married refused to have sexual relations with their wives. The Prophet told them straight out: “Whoever turns away from my Sunnah is not from me” (Bukhari and Muslim). When the Takfiris asked the Prophet how many prayers he did, they said that “it was little.” In other words, they thought that they were better than him.

The Messenger of Allah warned Muslims against extremism and extremists. He said: “Do not be extremists” (Bukhari). He said: “Beware of extremism in your religion for it is that which destroyed the nations which came before you” (Nasai and Ibn Majah). He said: “The religious extremists are destroyed” (Muslim and Abu Dawud). And he said: “There are two groups of people from my Ummah who will not receive my intercession: oppressive rulers, and religious extremists” (Tabarani).

The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, was confronted with extremists during his lifetime, fanatics that he himself rejected and excommunicated saying that they did not belong to his Ummah or Community. As the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “The Kharijites are the dogs of Hell” (Ahmad, Ibn Majah, and al-Hakim). So, when I say that Takfirism begins and ends with Satanism, I am paraphrasing the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. So, if you have any problems with what I am saying, you can take it up with him.

Takfirism traces back to Kharijism. However, Takfirism also traces back to Nasibism: the hatred of the Household of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon them all. The enemies of Allah, the Prophet, and Islam adopted various approaches. Some remained openly pagan and fought him physically. Others embraced Islam outwardly but not inwardly: openly antagonizing the Prophet. And yet others embraced Islam openly only to undermine it inwardly. The realized the power of religion, figured that if you cannot beat them you might as well join them, and then started to plot and conspire to usurp power. Some of these sinister characters attempted to assassinate the Prophet in Aqabah toward the end of his life. However, as soon as the Prophet Muhammad passed away, they put their plan into action, the aim of which was to pass power into the hands of the Banu Umayyah.

Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali all attempted to implement the teachings of Islam to the best of their abilities. The same, however, cannot be said of the Umayyads and the ‘Abbasids who made a mockery of God, the Prophet, and Islam, and persecuted the Family of the Prophet and their faithful followers. And while they claimed to be Muslims, many of the leaders that followed behaved like polytheistic savages and bloodthirsty pagans.

If modern-day Takfirism is rooted in Kharijism and Nasibism, it is also rooted in Salafism, known pejoratively as Wahhabism. It was the Messenger of Allah himself, peace and blessings be upon him, who foretold this modern manifestation of Takfirism. In fact, he warned his followers that the Horns of Satan would rise from the Najd (Bukhari), the very region in Arabia where the Wahhabi heresy took hold a mere two hundred years ago.

A man by the name of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab surfaced in the Najd in the 18th century. His stated aim was to “purify Islam” by following the “pious predecessors.”   A literalist and fundamentalist, with no scholarly credentials of any kind, he declared that Sunnis, Shiites, and Sufis were all polytheists whose blood, property, and women were halal. As you can imagine, this is a very appealing ideology for criminals, murderers, thugs, thieves, misogynists, rapists, and all-round psychopaths. Although it would take hours to expound upon the theological errors of these evil-doers, it boils down to the following: Salafism is extremism in thought and action.

Takfirism can be compared to a three-headed dragon composed of Kharijism, Nasibism, and Salafism. What are the distinguishing features of Takfirism? The Takfiris are convinced that only they are Muslims. They believe that they belong to the only saved sect. They claim that Sunnis, Sufis, and Shiites are all infidels, polytheists, and innovators. The Takfiris insist that all rulers, except themselves, are illegitimate. The Takfiris also believe that is permissible to slaughter Muslims and innocent people: civilians, non-combatants, women, children, the elderly, the handicapped, the disabled, and even babies. As Ibn Kathir wrote in al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah:

If the Khawarij ever gained power, they would corrupt the entire earth, Iraq, and Syria. They would not leave alone a boy or a girl or a man or a woman, for in their view the people have become so corrupt that they cannot be reformed except by mass killing.

As Wahb ibn Munabbih states in Tarikh Dimashq:

I knew the early period of Islam. By Allah, the Kharijites never had a group except that Allah caused it to split due to their evil condition. Never did one of them proclaim his opinion except that Allah caused his neck to be struck. Never did the Muslim nation unite upon a man from the Kharijites. If Allah had allowed the opinion of the Kharijites to take root, the earth would have been corrupted, the roadways would have been cut off, the Hajj pilgrimage to the sacred house of Allah would have been cut off, and the affair of Islam would have returned to ignorance until the people would seek refuge in the mountains as they had done in the time of ignorance. If there were to arise among them ten or twenty men, there would not be a man among them except that he would claim the Caliphate for himself. With each man among them would be ten thousand others, all of them fighting each other and charging each other with unbelief until even the believer would fear for himself, his religion, his life, his family, his wealth, and he would not know where to travel or with whom he should be.

The Kharijites surfaced during the time of the Prophet. They supported Abu Bakr and ‘Umar; however, they opposed ‘Uthman. They tried to assassinate both Mu‘awiyyah and ‘Amr ibn al-As despite the fact that they themselves were Takfiris. They succeeded in murdering Imam ‘Ali. They continued to revolt and rebel for centuries during Umayyad and ‘Abbasid rule. In North Africa, they waged war against the Adarisa, the Idrisids, the great-great-grandsons of Imam al-Hasan who established the first Shiite Dynasty.

Although the Kharijites and the Nawasib were two opposing groups during the early Islamic period, the Salafi groups that surfaced over the past two centuries have combined elements from both. Takfirism is a mutant monster that combines elements from Kharijism, Nasibism, and Salafism. Many of them have also spiced up their psychosis with ideas inspired from Socialism, Nazism, and Fascism. Many of their practices remain profoundly pre-Islamic and pagan.

From the time of the Prophet to the present, the Takfiris have been, wittingly or unwittingly, at the service of the enemies of Islam. Many historians believe that the revolts that took place after the passing of the Prophet were supported by the Romans or the Persians to destabilize the nascent Muslim Ummah.

We know for a fact that the British used Wahhabi terrorists to destabilize and ultimately destroy the Ottoman Empire. We know for a fact that the British, the French, and the Germans enlisted to Takfiri terrorists to support their geo-political designs during the First and Second World Wars. We know for a fact that the Americans trained, funded, armed, and supported Takfiri terrorists in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, and Kosovo in the 1980s and 1990s as part of their proxy war against the Russians. We know for a fact that the French supported the GIA, the Armed Islamic Group, in Algeria, to discredit the democratic election of the FIS, the Front Islamique de Salut. We know for a fact that the Americans are supporting Takfiri terrorists in Central Asia to antagonize both Russia and China. We know for a fact that the Americans have supported Takfiri terrorists in Libya to overthrow Qaddafi. We know for a fact that the Americans have been training and supporting Takfiri terrorists operating in Egypt, Iraq, and Syria to destabilize or overthrow various legal and legitimate governments.

So far from defending Islam from the infidels, Takfiri terrorists have a long history of serving as the catamites of the enemies of Islam. They are not mujahidin: they are mercenaries; death squads at the service of the Empire; pawns in the geo-political plans of the one-percenters and occultist globalists; and false flags in a spiritual and civilizational conflict with cosmic consequences.

We know who these people are. We know where they come from. And we know what their ultimate destiny will be. As the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “In the last days, there will be young people with foolish dreams” (Bukhari). This foolish dream is the Caliphate that the Takfiris seek to create; not the Khilafat Allahbut the Khilafat Shaytan. As the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

There will emerge from the east some people from my nation who will recite the Qur’an but it will not go beyond their throats. Every time a faction of them emerges it will be cut off. 

The Prophet repeated this, over and over, and on the tenth time he said:

Every time a faction of them emerges it will be cut off until the Dajjal [the False Messiah] emerges from their remnants. (Ahmad) 

The Takfiris are not preparing the advent of Christ: they are the torchbearers of the Anti-Christ. Tell the Muslims! Tell the Christians! Tell the Jews! Tell the secular liberals! Tell the world! Takfirism begins and ends with Satanism. 

Dr. John Andrew Morrow is the author of The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World and the Director of the Covenants Initiative, an international movement devoted to protecting persecuted Christians as well as Shiites, Sufis, traditional Sunnis, and Yazidis. His websites includewww.covenantsoftheprophet.com andwww.johnandrewmorrow.com. His Twitter account is @drjamorrow. He can also be followed on his various Facebook pages: @johnandrewmorrow and @covenantsoftheprophet

Christians and Muslims Gather at the Table of Coexistence, Friendship, and Fellowship

INTERFAITH

Christians and Muslims Gather at the Table of Coexistence, Friendship, and Fellowship

“Treat others how you would like to be treated.” That is the Golden Rule.

As I have discussed in the Huffington Post, Jesus and Muhammad lived by this Rule. The legacy of Christ and the Prophet teach Christians and Muslims to overcome animosity and bigotry in favor of generosity and coexistence.

It is in this spirit that Christians and Muslims gathered recently for a celebration of Prophet Muhammad’s birthday at the Islamic Society of York Region, in the Greater Toronto Area, in Canada.

The key-note speaker of the event, Dr. John Andrew Morrow, delivered a lecture titled “The Covenants of the Prophet: A Call for Co-Existence, Friendship, and Fellowship.” Dr. Morrow, a friend of mine, is the author of the critically acclaimed book The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World. You can read my review of his work here.

Below you can find a few excerpts from Dr. Morrow’s speech as covered by Catherine Shakdam on the Huffington Post:

“If the Prophet Muhammad was so averse to Christians, why did he send his Companions, as refugees, to Abyssinia, ‘the land of the just Christian king where no man is wronged?’ When Islam was properly explained to the Emperor al-Najashi, he famously stated that the difference between Christians and Muslims was like a line in the sand.”

“In Madinah, the Prophet continued with the same conciliatory approach. Madinah was a city divided. Half of the city of pagan. The other half was Jewish. And they had been at each other’s throats for as long as they could remember.”

“The Muslims, both those from Madinah, and those who came with the Prophet, numbered in the hundreds. Madinah was initially a Muslim-minority community.”

“Did the Prophet kill all the polytheists? Did he kill all the kuffar? Did the Prophet kill all the Jews? No; not at all. He brought them to the table, discussed with them, dialogued with them, and composed the Covenant of Madinah. It granted equal rights to all. Muslims and non-Muslims all agreed to live together and to protect each other. As the Prophet Muhammad said: ‘They are one community.’”

“Gradually, most of the non-Muslims, both pagan and Jewish, embraced Islam: freely as ‘there is no compulsion in religion.’ Some Jews, but not all, opposed the Prophet. Others continued to live in Madinah and remained loyal to him.”

If you would like to learn more about the Covenants of Prophet Muhammad, please see my peer-reviewed journal article, or check out an interview I carried out with Dr. Morrow.

Welcome Home ISIS! The Obama Administration’s Plan to Reintegrate Foreign Terrorist Fighters

By Dr. John Andrew Morrow

obama_isis_war

Allegations of US-support for pseudo-Islamist terrorists around the world often fall on deaf ears and are dismissed as the mad ramblings of conspiracy theorists.

According to numerous scholars, including Noam Chomsky, Michel Chossudovsky, and many others, the United States has a long and well-documented history of supporting mass murderers around the world, both covertly and overtly.

As many researchers have reported, the Government of the United States has supported genocidal military dictators around the globe as well as violent extremists, ranging from death-squads in Latin America to MKO terrorists in Iran as well as acts of aggression in other parts of the world.

US-support for the Mujahidin, al-Qaeda, and the early Taliban has been widely reported as has American support for the internationalist terrorists who overthrew Qaddafi and those who have exceeded all bounds in their attempt to annihilate Iraq and Syria.

Despite the clear and present danger that so-called Radical Islamist terrorists pose to the Western world, political and intelligence analysists report that the US administration has continued to use them as “useful geopolitical tools” to weaken and destabilize nation-states.

And while the United States government finally appeared to take a moral stance against ISIS by passing the Fortenberry Resolution on March 15, 2016, and holding the terrorist group responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, it has no intention of actually prosecuting any returning terrorists, and never had the intention of bringing any of them to justice.

As FBI Director James Comey indicated in an interview with “60 Minutes” on October 7, 2014, American citizens who are fighting with ISIS are “entitled” to return to the US. Such a position, however, is in blatant violation of United States Code, Section 1481, which states that:

A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality– …(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or … (7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, … , or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

What is more, current US law also states that it is a crime to provide material support to a terrorist organization which includes joining or attempting to join a terrorist group. Finally, the US Neutrality Act also makes it a crime for American citizens or residents to fight against a government with which the US is not officially at war.

Under the Obama administration, however, the law did not apply. Rather than arrest, prosecute, and punish war criminals and traitors, James Comey, the FBI Director, reported that returning ISIS terrorists were merely being “tracked.” In fact, on November 13, 2015, the FBI admitted that it was engaged in nearly 1,000 active probes involving ISIS members, sympathizers, and supporters on US soil. Typically, however, whether it is in Europe or the United States, we only learn that a person was “under surveillance” after they have committed mass murder.

Over a year earlier, on September 22, 2014, President Obama admitted that American ISIS fighters had returned to the United States. Rather than have them detained, charged, and convicted, he reported that they were being tracked closely. That is like telling parents that the State is simply keeping violent pedophilic sexual predators under surveillance rather than holding them accountable for their crimes.

On September 30, 2014, the Brookings Institute published an article by Daniel L. Byman and Jeremy Shapiro that argued that “the danger posed by returning fighters is both familiar and manageable.”

A policy briefing, titled, Returning Foreign Fighters was published by the Brooking Institute on August 15, 2015, argued in favor of reintegration of foreign fighters as opposed to criminalization.

In May of 2016, the US Department of State and US Aid published their Joint Strategy on Countering Violent Extremism which calls for the “rehabilitation and reintegration” of violent extremist radicals “back into society.”

In a study titled ISIS in the West, published by the New America Foundation in November of 2015 and updated on March 22, 2016, Peter Bergen, Courtney Schuster, and David Sterman, described the threat of returning terrorists as “low” and “likely … manageable.”

Apparently, the US administration also had its Obama-Muslims on board who supported the suicidal plan to reintegrate returning terrorists fighters.

Humera Khan, the Executive Director of Muflehun, a think tank specializing in preventing radicalization and countering violent extremism proposes four intersecting strategies to combat extremism:

preventing radicalization, intervening on behalf of individuals who have radicalized, interdicting or finding and prosecuting those who have engaged in criminal behavior, and reintegrating into society those offenders who are in prison, have served their term, or are returning from conflict zones.

While reasonable people agree with prevention and intervention, the notion of rehabilitating terrorists who are guilty of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity is morally and ethically objectionable.

It is one thing when a naïve, idealistic youth, who was brain-washed by some manipulative Salafi / Wahhabi / Takfiris, goes to Syria, sees that he has been lied to, realizes that the “Islamic” State is actually a “Satanic” State, repents, returns home, and atones. Such a youth could eventually be completely de-radicalized and prove useful in preventing the radicalization of others.

It is another thing altogether when a committed person, who is fully aware of the criminal actions of ISIS, joins them eagerly, torturing, mutilating, and murdering people, beheading babies, exterminating Christians, Shiites, Sufis, traditional Sunnis, and Kurds, as well as raping, enslaving, and trafficking women, returns to the Western world.

Despite endorsing the Fortenberry Resolution, which finds ISIS guilty of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, the US Government, under Obama, has had no intention of bringing ISIS terrorists to justice, either here or abroad.

Like the European governments, who feel that prosecuting returning terrorist fighters is “impractical” and “difficult,” the American administration argues that the International Human Rights Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over Syria and Iraq. Ironically, the US administration has no qualms about jurisdiction when they attack, bomb, invade, and occupy sovereign nations.

Through statements from government officials, policy recommendations from think-tanks, as well as reports from a number of sources close to the White House, it was US policy, under Obama, not to arrest and prosecute ISIS fighters returning to the United States, but to attempt to “reintegrate” them into US society, thus putting all Americans at risk. First the Cuban Exiles, next the Contras, and now this.

The same policy has been in place in Saudi Arabia for some time, where returning terrorists are “re-educated” to view this or that foreign enemy, rather than the Saudi regime itself, as the proper objects of their “jihad” against unbelievers. It has met with little success.

By embracing the “Countering Violent Extremism Strategy,” the Obama Administration betrayed an incredibly naïve view of the threat posed to the West by Takfiri terrorists. In fact, it leaves some to suspect that “reintegration” may be part of the deal the US made with certain ISIS fighters, either as a sort of retirement package or a way of putting valuable assets on ice for possible future reactivation. And the Feds may fear if they do not keep their end of that bargain, ISIS will respond with large-scale attacks inside the US.

Readers should definitely search “War College Counter-Insurgency Policies” plus “Salvadoran Death-Squads,” since it appears that the US plan for ISIS may incorporate elements of the model that was used with both the death-squads and the Contras. The BIG DIFFERENCE here is that the death-squads and the Contras did not ultimately declare war on the US, which would make ISIS the greatest foreign policy debacle in US history.

All Americans should be shocked that such policies have been proposed and even more scandalized that they have been implemented. In March of 2016, the House of Representatives declared by a unanimous vote the actions of ISIS to be genocide; this conclusion was echoed by Secretary of State John Kerry. Yet the plan appears to be not to arrest and prosecute these war criminals and ship them to Guantanamo, but to attempt to reintegrate them into society  perhaps after a short “vacation,” perhaps not.

We are still tracking down and punishing the last Nazis, now in their 90’s, and the actions of ISIS are certainly as barbaric as anything the Nazis ever dreamt up. Anyone who thinks that a young terrorist with the blood still moist and fragrant on his hands poses less of a threat to US society than some 90-year old ex-Nazi should have his or her head examined. Have the laws against treason been suspended? Apparently so.

If Obama’s White House appears to have been sanitized of sanity, the United Nations still seems to have a head on its shoulders. Contrary to the US government, that downplays the danger, the UN recently reported that foreign terrorist fighters “pose a “significant and evolving” global threat.

The US Government, under Obama, has continued to live in la-la land, urging Muslim communities to help reintegrate and rehabilitate returning ISIS combatants. If the administration had its way it would be time to welcome home ISIS to the USA!

With the election of Donald Trump, the pendulum appears to have shifted from a policy of aiding and abetting ISIS terrorists, while simultaneously pretending to fight them, to a policy of blowing the shit out of them with the support of Vladimir Putin who has suddenly shifted from being an enemy to an indispensable ally.

Nuclear War with Russia

As disappointing as Hillary Clinton’s defeat may be to half of the US population, it appears to have averted a nuclear war with Russia and China. The Obama-Clinton policy of antagonizing Russia and China was playing with nuclear fire. Hillary’s threat to impose a no-fly zone over Syria and her willingness to shoot down Russian aircrafts could have escalated into a conflict of cataclysmic proportions.

The major build-up of nuclear bombers on Diego Garcia, a US military base in the Indian Ocean, no fly zones over Montana’s nuclear silos, and the movement of refueling tankers to the Middle were also ominous signs in October of 2016.

Under-reported or entirely ignored in the United States, the Russians organized massive nuclear attack drills involving 40 million citizens in October of 2016. In the same month, Putin requested that Russian students, officials, and their loved-one return to “the Motherland.” These unprecedented actions coincided with the upgrading of the DEFCON Warning System to Level 3.

The DEFCON alert system has five different levels with level 1indicating an impeding nuclear war. To put things into perspective, the last time the alert was raised so high was on September 11, 2001. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US Armed Forces were ordered to DEFCON 3 while Strategic Air Command was ordered to DEFCON 2.

If most inhabitants of planet earth were oblivious to the fact that the world was on the brink of nuclear war in October of 2016, they also ignored that the risk was directly related to the potential election of Clinton. Not only did Hillary intend on following the failed foreign policy of her predecessor, she intended to assume an even more belligerent stance.

While many people were shocked at the election of Donald Trump, and many were convinced that the world would come to an end, they failed to realize that the DEFCON warning level immediately dropped down to 5, namely, “There are currently no imminent nuclear threats against the United States at this time.” In other words, the world almost came to an end: not because of Trump but rather because of Clinton.

And while it is true that the DEFCON alert system “is not affiliated with any government agency… and does not represent the alert status of any military branch,” it serves as a barometer that gages the risk of nuclear war involving the United States. Relying on publicly available information as well as contacts within government and military agencies, it provides, in my estimation, an informed analysis of current political conditions.

As President-Elect, Donald J. Trump’s first accomplishment was saving the planet from nuclear doom. His second accomplishment was his promise to stop all US-support for the terrorists operating in Syria, Iraq, and beyond. And rather than sending ISIS veterans home to the United States, we can only hope and pray that Trump’s re-set toward a reasonable foreign policy and a multipolar worldview will send Takfiri terrorists to their eternal home in Hell.

As much as I have criticized Mr. Trump for all the outrageous statements he has made and the scandalous policies he has proposed, and as much as I will continue to denounce any declarations that he makes and any actions that he takes that violate the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Convention, and international law, I will praise and support any positive efforts on his part.

Mr. Trump, as President, 1) promise us that American imperialism and exceptionalism will become part of the past; 2) promise us that the United States will no longer employ “Islamist” terrorists as part of overt and covert military actions against sovereign nations; 3) promise us that plans to reintegrate and rehabilitate returning terrorist fighters will be permanently halted and that the war criminals in question will be brought to justice; and, finally, 4) promise us that you will make a distinction, not between “moderate” Muslims and “extremist” Muslims but between true Muslims and false Muslims. If you fulfil these four promises, you will go a great way in reassuring the American Muslim community, discouraging Islamophobia, and lowering the spike in anti-Muslim hate crimes.

President-Elect Trump, it is time to act Presidential and be a President for all Americans, including us, the millions of Muslims who are proud to be citizens of this great nation.

Dr. John Andrew Morrow is the author of The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World and the Director of the Covenants Initiative, an international movement devoted to protecting persecuted Christians as well as Shiites, Sufis, traditional Sunnis, and Yazidis. His websites include www.covenantsoftheprophet.com andwww.johnandrewmorrow.com. His Twitter account is @drjamorrow. He can also be followed on his various Facebook pages: @johnandrewmorrow and @covenantsoftheprophet

The original source of this article is Global Research

Christians and Muslims Gather in Friendship and Fellowship to Celebrate the Birth of Jesus and Muhammad

Dec. 20, 2016

A celebration of Milad al-Nabi was held at the Islamic Society of York Region, in the Greater Toronto Area, in Canada, on Saturday, December 17th, 2016.

The event commenced with the melodious recitation of the Qur’an by Shaykh Ibrahim Hussain Chishti along with a moving recitation by 12-year old sister Arya Bassim.

The speakers included Zafar Bangash, the Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought and President of the Islamic Society of York Region, H.E. Tariq Azim Khan, the High Commissioner of Pakistan,Maulana Syed Asad Jafri from the Al-Mahdi Islamic Centre in Pickering, Rev. Joan Masterton from the Presbyterian Church in Stouffville, Rev. Elizabeth Cunningham from the United Church in Stouffville, as well as Dr. Mir Baiz Khan, the Head of the Research and Knowledge Mobilization Department at the Shi‘a Isma‘ili Tariqah and Religious Education Board for Canada.

The key-note speaker of the event, Dr. John Andrew Morrow, delivered the following lecture, titled “The Covenants of the Prophet: A Call for Co-Existence, Friendship, and Fellowship,” which was warmly received by the 400 guests in attendance:

In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe, the Judge and the Just, the Most Patient and Most Loving.

Peace be upon all the prophets and messengers of God, Adam, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Jesus, John-the-Baptist, Muhammad, and all in between, and may God be pleased with their Companions and all the Friends of God.

For those who come in peace, who wish to live in peace, and who wish to co-exist on the base of shared beliefs, values, ethics, and principles: welcome.

Today, as you are well-aware, we gather for an auspicious occasion: we celebrate the birth of Muhammad the son of ‘Abd Allah, the Messenger of Allah, may peace and blessings be upon him, his faithful wives, committed Companions, and his purified progeny. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Merry Mawlid al-Nabi!

Celebrating the birth of the Messenger of Allah is not a bid‘ah or prohibited innovation: if anything, it is a sunnah; it is a recommended and rewardable act. It is an expression of love, admiration, and reverence, for a man who was sent as a mercy to all the worlds, a man with a heart of gold and a sage with a sublime character.

When the Prophet Muhammad was born, light beamed from his head, illuminating the heavens. The light spread from Arabia and filled the whole world. Every stone, clod, and tree laughed with joy, and all things in heaven and earth uttered praise to God. Sounds like a celebration to me.

It is regrettable that many Muslims have veered away from Mawlid al-Nabi due to the influence of certain ideas that have emanated out of Arabia since the late 1800s. Many Muslims have been deprived of the blessings derived from commemorating and celebrating the birth of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. Likewise, many Muslims have forgotten the letters, treaties, and covenants of the Prophet Muhammad, sallalahu ‘alayhi wa alihi wa sallam, and the way he interacted with non-Muslims.

The Messenger of Allah first reached out to his people, the polytheistic Arabs. He was not well-received. While in Makkah, even before he migrated to Madinah, he reached out to the Christian community. There, in the holy precinct, he received a delegation of Christians.

Some sources say that they came from Najran. Some say that they came from Abyssinia. Some say that they were Armenian Christians from Jerusalem. And others suggest that they came from the Sinai. Their origin is immaterial.

What is uncontested is that the Prophet was engaged in interfaith community-building from the very onset of the prophetic mission and that the Prophet signed a treaty with this delegation from the People of the Book.

This singular act infuriated the Arab polytheists who accused Muhammad of dividing Arabia. Consequently, the persecution against the Prophet and his followers intensified.

If the Prophet Muhammad was so averse to Christians, why did he send his Companions, as refugees, to Abyssinia, “the land of the just Christian king where no man is wronged?” When Islam was properly explained to the Emperor al-Najashi, he famously stated that the difference between Christians and Muslims was like a line in the sand.

We are different. We are distinct. But we share many similarities and we should stand side by side as fellow monotheists, as we all follow the tradition of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.

Eventually, the persecution of the peaceful Prophet and his peaceful, non-violent, followers become unbearable, forcing him into exile in Madinah. And who brought him there to safety: a Bedouin guide, a polytheist, a pagan, and a heathen.

Did the Messenger of Allah judge him on the base of his religious beliefs? No; not at all: he judged him, first and foremost, on his character and human qualities. He was a non-Muslim but he was trustworthy and loyal.

In Madinah, the Prophet continued with the same conciliatory approach. Madinah was a city divided. Half of the city of pagan. The other half was Jewish. And they had been at each other’s throats for as long as they could remember.

The Muslims, both those from Madinah, and those who came with the Prophet, numbered in the hundreds. Madinah was initially a Muslim-minority community.

Did the Prophet kill all the polytheists? Did he kill all the kuffar? Did the Prophet kill all the Jews? No; not at all. He brought them to the table, discussed with them, dialogued with them, and composed the Covenant of Madinah. It granted equal rights to all. Muslims and non-Muslims all agreed to live together and to protect each other. As the Prophet Muhammad said: “They are one community.”

Gradually, most of the non-Muslims, both pagan and Jewish, embraced Islam: freely as “there is no compulsion in religion.” Some Jews, but not all, opposed the Prophet. Others continued to live in Madinah and remained loyal to him.

In the second year of the hijrah, the Messenger of Allah received a delegation from St. Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai in Egypt. The Prophet Muhammad granted them what is known as the ‘ahd al-nabi, ‘ahd nabawi or ashtinameh, known in English as the Covenant of the Prophet.

Although some incredulous individuals dispute or deny its authenticity, it is one of the most authentic documents in the entire body of Islamic literature. It has been authenticated by over 150 separate authorities over the past 1400 years.

The Covenant of the Prophet was respected and renewed by the Four Rightly-Guided Caliphs, most of the Umayyads, ‘Abbasids, Ayyubids, and Mamluks, along with all of the Ottoman Sultans down to the last Caliph, Sultan ‘Abdul-Hamid, who certified it as sahih and asserted, in 1904, that it was binding until the end of times. Anyone who seeks to create a Caliphate, should start by respecting the command of the last Caliph of Islam.

The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Monks of Mount Sinai is not the only document of its kind. The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, also granted several covenants to the various Christian and Jewish communities of Najran. A delegation of Christians came to see the Prophet in Madinah. They discussed, debated, and disagreed.

However, when it came time for the Christians to perform their prayers, the Prophet insisted that they pray in the mosque. For far too long have we had mosques that say “No non-Muslims allowed.” This is un-Islamic. It contradicts a clear Sunnah from the Prophet. This is the reason why we have invited you here today, our friends in faith, the People of the Book, both Jewish and Christian. While we are far from perfect, and have many shortcomings, we strive, to the best of our abilities, to faithfully follow the example set by the Prophet Muhammad.

The Messenger of Allah also granted Covenants of Peace and Protection to other Christian Communities; to the Assyrians, to the Armenians, to the Christians of Persia, to the Jacobites, to the Copts, and to the Syriac Orthodox Christians.

“What about us?” the sons of Abraham may ask. “Are we a bunch of schmucks?” No, not at all. As I explained, the first Covenant that the Prophet granted in Madinah was made with the Jewish citizens of the Prophet’s city-state.

Since the Prophet came into conflict with some of the Jewish tribes in Madinah, some Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe that Islam has been at war against Judaism ever since. How sad it is that people think such things.

In reality, the Prophet Muhammad continued to make peace with anyone who wanted to make peace with him. He was out to make allies. He was not out to subjugate. The Covenants of the Prophet are reciprocal. They are mutual agreements. They involve rights and responsibilities by all parties. They are a two-way street and not a one-way street with a dead-end.

The Messenger of Allah, ‘alayhi salawatu wa salaam, granted a Covenant of Peace and Protection to the Jews of Khaybar, to the Yemenite Jews, and to the Jews of Maqna. In fact, this was one of the last treaties that the Prophet concluded. It shows that he was committed to reconciliation with the Jewish community.

The Covenants of the Prophet provide religious freedom. They protect places of worship. They are blue-prints for the creation of a diverse and pluralistic community. They provide citizenship rights: civil rights, political rights, economic rights, social rights, women’s rights, minority rights, and judicial rights.

Please allow to read some passages from these precious documents so that you can get a sense of the rights and protections that the Prophet provided to the People of the Book:

“I will protect their religion and their Church wherever they are found, be it on earth or at sea, in the West or in the East, with utmost vigilance on my part, the People of my House, and the Muslims as a whole.”

That is from the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of Najran.

“If a monk or pilgrim seeks protection, in mountain or valley, in a cave or in tilled fields, in the plain, in the desert, or in a church, I am behind them, defending them from every enemy; I, my helpers, all the members of my religion, and all my followers, for they [the monks and the pilgrims] are my protégés and my subjects.”

That is from the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Monks of Mount Sinai.

Speaking of women’s rights, listen to what the Prophet had to say regarding the way Muslim husbands should treat their Christian wives:

“If a Christian woman enters a Muslim household, she shall be received with kindness, and she shall be given opportunity to pray in her church; there shall be no dispute between her and a man who loves her religion. Whoever contravenes the covenant of Allah and acts to the contrary is a rebel against his covenant and his Messenger.”

Concerning the fact that there is no compulsion in religion, the Prophet said the following in the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of Persia:

“No Christians shall be brought by force to confess Islam, and no disputes except over the better things shall be envisaged in with them. Muslims shall extend over the Christians everywhere the arm of mercy and kindness, protecting them from the exactions of oppressors.”

In the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World, the Messenger of Allah described the followers of Christ in the following terms: “They are my flock.” In other words, he viewed himself as their shepherd, as their guide, guardian, and protector, as any good statesman would do.

The Prophet Muhammad commanded Muslims to protect Christians. As we read in the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of Persia:

“All pious believers shall deem it their bounden duty to defend believers and to aid them wherever they may be, whether far or near, and throughout Christendom shall protect the places where they conduct worship, and those where their monks and priests dwell. Everywhere, in mountains, on the plains, in towns and in waste places, in deserts, and wherever they may be, that people shall be protected, both in their faith and in their property, both in the West and in the East, both on sea and land.”

The Messenger of Allah never commanded Muslims to destroy churches. On the contrary, he commanded his followers to protect them and repair them so that God would be praised. As we read in the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World:

“If the Christians seek the help and assistance of the Muslims to repair their churches and their convents or to arrange matters pertaining to their affairs and religion, they, [the Muslims], must help and support them. However, they must not do so with the aim of receiving any reward. On the contrary, they should aim to restore that religion, out of faithfulness to the pact of the Messenger of Allah, by pure donation, and as a meritorious act before Allah and His Messenger.”

In the very same treaty, the Prophet affirms that: “In virtue of this pact, [Christians] have obtained inviolable rights to enjoy our protection, to be protected from any infringement of their rights, so that they will be bound to the Muslims both in good and bad fortune.”

Why was the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him and his purified progeny, so committed to protecting the followers of Christ? As he explains in theCovenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of Najran:

“The Christians … respected my alliance. They recognized my rights. They fulfilled the promises that they had made during our meeting. They assisted the lieutenants that I had sent to the frontiers. They earned my concern and my affection by fulfilling the obligations that I had contracted with them.”

As Muslims, we are duty-bound to protect our friends, neighbors, and allies from the People of the Book. As the Messenger of Allah proclaimed in the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of Najran:

“The Muslims must not abandon the Christians, neglect them, and leave them without help and assistance since I have made this pact with them on behalf of Allah to ensure that whatever good befell Muslims it would befall them as well and that whatever harm befell Muslims would befall them as well. In virtue of this pact, they have obtained inviolable rights to enjoy our protection, to be protected from any infringement of their rights, so that they will be bound to the Muslims both in good and bad fortune.”

“If anyone is unjust and unkind to the Christians,” states the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Assyrian Christians, “he will be guilty of disobeying the Prophet of God.” Speaking of Christians, the command contained in the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Monks of Mount Sinai is clear: “The Muslims shall defend them.”

There are those that claim that the Covenants of the Prophet cannot be correct as they contradict the Qur’an which purportedly prohibits Muslims from taking unbelievers as friends. Unfortunately, this all too common misconception is based on a misreading of the revealed text which has been facilitated by inaccurate translations.

As fond as I may be of Yusuf ‘Ali’s (1872-1953) translation, I must opt for Muhammad Asad’s (1900-1992) translation as it more accurately conveys the sense of the verses in question. The verse, that is often cited, typically from Yusuf ‘Ali, reads: “Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers” (3:28). Ironically, both anti-Islamites and Takfiri terrorists mutilate and misrepresent this verse. The full verse says “Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers” (3:28).

The word awliyya’ is the plural of wali which means friend, helper, custodian, protector, and ally, depending on the context. It derives from the root wly from which we getwilayah which means authority or guardianship and mawla which means master.

The Qur’an does not say do not take non-Muslims as isdiqa or friends in whom you trust; ashab, friends who are companions; rufaqa, friends who are company; or khalilunfriends who are intimate. The revealed text prohibits Muslims from taking kafirun, infidels, namely, polytheists as allies, protectors, and guardians; namely, as friends who have the power of authority over them. It does not say that a Muslim cannot have a non-Muslim friend.

What the Qur’an does say is that a Muslim cannot take an unbeliever as a wali in preference of — min duni — a believing Muslim. Consequently, Muhammad Asad’s translation — “Let not the believers take those who deny the truth for their allies in preference to the believers” (3:28) — more accurately captures the correct meaning of this verse.

The same message is repeated several times in the Qur’an, including: “as for those who take the deniers of the truth for their allies in preference to the believers — do they hope to be honored by them when, behold, all honor belongs to God [alone]” (4:139) and “O you who have attained to faith! Do not take the deniers of truth for your allies in preference to the believers! Do you want to place before God a manifest proof of your guilt” (4:144).

Even if critics accept that the word kuffar applies to polytheists or atheists as opposed to the People of the Book, they might point out that the Qur’an specifically forbids Muslims from befriending Jews and Christians as in the following verse:

“O you who have attained to faith! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your allies: they are but allies to one another and whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, God does not guide such evildoers” (5:51).

Once again, the word employed is not “friends” in the sense that we understand it in English, but that of allies, protectors, custodians or overlords. Both anti-Muslimites and Takfiri extremists take verses out of context and interpret them as absolute injunctions even though they are elucidated in other parts of the Qur’an. Why, just slightly ahead in the same chapter, Almighty Allah qualifies the interdiction, explaining:

“O you who have attained to faith! Do not take for your friends such as mock at your faith and make a jest of it—be they from among those who have been vouchsafed revelation before your time, or [from among those] who deny the truth [of revelation as such] — but remain conscious of God, if you are [truly] believers.” (5:57)

Hence, the friends that Muslims are not allowed to take are those who make a mockery of Islam, regardless of whether they are People of the Book or those who deny revelation. The prohibition of having bad guardians is not based on race or even religion; it could even apply to one’s own parents, even if they are nominal Muslims, if they are hostile to Islamic beliefs and practices. As Almighty Allah says:

“O you who have attained to faith! Do not take your fathers and your brothers for allies if a denial of the truth is dearer to them than faith: for those of you who ally themselves with them — it is they, then who are evildoers.” (9:23)

As Allah explains in the Qur’an, Muslims cannot take the enemies of Allah, and the enemies of Muslims, as friends:

“O you who have attained to faith! Do not take My enemies — who are your enemies as well — for your friends, showing them affection even though they are bent on denying whatever truth has come unto you, [and even though] they have driven the Apostle and yourselves away, [only] because you believe in God, your Sustainer! If [it be true that] you have gone forth [from your homes] to strive in My cause, and out of a longing for My goodly acceptance, inclining towards them in secret affection: for I am fully aware of all that you may conceal as well as of all that you do openly. And any of you who does this has already strayed from the right path.” (60:1)

If a person derides your faith in God; if a person makes fun of your religion; your beliefs; your morals; and your ethics, that person is not a true friend. Consequently, Almighty Allah is simply stating an obvious fact. He also forbids Muslims from forming bonds of friendship with people who, due to their beliefs, lack thereof, or evil actions, are clearly condemned. As the Qur’an warns:

“O you who have attained to faith! Be not friends with people whom God has condemned! They [who would befriend them] are indeed bereft of all hope of a life to come—just as those deniers of truth are bereft of all hope of [ever again seeing] those who are [now] in their graves.” (60:13)

None of these verses prevent Muslims from having friends who are non-Muslims, regardless of their religion or lack thereof, so long as they are sincere and honorable in their actions. As Allah clarifies once again:

“God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of [your] faith, and drive you forth from your homelands, or aid [others] in driving you forth: and as for those [from among you] who turn towards them in friendship; it is they, they who are truly wrongdoers.” (60:9)

The imperative here is la tatawallaw (60:13) or “do not take as awliya’” people who are at war against Islam and Muslims. Nothing prevents Muslims from taking people as friends who respect their religion. The Prophet himself had friends who were Jews, Christians, and even polytheists. Their relationship, however, was based on love, loyalty, and respect. The Companions of the Prophet had non-Muslim friends as did the Caliphs of Islam. Not only that: the Prophet, the Companions, and the Caliphs had spouses who were Jewish or Christian.

Since the Qur’an permits Muslim men to marry women from the People of the Book; how could it simultaneously prohibit Muslim men from taking Jews and Christians as friends? Is not a wife the most loyal and loving of friends and companions? Regarding believers befriending non-believers, the Book of Proverbs advises that “the righteous should choose his friends carefully, for the way of the wicked leads them astray” (12:26). It advises believers to remain aloof from foolish people (12:20; 14:7), from people with bad tempers (22:24), and from the rebellious (24:21).

Much like the Qur’an, the Bible warns believers to stay away from unbelievers: “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14). As Minou Reeves puts it plainly,

“Muhammad’s message was of friendship and unity, not contempt and war. Hatred did not feature in his plan of social and religious reform. His successors respected the freedom of conscience of their Christian and Jewish subjects. If Westerners will learn to respect Muhammad and Islam, they can hope to be respected in return.” (xii)

Since it is so important, I will say it again: “If Westerners will learn to respect Muhammad and Islam, they can hope to be respected in return.”

I bring you glad tidings that the Covenants of the Prophet with the People of the Book are true and that they represent a call for co-existence, friendship, and fellowship. Let us be bridge-builders and not bridge-breakers. Let us be peace-makers and not peace-breakers. Let us join forces as the Family of Abraham against the enemies of God and humanity. I send you greetings of peace. Salaamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu. 

By Catherine Shakdam and Dr. John Andrew Morrow

DR JOHN ANDREW MORROW (LEFT)

DE VERDRAGEN VAN MOHAMMED MET CHRISTENEN – INTERVIEW MET ANNE DIJK

DE VERDRAGEN VAN MOHAMMED MET CHRISTENEN – INTERVIEW MET ANNE DIJK

Anne Dijk is religiewetenschapper en islamoloog. Enige tijd geleden werd haar gevraagd het boek Six covenants of the Prophet Muhammad te vertalen naar het Nederlands. Dit boek bevat een selectie van convenanten, die de profeet Mohammed heeft gesloten met de christenen van zijn tijd. Het is een vervolgpublicatie van The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World van Dr. John Andrew Morrow. De vertaling is inmiddels af en de publicatie is gepland in het voorjaar van 2017. Volgens Dijk kon zij niet anders dan ja antwoorden. Op Nieuwwij zal zij een aantal van deze convenanten van Mohammed behandelen. Vandaag een gesprek over welke inzichten Dijk als vertaler en als moslim verzamelde. En wat zou dit werk kunnen betekenen in de interreligieuze dialoog? Ze zegt daarover: “De onwetendheid, de angst en de haat die zo velen drijft in deze tijd, voelt zo enorm onrechtvaardig.”

Door: Enis Odaci

Het woord ‘convenant’ is voor veel mensen niet bekend. Kun je uitleggen waar het woord in religieus verband voor staat?
“Mee eens. Daarom heb ik in de vertaling gekozen om het woord convenant te vertalen met ‘verdrag’. De verdragen die in de bundel staan gaan over verdragen tussen verschillende religieuze groepen. In de vroege 7de eeuw was dit voor profeet Mohammed, vrede zij met hem, een manier om pacten, vredesverdragen en andere sociaal-politieke afspraken met elkaar te maken. Je moet je voorstellen dat dit een tijd en context van woestijn, stammen, en een enorm verdeeld gebied was. Het was een periode waarin niet lang geleden grote rijken in elkaar gestort waren, waaronder het Byzantijnse en Perzische rijk, en er veel onrust in de regio was. De verdragen die Mohammed aanging zorgden voor stabiliteit, vrede en een sociaal politiek systeem waarin ieders rechten gewaarborgd waren. Voor die tijd was het zeker revolutionair te noemen.”

Convenanten sluiten is iets anders dan overheersen of onderdrukken. Dat klopt dus niet met het beeld van Mohammed, die via militaire aanvallen een groot rijk kon stichten.
“Klopt. Dat de verspreiding van de islam puur en alleen via onderdrukking en dwang gebeurd zou zijn, is een misvatting. Ten eerste is dit technisch vanuit de islamitische theologie niet mogelijk, want de Koran verhaalt ons: ‘Er is geen dwang in de religie’. Daarnaast zien we dat bekering veelal eerst onder de ‘zwakkeren’ in de samenleving plaatsvond en de islam in die zin echt een bevrijdingsreligie was. Later zien we ook dat het rijk dan weliswaar ‘islamitisch’ was, omdat de Kalief of leiding wel van onder moslims was, maar inwoners hielden altijd het recht op een eigen religie en grote delen van ‘het islamitische’ rijk bestonden uit niet-moslims.

Mohammed werd zelf door de bewoners uitgenodigd om in Medina te komen wonen. Hier werd eigenlijk het eerste grote pact gesloten; het pact van Medina, ook wel de grondwet of het Verdrag van Medina genoemd. Hierin werden de joodse stammen en stammen die andere (meerdere) goden aanbidden opgenomen in de ‘oemmah’ (gemeenschap) van Medina. Hierna zien we dat de Profeet met veel stammen, maar ook met andere steden en monnik gemeenschappen dit soort pacten sloot. Er werden heel expliciet afspraken gemaakt, opgeschreven en ondertekend. In de zes verdragen kun je mooi lezen wat die afspraken zoal waren, en dat er zelfs militaire ondersteuning geboden werd, in plaats van militaire aanvallen.”

Wat raakte jou persoonlijk tijdens het lezen over de convenanten van Mohammed?
“Het meest heftige moment voor mij was toen ik bezig was met de vertaling. Ik was aan het typen en ik hoorde het nieuws dat vader Jacques Hamel in Normandië door Da’esh-sympathisanten was vermoord. Ik ervoer zo’n intens verdriet. De tekst die ik toen, precies op dat moment, aan het vertalen was, was deze: “De Profeet Mohammed citeerde: ‘Als iemand onrechtvaardig en onaardig is tegen de Christenen, zal hij schuldig zijn aan het ongehoorzamen van de Profeet van Allah. Laat hun gebedshuizen in vrede; help en steun hun leider en hun priesters wanneer zij hulp nodig hebben, of het nu in de bergen, in de woestijn, op zee of thuis is. Degene die zich hierna onrechtvaardig tegenover een (christelijke) beschermeling [dhimmi] gedraagt, verbreekt het verdrag en wijst het (daarmee) af. Ik zal zijn vijand zijn op de Dag des Oordeels naast alle Moslims.’”

Tranen vloeiden over mijn wangen. De onwetendheid, de angst en de haat die zo velen drijft in deze tijd, voelt zo enorm onrechtvaardig. Een non verhaalde dat de laatste woorden van deze moordenaar waren: “jullie vermoorden ons!” Vervolgens pleegt hij zelf een moord. Deze situatie was het extreme uiterste van wat ik aan het vertalen was. Die enorme tegenstelling tussen praktijken vandaag de dag en in de geschiedenis, en de woorden die ik hier las, raakte mij in mijn ziel.”

Welke rol kan dit boek spelen in het gesprek tussen moslims en niet-moslims?
“Deze verdragen gaan specifiek over moslims en christenen, maar kan ook gelden voor andere gemeenschappen. In deze periode was er een speciale band tussen moslims en christenen, omdat zij qua ethiek en religie dicht bij elkaar stonden. Ook was het een christen, die als een van de eersten het profeetschap van Mohammed erkende, de neef van Mohammeds vrouw, Khadija. De gedeelde geschiedenis van profeten en het erkennen van de Messias geven een speciale band. Dit boek versterkt die band omdat het op praktisch historische wijze laat zien hoe concreet dit samenleven was. Het was niet alleen accidenteel omdat men het met elkaar moest doen. Nee, het waren bewuste afspraken, vol met respect, liefde en wederzijdse acceptatie. Twee groepen die samen afspraken om in vrede en bescherming met elkaar te leven. Daar kunnen we vandaag de dag van leren.”

Wat kunnen moslims zelf leren van de convenanten van Mohammed?
“De inhoud van deze verdragen lijkt voor veel moslims geen gemeengoed te zijn. Diverse ahadith, overleveringen van de profeet, bevestigen deze verdragen, maar door minder vredelievende groepen, of door staten die deze convenanten niet in hun politiek kunnen gebruiken, worden ze maar al te graag aan de kant gezet als ‘vervalsingen’. Bewustwording over de inhoud en betrouwbaarheid van deze verdragen zal bijdragen om alle verzoenende initiatieven die er zijn te versterken en ook kan een inhoudelijk weerwoord gegeven worden aan de extreme groeperingen. Het leven van de profeet is het grootste voorbeeld voor moslims; laat deze verdragen daarom weer een voorbeeld voor ons allen zijn.”

Over Anne Dijk
Anne Dijk is religiewetenschapper, islamoloog en directeur van het FAHM-instituut. Daarnaast is zij voorzitter van Su-Shi, intra-religieuze dialoog. In de volgende edities gaat Anne op elke zondag tijdens Advent in op de authenticiteit van de verdragen en licht zij enkele inhoudelijke aspecten toe.

Enis Odaci is redacteur van Nieuwwij.nl

Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad to be published in several languages

Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad to be published in several languages

 

 

SHAFAQNA – Dr John Andrew Morrow’s Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad will be published as a multilingual volume, featuring the translations of the Muhammadan Covenants in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Dutch, Russian, Tamil, Bahasa Indonesian, Persian, Urdu, Turkish, and Arabic. The 500-page hard-cover work will soon find its way into major libraries around the world.

Speaking to Shafaqna in exclusive comments Dr Morrow noted: “God-willing, it will increase knowledge of the Covenants of the Prophet and stimulate further research internationally.”

A book of tremendous importance since it dispels allegations Islam has stood a reactionary faith, divorced from Christianity and Judaism, the Covenant Initiative as a whole has been instrumental in fostering positive interfaith relations based on such principles of brotherhood, tolerance, and respect.

Far from denying Judaism and Christianity, Islam came to reaffirm and complete God’s Message. A mercy and grace, the Quran stands a unifier – never a tool of enmity.

Interfaith Understanding

Interfaith Understanding

BY ISLAMIC HORIZONS STAFF

ISNA, WHICH INHERITED THE INTERFAITH MANTLE FROM MSA, ITS root organization, continues to develop it. Interfaith sessions are integral to all ISNA events. And Sunday at the Convention was ISNA Interfaith Banquet day.

This year, Dr. John Andrew Morrow (Ilyas ‘Abd al-‘Alim Islam), an Aboriginal Canadian and member of the Métis Nation, delivered the keynote address.

While discounting the Islamic credentials of ISIS, Morrow pointed out that the Prophet Muhammad (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) never described his system as a State, Caliphate, Sultanate, Republic or Democracy. On the contrary, he described it as an Ummah, Motherland, Homeland, Federation or Confederation. Thus, he said, the Prophet wanted to create a Union of Free People under the precepts derived from the Qur’an that he conveyed in the Covenants he made with Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians: freedom of movement, freedom of work, freedom of study, freedom of religion, and freedom of choice.

Dr. Morrow, who undertook the publication of the Covenant of Madinah (al-Sahifah al-Madinah), said that as a result of its publication in 2013, and the proclamation of the Marrakesh Declaration in 2016, later endorsed by the Organization for Islamic Cooperation, Muslims are becoming increasingly aware of the Covenant, Constitution or Charter of Madinah.

The Prophet proclaimed the Covenant 1400 years ago, to bring together Arabs, Jews, Christians, and pagans. In fact, the first thing he did after arriving in Madinah was to protect the rights of all citizens of his newly formed Ummah. He prepared a Constitution for his Commonwealth in consultation with all of his constituents – the first political charter in history governing the relations between Muslims and non-Muslims.

According to the Constitution of Madinah, identity is not based on race, religion, kinship, class, gender, or tribal affiliation: it is based on membership in the Ummah. It is what we today call “citizenship” said Morrow, and quoted: “To the Jew who follows us belong help and equality. He shall not be wronged nor shall his enemies be aided.”
The Covenant, he said, clearly stipulates: “God’s protection is one.”

Dr. Morrow concluded: “I believe in the Ummah of Muhammad, the
Confederation of Believers that is based on the Covenant of Madinah and the Covenants of the Prophet; an Ummah based on justice, tolerance, and diversity.”

ISLAMIC HORIZONS NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 21

Religious Freedom: A Muslim Perspective

Religious Freedom: A Muslim Perspective

Delivered at the Catholic-Muslim Dialogue Conference in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, on October 19th, 2016, which was hosted by Sacred Heart Catholic Church and the Islamic Society of North America

The position of Islam vis-à-vis religious freedom is unambiguous. The Qur’an requires Muslims to recognize all of the prophets and messengers of God: Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Hud, Joseph, Salih, Moses, Aaron, Job, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Dhu al-Kifl, Jonah, Zacharias, John the Baptist, Jesus, and Muhammad.

Muslims are required to believe in the scrolls and scriptures received by Abraham, David, Moses, and Jesus. They recognize both the Major and Minor Prophets of the Bible. Muslims are mandated to respect Judaism and Christianity. They are commanded by the Prophet Muhammad to respect rabbis, priests, and monks.

The tolerance of Islam toward other religions extends specifically to Sabianism, which is mentioned in the Qur’an, and to Zoroastrianism, which is mentioned in the Hadith and Covenants of the Prophet.

Jews and Christians, and in some cases Zoroastrians, were all placed in the category of Ahl al-Kitab, People of the Book, who were protected by the Prophet and granted special privileges. Although there were no Buddhists in Arabia, some leading Muslim scholars believe that the name Dhu al-Kifl is an allusion to the Buddha.

Although the Prophet Muhammad was persecuted by polytheists, he did not put all polytheists in the same category. Case in point, the Bedouin guide who helped the Prophet escape from Makkah to Madinah was a polytheist. The Prophet Muhammad judged people on the basis of their human qualities.

As Islam spread out of Arabia, and Muslims came into contact with Buddhists, Hindus, and members of many other religions, Islamic authorities decided to place them in the category of Ahl al-Dhimmah or Protected People. Although they were not People of the Book, they were, nonetheless, citizens of the Muslim Ummah, and entitled to all the rights and protections that such a status entails. In India, Muslim leaders even subsidized Hindu temples. The norm was protection, not destruction.

There are those who claim that he Prophet merely patronized the People of the Book. They are those who claim that he merely tolerated the People of the Book. As we know, there is a huge difference between mere tolerance, namely, putting up with someone or something, and pluralism, which signifies active engagement with diversity.

How did the Prophet put it? He describes the People of the Book as his flock. He viewed himself as their shepherd. He said that they were a part of his Community and an honor to him. He said that anyone who hurt them hurt him.

The Prophet Muhammad did not simply preach tolerance: he promoted pluralism by word and example. One day, when he was sitting, a funeral procession passed by. The Prophet immediately stood up. His companion asked: “Why are you standing up? He was a Jew.” The Prophet responded: “He was a human being with a soul.”

The Prophet’s pluralistic teachings were followed by Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali, all of whom renewed the protections that the Prophet had provided to the People of the Book.

The words and actions of Imam ‘Ali, the Fourth Caliph of Islam, illustrate the Islamic ideal. In the letter he sent to his governor, Malik al-Ashtar, he wrote: “Know that people are of two kinds. They are either your brothers in faith or your equals in humanity.”

Under Imam ‘Ali, Muslims and non-Muslims were all equals. On another occasion, Imam ‘Ali made a most pertinent point that highlighted his pluralistic policies: “Know, O Muslims! Our enemy is not the Christians or the Jews. Our enemy is our own ignorance.”

In short, religion is not the problem: people are the problem: people who are ignorant, fanatical, intolerant, misguided, extreme, and ill-intentioned are the problem. Religion is inherently good. However, there are people who exploit it for evil.

One day, when Imam ‘Ali walked past a church, one of his companions commented: “I wonder how much polytheism is practiced in that church.” The Fourth Caliph retorted: “I wonder how much monotheism is practiced in that church.” It’s all a question of perspective.

Islam and Religious Freedom by Dr John Andrew Morrow – scholar of Islam

Islam and Religious Freedom by Dr John Andrew Morrow – scholar of Islam

SHAFAQNA – Delivered at the Catholic-Muslim Forum in Plainfield, Indiana, on Monday, October 17, 2016,

In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful. Praise be to God, the Creator of the Universe, and peace be upon all of His prophets and messengers, the recipients of revelation. We love them all, respect them all, and revere them all. Now then.

It is a distinct honor to be among you today in the presence of distinguished leaders and members of the Catholic and Muslim communities. I express my heart-felt thanks to the organizers from Sacred Heart Catholic Church and the Islamic Society of North America and extend my warmest welcome to all of the participants who are present here this evening. Marhabah. Ahlan wa sahlan. Consider yourselves in the company of family.

Now when I say consider yourselves in the company of family, I mean so both literally and figuratively. As human beings, as the children of Adam and Eve, we are very much one family. In fact, there is a tradition attributed to the Prophet Muhammad that states that “All creatures are the family of Allah” (Bayhaqi). Not only are we family biologically and genetically, we, as believers, as monotheists, are also family spiritually and religiously. In other words, we all belong to the same transcendental tradition.

Truth is simple. Shall I distill the quintessence of religion for you? Shall I do away with millions of books and thousands of years of scholarship, theology, philosophy and metaphysics? God is One. Anyone who believes in God is a believer. Call Him Yahweh. Call Him Elohim. Call Him Jehovah. Call Him Jesus. Call Him Brahman. Call Him Manitou. Call Him Wakan Tanka.  And even call Him Her. So long as you believe in the Creator, you are a believer. And so long as you are good, you will be saved. Faith and deeds.

Although I do not have the time to survey every spiritual tradition in the search for signs of perennial philosophical Truth, let me focus on the Western religious tradition. God, in His Infinite Wisdom and Mercy has sent prophets and messengers to guide humanity. He sent Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. They taught people to believe in One God and to be good. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all belong to the same monotheistic tradition: they are very much the Family of Abraham.

Islam means submission, peace, and surrender. One who submits, is at peace, and surrenders to God in belief and action, is a Muslim or a submitter. As far as Muslims are concerned, all the prophets and messengers, from Adam to Muhammad, taught the same religion: islam or submission. I am distinguishing between Islam with a capital “I” andislam with a small “i;” between definite and indefinite. As far as Muslims are concerned, Judaism is islam, Christianity is islam, and Islam is islam. As we read in the Glorious Qur’an:

The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah – the which We have sent by inspiration to thee – and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: Namely, that ye should remain steadfast in religion, and make no divisions therein: to those who worship other things than Allah, hard is the (way) to which thou callest them. Allah chooses to Himself those whom He pleases, and guides to Himself those who turn (to Him). (42:13)

Now don’t get me wrong. I am not diluting or co-mingling religions. I am not espousing religious relativism or syncretism. I am not saying that these religions are identical. I am saying that they are universal. In matters of law, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are divided on some issues. However, in many matters of faith, they are united. While divinely-revealed religions may differ exoterically or outwardly, they resemble each other esoterically or inwardly. They are all, in my mind, bona fide religious paths, steps on the divine ladder of spiritual perfection.

The foundations of faith include tawhid or divine unity. As we read in the Glorious Qur’an: “Say he is God, One God, God the Eternal” (112:1-2). And again: “Allah. There is no god but He, the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth.” (2:255). And yet again: “Verily, verily, your God is one!” (37: 4)

The foundations of faith include nubuwwah or risalah, the beliefs in the prophets and messengers of God. As we read the Glorious Qur’an:

Say: “We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam).” (3:84)

The foundations of faith include qiyyamah, mi‘ad or akhirah, the belief in the Day of Judgment, Heaven and Hell, and Eternal Life. As we read in the Glorious Qur’an:

On that Day, people will come forward in separate groups to be shown their deeds: whoever has done an atom’s weight of good will see it, but whoever has done an atom’s weight of evil will see that (99:6-8)

The pillars of Islam are five.

Number One: Shahadah: the testimony of faith that there is no god but God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God.

Number Two: Salat: the five daily prayers: dawn, noon, afternoon, sunset, and night.

Number Three: Zakat: the mandatory charity: 2.5% of a Muslim’s total savings and wealth above a minimum amount.

Number Four: Sawm: the fasting during the month of Ramadan. No food, drink, cigarettes or intimate relations from dawn to sunset. It teaches discipline, self-control, and empathy toward the poor, hungry, and needy. It encourages charity. It is the ultimate trial of sincerity.

And Number Five: Hajj: the pilgrimage to Makkah, to the Ka‘abah, built by Patriarch Abraham, upon the command of God, as the first monotheistic house of worship. Filled with richly symbolic rituals, the physical pilgrimage to Makkah reenacts the spiritual pilgrimage toward God.

Islam is a belief system. Islam is a devotional system. Islam is an ethical system. Islam is a spiritual system. Islam is a mystical system. Islam is a legal system. Islam is a socio-political and economic system. To be succinct, Islam is a worldview. It is faith in action. It is faith that moves mountains through sacred activism and the struggle for social justice.

Now that I have painted the fundamentals of faith and roots of religion in broad strokes, it is time to tackle the topic at hand: Islam and religious freedom. Religious freedom is a right, a hard-won right, that many people take for granted in the Western world. Regrettably, it remains out of reach for people in many parts of the world including, unfortunately, a couple of Muslim-majority nations. If any of you are familiar with my work, I am not one to sugar coat such subjects.

There was no such thing as religious freedom in ancient times. The religion of the ruler was imposed on all subjects. People were converted by decree. God forbid if you were a Jew or a Christian under Roman rule. To a large extent, there was no such thing as freedom unless you belonged to the political or economic elite. In ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, slavery was the order of the day. And in early Modern Europe if one was not a slave, one was a serf, a virtual slave to a Lord. It was only in relatively recent history that freedom of religion moved to the forefront.

When we speak of freedom of religion in the Western world, we point to several foundational documents: The American Constitution from 1787. The Bill of Rights from 1789. The First Amendment to the American Constitution from 1791. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948. And the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms from 1982. Prior to that, there were no religious rights, little rights, or limited rights. There was no such thing as comprehensive protection of religious freedom in the Western world. The few protections that existed were limited in scope and served the interest of the majority.

Something absolutely unprecedented took place in seventh-century Arabia; an event of unparalleled religious, spiritual, political, and social importance: the revelation received by the Prophet Muhammad in the Cave of Hira on the Mountain of Light on the outskirts of Makkah. The religion he would come to preach was not new and he never presented it as such. On the contrary, he asserted that he was renewing the religion of Jesus, Moses, and Abraham and this religion contained an important component: religious freedom.

The Prophet Muhammad preached the Word of God but did not impose the Word of God. He invited all to the ancient religion of Abraham. Islam was the culmination of previous prophetic messages. Hence, despite legal and theological differences, the Prophet acknowledged the Truth at the heart of Judaism and Christianity, and embraced the ahl al-kitab, the People of the Book, into his Ummah, his Community or Confederation of Believers. Islam, by nature, was inclusive and pluralistic from day one despite the claims of its enemies.

Religious freedom is rooted in the Qur’an:

Say: O ye that reject faith! I worship not that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship what which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you your Religion, and to me Mine. (109: 1-6)

This is religious freedom defined and religious freedom refined. This chapter of the Qur’an was revealed in regard to the Arab polytheists. Although Muslims shared common ground with the People of the Book, they had little in common with idolaters. Despite the chasm between monotheism and polytheism, the Prophet was still prepared to live side by side with them so long as the Muslims were guaranteed religious freedom. Most, but not all of the pagans, opted to persecute the monotheistic Muslims, raping, torturing, and murdering them unless they accepted to worship idols.

Islam’s view of the Other was altogether outstanding. As Almighty God commands: “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256). It speaks for itself. It requires no commentary. Either you buy it or you deny it. You cannot compel people to convert to Islam and claim that you are following the Qur’an. Whoever does so follows a faith other than Islam or — to be more precise and provocative — is faithless. As we read in the Glorious Qur’an: “And if your Lord had enforced His will, surely, all who are on the earth would have believed together. Will you, then, force men to become believers?” (10:100)

God Himself refuses to force people into faith. Imagine, then, the utter arrogance and the sheer stupidity of those who defy the Divinity by coercing their convictions upon others. And if God Himself has granted people freedom of conscience, so has the Messenger of God. As we read in the Glorious Qur’an: “Admonish, therefore, for thou art but an admonisher; thou hast no authority to compel them. (88: 22-23). And yet again: “(O Prophet) proclaim, ‘This is the truth from your Lord, so let him who will believe, and let him who will, disbelieve.’ (18:30)

And while there are some Muslims who allege that all non-Muslims are unbelievers, such a position is not rooted in the Sunnah of the Prophet and is certainly not in concordance with the teachings of the Glorious Qur’an. As Almighty God explains:

Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve. (2:62)

And while the Qur’an commands jihad, sacred struggle, it was aimed, not at believers in divinely-revealed religions but at atheists, polytheists, and pagans, along with any of their allies, who persecuted monotheists and prevented them from exercising their religious freedom.

Religious freedom is rooted in the Constitution of Madinah. Compiled by the Prophet through the combined efforts of the early community in Madinah, which consisted primarily of Jews and Pagans, along with a small number of Muslims, it represents the first political charter in the history of humanity. And what is so significant about this charter of rights produced at the dawn of Islam? It enshrines freedom of religion: “The Jews… are one community with the believers… The Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs.”

The Constitution of Madinah decreed that the citizens of the Community were one and indivisible regardless of religion. Be they heathen, People of the Book, or Muslims, all those who were subject to the Constitution belonged to the same Ummah or Confederation. In so doing, the Prophet Muhammad created a tolerant, pluralistic, government that protected religious freedom.

Remember, in Greek or Athenian democracy, the only individuals considered to be citizens were free native adult males. Slaves, women, children, and foreigners, as well as peasants, who represented more than 50% of the population, were all excluded. In other words, more than half of the population was composed of human “objects” as opposed to human beings. The Republican Romans were no better. the plebeians or masses, could not rule, elect rulers or make use of land.

In the Ummah or Community created by the Prophet, however, every single member of society enjoyed equality before the law as all privileges of class were abolished. The rich and the poor; the noble and the laymen; the Arabs and the non-Arabs; the blacks and the whites; men, women, and children; as well as the members of various religions, were all protected.

The Prophet Muhammad created an inclusive Community of Believers which included members of all the Abrahamic faiths. The ahl al-dhimmah, both Jewish and Christian, belonged to the community of believers. This was the dawn of a new day and the birth of a new culture and civilization. What the Prophet created was unprecedented: a Free State, founded more than 1300 years before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

If religious freedom is rooted in the Qur’an and in the Constitution of Madinah, it is also rooted in the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians. As we read in the Covenants of the Prophet with the Christians of Najran, Mount Sinai, Persia, Assyria, and the World:

It is not permitted to remove a bishop from his bishopric or a Christian from his Christianity, a monk from his monastic life or a pilgrim from his pilgrimage or a hermit monk from his tower. Nor is it permitted to destroy any part of their churches, to take parts of their buildings to construct mosques or the homes of Muslims.

The Prophet Muhammad granted covenants of protection to Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians. He promised them freedom of conscience, freedom of belief, and freedom of religious practice. He protected their religious establishments and prohibited forced conversions. The Covenants of the Prophet have been passed down for 1400 years through Jewish, Christian, and Muslim sources. They have been authenticated by scores of scholars. They have been confirmed from the first Caliph down to the last Caliph.

But enough with the inspiration. Enough with nostalgic visions of an idealized and idealistic time. Enough with the world of words. Let us return to reality, grim reality. Religious freedom is under attack across the world. Just look at the actions of the so-called “Islamic” State or, as I like to call them, the Satanic State. They proudly flout the law, taking pride in violating every ethical, moral, and legal principle in Islam. For what purpose? To destroy the image of Islam, incite Islamophia, and advance the geopolitical plans of their patrons.

Religious freedom is under attack here at home. We have a corrupt woman running for President: Hillary Clinton. And we have a bombastic buffoon running for President: Donald Trump. So either I have just alienated the entire audience or I have united us, as believers with morals, values, ethics, and principles who can rise above these two despicable candidates in this freak election from Hell where the only option is between Satan and the goddess Kali. That’s quite an ethical conflict.

On the one hand, we have Donald Trump, a serial liar, a misogynist, a self-confessed sexual assaulter, a xenophobic racist, who regularly incites political violence and who has promised to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion of them — from entering the United States. Trump, however, is simply the ugly face of a deep-rooted undercurrent that has existed in this country since day one. He is simply surfing the wave of centuries-old suppressed hatred. He embodies the worst of what this country has to offer.

There is an Islamophobic industry in the Western world that is funded by multinational corporations to the tune of millions of dollars per year. They seek to convince people, parties, courts, and governments that Islam is not a religion, but a perilous political ideology; thus permitting people in power to prohibit the practice of Islam, close Islamic centers, refuse to recognize Muslim marriages, ban the hijab and establish a Muslim Registry inspired by totalitarian regimes. These people openly advocate placing Muslims in detention camps.

We are dealing with people who are both dangerous and diabolical; it is due to their control of the media that most of the American people — and most American Muslims — have never heard of the several hundred Muslim projects in opposition to ISIS presently going on, both in North America and beyond it; every Catholic and every Muslim in this country, and the world, should familiarize themselves with these actions.

On the other hand, we have Hillary Clinton, a politician-for-profit who is on the payroll of every elitist globalist. She is a chameleon, constantly changing her colors, her tune, and her political and social positions to suit the plans of her Masters: those who own her. Sure, compared to Trump many people believe that she is the lesser evil but she is evil nonetheless.

If Trump might blow up the entire planet, Hillary may only blow up part of it: a Muslim part of it. However, if she continues her policy of provocation towards Russia, all bets are off: it’s boom, boom, kaboom! Bye-bye Mother Earth. In matters of religious freedom, Hillary Clinton is not much better than Donald Trump. They both represent extremes. Clinton, like Obama and others of their ultra-liberal ilk, seek to force their radical secular philosophy down the throats of believers, people who hold firmly to traditional moral, social, and ethical values.

When members of her staff recently called Catholics and Evangelicals “backward,” they knew that such attitudes were acceptable in the campaign office. And in a 2014 email exchange with her campaign manager, John Podesta — brought to us courtesy of Wikileaks — Hillary said:

The advance of ISIL through Iraq gives the U.S. Government an opportunity to change the way it deals with the chaotic security situation in North Africa and the Middle East. The most important factor in this matter is to make use of intelligence resources and Special Operations troops in an aggressive manner.

And we know that ISIL has carried out systematic genocide against the ancient Christians of the Middle East, as well as every Muslim who will not subscribe to their Satanic policies. Every Catholic and every Muslim in this country, and the world, should familiarize themselves with revelations like this.

Donald Trump believes that Hillary Clinton needs to be locked up. Many Americans agree. However, many Americans also believe that Donald Trump needs to be locked up for the sake of sanity and the sake of humanity. It’s time to hit re-set. Start the game over again. Bring back Bernie Sanders, Al Gore, or Mitt Romney. How about Collin Powell? What about Joe Biden? Even the Bush family is better. We should be picking the most virtuous, the most righteous, the most pious, the most competent, the most intelligent, and the most qualified: not the lesser of two evils.

Enough then with my cathartic rant. It has relieved a lot of pent-up stress and anger. Let me compose myself. Breathe in deeply and return to the importance of religious freedom and dialogue in today’s environment.

Religious freedom is under attack. The time for believers to unite, organize, cooperate, collaborate, and coordinate has come. Do not believe for a second that only Islam is at stake in the Culture War, the conflict between traditionalist or conservative values and so-called progressive or liberal values. The attack against any religion is an attack against every religion. I say it again so you can hear me loud and clear: the attack against any religion is an attack against every religion.

Please allow me to put it in semi-plagiarized poetic form inspired by Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) a leading Protestant pastor, and outspoken opponent of Adolf Hitler, who spent the final seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps. Many of you will be familiar with this poem. I have simply tweaked it and applied it to current times:

First they came for the illegal aliens,

And I did not speak out,

Because I was not an illegal alien

(although Native Americans would argue otherwise)

 

Then they came for the refugees, the Syrians, the Iraqis, and the Somalis,

And I did not speak out,

Because I was not a refugee.

 

Then they came for Trade Unionists,

And I did not speak out,

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

 

Then they came for the Muslims

And I did not speak out,

Because I was not a Muslim.

 

Then they came for us, the Christians,

And there was no one left to speak for us.

The multi-million-dollar fear factory from the Islamophobic industry wants you, Christians, to believe that we, Muslims are your enemies. Don’t allow yourselves to be duped or deceived. As God says in the Qur’an: “Hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of God and do not be divided” (3:103)

Crimes against Muslims and Muslim mosques has reached an all-time high. In 2015, 29 mosques were attacked in this country. Hate crimes against Muslims number in the hundreds per year. In 2016, thanks to the Hate-Monger in Chief, anti-Muslim hate crimes have increased by 78%. However, crimes against Christians and Christian churches are equally alarming. Between 2007 and 2011, there was an average of 280 cases of arson against Christian churches: that’s almost one church per day. Trust me: the very same people who are burning down mosques are the very same people who are burning down churches.

The goal of the globalists is clear: turn religion against religion in order to destroy all religion and impose their New World Order. We need to unite and fight the pandemic spread of radical secularism and stand, shoulder-to-shoulder, with all believers.

The Roman Catholic Church has set the stage. As we read in Nostra Aetate, theDeclaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, proclaimed by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on October 28, 1965:

The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting. Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Muslims, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

Although Muslims are distinct from Christians, the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges that Muslims are believers in the one God. In return, all true Muslims must acknowledge that Christians are mu’minin, believers, as opposed tomushrikin or polytheists, and as opposed to kuffar or pagan infidels. This is not an innovation in the Islamic canon. It is a return to the sources, to the origins of Islam. The Prophet himself described Jews and Christians as believers,al-mu’minin, and Muslims as believers who have submitted, namely, al-mu’minin al-muslimin.

If the Sacred Synod: “urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom,” so be it. Let bygones be bygones. This does not mean that we ignore the past. It means that we are not prisoners of the past. It means that we learn from the past, from all of our mistakes and shortcomings, and that we move forward, together, toward the future.

Despite the media blackout of Muslim voices, aimed at polarizing the population to divide and conquer, Western Muslims have been center-stage in the struggle for religious freedom. It would take me one hour to list all the interfaith efforts spearheaded by Muslims. Despite coming from Muslim-majority nations, many Muslim immigrants were deprived of religious freedom in their countries of origin. These countries have been ruled by secular strong-men and military dictators since the end of colonialism to current times.

The vast majority of Muslims do not come to the West because they hate our freedoms. Muslims come to the West because they love our freedoms. Muslims to do not come to the West to destroy our rights. They come to the West to enjoy our rights: the right to believe in God; the right to organize religious gatherings; the right to attend places of prayer; the right to believe without being perceived as a threat and persecuted. This is why Muslims come to the West.

However, only half of Muslims in the West are immigrants. The other half are African Americans, Caucasian Americans, Latino Americans, and even, people like me, Native Americans, First Nations, despite my light skin and green eyes. We did not come here looking for rights. We are from here. We fought for rights. We earned rights. We grew up with rights. And we will not stand still, cowardly and impotently, and watch our rights be eroded and eliminated slowly and strategically; and watch, with apathy, the criminalization of morality.

These are dangerous times. These are challenging times. We are endangered by the elites. We are also endangered by extreme elements from the gutter. We have so-called “Crusaders” in Kansas City who plotted to detonate car bombs around a mosque and a housing complex where a hundreds of Somali refugees live. These are people who fled terrorist militias in Somalia, seeking the American dream, only to be targeted by domestic terrorists.

In the words of one of the “patriotic” psychopaths: “The only f***ing way this country’s ever going to get turned around is it will be a bloodbath and it will be a nasty, messy motherf***er.” How eloquent. These people planned to break down doors and murder Muslims, men, women, and children. They were not even going to spare babies. This is the point we have reached?

We have intolerant psychopaths on both sides, some claiming to be Muslims and others claiming to be Christians. They are not Muslims. They are not Christians. How do I know? How can I say such things? Because in order to be a Christian, and in order to be a Muslim, you need, first and foremost, to be a human being. And these people have lost their humanity, not to mention their sanity.

When it comes to the People of the Book, I say what the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him said: “Whoever kills a Christian shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelled at a distance of forty years (of traveling)”(Bukhari and Bayhaqi). And finally: “Whoever oppresses a Christian, I will testify against him on the Day of Judgment” (Bukhari and Abu Dawud).

I leave with prayers for peace. Amen.

By Dr. John Andrew Morrow

Uniting the Ummah: The Foundations of Islamic Unity

Uniting the Ummah: The Foundations of Islamic Unity

SHAFAQNA – Islamic unity has never been a problem for me or for people like me and trust me, there are many. There are not hundreds. There are not thousands. There are not tens of thousands. There are hundreds of thousands, even millions, of converts or reverts to Islam who feel the same very same way. I would even venture to say that there are upwards of one billion cultural Muslims who share the same sentiment. So, when we talk about Islamic unity, we are not a minority; we are actually the majority. The problem is that most of us are a silent majority or, more accurately, a silenced majority.

I have been a strong advocate for Islamic unity for the past thirty years. There are people in our communities who have been promoting Sunni-Shi‘ite unity for forty and fifty years. Scholars and sages have been doing it for centuries. The Imams of Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, were doing it 1400 years ago. Our efforts have not been in vain. There have been successes. There have also been failures. We need to acknowledge that. We have a very serious problem. It is a problem that threatens Islam as a whole. It is a problem that targets the very heart of our Ummah. Considering the so-called Sunni-Shi‘ah conflict occurring in the Middle East, and much of the Muslim world, we must redouble our efforts.

While it will come as a surprise to many, the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, were some of the strongest proponents of Islamic unity. Rather than promote division and conflict, Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq urged Shi‘ites to pray with Sunnis: “He who prays with them standing in the front row, it is as though he prayed with the Prophet in the first row” (Saduq). The Imam also encouraged Shi‘ites to treat Sunnis as their brethren: “Visit their sick, attend their funerals, and pray in their mosques” (Saduq). Since the improper behavior of followers reflects poorly on their leader, the Imam told his followers to “Become an ornament for us, and not a disgrace” (Saduq). He also called upon his Shi‘ites to encourage goodwill among all Muslims, saying, “May Allah have mercy on a person who inculcates friendship towards us among men, and does not provoke ill-will among them” (Saduq). This Shi‘ite spirit of Islamic unity was shown by ‘Allamah Sharaf al-Din al-Musawi who ruled that the Shi‘ites of Lebanon should celebrate the birth of the Prophet on the same day as the Sunnis. Imam Khumayni took this a step further by declaring Islamic Unity week. Sayyid al-Sistani has also taken praiseworthy steps to promote peace and brotherhood between all Muslims in Iraq.

The very idea of “debate” between Sunnis and Shi‘ites is misguided as “debate” implies opposition with each party trying to defeat the other. It is foolish to believe that any party could actually “win” such a debate considering that Muslims have been polarized into two camps for nearly 1,500 years. The very idea of Sunni-Shi‘ah debate should be cast aside and replaced by inter-Islamic dialogue.

In order for Shi‘ites and Sunnis to move towards reconciliation, they need to recognize that any extreme polar position is only going to aggravate the conflict, not to mention providing outside forces inimical to Islam with a weak point they can exploit.

For starters, all Muslims, Shi‘ite, Sunnis, and ‘Ibadis, must cease cursing Companions of the Prophet and cursing one another as such actions merely increase animosity I have witnessed Salafis insult Fatimah, ‘Ali, Hasan, and Husayn; Sunni Muslims insult the Ahl al-Bayt, Twelver Shi‘ites insult the Sunni Caliphs, Isma‘ilis insult Imam Musa al-Kazim, Sufis insult Sunnis, and ‘Ibadis insult Imam ‘Ali. Surely, such behavior must cease from all sides. As Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq warned: “Do not revile them, lest they revile your ‘Ali” (Saduq). What goes around comes around, and it is time for a truce if not a treaty of perpetual peace.

As any historian of early Islam is aware, the Companions of the Prophet had their differences, cursed each other, and killed each other. Surely, the sound of mind should not seek to perpetuate such belligerent behavior ad-eternam. Questions of who was right and who was wrong are a matter of personal belief. There is no need to express them openly in contexts that arouse undue emotion. When it comes to some matters, Muslims need to let differences die with those who differed.

Over the course of 1,400 years of Sunni and Shi‘ite sectarianism, positions have become polarized and differences have become deeply entrenched. Muslims need to leave a little room for ambiguity. Despite what most Muslims would like to believe, early Islamic history was not black and white, and not everything was cut and dry. Muslims need to open up to uncertainty, move from the black areas into gray areas, and creative processes will emerge.

If Shi‘ites and Sunnis are sincere in seeking reconciliation, if they are honest about starting a dialogue, then they must agree to talk with respect. Both sides of the conflict need to be recognized. Both have wronged and been wronged. Muslims need to refrain from belligerence and leave room for forgiveness. They need to set emotion aside or moderate it with intelligence. They need to stop trying to prove each other wrong. They must unite on the values and beliefs that they hold in common. Since we are dealing with a complex, multi-dimensional, problem that is deeply rooted in history, there is no simple solution. We need to approach the issue from many angles. We need to implement numerous strategies. One such approach is to stress similarity instead of difference; to focus on what we share in common as oppose to what divides us.

When outsiders look at Islam, all they see are Muslims. They do not distinguish between various sects. If they were to examine issues of ‘aqidah or creed between the various Muslim groups, they would be hard-pressed to find grounds for division. The Sunni Muslims believe in:

 

Tawhid: Oneness of God

Nubuwwah/Risalah: Prophethood and Messengership

Kutub: Divinely Revealed Books

Mala’ikah: Angels

Qiyamah: The Day of Judgment

Qadar: Predestination

 

They are also fond of combining both faith and belief in Five Pillars of Islam, consisting of:

 

Shahadah: Profession of Faith

Salah: Prayer

Sawm: Fasting in Ramadan

Hajj: Pilgrimage to Mecca

Zakah: Alms

 

The Twelver Shi‘ite theologians prefer to separate creed from practice, presenting two lists, the Foundations of Faith, and the Branches of Faith.

 

Usul al-din

 

Tawhid: Oneness of God

‘Adl: Divine Justice

Nubuwwah/Risalah: Prophethood and Messengership

Imamah/Wilayah: Imamate or Guardianship

Qiyamah: Day of Judgment

 

Furu’ al-din

 

Salah: Prayer

Sawm: Fasting in Ramadan

Hajj: Pilgrimage to Mecca

Zakah: 2.5% charity

Khums: 20% alms

Jihad: Struggle

Amr bi al-ma’ruf: Promoting good

Nahi ‘an al-munkar: Forbidding evil

Tawalli: Attachment to Ahl al-bayt

Tabarri: Separation from the enemies of Ahl al-bayt

 

For all intents and purpose, the Zaydiyyah share the same beliefs of the Ithna ‘Ashariyyah. The main difference between both groups is in their concept of the Imamate, and the fact that Zaydiyyah fiqh is closer to Sunni Hanafi and Sunni Shafi‘i fiqh, with some elements of Shi‘ah Ja‘fari elements.

The Isma‘iliyyah theologians have organized their beliefs into Seven Pillars of Islam, consisting of:

Wilayah: Guardianship

Taharah: Purity

Salah: Prayer

Zakah: Alms

Sawm: Fasting in Ramadan

Hajj: Pilgrimage to Mecca

Jihad: Struggle

 

‘Ibadiyyah theologians have organized their beliefs into the following Five Pillars:

 

Tawhid: Oneness of God

‘Adl: Divine Justice

Qadar: Predestination

Wilayah/Tabarri: Attachment to Muslims and separation from unbelievers

Amr/Nahi: Promoting good and forbidding evil; implementing the Imamate when possible.

 

As can be appreciated from this overview, all Muslims believe in the following articles of faith:

 

Tawhid: Oneness of God

Nubuwwah/Risalah: Prophets and Messengers

Qiyamah: The Day of Judgment

 

Although non-Sunnis do not list the divinely revealed books (kutub) or the angels (mala’ikah) in their creeds, these are fundamental aspects of beliefs for all groups. If they do not cite them as individual items, it is because they form part of the belief in God and His Prophets.

The ‘Ibadiyyah and some of the Sunnis adds qadar or predestination to their articles of faith while other groups insist on free will. Along with Shi‘ite groups, the ‘Ibadiyyah focus on ‘adl or divine justice, whereas some of the Sunnis insist on qadir or omnipotence. This difference is the result of philosophical differences in which the Sunni stress Allah’s Omnipotence over His Justice, while the Shi‘ites stress Allah’s Justice over His Omnipotence. In practical matters, the hierarchical differences between divine attributes are inconsequential and do not make or break a Muslim. In fact, the majority of Muslims are completely unaware of such philosophical subtleties.

The Shi‘ah Ithna ‘Ashariyyah, the Shi‘ah Zaydiyyah, the Shi‘ah Isma‘iliyyah, and the ‘Ibadiyyah all believe in Imamah although their chains of Imams are different as are their qualities, attributes, and qualifications. In many respects, the Shi‘ite and ‘Ibadi belief in Imamah is similar to the Sunni belief in khilafah. Whether it is an Imam or a Caliph, whether he inherits his title or is elected, whether he is a righteous leader or an infallible Imam, Sunni, Shi‘ite, and even Sufi Muslims believe in some form of religious authority, both spiritual and political, which should rule the Ummah and establish the shari‘ah.

As can be seen, all Muslims share the same creedal concepts and religious practices. They all believe in one God, the Prophethood, and the Day of Judgment. They all believe in angels and revealed books. They all pray, fast, make the pilgrimage to Mecca, and pay charity. Although the Sunnis do not list khums, jihad, promoting the good and forbidding evil, in their creed, all Sunnis accept these as religious obligations.

Although a Nasibi would reject the obligation to love the Prophet’s Family, and the prohibition of dealing with those who hate the Prophet’s family, every true Sunni and every true Sufi loves and blesses the Prophet and his Family. Evidently, all true Muslims follows the shari‘ah, be they Sunni, ‘Ibadi, Shi‘i Ithna ‘Ashari, Shi‘i Isma‘ili, Shi‘i Zaydi, or Sufi.

If there are any differences between Sunni, Shi‘ite, ‘Ibadi, and Sufi Muslims, they are relatively minor and revolve around aspects of religious practice. Muslims need to recognize and respect their tiny technical differences. They need to remember that jurisprudence is not a goal in and of itself but a means to a goal, namely, the remembrance of Almighty Allah. As important as proper observation of Islamic practices may be, far too many Muslims focus on the form of worship as opposed to the essence of worship.

Islamic unity certainly does not mean uniformity. It does not mean that all schools of fiqh [jurisprudence] should merge into one. It merely means that there is more than one “right way” to do things, and that jurists have differences of opinion, based on different interpretations of the Qur’an and Sunnah and on different methodologies. Within certain limits, every ruling is “right” according to the jurist who derived it. Every opinion is “correct” depending on one’s point of view. All jurists agree on the issue, but they view the issue from a different perspective. One issue can be viewed as harammakruh, and halal [forbidden / reprehensible / permissible]. In Islam, every issue can be seen from a 360-degree angle and there is ample room for a wide range of opinion.

In many areas of Islamic law, differences of opinion are mainly differences of degree. These differences are a mercy and a blessing from Allah. No Muslim is obliged to submit to one set of rulings. Each Muslim is free to follow the rulings of the mujtahid or mufti[jurist] of his choice, to leave the taqlid [emulation] of one faqih [jurist], and to commence the taqlid of another he deems to be the most learned. Since all people are different, they have different levels of din [religion], different levels of faith, and different levels of understanding. There is no coercion when it comes to conforming to certain rulings.

In closing, I would like to encourage all Muslims to unite on the basis of their common beliefs, remembering that unity does not imply uniformity. Muslims may come from various legal, theological, and philosophical traditions, but they are all one in the Oneness of God. Muslims must reject absolutist literalist attitudes and embrace a Universal Islam, becoming multi-dimensional Muslims far removed from the fundamentalist fallacy. They need to embrace Islamic pluralism and Islamic diversity in accord with the Oneness of Allah and the Qur’anic message brought by the Messenger of Allahan Islam which includes rather than excludes, an Islam which enriches rather than impoverishes, a centrist, middle-road Islam (2:143), which opposes extremism, for as Almighty Allah says, “Do not be excessive in your belief” (4:165; 5:81).

While Islam rejects religious relativism and exoteric religious pluralism, it does accept that all revealed religions share the same esoteric spirit. Whether it is Judaism, Christianity or Islam, all revealed religions believe in One God, the Prophets, the Day of Judgment, and the Ten Commandments. However, before Muslims can unite socio-politically with the true ahl al-kitab, they must unite with themselves, embracing Islam as a totality, accepting the entire Islamic pie rather than a single slice. If the Europeans say, “All roads lead to Rome,” we say, “All roads lead to Allah,” and this is precisely what the Qur’an teaches: Tawhid is one, but the number of paths to Allah is equal to the number of human souls.

By Dr John Andrew Morrow for the Shafaqna Institute for Middle Eastern Studies

Ghadir, a Call to Islamic Unity

Ghadir, a Call to Islamic Unity

What is Eid al-Ghadir? It is the celebration of the appointment of Imam ‘Ali as the successor of the Messenger of Allah.

After completing the Farewell Pilgrimage on the 10th year of the Hijrah, the Messenger of Allah stopped at the Pond of Ghadir Khumm on the 18th of Dhu al-Hijjah, a date that corresponds with March 10th of the year 632. It was there that he received the revelation:

“O Messenger! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you do not do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you from the people …” (Qur’an 5:67)

There, in the presence of 120,000 Muslims, he delivered a three-hour long sermon, in which he stated:

“It seems the time has approached when I shall be called away (by Allah) and I shall answer that call. I am leaving for you two precious things and if you adhere to them both, you will never go astray after me. They are the Book of Allah and my Progeny, that is my Ahl al-Bayt. The two shall never separate from each other until they come to me by the Pool (of Paradise).”

Then the Messenger of Allah continued:

“Do I not have more right over the believers than what they have over themselves?” The people cried and answered: “Yes, O Messenger of Allah.” It was then that the Messenger of Allah held up ‘Ali’s hand and said: “For whoever I am his master, ‘Ali is also his master. O God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him.”

Immediately after concluding his sermon, the following verse of the Qur’an was revealed:

“This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.” (Qur’an 5:3)

Most ahadith or prophetic traditions are ahad; namely, they were transmitted by a single person. Such sayings are not facts. Other traditions are mutawatir or continuous; namely, they were transmitted by numerous authorities.

Hadith scholars differ as to how many narrators are needed for a tradition to be considered continuous. Some place the minimum at four, five, seven or ten. Others raise the bar to forty or even seventy.

The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm, however, has been transmitted by the Household of the Prophet: ‘Ali, Fatimah, Hasan and Husayn.

It was transmitted by 110 Companions of the Prophet, including ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘A’ishah, Abu Hurayrah, Abu Dharr al-Ghiffari, Salman al-Farsi, Zubayr ibn al-‘Awwam, Jabir ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Ansari, among many others.

It was transmitted by 83 Followers of the Companions of the Prophet.

It was transmitted by 360 Sunni scholars from the 2nd to 4th century after the Hijrah.

It was also transmitted by all the major Shii scholars, such as Kulayni, Qummi, Mufid, and Sharif al-Murtaza.

As a Muslim scholar and as a Western academic, I can assert, without any doubt whatsoever, that the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is authentic according to Islamic scholarly standards; and not only that: it is a historical fact according to Western scholarly standards.

Since it is pointless to expound upon the evident, I can direct readers to al-Ghadir fi al-Kitab wa al-Sunnah, the 11-volume encyclopedic work by ‘Allamah Amini. All I can say is: the case is closed.

Although the event of Ghadir Khumm cannot be disputed by any sincere and objective scholar or academic, its interpretation most certainly can be.

For Sunni scholars, the tradition stresses that Muslims should love, honuor, and respect Imam ‘Ali, not necessarily that he was the first in line for succession.

For Sufi scholars, the tradition stresses that Imam ‘Ali was the spiritual successor of the Prophet Muhammad.

 For Zaydi scholars, the tradition indicates that Imam ‘Ali was the preferred choice for succession; namely, that he was afdal.

For Twelver Shiite scholars, it indicates the obvious: namely, that Imam ‘Ali was both the spiritual and political successor of the Prophet.

We can agree to disagree on the interpretation of the event; however, we cannot honestly discount that the event ever took place.

So, whether we are Sunni, Shia or Sufi, can we all agree: to love Allah and to love ‘Ali?

By Dr John Andrew Morrow for the Shafaqna Institute for Middle Eastern Studies.

The Oath of Ghadeer and The Ummah of Muhammad – Beyond nationalism

tumblr_mv6kadoli01s5flgxo1_1280

The Oath of Ghadeer and The Ummah of Muhammad – Beyond nationalism

HUFFINGTON POST – NOTE TO READERS: This article concludes my series (for now anyway) on political Islam, religious legitimacy and the principle of custodianship within Islam the nation-state. See part one here.

Before I begin I feel I must clarify a few points and call on you readers, to keep an open mind. It is often we read people’s thoughts and arguments from under a thick coat of prejudices – whether or not we care to admit it.

I must say that whenever I have attempted to discuss Islam, its Scriptures and its various school of thoughts, many have screamed “blue murder” reading into my work sectarianism, and self-righteousness under the misapprehension I was attempting to redact their beliefs.

My goal is only to reclaim history and redress those changes a wealthy Wahhabi clergy has rained on Islam’s many communities over the centuries. I am here to discuss those events Wahhabism has worked to disappear so that the true nature of Islam would be lost.

Finally, I am here to offer you a new perspective on Islam – one, which you likely never considered.

If we are honest with one another we need to admit that Islam still feels today very much like a foreign religion. Only this year French Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared Islam incompatible with Western values … whatever those maybe.

The argument has been that Islamic values stand in negation of Western values, and that by extension Muslims remain a fifth column to an otherwise united secular Western society. This would be looking at Islam through the lens of Wahhabism.

Islam is no more foreign than Judaism or Christianity … Abraham I recall, the father of many nations, hailed from what we call modern day Iraq – not exactly your Viking ancestor.

Faith is not bound by geography, or ethnicity. Faith unites people and communities beyond their differences in the experience of the Divine.

Today, state officials have postulated that Islam cannot exist alongside the modern concept of the nation-state, on the premise that Muslims need to live in rejection of all others to assert their identity. How many times have we heard commentators assert that Muslims ambition to live according to Sharia law – a state within the state, to forever erode at secularism?

Again, if you are referring to those sociopathic hordes draped in the banner of the Black Flag Army you might have a point … Although what they advocate is not Islamic law, rather, an aberration called Wahhabism.

The hate and disgust the West has learnt from its governments has been directed at the wrong parties and the wrong faith – or as I believe we should call it: dogma. It is Wahhabism the Western world is really reproaching NOT Islam. It is Wahhabis the West should feel anxious of, NOT Muslims.

More than any other group, Muslims have suffered a terrible fate by the hands of Wahhabism. Muslims have actually been decimated under Wahhabism. Islam tenets have been perverted, and redacted; its principles and history soiled and sullied. Research for yourself and you will see that Islam stands not the enemy but the victim.

Look beyond what you have been told to see and discover what friendships our democracies have entertained in the name of capitalism … look at the dangers greed exposes you to. Only this September Saudi Arabia’s most senior cleric called for a grand religious genocide against, Shia Muslims, Christians and Jews to assuage Wahhabism warped sense of righteousness. That word again: righteousness. A dangerous word indeed when devoid of wisdom and knowledge.

Now that I have clarify my stance allow me to delve into an aspect of Islam which has seldom been talked about: Islamic nationalism and how it relates to the Oath of Ghadeer.

What Islamic State?

Under Islam and according to the true tradition of the Prophet Muhammad Muslims ought to be organized not as a state but a community. Islam does not impose any one particular form of governance – at least not as we understand it today. On the matter Dr John Andrew Morrow noted the following: “The Prophet Muhammad never, ever, described his system as a State, a Caliphate, a Sultanate, a Republic or a Democracy. On the contrary, he described it as an Ummah, a Motherland, a Homeland, a Federation or a Confederation.”

And: “In other words, the Prophet Muhammad wanted to create a Union of Free People under the precepts that he conveyed in the Covenants that he made with Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians; namely, under the precepts of the Quran: freedom of movement, freedom of work, freedom of study, freedom of religion, and freedom of choice. These are the very freedoms that the Prophet granted in his Covenants.”

Why is this relevant you may ask?

Well …to begin with it pretty much debunk the notion that Islam is socially, religiously and politically reactionary. It also settles this preconceived assumption the West has entertained vis a vis Islam propensity to dominate over nations through violence. Note here that I am not denying that Muslims across history committed great many and grave crimes; only that Islam neither condones nor calls for such crimes.

The Quran, you may have heard radicals claim, hold the keys to political Islam. The Quran many Wahhabis have advanced, among whom, Saudi Arabia’s very own Wahhabi mouth piece: Grand Mufti Al ash-Shaykh, serves as a constitutional matrix to political Islam.

I have to disagree … I am not alone in my disagreement. While the Quran stands as Islam holy vessel – the Word of God manifested, it remains a religious text, not a political act in itself.

Muslims were given a constitution. Not only were they given a constitution but they were given a charter of rights and freedoms in the covenants the prophet entered in with religious communities outside the realm of Islam.

According to the Constitution of Madina, identity is not based on race, religion, kinship, class, gender, or tribal affiliation: it is based on membership in the Ummah. aka community, It is what we call today citizenship.

The Constitution of Medina reads: “To the Jew who follows us belong help and equality. He shall not be wronged nor shall his enemies be aided.”

For those who claim that there is only place for Muslims in an Islamic State, I point to the political charter prepared by the Prophet Muhammad: “The Jews… are one community with the believers… The Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs.”

The community of Muhammad was a brotherhood of believers based on consultation: “The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery.”

From day one, the prophet’s system, Islam political make-up, was a confederation: it was pluralistic, multi-ethnic, multiracial, multilingual, and multi-religious. All people were included in one Ummah – Humanity in all its glory.

The Prophet Muhammad granted Covenants of Protection throughout his prophetic mission, from the early years of his calling to the last years of his life. He granted Covenants of Protection to the Christians of Abyssinia, Arabia, Mount Sinai, Egypt, Jerusalem, Mount Carmel, Syria, Assyria, Armenia, and Persia. He granted them freedom of conscience, freedom of belief, and freedom of religious practice. He protected their religious establishments and prohibited forced conversions.

As Messenger he repeated over and over again: “It is not permitted to remove a bishop from his bishopric or a Christian from his Christianity, a monk from his monastic life or a pilgrim from his pilgrimage or a hermit monk from his tower. Nor is it permitted to destroy any part of their churches, to take parts of their buildings to construct mosques or the homes of Muslims.”

For those of view in needs of factual proofs I would direct you to the work of Dr John Andrew Morrow, a scholar of tireless integrity and impeccable credentials.

As can be appreciated from these prophetic traditions, the prophet did not simply ask Muslims to tolerate the People of the Book: he commanded his followers to engage with them, dialogue with them, and love them as fellow human beings. He called upon Muslims to protect them and defend them. It is what we call pluralism, the energetic engagement with diversity; the practical and concrete application of human rights.

Back to the Oath of Ghadeer …

Succession and Custodianship

The Oath of Ghadeer which confirmed and asserted Imam Ali as Islam Custodian, Guardian, Keeper of the Word and altogether appointed authority stood beyond the political, for his station was secured by God.

Imam Ali’s appointment as successor goes beyond simple politics, beyond the temporal even. He forever remains the First Imam of Islam, the pillar upon which the Prophet leaned on to carry his prophethood. This is not to say that Ali was divine, only that his purpose was.

A man born into Islam, Ali became by the sheer strength of his faith and devotion an extension of the Word spoken, where the Prophet was the Word’s vessel and manifestation.

Still Wahhabis would have the world believe that Islam remains their birth right and property.

Islam sits far beyond their reach!

Ibn Ishaq, the prominent historian wrote in his biography of the Prophet Muhammad: “One of the first things that the Prophet did after receiving revelation was to identity his divinely appointed successor: “Which of you, then, will help me in this, and be my brother, mine executor and my successor amongst you?’ All remained silent, except for the youthful Ali who spoke up: ‘O Prophet of God, I will be thy helper in this.’ The Prophet then placed his hand on Ali’s neck and said, ‘This is my brother, mine executor and my successor amongst you. Hearken unto him and obey him.’”

This happens years before the Oath of Ghadeer … Far from being an isolated event, the Oath of Ghadeer, which should have forever sealed the institutional future of the Muslim community, had been a factual constant.

The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of Najran, which dates from 7th year of the Hijrah, reads: “I commit myself to an alliance and pledge with them on behalf of Allah and I place them under the safeguard of His Prophets, His Elect, His Saints, the Muslims and the Believers, the first of them and the last of them. Such is my alliance and pact with them.”

Ali was Islam appointed heir, and legitimate Guardian. Arguing otherwise would be denying History.

But my intent here is not to assign blame or imply Machiavellianism … I am only arguing a point of historical and political significance.

With the Oath of Ghadeer Islam secured and anchored its political institutions while at the same time offering a method of governance based on divine legitimacy – the perfect union one might argue of the secular and the divine.

Now is that not an interesting concept to ponder over?

The Sunni world is realizing Wahhabism is anti-Islam: scholar

John Andrew Morrow

The Sunni world is realizing Wahhabism is anti-Islam: scholar

Saudis have engaged fraudulently presenting Wahhabism. Although many Muslims went along for the ride (and the money), many of them have started to wake up for their long slumber and have started to speak out. The words and actions recently taken by al-Azhar are a veritable slap in the face to the Wahhabi establishment in Saudi Arabia.

Interview by Catherine Shakdam

Following Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s Hajj address this September, we asked Dr. John Andrew Morrow to comment on those very issues the Supreme Leader highlighted and very much denounced: Wahhabism, extremism, violence, radicalism …

If we are in fact to remain united as a religious community; if we are to hold true to our declaration of faith and testify to the wholeness and unity of Islam, in that it stands an expression of the Divine, courage, knowledge and wisdom will have to be our guide.

It is when the night is most dark that help will come to those who ask.

It is when hope has left our chest that our Prophet and his blessed progeny will act a righteous guidance, for on their lips the Word has endured unbroken, untarnished – as true as it was on the first day.

Dr. John Andrew Morrow was born in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, in 1971. Raised in a multilingual family, he lived in Montreal for ten years and in the Greater Toronto Area for another twenty. The product of a Catholic education, he completed his elementary school in French, his high school in English, and his university studies in English, French, and Spanish. He embraced Islam at the age of 16 after which he adopted the name Ilyas ‘Abd al-‘Alim Islam. After completing his Honors BA, MA, and PhD at the University of Toronto, where he acquired expertise in Hispanic, Native, and Islamic Studies, he pursued post-graduate studies in Arabic in Morocco and the United States. Besides his Western education, Dr. Morrow has completed the full cycle of traditional Islamic seminary studies both independently and at the hands of a series of Sunni, Shi’i, and Sufi scholars. Not only is he a senior scholar, academic, and professor, he is also a respected ‘alim holding the titles of ustadh, duktur, hakim, and shaykh. Dr. Morrow has spent over a decade in the United States working at various universities including Park University, Northern State University, Eastern New Mexico University, the University of Virginia, and Ivy Tech where he was unanimously appointed to the rank of Full Professor. One of his most noteworthy and memorable experiences involved working as a professor of advanced Spanish, Islamic culture, and world literature for the Institute for Shipboard Education’s Semester at Sea Program. Aside from his academic duties, Dr. John Andrew Morrow (Imam Ilyas Islam) is the Director of the Covenants Foundation, an organization dedicated to disseminating traditional, civilizational, Islam; promoting Islamic unity; protecting persecuted Christians; and improving relations between Muslims and members of other faiths. He regularly travels the world to promote peace and justice.

Q: In a recent address to the public Ayatollah Ali Khameini referenced the hajj and the brutalities many Muslims have had to endure by the hands of the Saudi regime. From a religious standpoint, how can we rationalize and comprehend Saudi Arabia’ stance?

Like a drug-addict who continues to inject himself with heroin despite the damage that it does to his health, his sustenance, and his family, the stance of certain countries is often difficult to comprehend. We seek logic where there is no logic. We search for stable patterns in the most mercurial of men. Politically-speaking, the political stances taken by Saudi Arabia resemble the erratic blood-pressure of a person in the process of having a heart attack or stroke. Rather than blame Iran for every evil on earth, the Saudis have no one to blame but themselves. They are their own worst enemies. They control their own destiny. They have the wealth and the means to restructure their society. They have the way; they are just lacking the will. Unless they act, however, in a manner that is sound, and unless they bring justice, equity, equality, tolerance, mercy, compassion, and love, they will, without a doubt, come to an untimely end. It is with concern that I call the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to ponder upon the following Qur’anic verse:

See they not how many a generation We destroyed before them, whom We had established in the earth more firmly than We have established you, and We shed on them abundant showers from the sky, and made the rivers flow beneath them. Yet we destroyed them for their sins, and created after them another generation. (6:6)

Q: Islam’s heritage as you already know remains under grave threat as radicals have called for the obliteration of shrines, holy sites and whatever tangible proofs we have of our world religious past – but what of Riyadh’s desire to restrict the universality of the hajj. Isn’t this in itself an act of destruction against Islam?

The custodians or occupiers of the two holy sites of Islam have been waging a war against sacred history for over two centuries. Despite isolated efforts to expose their crimes against Islamic culture, no collective and concerted effort has surfaced to channel the indignation and outrage of Muslims who have witnessed the systematic destruction of any and all relics related to Islam. In their so-called war against polytheism and innovation, the Saudi authorities have ransacked, destroyed, bull-dozed, and desecrated priceless archeological, historical, cultural, and religious sites and treasures. In fact, they do not even stop short of removing mountains! As Almighty Allah says in al-Qur’an al-Karim: “To respect the symbols of God is the sign of a pious heart” (22:32). O sons of Saud, have you no hearts?

Q: Islam’s very core principle is that of Justice. Justice of course implies accountability. In which case why has Saudi Arabia shunned away from its responsibilities towards pilgrims by refusing Iran’s calls to open a fact-finding mission as to identify the chain of events which led to the death of pilgrims last year?

Justice is indeed the essence of Islam. Without justice, there can be no peace. What the rulers of most Muslim nations do not comprehend is that one cannot control a population through repression. If people speak out, they suffocate them. If they speak out, they suffocate them more. So, either you suffocate the people to death or you create a deeply discontent populace that is seething to strangulate those who suffocate them. The only way to maintain power, long term, is by providing justice and with justice comes accountability: not only individual responsibility but governmental responsibility. Whether it is a corporation or a country, leaders bare ultimate responsibility and accountability. It takes a wise and humble leader to take the blame for what was done under his or her watch. It is critical, however, for individual and societal improvement. Justice also brings closure particularly when it is accompanied by compassion, mercy, and forgiveness. There is time for punishment and there is time for reconciliation.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as the hosts of the hajj, are ultimately responsible for the safety and well-being of its guests. If, by neglect, mismanagement, ineptitude or incompetence, they created conditions that led to the deaths of thousands of pilgrims, they are morally, ethically, and legally culpable. Since the victims in question were trampled and crushed to death, dismissing their demise as “the will of God” is callous. They did not die of natural causes. They died due to poor engineering and poor crowd management. If the Saudis came forward and said: “We apologize for the deaths of your loved ones. We accept responsibility for their untimely passing. We will compensate you for your losses. We will call upon a third, impartial, party, to conduct a thorough investigation. We will follow all recommendations to ensure that such a tragedy does not repeat itself. We beg the deceased, and their loves ones, for forgiveness,” then yes, by all means, we accept their apologies. It is the utter arrogance of the Saudis, their cover-up, and their refusal to accept responsibility, that is intolerable and undignified.

Q: Do you feel that there has been an attempt by Saudi Arabia to appropriate the hajj for political reasons, and that therefore the kingdom has betrayed the religious jewel it took upon itself to safeguard?

The Saudis have appropriated, not only the pilgrimage, but the entire Hijaz, and Arabia as a whole. What is more, they think that they have appropriated Islam. So, forget about them betraying the pilgrimage. That is just a single pillar. They have betrayed Islam as a whole: pillar by pillar and principle by principle. They have, for the past two centuries, engaged in false marketing on a planetary scale, fraudulently presenting Wahhabism and extremist Salafism as Sunnism. Although many Muslims went along for the ride (and the money), many of them have started to wake up for their long slumber and have started to speak out. The words and actions recently taken by al-Azhar are a veritable slap in the face to the Wahhabi establishment in Saudi Arabia. Nobody is asking the Saudis to convert to Shiism: we are simply asking them to embrace Sunnism.

Q: Islam speaks of unity and brotherhood; Islam speaks of compassion and social justice for all, regarding of one’s condition, or belief, and yet Saudi Arabia has fanned sectarianism, ethnocentrism and division among the Ummah to serve a very political agenda. Is the Islamic world being held ransom to the will of an elite?

Islam is tolerance exemplified. Islam is pluralism perfected. Islam is diversity with dignity. From day one, the Ummah of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, was pluralistic. With the Covenant of Madinah, the Constitution of Islam, the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, created a Confederation of Believers. If the Covenant of Madinah is our Constitution, then the Covenants of the Prophet are our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These foundational civilizational documents enshrine the rights to life and liberty as well as freedom of conscience, belief, and religious practice. They protect people from religious coercion. They protect all religions, religious institutions, and religious leaders. They encourage the members of the Ummah, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, along with members of other faith communities, to love and respect one another. If the Ummah created by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, looks like a utopia, the current system in most Muslim-majority nations, including Saudi Arabia, looks like a dystopia. However, before we build a “Prophetic State,” we need to rebuild the “Human State” for, verily, “Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves” (13:11).

Q: In his address Ayatollah Khameini details the many great crimes the house of Saud committed against both the Muslim ummah and the world – Wahhabism today has become a source of evil and one could argue apostasy, in that it negates God’s Words by redacting His Message. Isn’t it time today to face our responsibility and act as our Imams have done in the past before treachery and tyranny?

The external and internal enemies of Islam seek to stoke a sectarian war to weaken and destroy it from within. We need to be extremely careful when making calls for excommunication. It is one thing to say that Takfiris are apostates due to the fact that they call other Muslims apostates and kill them in defiance of right. However, traditional Sunnis are not Takfiris. We do not wish to paint all Saudis with the same brush. As for the Wahhabi, Takfiri who believe that they are the only “saved sect,” and that all other Muslims are infidels whose blood is halal, then, without a doubt, such terrorists are unbelievers. The term “apostate” would not even apply to them since, in the jurisprudential sense, apostasy means leaving Islam, and most the parties in question were never Muslims to begin with. So, yes, we must repudiate the Takfiris; however, at the same time, we must strengthen the solidarity between Sunnis and Shiites for the sake of Islamic unity and integrity.

As for acting like the Imams, peace be upon them, we must tread that path very carefully for none of us are divinely inspired. Far too often, Shiites believe that they should stand up like Imam Husayn, peace be upon him, and rise up in revolt against oppressive leaders. They claim that “Every day is ‘Ashura’ and every place in Karbala’” when, in reality, the Imams, peace be upon them, said that “There is no day like ‘Ashura’.” So, while there are times when we must be activists and follow the example of Imam Husayn, peace be upon him, there are times when we must be quietists and follow the examples of the third to eleventh Imams, peace be upon them all. There are times when we must make peace treaties like Imam al-Hasan, peace be upon him, and there are times when we must use both diplomacy and military action, as in the example of Imam ‘Ali, peace be upon him. And, finally, we should never forget the Master of all Masters, Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, who endured oppression for the first half of his mission in Makkah but who used both politics and physical force during the second half of his mission in Madinah. We must act, but always in the manner that does the most good but the least harm. Such is the Sunnah of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and his Household.

Q: Ayatollah Khameini has traditionally refrained from any unnecessary criticism towards heads of state or even individuals, and in that sense his critic of al-Saud must be understand as very serious indeed. Today the Supreme Leader has spoken as the guardian of Islam’s purest tradition by upholding the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad and his blessed House. Isn’t it true that al-Saud Royals are actually calling for Muslims to turn away from the House of God to worship their own?

Imam Khamenei has been a moderating factor both domestically and regionally. He has attempted to balance the interests of the people with the injunctions of Islam. He has also worked hard to maintain the delicate balance between reformists, principialists, pragmatists, and neo-fundamentalists. Rather than incite revolution abroad, Iran, under Ayatollah Khameini, has been largely non-interventionist. A voice of reason in the region, the Islamic Republic has long adopted a conciliatory tone toward its largely Arab, Sunni, neighbors, calling them to peace, cooperation, and collaboration, rather than conflict. Diplomatic discourse, however, has its limits and, at times, leaders are required to dispense with subtlety, implication, and innuendo, and express their legitimate grievances in clear and unambiguous terms. As for the Saudis, their behavior over the past two-hundred years speaks for itself: some of them suffer from hub al-dunya, the love of this material world, at the expense of the eternal life of the hereafter, while others are infected with the disease of extremism and fanaticism.

Q: Saudi Arabia is capitalizing on the hajj, turning this sacred pilgrimage into a tool of oppression and religious coercion. Have we not failed to heed the warnings of our prophet and Imams when they warned us against the hypocrites?

Imam Khameini stated that no Iranians performed the pilgrimage to Makkah this year due to current circumstances and security concerns. If we combine this with the fact that the Saudis have returned to the Days of Ignorance, then we are truly revisiting a scene from early Islamic history. If we are followers of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, then we should follow his example. What did he do when Makkah was occupied by the enemies of Islam? He prevented his followers from performing the pilgrimage since the journey could result in the injury and death of many people. This is exactly what is happening today. We should therefore call upon all Muslims to boycott the pilgrimage to Makkah until the enemies of Islam are removed from the Hijaz.

Les gardiens des lieux saints de l’islam manquent à leurs devoirs

9:03 – September 10, 2016
Code de l’info: 3460891
« Les « gardiens des deux villes saintes de l’Islam » manquent à leurs devoirs et se montrent négligents. Grâce à l’arrogance et l’incompétence intentionnelle des autorités, qui traitent le hajj comme un fardeau, de milliers de pèlerins ont trouvé la mort lors du pèlerinage », a déclaré Ilya Islam, musulman canadien.
Les gardiens des lieux saints de l’islam manquent à leurs devoirs
Lors d’une interview accordée à l’Agence Internationale de Presse Coranique, il a souligné : « Le pèlerinage à la Mecque est un devoir sacrée. Il faut donc que les hôtes soient au niveau. Bien qu’il est extrêmement compliqué de gérer le mouvement de millions de pèlerins, les Saoudiens ont amplement les moyens pour assurer qu’un tel rite se déroule professionnellement et en pleine sécurité. Néanmoins, comme l’histoire, les faits et les cadavres constatent, les « gardiens des deux villes saintes de l’Islam » manquent à leurs devoirs et se montrent négligents. Grâce à l’arrogance et l’incompétence intentionnelle des autorités, qui traitent le hajj comme un fardeau, de milliers de pèlerins ont trouvé la mort lors du pèlerinage. Les coupables et les criminelles portent entièrement la responsabilité. »
Ilyas Islam, de son vrai nom, John Andrew Morrow, professeur canado-américain, a ajouté : « Même si l’on parle souvent de gens qui sont piétinés et encrassés à mort à la Mecque, ce que l’on mentionne rarement c’est l’abus verbal et physique que les pèlerins reçoivent quand ils cherchent à toucher la pierre noire, quand ils visitent le tombeau du Prophète et le cimetière détruit qui contenait, jadis, les tombeaux des Compagnons du Prophète (psl) et les Membres de Sa Famille… Quelle sorte « d’hommes » donnent des coups de fouets à des femmes enceintes, en plein ventre, pour le « crime » de dire « salaamu ‘alayka ya Rasul Allah ! » »
« Mais ce que l’on ne mentionne jamais sont les cas nombreux et scandaleux d’agressions sexuelles que les filles, les femmes, les garçons, et même les hommes subissent à la main des locaux et des « forces de l’ordre. » Est-ce comme cela qu’on accueille les invités à la Maison de Dieu ? Combien de croyants sont allés à la Mecque pour se développer religieusement seulement pour être anéanti spirituellement grâce au mauvais traitement ?  Imaginez-vous : des filles et des femmes qui se font attoucher et agresser par des pervers en plein tawaf! », a-t-il encore ajouté.
Ilyas Islam a établi une comparaison entre la foule qui visite Karbala et la Maison de Dieu, s’interrogeant : « Comment se fait-il que vingt millions de pèlerins peuvent visiter Karbala pour Achoura sans que personne se blesse tandis que des milliers se font tuer à la Mecque quand il n’y a que deux millions de personnes ? Comment se fait-il que les pèlerins qui visitent l’Imam Husayn (as) peuvent passer plus d’un mois, sans s’inquiéter de se loger et de se nourrir, sachant très bien que les Irakiens les traiteront comme des invitées d’honneur tandis que les pèlerins qui visitent la Maison de Dieu doivent dépenser des sommes astronomiques et être maltraités au même temps ?! »
« Si les invités du Wali d’Allah méritent le meilleur traitement au monde, n’est-ce pas mille fois le cas pour les invités d’Allah ? Absolument. Le problème, hélas, c’est que la Maison de Dieu est sous occupation. Elle doit donc être libérée. En attendant, nous pouvons nous consoler que les Imams sont des lampes  qui nous orientent à Dieu. Visitons-les et saluons-les et prions que la Mecque retrouve sa place au cœur de l’Islam », a-t-il conclu.

A Scholar Whose Integrity Suffers No Challenge

“For those of you who still choose to see darkness in Islam I would invite you to read the work of a scholar whose integrity suffers no challenge: Dr John Andrew Morrow, the author of The Covenants Of The Prophet Muhammad With The Christians Of The World. There you will find answered the lies which bigotry spread to not lose its grip onto society.” Catherine Shakdam (September 8, 2016)

katie

Le point fort de l’Iran c’est sa souveraineté inébranlable

Ecrivain canadien :
September 07, 2016
Code de l’info: 3460874
Le docteur John Andrew Morrow est écrivain et chercheur canado-américain qui s’est converti à l’islam à l’âge de 16 ans. Il a participé à une interview avec l’Agence Internationale de Presse Coranique (IQNA) consacrée à l’Iran islamique comme île de sécurité et de stabilité en Asie de l’Ouest.
Le point fort de l’Iran c’est sa souveraineté inébranlable
La république islamique d’Iran joue un rôle important dans la région et dans le monde. Quels sont à votre avis, les points forts et faibles de l’Iran ?
L’Iran est un pays fier qui a joué, et continue de jouer un rôle constructif dans la région et dans le monde. Le point fort de l’Iran c’est sa souveraineté inébranlable. L’Iran insiste à être traité comme un égal. L’Iran, vous avez pu constater, a systématiquement refusé de s’humilier et de s’agenouiller devant les forces de l’arrogance. Comme résultat, la République Islamique a gagné énormément de respect et de prestige dans le monde politique.
Depuis 1979, et en dépit d’une guerre injuste et imposée, et malgré une série de sanctions, et les pressions externes, l’Iran n’a pas cessé de se développer économiquement, financièrement, scientifiquement, culturellement, politiquement et militairement. L’Iran pense et planifie à long terme quand les cheikhs pétroliers ne pensent qu’au présent et au plaisir de ce bas monde.
L’Iran, néanmoins, est loin d’être parfaite – mais bien sûr, quelle nation pourrait réclamer un tel coup de force?
La nation perse fait face à de nombreux défis à l’échelle nationale et internationale. Les iraniens, de tous les partis et de tous les courants politiques, doivent travailler ensemble, de façon unie, sur la base des principes primordiaux établis par l’Islam universel, traditionnel, et civilisationnel, pour assurer leur succès collectif dans tous les domaines.
 L’Iran a envoyé au monde le message de la liberté et de l’indépendance et présenté l’exemple de la résistance. Dans quelle mesure, les autres pays ont suivi le modèle présenté par l’Iran ?
La révolution islamique de l’Iran a donné grand espoir aux opprimés du monde autant musulmans que non-musulmans. L’Iran a démontré qu’il était possible d’être indépendant et de ne pas dépendre ni des États-Unis ni de l’Union Soviétique. L’exemple de l’Iran a aussi prouvé que l’Islam n’était pas un obstacle du passé, que l’Islam n’était point caduc, et que l’Islam pouvait fonctionner comme une idéologie complète, non seulement sur un  plan religieux et spirituel, mais aussi comme model politique, économique, et sociale.
Si l’Iran a inspiré de nombreux mouvements musulmans ils ont tous, sans exception, échoué pour des raisons variées. C’est-à-dire, ils n’ont jamais réussi à établir un état islamique viable. Terrifiées par la menace posée par le modèle islamique iranien, les forces du mal ont décidé d’employer l’Islam pour détruire l’Islam ; c’est-à-dire, utiliser le faux Islam pour détruire le vrai Islam. Que ça soit le Groupe Islamique Armé, les Talibans, al-Qaedah, al-Nusrah, al-Shabab, Boko Haram ou ISIS, les ennemies de l’Islam ont fait tout leur possible pour ruiner l’image de l’Islam dans le monde. Pour eux, il fallait à tout prix dégouter les gens de l’Islam pour s’assurer leur soutien, et garantir un grand mouvement anti-Islamique. Il est beaucoup plus facile d’inspirer la haine, que de construire des ponts de tolérance …
Le renforcement de l’esprit de la résistance est selon l’ayatollah Khamenei un trait caractéristique de la révolution islamique. Qu’en pensez-vous ?
L’esprit de la résistance est essentiel. C’est le cœur de la révolution. C’est le centre même de la vie, et peut être même du divin. Sans esprit de résistance, on est brisé ; on n’est plus libre ; on devient un esclave. Pour la Nation Métisse, dont je suis membre, il n’y a rien de plus évident. Nous sommes les Otipemisiwak, les Gens Libres. Comme croyants et comme musulmans, il faut toujours promouvoir le bien et interdire le mal mais, comme l’Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq, que la paix soit sur lui, a dit, avec miséricorde et avec compassion. L’esprit de la résistance c’est comme l’air : ça se respire.
Le projet de l’iranophobie lancé par l’Occident a entraîné le renforcement des terroristes et l’instabilité dans les pays de la région. A quel point ce projet a eu du succès ?
Ce projet satané a eu grand succès car son objectif même était de créer le chaos pour affaiblir le monde musulman. Grâce au complot diabolique de l’Occident laïque, la Somalie est en pleine anarchie, la Libye a sombré dans le désordre, la Syrie est en train d’être anéantie, l’Irak est en train d’être meurtri, le Nigéria est en train d’être torturé et le Yémen est en train d’être massacré. Mais les tables sont en train de se tourner car les takfiristes commencent à mordre leurs propres maîtres.
A présent, l’Iran est considéré comme une partie importante dans le combat contre les groupes terroristes. Pourquoi l’Occident cherche à présenter l’Iran comme source du terrorisme ?
Dans les années 80, le chiisme et le terrorisme était synonyme. On présentait les sunnites comme les bons musulmans pro-occidentaux et les chiites comme les mauvais musulmans anti-occidentaux. Cela faisait partie d’un plan pour démoniser l’Iran et empêcher les gens de se solidariser avec la révolution islamique. C’était de la publicité trompeuse et mensongère.
Le fait que l’on ne mentionne pas, c’est que la révolution islamique était la première révolution du 20ième siècle qui a eu lieu sans guerre de guérillas, sans guerre urbaine, et sans guerre civile. C’est la volonté de fer du peuple perse qui a fait effondrer le règne tyrannique et despotique du Chah.
Ni l’Iran ni le Hezbollah n’a jamais été impliqué dans un acte terroriste qui visait des cibles civiles. Les accusations lancées contre l’Iran sont devenues clichées. Elles sont particulièrement comiques quand elles parviennent de pays, comme les États-Unis, qui sont responsables pour la mort de millions d’êtres humains innocents. S’ils veulent trouver les vrais terroristes, ils n’ont pas besoin d’aller loin : ils n’ont qu’à se regarder dans un miroir.
Quel est le rôle des pays arabes dans le projet de l’iranophobie ?
Avec l’exception de la Syrie, qui a été solidaire avec le peuple iranien depuis la révolution de 1979, et sans compter l’Oman qui essayait de rester relativement neutre dans la région, les pays arabes ont préféré s’identifier sur la base de leur héritage culturelle et linguistique au lieu de s’identifier sur la base de leur religion. C’est comme si certains arabes vivaient encore à l’époque de l’ignorance où l’identité est de base tribale. C’est aussi ironique que  tragique quand on considère que le Prophète lui-même, que Dieu le bénisse et lui donne la paix, a créé une Oummah basée, non sur la race, la langue, la classe ou l’affiliation tribale sinon sur la croyance en Dieu et la justice sociale.
Les dirigeants saoudiens, jordaniens, égyptiens et marocains préfèrent faire la paix avec Israël, le pays qui martyrise les palestiniens, au lieu de s’allier avec l’Iran qui soutien ce pauvre peuple persécuté, marginalisé, et opprimé. Si on donne aux dirigeants arabes le choix entre les terroristes takfiristes qui sont soutenu par l’Arabie Saoudite, le Qatar et la Turquie, et les soldats syriens et les miliciens qui sont soutenu par l’Iran et l’Irak, la vaste majorité préfère prendre le côté de Daesh que de prendre le côté des chiites. Les gens sont comme des bestiaux : ils ne font que suivre leurs bergers. Hélas, comme dit le Coran, il y a des guides qui mènent au Paradis tandis qu’il y a des guides qui mènent à l’Enfer.
Quel est l’intérêt des actes anti-iraniens et anti-chiites et du projet de l’iranophobie pour l’Arabie Saoudite ?
Pour pouvoir tourner les sunnites, si souvent sympathiques envers les chiites révolutionnaires iraniens et libanais, les saoudiens, avec leurs maîtres américains et israéliens, ont préparé un plan pour séparer, une fois pour toute, les sunnites des chiites. Le terrain d’enjeux était l’Irak et la Syrie.
Le premier s’agit d’un pays détruit et déstabilisé par l’invasion américaine et une guerre lâche qui a coûté la vie a plus d’un million de musulmans innocents : presque tous des civiles, hommes, femmes, et enfants. Au lieu d’aider à bâtir un pays fort, les puissances régionales et mondiales étaient déterminées de s’assurer que l’Irak ne se relève plus jamais ; pour qu’il ne pose jamais une menace envers ses voisins, en particulier, Israël. Les américains ont armé les extrémistes sunnites au même moment qu’ils armaient les extrémistes chiites, avec le même objectif, qu’ils s’entretuent pour le bienfait des ennemies de l’Islam.
Le deuxième s’agit de la Syrie, un pays laïque, nationaliste et socialiste ; une nation multiethniques, pluraliste et tolérante envers les groupes minoritaires. La CIA a infiltré des mercenaires en Syrie par voie de la Jordanie. Ces escadrons de la mort ont commis des atrocités qui ont été blâmées sur les forces de sécurité syriennes. Ils ont massacré des sunnites et blâmé les chiites. Ils ont massacré des chiites et ont blâmé des sunnites. En bref, ils ont semé la discorde pour récolter la tuerie. Ils ont versé de l’essence sur le pays et ils ont jeté des allumettes.
Ce que nous témoignons au Moyen-Orient c’est la même chose que nous avons vue durant la première guerre mondiale. Avant cela, grande part des musulmans formait partie de l’empire Ottoman. Ils étaient unis à base de quelque chose de plus grand que la nationalité. Ils étaient unis à base de l’Islam. Ils n’étaient pas une nation, mais une Oummah, c’est-à-dire une Confédération. Ce sont les occidentaux qui ont planté les graines de la discorde. Ils ont convaincu les gens que chaque groupe ethnique méritait son propre pays. Les anglais, les français, et les allemands ont tous promis des perles de pluie aux musulmans et leur ont donné des perles de verre. Ils ont fracturé l’unité islamique pour affaiblir et détruire le monde musulman.
L’Occident, mené par les États-Unis, mène une guerre de cent ans contre l’Islam. S’il se charge de l’armement, les Saoudiens s’occupent des finances et de la propagande destinée à déclencher une guerre sectaire entre sunnites et chiites. Les gens bien informés savent très bien que ce qui se passe en Syrie n’est pas une guerre de religion. Néanmoins, c’est comme cela que le conflit est présenté.
Selon les ennemies de l’humanité, la guerre se mène entre un gouvernement chiite minoritaire contre des combattants sunnites majoritaires. On présente le gouvernement syrien comme un régime sanguinaire qui massacre ses propres citoyens tandis qu’on présente les rebelles comme des combattants modérés qui luttent pour la liberté et la démocratie.
En réalité, à l’exception du président et les membres les plus importants de son cabinet, le gouvernement Syrien est principalement sunnite. Les commandants de l’armée syrienne sont sunnites. Et la vaste majorité des soldats syriens sont sunnites. Ce sont les sunnites syriens qui mènent une guerre d’auto-défense contre des takfiristes et des mercenaires étrangers.
Le régime syrien est loin d’être parfait. Il ne s’agit pas de le défendre aveuglement. Quand même, les partisans du gouvernement sont préférables aux terroristes qui les combattent. Ils mènent une guerre conventionnelle. Les syriens, qui vivent dans des régions contrôlées par le gouvernement sont sains et saufs. Les rebelles, par contre, sont tous de souche salafiste et takfiriste. Ils terrorisent les populations sous leur contrôle. Ils exterminent les chrétiens, les chiites, les soufies, les sunnites traditionnelles, et les yézidis. Ils violent et trafiquent femmes et enfants.
L’Arabie Saoudite a peur de l’Iran. Les arabes sont terrifiés par la croissance économique, politique, et militaire de l’Iran. L’Iran est devenu une puissance régionale. Pour empêcher les irakiens de s’allier avec l’Iran, il fallait détruire l’Irak. Pour empêcher les syriens de s’allier avec l’Iran, il fallait détruire la Syrie. Les despotes saoudiens l’ont répété à maintes reprises : ils ne vont jamais tolérer l’influence iranienne dans le monde arabe : un point, c’est tout.
Impossible d’attaquer l’Iran directement, car cela signifierait leur destruction, les arabes du Golfe [Persique] se prennent à l’Iran indirectement en attaquant ses amis : l’Irak et la Syrie, et en encourageant la violence sectaire partout au monde musulman, que ça soit au Nigéria, que ça soit en Afghanistan, ou au Pakistan.
Les arabes peuvent prétendre qu’il s’agit de guerre religieuse. La réalité c’est qu’il s’agit d’une guerre raciste, politique, et matérialiste. Nous savons très bien que certains leaders arabes ne sont ni sunnites ni même musulmans. Ce sont des païens purs et durs. Ce sont des gens mauvais, malsains, et malintentionnés, qui exploitent la religion pour des objectifs politiques et économiques de la façon identique que les omeyades et les abbassides faisaient durant les premiers siècles de l’Islam.
L’histoire se répète. La haine est motivée par la peur et la crainte. Il faut semer la peur entre les sunnites pour assurer qu’ils haïssent les chiites. Nous devons redoubler nos efforts pour répandre la vérité, clarifier les malentendus, et promouvoir l’unité islamique. Il faut commencer par remplacer l’iranophobie avec l’iranophilie ou, même meilleur, avec l’islamophilie. Si seulement les musulmans mettaient les valeurs morales et éthiques en première place, ils pourraient transformer le monde entier et sauver l’humanité.
Pourquoi les politiciens américains ont fait des politiques anti-iraniennes, une partie importante de leur campagne électorale ?
Le lobby sioniste est fort puissant. Les politiciens ne convoitent pas nécessairement le vote juif car les juifs représentent seulement un pour cent de la population. En réalité, la vaste majorité des sionistes sont des sois-disons chrétiens ; des protestants d’extrême droite qui sont aussi éloigné de Jésus que Yazid est du Paradis. Menacer l’Iran est une manière de défendre Israël. Mépriser l’Iran est une façon d’exalter Israël. C’est vraiment une situation honteuse ; une véritable vergogne. Au lieu d’être patriotique et montrer leur loyauté aux États-Unis, les politiciens américains jurent fidélité à Israël. Ils s’intéressent plus au bien-être de l’état sioniste que des besoins de leur propre peuple. Ce sont des traîtres ; des vendues…
L’immense majorité des américains ignorent la réalité de l’Iran ; un pays traité en paria par les politiciens et les médias occidentaux. L’Iran est un pays de grande beauté avec une histoire longue et fascinante, une littérature riche, une cuisine savoureuse, et un peuple charmant et accueillant. J’encourage tous les occidentaux de visiter ce pays méconnu comme touristes et constater eux-mêmes que la glorieuse Perse n’est point la bête que l’on présente. Pour moi, l’Iran c’est la perle de l’Orient. Je ne peux pas envisager cette planète sans ce précieux pays. Que Dieu le garde et le protège.

نقطه قوت ایران حاکمیت تزلزل‌‌ناپذیر آن است

کد خبر: ۳۵۲۷۳۴۶
تاریخ انتشار: ۱۵ شهريور ۱۳۹۵ – ۰۹:۴۲
نویسنده کانادایی:
گروه بین‌الملل: ایران همیشه نقشی سازنده در منطقه و جهان ایفا کرده و می‌کند؛ نقطه قوت ایران، حاکمیت تزلزل‌ناپذیر آن است. این کشور همواره خواسته است رفتاری برابر با آن داشته باشند و از اظهار خواری و زانو زدن در مقابل نیروهای استکبار سرباز زده، در نتیجه اعتبار فراوانی در جهان سیاست برای خود رقم زده است.‌‌
نقطه قوت ایران حاکمیت تزلزل‌‌ناپذیر آن است

«جان اندرو مورو»، استاد دانشگاه، نویسنده و پژوهشگر اهل ایالت کبک کاناداست که در زمینه مطالعات اسلامی، اسپانیایی و بومیان آمریکا تخصص دارد. این استاد کانادایی ـ آمریکایی مسلمان در گفت‌وگو با خبرگزاری بین‌المللی قرآن(ایکنا) از ایران اسلامی به‌عنوان جزیره امنیت و ثبات در غرب آسیا یاد کرد. ادامه این گفت‌و‌گو از نظر می‌گذرد:

ایکنا: جمهوری اسلامی ایران نقش مهمی در منطقه و جهان ایفا می‌کند به نظر شما نقاط قوت و ضعف ایران کدامند؟

ایران کشوری سرافراز است و همواره نقشی سازنده در منطقه و جهان ایفا کرده و می‌کند. نقطه قوت ایران حاکمیت تزلزل‌ناپذیر آن است. ایران همواره خواسته است رفتاری برابر با آن داشته باشند و از اظهار خواری و زانو زدن در مقابل نیروهای استکبار سرباز زده و نتیجه اینکه احترام و اعتبار فراوانی در جهان سیاست برای خود رقم زده است.‌‌

از سال ۱۹۷۹ تاکنون با وجود جنگ تحمیلی نابرابر و مجازات‌ها و فشارهای خارجی ایران به توسعه اقتصادی، مالی، علمی، فرهنگی، سیاسی و نظامی ادامه داده است. ایران به بلند مدت می‌اندیشد و برای آن برنامه‌ریزی می‌کند در حالی که شیوخ نفتی فقط به حال و لذت این دنیا فکر می‌کنند.

با این همه نمی‌توان گفت ایران کامل است، یقیناً هیچ ملتی نمی‌تواند چنین ادعایی داشته باشد.

ملت ایران با مشکلات فراوانی در سطح ملی و بین‌المللی مواجه است. ایرانیان از هر حزب و جریان سیاسی باید با هم کار کنند، متحد باشند و تلاش‌های خود را بر پایه اصول اسلام و به منظور تأمین موفقیت جمعی در همه زمینه‌ها متمرکز سازند.

ایکنا: ایران پیام آزادی و استقلال را به جهان ارسال کرد و الگویی از مقاومت ارائه داده است. سایر کشورها تا چه حد از الگوی ایران تبعیت کرده‌اند؟

انقلاب اسلامی ایران امیدهای زیادی به ستمدیدگان جهان چه مسلمان و چه غیر مسلمان بخشیده است. ایران ثابت کرده که می‌توان مستقل بود و نه به آمریکا و نه به اتحاد شوروی وابسته بود.

الگوی ایران همچنین ثابت کرد که اسلام نه مانعی در گذشته بود و نه موضوعی بی‌ثمر؛ بلکه یک جهان‌بینی کامل در سطح معنوی و نیز الگویی سیاسی، اقتصادی و اجتماعی است.

ایران الهام‌بخش حرکت‌های اسلامی بود، که همگی بدون استثناء به دلایل مختلف شکست خورده‌اند، یعنی نتوانسته‌اند به عنوان یک حکومت اسلامی به منصه ظهور برسند. اصحاب شیطان که از الگوی اسلامی ایران وحشت زده شده بودند، تصمیم گرفتند اسلام را با اسلام از بین ببرند به این معنا که از اسلام دروغین برای نابود کردن اسلام راستین استفاده کنند. در این زمینه می‌توان به گروه‌های به ظاهر اسلام‌گرای مسلح از جمله طالبان، القائده، النصره، الشباب، بوکو حرام و داعش اشاره کرد. دشمنان اسلام هر آنچه در توان داشته برای تخریب چهره اسلام در جهان به کار بردند. به عقیده آن‌ها مردم باید به هر قیمتی از اسلام بیزار باشند تا از حرکت ضد اسلامی کاملا حمایت کنند؛ ایجاد تنفر بسی آسانتر است از ایجاد پل‌های ارتباط.

ایکنا: به گفته حضرت آیت‌الله‌العظمی خامنه‌ای(مدظله‌العالی) تقویت روحیه مقاومت یکی از شاخصه‌های انقلاب اسلامی است، نظر شما چیست؟

روحیه مقاومت بسیار مهم است؛ قلب انقلاب است، حتی می‌توان گفت، مرکز حیات مادی و حتی حیات معنوی است. بدون روحیه مقاومت انسان شکسته می‌شود، دیگر آزاد نیست و به بردگی کشیده می‌شود. برای مردمان دو نژادی مثل منِ مصاحبه شونده که دارای اجداد اروپایی و سرخ‌پوست است، داشتن روحیه مقاومت جزء اصول اولیه است. ما از اقوام otipemisiwak یا مردمان آزاد هستیم. به عنوان مؤمن و مسلمان باید همواره امر به معروف و نهی از منکر را ارج نهاد. هماهنگونه که امام صادق(ع) می‌فرماید «امر به معروف و نهی از منکر باید با رحمت و محبت همراه باشد». روحیه مقاومت همانند هواست که ما آن را تنفس می‌کنیم.

ایکنا: پروژه ایران‌هراسی غرب موجب تقویت تروریست‌ها و بی‌ثباتی کشورهای منطقه شده این پروژه تا چه اندازه موفقیت‌آمیز بوده است؟

هدف از این پروژه شیطانی، ایجاد بی‌ثباتی و نا امنی و تضعیف جهان اسلام است. در نتیجه توطئه شیطانی غرب لائیک، سومالی دچار هرج و مرج است، لیبی در بی‌نظمی فرو رفته، سوریه بحرانی است، عراق شاهد روزهای خونین است، نیجریه و یمن شاهد کشتار و خونریزی است، ولی اوضاع در حال تغییر است زیرا ترور، در حال خوردن اربابان خودش است.

ایکنا: در حال حاضر ایران طرف اصلی در مبارزه با گروه‌های تروریست در نظر گرفته می‌شود، چرا غرب مایل است ایران را منبع تروریسم معرفی کند؟

در دهه ۸۰ تشیع و تروریسم با هم مترادف بودند؛ سنی‌ها را به عنوان مسلمان خوب طرفدار غرب و شیعیان را مسلمانان برهنه غربی معرفی کردند. این بخشی از طرحی با هدف خدشه‌دار کردن چهره ایران و جلوگیری از اعلام همبستگی با انقلاب اسلامی بود؛ بخشی از تبلیغات گمراه کننده و دروغین.

چیزی که از آن صحبت نمی‌شود، این است که انقلاب اسلامی ایران، اولین انقلاب قرن بیستم بود که بدون جنگ چریکی، بدون جنگ شهری و به دور از جنگ داخلی واقع شده بود. انقلاب نتیجه خواست آهنین ملت ایران برای فرو ریختن حکومت استبدادی شاه بود.

نه ایران و نه حزب الله در هیچ اقدام تروریستی علیه اهداف غیر نظامی دخالت نداشته‌اند. اتهامات وارده به ایران به صورت کلیشه در آمده‌اند آنها خصوصاً وقتی از جانب کشوری مثل آمریکا باشند که مسئول مرگ میلیون‌ها انسان بی‌گناه است، مسخره به نظر می‌رسند. اگر آمریکایی‌ها می‌خواهند تروریست‌های واقعی را پیدا کنند لازم نیست راه دوری ‌بروند کافی است به آئینه نگاهی بیندازند.

ایکنا: نقش کشورهای عرب در پروژه ایران‌هراسی را چگونه ارزیابی می‌کنید؟

به استثنای سوریه که از ابتدای پیروزی انقلاب در سال ۱۹۷۹ با ملت ایران همبستگی داشته و نیز عمان که همواره تلاش کرده نسبتا در منطقه بی‌طرف بماند، بقیه کشورهای عربی ترجیح داده‌اند براساس میراث فرهنگی و زبان شناختی خود نه براساس دین شان عمل کنند. گویی برخی اعراب همچنان در عصر جاهلیت و براساس هویت قبیله‌ای زندگی می‌کنند. وقتی به این فکر کنیم که خود پیامبر(ص) امت را نه براساس نژاد، زبان، طبقه یا قبیله که براساس ایمان به خداوند و عدالت اجتماعی پا نهاد؛ به عمق فاجعه بیشتر پی می‌بریم.

رهبران سعودی، اردن، مصر و مراکش ترجیح می‌دهند با اسرائیل، رژیمی که فلسطینیان را قلع و قمع می‌کند، هم پیمان شوند ولی با ایران که از این ملت ستمدیده به حاشیه رانده شده و از مظلوم دفاع می‌کند، هم پیمان نشوند. اگر بین تروریست‌های تکفیری مورد حمایت عربستان، قطر و ترکیه و سربازان سوری و شبه نظامیان مورد حمایت ایران و عراق به رهبران عرب حق انتخاب داده شود، اکثرشان ترجیح می‌دهند در کنار داعش قرار گیرند یا در کنار شیعیان. مردم همانند چهارپایان‌اند، آن‌ها از چوپانان خود پیروی می‌کنند. متاسفانه همانطور که قرآن می‌گوید، رهبرانی هستند که به بهشت هدایت می‌کنند و رهبرانی که به سوی جهنم فرامی‌خوانند.

ایکنا: علت تمایل عربستان سعودی به اقدامات ضد ایرانی و ضد شیعه و نیز ایران‌هراسی چیست؟

سعودی‌ها و نیز اربابان آمریکایی و اسرائیلی ایشان برای همراه کردن سنی‌ها که اغلب نظر مثبتی به شیعیان انقلابی ایران و لبنان داشته‌اند طرحی را به منظور جداسازی کامل اهل سنت از شیعه تدارک دیده‌اند. صحنه عمل این طرح، سوریه و عراق است. عراق پس از تهاجم آمریکا و جنگی که موجب کشته شدن بیشمار مسلمانان بی‌گناه از زن و مرد و کودک شد به کشوری ویران و بی‌ثبات تبدیل شده است. قدرت‌های منطقه‌ای و جهان به جای آنکه به عراق کمک کنند تا به کشوری قدرتمند تبدیل شود، مصمم بودند اطمینان حاصل کنند که دیگر این کشور از جای خود بلند نمی‌شود تا دیگر تهدیدی برای همسایگان به‌ویژه اسرائیل نباشد.

آمریکایی‌ها، افراطیون سنی و در آن واحد افراطیون شیعه را تسلیم کردند تا آن‌ها همدیگر را دیوانه‌‌وار بکشند و این به نفع دشمنان اسلام بود.

سوریه، کشوری ملی‌گرا و سوسیالیست بود با ملتی چند قومی و پذیرنده اقلیت‌ها. سیا از طریق خاک اردن مزدورانی را وارد آن کرد. خوجه‌های مرگ اعمال وحشیانه‌ای را مرتکب شده و نیروهای امنیتی سوریه را مسبب آن‌ها معرفی کردند. آن‌ها سنی‌ها را قتل عام کرده و شیعیان را سرزنش نمودند به طور خلاصه تخم نفاق کاشتند تا کشتار درو کنند. آن‌ها روی کشور بنزین پاشیدند و کبریت کشیدند.

آنچه در خاورمیانه شاهدیم همان چیزی است که در جنگ جهانی اول شاهد بودیم. قبل از آن بخش اعظم مسلمانان جزء امپراطوری عثمانی بودند؛ آن‌ها بر پایه چیزی فراتر از ملیت یعنی «اسلام» با هم متحد بودند. آن‌ها یک ملت نبودند، یک امت بودند یعنی یک کنفدراسیون. غربی‌ها تخم کین کاشتند. آن‌ها را متقاعد کردند که هر قوم می‌بایست کشور خود را داشته باشد. انگلیسی‌ها، فرانسوی‌ها و آلمان‌ها قول باران مروارید به مسلمانان دادند و به جای آن مروارید‌های شیشه‌ای نصیب ایشان شد. آن‌ها اتحاد اسلامی را در هم شکستند تا جهان اسلام را تضعیف و نابود کنند؛ غرب به رهبری آمریکا وارد جنگی صد ساله علیه اسلام شده‌ است.

اگر غرب تامین کننده تسلیحات است، سعودی‌ها پول و تبلیغات را تأمین می‌کنند تا میان شیعه و سنی جنگ قومی حاکم کنند. افراد آگاه به خوبی می‌دانند آنچه در سوریه می‌گذرد جنگ دینی نیست.

دشمنان بشریت می‌گویند جنگ بین دولت شیعه اقلیت با جنگجویان سنی اکثریت جریان دارد. آن‌ها حکومت سوریه را رژیمی خونخوار که مردم خود را قتل عام می‌کند معرفی می‌کنند در حالی که شورشیان، جنگجویان میانه‌رو معرفی می‌شوند که در حال مبارزه برای آزادی و مردم سالاری‌اند!

در حقیقت به استثنای رئیس جمهور و اعضای بسیار بالای کابینه وی، سایر اعضای دولت سوریه همگی سنی مذهب‌اند. رزمندگان ارتش سوریه سنی هستند و اکثریت سربازان سوری همه سنی‌اند. همین اهل سنت هستند که در مقابل تکفیری‌ها و مزدوران خارجی می‌جنگند.

نمی‌توان گفت حکومت سوریه از هر لحاظ کامل است. نمی‌خواهیم کورکورانه از آن دفاع کنیم با این همه طرفداران دولت به تروریست‌هایی که با آن می‌جنگند ارجحیت دارند. آن‌ها در جنگی متعارف به سر می‌برند. سوری‌های ساکن در مناطق تحت کنترل دولت سالم‌اند. شورشی‌ها برعکس، از تبار سلفی‌ها و تکفیری‌ها هستند. آن‌ها مردم مناطق تحت کنترل خود را دچار وحشت کرده‌اند. آن‌ها مسیحی، شیعه، صوفی، سنی و ایزدی‌ها را می‌کشند؛ مرتکب تجاوز می‌شوند و زنان و کودکان را داد و ستد می‌کنند.

عربستان از ایران، هراس دارد. اعراب از رشد اقتصادی، سیاسی و نظامی ایران بیمناک‌اند، ایران به یک قدرت منطقه‌ای تبدیل شده برای جلوگیری از اتحاد عراقی‌ها با ایران لازم بود عراق نابود شود. برای جلوگیری از اتحاد سوری‌ها با ایران، سوریه می‌بایست نابود می‌شد. مستبدان حکم بر عربستان بارها گفته‌اند که هیچگاه نفوذ ایران را در جهان عرب بر نمی‌تابند.

امکان حمله مستقیم به ایران وجود ندارد زیرا حمله به ایران مساوی با نابودی آن‌هاست. اعراب خلیج فارس به‌طور غیر مستقیم به ایران حمله می‌کنند از طریق تهاجم به دوستان آن: عراق و سوریه و نیز با دامن زدن به خشونت‌های دینی در جهان اسلام چه در نیجریه، چه در افغانستان و چه پاکستان.

اعراب می‌توانند ادعا کنند که جنگ، جنگی مذهبی است. واقعیت این است که این جنگ، جنگی نژادپرستانه، سیاسی و مادی است. می‌دانیم که برخی رهبران عرب نه سنی و نه مسلمان‌اند. آن‌ها کاملاً مشرکند. آن‌ها انسانهایی پلید و بد طینت‌اند که از دین برای رسیدن به اهداف سیاسی و اقتصادی بهره‌برداری می‌کنند. یعنی همان روشی که بنی‌امیه و بنی‌عباس در قرون اولیه اسلام به کار می‌بردند.

تاریخ تکرار می‌شود؛ ترس و وحشت ریشه نفرت است. باید به وحشت اهل سنت دامن زد تا از شیعه متنفر باشند.

ما باید تلاش‌های خود را دو چندان کنیم تا واقعیت را منتشر کرده، سوء تفاهمات را از بین برده و اتحاد اسلامی را گسترش دهیم. باید کم کم ایران‌هراسی جای خود را به ایران‌دوستی و اسلام‌دوستی بدهد. اگر مسلمانان ارزش‌های اخلاقی و قومی را ارج می‌نهادند، می‌توانستند جهان را تغییر و بشریت را نجات دهند.

ایکنا: چرا سیاستمداران آمریکا سیاست‌های ضد ایرانی را به بخش اصلی تبلیغات انتخاباتی خود تبدیل کرده‌اند؟

لابی صهیونیست بسیار قدرتمند است. سیاستمداران، لزوماً نیازی به آرای یهودیان ندارند زیرا یهودیان فقط یک درصد جمعیت آمریکا را تشکیل می‌دهند. در حقیقت اکثر صهیونیست‌ها به اصطلاح مسیحی هستند؛ پروتستان‌های راست افراطی از مسیح به اندازه‌ای دور هستند که یزید از بهشت. تحقیر ایران شیوه‌ای برای ارج نهادن به اسرائیل است. واقعاً بسی جای شرم است. سیاستمداران آمریکا به جای وفاداری به آمریکا، وفاداری خود را به اسرائیل اعلام می‌کنند، آن‌ها بیشتر به فکر رفاه رژیم صهیونیستی هستند تا به فکر نیازهای ملت خودشان، آن‌ها همگی خائن‌اند.

اکثریت آمریکایی‌ها از واقعیت ایران بی‌خبرند. ایران کشوری بسیار زیبا با تاریخی قدیمی و سحرانگیز، ادبیاتی غنی، غذاهایی خوشمزه، مردمی خوب و میهمان نواز است. من همه غربی‌ها را به دیدار از ایران ترغیب می‌کنم. آنها باید به عنوان توریست به ایران بروند و به چشم خودشان ببینند ایران پرشکوه با آنچه معرفی می‌شود چقدر متفاوت است، به عقیده من ایران، مروارید شرق است. من نمی‌توانم کره زمین را بدون این کشور ارزشمند تصور کنم. خداوند حافظ و نگهبان آن باد.

The Covenants of the Prophet Reviewed by Mehraj ud Din in Islam and Muslim Societies: a Social Science Journal

The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World by John Morrow. Angelico Press:2012 Mehraj ud din

Mehraj ud din, Ph.D Research Scholar, Shah-i-Hamadan Institute of Islamic Studies, University of Kashmir, SriNagar, (India) Email ID: bhat.mehraj7@gmail.com

Islam and Muslim Societies : A Social Science Journal Vol. 9, No. 1-2, (2016)

http://www.muslimsocieties.org

The very idea of human existence in every civilizational discourse emerges from its onto-epistemological premise and every institutional offshoot develops in subservience of that world view. Islam being an egalitarian system, is quintessentially based on its onto— metaphysical premise intending to establish a welfare society based on Justice. The creation of Medinan state can be simply dubbed as a beginning of culminating the idea of “welfare state” inspired from the onto-epistemological glasses of Islamic worldview. After the migration to Medina, Muhammad drafted the first legal constitution, inclusive with diverse pluralistic underpinnings for existing faith systems—Christianity and Judaism—and other religious traditions known in history as like the people of the book “mushabah bi ahl alkitab”. The book under review is a serious contribution in contextualizing the engagement of Prophet Muhammad with the Christian faith. Andrew Morrow sets out to offer concrete textual reasons, from the Prophet Mohammed himself, for an understanding of Islam that moves beyond stereotypes and reasserts the truly inclusive foundations of Islamic belief.

The book includes short introduction, three parts divided into seventeen chapters and end-matters (two appendices, bibliography and index). The author has collected, translated and contextualized Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be on him) covenants with different Christian communities of his respective time including the Monks of Mount Sinai, Christians of Persia, Christians of Najran, Armenian Christians of Jerusalem, Christians of Assyria, and the Christians of the World. Andrew argues that these letters and treaties, which proclaim and define peaceful and mutually respectful relationships with Christians, have the potential to serve as a foundational source of Islamic belief and practice, on “equal footing” with the Koran and the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad.

This work is divided into four parts (a) context of the covenants (b) original and translated text of covenants (c) Challenges of determining the authenticity of the covenants (d) witnesses and possible mode of transmitting the covenants. Due to the immense size and content of the book, the reviewer intends to review the first section of the book comprised of seven chapters (from page 1-201) and highlight its importance for achieving the target of Dialogue and possible peace between Christian and Muslim faith.

The first section “The Prophet Muhammad and the People of the Book” is divided into seven chapters. The first chapter “The Prophet Muhammad and the People of the Book” contextualizes the early life of Prophet Muhammad and dug deep to trace the roots of his encounters with the Christians. Andrew has presented a critical analysis of the constitution of Medina and its undisputed authenticity in Eastern and western academic circles. As Robert Hoyland argues that “the authenticity of the constitution of Medina is accepted by most of the scholars and even points out that Patricia Crone, a person with little love towards Islam and Muslims, admitted to its authenticity”. (p.31) Furthering the debate, Andrew discusses the response of Judeo-Christian religions to the advent of Islam and the outright opposition of the Jews especially of Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir and Banu Qurayzah. Dismantling the Orientalist Myth of expanding the Islamic rule under the banner of “peace Jihad”, Morrow invokes the inherent argumentative “beauty of Quran, Prophet’s sublime ethics and his generous and benevolent treaties, accords and covenants to those communities which willingly submitted to the Islamic state”. (p. 42) His letters to the Emperor of Abyssinia, to Heraclius, to Muqawqis (Egypt), and to the Rulers of Oman and Ghassanids shows his will to invite all the factions across the territorial boundaries to the umbrella of Islam.

In Chapter 2 “The Prophet Muhammad and the Monks of Mount Sinai”, Morrow discussed the controversial and highly disputed document “The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Monks of Mount Sinai” concluded in the second year of the Hijrah, which many Orientalists summarily disputes as spurious. Despite its importance as a major milestone in Muslim-Christian relations, the covenant of the Prophet is virtually unknown to most Muslims and has historically received greater circulation and recognition among Arabic, Latin, and English—speaking Christians. This chapter mostly focuses on the unending diverse approaches to seek the “authenticity” of this covenant as some dates it to 1517 CE. (p. 75) Andrew while arguing that most traditional Muslim “ulama” accept the covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the monks of Mount Sinai as authentic, its content is roundly rejected by certain groups of Islamic extremists. (p.77)

In Chapter 3—“The Prophet Muhammad and the Christians of Persia”, is also one of the important documents of historical importance and equally is seen with the doubt. Andrew assumes of three possibilities 1) the Persian version is the product of a very free translation of the Arabic original; 2) the Persian version has been tampered by Shi’ite scholars; or as farfetched as it may seem, 3) the Arabic version of the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of Mount Sinai is actually a translation from the original Persian. Seta B. Dadoyan argues that the covenant’s authenticity “cannot be established” but Andrew castigates it with the counter—argument that “it is not even disproved yet as well”. (p. 107)

While in Chapter 4—“The Prophet Muhammad and the Christians of Najran”, Andrew discusses the authenticity of its document as the covenant concluded between the Prophet and Christians from Sinai has received mixed reviews, with some scholars attesting to its authenticity and others considering it spurious, the “covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of Najran has been castigated by both the Orientalist who brought it to light and by the few others who are familiar with it”. (p. 115) Arguing the growing rift between Prophet Muhammad and the Christians of the Najran culminated into a treaty in the year of 10 A.H. was written by Abd Allah ibn Bakr to negotiate a more extensive understanding to establish certain rights and obligations between Christians and Muslims.

Chapter 5—“The Prophet Muhammad and the Christians of the World”, known in Arabic as al-Ahd wa al-shurut allati sharataha Muhammad rasul Allah li ahl al-millah al-nasraniyyah, literally, the Treaty and covenant which Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, concluded with the Christian community, the covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the world. Like the covenant of Mount Sinai, there are debates on the issues of its authenticity due to its resemblance in content with the covenant of Sinai and Najran. But that doesn’t make them forgeries rather show the shared common elements and conditions which were already present in the already written/signed covenants with the Christians of different communities.

Chapter 6—“he Prophet Muhammad and the Assyrian Christians” is a covenant discovered before a century about which George Malech describes as the Agreement between Prophet Muhammad and Nazarene Christians of the East. Preserving the document until Selim I (1512-1520 CE), and then the same being shifted to Istanbul in 1517 according to George Malech and William Chauncey. Paradoxically, the Surma D’Bait, sister of Marshimun Benyamin, the patriarch of the Assyrian church of the east (1887-1918 CE) denies such transfer. Tracing its roots further, Andrew quotes Wigram and argues that “this document was preserved until the middle of the 19th century, when Kurdish hatred of Christians overcame their reverence for the Prophet and the grant perished in the “Massacres of Bedr Khan Beg” in 1847 and resulted in the destruction of this ferman (document)”. (p. 188)

Chapter 7—“The Prophet Muhammad and the Armenian Christians of Jerusalem”— establishes the commitment of Muhammad for not only reaching to Greek Orthodox Christians from Mount Sinai, the Coptic Christians of Egypt, the Assyrian Christians of upper Mesopotamia, and the Christians of Persia, but to the Armenian Christians of Jerusalem. Since the Eastern Roman Empire had expressed hostility towards him, Muhammad’s strategy seems to have been to create a better zone of Greek, Assyrian, Armenian, and Persian Christian sympathizers, to extend his message and fine a common ground against its enemy. Now preserved in St. James Library in the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem is actually the culmination of “Patriarch Abraham I tiresome efforts who travelled to Mecca in the 7th century to secure special privileges for the Armenian Christians from the Prophet Muhammad himself”. (p. 191)

In concluding the review of this path breaking scholarly work, I must admit the efforts of John Andrew Morrow to create a bridge out of this book between those of the Abrahamic faiths. Collecting the original manuscripts and the translations of these covenants vis-à-vis contextualizing and putting them in the test of objective historical comparative tests must be admired and applauded. Being academically objective and emotionally faithful seems to be missing the contemporary academic works which a reader or even a critical reviewer experiences at different instances of this book. This book can be used a key text in rethinking and redefining the relationship of Muslims with the Christians of the world and dismantle the “crafted hatred” between the two majoritarian faiths of contemporary world.

Countering Islamophobia – Dr John Andrew Morrow speaks up

Countering Islamophobia – Dr John Andrew Morrow speaks up

SHAFAQNA – (Delivered at the 12th Annual Muslim Congress in Dearborn, Michigan, on Saturday, August 6, 2016.

It is a blessing, a privilege, and an honor to speak at the 2016 Muslim Congress on a subject that impacts us all: Islamophobia, the dislike of Islam and Muslims; the prejudice against Islam and Muslims; and the fear and hatred against Islam and Muslims. I wish I could tell you that everyone loved us. Unfortunately, a hell of lot of people hate us.

Although we have hit rock bottom and our popularity rating is the pits, we should not despair. We should view this as an opportunity and challenge as well as a test and a trial. When you are down, the only way is up. We might be in the darkest part of the night; however, rest assured that the dawn will come and the sun will rise.

As followers of Ahl al-Bayt, ‘alayhim al-salām, I am sure you know what I mean, and who I mean, when I speak of the Sun behind the clouds. I speak of the Light of Islam, the Axis of the Universe, and the Imam of the Age. Ṣalawāt ‘alā Muḥammad wa āli Muḥammad

Rest assured that we are not alone. Allah is with us. Rasūl Allāh is with us. The A’immahare with us. And the Malā’ikah are with us. Consider these our Meccan days: a period of persecution and a period of sadness and tears. Do not despair. Do not lose faith. Almighty Allah has promised us victory in both this world and the hereafter. Verily, we will be triumphant.

During this age of intolerance and ignorance, in which Islam and Muslims are victimized and demonized in generalized fashion, we should not feel helpless and hopeless. There are many things that we can do, and that we must do, for our sake, the sake of Islam, the sake of Muslims, and the sake of humanity as a whole.

First and foremost, we must teach Muslims to truly represent Islam. One of the most effective ways of combating Islamophobia is to show non-Muslims that the things and they hate and fear about Islam and Muslims have nothing to do with Islam. As Imam ‘Ali, may peace be upon him, has said: “People are enemies of what they don’t know.”

If al-Qaedah, the Taliban, the recently rebranded al-Nusrah, Boko Haram, al-Shabab, and ISIS represent Islam, then people have every right to hate Islam. If the Salafi-Jihadis, the Wahhabis, the Khawarij, the Najdis, the Nawasib, and the Takfiris are Muslims, then people have every right to hate Muslims.

In reality, Islam and Muslims are the target of a massive campaign of negative marketing on a global scale. Efforts to distort Islam and to dehumanize Muslims date back to medieval times. These efforts intensified during colonial times.

However, nothing can be compared to the all-encompassing propaganda that has been polluting the planet for the past few decades. Billions upon billions of dollars have been spent to portray Muslims as terrorists and savages who threaten civilization as a whole.

While our resources are limited, we must fight ignorance with knowledge. We must fight misinformation with information. We must fight propaganda with facts. We must fight falsehood with truth. We must fight fake Islam with true Islam. How, then, should we proceed?

In order to combat Islamophobia, we must combat extremism and terrorism ideologically, informationally, and religiously.

On the ideological front, we have an immense challenge. There are approximately 100,000 Takfiri terrorists. 7% of self-professed Muslims support them. However, the number is significantly higher when we ask Muslims whether they share the same ideology.

The Takfiri ideology could never have spread without an immense and widespread ignorance of the depth and greatness of the Islamic social, intellectual, and spiritual tradition, an ignorance that is traceable back to the destruction of the traditional Muslim educational system under western colonialism.

Islam must get beyond the barren dialectic between the liberal modernizers who attempt to take various secular forms of social organization as models in order to “bring Islam into the 21st century” by a process of voluntary re-colonization through imitation of the west, and the blind and violent reactionaries who wish to return Islam to its so-called “original purity.”

The only alternative to this poisonous dichotomy is to re-discover the supremely just, intelligent and humane forms of social organization established by the Prophet Muhammad himself, peace and blessings be upon him and his household, in his Covenants, his Treaties, and in the Constitution of Medina.

Within these documents can be found the fertile seed of a “universal declaration of human rights” that owes nothing to the atheistic ideologies of the west, one capable of growing into a great tree providing shelter to the nations, a tree springing directly from the soil of Islam itself.

If, however, Islam fails to dedicate itself to recovering its greatness–not so much the greatness of its past but the greatness of its essence–then Daesh and its various litter-mates will occupy the burned-out heart of our religion, and Islam will be destroyed.

On the Information Front, every effort must be made to make the world’s population aware of the many actions presently undertaken by Muslims from both the governmental and the private sectors against ISIS and other Takfiris, while at the same time providing expanded opportunities for public participation in these actions. Unless the war of information is won, the war between true and false Islam for the hearts and minds of the Ummah, Islam will be destroyed.

As for the Religious Front, it cannot be limited to the ideological sphere. It should certainly include the establishment of ongoing diplomatic liaisons with the leaderships of the non-Muslim religions presently being persecuted by Daesh, for purposes of developing a common strategy to defeat them.

The central strategy and tactic on the Religious Front, however, must be to make ferventdu’as to Allah, to implore His guidance in the war against His enemies. It was not you who threw when you threw, but God threw. If we do not put Allah first, if we do not exalt His Will and His Agenda over whatever strategies and agendas we may decide upon in this gathering, then it will not matter if Islam is destroyed, because–in terms of this assembly at least–it will be dead already.

In our collective struggle against Islamopobia; in our fight against extremism and terrorism, please allow me to propose a few concrete steps that any ordinary Muslim take.

1) Spread Islam. Spread traditional, civilizational, Islam. Spread non-sectarian Islam. Spread an inclusive Islam; an Islam of diversity, tolerance, love, mercy and justice. Spread it by word and spread it by action. Put Islamic morals and ethics into practice.

2) Fight fake Islam with true Islam. Compare and contrast: present a verse from the Qur’an and then contrast it with the actions of extremists; present a hadith from the Prophet and then contrast it with the actions of extremists; thus delegitimizing the discourse of the extremists.

3) Disseminate the Constitution of Medina. Islamists claim that they wish to create an Islamic State; however, they ignore the fact that the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him and his household, produced the first political constitution in the history of humanity, an inclusive and pluralistic Political Charter that granted equality to all citizens regardless of religion, race, or gender. From day one, the Ummah of Islam was composed of Muslims and non-Muslims. The Prophet, his Companions, and his Holy Household, all respected the People of the Book who were friends and allies of the Muslims. They were one Ummah united on universal and primordial principles.

4) Disseminate the covenants and treaties that the Prophet Muhammad concluded with Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian communities. These include the Treaty of Maqnah, the Treaty of Aylah, the Treaty of Najran, the Covenant with Monks from Mount Sinai, the Covenant with the Christians of Persia, the Covenant with the Assyrian Christians, the Covenant with the Armenian Christians, the Covenant with the Coptic Christians, and the Covenant with the Parsees…

5) Disseminate the covenants that the Caliphs and Sultans concluded with non-Muslim communities. These include the Covenant of Abu Bakr, the Covenant of ‘Umar, the Covenant of ‘Ali, the Covenant of Salah al-Din, and the Covenant of Sultan Mehmet.

6) Pressure leaders in the Muslim world to protect Christian minorities from persecution. Demand that Muslims minorities around the world receive the same protections.

7) Join or organize demonstrations calling for the protection of persecuted Muslims and Christians.

8) Join or organize demonstrations calling for the protection of sacred sites and places of worship as Christian, Sunni, Shi‘ite and Sufi spaces are the preferred targets of Takfiri terrorists.

9) Denounce any government, Muslim or non-Muslim, that supports, directly or indirectly, Takfiri terrorists who persecute Christians, Sunnis, Shi‘ites, and Sufis. They include the United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Israel.

10) Oppose foreign interference in our Islamic affairs in the Western world. Denounce religious colonialism. Mosques and Muslim organizations in the West should be concerned about the interests of Western Muslims and should not serve the strategic plans of any so-called Muslim country.

11) When people slander Islam, the Qur’an and the Prophet, point them to The Covenants of the Prophet and let Muhammad ibn Abdullah, peace and blessings be upon him and his household, speak for himself.

12) Share the Covenants of the Prophet with the People of the Book in word and in action. Build bridges of understanding between all believers.

13) Volunteer your time and skills. We need translators. We need people with expertise in business, marketing, advertising, social media… Everyone has something to offer.

14) If you cannot donate your time, donate your money. Support the Covenants Initiative or other efforts. Give sadaqah. Give zakat. Give khums.

15) Familiarize Muslims, and non-Muslims, with all the initiatives against extremism and radicalization, efforts that are deliberately unreported or underreported for political purposes. They include:

1) ISNA’s Muslim Code of Honor. Signed in September, 2007, it denounces extremism and violence, calls for Islamic unity between all believers, and prohibits takfīr or excommunication.

2) A Common Word Between Us and You. This open letter, which was jointly composed by Muslim and Christian leaders, was released in October of 2007. It calls for peace between both major world religions and encourages them to work for common ground. A Common Word has been critical in fostering interfaith dialogue.

3) Shoulder to Shoulder. Since 2010, the Islamic Society of North America has joined with 27 national faith-based interfaith organizations to address anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States.

4) The Fatwa against Terrorism and Suicide Bombing. It was issued by Dr. Muhammad Tahir al-Qadri in 2010. It states that “Terrorism is terrorism, violence is violence and it has no place in Islamic teaching and no justification can be provided for it.”

5) The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World. This book, which was published in 2013, consists of a study of the treaties that the Messenger of Allah made with the People of the Book. It features long-forgotten documents, some of which were rediscovered in ancient monasteries and archives, and which were translated from Arabic into English.

The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad prove that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him and his household, was committed to creating an inclusive, pluralistic, community of believers. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, explicitly stated that Muslims are required to protect religious sites and institutions; not destroy them.

As the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him and his household, commands in his covenants: wa lā tughayyir usquf ‘an usqufiyyah, wa lā rāhib min rahbāniyyah, wa lā naṣrānī min naṣrāniyyah, wa lā rāhib  min ṣawma‘atihi, wa lā sā’iḥ min siyāḥatihi, wa lā yuhdamu bayt min buyūti kanā’isahim wa baya‘ihim, wa la yadkhulu shay’in min manāzilihim fī shay’in min al-masājid wa lā manāzil al-mu’minīn al-muslimīn, fa man fa‘ala dhalika faqad nakatha ‘ahd Allāh wa khalafa Rasūl Allāh wa khā’in dhimmat Allāh.

It is not permitted to remove a bishop from his bishopric or a Christian from his Christianity, a monk from his monastic life or a pilgrim from his pilgrimage or a hermit monk from his tower. Nor is it permitted to destroy any part of their churches, to take parts of their buildings to construct mosques or the homes of Muslims. Whoever does such a thing will have violated the covenant of Allah, disobeyed the Messenger of Allah, and deviated from His Divine Alliance.

The covenants date from the second year of the establishment of the Muslim Community in Medina to the final years of his life, demonstrating that they represented permanent policy. The documents state that they are binding upon Muslims until the End of Times and some include a stern warning: Wa man ẓalama ba‘da dhalika dhimmiyyan wa naqaḍa al-‘ahd wa rafaḍuhu kuntu khaṣmahu yawm al-qiyyamah min jami‘ al-muslimīn kāfatan /Whoever is unjust after this towards a [Christian] subject [dhimmi], breaks the covenant and rejects it, I will be his enemy on the Day of Judgment among all the Muslims.

6) The Covenants Initiative. Inspired by The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World, Charles Upton, known also as Sidi Akram, created the Covenants Initiative, an international movement committed to protecting persecuted Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

The Covenants Initiative, which calls upon Muslims to renew their oath to the Prophet Muhammad and abide by the treaties that he concluded with the People of the Book, has been signed by several hundred leading Sunni, Shii, and Sufi scholars, academics, and activists.

7) Bin Bayyah’s fatwa. In September of 2014, Shaykh Abdallah Bin Bayyah, one of the most influential scholars in Sunni Islam, passed a lengthy fatwa condemning ISIS.

8) The letter to Baghdadi. The Letter to Baghdadi, released in September of 2014, is a meticulously detailed refutation of ISIS. It was signed by over one hundred of Islam’s leading scholars and personally directed to the leader of the pseudo-Islamic State.

9) The Amman Message. Issued in November 2014, and signed by 200 Islamic scholars from over 50 countries, this call for tolerance and unity in the Muslim world provides an inclusive definition of what it means to be Muslim and denounces the practice of takfir or excommunication.

10) The statement from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Released in 2014, it declares that the Islamic State has “nothing to do with Islam” and has committed crimes “that cannot be tolerated.”

11) The fatwa from al-Azhar. Issued in 2014, it states that ISIS is “a danger to Islam.”

12) The Statement from the Arab League. Released in 2014, it denounces the “crimes against humanity” carried out by ISIS.

13) The fatwa that was passed by Turkey’s top cleric, Mufti Mehmet Gormez. Issued in 2014, it states that ISIS is “hugely damaging” to Islam and Muslims.

14) The condemnations made against ISIS by CAIR. Since 2014, they have repeatedly condemned ISIS as “Un-Islamic and morally repugnant.”

15) The declaration made by the Muslim Council of Great Britain. Released in 2014, it affirms that “violence has no place in religion.”

16) The fatwa published by the Fiqh Council of the Islamic Society of North America. Issued in 2014, and signed by 126 leading Muslim scholars, it asserts that the actions of ISIS are in no way representative of what Islam actually teaches.

17) The Joint Sunni-Shiite Fatwa issued by 100 U.K. Imams. Released in 2014, it describes ISIS as an “illegitimate” and “vicious group.”

18) The statement issued by the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Published in 2014, it condemns ISIS and calls upon Muslims to “stand against extremism.”

19) The campaign by the Nahdlatul-Ulama. The NU is the largest Islamic organization in the world, representing 50 million Indonesian Muslims. In 2014, it launched a global campaign against extremism and Wahhabism.

20) The statements of Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqubi. In an interview conducted in 2014, he asserted that “ISIS has no nationality. Its nationality is terror, savagery, and hatred.” Furthermore, he asserted that “Baghdadi is going to hell.”

In 2015, Shaykh al-Yaqubi published a lecture titled Refuting ISIS: A Rebuttal of its Religious and Ideological Foundations. In his booklet, he states that ISIS constitutes the most serious threat that Islam has ever faced. Consequently, he has provided a counter-narrative that elucidates the reality of Islam and its commitment to tolerance. In short, he demonstrates that the actions of ISIS are not representative of Islam.

21) The jihad that was declared by the Muslim Youth Group in the UK. In 2015, a group of young Muslims declared an ideological holy war against extremists and terrorists who hijack Islam, asserting, in no uncertain terms, that groups like ISIS have “no link with Islam or the Muslim community.”

22) The Historic Islamic Edict or Fatwa on Joining ISIS/ISIL that was passed by the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada in March of 2015. Signing by dozens of traditional Muslim scholars, it states, quite explicitly, that anyone who joins Daesh leaves the Ummah of Islam.

23) The condemnation against ISIS that I issued in November of 2015. The statement in question was disseminated to over one million Muslims and directly inspired numerous other edicts.

24) The mass fatwa against ISIS. In December of 2015, 70,000 Muslim clerics from India signed a joint fatwa against ISIS that was subsequently endorsed by 1.5 million Muslims.

24) Dr. Muhammad Tahir al-Qadri’s denunciations of Daesh. In a statement he made in 2016, he stated that: “The ISIS ideology is Kufr (disbelief in Islam). It is anti-Islam; against the teachings of the prophet of Islam.”

25) The Marrakesh Declaration. The Marrakesh Declaration was the product of a global conference that brought together hundreds of major Muslim leaders, both religious and political.

Muslims leaders from around the world, Sunnis, Shiis, and Sufis, gathered in Morocco to express their collective commitment to the cause of human, civil, religious, and minority rights in Muslim countries.

The Marrakesh Declaration reasserts the rights of non-Muslim minorities. The manifesto is rooted in the Constitution of Medina, the first political charter in the history of humanity, produced by the Prophet Muhammad in the 7th century, which recognized all the members of the Muslim Ummah and Monotheistic Movement of Believers as citizens, regardless of their religion.

According to Dr. Sayyid Syeed, the National Director for the Office for Interfaith & Community Alliances for the Islamic Society of North America, the Marrakesh Declaration was inspired by the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad and the Covenants Initiative. In fact, ISNA has officially endorsed the Covenants Initiative and adopted the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad.

While many Americans are aware that the Government of the United States has recognized ISIS as culpable of genocide, few know that Muslim activists were intimately involved at every single step that led to this decision.

As a result of the success of the Covenants Initiative, the Genocide Initiative was created in August of 2015. While the Covenants Initiative focused on interfaith community building, the Genocide Initiative had a concrete political aim, namely to accuse ISIS of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

The Genocide Initiative, along with many similar efforts spearheaded by our Jewish and Christian partners, led to the passage of the Fortenberry Resolution in the House of Representatives in March of 2016. The resolution defined the actions of ISIS as genocide, a declaration that was immediately echoed by Secretary of State John Kerry.

While certain political sectors wish to present the war in Syria and Iraq as a Sunni/Shia conflict, the scholarly centers of both Sunnism and Shiism, are united in their condemnation of ISIS. Whether it is the University of al-Azhar in Egypt or the Hawzah ‘Ilmiyyah in Najaf and Qum, Sunni and Shii scholars have all repudiated ISIS.

At international, national, local, and community level, Muslims have vociferously denounced ISIS and disassociated themselves from their evil ideology and deeds. From Shaykh al-Habib ‘Ali al-Jifri’s efforts emanating from the United Arab Emirates to the creation of an anti-ISIS community guide by Daisy Khan of WISE Muslim Women, Muslims are actively involved in counter-radicalization. In fact, there are over 300 anti-ISIS and anti-extremist initiatives being led by Muslims. I only gave you a brief summary of 25 of them. If I compiled them all, they would easily fill a 500-page book.

Get involved. Read The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World and spread the word. Sign the Covenants Initiative and the Genocide Initiative. If you are a scholar of Islam, sign A Common Word, The Amman Declaration, The Letter to Baghdadi, and the various edicts against ISIS. Engage in interfaith work and intrafaith work. Build bonds between Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Build bonds between Sunnis, Shiites, and Sufis. Build bonds as human beings first and foremost. Ṣalawāt ‘alā Muḥammad wa āli Muḥammad.

از نقش ترامپ در عادی‌سازی اسلام‌هراسی تا تأثیر لابی یهودی بر انتخابات

پژوهشگر آمریکایی تبیین کرد؛
گروه بین الملل: ترامپ در حال عادی‌سازی بیان احساسات ضد اسلامی است؛ نژاد‌پرستی اصل و اساس فرهنگ آمریکایی را تشکیل می‌دهد و حتی اگر آمریکا‌یی‌ها طی دهه‌های اخیر نسبتاً متمدن شده باشند، عدم تساهل همچنان زیر پوست این کشور باقی مانده و به لطف ترامپ این لایه‌های نفرت اکنون نمود پیدا می‌کنند.
از نقش ترامپ در عادی‌سازی اسلام‌هراسی تا لابی یهودی برای تأثیر بر انتخابات

«جان اندرو مورو»، استاد دانشگاه، نویسنده و پژوهشگر اهل ایالت کبک کاناداست که در زمینه مطالعات اسلامی، اسپانیایی و بومیان آمریکا تخصص دارد. این استاد کانادایی ـ آمریکایی مسلمان در گفت‌وگو با خبرگزاری بین‌المللی قرآن(ایکنا) درباره تبلیغات انتخاباتی «دونالد ترامپ»، نامزد جمهوری‌خواهان در انتخابات ریاست جمهوری آمریکا، که خواستار ممنوعیت ورود مسلمانان به خاک آمریکا شده است، اظهار کرد: دونالد ترامپ یک نظریه‌پرداز نیست او یک پوپولیست فرصت‌طلب است که قصد دارد از مسئله مسلمانان و اقلیت‌ها به نفع خود سود ببرد. او ایجاد وحشت می‌کند تا از ناامنی مردم بهره‌برداری کند. این بدان معنا نیست افرادی که از ترامپ حمایت می‌کنند از وضع موجود راضی هستند. سفیدپوستان محافظه‌کار و مسیحی نیمی از مردم آمریکا را تشکیل می‌دهند و در حال ناپدیدشدن هستند. سرمایه‌داران فرصت‌های شغلی را به خارج انتقال داده‌اند و انگلو آمریکن‌ها بیکار هستند.

وی افزود: در کشوری که مدعی آزادی دینی است، حکومت به زور یک لائیسیته غیر اخلاقی را تحمیل می‌کند. دولت به جای دفاع از منافع آمریکایی‌ها در خدمت هواداران جهانی‌سازی است. طرفداران ترامپ خشمگین‌اند و حق هم دارند مشکل اینجاست که ترامپ به منشأ مشکلات مردم که همانا یک نظام سرمایه‌داری وحشی است حمله نمی‌کند. به عکس بزرگترین قربانیان این نظام اقتصادی سیاسی شیطانی را که همان سیاهان، اسپانیانی‌زبانان، بومیان، مسلمانان و مهاجران هستند، هدف قرار داده است. او به جای آنکه مردم را به نیکی، تساهل، همبستگی اجتماعی و وحدت ملی فرا بخواند آنها را به عدم شکیبایی و پراکندگی دعوت می‌کند؛ اگر ترامپ ممنوعیت و ورود مسلمانان به آمریکا را پیشنهاد می‌کند به این دلیل است که پیشنهادش، آراء را به سوی او جلب می‌کند.

این استاد کانادایی ـ آمریکایی تصریح کرد: ترامپ برای آمریکایی‌های اروپائی‌الاصل حکم مسیح را دارد. او آخرین امید آن‌هاست. ولی ترامپ مسیح نیست، به عکس او ضد مسیح است، میلیاردی خودخواه و نزدیک به طرفداران جهانی شدن. او هیچگاه برای کمک به کشاورزان، کارگران، افراد به حاشیه رانده شده و محروم قدمی برنداشته است، اگر او واقعا راست می‌گوید از ثروتش برای کمک به آمریکایی‌ها استفاده کند.

نویسنده کتاب «میثاق محمد(ص) با مسیحیان» تصریح کرد: «برنی ساندرز» هم نمایانگر نارضایتی آمریکایی‌هاست. این نظام کارآیی خود را از دست داده و مردم از سیاستمداران ریاکار و دروغ‌گو خسته شده‌ا‌ند. جامعه‌شناسان مدت‌هاست از جنگ فرهنگی سخن می‌گویند. کارشناسان علم سیاست حق دارند نگران باشند. آنها خیلی خوب می‌دانند که یک جنگ فرهنگی می‌تواند به جنگ داخلی منجر شود. کشور روی انبار باروت قرار گرفته و مردم تا دندان مسلح‌ هستند، فقط یک کبریت لازم است تا آمریکا به سوریه و عراق تبدیل شود.

ترامپ و موج‌سواری بر جریان اسلام‌هراسی

این متخصص مطالعات اسلامی، اسپانیایی و بومی دانشگاه‌های آمریکا درباره هدف ترامپ از ایجاد موج اسلام‌هراسی می‌گوید: اگر ترامپ به حمایت اعراب و مسلمانان نیاز داشت خود را بهترین دوست ایشان معرفی می‌کرد. در حال حاضر تنفر زیادی از مسلمانان وجود دارد، ترامپ از اسلام‌هراسی برای مقاصد سیاسی بهره‌برداری می‌کند. در عین حال او در حال تبدیل کردن بیان احساسات ضد اسلامی به امری عادی است. نژاد‌پرستی اصل و اساس فرهنگ آمریکایی را تشکیل می‌دهد. آمریکا کشوری است که بر کشتار، نابودی مردمان بومی و بردگی سیاهان پایه‌گذاری شده؛ حتی اگر آمریکا‌یی‌ها طی دهه‌های اخیر نسبتا متمدن شده باشند، عدم تساهل همچنان زیر پوست این کشور باقی مانده و به لطف ترامپ این لایه‌های نفرت اکنون نمود پیدا می‌کنند. آنچه بخش عظیمی از آمریکایی‌ها احساس می‌کردند بدون اینکه آن  را بیان کنند حال آشکارا اظهار می‌شود. فرهنگ آمریکایی حالا گامی به عقب برداشته و به جای بهتر شدن رو به انحطاط می‌رود؛ چه در آمریکا و چه در اروپا به لحاظ فرهنگی شاهد دوره‌ای شرم‌آور هستیم؛ گویی در اروپای دهه ۳۰ و در آستانه ظهور فاشیسم حضور داریم.

اندرو مورو درباره پیشنهاد ممنوع کردن ورود مسلمانان به آمریکا می‌گوید: ترامپ انسان معتقدی نیست، او اصلا مذهبی نیست. فردی نیست که از خدا بترسد. او بی‌دینی مغرور و ماتریالیست است. پیشنهاد ممنوعت ورود مسلمانان از احساسات دینی شخصی او سرچشمه نمی‌گیرد. او حرف‌های مسیحیان صهیونیست آمریکا را تکرار می‌کند؛ مسیحیانی که ادعا می‌کنند اسلام یک ایدئولوژی سیاسی خشن و بر پایه تنفر است. اگر آن‌ها سلفیت، وهابیت و یا تکفیر را جایگزین واژه «اسلام» می‌کردند ما با آن‌ها موافق بودیم. اشتباه بزرگ و عمدی آن‌ها اینجاست که آنها اسلام را که دینی شریف است با تکفیر که آئینی شیطانی و نادرست است، یکی می‌دانند.

تکفیر برابر با شیطان‌پرستی و تکفیری ستون پنجم دشمن در جهان اسلام است

مدیر بنیاد «میثاق‌های محمد(ص)» تصریح کرد: آئین تکفیر همان آئین شیطان‌پرستی است و تکفیری‌ها همان تروریست‌های هوادار شیطان‌ هستند، اینکه گروهی شیطان را خدا و خدا را شیطان تلقی کنند؛ از خدا شیطان نمی‌سازد. آن‌ها می‌توانند «الله» را هرگونه که می‌خواهند بخوانند ما می‌دانیم که مقصود ایشان همان ابلیس است. تکفیری‌ها خوارج و همان کفاری هستند که ادعای مسلمانان بودن دارند. اسلاف ایشان توطئه کردند تا خلافت و امامت را تصاحب و اسلام را از درون نابود کنند. ما آن‌ها را از طریق رفتارشان که مغایر همه اصول، ارزش‌ها و قوانین اسلام واقعی و محمدی است، می‌شناسیم. همان کفار گذشته یا مشرکان عصر پیامبر(ص) که قربانیان را شکنجه می‌دادند، مثله می‌کردند، به آن‌ها تجاوز می‌کردند و آن‌ها را برای نیروهای شر به عنوان قربانی می‌سوزاندند.

این استاد آمریکایی که پس از اسلام آوردن نام «الیاس اسلام» را برای خود برگزیده است، با اشاره به اینکه همین تکفیر‌ی‌ها از سوی انگلیسی‌ها برای نابود کردن امپراطوری عثمانی مورد استفاده قرار گرفته‌اند، تصریح می‌کند: قدرت‌های غربی در طول جنگ‌های اول و دوم جهانی از همین تروریست‌های «اسلام‌گرا» برای اهداف ژئوپولتیک استفاده کردند. آمریکایی‌ها از همین اصول‌گرایان برای جنگ با اتحاد شوروی در افغانستان سود بردند و این‌ها همان روان‌پریشانی هستند که آمریکا، عربستان، قطر و ترکیه ایشان را در عراق و سوریه رها کرده‌اند تا جهان اسلام را تضعیف و نابود کنند.

وی افزود: طرفداران جهانی‌سازی از اسلام بیم دارند چون می‌دانند اسلام به حیات استثمارگران و ظالمان خاتمه می‌دهد، آن‌ها خیلی خوب می‌دانند که اسلام به حیات فروشندگان سلاح و مواد مخدر، زن و کودک و اندام انسان پایان می‌دهد. آنها می‌خواهند به هر قیمتی چهره اسلام را تخریب کنند و مسلمانان را انسان‌هایی شرور نشان دهند. بنابراین باید برای ارتقاء، اسلام سنتی و معنوی، اسلامی متساهل، دربرگیرنده و پلورالیست و مبلغ عدالت اجتماعی، اقتصادی و سیاسی را تبلیغ کرد. در واقع کسانی که اسلام رادیکال را تبلیغ می‌کنند همان کسانی هستند که چنین اسلامی را تولید و کنترل کرده، آن را مسلح نموده و گسترش می‌دهند. باید درباره این واقعیت نگران کننده از طریق ارائه مستندات به مردم آگاهی داد؛ تکفیری‌ها، ستون پنجم دشمن در جهان اسلام‌اند.

لابی یهودی برای تأثیر بر نتایج انتخابات

این پژوهشگر مطالعات اسلامی همچنین درباره توان مسلمانان برای مقابله با موج اسلام‌هراسی در تبلیغات انتخاباتی کاندیداها می‌گوید: مسلمانان درصد اندکی از جمعیت آمریکا را تشکیل می‌دهند. آنها نمی‌توانند نتایج انتخابات ریاست جمهوری را تغییر دهند. یهودیان به عکس تعداد اندکشان بر نتایج انتخابات تأثیر می‌گذارند، زیرا متحد و سازماندهی شده عمل می‌کنند. آنها از پول خود برای اعمال فشار بر سیاستمداران و دولت استفاده می‌کنند. مسلمانان باید از یهودیان سرمشق بگیرند. احتمال زیادی وجود دارد که یهودیان نتایج انتخابات را تغییر دهند. یهودیان آمریکا نمی‌خواهند دوباره وحشت دوران نازی‌ها را تجربه کنند. آنها یک هیتلر بالقوه را در ترامپ می‌بینند. تلاش‌های مسلمانان آمریکا مهم است. آن‌ها سازماندهی می‌شوند ولی مشکل اینجاست که این کار باید از ده‌ها و حتی یک قرن پیش انجام می‌شد.

وی با تأکید بر اینکه تلاش کنونی مسلمانان اندک و شاید دیر هنگام باشد، ادامه می‌دهد: فرهنگ علیه ماست، ما همگی مسئول شکستمان هستیم. اگر خدا به یاری ما نیاید همگی باید جزای بی‌عملی‌مان را بپردازیم. یا خود ترامپ، خودش را نابود می‌کند یا برخی دیگر او را نابود خواهند کرد. او مردی بی‌ثبات است. برخی روانشناسان ترامپ را فردی خودشیفته می‌دانند که اگر کدهای سلاح‌های هسته‌ای را در اختیار داشته باشد، معلوم نیست چه فاجعه‌ای را رقم بزند.

این استاد مسلمان درباره تأثیر انتخاب ترامپ در روابط آمریکا با اسرائیل می‌گوید: ترامپ سرشار از ضد و نقیض‌هاست. یک روز می‌گوید آنچنان ثروتمند است که نیازی به لابی اسرائیل ندارد روز بعد از اسرائیل تمجید می‌کند. واقعا ترامپ کیست؟ یک ابله یا سیاستمداری حیله‌گر؟ یک دوست و متحد هیلاری کلینتون که می‌خواهد حزب جمهوری‌خواه را نابود کند؟ الله اعلم.

وی در پایان خاطرنشان کرد: آنچه به یقین می‌توان گفت این است که او شایستگی بودن در جایگاه مرد شماره یک آمریکا را ندارد. خدا همگان را از شر او حفظ کند. در مورد هیلاری کلینتون نیز می‌توان گفت که او بهتر از ترامپ نیست. هر دو افرادی مشمئز کنند‌ه‌اند؛ اولی چون بیش از حد رک و راست است و دیگری بیش از حد دروغگو؛ انتخاب بین آن‌ها مثل انتخاب بین بد و بدتر است. آن‌ها دو سر یک جانور‌ هستند. ولی هر کدام که انتخاب شوند درباره حمایت آمریکا از اسرائیل شکی وجود ندارد.

Trump vise les plus grandes victimes d’un ordre économique et politique diabolique

10:28 – August 10, 2016
Code de l’info: 3460605
La campagne électorale bat son plein aux Etats-Unis et les candidats républicain et démocrate essaient d’utiliser toutes les cartes à leur profit. Donald Trump, candidat républicain aux présidentielles cherchent de profiter de la vague d’islamophobie pour se consacrer plus de vote. Nous avons interviewé un musulman, le docteur John Andrew Morrow, pour savoir plus sur le processus de cette campagne, la place des musulmans dans ces élections et les réels motifs des candidats.
Pourquoi Trump a fait de l’interdiction de l’émigration des musulmans aux Etats-Unis, le cheval de bataille de sa campagne électorale?
Donald Trump n’est pas un idéologue; c’est un populiste et un opportuniste. Comme tous les fascistes, il cherche un bouc émissaire : que ça soit les juifs pour les nazis, les gauchistes pour les dictateurs d’extrême droite de l’Amérique Latine ou, dans le cas de Trump, les musulmans et les minorités. L’islamophobie, la xénophobie, le racisme et le sexisme mettent le vent dans les ailes de Trump. Il cultive la peur et exploite l’insécurité des gens. Cela ne veut pas dire que les gens qui soutiennent Trump n’ont pas de plaintes légitimes : ils en ont énormément.
Les blancs conservateurs et chrétiens représentent la moitié du pays et ils sont en voie de disparition. Les capitalistes ont exporté leurs emplois à l’étranger. Les anglo-américains  chôment tandis que le pays laisse ses portes grandes ouvertes à l’immigration clandestine. Dans un pays qui prétend de protéger la liberté religieuse, l’État leur impose un laïcisme immoral à la force. Au lieu de défendre les intérêts des américains, le gouvernement est au service des globalistes. Les partisans de Trump sont furieux et ils ont raison de l’être.
Trump vise les plus grandes victimes d'un ordre économique et politique diabolique
Le problème c’est que Trump n’attaque pas la source de leurs problèmes, le système sauvage du capitalisme. Au contraire, il vise les plus grandes victimes de cet ordre économique et politique diabolique ; c’est-à-dire, les noirs, les hispaniques, les autochtones, les musulmans, et les immigrés. Au lieu de faire appel au bien, c’est-à-dire, à la tolérance, la compassion, la solidarité sociale et l’unité nationale, il fait appel au mal, à l’intolérance, l’insensibilité, l’insularité et la désunion. Si Trump propose d’interdire l’entrée des musulmans aux États-Unis, c’est parce qu’il sait très bien que cela va lui gagner des votes.
Pour les américains de souche européenne et populaire, Trump est le Messie : c’est leur dernier espoir. Mais Trump n’est pas le Christ ; au contraire, c’est un véritable anti-Christ. C’est un milliardaire hédoniste, matérialiste et égoïste. Il est plus proche des globalistes que des gens simples. Il n’a jamais fait quoi que ce soit pour aider les fermiers, les ouvriers, les marginalisés et les exploités. Il vit comme un maharaja dans l’excès et la débauche tandis qu’il prétend être un homme du peuple. S’il est vraiment sincère, qu’il commence par utiliser sa fortune obscène pour aider les américains.
La rage qui règne aux États-Unis est présente autant à la gauche qu’à la droite. Bernie Sanders, autant que Donald Trump, représente le mécontentement des américains. Leur système ne fonctionne plus ; il ne fonctionne pas. Les gens ont marre des politiciens hypocrites et menteurs qui n’ont aucune loyauté et aucune éthique et qui servent des intérêts étrangers. Au lieu de se rencontrer au milieu, les américains sont polarisés, entre droite et gauche, et entre croyants et laïques. C’est une situation extrêmement précaire et dangereuse.
Les sociologues parlent depuis longtemps de la guerre culturelle. Ceux qui étudient la science politique ont raison à craindre. Ils savent très bien que cette guerre culturelle peut se transformer en guerre civile. Le pays est saupoudré de poudre à canon et les gens sont armés jusqu’aux dents. Il ne faut que jeter une allumette et les États-Unis vont ressembler à la Syrie et à l’Iraq. D’un côté nous trouverons les miliciens protestants blancs tandis que de l’autre côté nous trouverons les blancs laïques et libéraux, les latino-américains, les africains américains, les autochtones, les juifs, les musulmans, les immigrés et toutes les autres minorités. Il s’agit d’un réel danger.
Est ce que les positions anti-islamiques de Trump visent à renforcer sa place au niveau social?
Que ça soit Francisco Franco en Espagne, Benito Mussolini en Italie ou Adolf Hitler en Allemagne, les fascistes ont prétendu être les amis, les alliés, et les défenseurs des musulmans pour pouvoir compter sur leur soutien. C’est ce qui les convenait à l’époque. Si Trump avait besoin du soutien des arabes ou des musulmans, il se présenterait comme leur meilleur ami au monde. A l’instant, la haine envers les musulmans est énorme. Trump exploite l’islamophobie pour des avantages politiques. En même temps, il aide à normaliser l’expression de sentiments anti-islamiques. Le racisme représente la fondation même de la culture américaine. Il s’agit d’un pays basé sur le génocide, l’extermination des peuples autochtones et l’esclavage des noirs. Même si les américains se sont civilisés jusqu’à un certain point depuis les dernières décennies, l’intolérance a continué à circuler sous la surface et, grâce à Trump, cette lave de haine a maintenant fait surface. Ce que grande part des américains ressentaient, mais ne disaient pas, s’exprime désormais ouvertement. La culture occidentale est en train de faire un pas arrière. Au lieu d’évoluer, elle est en train de dégénérer, tant en Amérique qu’en Europe. C’est un tournant culturel honteux et cataclysmique. C’est comme si on était en Europe dans les années trente à l’aube de la montée du fascisme.
Dans quelle mesure cette proposition (interdiction de l’émigration musulmane), est liée au terrorisme et dans quelle mesure à la religion?
Donald Trump n’est pas un croyant. Ce n’est pas un homme religieux. Ce n’est pas un homme pieux. Ce n’est pas un homme qui craint Dieu. C’est un laïque égocentrique et un matérialiste. En autres mots, sa proposition d’interdire l’émigration musulmane n’est pas motivée par des sentiments religieux personnels. Il ne fait que répéter la propagande des chrétiens sionistes américains qui prétendent que l’Islam est une idéologie politique violente et haineuse. S’ils remplaçaient le mot « Islam » par salafisme, wahhabisme, ou takfirisme, nous serions entièrement d’accord avec eux. L’erreur grossière et intentionnelle est d’associer l’Islam, une religion noble et juste, avec le takfirisme, un culte diabolique ignoble et injuste.
Il ne faut pas être gêné de le dire : le takfirisme est le satanisme. Les terroristes sont les partisans de Satan. Le fait qu’ils traitent le diable comme Dieu et Dieu comme le diable ne fait pas de Dieu le diable. Ils peuvent invoquer « Allah » comme ils veulent : nous savons très bien qu’ils invoquent Iblis. Les takfiristes, les kharijites, et les nawasib sont des païens qui prétendent être musulmans. Leurs prédécesseurs ont comploté pour saisir le pouvoir du Califat et de l’Imamat pour détruire l’Islam de l’intérieur. Nous les connaissons clairement par leur comportement qui viole toutes les normes, les valeurs, et les lois de l’Islam authentique et prophétique. Comme les païens d’antant, comme les polythéistes du temps du Prophète (psl) , ils torturent, mutilent, violent, et immolent leurs victimes en sacrifice aux forces du mal.
Ce sont ces même takfiristes qui ont été utilisé par les anglais pour détruire l’Empire Ottoman. Ce sont ces mêmes terroristes « islamistes » que les puissances occidentales ont employé pour des fins géopolitiques pendant la première et deuxième guerre mondiales. Ce sont ces mêmes fondamentalistes que les Américains ont déployés en Afghanistan pour combattre l’Union Soviétique. Ce sont ces mêmes psychopathes intégristes que les États-Unis, l’Arabie Saoudite, le Qatar et la Turquie ont déchainé en Iraq et en Syrie pour détruire et affaiblir le monde musulman pour l’empêcher de se joindre au bloc constitué par l’Iran, la Russie et la Chine.
Les globalistes sont terrifiés de l’Islam. Ils savent très bien que l’Islam mettra fin aux exploiteurs et aux oppresseurs. Ils savent très bien que l’Islam mettra fin aux trafiquants d’armes, de stupéfiants, de femmes, d’enfants, et d’organes. Ils veulent à tout prix souiller l’image de l’Islam et démoniser les musulmans. Nous devons donc redoubler nos efforts pour promouvoir l’Islam traditionnel et spirituel ; un Islam tolérant, inclusif et pluraliste qui est dévoué à la justice socio-économique et politique. En bref, les gens qui dénoncent « l’islamisme radical » sont les mêmes gens qui le fabrique, le contrôle, l’entraine, l’arme et le déploie. Il faut informer les gens au sujet de cette réalité troublante avec des faits bien fondés. Les takfiristes constituent une cinquième colonne au sein même de l’Islam. Ils sont comme des magots à l’intérieur d’un organisme. Ils sont comme des termites qui rongent la fondation même de notre foi.
Les musulmans américains ont lancé différentes campagnes contre la vague d’islamophobie suscitée par les propos de Trump, y compris “un million de vote contre Trump”. Est ce que ces mouvements peuvent changer le résultat des élections?
Non, pas du tout. Les musulmans ne représentent qu’un minuscule pourcentage de la population des États-Unis. Ils ne peuvent nullement changer les résultats des élections présidentielles. Les juifs, par contre, qui représentent le même pourcentage de la population peuvent influencer les résultats des élections, parce qu’ils sont unis et bien organisés. Parce qu’ils utilisent leur argent pour mettre pression sur les politiciens et le gouvernement. Les musulmans doivent prendre les juifs comme exemple. Il y a plus de chance que les juifs vont aider à changer les résultats des élections. Les juifs américains ne veulent pas revivre le cauchemar des nazis. Ils voient en Trump un nouvel Hitler en potence. Les efforts des musulmans américains sont importants. Ils s’organisent. Le problème c’est qu’ils auraient dû le faire il y a des décennies ou il y a un siècle. Ce que certains musulmans font maintenant est trop peu et peut-être même trop tard. La culture a tourné contre nous. Nous sommes tous responsables pour notre faillite. Si Dieu ne vient pas à notre rescousse, nous allons tous payer le prix de notre manque d’action. Ou Trump va se détruire lui-même ou il va être détruit par certain secteurs. C’est un homme instable. Au fait, certains psychologues affirment que Trump est un psychopathe narcissiste. Pouvons-nous permettre une telle personne d’avoir accès aux codes des bombes nucléaire ? Si Trump vient proche de prendre de pouvoir, je peux facilement imaginer un coup d’état militaire et des mesures de guerre pour canceller les résultats des élections.
Trump vise les plus grandes victimes d'un ordre économique et politique diabolique
Expliquez un peu la position de Trump en soutien à Israël. Il semble qu’il n’ait pris jusqu’à présent de position en soutien à Israël. Quel impact va laisser l’élection de Trump sur les relations avec Israël?
Trump, comme nous en avons l’habitude, est plein de contradictions. Un jour il se vente qu’il est si riche que les juifs du lobby israélien ne peuvent pas l’acheter. Le lendemain il chante les louages de l’État d’Israël et il flatte les sionistes. Qui est le vrai Trump ? Un imbécile et un vulgaire ? Un politicien astucieux ? Un allié et ami d’Hillary Clinton qui mène une campagne de fausse banniѐre pour détruire le parti républicain et assurer la victoire du parti démocrate ? Un mégalomane et un démagogue ? Comme ont dit en arabe, Allah ‘alam, Dieu sait mieux. Ce qui est certain c’est que Trump n’est pas digne d’être l’homme le plus puissant du monde. Que Dieu nous en garde. En ce qui concerne Clinton, Hillary n’est point meilleure que Trump. Les deux sont des gens détestables et sans scrupules. L’un pour être trop franc ; l’autre pour être trop menteuse. Choisir entre Trump et Clinton c’est comme choisir entre Sodome et Gomorrhe. Ils représentent deux têtes de la même bête. Dans ce cas-là, il semble qu’une chose est certaine : que ce soit Trump, qui est imprévisible, ou que ce soit Clinton, qui représente la continuation du statu quo, le soutien des États-Unis pour Israël est assuré.

Commentaire sur l’Alliance du Prophète Mahomet avec les moines du Mont Sinaï

Société des Missions Africaines (SMA)

Je suppose que la plupart d’entre nous réfléchissent profondément sur la situation actuelle de l’Islam dans le monde et sa position à l’égard de la violence répandue et les actes de terrorisme que le monde connaît. Il nous serait intéressant de consulter le site ci-dessous qui détaille les différentes interventions faites par des Musulmans :
https://serdargunes.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/muslimische-quellen-gegen-den-terrorismus/

C’est dans ce site que j’ai pu lire l’Alliance du prophète Mahomet avec les moines du mont Sinaï que je vais partager avec vous ci-dessous, comme commentée par le Dr John Andrew Morrow.

Mt. Sinaï, qui est également connu comme Mt. Horeb et Mt. Moïse a une hauteur de 2385 mètres. Cette montagne est située dans la péninsule du Sinaï de l’Égypte. Au pied de cette montagne, nous trouvons le monastère Grec Orthodoxe de Sainte Catherine, qui est en existence sur ce site depuis plus de 17 siècles, précédant les divisions du monde Chrétien. Cela le positionne comme le plus ancien monastère Chrétien continuellement habité. Il est répertorié comme l’un des sites du patrimoine mondial de l’UNESCO. Après le Vatican, Sainte-Catherine possède la plus grande collection de manuscrits et d’icônes Chrétiens en raison du fait qu’il n’a jamais été détruit dans toute son histoire.

L’un des manuscrits les plus importants et précieux est la copie d’un document nommé Ashtiname (mot perse signifiant « Livre de la Paix » – Pacte), donné aux moines Chrétiens par le prophète Mahomet en l’an 628 AD lorsqu’une délégation de moines l’a approché pour lui demander la protection compte tenu de l’influence croissante de l’islam en Arabie.

Ce document et son historicité reste un débat académique qui concerne aussi bien les Chrétiens et les Musulmans. Mais il est intéressant de lire les nombreux arguments et les preuves de son authenticité :

(http://www.lastprophet.info/covenant-of-the-prophet-muhammad-with-the-monks-of-mt-sinai).

Néanmoins, c’est l’esprit de cette alliance qui lui donne de l’importance dans les circonstances actuelles et non les détails. En tant que missionnaires, cela pourrait-il être un point de départ à nos initiatives de dialogue pacifique avec nos voisins Musulmans ?

Lisons le Ashtiname ci-dessous :

C’est le certificat écrit par Mohammed fils d’Abdallah, le Prophète de Dieu et Son messager à toute l’humanité, livrant à la fois des promesses et des menaces, et ayant dans sa garde le dépôt de Dieu pour Sa Création, que les hommes n’aient aucun plaidoyer après la venue des messagers. Et Dieu est puissant et sage. C’est ce qu’il a écrit au peuple de la religion Chrétienne, et à ceux qui professent la religion Chrétienne dans l’Est et l’Ouest, de près ou de loin, parlant clairement et barbare, connu et inconnu. Il l’a écrit pour eux comme une charte, et quiconque viole, modifie ou transgresse l’alliance à cet égard, aura violé l’alliance de Dieu, rompu sa promesse, ridiculisé sa religion, et obtenu sa malédiction, qu’il soit un souverain ou tout autre Musulman. Si un moine ou pèlerin se retranche dans la montagne, vallée, grotte, canton, sur le sable ou à l’église, je serai derrière eux pour les défendre de tous qui vont les envier, par moi-même, par mes compagnons, par mon peuple, par ma secte et par mes disciples, dans la mesure où ils sont mes sujets et le peuple de mon alliance. Et je les dispense des contrariétés de victuailles qui sont endurées par le peuple du Pacte en ce qu’ils doivent payer la taxe, sauf dans la mesure où ils l’offrent de leur propre gré, et il doit y avoir aucune contrainte ni force utilisées. Aucun évêque sera retiré de son diocèse, ni moine de son monastère, ni ascétique de sa cellule, ni pèlerin de son pèlerinage, ni aucun de leurs lieux d’assemblée ou églises sera démoli, et nul de la richesse de leurs églises sera utilisée pour la construction de mosquées ou des maisons des Musulmans ; et celui qui fait cela aura violé la charte de Dieu et celui de Son Prophète ; en plus, aucun impôt ni amende sera pris des moines, évêques ou ministres. Je maintiendrai leur sécurité partout où qu’ils soient, que ce soit sur terre ou sur mer, à l’est, ouest, nord ou sud. Ils doivent être en tout temps et en tous lieux sous ma protection et inscrits dans mon alliance et dans l’immunité de tout méfait. De même, les ermites dans les montagnes et les lieux bénis ne doivent pas payer l’impôt foncier, ni la dîme sur ce qu’ils sèment, ni une partie de leur part sera prise puisque celle-ci est assez juste pour leur propre bouche. Ils n’auront pas non plus l’obligation de prêter assistance au moment de la récolte, ils ne seront forcés de sortir pour le service en temps de guerre. Pas plus de douze dirhams par an seront exigés de ceux d’entre eux qui paient l’impôt foncier et des propriétaires de biens et domaines et ceux qui s’engagent dans des marchandises. Aucun d’entre eux doit être obligé de payer plus que ce qui est dû et ils ne seront pas efforcés sauf dans une bonne affaire. Ils doivent les garder sous l’aile de la miséricorde en les gardant loin de tout méfait, où qu’ils soient et où qu’ils habitent. Et si les Chrétiens habitent chez les Musulmans, ces derniers doivent les satisfaire et les permettre de prier dans leurs églises, et ne doivent pas gêner en aucune façon avec la pratique de leur religion. Et quiconque viole la Charte de Dieu et fait le contraire de celle-ci, est considéré comme un rebelle contre son alliance et contre son messager. En plus, les Musulmans doivent aider à la réparation des églises et lieux Chrétiens, qui resteront à la garde des Chrétiens à condition qu’ils maintiennent dans leur religion et qu’ils agissent selon la charte. Aucun d’entre eux ne sera contraint de porter les armes, puisque les Musulmans vont les protéger. Et personne ne violera cette charte pour tous les temps, jusqu’au Jour du Jugement et la fin du monde. (Cité. Zaydan 123-124)

P. ROBBIN KAMEMBA, SMA