Dr. John Andrew Morrow

By Hanan al-Harbi

On July 7, 2017, John Rossomondo published an article titled “Paranoid Terrorist Apologism Dominates ISNA Convention in Chicago.” As if the title did not speak for itself, this propaganda piece was printed in IPT News, the mouthpiece of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, a so-called “research group” founded by Steven Emerson, a man widely denounced as being a dishonest bigot. The Southern Poverty Law Center has this to say about him:

Steve Emerson is a self-described “expert on terrorism” who has claimed that the Obama administration “extensively collaborates” with the Muslim Brotherhood; asserted that Europe is riddled with “no-go zones” and is “finished” because of Muslim immigration; and stated that 480 million to 640 million Muslims “support the notion that it’s okay to bomb the World Trade Center,” among other things. A reviewer for The New York Times Book Review said a 1991 book he co-authored on terrorism was marred by “a pervasive anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias.” Despite this sorry record, Emerson, a former journalist who started the Investigative Project on Terrorism in 1995, has been repeatedly interviewed on Fox News, testified on several occasions to Congress, and been cited by government officials as an authority. But Emerson’s reputation took a huge hit in January 2015, when he claimed that Birmingham, England, was a “no-go zone” for non-Muslims and that in parts of London “Muslim religious police … actually beat and actually wound seriously anyone” not wearing “religious Muslim attire.” British Prime Minister David Cameron responded by calling Emerson “clearly a complete idiot,” and Ofcom, which regulates the British media, said the comments were “materially misleading.” In 1997, Emerson was accused of giving The Associated Press documents he claimed were from the FBI but were really written by him. The Tennessean reported in October 2010 that in 2008, Emerson’s nonprofit Investigative Project on Terrorism “paid $3,390,000 to [Emerson’s for-profit firm] SAE Productions for ‘management services.’ Emerson is SAE’s sole officer.” The paper quoted Ken Berger, president of Charity Navigator, saying, “Basically, you have a nonprofit acting as a front organization, and all that money going to a for-profit,” he said. “It’s wrong. This is off the charts.”

As for John Rossomando, who holds the title of “Senior Analyst” at the Investigative Project on Terrorism, his publications have all the hallmarks of hate speech. After bashing the 54th Annual ISNA Conference and some of its other speakers, Rossomando, makes the following groundless assertion:

Another ISNA speaker, John Morrow, who teaches at Ivy Tech Community College in Indiana and directs the Covenants of the Prophet Foundation, launched into conspiratorial rhetoric accusing the U.S. of using the CIA to support jihadi groups with the intent of spreading anti-Muslim hatred.

“How do you ensure that the public continues to support the War on Terror, which is really a war on Islam and Muslims?” Morrow asked. “By means of terrorist attacks, by means of false flag operations, that way the eternal endless war of the globalist totalitarian fascists continues unabated to the pleasure of big brother, or as we know him in Islam, the one-eyed liar. The philosophy is clear. Keep the focus on fear.”

To start with, Dr. Morrow retired from his position as a Full Professor at Ivy Tech over one year ago. If Rossomando were a real journalist who adhered to professional standards, he would verify his sources prior to publishing information that is both false and misleading.

Dr. Morrow did not engage in “conspiratorial rhetoric.” On the contrary, he engaged in fact-based rhetoric. It is a confirmed fact that the CIA has supported terrorists and authoritarian regimes all around the world to advance its geo-political agenda. Has Rossomando heard of the Contras in Nicaragua, the Cuban exiles, the Salvadorean death squads, the Mujahidin and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and the various terrorist outfits operating in Iraq and Syria?

According to Rossomando, “This is the same narrative that ISIS jihadist recruiters use to lure disaffected Muslims into becoming terrorists.” No, it is not. Anyone who makes such allegations does not even have a Wikipedia-level knowledge of the subject at hand. So, good look to him when it comes to “Seeking a position as an open-source intelligence analyst,” as he advertised on his LinkedIn page. He is clearly unqualified to even comment on the Comics.

Unlike Rossomando, Dr. Morrow has been consulted by dozens upon dozens of governments around the world, including, the Obama administration, and, believe or not, the Trump administration. Regardless of their ideological inclination, and although Morrow does not mince his words, they value the depth of his knowledge, his non-partisan position, and his brutal honesty.

If Rossomando were a bona fide reporter, he would research his subject. As even a cursory investigation confirms, Morrow has been at the forefront of the war on Takfirism, described incorrectly by Islamophobes as “Radical Islam.” As the leader of the Covenants Initiative, a Muslim movement devoted to protecting the People of the Book, Morrow is a virulent critic of extremism and terrorism. His seminal study, The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World, was one of the factors that contributed to the Marrakech Declaration which reaffirms the rights of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim-majority nations.

Along with numerous other interfaith partners, Morrow helped get the Fortenberry Resolution passed in the House of Congress, thanks to which the actions of ISIS have been officially described as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. He has also worked incessantly to unite people of all stripes in a common struggle against all forms of intolerance and fanaticism.

Morrow is as far removed from terrorism as John Rossomondo, Steven Emerson, Joseph Farah, and Meira Svirsky are from intellectual honesty. Who, then, are the real “paranoid terrorist apologists?” I would venture to say that the title perfectly applies to Islamophobes who espouse grandiose and delusional anti-Muslim conspiracy theories for the same reasons that Hitler demonized Jews and the Serbs dehumanized Bosnians. As Bob Marley said, “If the hat fits, let them wear it.”

Considering that Morrow issued a religious statement excommunicating ISIS from the Muslim faith, it cannot be logically claimed that his rhetoric helps to recruit them. The same, however, cannot be said of Islamophobic fascists. The racist, paranoid, and hate-filled rhetoric of the extreme right is the fuel that fires violence against innocent and defenseless men, women, and children whose sole sin is that they are Muslim or happen to look Muslim. And since Muslims come from every race, ethnicity, and nationality all human beings can fall victim to the blind rage of intellectually-impaired racists.

Appealing to the humanity of 21st century hatemongers, the illegitimate offspring of the German SS, the Spanish Falange, the Italian Fascists, the Serbian Chetniks, the Zionist Stern Gang, and the American KKK, is in vain. For the modern-day Goebbels who work for the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, producing fake news and promoting conspiracy theories, the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim. As proud and patriotic people of faith, we have no choice but to fight the enemies of religious freedom in defense of our democratic values.

For those who really want a sense of what Dr. Morrow said at ISNA, the complete transcript of his speech, and the video of the entire session, is available on the Muslim Post: http://www.themuslimpost.com/the-role-of-faith-in-a-culture-of-fear-in-america/

Hanan al-Harbi is a Dutch-Syrian journalist. She is a graduate of the University of Iceland, in Reykjavík, where she studied Political Science She writes for Veterans Today, the Muslim Post, and many other publications. 

The Muslim Vibe (August 9, 2017)

This is the first in a two-part series on the experiences of Dr. John Andrew Morrow (Imam Ilyas Islam) on his journey towards finding himself, his roots and becoming both Métis and Muslim. The Métis are people of mixed European and Indigenous ancestry, and one of the three recognized Aboriginal peoples in Canada; the use of the term Métis is complex and contentious and has different historical and contemporary meanings. For more, click here


I was born John Andrew Morrow in Montréal, Québec, Canada. Although both of my parents were Francophone Quebeckers, and French was my maternal language, my English (or rather Irish) name was the cause of some confusion to both myself and others. My mother was Francophone from both sides and my father was Francophone from one side and Anglophone/Francophone from the other. I was clearly French Canadian as opposed to English Canadian. So while much was clear, much, however, remained veiled.

During the time of my grandparents, we were simply Canadians, a term used to distinguish us from the English invaders and colonizers. During the time of my parents, we moved from being Canadians to hyphenated French-Canadians. During my time, we moved from being French Canadians to being Québécois. Our identity was becoming increasingly narrow as we became increasingly minoritized and marginalized in the new multicultural Canadian mosaic.

Although my maternal family was clear that they were French, French Canadian, and Québécois, my paternal family was more ambiguous. My paternal grandfather was a Quebecker of Irish ancestry. His family had been in la Belle Province for generations. He spoke fluent French and became renowned as an expert woodsman and fisherman. My paternal grandmother spoke English as a second language – she only learned it after marrying my grandfather. I never heard her describe herself as French, French Canadian or Québécois. Her origins were obscure. She never spoke about her parents, her family, and her past. We assumed she was hiding some painful family secrets. As my father said when I asked him about our origins:

“Whatever we are, be proud of it.”

As much as my name was Irish, I knew that I was only Irish by direct paternal ancestry; not by language, culture, or identity. At the same time, I knew, deep-down, that we were not entirely French Canadian either.

My maternal grandfather, who spoke nothing but joual, a 16th-century French dialect, peppered his colorful language with indigenous words: “Grand Manitou”, something he would cry out when he was shocked, surprised, or excited. My maternal grandfather used to invoke the Great Spirit. When I asked my maternal grandmother about our ancestry, she mentioned that we descended from the coureurs des bois, the runners of the woods; they were the trappers, traders, and voyageurs who traveled North America from North to South and East to West and were mostly Métis. They were of mixed ancestry: part French and part First Nations. They typically spoke Métis French along with half a dozen indigenous languages. Among themselves, they spoke a language of their own, a mixed language, known as Michif.

“Do we have any Chinese in our family?” I once asked my mother when I was a child. “Not that I know of,” responded my mother. “Why do you ask?” “Well, we have many family members with Oriental eyes,” I pointed out referring to the epicanthic eye-folds that I noted on my cousins and maternal grandmother. I also noted that, with the exceptions of my paternal and maternal grandfathers, who were blue-eyed blonds, the rest of my relatives had thick, jet-black hair, and while their complexions varied, many of them had olive colored skin and high cheekbones. In fact, some of my uncles were so dark that some of my mulatto friends had lighter skin than my family members. Although we were proud of our Francophone culture, it was clear that we were not entirely European. If some of us appeared white, it was only on the outside.

After my family relocated from Québec to Ontario, my sense of Otherness intensified due to discrimination. My circle of friends consisted of people like me, who were different, and was made up mostly of immigrants, African Canadians, and Asian Canadians. As a French Canadian, and as a Quebecker, I was an outsider to Anglo Canadians. Consequently, I always insisted upon being Québécois. In short, I had roots dating back to the 16th century. As was eventually to be revealed, those roots traced back tens if not hundreds of thousands of years.

*

As a teenager in Toronto, I was fond of collecting, listening, and singing traditional French-Canadian folk-songs. Some of these songs were clearly from France, some dating back to medieval times. Others dated from the Encounter between the Old World and the New World. They were songs of voyageurs, loggers and raft-men. I literally learned the entire repertoire of traditional French-Canadian songs by heart. Apart from a few songs, which were clearly composed by Métis runners of the woods, my relatives in Québec were completely unfamiliar with the songs that I would sing. “But these are traditional French-Canadian songs that are accompanied by a guitar,” I asserted. “What kind of music did you hear at home?” I asked my mother. “There were dances every weekend,” she responded, “They played the fiddle; not the guitar. Your grandmother played the spoons. And they used to dance to jigs.” When I played French-Canadian songs to my mother, she could not identify them. However, when I played her Métis music from the prairies, it was like taking her back in time: that was the music they played in her childhood home.

From the time I was a small child, I sensed that we had indigenous roots. My grandmother had said so subtly herself: we descend from the runners of the woods. I was always at home in the forests of the eastern woodlands of North America. I would wander for days on end in the traditional territory of the Algonquins in the company of my cousin. As I child I danced in pow-wows in northern Ontario. As a teenager and a young man, I attended indigenous events in and around Toronto. As a university student, I was a regular at the Native Canadian Center in Toronto and at events organized by Mayan, Quechua-Aymara, and Mapuche Indians. I stood in solidarity with the First Nations of the Americas. Rather than lose my time and my soul dancing in discos of Western decadence, I would spend my time celebrating Inti Raymi with the Incas and other events of cultural and spiritual significance. I remember a friend of mine looking at an old family portrait of my father, his parents, and his sisters. He said: “They look Latino. Your grandmother looks Indian.” In the words of my Salvadorean friend, “If you told me this was a Mestizo family, I would believe you.”

My Latin American friend was only partly correct. The people in the photograph were indeed Mestizo, the Spanish word for Métis, people of mixed blood, particularly used to describe the miscegenation of Europeans and Native people. The Mestizo people of the Americas, however, are not indigenous people. Although they have Indian blood, they are not Indian by language, culture or identity. In short, they do not embrace the indigenous worldview. Having indigenous blood does not make one indigenous. To be an indigenous person, one must have indigenous genes, one must identify as an indigenous person, one must belong to an indigenous community, and one must be recognized as indigenous by an indigenous community. The Mestizos of Latin America may have some Indian blood; however, they are Hispanic by language, culture, history, and identity. They are Western European in their worldview. What is more, they are not considered indigenous by the indigenous people of Spanish America. In fact, the Mestizos of Mexico, Central, and South America have a long history of slaughtering, persecuting, and oppressing indigenous people. In fact, in Latin American Spanish, the term Indio or Indian signifies “idiot” or “imbecile,” a person who is hopelessly backwards.

A representation of a Mestizo, in a Pintura de Castas from New Spain during the late colonial period. The painting’s caption states “Spanish and Indian produce Mestizo”, 1780.

I was of indigenous ancestry. I embraced the indigenous worldview. I celebrated indigenous culture. I devoted myself to the indigenous studies at the undergraduate and graduate levels. I completed both an M.A. thesis and a doctoral dissertation on indigenous themes: The Indigenous Worldview in César Vallejo and The Indigenous Presence and Influence in Rubén Darío and Ernesto Cardenal. I would eventually publish the former in a peer-reviewed journal while the latter was published as two separate academic monographs, Amerindian Elements in the Poetry of Rubén DaríoThe Alter Ego as the Indigenous Other and Amerindian Elements in the Poetry of Ernesto Cardenal: Mythic Foundations of the Colloquial Narrative.

As much as I was indigenous by blood, by mind, and by soul, I was reluctant to assert my identity openly due to lack of documentation. (How silly is that? Did our ancestors have Indian or Métis status cards? Why do we continue to allow others to define who we are as a people?) Still, I was drawn to participate in wasipis with the Dakotas, Lakotas, and Nakotas in South Dakota, and to visit the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota. My life journey brought me from Québec to Acadia, from Acadia to Québec, from Québec to Ontario, from Ontario to Missouri, from Missouri to South Dakota, from South Dakota to New Mexico, from New Mexico to North Dakota, from North Dakota to Indiana, and from Indiana to Michigan. I realize now that I was retracing the paths of my ancestors, my predecessors, the Métis traders of centuries past. As my research would find, I have indigenous relatives in all these regions.

by Dr John Andrew Marrow


Dr John Andrew Morrow (Imam Ilyas Islam) is an Amerindian with Canadian and American citizenship. He received his PhD from the University of Toronto in the year 2000. He worked as an Assistant, Associate, and Full Professor of Foreign Languages for over a decade and a half at Park University, Northern State University, Eastern New Mexico University, the University of Virginia, and Ivy Tech Community College. He is the author of over thirty academic books in the fields of Hispanic, Islamic, and Indigenous Studies, including the critically-acclaimed Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World. A public figure and activist, he lectures all around the globe and acts as an advisor to world leaders. In recognition of his accomplishments, Dr Morrow received an ISNA Interfaith Achievement Award in 2016.

Muslim Writers Guild (August 3, 2017).

By Dr. John Andrew Morrow

Bismillah wa alhamdulillah wa salawat ‘ala Rasulillah.

I, Dr. John Andrew Morrow, known as Ilyas ‘Abd al-‘Alim Islam, am honored to address the 69th Annual Convention of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.

I am one of the few Muslim leaders who leads Friday prayers for Sunnis, who performs majlis for Shiis, who participates in dhikr with Sufis, and who speaks on the same platform as Ahmadis.

I am one of the few Muslim leaders who addresses Christian audiences, Jewish audiences, and secular audiences.

I am a person who values diversity but who seeks unity within diversity.

I believe in building bridges and common ground. I believe in focusing on similarity instead of difference. I believe in addressing agreement as opposed to disagreement.

I am not a minimalist. I refuse to be a minority of a minority of a minority.

I am Métis. Our ethnogenesis was the product of a genetic and cultural mixture between French Canadian fur-trappers and First Nation women. I am Quebecois. I am French Canadian. I am Canadian. I am American. I am a citizen of planet earth.

I am universalist.

Let us not reduce ourselves to nothing. We may be Shii. We may be Sunni. We may be Sufi. We may be Ahmadi. But we are not only that.

We may be Malikis, Shafis, Hanbalis, Hanafis, Ja‘faris, Zaydis or Isma‘ilis. But we are not only that. We may belong to dozens of different theological, legal or spiritual paths. But we are not only that.

We may be Jews, Samaritans, Christians, and Muslims but most importantly we are monotheists. We are believers in the One and Only God, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe.

You can take a cow and chop it into thousands of different cuts: but it is still beef. That’s an allegory for anyone who might be hungry right now.

We have differences. That is a given. That is a blessing. That is what enriches us as human beings. But we are not the sum of our differences.

Let us set aside our differences and focus on fundamentals, the belief in One God, the belief in the Prophets of God, and the belief in Life after Death.

Let us unite on the basis of primordial ethical and moral principles.

God is One and God is Just so let us stand for social justice. As Almighty Allah says in the Glorious Qur’an:

O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do. (4:135)

Let us be kind and considerate for as the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, preached: “None of you has faith until you love for your neighbor what you love for yourself.”

Let us build bonds of brotherhood and sisterhood for as Almighty Allah commands the Prophet in al-Qur’an al-Karim: “Say: ‘No reward do I ask of you for this except the love of those near of kin.’” (42:23)

Finally, as the Messenger of Allah said: “He who does not thank people does not thank Allah” (Tirmidhi and Ahmad)

So let me thank the Ahmadi Community for inviting me here today and let me give credit where credit is due.

The Ahmadi Community was the first to systematically spread Islam in the Western world in general and here in the United States in particular. For this, I thank you.

The Ahmadi Community has always rejected violent jihad and terrorism. For this, I thank you.

The Covenants of the Prophet may be new to some Sunnis, Shiites, and Sufis; however, they are time-honored traditions to the Ahmadi Community. For this, I thank you.

The Covenants of the Prophet were recognized as authentic by the Islamic Review, an Ahmadi academic journal, in 1940.

The Covenants of the Prophet were recognized as authentic by Abdullah Alladin, the Ahmadi scholar, in 1971.

The Covenants of the Prophet were recognized as authentic by Qasim Rashid, my friend and colleague, in 2014.

Finally, in 2016, His Holiness, Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the current Khalifa of the Ahmadi Muslim Community, quoted a study on the Covenants of the Prophet that was completed by my friend and colleague, Dr. Craig Considine.

Shukran lakum wa shukralillah. Thank you and thank Allah.

Al-salaamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu.

(This speech was delivered to the 69th annual convention of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA. It can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znOMN2sY8cI.)

The International Museum of Muslim Cultures has thrived for 16 years in Jackson, growing from a little-known exhibit to an internationally known archive. But its impact in education, advocacy, religious co-existence — even its very existence — is not widely known in its home city.

The institution was the first museum in the United States dedicated to international Muslim cultures and histories, and its creators aspired to unite people through education. It’s currently one of four U.S. museums celebrating some aspect of Islam and its followers: America’s Islamic Heritage Museum in Washington, D.C., which conserves the history of Muslim Americans; the New African Center in Philadelphia, which preserves African American Muslim history, and the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn, Mich., which is dedicated to showcasing Arab American history and culture.

People from approximately 40 states and 35 other countries, such as Senegal, Mali, Indonesia and Turkey, have visited the Jackson museum.

https://mississippitoday.org/2017/08/01/the-making-of-a-muslim-museum-in-mississippi/embed/#?secret=ijoRPNwIJU

The prestigious W.K. Kellogg Foundation has provided significant financial support. In May 2017, the foundation awarded a $600,000 grant to fund the museum’s “Bridging Cultures: Working for Equity Across Race, Class, Religion and Ethnicity” project. The goal of this project is to “utilize the power of the museum to mobilize cross-racial healing, justice and human dignity.”

That was the museum’s third Kellogg grant since 2006. The first two were for $31,000 (2006-2007) and for $150,00 (2013-2015). Like the museum, the foundation says it is committed to racial equity and the mission to “support children, families and communities as they strengthen to achieve success as individuals and as contributors to society.”

A key component of that accomplishing the mission is the “Timbuktu Human Dignity” curriculum that focuses on helping re-establish a sense of human dignity and unleashing the potential of youth of the African diaspora.

To Okolo Rashid, a co-founder of the museum and its president, the concept of human dignity is about having a sense of “inherent nobility, worth, honor and a born-sense of leadership and self-governance, which is the endowment of every human being.” She says this is the same concept that’s in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

“A big part of the problem with academic achievement, for African Americans in particular, is tied to our historic experience here in this country and what slavery took away,” Rashid said. “Slavery wiped out the cultural memory of African Americans and a big part of that is this idea of what it means to be human.”

Emad Al-Turk, the museum’s other co-founder and its board chairman, says African American visitors will learn they came from educated, rich, civilized and cultured societies, which “is not what they learn in school.” Rashid also notes how many school lessons begin with slavery when it comes to African American history, but there’s so much more.

“Many African Americans are searching for who they are, where they came from and what their roots and traditions are,” Al-Turk said. “This is an excellent way of connecting.”

So far, Rashid says she has seen success with this curriculum in two pilot programs. These pilots were tested in the at Brinkley Middle School and Lanier High School in Jackson as a year-long elective and in the Holmes County school district with a select group of middle and high school African American male students as a year-long after-school program. Holmes County is has the poorest demographic in the U.S. while Jackson public school system is the second largest school district in Mississippi.

The curriculum is extensive, incorporating these topics: human dignity, service learning, West African and African American history, empowerment theory, geography, global worldview, civil rights, leadership, civic engagement, conflict resolution and more. The program was deemed successful based on the participants’ and instructors’ evaluations, says the museum’s education coordinator Maryam Rashid. Students improved an average of 19 percent on pre- and post-assessments of the Timbuktu curriculum.

This curriculum is a branch of the museum’s current exhibit called “The Legacy of Timbuktu: Wonders of the Written Word,” which was revealed in November 2006. This exhibit emphasizes West Africa’s Islamic culture and history via the historic city of Timbuktu in Mali, which was the center of education in West Africa between the 13th and 17th centuries.

Al-Turk and Rashid hope this exhibit will positively influence visitors and especially uplift the African American community locally and around the nation. The Timbuktu exhibit is scheduled to tour the nation in select cities in the 2020.

Forty ancient Timbuktu manuscripts on display showcase the high level of scholarship, achievements and forward thinking of West Africa’s civilization. These manuscripts cover an array of topics, including music, politics, conflict resolution, astronomy, history and proper meat preparation.

The manuscripts and many of the artifacts belong to the exhibit’s partner, Abdel Kader Haidara, who is founder of the Mamma Haidara Library in Timbuktu. Haidara’s family has lived in Timbuktu since the 15th century and has been passing down artifacts through its generations.

Also displayed are a blacksmith’s tools and products, a Malian bride’s traditional headdress and a model of the Great Mosque of Djenné. Visitors learn how women were held in high esteem in society and were independent, how the famous 14th-century traveler Ibn Battuta considered Timbuktu one of the safest places to travel, and how Malians made their own striped paper.

Take a look at this slideshow to see more photos from the Timbuktu exhibit. 

Roysean Tuyrez Philson, a 6th grade teacher for Teach for America in Ferriday, La., says while touring the museum he was fascinated by the trends West Africans set, the education they created and by how intelligent African Muslims were.

“I didn’t know these things because the history that I grew up learning in my school systems told it from a very biased perspective,” said Philson, who was raised in South Carolina. “We have to be open to hearing perspectives that are different than what we grew up hearing. It shed beauty on a beautiful culture.”

PUSHING FORWARD THE PRESENT THROUGH ITS PAST

Al-Turk says the museum isn’t not only an educational facility but also an activist organization, “arming people with information to allow them to do better for the entire community.”

The goal of the museum is to share the contributions of Muslims and Islam throughout history and no longer allow the media to define who Muslims are or what Islam is, according to Al-Turk. He says this is especially important in this current time of Islamophobia shown by the public and even elected officials.

“The first question we get is, ‘Wow, how do you have a Muslim museum in Jackson, Miss., and why do you have it here?’” Al-Turk said. “Why not? This is the center of the Civil Rights movement and what’s happening to the Muslim community is an extension of that movement.”

Al-Turk hopes the museum is contributing to the improvement of relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in the U.S. and around the world.

Another step toward this goal is the exhibit set to open in November called “Muslim with Christians and Jews: An Exhibition of Covenants and Co-Existence.” It’s based on John Andrew Morrow’s book “The Covenant of Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World.”

The exhibit will feature five covenants that were written to extend protection to Jews, Christians and others by the Prophet Muhammad and his people, one of the earliest constitutions in history (the Constitution of Medina) and a two-dimensional trade caravan, among other things.

The goal of this exhibit is to showcase Islam’s principle of religious coexistence, to introduce the leadership duality of Prophet Muhammad as a civic and religious leader, and to address Islamophobia with a message of understanding and tolerance.

Islam has historically promoted peace, Al-Turk said, and many things some Muslims claim to do in the name of Islam are not Islamic in nature, including groups such as ISIS, Hamas and Al-Qaeda.

“Our role in the museum is to educate the general public, Muslims and non-Muslims, about what Islam is and about the role of Islam,” Al-Turk said.

This exhibit is set to tour in Chicago, Atlanta, the Dallas-Forth Worth area, Detroit and major cities in New York and California in 2018. It will be open to the public and stationary in Jackson Nov. 30, 2017-April 2018.

“We want to take our exhibit and the work we’re doing to advocate our message outside of the museum walls,” Al-Turk said. “We want, over time, for millions of people to embrace the message of what we’re talking about.”

Who is ‘We’?

Humera Khan’s dismissal of divine decrees
Héctor Manzolillo

Dhu al-Qa’dah 08, 1438

Considering the collective amnesia of most of the Muslim community over the course of the past century, the resurrection and revival of the Covenants of the Prophet (pbuh) is a phenomenon of considerable importance. Consequently, when a self-proclaimed counter-terrorist expert like Humera Khan publishes a statement saying that “We don’t need these documents,” we are obliged to ask an essential question: Who is We? In other words, who is it that does not need these documents?

Humera Khan is the Executive Director of Muflehun which her bio describes as “a think tank specializing in preventing radicalization and countering violent extremism (CVE).” Her areas of expertise include “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE), Social Media in CVE, Security Strategies, Islamic Studies, Ideology of Violent Extremism, Women in Security, Youth CVE Programs, Online Radicalization, Women CVE Programs.” She also “contributes in an advisory capacity to the US government (including FBI, DHS, DOJ, DNI, DOS, NCTC, NSC and TSA) and law enforcement agencies in several European countries.” In recognition for her services, she was awarded the FBI Director’s Community Leadership Award in 2012.

“We,” of course, could be “We Muslims,” namely, “We Muslims do not need these documents.” Why any Muslim leader would dismiss documents with such profound socio-political prospects is incomprehensible. The Covenants of the Prophet (pbuh) are powerful proponents of tolerance, inclusivity, and peaceful co-existence between members of all faiths. To claim that Muslims do not need the Covenants of the Prophet (pbuh) is like saying Americans do not need the Constitution or human beings do not need the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“We” could also have a broader meaning as in “We, human beings, do not need these documents.” The prophetic pledges might be of interest to Muslims; however, they are of no consequence to non-Muslims. This is a perilous proposition for there are no documents in Islam that address the rights of non-Muslims more completely and comprehensively than the Prophet’s Covenants. What is more, the documents in question have been cherished by Jews, Samaritans, Christians, and Magians as veritable insurance policies responsible for protecting their lives, religious rights, property, and liberties. To state that “We, human beings, do not need these documents” is to deprive non-Muslims of identity and existence in the Islamic world.

Muflehun Executive Director Humera Khan joining the technology panel at the UN Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) Special Meeting on Preventing terrorists from exploiting the internet and social media to recruit terrorists and incite terrorist acts, while respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms. Apparently, the executive director, perhaps blinded by photo-ops with the “movers and shakers,” still does not get it that the real terrorists are the ones who routinely veto UNSC resolutions that the majority of the world supports, leading to the terrorism she wants to curtail.

The mysterious “We,” however, could have more sinister connotations and convey the sense of “We, the FBI or the State Department, do not need these documents.” Rather than represent a benefit, they are a liability. They interfere directly with the imposed dichotomy between “good Muslims” who support Western plans and lifestyles and “bad Muslims” who support sovereignty and defend Islamic values. What is more, most Western governments, including that of the United States, have embraced the principles of CVE or Combating Violent Extremism.

While nobody sane of mind and soul opposes the struggle against violent extremism, Peter Romaniuk concludes in “Does CVE work? Lessons Learned from the Global Effort to Counter Violent Extremism” that “…the achievements of CVE in practice are not yet proportional to its prominence in the public discourse.” The fact that CVE focuses on the rehabilitation and reintegration of violent extremist offenders is the very manifestation of liberal nonsense. We are not dealing with wayward youth who smoke pot, sleep around too much, and consume excessive amounts of alcohol. We are dealing with mass rapists, mass torturers, and mass murderers. We should not baby them. We should behead them.

Herein lies the fundamental difference between the proponents of CVE and the supporters of the Covenants Initiative. The Covenants of the Prophet (pbuh) are clear: they demand justice. Serious crimes such as sexual assault, human trafficking, war crimes, and genocide should not go unpunished. Otherwise, the Throne of Majesty trembles with anger.

Who is “we”? and “We” is who? If one thing is clear, the “we” is not “who” we think. The “we” could not conceivably consist of the Muslim collective. The argument that the Qur’an is all that Muslims need is Qur’anically inadmissible. As Almighty Allah (swt) says Himself, “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger” (3:31, 4:59, 5:92, 24:54, 64:12). As the Qur’an states explicitly, “He who obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah” (4:80). It is also definitively established that “Anyone who disobeys Allah and His Messenger is clearly misguided” (33:36).

If the Qur’an is all that Muslims need, why not burn all the books of traditions? Why not place books of jurisprudence, exegesis, theology, history, and philosophy on the funeral pyre? The Ahl al-Qur’an, who accept only the revealed text, are certainly not Sunnis, Shi‘is or Sufis. Mainstream, orthodox Muslims, all accept the authenticated Sunnah. Muslims are divided into myriad sects, schools, and movements yet all of them claim to follow the same Qur’an.

Factually speaking, the Qur’an has not been used as a source of unity and uniformity in the Muslim community for as the saying goes “God unites but human beings divide.” We have had the Qur’an for approximately 1,500 years but Muslims have continued to slaughter both Muslims and non-Muslims. Why? Because they disobeyed a key, transcendental, command of the Prophet (pbuh) directed to all Muslims. They disobeyed the universally recognized mutawatir hadith of Ghadir Khumm. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) foretold that Muslims would become misguided as a result of deviant and malevolent interpretations of the Qur’an,

There will soon come upon the people a time in which nothing of the Qur’an remains save its trace and nothing of Islam remains save its name; their masjids will be full, though they are devoid of guidance. Their scholars are the worst people under the sky, from them strife emerges and spreads.

Muslims, however, could return to the straight path and set aside strife by simply applying the Covenants of the Prophet (pbuh).

Regardless of whether one believes that the Covenants of the Prophet (pbuh) that were passed down by Jews, Samaritans, Christians, and Magians are authentic, they contain the same core components as the Covenants of the Prophet (pbuh) that have survived, piecemeal, in censored Muslim sources. Even if one asserted that all the letters, treaties, and covenants of the Prophet (pbuh) in all sources are forgeries, one could not, in good faith, be a Muslim, and be a believer, if one rejects the principles that they espouse: the right to life, the right to human dignity, the right to believe, the right to worship, the right to property, and the right to protection.

“We don’t need these documents?” Really? Almighty Allah (swt) believes that we need them; otherwise, He would not have revealed them to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Messenger of Allah believes that we need them; otherwise, he would not have entered into them in the first place, would not have committed them to writing in numerous copies, would not have had them witnessed by dozens upon dozens of his companions; and would not have provided them to religious communities throughout the Muslim East.

Let’s be honest. Muslims need the Covenants of the Prophet (pbuh). The People of the Book need the Covenants of the Prophet. Human beings need the Covenants of the Prophet. We all need them now more than ever.

Editor’s note: for more on the subject, readers are referred to Power Manifestations of the Sirah: Examining the Letters and Treaties of the Messenger of Allah (2011) by Zafar Bangash, The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World (2013) by John Andrew Morrow, and Islam and the People of the Book: Critical Studies on the Covenants of the Prophet (2017), authored by Dr. Morrow and a dozen leading Muslim scholars.

Héctor Horacio Manzolillo is a leading political activist who was imprisoned several times as a result of his social commitment with the oppressed and exploited. An active participant in the socio-political work spearheaded by the “Movement of Priests for the Third World,” he was expelled from Argentina by the military dictatorship in 1976 after over a year of imprisonment. Manzolillo is a political analyst who, for many years, published articles in two newspapers in the province of Corrientes in Argentina. The author of hundreds of articles, he is also the translator of over 60 Islamic books from English into Spanish, including The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World. He continues, to this day, in the same line of work.

Dr. John Morrow and Charles Upton, two leading American Muslim intellectuals, are working to help end Christian-vs.-Muslim strife by publicizing the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad to the Christians of the World. These remarkable documents, drafted and signed by the Prophet himself, enshrine Muslims’ duty to protect Christians “until the end of the world.”

Charles Upton and Dr. Morrow ask that you forward this article to “Christian leaders or activists, or anyone else, who might be able to get these resources to Christian congregations living under threat from the Jihadists in any part of the world.” They are also looking for publishers in Arabic, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Persian, Turkish, Dutch, Indonesian, Tamil, Russian, and Urdu. (Translations into those languages have already been completed.)

Kevin BarrettVeterans Today Editor

An Offering of the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad to the Christians of the World

in the Twenty-First Century

by Charles Upton and John Andrew Morrow

In October of 2013 a book by Prof. John Andrew Morrow was published in the United States, entitled The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World [Angelico/Sophia Perennis, 2013]. The covenants of the Prophet with various Christian communities, which Prof. Morrow re‐discovered in obscure monasteries and collections and sometimes newly translated, also providing powerful arguments for their validity, uniformly state that Muslims are not to attack peaceful Christian communities, rob them, stop churches from being repaired, tear down churches to build mosques, prevent their Christian wives from going to church and taking spiritual direction from Christian priests and elders, etc. On the contrary, the Prophet commands Muslims to actively defend these communities “until the coming of the Hour”—the end of the world. In order to publicize this book I conceived of an initiative—the Covenants Initiative—which invites Muslims to subscribe to the theory that these covenants are legally binding upon them today. The heart of the Covenants Initiative is the following Declaration, addressed by Muslims to Christians:

We the undersigned hold ourselves bound by the spirit and 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 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 letter of the covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the world in all our dealings with them.

Since 2013, the Covenants Initiative has become an international movement in the Muslim world. Many Muslims from all walks of life, as well as a number of respected Islamic scholars—including Dr. Mohammed Gameaha of Al-Azhar University, which is the premier religious authority in Sunni Islam—have signed the Initiative. An interview with Dr. Morrow also appeared on the website of Ayatullah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran.

On the Christian side, we have received letters of support from Bartholomew, Ecumenical Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Theophilus II, Patriarch of Jerusalem; The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World has also been presented to Pope Francis. In 2016, in response to an appeal from Bishop Francis Y. Kalabat, Eparch of the Chaldean Catholic Church (of Iraq) now in exile in Detroit, Michigan, the Covenants Initiative launched a project called the Genocide Initiative, which was a call to “all political players” to declare the actions of ISIS war crimes and genocide; it took the form of a petition posted on Change.org. The Genocide Initiative formed part of the push that led to the unanimous passage of the (unbinding) Fortenberry resolution in the House of Representatives, in March of 2016, affirming our position on ISIS; soon afterwards, Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry felt it necessary to make a public statement to the same effect: that the actions of ISIS constitute genocide. The Genocide Initiative was commended in an article in the foremost U.S. armed forces publication, Stars and Stripes (reprinted from the Fort Wayne Herald.

Most of our energy over the last four years has been directed toward the Muslim world, since we felt that the first order of business was to inform Muslims of the existence and the crucial import of these documents authored by the Prophet Muhammad himself, documents that most Muslims, and many Muslim scholars, had never heard of. One powerful sign of our success in this effort appeared in May of 2017: when ISIS burned St. Mary’s Cathedral in Mindanao, the Philippines, the Governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao immediately invoked the Covenants of the Prophet to prove that this action of ISIS was “un-Islamic”. It was this, among other indications, that resolved us to turn more of our rather slim resources toward Christian outreach. In line with this decision, the present article should be understood as a formal offering of the Covenants of Muhammad to the Christians of the world, particularly those under siege by ISIS and other Takfiri terrorists, or who have reason to believe that they might be in the future, as shields of protection in the name of the Prophet Muhammad. (The word “Takfiri” denotes a pseudo-Muslim extremist who holds that any non-Muslim, and any Muslim not part of his or her particular sect, is a heretic who can legally be killed.)

This is entirely in line with Muhammad’s original intent. The Prophet foresaw that the expanding Muslim state would eventually come to blows with the Byzantine Empire, and knew that if this were to happen, some zealous but ignorant Muslims would simply consider this as inaugurating an “open season” on all Christians. Several passages of the Holy Qur’an, various rulings of the Prophet which have come down to us in the hadith literature, and most especially his Covenants with the Christian communities of his time, were explicitly designed to nip this tendency in the bud. Certainly these declarations were not entirely successful in preventing various excesses in later years, but they did exercise a powerful influence in the direction of tolerance and mutual respect among Muslims and Christians, an influence which lasted at least until the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1922—the Covenants having formed the basis of state policy toward religious minorities under the Ottomans—and which has been resurrected in our own time largely through the ground-breaking scholarship of Dr. John Andrew Morrow.

It is of course important for those Christians who are considering how they might use the Covenants of the Prophet as documents of protection against various Takfiri terrorist groups to satisfy themselves that these documents are valid; a sampling of our exhaustive case for their genuineness appears below. To make a thorough study of our arguments would be time- consuming, even if the reader did not attempt to assimilate the approx. 550 published reviews favorable to The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World, or become familiar with the objections of our critics—many of which appear, so as to be refuted, in that book, as well as in our three-volume anthology of critical studies on The Covenants, Islam, and the People of the Book, which includes articles by Dr. Morrow and 17 other scholars, both Muslim and Christian.

On the other hand, the Covenants have the potential for saving lives—and when lives hang in the balance, long deliberations and delays can have serious consequences. In this sense the Covenants are like a new and potentially lifesaving drug that’s undergoing clinical trials. If the drug is released too soon there could be unintended negative effects; if the release is delayed too long, lives will be lost. The goal of this article is to provide a “fast-track” for the acceptance of the Covenants by Christians, while directing them to more exhaustive research if they still have lingering questions. Meanwhile, the reader can refer to the May 2017 article “The Hidden Documents of Islam that can Defang Islamic Terror” by Melik Kaylan in Forbes magazine, to get some idea of the profound import of the Covenants for our time.

The following section, by Dr. Morrow, contains his list of authenticating authorities for five of the six Prophetic Covenants contained in The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World and Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of His Time, a shorter work which contains only the texts of the Covenants themselves. This list provides solid evidence for their ultimate authorship—despite the vicissitudes of history undergone by the texts that we possess—by the Prophet Muhammad himself:

The Covenants contained in The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World and Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of His Time were treated as trustworthy by the Companions and their Followers along with the Caliphs, the Sultans, and the Shahs of Islam from the 7th century until the early 20th century.

They were regularly renewed by Muslim rulers over the course of the past 1400 years and consistently authenticated by leading Islamic authorities from all schools of jurisprudence throughout the ages.

The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad were certified as genuine or sahih by Sultan ‘Abd al-Hamid II, the 34th Sultan of the Ottoman Empire and the Last Caliph of Islam, who passed away in 1918.

As primary documents of prophetic provenance, they come second only to the Qur’an.

As the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, attested, they are binding upon all believers until the end of times.

AUTHENTICATION

The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Monks of Mount Sinai

Authenticated by
The Prophet Muhammad (d. 632 CE)
The Companions of the Prophet (7th century CE)
Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali (632-661 CE)
The Monks of Mount Sinai (7th century CE to the present)
The Jabaliyyah Arabs of the Sinai (7th century CE to the present)
Honored by Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali (632-661 CE)
Honored by the Ummayads and ‘Abassids (661-750; 750-1258 CE)
Ibn Sa‘d cites Treaty of Najran / St. Catherine (d. 845 CE)
Fatimid Decrees (965, 1024, 1109, 1110, 1135, 1154, and 1156 CE)
Fatimid Caliph al-Mu‘izz (953-974 CE)
Fatimid Caliph al-‘Aziz (975-996 CE)
Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim (996-1021 CE)
Fatimid Caliph al-Zahir (1024 CE)
Fatimid Vizier al-Afdal ibn Badr al-Jamali (1094-1121 CE)
al-Hafiz (1134 CE)
Decree of Shirkuh (1169 CE)
Ayyubids Decrees (1195, 1199, 1201/02, and 1210/11 CE)
Mamluk Decrees (1259, 1260, 1272, 1268/69, 1280 and 1516 CE)
Ibn Kathir reportedly paraphrases the complete list of privileges granted to St. Catherine’s Monastery (d. 1373 CE)
Treaty of the Sultan of Egypt with the Order of St. John of Jerusalem (1403 CE) Fatwas: Nearly 2000 Edicts from Five Schools of Jurisprudence (975 CE-1888) Ottoman Decrees (1519 to 1904)
Jean Thenaud (1512 CE)
Copies of the Covenant (Undated, 1517 CE, 1561 CE, 1683 CE, 1737/38 CE, 1800/01 CE) Tsernotabey (1517 CE)
Firman of Selim I (1517 CE)
Copies of Achtiname (1517-1858 CE)
Greffin Affagart (1533 CE)
Feridun Bey (d. 1583 CE)
Franciscus Quaresmius (1639)
Balthsar de Monconys (1646-1647)
Nektarios of Sinai (1660)
Grand Vizier Merzifonlu Kara Mustapha Pasha (1663-1666)
Joannes Caramuel de Lobkowitz (1672)
Henry Stubbe (1632-1676 CE)
M.L.M.D.C. (1697)
Eusèbe Renaudot (1713)
Bernard Picard (1736)
Johann Lorenz von Mosheim (1693-1755) (apocryphal but authentic in content) Richard Pococke (1743)
Thomas Salmon (1744)
J.A. Van Egmont and J. Heyman (1759)
George Psalmanazar (1764 CE) (apocryphal or limited to the Sinai Monks)
Jean Michel de Venture de Paradis (1798)

Napoléon Bonaparte (1798)
Jean-Joseph Marcel (1798)
Commission des Sciences et des Arts (1798)
Charles Thomson (1798)
Edward Wells (1809)
J.N. Fazakerley (1811)
Abraham Salamé (1819)
Félix Mengin (1823)
Thomas Clarke (1823)
John Carne (1826)
Abbé Grand and Adrien Egron (1827)
John Gibson Lockhart (1835)
National Geographic Society (1835)
Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall and J.-J. Hellert (1837) Ministers of Various Evangelical Denominations (1839)
C.B. Ḥoury (1840)
Maria Giuseppe de Géramb (1840)
Pietro della Valle (1843)
A. Oumanetz (1843)
Louis de Tesson (1844)
Père Joguet (1844)
Léon Gingras (1847)
Austen Henry Layard (1850)
Amable Regnault (1855) (authentic in content)
Henry Day (1857)
J.G. Pitzipios-Bey (1858)
Joseph Wolff (1861)
Antonio Figari Bey (1865)
John Davenport (1869)
Samuel Sullivan Cox (1887)
R. Accademia dei Lini (1888)
Philippe Gelât (1888/1889)
Nawfal Effendi Nawfal (late 19th century CE)
Syed Ameer ‘Ali (1891)
R.P. Jullien (1893) (authentic with reservations)
Dean Arthur Stanley (1894)
L’Union islamique / al-Ittihad al-Islami (1898) Bessarione (1898)
Échos d’Orient (1898)
Anton F. Haddad (1902)
‘Abdullah al-Ma’mun al-Suhrawardy (1904 and 1905) Sultan ‘Abd al-Hamid II (1904)
Sésostris Sidarouss (1907)
Jurji Zaydan (1907) (apocryphal but based on authentic covenants) Na‘um Shuqayr (1916)
Alberto M. Candioti (1925)

Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall (1927)
Essad Bey (1936)
Porphyrios III (1937)
Jeanne Aubert (1938)
Edmond Poupe (1938)
Islamic Review (1940)
Joan Meredyth Chichele Plowden (1940) (not impossible)
Joaquim Pedro Oliveira Martins (1946)
‘Aziz Suryal Atiya (1955)
Albert Champdor (1963)
Alfred Nawrath (1963)
Hasan al-Shirazi (1967)
Stuart E. Rosenberg (1970) (cannot be proven or disproven)
Oleg V. Volkoff (1972) (neutral)
Robin Waterfield (1973)
Criton George Tornaritis (1980)
Le Figaro (1986)
Akram Zahoor and Z. Haq (1990)
Nikolaos Tomadakis (1990)
Konstantinos A. Manafis (1990)
Hieromonk Demetrios Digbassanis (1990)
Edwin Bernbaum (1990) (according to tradition; dating back at least to early Fatimid times) Nicole Levallois (1992)
Giovanna Magi (1993)

Joseph J. Hobbs (1995) (neutral)
Jacqueline Lafontaine-Dosogne (1996)
LaMar C. Berrett and D. Kelly Ogden (1996) Gawdat Gabra and Morsi Saad el-Din (1998)
Ansar Hussain (1999)
Hüseyn Hilmi Işik (2000)
Yusuf Islam [Cat Stevens] (2001)
Giovanni Magnani (2001)
Harun Yahya (2002)
Frederick Quinn (2002)
Let’s Go Inc. (2003)
Bruce Merry (2004)
J. Gordon Melton (2004)
Brian Paciotti (2004)
Reza Shah-Kazemi (2005)
R.W. McColl (2005)
Elizabeth A. Zachariadou (2005)
Martin Gray and Graham Hancock (2007) Jean-Pierre Isbouts (2007) (authentic according to tradition) K. Staikos (2007) (authentic according to tradition) David Douglas (2007)
Andrew Eames (2008)

National Geographic (2008) (authentic according to tradition)
‘Abdurrahman Wahid (2009)
David Dakake (2009)
Muqtedar Khan (2009)
Peer-Jada Qureshi (2009)
Mohamed el Hebeishy (2010)
J. Gordon Melton and Martin Baumann (2010)
Zia Shah (2011)
Raj Bhala (2011)
Hedieh Mirahmadi (2011)
Farhad Malekian (2011)
Ahmed Shams (2011)
Altaf Hussain (2011)
Zora O’Neill (2012)
Judy Hall (2012)
Areej Zufari (2012)
Kyriacos C. Markides (2012)
James Emery White (2012)
Helen C. Evans (2012)
Father Justin of Sinai (2012)
Pave the Way Foundation (2012)
Shemeem Burney Abbas (2013)
Nikos Kazantzakis (2013)
Timothy Wright (2013)
John Andrew Morrow (1990, 2012, 2013, 2015)
Scores of scholars and signatories to the Covenants Initiative too numerous to mention (since 2013)
John Watson (2014) (authentic according to tradition)
Brad Tyndall (2014)
Qasim Rashid (2014)
Muhammad Quraish Shihab (2014)
Zaid Shakir (2015)
Hamza Yusuf (2015)
Ronald H. Stone (2015)
Calum Samuelson (2015)
Alexander Winogradsky Frenkel (2015)
Sayyid ‘Ali Asghar (2015)
‘Azizah al-Hibri (2016)
Ahmed El-Wakil (2016)

The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of Najran

Authenticated by
The Prophet Muhammad (d. 632 CE)
The Companions of the Prophet (7th century CE) Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali (632-661 CE)

Waqidi (745-822 CE)
Ibn Ishaq (d. 761 or 770 CE) / Ibn Hisham (d. 833 CE)
Muqatil ibn Sulayman al-Balkhi (d. 767)
Abu Yusuf (d. 798 CE)
Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani (d. 805 CE)
Yahya ibn Adam (d. 818 CE)
Abu ‘Ubayd (728-825 CE)
Ibn Zanjawayh (d. 865 CE)
Abu Dawud (817-889 CE)
Habib the Monk (878-879 CE)
Baladhuri (d. 892 CE)
Ya‘qubi (897-898 CE)
Chronicle of Seert (9th century CE)
Shaykh al-Mufid (11th century CE)
Abu al-Futuh al-Razi (1078-1157 or 1161 CE)
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (1149-1209 CE)
Bar Hebraeus (1226-1286 CE)
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (1292–1350 CE)
Ibn Kathir (1301–1373)
Maris (12th century CE)
Qalqashandi (1355 or 1356-1418 CE)
Amrus (14th century CE)
Giuseppe Simonio Assemani (1721)
‘Abdullah al-Ma’mun al-Suhrawardy (1904 and 1905)
Muhammad Siddique Qureshi (1991)
Abu Muhammad Ordoni (1992)
Muhammad ‘Amarah (2002)
Harun Yahya (2002)
‘Adil Salahi (2002)
Milka Levy-Rubin (2011)
John Andrew Morrow (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017)
Scores of scholars and signatories to the Covenants Initiative too numerous to mention (since 2013)
Yasin T. al-Jibouri (2014)
Ahmed El-Wakil (2016)

The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World

Authenticated by
The Prophet Muhammad (d. 632 CE)
The Companions of the Prophet (7th century CE) Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali (632-661 CE) Tabari (838-923 CE)
Mas‘udi (896-956 CE CE)
Caliph Muqtafi II of Baghdad (1138 CE)
Ibn al-Athir (1160–1233 CE)

Bar Hebraeus (1226-1286 CE)
Maris (12th century CE)
Amrus (14th century CE)
Father Pacifique Scaliger (found in 1629; dated 1538 CE) René de l’Escale Pacifique de Provins Scaliger (1627) Louis XIII, King of France (1601-1643)

André Du Ryer (c. 1580-1660)
Jacobo Nagy de Harsany (b. 1615)
Gabriel Sionita (1630)
Antoine Vitray (1630)
M.J. Fabricius (1638)
Claudius Salmasius (d. 1653)
Johann Georg Nissel (1655; 1661)
L. Addison (1679)
Giovani Paolo Marana (1642-1693)
Des grossen Propheten und Apostels Muhammad’s Testament… (1664) Pierre Briot and Paul Ricaut (1668 CE)
Abraham Hinckleman (1690)
Henri Basnage de Beauval (1657-1710)
Eusѐbe Renaudot (1646-1720)
A.C. Zeller R. Abrah. b. Dior (1724)
Claude-Pierre Goujet (1758)
Edward Gibbon (1776)
Comité d’instruction publique de la Convention Nationale (1795) Jean-Baptiste Lefebvre de Villebrune (1795)
Societe d’Amis de la Religion et de la Patrie (1797)
Asiatic Annual Register (1801)
Ministers from various Evangelical Denominations (1839)
C.B. Houry (1840)

Henry Layard (1850)
Jakobs Georgios Pitzipios-Bey (1858) Sir Travers Twiss (1809-1897) Pedro de Madrazo (1816-1898) Edward Rehatsek (1819-1891)
M. Grassi (Alfio) (1826) Alexandre de Miltitz (1838) Alphonse de Lamartine (1862) Edward Van Dyke (1881)

Henry Layard (1850)
‘Abdullah al-Suhrawardy (1904 and 1905) James Thayer Addison (1887-1953) Sésostris Sidarouss (1907) Meletius IV (1922)
Ibrahim Auwad (1933)
Jeanne Aubert (1938)
Edmond Poupe (1938)

Nikēphoros Moschopoulos (1956)
Joseph Hajjar (1962)
Abdullah Alladin (1971)
Josée Balagna (1984)
Mithoo Coorlawala (2011)
John Andrew Morrow (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017)
Scores of scholars and signatories to the Covenants Initiative too numerous to mention (since 2013)

Ahmed El-Wakil (2016)

The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Assyrian Christians

Authenticated by
The Prophet Muhammad (d. 632 CE)
The Companions of the Prophet (7th century CE)
Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali (632-661 CE)
Maris (12th century CE)
Bar Hebraeus (1226-1268 CE)
Amrus (14th century CE)
Asahel Grant (1841)
Horatio Southgate (1856)
Adolphe d’Avril (1864)
Thomas William Marshall (1865)
Bedr Khan Beg (d. 1868), his son, and his grandson
Vital Cuinet (1891)
Saturnino Ximénèz (1895)
Earl Percy (1902)
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1904)
William Ainser Wigram (1910, 1920 and 1929)
Abraham Yohannan (1916)
Surma D’Bait Dar Shimun (1920)
J.G. Browne (1937)
Jeanne Aubert (1938)
George David Malech (1910)
William Chauncey Emhardt and George M. Lamsa (1970)
Carleton Stevens Coon (1972)
John Joseph (1983)
Gabriele Yonan (1996)
A.M. Hamilton (2004)
R.S. Stafford (2006)
Theodore D’Mar Shimun (2008)
Albert Edward Ismail Yelda (2001, 2002, 2004)
Areej Zufari (2012)
John Andrew Morrow (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017)
Scores of scholars and signatories to the Covenants Initiative too numerous to mention (since 2013)

Ahmed El-Wakil (2016)

The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of Persia

Authenticated by
The Prophet Muhammad (d. 632 CE)
Witnessed by the Companions of the Prophet (7th century CE)
Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali (632-661 CE)
Sebēos (660 CE)
Ja‘far al-Sadiq (8th century CE)
Maris (12th century)
Bar Hebraeus (1226-1286 CE)
Amrus (14th century CE)
Shah ‘Abbas and Safavid Shi‘ite scholars (1606)
Leon Arpee (1948)
John Andrew Morrow (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017)
Scores of scholars and signatories to the Covenants Initiative too numerous to mention (since 2013 CE)
Ahmed El-Wakil (2016 CE)

N.B. For a complete study of the sources that support the genuine nature of the Covenants of the Prophet, kindly refer to “The Provenance of the Prophet’s Covenants” in Islam and the People of the Book (Cambridge Scholars, 2017).

In addition to the bare question of authorship, I have identified what I believe are two “hurdles” to Christian acceptance of the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad. The first is the notion that the intent behind our work in disseminating these documents is simply to “whitewash” Islam, to give it a better public relations image. Nothing could be further from the truth. While some Muslims may believe that the Covenants can be used for this purpose, in reality they represent a powerful challenge to Muslims to renounce both active terrorism (which, as we will see, actually excludes those who practice it from the Muslim fold) and their half- conscious, passive acceptance of terrorists as “people whose methods we abhor, but who are still ‘our guys’”, and follow the explicit commands of our Prophet. [See my article “The Covenants of the Prophet: A Call to Repentance” at https://covenantsoftheprophet.org/2017/05/30/the- covenants-of-the-prophet-a-call-to-repentance/ ] Far from “making Islam look good”, the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad make those Muslims who are still reluctant to treat Christians and other non-Muslim religious groups with simple human decency look decidedly bad. While the vast majority of Muslims, an estimated 93%, reject jihadism, a certain reluctance to come out strongly against it is still apparent in some population groups. This is due to a mixture of shame at the bad name the jihadists are giving Islam around the world, a very real fear of terrorist reprisals if they are openly condemned, and the general passivity of human nature, irrespective of race or religion. Some Muslims still see groups like ISIS as the “black sheep” of the Muslim family, lowlife relatives whose shameful actions must be hushed up. The Covenants, however, have begun to give some of us the courage to go beyond passive shame and actively break identification with these mad dogs, based on an understanding that that they are in open violation of the Qur’an, the Islamic doctrine of just war, and the explicit commands of the Prophet—not to mention the fact that their Muslim victims far outnumber their Christian ones. This excommunication of the jihadists as intrinsically un-Islamic was formalized in August, 2016 at a conference in Grozny, Chechnnya, sponsored by Russia, which included Grand Shaykh of Al-Azhar and a number of Grand Muftis. The conference issued a group fatwa, explicitly declaring that “Salafi-takfirists, Daesh (so-called ‘Islamic State’) and similar extremist groups” are not Muslims. The fatwa was seconded by a similar statement from the Russian Council of Muftis. [See http://chechnyaconference.org/material/chechnya-conference-statement-english.pdf For the full text of the Grozny Declaration.] In addition to the Declaration, the turn against Takfiri terrorism in the Muslim world has resulted in literally hundreds of other declarations and campaigns against the jihadists; links to thirty of the most important of these can be found here: https://ing.org/global-condemnations-of-isis-isil/

The second hurdle is the suspicion among certain Christians that the Covenants may be a kind of subtle Muslim plot, concealed under a show of false friendship, to return them to a state of second-class citizenship under the dhimmi system. If they will think for a minute, however, they will realize just how unlikely this is. Outside the short-lived and bogus “Caliphate” of ISIS, which is now in the process of being painfully de-constructed, and other efforts by Takfiri jihadists, nowhere in the world are Christians in danger of falling under Muslim rule outside of those nations long-considered to be part of Dar al-Islam. And if ISIS would grant dhimmi status to the Christians who have temporarily fallen under their yoke rather than massacring them wholesale, the lot of Christians under their regime would be greatly improved. This is not likely, however: ISIS and the other Takfiri terrorists hate the Covenants of the Prophet since these documents explicitly define them as laboring under the curse of Allah and his Prophet; there is even some indication that Da’esh may be searching for whatever Prophetic Covenants might remain in their conquered territories, possibly housed in ancient monasteries, in order to destroy them. As for the situation of Christians in Muslim-majority nations, no nation that is not officially Muslim could conceivably have the authority to enforce the provisions of the Covenants after a century-long hiatus, which in any case would require renewed negotiations between Christians and Muslims, like those that took place in the Prophet’s time, before both parties agreed to the terms of any particular new treaty based on the Covenants model. The rights granted to Christians under the Covenants, which lay both duties and rights on Muslims as well as Christians, if they could be renewed today would certainly represent an improvement in the status of Christians in some Muslim-majority nations—Turkey for example, where an enforcement the provision that Christians must not be prohibited from repairing their buildings would represent a real gain for the Christian population. Such a development, however, seems highly unlikely from many points of view.

It is the position of the Covenants Initiative that, in the absence of a Muslim political entity like the Ottoman Empire, or a viable plan to renew the Covenants within an officially Muslim nation such as Iran—which would require equitable negotiations between Christians and Muslims involving a detailed revision and updating of the terms of the original agreements, thus doing away with their status as actual Covenants of the Prophet—another approach is required. Muslims, whether or not they are part of the ulama (the religious authorities), need to discern the basic intent of the Prophet Muhammad in drafting these documents, and make it their own. Muslims must embrace the spirit of the Covenants as individuals, and then try their best to prevail upon their governments to embrace that spirit as well—because the Prophet did not declare the Covenants binding upon all Muslims only until the fall of the Ottoman Empire, but until the end of time. Anyone who reads the texts of the Prophetic Covenants will necessarily be struck with the great respect and admiration Muhammad felt toward the followers of Jesus, expressed in terms of a noble and chivalrous pledge to defend them from all who would menace them, non-Muslims and Muslims alike.

It is also necessary to mention that, while groups like ISIS certainly seek membership among Muslims with Wahhabi or Takfiri/Salafi beliefs, plenty of evidence is now emerging that ISIS itself was formed with help from the West as part of its geopolitical brinksmanship against Syria, Russia and Iran; see the article in the Guardian by Seumas Milne, “Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq” at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq?CMP=share_btn_fb

It only remains to say that, as soon as Christian leaders have satisfied themselves as to the validity of the Covenants of the Prophet, their existence should be widely publicized, and no effort spared in getting them into the hands of the Christian communities who need them. The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World is quite a hefty volume; it contains exhaustive arguments, both textual and historical, for the validity of the Covenants, and provides a great deal of background. More appropriate for bulk distribution is the pamphlet-sized Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of His Time which contains only the actual texts of these documents. This book has already been translated into 14 languages: English, Arabic, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Persian, Turkish, Dutch, Indonesian, Tamil, Russian, Azeri and Urdu. The English and Azeri editions have already appeared. As soon as various arrangements for publication of the rest have been finalized, we intend to make them available in bulk, free of change, to any Christian leader who can show us a viable plan for their distribution to Christian communities presently under terrorist threat, or possibly vulnerable to such threat in the future.

As opposed to the more usual interfaith initiatives, where religious dignitaries meet and smile at each other in various “safe spaces”, in contexts that exert a subtle but constant pressure upon them to soft-pedal any “divisive” doctrines, the Covenants Initiative neither requires nor encourages any degree of doctrinal agreement between Christians and Muslims. Rather, it is an example of what I call “united front ecumenism”: the will to make alliances between the faiths in the face of common enemies. Christians need not accept Muhammad as rasul Allah, a Messenger sent by God. All that’s required is that they accept him as a religious leader with a great respect and veneration for the followers of Jesus, one sworn to defend them against all comers. As for how the Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of His Time and our other documents might be used by Christian communities in danger of attack, it’s pretty obvious that showing them to the Takfiris themselves would be worse than useless; the Takfiris care nothing about the commands and prohibitions of the Prophet Muhammad, and often react with violence against those who do. However, this book could be of great help to Christians in establishing ties with local Muslims who, while in no way supporting terrorism, may be uncertain as to how to respond in a situation where armed Takfiris claiming to be Muslims are beginning to issue threats, or have already appeared in force. We would be glad to provide any interested Christian leader with single copies of The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World and Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of His Time, free of charge. In return we hope that these leaders will begin to consider how the books could best be distributed to local Christian communities in various parts of the world. Upon submission of viable plans for such distribution, we will to provide additional copies of Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of His Time, also free of charge, so they can be forwarded to Christians in need of the kind of protection they could potentially provide.

Let any Christian leader or activist who is interested in receiving one copy of each of The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World (now available in English and Italian, and hopefully soon in Arabic) and Six Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of His Time, free of charge, place his or her order via the contact form at http://www.covenantsoftheprophet.com/ As already noted, only the English and the Azeri versions of the Six Covenants are presently available; please feel free, however, to request a copy in Arabic, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Persian, Turkish, Dutch, Indonesian, Tamil, Russian or Urdu; we will provide one, again free of charge, as soon as it is published in the language you’ve requested.

In conclusion, please don’t take too long to decide whether or not to participate; these documents can save lives.

Mvslim (July 23, 2017)

Dr. John Andrew Morrow, an American academic and interfaith activist, has filed a harassment complaint against a US Marine.

“The amount of hate mail that I receive is disconcerting,” stated Morrow. “Like my colleagues, Craig Considine, Qasim Rashid, Catherine Shakdam, and others, I am subjected to abuse for the sole sin of promoting peace, understanding, and co-existence.”

Although Morrow has been at the forefront of the ideological war against Takfirism, Wahhabism, and pseudo-Islamic terrorism for several years, the attacks he has received in recent history all come from Islamophobes. As he explains:

“It is not enough that I place my life in peril by denouncing Daesh and other extremist groups on a daily basis: Islamophobes hate all Muslims without distinction. To them, there is no difference between Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and a little Muslim school-girl. We are all vermin to them. Their worldview is Hitlerian. Islamophobes are as hate-filled and violent as so-called Radical Islamists. They are two sides of the same coin.”

Like most religious leaders of Jewish, Christian or Muslim faith, Dr. Morrow reports all such incidents to Google, Gmail, Hotmail, YouTube, and appropriate authorities.

Asking why he decided to act in the case of Elmer Argomedo, Morrow did not mince his words: “If some random person insults on the street, I would be more than pleased to return the greeting. However, when a uniformed member of the military engages in harassment, such behavior is absolutely intolerable.”

The culprit in question, Elmer Argomedo, sent Dr. Morrow an insulting message on June 17, 2017, in response to his video titled “Where are the Moderate Muslims?” in which the scholar refutes the Islamophobic allegations of a certain Hussein Aboubakr.

While Argomedo looks respectable in uniform, one should never judge a book by its cover. A man is judged by his words and actions. They are a reflection of his character.

Responding to Morrow’s claims that Muslims should not be condemned for laws found in their religious texts any more than Jews and Christians should be condemned for the laws found in the Bible, the US Marine responded in the following fashion:

“soooooooooo ?? because it is in the bible we all the same too ?? i do not get it. Who the fuck care if is in the bible or not ? the thing is we do not do the same shit as the majority of muslims (…) …”

In Argomedo’s view, Jews and Christians do not follow the penal code found in the Bible. In his mind, most Muslims believe in implementing the corporal punishments contained in the shariah. If he were more educated and less overly emotional, he would find that such a gross overgeneralization is false. Most Muslims have no interest in resurrecting Old Testament style punishments.

While Morrow is ready to let most civilian insults slide, placing trust in divine justice, he is not prepared to be harassed by a person who openly and proudly professes to be a member of the US military; in this case, a person from the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point in North Carolina.

“How would Elmer Argomedo feel,” asks Morrow, if someone said that Latinos were illegals, criminals, drug-dealers, and rapists?” “I cannot comprehend,” he continues, “how a member of a minority can stereotype and discriminate against other minority groups.” As Morrow explains,

“The level of animosity against Islam and Muslims on the part of some Hispanic-Americans is certainly alarming. In fact, on June 18th, another Islamophobic Latino, 22-year old Darwin Martinez Torres, an illegal alien from El Salvador, kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and beat to death a 17-year old Muslim girl with a baseball bat after she left a local mosque. If Muslims are a threat to America, what about Islamophobic Latinos? And what happens when such hateful people are deployed to Muslim countries? There are consequences to that.”

Morrow, one of the leaders of the Covenants Initiative and the Genocide Initiative, was credited by Stars & Stripes, the major US armed services publication, for contributing to the passage of the Fortenberry Resolution in 2016 which labeled ISIS as war criminals who were guilty of genocide.

To attack a patriot, like Morrow, who has been consulted by the Obama and Trump administrations, along with other world leaders, on issues of counter-terrorism is entirely un-American and counter-productive. Anyone who opposes Morrow for trying to neutralize extremists and terrorists on all sides of the spectrum, and bring Muslims, Christians, and Jews closer together, can only be someone who wishes to foster discord between them. Clearly, Morrow is a man of peace whereas the Marine in question is a man of war.

Although Dr. Morrow is not a Marine, he will not tolerate being abused by a Marine, nor is he prepared to allow him to harass others with impunity. Besides being an Islamophobe, who stereotypes all Muslims as being terrorists, Elmer Argomedo promotes violence against people because of their sexual orientation. For example, he liked a video titled “How Trannies Get Beat Up.” Since he engages in harassment while identifying himself as military personnel from the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, the US military could be held vicariously liable for his actions.

In response to the scandals caused by the misconduct of male Marines harassing female Marines by posting sexually explicit photos of the latter online, the Commanding General, T.D. Weidley, has the following words to say:

“On-line sexual harassment, threats of violence, and other misconduct that demeans, degrades, and bullies fellow Marines is absolutely unacceptable. This despicable behavior cuts at the very core of who we are as Marines and erodes the sacred trust and confidence we place in each other as Marines. We owe it to each and every Marine to maintain world class installations that not only prepare warriors to go into harm’s way, but also foster a culture of pride, dignity, and respect. If you witness this type of online activity, report it immediately.”

By filing a complaint against Elmer Argomedo for online harassment, Morrow was simply following the recommendations of the US Military. As far as the latter is concerned,

“Islamophobic, homophobic, transphobic, and intolerant individuals like Elmer Argomedo are unfit to serve in the armed forces of our great nation. As Commanding General T.D. Weidley states, ‘A Marine is a Marine 24/7… even online.’ They must respect themselves and respect others and when they serve, they serve ALL AMERICANS regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. And if people like Elmer Argomedo do not like it, and have no respect for the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights, let them ship off and ship out. Go back to where you came from! This is America: love it or leave it!

This article is written by Hanan al-Harbi. 

Morocco World News

83 Years Old and Graduating from First Grade: Why Women Education Matters in Morocco

By John Andrew Morrow

The success story of Fatimah Ouaziz, who decided to enter elementary school in her 80s, shows that providing women with equal and fair access to education will allow Morocco to further its commitments to human rights and economic development.

“Allah tasketh not a soul beyond its scope” (2:286)

“Fatimah is one of our most inspiring students,” explains her instructor. “Although it took her three years to pass grade one, her attendance record was stellar, her hard work was unparalleled, and her accomplishment well-earned.”

Born in the tiny town of Tazoughart in the Middle Atlas of Morocco, Fatimah Ouaziz suffered through the famine provoked by the secular French occupiers during the French “Protectorate.”

From an Amazigh family, she grew up speaking Tamazight. Like most Moroccans of the time, the lively little girl was deprived of even a basic education.

Since the traditional Islamic school system was dismantled by the French, and mosques could no longer operate as a medium of literacy teaching, Fatimah, like millions of others, became part of a lost generation that mastered neither French nor Classical Arabic. While Moroccans could speak Berber languages and Darija, the Moroccan Colloquial Arabic dialect, they could neither read nor write them.

Like most Moroccan girls in the mid-half of the 20th century, Fatimah was married in her early teens to a man nearly ten years older, named Moha Bejja, who was already twice divorced. Fortunately for her, he was found to be a kind, caring, and compassionate man who abhorred misogyny. As a traditional Middle Atlas Berber, he had never absorbed Arabic cultural influences in matters of gender relations. He was more matriarchal than he was patriarchal.

Fatimah raised a family of eight in both Beni Tedjit and Bouarfa. After her husband passed away in 2007, and she completed two pilgrimages to Mecca, she became determined to acquire literacy. “Teach me to read,” she would ask family members, who brushed her off with a smirk or a shake of the head, thinking she was far too old to learn to read in her seventies. After all, she had never completed any studies in her life. A mind is like a muscle, the family figured, it atrophies if it remains unused. Like the proverbial Little Train, Fatimah persisted: “I think I can, I think I can, I think I can.” And she clearly could. Where there is a will, there is certainly a way.

As if her prayers were answered, the Kingdom of Morocco instituted a series of important reforms over the past few years. In response to the rise of intolerance, King Mohammed VI, who holds the official title of “Leader of the Believers,” hosted a gathering of hundreds of religious scholars that resulted in the Marrakesh Declaration, a reaffirmation of the rights of religious minorities in Muslim-majority countries.

In response to the rise of extremism and fundamentalism, a phenomenon that is inextricably linked to misogynistic misinterpretations of religion, the King of Morocco set into motion plans to place women imams in all mosques. If gender relations were imbalanced, with men dominating Islamic discourse, the presence of educated and empowered women would help bring matters back into balance.

Unlike other Muslim-majority countries where women are discouraged or prohibited from entering mosques for prayer, Moroccan mosques have always been open to women. Their sections, however, have been substandard and most attendees have always been men. Since women play such an important role in the education of children and the transmission of faith, the Kingdom of Morocco determined that it was imperative for women to acquire a better understanding of Islam to protect and reassert their God-given rights.

Permitting women to attend mosques is nothing new. As the Prophet Muhammad himself commanded, “Do not prevent the female servants of Allah from attending the mosque” (cited by Abu Dawud and Muslim). In Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia, women are provided prayer sections that are as large as those provided to men.

Rather than be relegated to the back of the building, Muslim women in south-east Asia are often given a vast balcony providing them with a panoramic view of the mosque. In other cases, the mosques are split down the middle, with a simple line or a modest, symbolic barrier, distinguishing between the women’s side and the men’s side. The mosques are in gender harmony: half for women and half for men, standing side by side in equal sections, without either feeling like second-class citizens.

Although women imams exist in all parts of the Muslim world, they are not very common, with the notable exception of China. In the Far East of the Muslim world, there exists a long tradition of female imams who lead, educate, and guide female congregations. In China, there are mosques for men, with male imams, and mosques for women, with female imams.

The desire of the Moroccan Kingdom to open mosques to women also has important economic implications. As empirical evidence indicates, the development of nations is directly related to the education of its women. When women are illiterate, countries are chronically underdeveloped. When women are literate, countries are developed. To educate and empower women is the path to progress.

No longer limited to places of prostration, opened only during prayer time, and closed immediately thereafter, mosques in Morocco have been given a new life, meaning, and purpose. Many of them are now operating as schools, as they did during the Golden Age of Islam, not only for children, but for adults as well, and not only for boys and men, but for girls and women as well.

Every day for three years, Fatimah would rise early in the morning, shower, get dried, get dressed, eat breakfast, pack her schoolbag, and head off to school at the local mosque. There, women teachers, the new female imams hired by the Kingdom of Morocco, would teach the pupils, senior citizens in this case, how to read, write, count, and do basic math.

The curriculum is grade one: all the same subjects as taken by six- and seven-year-old children in elementary school. Some of the senior citizen students struggle. Some succeed. And some fail. In Fatimah’s case, she was forced to repeat grade one a full three times. The third time, however, was a charm and Lala Fatimah Ouaziz Bejja passed with honors. “God commanded us to read,” explains this sweet sharifah, “I heard and I obeyed.”

Fatimah had a dream. She pursued that dream. She persisted when everyone, even her family members and in-laws were convinced she could never learn to read and write due to her advanced age.

Forgive me, my beloved mother-in-law, forgive me for failing to teach you when you asked. I am so proud of you and so ashamed of myself. You had the strength to learn to read in your eighties while I was too weak to teach you in my forties.

By: John Andrew Morrow

Source: IslamiCity

Jul 15, 2017

Delivered at the Interfaith Banquet at the 54th ISNA Convention in Chicago, Illinois, on Sunday, July 2, 2017, in the presence of over two hundred interfaith and government leaders from the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim communities.

A‘udhu billahi min al-Shaytan al-rajim. Bismillah al-Rahim al-Rahim. Alhamdulillahi rabb al-‘alamin. Salawatu wa salaam ‘ala al-nabi al-karim, Muhammad al-Amin, wa ‘ala alihi wa sahbibi ajma‘in.

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. Peace and blessings be upon the noble prophet, Muhammad, the Truthful and the Trustworthy, as well as all of Family and Companions.

WA QUL: JA’A AL-HAQQU WA ZAHAQA AL-BATILU; INNA AL-BATILU KANA ZAHUQAN
AND SAY: “TRUTH HATH COME AND FALSEDHOOD HATH VANISHED AWAY. LO! FALSEHOOD IS EVER BOUND TO VANISH.” (17:81)

I begin with words of thanks and gratitude to Almighty Allah, glorified and exalted be He, to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, to Dr. Kareem Irfan, to President Azhar Azeez, to Dr. Mohamed El-Sanousi, to Sayyidah Catherine Osborne, to Sidi Farooq Kathwari, to Sayyidah Katherine Lohre, to Bishop Jake, to Bishop Burkat, to Bishop Miller, to Imam Anwar, to Bishop Eaton, to Dr. Sayyid Syeed, and to all our friends and supporters for the amazing work that they have done, and continue to do, in the path of Humanity and the Divinity. Congratulations to you all for your accomplishments. Please give them a round of applause.

I have been invited to comment upon the Covenants Initiative, an international movement of Muslims committed to spreading the letters, treaties, and covenants of the Prophet Muhammad, blessings and peace be upon him, his family, and his faithful companions.

The Covenants of the Prophet are found in Jewish, Samaritan, Christian, Zoroastrian, and Muslim sources. They are found in books of hadith, books of Qur’anic commentary, books of Islamic jurisprudence, and books of history. They also survive in ancient manuscripts that were passed down over the past 1400 years. They are like gold nuggets in a sandy river. They are like diamonds among stones.

It was only with the publication of The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World in 2013 that knowledge of the letters, treaties, and covenants of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, truly became widespread throughout the world. Thanks to the Covenants Initiative, and all its partners, the foremost of which is ISNA, the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the People of the Book came out of scholarly obscurity and have now become a powerful global force with serious socio-political and spiritual consequences. The Covenants are now available in English, Spanish, Italian, and Arabic, as well as a dozen other major world languages. We are spearheading a dozen different initiatives to disseminate them.

Since its publication, this book and the movement it sparked has been the subject of over 600 articles, including one in Forbes magazine in May of this year, as well as numerous video, radio, and television speeches and interviews. The Covenants Initiative has been signed by prominent Muslim scholars and leaders from many parts of the world, including influential figures from al-Azhar University.

The Covenants of the Prophet with the Christians of the World has been featured on the website of Ayatullah Khamenei, the Leader of Iran, and garnered support from Francis, Pope of Rome; Bartholomew, the Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch; Theophilos III, Patriarch of Jerusalem; the Holy Fathers from Mount Sinai and Simonopetras, along with many other religious leaders, including Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad were invoked in the House of Lords in London in the summer of 2014. In Autumn of 2015, the Covenants Initiative sponsored a petition, the Genocide Initiative, to have the actions of ISIS declared “genocide” and “war crimes,” which — as confirmed by an article in Stars and Stripes — was one of the factors leading to the unanimous passage by the House of Representatives of the Fortenberry Resolution, and the subsequent statement to the same effect by Secretary of State John Kerry.

The Covenants of the Prophet, which includes the Covenant of Medina, were factors that contributed to the Marrakesh Declaration in January of 2016, reaffirming the traditional rights of religious minorities in Muslim lands. They are being used by Muslim and non-Muslim groups across planet Earth for interfaith work and counter-radicalization.

In April of 2016, I was honored to receive an Interfaith Leadership Award from the Islamic Society of North America and was part of a delegation of Muslim leaders who met with senior administrators in the Obama White House. The Covenants Initiative has advised the Organization for Islamic Cooperation. The Covenants Initiative has advised religious and political leaders from dozens of different countries. The Covenants Initiative has advised the Obama administration and admonished the Trump administration. Yes, you heard me, admonished the Trump administration. We are doing our very best to share the concerns of the Muslim Community with the current President of the United States. As Almighty Allah says in the Holy Qur’an: “Indeed, We have sent you, [O Muhammad], with the truth as a bringer of good tidings and a warner, and you will not be asked about the companions of Hellfire” (2:119). Our duty is to warn. We are obliged to engage. We must speak truth to power. Come what may.

To sum up, since its inception, the movement begun by The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World has become an international phenomenon in the Muslim world. There is no better sign of its global influence than the fact that, after the recent Takfiri attack on the Catholic Cathedral in the Philippines, the Covenants of the Prophet were immediately cited by no fewer than seven news outlets on the island of Mindanao as proof that the attack was un-Islamic. Muslim leaders from Mindanao, both political and religious, all invoked the Covenants of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.

Alhamdulillah, praise be to Allah, the Covenants of the Prophet have become common knowledge. Let us honor them for as Almighty Allah warns in the Glorious Qur’an: “And those who break the covenant of Allah after ratifying it, and sever that which Allah hath commanded should be joined, and make mischief in the earth: theirs is the curse and theirs the ill abode” (13:25).

I send you greetings of peace from a man of peace, a religion of peace, and a people of peace: and social justice: Al-salaamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. May the peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you all.

By Dr. John Andrew Morrow (Shaykh Ilyas Islam)

Delivered at the 54th Annual ISNA Convention on Friday, June 30, 2017, in Chicago, Illinois

A‘udhu billahi min al-Shaytin al-rajim. Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim. Alhamdulillahi rabb al-‘alamin wa salawat ‘ala khatim al-nabiyyin, Muhammad al-Amin, wa ‘ala alihi wa sahbihi ajma‘in.

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, and blessed be the Seal of the Prophets, Muhammad, the Truthful and the Trustworthy, as well as all his Family and Companions.

Ladies and gentlemen. Brothers and Sisters. Distinguished panelists. I wish you all a warm welcome to the 54th Annual ISNA Convention and thank you for selecting this session on the most timely of topics: The Role of Faith in a Culture of Fear.

Welcome to America! A country rooted in fear: the fear of the First Nations, the savages who, in many ways, were far more noble than the civilized. A country rooted in the fear of African slaves and ex-slaves who grew so numerous that they posed a threat to the white supremacists and colonialists who brought them here in the first place. A country rooted in the fear of foreigners, particularly the Hispanic, feared by the capitalists who brought them here by the millions as a source of cheap labor. A country founded on the fear communists, a convenient excuse to engage in wars of imperial domination on a planetary scale.

And now, a country founded on the fear of Islam and Muslims, a pretext to attack, destroy, invade, and occupy sovereign nations for highly profitable geo-political purposes. They make a killing by killing. Billions of bucks to buy bombs. They make a killing by stealing natural resources. Billions of dollars in fossil fuels and the building of pipelines for natural gas. And they make a killing by rebuilding. Billions of dollars in business deals.

Don’t get me wrong. I love America. I am America. I am part French Canadian and part First Nations: Michif-Otipemisiwak: 500,000 strong, in Canada, and the United States. Proud to be Métis. We hold no grudges. We have no hatred in our hearts. As our elders teach us, “Meet hatred with love. Meet evil with good.”

We live in a culture of fear. The foreign policy of the US government and the Western world contributes to this culture of fear both internationally and nationally. The corporate-controlled mass media is now devoid of any real connection to journalism. They are propaganda engines that pump out sensationalistic one-sided stories that stoke the flames of fear.

Muslims, in particular, are stigmatized, demonized, and dehumanized. The media blames Muslims for terrorism. The media expects Muslims to bear the burden of blame for the thousands of victims of terrorist actions, actions that Muslims neither committed nor condoned. The media also ignores the fact that Muslims make up 95% of the victims of terrorism.

The media focuses on the thousands of innocent people killed by terrorists while completely ignoring the fact that the “War on Terror” has killed millions upon millions of innocent Muslims. That death-count speaks for itself: the War on Terror has become a War of Terror.

The foreign policy of the United States can only be described as a Sick Circle. The CIA supports Takfiri extremists in the Muslim world as part of its proxy wars: the Mujahidin and the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Takfiris in Libya, and the Takfiris in Iraq and Syria. They use them to fight their enemies: the Russians, the Libyans, the Syrians, and the Iranians.

The conflict caused by these Takfiri terrorists provides grounds for military intervention in the region. The Americans and their allies get embroiled in actions abroad. The terrorist groups that they have supported all along turn around and target the Western world. This heightens sentiments of Islamophobia.

If Westerners witnessed the atrocities committed by Western governments in the Muslim world, public opinion would turn against them. They would demand an end to military actions. If they saw images of the millions of civilians that were slaughtered by their governments, they would be protesting in the streets. There would be an Anti-War Movement like the one that existed during the Vietnam Era.

So, what do you do? How do you ensure that the public continues to support the War on Terror which is really a War on Islam and Muslims? By means of terrorist attacks. By means of false flag operations. That way, the eternal and endless war of the globalist, totalitarian, fascists, continues unabated to the pleasure of Big Brother or, as we known him in Islam, the One-Eyed Liar. The philosophy is clear: keep the focus on fear. So, let us examine the issue of fear, its dangers, and its consequence.

As Imam ‘Ali, radi Allahu ‘anhu, may Allah be pleased with him, the first Imam and third Caliph of Islam stated: “People are enemies of what they do not know.” In other words, people fear what they know not. Ignorance leads to fear. Fear leads to hatred. Hatred leads to violence. And violence leads to suffering. I sound like Yoda. I know many of you have thought about it but it is high time for someone to say it: Yoda is a Muslim and all the Jedi Masters are Muslims. They believe in the Force. They believe in Eternal Life. They abide by a code of morality and they adhere to a path of spirituality.

So, what is fear? A phobia is a fear: an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something. There are literally hundreds of phobias. In some cases, the phobic person feels sentiments of dislike, disapproval, prejudice, hatred, discrimination, and hostility towards the object of the phobia. Ignorance is the breeding ground of fear. It is the petri dish in which the bacteria of fear is cultivated.

Fear of the unknown is a survival mechanism. Human beings lived in family groups, in family clans, and in tribes for tens of thousands of years. People who were known to you, people who looked like you, people who acted like you, and people who spoke like you were a sense of security and safety.

Outsiders or Others were unknown. They were un-vetted. They were viewed and treated as a threat. This fear of the unfamiliar is the root of tribalism, racism, sectarianism, and nationalism. If unchecked, it gives rise to colonialism, imperialism, and globalism. It leads to death, destruction, and suffering. Hatred is the product of fear. Fear is the product of ignorance. So, what is the opposite of ignorance? Knowledge. So, what is the cure to ignorance? Knowledge.

The Prophet Muhammad, sallalahu ‘alayhi wa alihi wa salaam, made the seeking of knowledge obligatory on all Muslims, male and female. He told us to “Seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave.” He told us to “Seek knowledge, even in China.” He commanded his Companions to learn foreign languages and learn about other religions and cultures.

Knowledge is of two kinds. Knowledge of Self and knowledge of God. But both are intertwined. As the Messenger of Allah, ‘alayhi salawatu wa salam, said: “Whoever knows himself knows God.” The path to the Divinity passes through our singularity. Or, to help our young people comprehend: our souls are like cell-phones that are connected to the Master Server.

We are the mirrors in which God sees Himself. When we know ourselves, we know God. When we see ourselves, we should see God. Everything that exists is a manifestation of God. Everything that you see or sense is a sign of the Supreme. Every signifier points to the Signified.

As the Quechua-Aymara Indians teach their children when they are young: “As you see others they see you.” They instill in their children that they are the same as other children and other children are the same as them. They instill a sense of unity and humanity. If I see God in Myself and Myself in God, I will see God in Others and Others in God.

The Seven Grandfather Teachings of the Métis and other First Nations consist of Respect, Love, Truth, Bravery, Wisdom, Generosity, and Humility. The first Teaching or Commandment is Respect: Respect your fellow living beings. Do not look down upon others. They are all children of the Creator. The second Teaching is Love: Love yourself so that you can love others. The third Teaching is Truth: Judge yourself before judging others. In other words, focus on your own faults before focusing on the faults of other. Forget about your qualities and work on improving your shortcomings. When dealing with others, look at their strengths instead of their weaknesses.

The fourth Teaching is bravery, the product of right mind and right action. The fifth Teaching is Wisdom which is defined as eloquently expressing one’s ideas and the ideas of others. For indigenous people, wisdom is the ability to understand others. The sixth Teaching is Generosity which means the ability to meet the needs of others and to stand together. Finally, the seventh Teaching is Humility, namely, humbling oneself before other fellow human beings.

The traditional teachings of the Eastern Woodland Indians and Métis of North America are completely compatible with the traditional teachings of Islam. They are teachings based on Tawhid that were transmitted by the prophets, messengers, and friends of the Creator who were sent to the people of Turtle Island, the continent you know as the Americas.

We need ‘ilm or knowledge. We need ma‘rifah or direct knowledge of the Divinity. We need knowledge of Self that translate in knowledge of Others. As Almighty Allah, subhanahu wa ta‘ala, makes explicitly clear in al-Qur’an al-Karim:

O humankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things). (49:13)

Humanity is called to Unity. We are called upon to be One with each other and to be One with the One. As the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “None of you has faith until you love for your neighbor what you love for yourself.” He did not say “Muslim neighbor.” He said neighbor. In short, the command applies to all human beings. As Almighty Allah asserts in the Holy Qur’an:

As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects, thou hast no part in them in the least: their affair is with Allah: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did. (6:159)

We must oppose destructive sectarianism in the Muslim Community. There can, and should, be diversity; however, there should also be unity within that diversity. As Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, is reported to have stated: “Difference of opinion in my Community is a mercy for people” [ikhtilafu ummati rahmatun li al-nas]. We must move away from destructive theologies of hatred and injustice to constructive theologies of compassion and justice.

We must build bridges between the People of the Qiblah and the People of the Book, namely, between Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Speaking of the Ahl al-Kitab, Almighty Allah has this to say:

Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. (3:113)

Jews and Christians are not all the same. They must never be condemned categorically. We, Muslims, have been stereotyped. Like us not do to others what we do not like others to do to us. As Imam ‘Ali, karama Allahu wahjuhu, may Allah bless his glorious countenance, said: “Our enemies are not the Jews or Christians, but our enemy is our own ignorance.”

If Jews, Samaritans, Christians, Zoroastrians, and members of other faith communities only understood each other better, they could come together on common ground. In fact, this is precisely what the Qur’an commands:

Say: O People of the Book! Come to a common word between us and you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him). (3:64)

The Ummah of Muhammad, the Community of the Prophet, was never the realm of exclusivism: it was always the real of pluralism. We must reconnect the Muslim masses with the true teachings of the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the Shari‘ah. We must reconnect the Muslim masses with the true teachings of spirituality: tasawwuf and ‘irfan. We must reconnect the Muslim masses with ethical principles or akhlaq. We must reconnect the Muslims masses with a true understanding of history. And, most importantly, we must teach Muslims how to think critically so that they do not succumb to the scourge of literalism, fundamentalism, and extremism.

In America, today, in 2017, we live in a culture of fear. There are those what sow, fertilize, irrigate, and cultivate hatred. You reap what you sow. You sow what you reap. If you spread hatred and violence you get served with hatred and violence. It is a sick circle. Let us help break that cycle. The only way to fight fear is through faith. The only way to fight fear is through faith. The only way to fight ignorance, is through knowledge: knowledge of Self and Knowledge of God. So, let us pray together, in the words of the Glorious Qur’an: “O my Lord! Increase me in knowledge” [Rabbi zidini ‘ilma] (20:114).

Dr. John Andrew Morrow (Imam Ilyas ‘Abd al-‘Alim Islam) is a Métis Canadian Muslim scholar who embraced Islam over thirty years ago at the age of sixteen. He has studied the Islamic sciences for over three decades at the hands of both traditional Muslim scholars as well as Western academics. He completed post-doctoral studies in Arabic in Fez and Rabat and considers Morocco to be his second home. Dr. Morrow worked as a university professor for two decades, retiring from teaching after reaching the rank of Full Professor. He has authored a vast body of work, including over one hundred academic articles and thirty scholarly books. One of his most influential studies, The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World, inspired the creation of The Covenants Initiative, an international Muslim movement devoted to promoting the letters, treaties, and covenants of the Messenger of Allah with the People of the Book. An activist and advisor to world leaders, he received an ISNA Leadership Award in 2016. He can be followed @drjamorrowwww.johnandrewmorrow.com, and www.covenantsoftheprophet.com. His videos can be viewed on The Covenants of the Prophet Channel on YouTube.

2 de Julio de 2017

Por: Dr. John A. Morrow

“Creo que el Islam nos aborrece”,  afirmó un multimillonario fanfarrón el 09 de marzo de 2016, mientras competía para ser Presidente de los Estados Unidos. Al parecer, muchos estadounidenses comparten dicho sentimiento. Gracias a la propaganda antimusulmana, muchos estadounidenses se envalentonan y consideran correcto odiar a todos los musulmanes de manera abierta, descarada e indiscriminada.

EEUU se edificó sobre el odio: odio a los aborígenes del país, odio a los afroamericanos, odio a los católicos estadounidenses, odio a los hispanoamericanos y odio a los musulmanes estadounidenses. La historia de los Estados Unidos, en gran medida, es una historia de odios.

A la luz de ese vergonzoso legado de intolerancia y fanatismo, no sorprende que a partir de 2017 haya en EEUU 917  de grupos activos fomentando la discriminación. Después de todo, es tan estadounidense como el pastel de manzana (que, por supuesto, realmente es francés canadiense).

Según el Southern Poverty Law Center, 130 de esos grupos discriminadores pertenecen al Ku Klux Klan (KKK), 99 son neonazis, 100 son nacionalistas blancos, 78 son cabezas rapadas racistas, 21 pertenecen a “Identidad Cristiana” (promotores de una interpretación racial del cristianismo), 43 son neoconfederados (separatistas blancos), 193 son separatistas negros, 52 son anti LGBT, 101 antimusulmanes y otros 100 discriminadores en general.

Con la excepción de los grupos separatistas negros, como “La Nación del Islam” (que nada tiene que ver con el Islam como religión), sectas como la de los moros “Nuwaubian Nation” y grupos racistas y antisemitas, como el nuevo Partido Pantera Negra –que se desarrolló como una respuesta natural a la supremacía blanca–, todos los grupos discriminadores activos en Estados Unidos se componen de gente blanca, la mayoría de las cuales se identifican como cristianas.

Estados Unidos está amenazado externa e internamente. Las amenazas internas provienen de grupos discriminadores de extrema derecha, terroristas de izquierda, separatistas puertorriqueños, anarquistas y ecoterroristas. Las externas provienen de grupos aparentemente vinculados con la red yihadista internacional y los estados patrocinadores del terrorismo internacional que atacan al país y sus intereses tanto dentro como fuera de Estados Unidos.

Al-Qaeda fue la mayor amenaza para Estados Unidos en el decenio de 1990 y principios del 2000. Luego fue reemplazada por el grupo terrorista Daesh (ISIS/ISIL). Según los investigadores del Programa sobre Extremismo  de la Universidad George Washington, hay 300 reclutadores del ISIS operando en los Estados Unidos. El FBI informó que contabilizaba 1.000 de ellos. El gobierno estadounidense ha identificado positivamente menos de una docena de estadounidenses que se han unido al ISIS.

Hay más de 1.000 estadounidenses salafitas-wahabitas que apoyan al ISIS. En contraste, en EEUU hay de 5.000 a 8.000 miembros del KKK. Si reunimos a todos los antimusulmanes y supremacistas blancos, estamos tratando con un “Imperio Invisible”, como los llama la “derecha alternativa” (extrema derecha que rechaza a los conservadores que adoptan ideas progresistas), pero que yo prefiero llamarlos el Trailer Park de imbéciles innatos, compuesto por medio millón (o más) de activos promotores de la discriminación y el extremismo violento.

Desde el 2015 la cantidad de grupos discriminadores antiislámicos aumentó un 197%. Los crímenes de odio contra los musulmanes aumentaron 67% en 2015 y en el 2016 un 89%. Esta cuestión nos lleva a preguntar: ¿quién odia a quién?

Por John Andrew Morrow

1° de Julio de 2017

Aunque algunos terroristas, que ya eran propensos al extremismo, han encontrado un hogar confortable en el literalismo Takfiri-Wahabí, la mayoría de ellos son, simplemente, criminales de baja estofa, traficantes de drogas, adictos, proxenetas, pedófilos, violadores y degenerados mentalmente trastornados. Son la escoria de Oriente y Occidente. Son perdedores en esta vida y en el más allá.

Los musulmanes y no musulmanes necesitan entender que los terroristas takfiritas tienen muy poco que ver con el Islam, más allá de una fachada ritualista (grotesca). Aunque a algunos de ellos les han lavado el cerebro y los adoctrinaron en el gueto salafista, los otros son simplemente mercenarios que asesinan por dinero. En la mayoría de los casos notorios, los agresores no son más que instrumentos. Los verdaderos delincuentes son los expertos que llevan adelante las operaciones clandestinas, es decir, quienes planean y ejecutan las operaciones (terroristas) de bandera falsa.

El takfirismo y la islamofobia son las dos caras de una misma moneda. Ambos son impulsados por las mismas fuerzas (del mal). El denominado terrorismo islámico está orquestado por las mismas personas que se presentan como contrarias al terrorismo islámico. El takfirismo y la islamofobia fueron creados para llevar adelante planes geopolíticos de hegemonía demoníaca.

En el Oriente Musulmán, en el norte y oeste de África, los musulmanes y no musulmanes son masacrados en nombre del Islam por personas a las que generalmente se las presenta  como musulmanas a través de un cruzada llevada adelante por los principales medios de comunicación. Y digo esto porque los supuestos perpetradores de esos crímenes “aparecen muertos” antes de que pueden ser interrogados para conocer sus motivaciones, las que aún son un misterio. La región se desestabilizó y despobló de musulmanes y no musulmanes debido a las guerras por encargo entre las fuerzas autoritarias locales y las potencias totalitarias. Para estos, cientos de miles de muertes son casi nada con tal de tener acceso a los recursos energéticos y a los contratos de reconstrucción (de lo que ellos mismos destruyen).

En el mundo occidental, los no-musulmanes (junto con algunos musulmanes) son masacrados en nombre del Islam por personas a las que se considera musulmanas. El aumento de la islamofobia y los ataques contra miles de musulmanes resulta beneficioso. Ayuda a desviar la opinión pública de los crímenes cometidos por las potencias occidentales en el país y en el extranjero. Los Estados Unidos, por ejemplo,  mataron a más de 20 millones de personas en 37 naciones desde la segunda guerra mundial.

Los no musulmanes denuncian los ataques contra los Estados Unidos atribuidos a los musulmanes, pero permanecen totalmente ajeno o incluso justifican los ataques norteamericanos contra los musulmanes. La invasión y ocupación de Irak por parte de los Estados Unidos, dio lugar a la muerte de más de un  millón de musulmanes. Otro medio millón de musulmanes perdieron la vida en la llamada “guerra contra el terrorismo” llevada adelante por Estados Unidos desde el 11 de septiembre de 2001. Según los cálculos de la mayoría de los expertos, hay aproximadamente 100.000 terroristas takfiritas en el mundo. Si el mundo occidental ha asesinado a 1,5 millones de musulmanes en su intento por erradicar los 100.000 terroristas, la “guerra contra el terrorismo” ha sido un fracaso: se ha convertido en una “guerra terrorista”.

TERRORISMO FABRICADO

Hay amenazas reales y sustanciales que no necesitan ser fabricadas  y preparadas. La violencia armada común y corriente de un “lobo solitario” es para los norteamericanos una amenaza mayor que la del “terrorismo interno” según el estudio estadístico. En el período 2002-2011 hubo aproximadamente 118.000 asesinados con armas y menos de 3.000 atribuibles al terrorismo. Por eso es que no resulta difícil entender porqué el FBI está desesperadamente decidido a crear un extremismo o terrorismo nacional, al que supuestamente derrotaría, además de ocuparse del otro terrorismo (islámico).

Individuos informados y conscientes saben muy bien que las potencias occidentales convivieron “fraternalmente” con los terroristas takfiritas desde el siglo pasado, luego de la caída del sultanato otomano, hasta ahora. Es decir, respaldaron a los criminales “educados” en las madrasas financiadas por Arabia y que se esparcen por Afganistán, Irak, Siria y Yemen. Los Imperios del Mal de la Época apoyan y se oponen a la vez a los takfiritas que llevaron (y llevan) la muerte y destrucción al mundo musulmán y cristiano.

El FBI, en su último recuento, tenía más de 1.000 miembros del ISIS bajo vigilancia en los Estados Unidos. La administración de Estados Unidos, tanto bajo Obama y Trump, se negó y niega  a capturarlos, acusarlos, enjuiciarlos y castigarlos. Mientras Washington habla oficialmente de una disposición antiislámica, permite que los delincuentes del ISIS gocen de libertad para planear ataques terroristas contra la patria. Esos elementos terroristas, conocidos y vigilados por la CIA, el FBI y la NSA, cometen una y otra vez  asesinatos en masa en suelo estadounidense.

Aunque las naciones europeas se presentan en cierta manera como críticas de los Estados Unidos, comparten claramente la misma agenda encubierta. Europol informó que según sus últimos datos en la Unión Europea había 5.000 combatientes de ISIS operando sin inconvenientes. Gente que era conocida y vigilada por las agencias de inteligencia europeas y británicas, asesinaron una y otra vez a muchas personas en Europa y el Reino Unido.

Veamos las cosas como son. Vivimos en una sociedad bajo control. Julián Assange, Chelsea Manning y Edward Snowden han dejado esto muy claro. Nuestros gobiernos reúnen información de todos nosotros. Las agencias de inteligencia, como la NSA, olfatean todo, recogen todo, saben todo, procesan todo y se aprovechan de todo. Los gobiernos de los Estados Unidos, el Reino Unido y Europa occidental saben quienes son los terroristas. De hecho, los conocen muy bien, por el nombre y el apellido.

Aunque pueda ser asombroso, sorprendente o desconcertante para la mayoría, el Departamento de Estado de Estados Unidos tiene los nombres de más de cien mil terroristas en una lista secreta. Y aunque podría ser más complicado capturar a los criminales en el extranjero, es algo posible. Más aún, nada impide en verdad que los Estados Unidos detenga a mil miembros del ISIS que son ciudadanos estadounidenses y residen aquí.

En el marco de la “Lucha Contra el Extremismo Violento” (CVE), la detención y enjuiciamiento son recursos de última instancia. Para los llamados expertos dentro del gobierno de Estados Unidos, el objetivo final es ayudar a los terroristas a convertirse en miembros respetuosos de la ley y productivos para la sociedad. En vez de mostrar simpatía por las víctimas de esos subhumanos con convicciones satánicas, los personeros de la CVE se presentan piadosos con los terroristas y los comprenden porque es gente mentalmente traumatizada, estigmatizada y condenada al ostracismo por los crímenes que cometieron. O los apoyan explícitamente.

En lugar de centrarse en lo que implican, en la prevención (de sus actividades), en impedir legalmente su libre movimiento, en rehabilitarlos y reinsertarlos en la sociedad, las autoridades occidentales deben reconsiderar sus criterios ilusos y centrarse en la detención, procesamiento, encarcelamiento o ejecución (de los mismos). Si, como admiten, las agencias de inteligencia occidentales siguen a miles y miles de terroristas sanguinarios, uno debe preguntarse razonablemente: ¿a qué se debe que se nieguen a detenerlos por razones de seguridad nacional? Para los analistas de inteligencia, la respuesta es obvia: los terroristas están a su servicio. Son recursos valiosos e imbéciles útiles.

Según Fedro, “las cosas no siempre son lo que parecen; el primer aspecto engaña a muchos; lo que se ha ocultado cuidadosamente lo percibe la inteligencia de unos pocos”. Lo que estamos presenciando en el mundo es todo teatro. Estratos superpuestos de mentiras. La gente ve a las marionetas, a los títeres. Pero no ve a los titiriteros: la Mano Oculta. Si las amplísimas poblaciones  de musulmanes y no musulmanes no abren sus corazones y mentes, no se liberarán nunca del (núcleo) principal (en la sombra, los titiriteros). 

“““““

El Dr. John Andrew Morrow (Ilyas ‘Abd al-‘ Alim Islam) es nativo de la Isla de la Tortuga y un orgulloso miembro de la Nación Métis, el Michif-Otipemisiwak, el Pueblo Libre, el Pueblo sin Amos. Recibió su doctorado de la Universidad de Toronto en el año 2000. Es autor de más de 30 libros académicos, incluido el aclamado bestseller de Amazon, “Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo”.

Su sitios web es http://www.covenantsoftheprophet.com y www.johnandrewmorrow.com.

Sus videos y conferencias pueden encontrarse en el canal en YouTube  “Los Pactos del Profeta”:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqM3-puvWuKuCEJsDQDZFrA.

Su cuenta de Facebook incluye @johnandrewmorrow y @covenantsoftheprophet.

Su Twitter es @drjamorrow.

Acerca de John Andrew Morrow ver:

https://crescent.icit-digital.org/authors/john-andrew-morrow

By John Andrew Morrow

Shawwal 07, 1438

“I think Islam hates us,” stated a big-mouthed billionaire buffoon on March 9, 2016, while he was running for president of the United States. Apparently, many Americans share these sentiments. Thanks to anti-Muslim propagandizing, many Americans are empowered and emboldened to hate all Muslims, openly, unabashedly, and indiscriminately.

America was built on hate: hate of American Indians; hate of African Americans; hate of Catholic Americans; hate of Hispanic Americans; and hate of Muslim Americans. The history of the United States is very much a history of hatred.

In light of its shameful legacy of intolerance and bigotry, it comes as no surprise that, as of 2017, there are 917 active hate groups operating in the United States. After all, hatred is as American as apple pie (which, of course, is really French Canadian).

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, 130 of these hate groups belong to the Ku Klux Klan (KKK); 99 of them are neo-Nazi; 100 of them are white nationalists; 78 are racist skinheads; 21 of them are Christian Identity; 43 of them are neo-Confederate; 193 are black separatist; 52 are anti-LGBT, 101 are anti-Muslim; and a final 100 espouse hatred in general (at least they don’t discriminate in matters of hatred).

With the exception of black separatist groups such as the Nation of Islam (which has nothing to do with Islam as a world religion), cults like the Nuwaubian Nation of Moors, as well as racist and anti-Semitic groups like the New Black Panther Party, all of which developed as a natural response to white supremacy, all of the active hate groups in the US are composed of white people, most of whom identify as Christians.

Threats to the US are both domestic and international. Domestic threats come from formal right-wing hate groups, left-wing terrorists, Puerto Rican separatists, anarchists, and eco-terrorists. International threats come from groups often referred to as the radical international jihad network, and state sponsors of international terrorism that attack US interests both at home and abroad.

If al-Qaeda was the major threat to the US in the 1990s and early-2000s, the terrorist group Da‘ish (aka ISIS/ISIL) has supplanted it since. According to researchers at George Washington University’s Program on Extremism, there are 300 active ISIS recruiters operating in the US. At last count, the FBI reported that it was conducting 1,000 active ISIS probes in the country. The US government has positively identified fewer than 12 Americans who have joined ISIS.

There are over 1,000 Salafi-Wahhabi Americans who support ISIS. In contrast, there are 5,000 to 8,000 members of the KKK in the US. If we combine all anti-Muslim and white supremacist groups, we are dealing with an “Invisible Empire,” as they are called by the alt-right, but which I prefer to call the Trailer Park of Inbred Imbeciles, composed of half a million (or more) active hate-mongers and violent extremists.

There has been a 197% increase in anti-Muslim hate groups since 2015. Anti-Muslim hate crimes increased 67% in 2015. By 2016, hate crimes against Muslims had increased by 89%. The question begs to be asked: who hates whom?

By John Andrew Morrow

Shawwal 07, 1438

Although some terrorists who were already prone to extremism have found a comfortable home in Takfiri-Wahhabi literalism, most of them are merely low-life criminals, drug dealers, substance abusers, pimps, pedophiles, rapists, and mentally deranged degenerates. They are the scum of the East and West. They are losers in this life and the hereafter.

Muslims and non-Muslims need to understand that takfiri terrorists have very little to do with Islam beyond a veneer of public ritualism. Although some of them have been brainwashed and indoctrinated into Ghetto or Street Salafism, others are just mercenaries out for murder and money. In most of the high-profile cases, the perpetrators were merely pawns. The real criminals were the clandestine operations experts who planned and executed the false flag operations in question.

Takfirism and Islamophobia are two sides of the same coin. They are both fueled by the same forces. So-called Islamic terror is orchestrated by the same people who are waging the war on Islamic terror. Takfirism and Islamophobia are employed to advance a geopolitical agenda that is both hegemonic and demonic.

In the Muslim East, North Africa, and West Africa, Muslims and non-Muslims are massacred in the name of Islam by people who are generally projected to be Muslims by a crusading mainstream media (since the vast majority of them are “dead by design” before they can be interrogated, their innate motivations are still a mystery). The region is destabilized and depopulated of Muslims and non-Muslims in proxy wars between authoritarian local powers and totalitarian world powers. Hundreds of thousands of deaths are a small price to pay for access to energy resources and reconstruction contracts.

In the Western world, non-Muslims (along with some Muslims) are massacred in the name of Islam by people who are once again projected to be Muslims. The rise of Islamophobia and attacks against thousands of Muslims is but a bonus. It helps to deflect public opinion from the crimes committed by Western powers both at home and abroad. The United States, for example, has killed more than 20 million people in 37 victim nations since World War II.

Non-Muslims denounce attacks against America attributed to Muslims while remaining completely oblivious or even justifying American attacks against Muslims. The US invasion and occupation of Iraq resulted in over one million Muslim deaths. Another half a million Muslims have lost their lives in the US-led “War on Terror” since September 11, 2001. According to the calculations of most experts, there are approximately 100,000 takfiri terrorists in the world. If the Western world has murdered 1.5 million Muslims in their self-professed attempt to eradicate 100,000 terrorists, the “War on Terror” has been a failure: it has become a “War of Terror.”

Threats that are real, and substantial, do not need to be manufactured and concocted. Run-of-the-mill “lone wolf” gun violence is so much of a greater threat to Americans than “domestic terror” by every statistical metric that it is almost impossible to overstate the disparity (from 2002–2011, there were approximately 118,000 gun murders in the US as compared to less than 3,000 deaths attributable to terrorism). In that regard, it is not difficult to understand why “domestic terror” and “homegrown extremism” are things the FBI is desperately determined to create.

Informed and conscientious individuals are well aware that Western powers have been in bed with takfiri terrorists for the past century, from the fall of the Ottoman Sultanate to the present, supporting the very criminals they cultivated in the Saudi-financed madrasahs peppered across Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. The Evil Empires of the Age are simultaneously supporting and opposing the controlled takfiris who have rained down death and destruction in both the Muslim world and the scorched remains of the Christian world.

At last count, the FBI had over 1,000 ISIS members under surveillance in the United States. The US administration, under both Obama and Trump, refuses to round them up, charge them, prosecute them, and punish them. And while official Washington has preached about a Muslim Ban, it continues to allow ISIS-affiliated criminals the liberty to plot and plan terror attacks against the homeland. Time and again, mass murder is committed on US soil by parties who were both known and surveilled by the CIA, FBI, and NSA.

As much as they may appear critical of the United States, European nations clearly share the same covert agenda. At last count, Europol reported that there were 5,000 ISIS fighters operating freely in the European Union. Repeatedly, mass murder is committed in Europe and the United Kingdom by parties who were both known and surveilled by European and British intelligence agencies.

Let’s face facts. We live in a surveillance society. Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, and Edward Snowden have made that abundantly clear. Our governments gather information on all of us. Intelligence agencies like the NSA sniff it all, collect it all, know it all, process it all, and exploit it all. The governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Western Europe know who the terrorists are. In fact, they know them on a first name basis.

While it may be startling, unnerving or perplexing to most, the US State Department has the names of over 100,000 known terrorists on a secret list. And while it might be more complicated to round up criminals from abroad, it remains within the realm of possibility. What is more, nothing truly prevents the United States from detaining those 1,000 ISIS members, both citizens and residents, who are currently on our soil.

According to the framework of “Countering Violent Extremism,” arrest and prosecution are intended as a measure of last resort. For the so-called experts at the service of the US government, the final goal is helping terrorists to become law-abiding and productive members of society. Rather than show sympathy for the victims of these sub-humans and their satanic persuasion, the proponents of CVE pity the poor little terrorists, and sympathize with the fact that they are mentally traumatized, stigmatized, and ostracized for the crimes they committed or explicitly support.

Rather than focus on engagement, prevention, intervention, interdiction, rehabilitation and integration, Western authorities should reconsider their naive notions, and focus on detention, prosecution, incarceration, or execution. If, as they admit, Western intelligence agencies are tracking thousands upon thousands of bloodthirsty terrorists, why, one must reasonably ask, do they refuse to detain them for reasons of national security? For intelligence analysts, the answer is obvious: the terrorists are at their service. They are valuable assets and useful idiots.

As Phaedrus stated, “Things are not always what they seem; the first appearance deceives many; the intelligence of a few perceives what has been carefully hidden.” What we are witnessing in the world is all theater. Layers and layers of lies. People just see the puppet patsies. They fail to see the puppet-masters: the Hidden Hand. Unless they open their hearts and minds, the masses of Muslims and non-Muslims will never free themselves from the Matrix.

Dr. John Andrew Morrow (Ilyas ‘Abd al-‘Alim Islam) is an indigenous inhabitant of Turtle Island and a proud member of the Métis Nation, the Michif-Otipemisiwak, the Free People, the People Who Own Themselves. He received his PhD from the University of Toronto in the year 2000. He is the author of over 30 scholarly books, including the critically-acclaimed Amazon best-seller, 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. His Twitter handle is @drjamorrow.

By2017-06-29

By Alhaj A.H.M. Azwer

We celebrated Eid Ul Fitr once again by the Grace of Allah. I hope and pray that we all have strived to get the full benefits of Ramadhan this year and celebrate Eid in its true spirit.

We correct our mistakes, become new persons and lay the foundation to carry forward all those meritorious acts in the coming year. We have increased our ‘Taqwa’ (a status of being conscious of God), which is the real purpose of fasting during Ramadhan.

Muslims are tested in various ways, the latest being the fearmongering by certain groups that they will be ruled under Shariah or Islamic law in Sri Lanka and they stand to lose their freedom. This is a baseless allegation, therefore it becomes imperative for Muslims of Sri Lanka to clear this misunderstanding among non-Muslims. It is forbidden to force anything on others.

Let it be known that under an ideal Islamic Government, “non-Muslims will have the same political and cultural rights as Muslims. They will have autonomy and freedom of religion.” This clause was enshrined in the Constitution of Medina, also known as the Charter of Medina under the instructions of Prophet Mohammed (S) when it was drafted in 622 CE.

Dr. John Andrew Morrow, author of The Covenants of Prophet Muhammad (Angelico Press 2013), commends this exemplary conduct of Prophet Mohammed (S) and opined that under the Constitution of Medina:

“Identity and loyalty were no longer to be based on family, tribe, kinship, or even religion. The overriding identity was membership in the ummah (nation) of Muhammad. The Constitution of Medina decreed that the citizens of the Islamic state 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 (nation). In doing so, he created a tolerant, pluralistic government which protected religious freedom. The importance of this is so extraordinary that it is often misunderstood.”

Islamic nation

Thus it is abundantly clear that in modern political parlance an Islamic nation is essentially secular in its outlook, which may come as a surprise to many. To the well-informed Muslims and non-Muslims alike this is not a surprise at all. Tolerance is important in Islam, and justice is equal to all as Andrew Murray stressed “even Muhammad the Messenger of Allah was not above the law.”

If Muslims have taken a little effort to spread this message, we would not have seen the misunderstandings that are prevalent regarding Islam in our society today. On this blessed day I urge my fellow Muslims take this as a religious duty and make a sincere effort to clear the doubts that exist among non-Muslims, not only on this issue but on countless other issues.

Overall it has been a tough year for the country. We faced many calamities including the heatwave and the flood disaster. All communities rose to the occasion as a single family and overcame the disastrous situation demonstrating that our strength lies in unity. By the Grace of God we can overcome even tougher situations and progress if we are united as one nation.

New era

Let the celebrations usher in a new era for us as Muslims of Sri Lanka. Let us learn from our mistakes and pray for peace and prosperity in our beloved Motherland. Our prayers are also for the struggling brethren in rest of the world. May Allah alleviate their sufferings and grant them success.

ahmazwer08@gmail.com

Another good article from Dr. Morrow. -KB

US Military Actively Training White Supremacist Terrorists

By Dr. John Andrew Morrow

For over a decade and a half the US claims to be engaged in a War against Terror. However, when one looks at the body count of civilian casualties, the death of each one being a crime of war, there is little doubt that the US is waging a War of Terror.

If the US Government is spreading death, destruction, and chaos internationally, it is also spreading death, destruction, and chaos nationally by permitting its military to train white supremacists and pseudo-Christian terrorists.

Take, for example, the case of Timothy McVeigh who graduated from the US Army Infantry School at Fort Benning, Georgia. Although he was repranded by the military for buying a “White Power” t-shirt at a Ku Klux Klan protest, McVeigh acquired expertise in firearms, sniper tactics, and explosives and became a top-scoring gunner. It was at Fort Benning that he befriended Terry Nichols, another white supremacist who served a one-year stint in the US Army from 1988 to 1989.

Deployed to Operation Desert Storm, McVeigh reported that he decapitated an Iraqi soldier with cannon fire on his first day and celebrated his achievement. After serving in Iraq, he was honorably discharged in 1991.

According to official accounts, on April 19, 1995, McVeigh took a truck, containing a 5,000-pound bomb he and Terry Nichols had constructed, and parked it in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Het set a two-minute fuse and fled from the area.

At 9:02 a.m., a devastating explosion tore down the north half of the building. It destroyed or damaged over three hundred other buildings, shattered glass in over two hundred and fifty other buildings, and scorched nearly one hundred cars. The blast caused over six hundred and fifty million dollars in damage. In total, 168 people were killed, including 19 children in a day care. 684 other people were injured. Known as the Oklahoma City Bombing, it was the deadliest terrorist attack on US soil until the event of September 11th, 2001.

Timothy McVeigh was raised Catholic and received his confirmation. When interviewed after the terrorist attack, he stated that he believed in God and that he always maintained core Christian beliefs. He was strongly influenced by the Christian Identity Movement and the Turner Diaries in particular. As for Terry Nichols, McVeigh co-conspirator, he was a born-again Christian when he committed the terrorist attack.

The unrepentant McVeigh was a Christian until the moment he died. In fact, he received the Last Rites from a priest before he was put to death in June of 2001. As regards Terry Nichols, he is currently serving 161 life-sentences without possibility of parole. He is so profoundly Christian that he had worn out numerous Bibles through prayer. In fact, defense attorney Creekmore Wallace stated that “Terry Nichols’ belief in God is so firm that he believes if the rapture occurred today he is going to heaven.” By Jove! I think I have it: Christianity + White Supremacy + US Army Training = Terrorism.

While there is no doubt that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols can be categorized as white supremacists and Christian fundamentalists, there are serious doubts with the official narrative. Although McVeigh may have been responsible for parking the truck, there is no evidence that he planted the other explosives that reportedly contributed to the blast.

Although there were four separate security cameras aimed at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building at the time of the explosion, the footage from all of them is missing at points immediately before 9:02 a.m. The government alleges that the gap in footage was the result of replacing the tapes; however, it is not reasonable to believe that all four different cameras were out of operation during the critical, potentially incriminating moment, right before the bombing.

Whether McVeigh and Nichols were both connected with al-Qaedah, neo-Nazis, the CIA or the Deep State, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that they did not act alone. Nichols is a man of limited intellectual powers while McVeigh did not have the skill set required to organize and execute a deadly conspiracy of such magnitude. If anything, they were but pawns, patsies, and scapegoats. The “other unknowns,” orchestrators and accomplices, have yet to be positively identified.

For an assessment of the evidence, readers can refer to William F. Jasper’s “Proof of Bombs and Coverup” (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/13/oklahoma-city-bombing-20-years-later-key-questions-remain-unanswered) as well as Andrew Gumbel’s “Oklahoma City Bombing: 20 Years Later” (https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/16440-proof-of-bombs-and-coverup).

Whether it’s the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Twin Towers, or the scores of other terrorist attacks committed in North America, Europe, and elsewhere, the official explanations from Western governments are untenable. Time and again, we are told that radicalized individuals, both Christian and Muslim, are the culprits. They are always immediately identified, with a handy passport or ID that miraculously survives, and were always “known to intelligence agencies.” If terrorists do no blow themselves into oblivion, they are killed rather than apprehended. As the saying goes, “dead men don’t speak.” In other words, they cannot identify their handlers.

Although the Western propaganda machine is obsessed with the threat of so-called radical Muslims, it pays insufficient attention to the threat of so-called radical Christians and entirely ignores the malevolent forces that foster them both. Regardless of their professed religion, terrorists are but puppets on a string.

As the FBI acknowledges, there are hundreds of white supremacists, pseudo-Christian fundamentalists, radical right-wing survivalists, and anti-government extremists in the US Armed Forces and veteran community. According to the calculations of other analysts, they number in the thousands. Between 2001 and 2008, the FBI investigated 203 cases of white supremacist extremists in the veteran community. Evidently, these hate-filled fanatics represent a tiny minority. This does not, however, minimize the threat that they pose. They have both the military means and the intent to act. 

In the words of Charles Wilson, the spokesperson for the National Socialist Movement, the largest neo-Nazi group in the United States: “We do encourage [our members] to sign up for the military. We can use the training to secure the resistance to our government. Every one of them takes a pact of secrecy … Our military doesn’t agree with our political beliefs, they are not supposed to be in the military, but they’re there, in ever greater numbers.”

A report released in 2006 by the National Gang Intelligence Center, which operates under the Department of Justice, noted that: “various white supremacist groups have been documented on military installations both domestically and internationally.”

According to Scott Barfield, a gang detective who works for the Department of Defense, Neo-Nazis “stretch across all branches of service, they are linking up across the branches once they’re inside, and they are hard-core.” In fact, as Matt Kennard revealed in 2012, the US Military has been recruiting neo-Nazis, gang-members, criminals, and the mentally-unfit to fight the War on Terror; namely, to target Muslims both at home and abroad.

The claim that Muslim servicemen in the US Armed Forces represent some sort of fifth column is false. Apart from an occasional lunatic, they are loyal and patriotic Americans. Muslims have been serving in the US military since the time of the Revolutionary War. They served in World War I and World War II. They served in the Gulf War, the Iraq War, and the War in Afghanistan. They number in the tens of thousands.

White supremacists, neo-Nazis, skin-heads, and pseudo-Christian extremists, however, have been infiltrating the US military for decades. What is more, T.J. Leyden, a former skin-head who served in the US Marines, reports that neo-Nazi groups actively attempt to recruit on-duty personnel outside of every major military installation.

Whether they enter the US military as extremists or are radicalized during their service, these anti-government white supremacists and pseudo-Christian extremists all share a common goal: acquire military experience at the expense of American tax-payers in preparation for a racial and religious war. We need not look to the Middle East for signs of Armageddon: the apocalypse is brewing in our own backyard.

If there is no place for so-called radical Muslims in the US Military, there is no place for so-called radical Christians and right-wing racists as well. Rather than open the gates of hell by training criminals, gang-members, racists, fanatics, and bigots, the Armed Forces of the United States should discharge these dangerous individuals and adopt a more selective recruitment policy. Let us not be the tools of our own destruction.

If it is ironic that so-called radical Muslims are serving the interests of the infidel elites, it is even more ironic that so-called radical Christians are serving the interests of the same infidel elites: the real “white supremacists” in the sense that they are a predominantly white elite dedicated to maintaining their global supremacy.

Just like the globalists recruit rejects from ethnic Muslim communities to launch false flag operations, they recruit rejects from Caucasian Christian communities to commit crimes on their behalf. Although they own and control both parties, they pit them against each other in a blood match.

So long as Muslims, Christians, and Jews hate one another, and blame each other for all the evils in the world, the True Masters of the World will continue to reign unfettered. The white supremacists in our military represent a real danger; however, they are merely the dogs of war of the most dangerous of white supremacists: the cabal of globalists, the 1% who control most of the world’s wealth while the 99% scramble for the scraps.

Behind every so-called white trash supremacist, there is white globalist garbage, Malthusian madmen and Mistresses of the Feast who hold all human beings in contempt regardless of race, color, nationality or religion. There is no room for us, the 99%, at the table of the 1%.

Dr. John Andrew Morrow is an Amerindian with Canadian and American citizenship. He received his PhD from the University of Toronto in the year 2000. He worked as an Assistant, Associate, and Full Professor of Foreign Languages for over a decade and a half at Park University, Northern State University, Eastern New Mexico University, the University of Virginia, and Ivy Tech Community College. He is the author of over thirty academic books in the fields of Hispanic, Islamic, and Indigenous Studies. A public figure and activist, he lectures all around the globe and acts as an advisor to world leaders. In recognition for his accomplishments, Dr. Morrow received an ISNA Interfaith Leadership Award in 2016. He may be followed on Twitter at @drjamorrow. His websites are www.johnandrewmorrow.com as well as www.covenantsoftheprophet.com. His videos can be viewed on The Covenants of the Prophet Channel on YouTube

Les statistiques du FBI de 2016 étant encore préliminaires, cette étude est basée sur les résultats complets couvrant l’année 2015. 

Si les hommes blancs, principalement chrétiens, étaient tous rapatriés en Europe ou ailleurs d’où ils sont venus, le taux de criminalité en Amérique diminuerait de près de 70%. Si nous déportons tous les chrétiens américains, y compris les Afro-Américains et les Hispano-Américains, qui constituent 71% de la population américaine, dans le cadre de ce plan de rapatriement, la criminalité serait presque éradiquée. Les statistiques parlent d’elles-mêmes.

Au cours de l’année en question, 3.908 Américains blancs ont été accusés de meurtre ou d’homicide involontaire, 11.809 ont été accusés de viol,

32.439 ont été accusés de vol,

184.024 d’agression aggravée,

112.992 de cambriolage,

621.585 de vol,

4.952 d’incendie criminel,

234.190 de crime violent,

779.529 de crime contre la propriété d’autrui,

544.870 pour d’autres types d’agression,

27.429 de faux et contrefaçon,

67.594 de fraude, 7.278 de détournement de fonds,

44.561 de vol ,

101.481 de vandalisme,

63.967 d’infractions sur les armes,

17.084 de prostitution,

28.650 d’infractions sexuelles,

803.809 de toxicomanie,

1.296 de jeux illégaux,

47.312 de crimes contre les familles et les enfants,

681.638 de conduite sous influence (alcool ou drogue),

160.628 en violation des lois sur les spiritueux ,

239.556 d’ivresse publique,

189.321 de conduite désordonnée,

13.247 de vagabondage et 17.782 de vagabondage suspect.

Les Américains de race blanche, dont 70% sont chrétiens, sont responsables d’un énorme 69,7% des crimes commis aux États-Unis en 2015. 26,7% des crimes ont été commis par des Afro-Américains, dont 83% sont chrétiens, alors que 18,4% des crimes étaient commis par des Hispaniques, dont 98% sont chrétiens. De toute évidence, certains suggèrent qu’il existerait une corrélation entre les chrétiens et la criminalité ainsi qu’une corrélation entre les Blancs et le crime. Les Indiens d’Amérique, en revanche, ont commis seulement 2,1% des crimes dans le pays. Les Blancs et les chrétiens viennent dans notre terre indigène et ne respectent pas nos lois. Plutôt que de contribuer au bonheur du pays, ils répandent la criminalité et passent leur temps à agresser sexuellement les femmes. Le taux de criminalité des blancs contre  blancs et de chrétiens contre chrétiens en Amérique est étonnant.

Si les hommes blancs, principalement chrétiens, étaient tous déportés en Europe ou dans l’île de Patmos, le taux de criminalité en Amérique diminuerait de près de 70%. Si nous déportons tous les chrétiens américains, y compris les Afro-Américains et les Hispano-Américains, qui constituent 71% de la population américaine, dans le cadre de ce plan de rapatriement, la criminalité serait presque éradiquée. Les statistiques parlent d’elles-mêmes. Sur les dizaines de milliers de femmes agressées sexuellement par des hommes misogynes violents en 2015, 57% ont été violées par des hommes blancs majoritairement chrétiens et 27% par des hommes noirs majoritairement chrétiens. Quant au reste des criminels, leur origine ethnique était inconnue ou mixte. On peut seulement supposer que beaucoup d’entre eux étaient des hommes hispaniques chrétiens.

Avec 1%, les musulmans américains sont une partie minuscule de la population. Ils ont le deuxième niveau d’éducation le plus élevé de n’importe quel groupe dans le pays, dépassé uniquement par les Juifs américains. En ce qui concerne l’éducation, les musulmans américains sont en avance sur tous les groupes dans l’égalité des sexes: les femmes musulmanes avec des diplômes universitaires sont plus nombreuses que les hommes musulmans. Les femmes musulmanes sont également plus susceptibles de travailler en tant que professionnelles que les femmes de la plupart des autres groupes religieux. Le nombre de crimes commis par les musulmans américains est microscopique. En fait, ils sont parmi les citoyens les plus honorables et respectueux des lois des États-Unis. Chrétiens blancs: cessez de blâmer les Noirs, les Latinos, les immigrants, les étrangers illégaux et les Musulmans pour la criminalité. D’un point de vue statistique, les musulmans ne sont pas une menace pour l’Amérique. Les faits sont têtus : la majorité écrasante des crimes dans ce pays sont commis par des blancs et des chrétiens. Les musulmans pourraient « vous tuer » de gentillesse et d’hospitalité. Les non-musulmans vont vous violer, vous voler et vous tuer de façon réelle.

Dr John Andrew Morrow

habitant indigène de Turtle Island. C’est un membre fier de la nation métisse, les Michif-Otipemisiwak, les Gens Libres, les Gens qui s’auto-possèdent. Il a reçu son doctorat de l’Université de Toronto en l’an 2000. Il est l’auteur de plus de trente livres scolaires, y compris le best-seller d’Amazone, les Pactes du Prophète Muhammad avec les chrétiens du monde. Ses sites Web incluent www.covenantsoftheprophet.com and www.johnandrewmorrow.com.

June 19, 2017

SHAFAQNA – Teniendo en cuenta la amnesia colectiva de la mayoría de la comunidad musulmana a lo largo del siglo pasado, el renacimiento de los Pactos del Profeta es un fenómeno de considerable importancia. En consecuencia, cuando una experta antiterrorista como Humera Khan declara “nosotros no necesitamos esos documentos”, estamos obligados a formular una pregunta esencial: ¿quiénes no los necesitan? ¿quiénes son “nosotros”?

Humera Khan es Directora Ejecutiva de “Muflehun”, organismo al que se describe como «un grupo de expertos especializados en prevenir la radicalización y combatir al extremismo violento (CEV)». Sus áreas de especialización incluyen «Combatir al Extremismo Violento (CEV), Medios de Difusión y la CEV, Estrategias de Seguridad, Estudios Islámicos, Ideología del Extremismo Violento, Las Mujeres y la Seguridad, Programas para la Juventud de CEV, Radicalización Online, Programas de la CEV para Mujeres». Humera «sirve como asesora al gobierno de Estados Unidos (incluidos el FBI, DHS, DOJ, DNI, DOS, NCTC, NSC y TSA) y a distintos organismos de seguridad europeos». En reconocimiento por sus servicios, recibió el Premio al Liderazgo Comunitario por parte del Director del FBI en 2012.

Es posible que con “nosotros” se refiera a “nosotros los musulmanes”. Entonces se podría leer: “nosotros los musulmanes no necesitamos esos documentos”. De todos modos, resulta incomprensible el motivo por el que un líder musulmán rechazaría documentos de semejante envergadura socio-política. Los Pactos del Profeta incentivan de una manera espectacular la tolerancia, la inclusión y la convivencia pacífica entre los miembros de todas las religiones. Afirmar que los musulmanes no los necesitamos, es lo mismo que decir que los países no necesitan sus respectivas Constituciones o que los seres humanos no necesitan la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos.

También podría ser que “nosotros” tenga un significado más amplio. Por ejemplo, “nosotros, los seres humanos, no necesitamos esos documentos”. Es decir, quizás sean de interés para los musulmanes pero no significarían nada para los no musulmanes. Pero en este caso se estaría despreciando lo que sí fue durante mucho tiempo de una importancia vital para judíos, samaritanos, cristianos y zoroastrianos, con el valor de pólizas de seguro efectivas en lo que hacía a la protección de sus vidas, derechos religiosos, propiedad y libertades. Decir “nosotros, los seres humanos, no necesitamos esos documentos”, es privar a los no-musulmanes de su identidad y existencia en el mundo islámico.

Pero es posible que el misterioso “nosotros” tuviese connotaciones más siniestras y transmita el sentido “nosotros, el FBI o el Departamento de Estado, no necesitamos esos documentos”. Para ellos, antes que representar un beneficio, representarían una desventaja puesto que interfieren directamente en la dicotomía impuesta de “musulmanes buenos” y “musulmanes malos”. Los “buenos” serían los que promueven los planes y formas de vida de Occidente y los “malos” los que defienden la soberanía de sus tierras y las formas de vida islámicas. Hay que recordar que la mayoría de los países occidentales, incluyendo el gobierno de Estados Unidos, han aceptado los principios del CEV (Combating Violent Extremism); o sea, la Estrategia para Combatir al Extremismo Violento.

Mientras que nadie en su sano juicio se opone a la lucha contra el extremismo violento, Peter Romaniuk, en “¿Funciona la Estrategia para Combatir al Extremismo Violento? Lecciones Aprendidas del Esfuerzo Global Para Oponerse al Extremismo Violento”, llega a la conclusión de que “los logros de la CEV en la práctica, aún no son proporcionales a su importancia en el discurso público”. Que la CEV se centre en la rehabilitación y reinserción de los delincuentes violentos, es una manifestación del sinsentido liberal. No estamos tratando con jóvenes descarriados que fuman marihuana, duermen en exceso con muchachas y consumen cantidades exageradas de alcohol. Se trata de gente que viola, tortura y asesina en masa. No deberíamos tratarlos como infantes. Deberíamos eliminarlos. Aquí radica la diferencia fundamental entre los partidarios de la CEV y los partidarios de la Iniciativa de los Pactos. Estos son claros: exigen justicia. Los crímenes graves como abuso sexual, trata de personas, crímenes de guerra y genocidio, no deben quedar impunes. Y si quedan impunes ello hará temblar el Trono Majestuoso.

¿Quiénes son “nosotros”? Si algo está claro, es que “nosotros” no son “quienes” pensamos. “Nosotros” no podría ser el colectivo musulmán. El argumento de que el Corán es todo lo que los musulmanes necesitan es coránicamente inadmisible. Dice Dios Todopoderoso, “obedece a Allah y obedece al Mensajero” (3:31; 4:59; 5:92; 24:54; 64:12). Y el Corán dice explícitamente: “quien obedece al Mensajero ha obedecido a Allah” (4:79). También se establece definidamente que “quien desobedezca a Allah y a su Mensajero indudablemente está equivocado” (33:36).

Si el Corán es lo único que necesitamos los musulmanes, ¿por qué no quemar todos los libros de tradiciones? ¿Por qué no colocar los libros de jurisprudencia, exégesis, teología, historia y filosofía en la pira funeraria? Y aunque todos decimos seguir el Corán, nos dividimos en innumerables sectas, movimientos y escuelas. ¿Por qué?

Porque en la práctica, a través de los siglos, el Corán no ha sido una fuente de unidad y uniformidad en la comunidad musulmana, seguramente por aquello de “Dios une, los hombres dividen”. El Corán, con aproximadamente 1500 años de vida, no evitó que los musulmanes matasen a otros musulmanes y a no musulmanes. ¿Por qué? Porque se desobedeció un consejo-aviso clave, trascendental del Profeta de los musulmanes. Se desobedeció la reconocida tradición mutawatir, el hadiz de Ghadir Jumm.

Y el Mensajero de Dios predijo lo que sucedería debido a la interpretación errada o malévola del Corán: «pronto llegará el tiempo en que no quedará nada del Corán, salvo sus vestigios; y no quedará nada del Islam salvo su nombre. Sus mezquitas estarán llenas (de gente) pero desprovistas de orientación. Sus eruditos serán la peor gente bajo el cielo y de ellos emergerán y se expandirán las disensiones y los conflictos”. Hoy día se podría retomar la buena senda y dejar de lado las disensiones y los conflictos con solo aplicar los Pactos del Profeta.

Independientemente de que alguien ponga en duda que los Pactos del Profeta concedidos a los judíos, samaritanos, cristianos y zoroastrianos sean auténticos, contienen los mismos componentes principales que los Pactos del Profeta que sobrevivieron de manera incompleta en fuentes musulmanas censuradas. Incluso aunque alguien afirmase que todas las cartas, tratados y Pactos del Profeta en todas las fuentes son falsos, no se podría ser un musulmán de buena fe y creyente si se rechazasen los principios que propugna: el derecho a la vida, el derecho a la dignidad humana, el derecho a la devoción o culto religioso, el derecho a la propiedad y el derecho a la protección.

Realmente ¿“no necesitamos esos documentos”? Dios Todopoderoso cree que sí. De no ser así, no se los habría revelado al Profeta Muhammad –la paz y las bendiciones sean con él–. El Mensajero de Dios cree que los necesitamos. De no ser así, no los habría presentado, no los habría reproducido multiplicadamente, no habría exigido su cumplimiento por parte de una gran cantidad de sus Compañeros y no los hubiese proporcionado a las comunidades religiosas en todo el Oriente Medio.

Seamos honestos. Los musulmanes necesitamos los Pactos del Profeta. El Pueblo del Libro los necesita. Los seres humanos los necesitamos. Todos nosotros los necesitamos ahora más que nunca.

[Nota del Editor: Para mayor información, los lectores pueden consultar Power Manifestations of the Sirah: Examining the Letters and Treaties of the Messenger of Allah (2011) por Zafar Bangash, El Minarete y el Campanario: los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo por John Andrew Morrow e Islam and the People of the Book: Critical Studies on the Covenants of the Prophet (2017), escrito por el Dr. Morrow y una docena de académicos eruditos musulmanes.]

Héctor Horacio Manzolillo ha estado durante un largo período de su juventud comprometido con las necesidades de los oprimidos y explotados en Argentina. Participó activamente en el trabajo socio-político llevado a cabo por el “movimiento de sacerdotes para el tercer mundo” y fue expulsado de su país en 1975 por el gobierno, el cual se hallaba bajo presión militar. Se trata de un analista político que durante muchos años publicó artículos en dos periódicos de su provincia luego de retornar del exilio. También es autor de cientos de artículos y traductor de más de sesenta libros islámicos del inglés al español, incluido Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo. Actualmente continúa en la misma línea de trabajo.

INVASION ALERT! White Christian criminal hordes overrun America

June 18, 2017

Paul Joseph Watson is refusing to report this breaking news story.  – Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor

White Christian Crime in America

By Dr. John Andrew Morrow

Since 2016 FBI statistics are still preliminary, this study is based on the complete findings covering the year 2015. During the year in question, 3,908 white Americans were charged with murder or manslaughter, 11,809 were charged with rape, 32,439 were charged with robbery, 184,024 with aggravated assault, 112,992 with burglary,  621,585 with larceny, 4,952 with arson, 234,190 with violent crime, 779,529 with property crime, 544,870 for other types of assault, 27,419 with forgery and counterfeiting, 67,594 with fraud, 7,278 with embezzlement, 44,561 with theft, 101,481 with vandalism, 63,967 with weapons offenses, 17,084 with prostitution, 28,650 with sex offenses, 803,809 with drug abuse violations, 1,296 with illegal gambling, 47,312 with crimes against families and children, 681,638 with driving under the influence, 160,628 with violating liquor laws, 239,556 with public drunkenness, 189,321 with disorderly conduct, 13,247 with vagrancy, and 17,782 with loitering.

Caucasian Americans, 70% of whom are Christians, were responsible for a whopping 69.7% of crimes committed in the United States in 2015. 26.7% of crimes were committed by African American, 83% of whom are Christians, while 18.4% of crimes were committed by Hispanics, 98% of whom are Christians. Clearly, some will suggest, there is a correlation between Christians and crime as well as a correlation between Caucasians and crime. American Indians, in contrast, committed a mere 2.1% of the crime in the country. Caucasians and Christians come to our indigenous land and show no respect for our laws. Rather than contribute to the country, they spread crime and spend their time sexually assaulting women. The rate of white-on-white and Christian-on-Christian crime in America is staggering.

If white, predominantly Christian, men were all deported back to Europe or the Island of Patmos, the crime rate would drop nearly 70%. If we deported all American Christians, including African Americans and Hispanic Americans, who make up 71% of the US population, as part of this plan of repatriation, crime would be almost eradicated. The statistics speak for themselves. Of the tens of thousands of women who were sexually assaulted by violent misogynistic men in 2015, 57% were raped by white predominantly Christian men and 27% by black predominantly Christian men. As for the rest, their ethnicity was unknown or mixed. One can only assume that many of them were Hispanic Christian men.

At 1%, American Muslims are a minuscule part of the population. They have the second highest level of education of any group in the country, surpassed only by American Jews. When it comes to education, American Muslims are ahead of all groups in gender equality: Muslim women with university degrees outnumber Muslim men. Muslim women are also more likely to work as professionals than women from most other religious groups. The number of crimes committed by American Muslims is microscopic. In fact, they are among the most upstanding and law-abiding citizens of the United States. White Christians: Stop blaming Blacks, Latinos, immigrants, illegal aliens, and Muslims for crime. From a statistical standpoint, Muslims are not a menace to America. Face the facts America, the overwhelming majority of crimes in this country are committed by Caucasians and Christians. Muslims might kill you with kindness and hospitality. Non-Muslims will rape, rob, and kill you for real.

Dr. John Andrew Morrow is an indigenous inhabitant of Turtle Island and a proud member of the Métis Nation, the Michif-Otipemisiwak, the Free People, the People Who Own Themselves. He received his PhD from the University of Toronto in the year 2000. He is the author of over thirty scholarly books, including the critically-acclaimed Amazon best-seller, 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. His Twitter handle is @drjamorrow

5/23/2017 – 8:52:00 AM

Jan Dulac *

There are eight shocking facts you did not know about violence in Christianity and Islam.

1. Hatred and violence

Western experts and historians came to a conclusion that Christian scriptures in the Bible were actually far more bloody and violent than those in the Quran. “There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible, called Consider the Book of Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: “And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them,” God says through the Prophet Samuel. “But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” (prof.Peter Jenkins, Penn State University). “The Quran explicitly condemns religious aggression and the killing of civilians.It also makes the distinction between jihad — legal warfare with the proper rules of engagement — and irjaf, or terrorism” (Waleed El-Ansary, University of South Caroline). As a general rule, the Quran instructs restraining from excessive use of force.

2. Terrorism

The FBI has concluded: most of the terrorist activity in the United States in recent years has come from radical Christians, white supremacists and far-right militia. The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) determined that out of the approximately 2,400 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, 60 (about 2.5%) were carried out by Muslims between 1970 and 2012. Does that mean more than 95% of terror plots and acts in the US were committed by “Christian terrorists” and the rest – by “Islamic and other terrorists”? True, while Washington has spent more than 1.6 trillion USD on counterterrorism operations since 9/11, the number of terror acts worldwide has grown a dozen times.

Even then, the National Space Science Institute (USA) estimates that the odds of being killed by a terrorist attack is about the same as being hit by an asteroid. “An average Joe” can calculate, having these facts, the probability of “It’s going to be a Muslim killing me!” The odds of being killed even by a white supremacist, let alone “Islamist”, is lower than being bitten to death by Joe’s dog.

3. Tolerance

The Quran states about the “People of the Book” (Christians): “Of the People of the Scripture there is a staunch community who recite the revelations of Allah in the night season, falling prostrate (before Him). They believe in Allah and the LastDay, and enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency, and vie with one another in good works. They are of the righteous. And whatever good they do, they will not be denied the need thereof. Allah is Aware of those who ward off (evil)” (Sura3:113-115). The Achtiname of Muhammad (626 AD), or the (Holy) Testament of the Prophet Muhammad, ordered Muslims to protect and defend Christians: “Whenever monks, devotees and pilgrims gather together, whether in a mountain or valley, or den, or frequented place, or plain, or church, or in houses of worship, verily we are [at the] back of them and shall protect them, and their properties and their morals, by Myself, by My Friends and by My Assistants, for they are of My Subjects and under My Protection”.

4. Islam is derived from the word salam, meaning peace. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) orders in the Achtiname: “Their churches must be honored and they must not be withheld from building churches or repairing convents.” Hence, Muslims wish salam even to those European countries that ban the construction of mosques.

5. Islam is the only non-Christian faith that believes in Jesus (pbuh), whose name is mentioned 25 times in the Quran whereas the name of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) – four times. Name of Maryam (Mary) was mentioned explicitly in the Quran 34 times in 32 verses and one chapter was completely devoted to Maryam.

6. Women rights

Maryam was the one who was given as an example for the Muslim women, and for men. “And Allah presents an example of those who believed: the wife of Pharaoh, when she said, “My Lord, build for me near You a house in Paradise and save me from Pharaoh and his deeds and save me from the wrongdoing people.” [The example of] Mary, the daughter of ‘Imraan, who guarded her chastity, so we blew into [her garment] through Our angel [i.e. Gabriel], and she believed in the words of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient.” [Quran 66:11-12]

Divorce, property issues and rights were clearly reflected in the Quran and Hadith. About 30 percent of divorces were carefully documented during the Mamluk period (1250-1517) in the urban societies. Moreover, the Quran allows inter-religious marriage: “Should any Christian woman be married to a Musulman [i.e. Muslim], such marriage must not take place except after her consent, and she must not be prevented from going to her church for prayer.” The essence of women’s “rights” compiled under English law in 1632 – “That which the husband hath is his own. That which the wife hath is the husband’s”, remained intact till early twentieth century.[6]

7. Religious beliefs and democratic principles

The majority of both, Muslims and Christians, see no disjunction here. In Jordan, for example, 54% of men and 55% of women think Sharia should be a source of legislation in their country. Likewise, a 2006 Gallup poll indicated that 46% of Americans say that they want the Bible to be a source of legislation.

8. Sharia.

There is no such thing as a movement, registered or unregistered, to impose Sharia in Europe or in the United States. Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) delivered a way of life for Muslims to follow. After a hundred years it was interpreted in Sharia law as guidance for Muslims and their daily life. Westerners might dislike it but some Muslims even clean their teeth five times a day – since Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) recommended it (using a Miswaak, the ancient “tooth brush” made of twig of arak tree).

The reasons many, including until recently – the author, did not know these and similar facts are: religious illiteracy of “the 99%” used by “the 1%” to wage information terror and to achieve political and material ends.

“The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life study” measured Americans’ knowledge of their own belief systems and the belief systems of others conducting a survey with 32 religion-related questions, like “What is the first book of the Bible?”, “When was the Mormon religion founded?”, etc. Atheists and agnostics answered an average of 20.9 questions correctly. Jews and Mormons were scoring a 20.5 and 20.3 respectively, while Protestants as a whole got a mere 16 questions correct and Catholics only 14.7.” If Christians’ knowledge of their own religion is below 50% level, one might assume their awareness of the opposite faith is 10 to 20%, at best. Looks like Tony Blair Faith Foundation’s Education for Open minds initiative should focus on Western countries, not only Islamic ones.

Similar attitudes are present in many Muslim-majority countries, though. If you ask ten University educated individuals in Central Asia, irrespective of their age and occupation about the main principles and facts in Islam, probably, only one will manage to answer correctly (the results may vary among the countries). The challenge for the region, which is part of “the Grey zone” International Terrorist Gang threatens to destroy, is building a truly secular society.

For the notion of “tolerance”, it should be derived from a nuanced understanding of pluralism – not just from “soviet-and post-soviet-atheistic” type of tolerance and secularism prevailing among the older generation and their children. Otherwise, cases such as when people push a woman wearing a hijab out of a bus, because she is an “extremist” will become common practice, not an exception. Sociologist, Peter L. Berger, well known for his contribution to the theory of secularism, cautions that today’s trends in the Islamic and Western societies “provide a massive falsification of the idea that modernization and secularization are cognate phenomena”.

Modernity does not automatically lead to secularism. On the contrary, there is an upsurge of forces of “counter-secularism” in Islam and Christianity. In this vein, some experts wonder if authorities see a direct link between religious illiteracy, stereotyped perception of Islam and recent extremists attacks in Kazakhstan.

Ground breaking research on the anti-Muslim hate industry by the Center for American Progress focused on the 25 most vocal activists engaged in anti-Islam rhetoric, and this has revealed that only 1 (4%) had the qualifications to be considered an “expert” on Islam. It is no surprise that the majority do not have even a college degree in Islamic studies. But it does not bother the “talking heads” to assume, together with mainstream TV channels, the role of “the Ministry of Truth” where “political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Another key factor, which was not addressed properly even by authoritative organizations and groups promoting a noble cause – a Dialogue of cultures and civilizations, is the role of information warfare affecting Islamophobia. Experts even consider good case studies to be equally shameless and are Western propaganda machines such as “Russia Today” (RT). The two foes’ cyber armies massively use public perception manipulation, neuro-linguistic programming, rumors development and dissemination and other modern scientific techniques of “subliminal persuasion.”

This allows, among other things, to destruct and switch, when needed, attention of the ordinary people from the exposed failures or lies of the politicians to eye-catching events – often artificially created. Ever hear that the videos presented as if they were from Belgium in the news coverage of “Brussels horror” were in fact, videos of the Moscow airport terror attacks and the Minsk Metro terror attacks in 2011? Or that the millions of euros were disbursed to fascist organizations by the EU in the years 2014–2016?

One can guess why these and many other similar outrageous facts did not make a media splash and outcry in democratic societies. Given the cynicism of the geopolitical players, it is presumed that the stand-off Russia – West, the modern version of the “Red Scare” (threat of Communism) against “Blue Scare” (Capitalism), could be replaced by their accommodation of a “mutually beneficial” “Islam(ist) Scare” at some point.

By Shaun Jex

Shortly after 9/11 I started reading the Quran.  The divisive rhetoric regarding Islam had reached a fever pitch and I wanted to better understand the faith.  What I found helped me see the dichotomy between true Islam and the extremist vision of the terrorists who co-opted the name of the religion for their own purposes.  Education dispels ignorance, which lies at the root of fear.

Sixteen years have passed and we find ourselves again in a time of schism.  Extremists from all sides attempt to appeal to our base natures and  seek to drive us into a regressive tribalism rooted in a fear of the other.  Now, as before, I think we need to be deliberate in working against this.  Knowing our history can help.

Many people know about the Crusades, the long and bloody religious war between the medieval Latin Church and Islam.  However, if we look deeper into the history of the two faiths we find a deeper history of mutual respect and brotherhood between Muslims and Christians.

The Migration to Abyssinia

 

Amrah

A coin of King Armah

In the earliest days of Islam (613 CE), followers of Muhammad found themselves facing persecution at the hands of the polytheistic residents of Mecca.  The persecution reached such a high level that Muhammad  told his followers to flee the land and to see refuge in Abyssinia (modern day Ethiopia and Eritrea) under the protection of the Christian Negus Ashama ibn Abjar (called King Armah by modern historians).  Members of the persecuting Quraysh tribe pursued the refugees and attempted to bribe the Christian king into handing them over to their persecutors.  They even appealed to the king’s faith declaring, “They have abandoned their own religion but neither accepted yours, and have invented a new faith which neither of us know.”  King Negus called the Muslims into his presence and asked them to speak of their faith.  After hearing what they had to say, and despite entreaties from his bodyguards, Negus declared that he would never hand them over and that they could remain in his kingdom in safety.

The Achtiname of Muhammad

The_Patent_of_Mohammed

The Patent of Muhammad

A decade later, Muhammad would offer similar protection to Christians.  In 625 CE, he wrote a document that has come to be known as the “Achtiname of Muhammad” or the “Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Monks of Mount Sinai”.  The letter declares itself, “directed to the embracers of Islam, as a covenant given to the followers of Jesus the Nazarene in the East and West, the far and near, the Arabs and foreigners, the known and the unknown.”  It goes on to say that, “he who disobeys that which is therein will be considered a disbeliever and a transgressor to that whereunto he is commanded. He will be regarded as one who has corrupted the oath of God, disbelieved His Testament, rejected His Authority, despised His Religion, and made himself deserving of His Curse, whether he is a Sultan or any other believer of Islam.”

The letter details a list of freedoms to be guaranteed the Christians.  It begins with a broad statement that, “Whenever Christian monks, devotees and pilgrims gather together, whether in a mountain or valley, or den, or frequented place, or plain, or church, or in houses of worship, verily we are [at the] back of them and shall protect them, and their properties and their morals, by Myself, by My Friends and by My Assistants, for they are of My Subjects and under My Protection.”  After this, it states that Christians are not to be unfairly taxed.  They are not to be compelled to leave their faith or to take up arms in times of conflict, instead stating that Muslims should fight for them.  The letter also declares that if a Christian woman marries a Muslim man, she should not be hindered from practicing her Christian faith.

As broken human beings, there are times that members both faiths have failed to live up to their highest ideals.  There are now and have been in the past, fringe elements of Christianity and Islam that have sought to distort the faiths for their own personal agenda.  We need to look beyond this, to find those things that bind us together, to find the stories in our past that demonstrate that a better world is possible today.

In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.”

By Dr. John Andrew Morrow

I: Introduction

From a strategic standpoint, the struggle against extremism and terrorism relies upon both soft power and hard power, the proverbial carrot or the stick. Soft power is non-coercive. It attempts to change and influence social and political opinion. It seeks diplomatic solutions. Its currency is culture, political values, and foreign policies. Hard power refers to modes of coercion, including economic sanctions and direct military confrontation. If hard power seeks to coerce, soft power seeks to co-opt.

With the exception of lawful combatants under the command of state actors who abide by the articles of war, most Muslims are not in a position to participate in direct military conflicts against Takfiri terrorists in West Africa, North Africa, the Middle East, Asia or elsewhere. Such Muslims can, however, engage in social, political, and economic activities that support the war against sub-human psychopaths who pretend to be Muslims.

If a handful of ugly ISIS losers and rejects can operate a propaganda campaign from some cesspool in Syria, producing videos and publications which are then shared to tens of thousands of other fools and failures, individual Muslims, along with Islamic organizations and associations can easily set up cyber centers that are far more efficient and professional. If a small-band of overly-hairy ISIS apes can ruin the image of Islam over the course of a few years, similar-sized brotherhoods and sisterhoods of beautiful bona fide Muslims can create a new narrative.

II: Structure

In terms of the information war or cyber jihad against ISIS and extremism, the Covenants Initiative proposes the following in terms of structure:

1) Rather than have a single, centralized, cyber center, various smaller centers should operate around the word.

2) Intelligence and computer experts estimate that ISIS employs as little as half a dozen full-time internet propagandists.  With a dedicated staff of similar size, ISIS efforts could be countered. With a larger staff, an information center could flood the field, dilute, and drown out the discourse of the extremists.

4) The possibility of coordinating efforts with media giants such as Google merits serious consideration. Private sector partners could prove particularly useful. Some of our partners are working with Google to disrupt ISIS recruiting online. Such efforts should be supported and expanded.

5) At one point, possible collaborative efforts between the various anti-ISIS information centers and law enforcement/intelligence agencies can be envisioned. While some agencies have the technological tools to target ISIS and other extremists, they do not necessarily have sufficient content knowledge to fully comprehend the enemy and to determine the most effective strategies to implement. Unfortunately, many of the major powers in the world today have a history of simultaneously supporting and opposing extremist groups. Consequently, caution is the order of the day. In most cases, Muslims should take the initiative to act independently.

III: Tools 

For Muslim contemplating the creation of counter-radicalization cyber centers, the Covenants Initiative proposes the following guidelines:

1) The soft war on terror must employ all available technology, including, but not limited to email, social media, and videos.

2) The content should be multilingual. Languages need to be prioritized on the basis of their frequency in propaganda and recruitment efforts. English and Arabic come first followed by French, German, Danish, Norwegian, Dutch, Swedish, Urdu, and Russian.

3) Bots, fake friends, or computer algorithms that act like real people, should be created by the tens of thousands to disseminate anti-extremist content.

4) Using “Artificial Intelligence-information systems,” just like a spyware or a spam or pop-up detector for online browsing, an application and/or plug-in could alert the end user if the information being read or discussed in live communication is leaning in an “ISIS-friendly” direction, say with 5 color-coded levels of alert. A smart app could then offer context-sensitive suggestions to help tackle misinformation to protect untrained minds. (This feature could be packaged along with the existing McAfee or Norton type products).

5) A plagiarism check system, such as turitin.com, could be used to identify “sources” of information shared by ISIS-friendly parties, since most of the content used by ISIS for recruitment over the internet could very well be coming from the same sources. For instance, ISIS recruiters might quote certain verses or hadiths more often; this would be an easy way to detect their presence.

6) A Checklist/Scorecard/Detection system to be developed that can be used by Muslims and Non-Muslims to quickly (with some higher level of accuracy) ascertain “ISIS-friendly” content, and clear action plan on how to deal with such people/situations.

7) Just as in the cold war era, hold exercises or drills in schools, colleges, work places, temples etc. about how to deal with “ISIS-friendly” situations. Offer training in how to conduct these drills through webinars/seminars just as courses on “responsible use of social media” are currently being offered through schools/colleges.

8) Short films could be shared on YouTube showing the public how ISIS and similar groups carry on recruiting.

9) Since 13 to 27 is likely the age group in the West most often targeted by ISIS recruiters, schools/colleges should consider offering courses like “ISIS versus Islam,” which could be a 0.5 credit hour mandatory class showing how to combat ISIS.

10) Distribute free or steeply discounted tablets with free internet access in war torn countries. Let this access be restricted so that only specific content may be viewed by young people there, making sure that ISIS and other extremist content is completely blocked. These tablets could be used to offer free degree programs to the youth, allowing them to pick up skills, advance knowledge, receive therapy etc. In other words, create other opportunities so youth have less time and inclination to connect with ISIS-friendly people or recruiters.

11) Entertainment should be one factor in any anti-extremist endeavors. Comedy, for example, is a useful tool against extremism. It has been used effectively throughout the Muslim world. Mockery and parody of extremists by comedians, artists, writers, and poets helps to ridicule them in the minds of the Muslim majority. The academic approach only tends to impact educated people but the use of entertainment reaches a much broader segment of the population. Whether it is comedy, theatre, music, videos, short films or full-length features, entertainment is a powerful tool that can be used to counter the extremist narrative.

12) While Muslim volunteers would be welcome, as seeing that ISIS does not pay its propagandists, they do it for free, cyber centers could also rely upon paid staff, even hiring non-Muslim hackers as mercenaries and allies at the service of Islam.

13) Since as little as 4% of the internet is visible to ordinary users, the rest occupying the unindexed deep web which contains mostly legitimate information, and the encrypted dark web, used by bankers, swindlers, phishers, scammers, the military, illegal pornographers, pedophiles, human traffickers, drug traffickers, hit-men, terrorists etc., computer experts should take the war to the cyber battlefield and systematically attack and expose Takfiri Satanists and their sponsors in these arenas.

IV: Conclusions

There is no good without evil and no evil without good. As the Prophet Muhammad, blessings and peace be upon him, foretold, the Kharijites would resurface sporadically from the seventh century until the end of time when they will be finally vanquished by the Messiah Jesus and the Imam Mahdi. Extremists and terrorists are the catamites of the Anti-Christ. All Muslims must fight them in the name of Allah and His Messenger. And while there is a time and place for the sword, most Muslims must rely upon the word. As the Prophet Muhammad and Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq confirmed: “The ink of a scholar is more precious than the blood of a martyr.” As important as military might may be, it does not have the power to destroy a pernicious and perverse ideology. In a war of ideas, it is the most convincing and compelling idea that will ultimately win. Only true Islam can defeat fake Islam: “With Allah is the perfect proof and argument” (6:149). So raise your pens, Soldiers of Allah, and spill your ink in His Path!

Dr. John Andrew Morrow is Native North American a proud member of the Métis Nation. After taking his Shahadah at the age of 16, he became both a qualified Western academic and a Muslim ‘Alim. He has authored over thirty peer-reviewed books and over one hundred scholarly articles. His most influential work to date 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.

[See more at: http://newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/islam-versus-anti-islam–simple-strategies-to-help-counter-isis-and-other-violent-extremists/d/111282#sthash.HUuuojXp.dpuf ]

13 JUIN 2017

Libnanews

Alors que les attentats terroristes se multiplient frappant indistinctement l’Occident « impie » et les pays musulmans, que les persécutions et massacres des « Koufars », des « croisés » et autres « infidèles » se multiplient, que la menace d’extinction tant physique que culturelle des chrétiens d’Orient est plus que jamais une réalité, que les ingrédients du choc des civilisations sont réunis, il serait plus opportun que jamais de rafraichir les mémoires égarées et de réhabiliter certaines vérités tant historiques que doctrinales.

Aussi j’aimerai rappeler aux fondamentalistes, aux salafistes, aux takfiristes et autres Djihadistes (sans pour autant entretenir la moindre confusion entre ces diverses appellations) mais aussi à l’ensemble des musulmans et des non musulmans, la promesse de protection qu’aurait faite le Prophète de l’Islam en 625/628 aux chrétiens d’Egypte. Des chrétiens encore marginalisés aujourd’hui, considérés comme des citoyens de seconde zone; qui sont soumis à des vexations, des interdits et des persécutions en tout genre ; dont les lieux de culte sont la cible constante d’attentats;  qui sont  menacés dans l’exercice de leur foi et jusque dans leur intégrité physique Rien qu’en 2017 les Coptes ont connu trois vagues d’assassinats successives.

Il s’agit du Pacte du prophète Mahomet avec les moines du mont Sinaï attribué à Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah, le Messager d’Allah. Le Monastère de Sainte Catherine, fondé en 527 par l’Empereur Justinien, est l’un des plus anciens encore en activité et figure sur la liste du patrimoine mondial de l’UNESCO. Situé au pied du Mont Sinaï il est doté d’une immense collection de manuscrits chrétiens, la plus grande après celle du Vatican.

Le document aurait été écrit de la main même de l’Imam Ali au cours de la quatrième ou de la septième année de l’Hégire, autour de 625 ou de 628 de l’ère chrétienne. Il porte en lieu de signature l’empreinte de la propre main de Muhammad trempée dans l’encre. La date exacte semble faire divergence parmi les historiens, certains affirment même que ce pacte daterait de l’an 2 de l’hégire, d’autres avancent une autre date, postérieure, après le traité d’Hudhaybiyya qui eut lieu en l’an 8 de l’hégire.[1]

Plus connu sous le nom de Ashtiname –  mot perse signifiant « Livre de la Paix » – mais aussi de « Testament sacré de Muhammad » ou « Traité Eternel de Muhammad », ce contrat s’étendrait à tous les chrétiens quelque soit le lieu ou le temps. Considéré comme un texte fondateur de la jurisprudence islamique, ses prescriptions sont conformes à l’esprit du Coran, des hadiths, de la Sunna ainsi que d’autres traités et pactes prophétiques plus réputés. Elles sont en de nombreux points similaires avec celles du Pacte de Najran (Voir annexe) mais aussi de celles de la Constitution de Médine. Quoiqu’il en soit toutes ces chartes s’accordent sur des points essentiels, à savoir : la justice, l’équité, la sécurité, l’indulgence à l’égard des chrétiens et le respect de leur personne (et plus largement de l’ensemble des « protégés). Des points faisants écho à plusieurs versets du Coran ainsi qu’à des Ahadiths dont le verset 7 de la Sourate 9 , « Tant qu’ils sont droits envers vous, soyez droits envers eux. […] » (Coran 9, 7).

Plus que le détail de ses clauses c’est l’esprit de ce document qui nous importe en ce qu’il est porteur de tolérance et de respect envers les gens du Livre.

En prendre connaissance et la rediffuser est aujourd’hui une responsabilité pour les autorités religieuses musulmanes : cette promesse pourrait avoir un impact important sur l’attitude des musulmans à l’égard des autres religions. Les musulmans respectent en général les précédents établis par leur prophète, s’en inspirent et s’évertuent à les mettre en pratique. Cela pourrait aussi contribuer à la lutte doctrinale contre l’intégrisme et à l’émergence d’un Islam des lumières.

Il s’agit surtout de s’aventurer sur le terrain des Djihadistes et de tenir le langage de tous ceux qui prônent une interprétation rigide et littéraliste du Coan et un retour à l’Islam des origines, à la pratique des premiers temps et au modèle de Médine. Ne sont-ils pas donc censés se reconnaître dans les faits et gestes du Prophète et de ses premiers compagnons, les illustres et pieux prédécesseurs, les Salaf ?

En effet, le salafisme désigne une attitude qui met l’autorité des plus proches de l’époque du Prophète (570-632) au-dessus de l’ijtihad (effort de réflexion) et du recours à la raison. Les salafistes considèrent que plus l’on s’éloigne de cette époque, de l’expérience fondatrice de l’islam et de ceux qui en furent les témoins, moins l’on peut avoir une compréhension de la religion et de ses enseignements. Aussi, le point de vue des Salaf devient l’ultime référence pour le croyant afin de comprendre le message coranique et la tradition consacrée du Prophète. N’est donc valide et recevable que ce qui a été rapporté par eux.

Puisqu’ils sont imperméables à toute remise en question et à la raison critique autant les confronter aux seules légitimité et autorité dont ils se réclament.

Je reprends dans son intégralité l’une des versions de la charte octroyée par le Prophète Muhammad et garantissant droits et protection aux chrétiens. Son contenu et la formulation de ses clauses varient légèrement selon les retranscriptions, les traductions, les transmissions et les époques ; le pacte ayant été maintes fois renouvelés et reconduits par les gouvernants musulmans.

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 protecon 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)[2]

Il ressort clairement de ce document que la promesse revêt une dimension éternelle et universelle, en tout lieu et tout temps : Universelle, car il est bien précisé que les musulmans sont avec les chrétiens, proches ou éloignés, et donc que le Pacte ne se limite pas seulement au monastère de Sainte Catherine. Eternelle car en ordonnant aux musulmans de respecter cette charte jusqu’au jour du « Jugement dernier », il déjoue toute tentative future de révoquer ces droits désormais inaliénables. Toute désobéissance ou remise en question constituerait une violation de l’alliance avec Dieu.

Un autre aspect remarquable est qu’elle n’impose aucune condition ou contrepartie aux chrétiens en échange de ces droits, hormis bien entendu le fait de promettre fidélité aux musulmans, de ne pas se retourner contre eux et de leur prêter aide et assistance en temps de guerre.[3] Des conditions à minima que l’on retrouve dans les autres pactes de la même nature. Le seul fait d’être chrétien suffit ; il n’est pas exigé d’eux de modifier leurs croyances, de payer une contrepartie ni de se soumettre à aucune obligation. Bien qu’elle ne constitue pas une charte des droits de l’homme au sens moderne et des Lumières, elle fait preuve d’une grande modernité et n’en défend pas moins les droits à la propriété privée, à la liberté religieuse, à celle du travail ainsi que le droit à la sécurité.

Bien sûr l’authenticité absolue de ce pacte n’est pas exempte de controverses et fait encore l’objet de débats académiques et scientifiques; mais son historicité et son existence sont avérés, relayées sur des siècles par une multitude de sources tant musulmanes que chrétiennes, historiques, administratives et théologiques.[4] Elle est ainsi citée dans de nombreux documents, témoignages, traités et archives administratives musulmanes et chrétiennes.

Bien que la tradition islamique ait été transmise presque exclusivement par les musulmans, il s’agit là de l’un des rares cas dans lesquels une Sunna et un Hadith ont été transmis consécutivement par les musulmans et les chrétiens. Nonobstant le débat quand à son authenticité il est essentiel de souligner que ses clauses ont été respectées et appliquée par les dynasties successives qui ont présidé au destin de l’Islam.  Selon de nombreux documents historiques, les libertés accordées par le Prophète ont été honorés par les Califes bien-guidés Abou Bakr, Omar, Othman et Ali, ainsi que les Omeyyades, Abbassides, les Fatimides et les Ayyoubides et les Ottomans.[5]

En premier lieu, les principaux intéressés, les moines du monastère de Sainte-Catherine confirment de façon constante son authenticité depuis les premiers jours de l’Islam. D’ailleurs ils ont toujours bien vécu (au moins jusqu’au XIXe siècle) aux côtés des musulmans qui ne s’en sont jamais pris à eux ou au monastère.

Ensuite, les premières chroniques musulmanes mentionnent déjà ce pacte : Le « Pacte du prophète Mahomet avec les moines du mont Sinaï » est attesté par Muhammad ibn Saad al-Baghdadi (784-845), historien musulman et scribe de al-Waqidi (748-822), l’un des premiers historiens de l’Islam et biographe du Prophète, dans un document appelé Traité de Saint Catherine qui est cité dans son livre Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir (Le Livre des cercles des compagnons). S’il est plus court que les copies existantes, il contient néanmoins, presque mot pour mot, toutes les principales dispositions. Si Ibn Saad a juste fourni un résumé des principaux points, Ismâ’îl Ibn Kathir (1301-1373), le célèbre exégète, savant de hadith, commentateur coranique, juriste et historien, décrit en détail les grandes lignes du document dans son Qasas al-Anbiya.

Outre les œuvres historiques, de nombreux firmans des autorités politiques contiennent des références directes au Achtiname. Tant les Fatimides (r. 901-1171) que les Ayyoubides (r. 1174-1249)  ont émis des décrets avec les moines du mont Sinaï qui se référaient à la sijillat al-nabawiyyah ou “prophétiques”[6]. A leur tour les Mamelouks (1250-1517) confirmeront le pacte à plusieurs reprises en 1259, 1260, 1272, 1268 / 69, 1280 et 1516 CE.

En 1517, les Ottomans l’introduiront  au Trésor royal pour le garder en lieu sûr[7] et les moines conserveront une copie certifiée qui servira de source aux autres copies dont l’authenticité était approuvée chaque année ou tous les deux ans à dater de l’année 1518 ou 1519. A partir de cette date des copies du Pacte du prophète feront l’objet d’une transmission continue et ininterrompue de son contenu.

Non seulement le Pacte du prophète a été reconnu et respecté par l’establishment politique et religieux mais il a été vérifiée de façon indépendante et sur une base régulière par les cinq écoles de jurisprudence islamique. De même, le Dr Morrow relate qu’au moins 2000 savants musulmans, du Xème siècle jusqu’au XIXème siècle ont émis des fatwas se basant sur ce traité pour instituer les normes islamiques sur les relations avec les autres communautés, principalement celles de confession chrétienne.

Le monastère de Sainte-Catherine possède ainsi près de 2 000 fatwas de savants musulmans appartenant à différents courants ou écoles juridiques (malékites, hanafites, ismaéliens, shaféites, hanbalites et autres) de 975 à 1888, reconnaissant implicitement et explicitement les droits octroyés par le Messager d’Allah aux chrétiens.

Le Ashtiname est aussi largement attesté, mentionné, cité, et entièrement traduit par de nombreux pèlerins occidentaux, des écrivains de voyage, des religieux et des chercheurs du XVIème siècle à nos jours.

Après être tombé dans l’oubli pour un temps il refait surface dans une œuvre de Feridun Ahmed Bey, célèbre pour ses ouvrages historiques, de 1583 connu sous le nom Majmû’a munsha’at al-Salatin et republiée au XIXème siècle en 1857 / 58. Cet ouvrage se compose d’une collection de lettres du/au Prophète, des califes et sultans, ainsi que des lettres des/ aux souverains de l’Europe et les traités qu’ils ont signés. Le tout compilé par le chef de la Chancellerie ottomane constitue un témoignage inestimable. Mais surtout, ce recueil contient une copie du Pacte du prophète Mahomet avec les moines du mont Sinaï tirée du Trésor du Topkapi. Le fait que cette copie provient des archives des califes et des sultans ne peut qu’en renforcer sa crédibilité et son authenticité notamment aux yeux des musulmans. Plus encore, l’original arabe cité par Feridun Bey est identique aux dizaines de copies du Pacte du Prophète trouvé à Saint Catherine et ailleurs.[8]

C’est à la fin du XIXème siècle que sera publiée la dernière copie officielle du Pacte du Prophète. C’est à cette période que, Naufal Effendi Naufal publiera une traduction turque du texte arabe et que le grand juriste musulman, Syed Ameer Ali (1849-1928) sera le premier chercheur à en exposer le contenu en anglais en 1819 dans son ouvrage intitulé L’Esprit de l’Islam.[9]

Quelques années plus tard Le « Pacte du Prophète avec les moines du mont Sinaï » paru dans la revue de L’Union Islamique / al-Ittihad al-Islami en 1898. L’article sera ressassé par la revue française Échos d’Orient dans un article intitulé « Décret de Mahomet Relatif aux Chrétiens »[10] qui fournit un résumé de la pièce originale parue dans L’Union Islamique. Il mentionne aussi que le décret original du Prophète était stocké dans la bibliothèque du Sultan et que si l’existence du Ashtiname avait été mentionné à quelques reprises en occident, son contenu précis n’avait jamais été révélé auparavant.

En termes de chaînes de transmission, le ‘Ahd, ahdname ou Ashtiname accordé aux moines du mont Sinaï semble être le plus fort de tous les Pactes du Prophète. Il a été transmis par les musulmans et non-musulmans pendant près d’un millénaire et demi. Du point de vue historique et de la science du Hadith, il atteint le plus haut degré de certitude que nous pouvons espérer d’un document datant du VIIème siècle.

Etant donné son illustre chaine de transmission, mais aussi son contenu qui est en accord avec les autres pactes prophétiques et prescriptions coraniques, il faudrait faire preuve de mauvaise foi, d’un manque flagrant d’objectivité et d’un parti pris pour le rejeter en bloc et le considérer comme étant un faux. De même à ceux qui s’évertuent à en limiter la portée aux seuls moines du Monastère de Sainte Catherine ou aux chrétiens égyptiens, et à en faire une exception valable seulement dans un temps déterminé, le contenu et l’historique du Pacte sont sans équivoques : à l’instar de celui de Najran, il est clairement stipulé que ses prescriptions s’appliquent à « tous les chrétiens pacifiques, ceux qui sont les amis et les alliés des musulmans, jusqu’à la fin des temps ».

Qui plus est, l’authenticité de l’Alliance du Sinaï pourrait conforter la crédibilité d’autres pactes existants dont la validité et de la chaîne de la transmission ne sont pas aussi bien établies.

Conclusion

Les partisans de Daesh entendent figer la cité musulmane dans un temps zéro et refusent toute lecture contextuelle du message prophétique. Leur projet théologico-politique défigure le visage de l’Islam, tant celui des origines que de la tradition, et vise par une sélection tendancieuse et une lecture partiale des versets coraniques et des références prophétiques, à lui donner un contenu terrifiant, inhumain, intolérant et violent. Ils insistent ainsi à outrance sur la dimension exclusivement guerrière du Djihad qui ne fut le plus souvent qu’occasionnelle et épisodique pour le prophète. Ils réfutent et marginalisent la diversité et la complexité des comportements du prophète et les nombreuses nuances du message coranique. Ils véhiculent l’image d’un Dieu tyrannique, au prise à la colère et assoiffé de vengeance et celle d’un prophète sanguinaire, chef de guerre sans compassion ni pitié.

Ils violent les commandements Divins, dont la sacralité de la vie humaine, et ignorent les injonctions coraniques ainsi que l’exemple du Prophète notamment dans ses relations avec les gens du Livre.

Comme le dit Mahmoud Hussein, « Daesh a mis en place une vision de l’Islam faite non pour convaincre mais pour terroriser, non pour gagner les esprits mais pour éveiller les instincts les plus primitifs et les plus meurtriers. Sa fidélité à la geste prophétique est une infidélité déguisée. Il propose une vérité défigurée du Coran et des Hadits ».[11]

Face à ce phénomène, et ses antécédents historiques, il était évident que les réponses sécuritaires et militaires seraient insuffisantes, de même que les mesures à caractère uniquement législatif ainsi que les effets d’annonce politique. Les réponses sont multiformes – économiques, sociales, juridiques et culturelles – mais pour les musulmans c’est surtout sur le champ doctrinal qu’il faut relever le défi frontal posé par Daesh, Al Qaida et tous les mouvements religieux, politiques ou militaires qui revendiquent et promeuvent une vision rigoriste de l’islam. Par delà la condamnation morale c’est sur le plan théologique que ce fera la délégitimation et la déconstruction du discours intégriste.

C’est sur ce terrain qu’ils doivent s’engager en priorité afin d’ouvrir le chantier de réformes qui devrait mener à l’aggiornamento indispensable à toute religion. Une tâche longue et ardue dont ils ne peuvent plus faire l’économie s’ils veulent mettre fin au holdup des islamistes sur les valeurs, les croyances et les convictions de milliers d’individus de culture musulmanes, pratiquants ou non, croyants ou athées.  Pour ce faire ils disposent de tous les instruments nécessaires et des arguments qu’ils peuvent puiser aux sources mêmes de la Révélation. C’est aussi l’occasion d’affirmer leur liberté de conscience et de s’émanciper d’une tradition figée par le poids du dogme et d’un postulat idéologique plaqué sur le Coran, longtemps après la disparition du Prophète, et qui en contredit l’esprit et souvent le texte. Pour ce faire, ils devront aussi, et c’est là le plus difficile, s’émanciper du mythe de l’imprescriptibilité d’un Coran qui serait incréé afin d’oser une lecture plus contextuelle et rouvrir la voie de l’Ijtihad.

On ne peut pas être contre Daesh et en même temps contre la nécessité d’une réforme. Le refus de Daesh, de ses actes et de ses préceptes, passe aussi par la condamnation de nombreux points de sa doctrine.  Aussi, le rejet du fondamentalisme implique l’adhésion à une vision plus libérale et moderne de l’Islam fondée sur une interprétation plus contextuelle, rationnelle et modérée. Une vision qui lui est endogène, qui a eu droit de citer et qui a existé de tout temps.

Annexe

Le pacte du Prophète avec les chrétiens de Najran

Au nom de Dieu clément et miséricordieux.

Cet écrit a été donné par Mohammad ben ‘Abd Allah ben ‘Abd el-Mottalib, Envoyé de Dieu auprès de tous les hommes, pour annoncer et avertir, et chargé du dépôt de Dieu parmi ses créatures, pour que les hommes n’aient aucun prétexte devant Dieu, après ses envoyés et sa manifestation, devant cet Être puissant et sage.

Au Seyyid Ibn Hareth ben Ka‘b, à ses coreligionnaires et à tous ceux qui professent la religion chrétienne, soit en Orient, soit en Occident, dans les contrées prochaines ou dans les contrées lointaines, arabes ou étrangères, connues ou inconnues.

Cet écrit qu’il leur a rédigé constitue un contrat impérieux, un diplôme authentique établi sur la charité et la justice, un pacte inviolable.

Quiconque observera cet édit, montrera son attachement à l’Islam, méritera les meilleurs bienfaits que l’Islam promet ; au contraire tout homme qui le détruira, qui violera le pacte qui y est contenu, qui l’altérera, et qui désobéira à mes commandements, violera le pacte de Dieu, transgressera son alliance, méprisera son traité et méritera sa malédiction, qu’il soit prince ou sujet.

Je m’engage à faire de la part de Dieu alliance et pacte avec eux et je les mets sous la sauvegarde de ses prophètes, de ses élus, de ses saints, les musulmans et les Croyants, les premiers aussi bien que les derniers. C’est cela mon alliance et mon pacte avec eux.

Je proclame de nouveau les obligations que Dieu imposa aux enfants d’Israël de lui obéir, de suivre sa loi et de respecter son alliance divine, en déclarant protéger par mes cavaliers, mes fantassins, mes armées, mes ressources et mes partisans musulmans, les chrétiens jusqu’aux plus éloignés, qui habitent dans les pays frontières de mon empire, dans quelque région que ce soit, lointaine ou voisine, en temps de paix ou en temps de guerre.

Je m’engage à les appuyer, à prendre sous ma protection leurs personnes, leurs églises, leurs chapelles, leurs oratoires, les établissements de leurs moines et les demeures de leurs anachorètes partout où ils seront, soit dans la montagne, ou dans la vallée, ou dans les grottes, ou dans le pays habité, dans la plaine, ou dans le désert.

Et je protégerai leur religion et leur Eglise, partout où ils se trouvent, soit sur la terre, soit sur la mer, soit en Orient, soit en Occident, avec toute la vigilance possible de ma part, de la part des gens de mon entourage, et des musulmans.

Je les prends sous ma protection. Je fais pacte avec eux, m’engageant à les préserver de tout mal et de tout dommage, à les exempter de toute réquisition et de toute obligation onéreuse, et à les protéger par moi-même, par mes auxiliaires, mes suivants et ma nation contre tout ennemi, qui m’en voudrait à moi, et à eux.

Ayant l’autorité sur eux, je dois les gouverner, les préservant de toua dommage et ne laissant pas leur arriver quelque mal qu’il ne m’ait atteint aussi, avec mes compagnons, qui défendent avec moi la cause de l’Islam.

Je défends aux conquérants de la foi de leur être à charge, lors de leurs invasions, ou de les contraindre à payer des impôts, à moins qu’ils n’y consentent : que jamais les chrétiens ne subissent tyrannie et l’oppression à ce sujet.

Il n’est pas permis de faire quitter à un évêque son siège épiscopal, ni à un moine sa vie monastique, ni à un anachorète sa vocation érémitique ; ni de détruire quelque partie de leurs églises, ni de faire entrer quelques parties de leurs bâtiments dans la construction des mosquées, ou dans celle des maisons des musulmans. Quiconque fera cela, violera le pacte de Dieu, désobéira à son Apôtre et s’éloignera de l’alliance divine.

Il n’est pas permis non plus d’imposer une capitation ni une taxe quelconque aux moines et aux évêques, ni à ceux qui, par dévotion, se vêtent de laine ou habitent solitairement dans les montagnes ou en d’autres endroits isolés de l’habitation des hommes.

Qu’on se borne à quatre dirhams qu’on demandera chaque année à chacun des autres chrétiens, qui ne sera ni religieux, ni moine, ni ermite : ou bien qu’on exige de lui un vêtement en étoffe rayée ou un voile de turban brodé du Yémen, et cela pour aider les musulmans et pour contribuer à l’augmentation du trésor public : s’il ne lui est pas facile de donner un vêtement, on lui en demandera le prix. Mais que ce prix ne soit détermine que de leur consentement.

Que la capitation des chrétiens qui ont des revenus, qui possèdent des terres, qui font un commerce important sur mer et sur terre, qui exploitent les mines de pierres précieuses, d’or et d’argent, qui ont beaucoup de fortune et de biens, ne dépasse pas, pour l’ensemble, douze dirhams par an, pourvu qu’ils habitent ces pays et qu’ils y soient établis.

Qu’on n’exige rien de semblable des voyageurs, qui ne sont pas des habitants du pays, ni des passants dont le domicile n’est pas connu.

Pas d’impôt foncier avec capitation, si ce n’est à ceux qui possèdent des terres, comme tous les occupants d’héritages sur lesquels le sultan exerce un droit : ils paieront des impôts dans la mesure ou les autres les payent, sans toutefois que les charges excédent injustement la mesure de leurs moyens, et les forces que les propriétaires dépensent à cultiver ces terres, à les rendre fertiles, et à en tirer les récoltes : qu’ils ne soient pas abusivement taxes, mais qu’ils payent dans la mesure imposée aux autres tributaires leurs pareils.

Les hommes de notre alliance ne seront pas tenus de sortir avec les musulmans pour combattre leurs ennemis, les attaquer et en venir aux mains. En effet, ceux de l’alliance n’entreprendront pas la guerre. C’est précisément pour les en déchargé que ce pacte leur a été accordé, et aussi pour leur assurer aide et protection de la part des musulmans. Et même qu’aucun chrétien ne soit contraint de pourvoir à l’équipement d’un seul musulman, en argent, en armes ou en chevaux, en vue d’une guerre ou les Croyants attaquent un ennemi, a mois qu’il n’y contribue de son gré. Celui qui aura bien voulu faire ainsi, et contribuer spontanément, sera l’objet de la louange et de la gratitude, et il lui en sera tenu compte.

Aucun chrétien ne sera fait musulman par force : Ne discutez que de la maniera la plus honnête [29 :46]. Il faut les couvrir de l’aile de la miséricorde, et repousser tout malheur qui pourrait les atteindre partout où ils se trouvent, dans quelque pays qu’ils soient.

Si l’un des chrétiens venait à commettre un crime ou un délit, il faudrait que les musulmans lui fournissent l’aide, la défense, la protection ; ils devront excuser son délit et amener sa victime à se réconcilier avec lui, en l’engageant à lui pardonner ou à recevoir une rançon.

Les musulmans ne doivent pas abandonner les chrétiens et les laisser sans secours et sans appui, parce que j’ai fait ce pacte avec eux de la part de Dieu pour que ce qui arrive d’heureux aux musulmans leur arrivât aussi, et qu’ils subissent aussi ce que subiraient les musulmans, et que les musulmans subissent ce qu’ils subiraient eux-mêmes, et cela en vertu du pacte par lequel ils ont eu des droits inviolables de jouir de notre protection, et d’être défendus contre tout mal portant atteinte à leurs garanties, de sorte qu’ils soient associés aux musulmans dans la bonne et dans la mauvaise fortune.

Il ne faut pas que les chrétiens aient à souffrir, par abus, au sujet des mariages, ce qu’ils ne voudraient pas. Les musulmans ne devront pas prendre en mariage les filles chrétiennes contre la volonté des parents de celles-ci, ni opprimer leurs familles, si elles venaient à leur refuser les fiançailles et le mariage ; car de tels mariages ne devront pas se faire sans leur agrément et leur désire, et sans qu’ils les aient approuvés et y aient consenti.

Si un musulman a pris pour femme une chrétienne, il est tenu de respecter sa croyance chrétienne. Il la laissera libre d’écouter ses supérieurs comme elle l’entendra, et de suivre la route qui lui indique sa religion. Quiconque malgré cet ordre, contraindra son épouse à agir contre sa religion en quelque point que ce soit, enfreindra l’alliance de Dieu et entrera en rébellion contre le pacte de son Apôtre, et Dieu le comptera parmi les imposteurs.

Si les chrétiens viennent à avoir besoin de secours et de l’appui des musulmans pour réparer leurs églises et leurs couvents, ou bien pour arranger leurs affaires et les choses de leur religion, ceux-ci devront les aider et les soutenir. Mais ils ne doivent pas faire cela dans le but d’en recevoir rétribution, mais par aide charitable pour restaurer cette religion, par fidélité au pacte de l’envoyé de Dieu, par pure donation, et comme acte méritoire devant Dieu et son apôtre.

Les musulmans ne pourront pas dans la guerre entre eux et leurs ennemis se servir de quelqu’un des chrétiens pour l’envoyer comme messager, ou éclaireur, ou guide, ou espion, ou bien l’employer a d’autre besognes de guerre. Quiconque fera cela a l’un d’eux, lésera les droits de Dieu, sera rebelle a son Apôtre, et se mettra en dehors de son alliance. Et rien n’est permis à un musulman (vis-à-vis les chrétiens) en dehors de l’obéissance a ces prescriptions que Mohammed ben ‘Abdi Allah, apôtre de Dieu, a édictées en faveur de la religion des chrétiens.

Je leur fais aussi des conditions et j’exige d’eux la promesse de les accomplir et d’y satisfaire comme le leur ordonne leur religion. Entre autres choses, qu’aucun d’eux ne soit éclaireur ou espion, ni secrètement ni ouvertement, au profit d’un ennemi de guerre, contre un musulman. Que personne d’entre eux ne loge les ennemis des musulmans dans sa maison, d’où ils pourraient attendre l’occasion de s’élancer à l’attaque. Que ces ennemis ne fassent point halte dans leurs régions, ni dans leurs villages ni dans leurs oratoires, ni dans quelque lieu appartenant à leurs coreligionnaires. Qu’ils ne prêtent point appui aux ennemis de guerre contre les musulmans, en leur fournissant des armes, ou des chevaux ou des hommes ou quoi que ce soit, ou en leur donnant de bons traitements. Ils doivent héberger trois jours et trois nuits ceux des musulmans qui font halte chez eux, avec leurs bêtes, et leur offrir partout où ils se trouvent et partout où ils vont la même nourriture dont ils vivent eux-mêmes, sans toutefois être obliges de supporter d’autres charges gênantes et onéreuses.

S’il arrive qu’un musulman ait besoin de se cacher dans leurs demeures, ou dans leurs oratoires, ils doivent lui donner l’hospitalité, lui prête appui, et lui fournir de leur nourriture tout le temps qu’il sera chez eux, s’efforçant de le tenir cache, de ne point permettre à l’ennemi de le découvrir, et pourvoyant a tous ses besoins.

Quiconque transgressera une des ordonnances de cet édit, ou l’altérera, se mettra en dehors de l’alliance de Dieu et de son Envoyé.

Que chacun observe les traités et les alliances qui ont été contractés avec les moines, et que j’ai contractée moi-même, et tout engagement que chaque prophète a contracte avec sa nation, pour leur assurer la sauvegarde et la fidèle protection, et pour leur servir de garantie.

Jusqu’à l’heure de la Résurrection cela ne doit être ni viole ni altère, s’il plait Dieu.


[1] Le traité d’Houdaybiya est un pacte signé en 628 entre Muhammad et les autorités mecquoises qui devaient permettre au Prophète et à ses fidèles de se rendre en pèlerinage à La Mecque pendant trois jours l’année suivante. Il prévoyait également une période de paix de dix ans entre les deux parties. Mais les Mecquois brisèrent le traité l’année suivante et en janvier 630 Muhammad décide de conquérir la ville .

[2] Zaydan, Jurji. Omeyyades et Abbassides : Être la quatrième partie de l’histoire de Jorge Zaydan de la civilisation islamique. Trans. DS Margoliouth. Leyden: EJ Brill; London: Luzac & Co., 1907.

Il existe une autre version plus étendue de cet acte (qui serait daté du 8 Octobre 625) retranscrite par J.G. Pitzipios-Bey dans L’Orient, les réformes de l’Empire byzantin, E.Dentu, Paris, 1858.

Cette transcription est tirée de la traduction française par Pierre Briot (Histoire juridique de l’empire mahométan publié en 1670) de l’Histoire de l’état présent de l’Empire ottoman du Chevalier Paul Rycault paru en Anglais et publié en 1668. . A noter que l’ouvrage en question date le Pacte au 8 Octobre 625 soit la quatrième année de l’Hégire.

[3] Ainsi dans la transcription de Pitzpios-Bey,le Prophète engage en conscience les chrétiens à respecter les conditions suivantes :

1 – « Qu’aucun chrétien n’entretienne un soldat ennemi des musulmans ; qu’il ne donne aucune retraite à un ennemi des musulmans, et qu’il ne souffre point qu’il fasse séjour dans leurs maisons, dans leurs églises ou dans leurs couvents de religieux ; qu’il ne fournisse point sous main le camp de leurs ennemis, d’hommes, d’armes et de chevaux, et n’ait aucune correspondance ou engagement avec eux… »

2- « Qu’ils fournissent pendant trois jours à chaque musulman les choses nécessaires pour sa subsistance et pour celle de ses bêtes, et cela honnêtement et en différentes sortes de viandes ; qu’ils fassent aussi tout pour les défendre si on les attaque et pour les garder de tous accidents fâcheux. C’est pourquoi si quelques musulmans souhaitent de se cacher dans quelques-unes de leurs maisons, ils le cacheront de bon cœur, et le tireront du péril où il se trouvera sans le découvrir de son ennemi. »

3- Si les chrétiens gardent la foi de leur côté, ceux qui violeront ces conditions, quels qu’ils puissent être, et feront quelque chose de contraire, seront privés des avantages contenus dans l’alliance de Dieu et de son messager, et seront indignes de jouir des privilèges accordés aux évêques et aux moines chrétiens, de même que les croyants seront privés des avantages contenus dans le Coran. »

[4] Sur la question de l’authenticité de ce Pacte et la réfutation des allégations de faux, voir la longue étude historique qui lui a été consacrée par le Dr John Andrew Morrow dans son ouvrage publié en 2013, « The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World. Kettering ».

[5] C.f, Andrew Morrow, op.cit.

[6] Des décrets datant de 965, 1109, 1110, 1134, 1135, 1154 et 1156 CE. Le calife fatimide al-Hafiz ordonna à ses gouverneurs de respecter le Pacte Sinaï en 1134 CE. Les Ayyoubides ont renouvelé l’alliance avec les moines du Sinaï en 1195, 1199, 1201 / 02 et 1210 / 11 CE.

[7] Avant 1517, le décret prophétique d’origine était conservé au monastère de Sainte-Catherine. En 1517 un Firman de Selim I confirme qu’il a pris connaissance du pacte, l’a présenté à un comité de chercheur qui l’ont trouvé conforme et digne de foi et qu’il l’a remplacé par une copie conforme certifiée.

[8] John Morrow, op.cit.

[9] Ce dernier place l’alliance du Sinaï après le conflit de Mahomet avec les Juifs, à savoir autour du traité de Hudaybiyyah, ce qui est cohérent avec la datation d’Ibn Kathir.  Et surtout il affirme que « son document remarquable a été fidèlement conservés par les annalistes de l’Islam”.

[10] Décret de Mahomet relatif aux chrétiens, Echos d’Orient, Vol 1, Numéro 6, p.p 170-171, année 1898.

[11] Mahmoud Hussein, les musulmans aux défis de Daesh, Gallimard, 2016.

Analyste, chercheur, consultant et journaliste politique basé entre Genève et Beyrouth. Auteur d’études, de rapports, d’articles de presse et pour revues spécialisées, d’éditoriaux, de chroniques. D.E.A en Science politique et relations internationales – Université de Genève. Domaines de spécialisation : Les rapports entre la culture, la religion, identité et la politique – Les minorités religieuses, culturelles, ethniques du monde arabe – Les relations islamo-chrétiennes – le christianisme dans le monde arabe – Laïcité, communautarisme et multiculturalisme – Le Vatican – Le système politique libanais, les institutions et la démocratie – De nombreuses problématiques liées au Moyen Orient (Liban, Syrie, conflit israélo-arabe).

By Dr. John Andrew Morrow

As if the mass rapes committed by self-professed Islamists in Syria, Iraq, and Nigeria did not suffice, I am saddened to report a long string of attacks in another nation. According to confirmed reports, as many as one hundred and forty-eight women and girls have been abducted, tortured, hanged to death or burned alive. In some cases, the victims were sexually assaulted as part of the process. In at least four cases, the victims were pregnant. Some of them had their stomachs slit open.

The first case involves a young woman who supposedly gave a glass of poisoned lemonade to a teenage extremist. Although the terrorists tried to force her to confess, she steadfastly refused and was hanged.

The second case involves a woman accused of killing a terrorist who supposedly stumbled upon some stolen goods in her home. The terrorists murdered her 15-year old son in front of her eyes although he was not involved in any theft or murder. The boy was killed to traumatize his mother. After gang-raping the accused woman, they wrapped a rope around her neck and hanged her from a bridge.

The third case involves a mentally ill woman who was accused of murdering her female employer. In festive mood, local terrorists placed in a car, tied a rope around her neck, and fastening it to a tree limb. They cheerfully drove off at high speed, strangling her to death. Her body was dragged out of the car, her eyes were blown out with pistols, and her body literally cut in half by a shower of shot-gun pellets and riffle bullets.

The fourth case deals with a seventeen-year old girl who was sexually assaulted by two terrorists who broke into her home. Her brother responded to her cries and maimed or murdered one of the rapists. The courageous young girl reported her sexual assault to authorities, believing that the culprits would be put to death according to religious law. Rather than punish the rapists, the authorities accused the victim of fornication and placed her in prison. Frustrated that the victim’s brother escaped retaliation, a dozen terrorists dragged the young girl out of prison and hanged her in his place.

The fifth case involves a brave woman who denounced the murder of her husband to the authorities. After one of their men was murdered, the terrorists started randomly murdering any men who might have been involved, including the husband of the woman in question. To punish her for speaking out, the terrorists hanged her by her feet, doused her with gasoline and oil, and set her body on fire. One terrorist took out a long knife used to disembowel animals by butchers and slit her stomach open. The baby of the victim, who was eight months pregnant, tumbled to the ground with a “little cry.” With shouts of joy, the terrorists tramped the baby to death then sprayed bullets into the blistered body of its dying mother.

The sixth case deals with two young men and two young women. The older man, who was twenty, was accused of murdering a terrorist for sexually assaulting the young women in question. They placed his testicles in the jaws of a vice and slowly closed them until he confessed to murder. Both he and his younger brother were instantly put to death. The women were to be hanged from a bridge as a warning to other women. The older woman, who was four-months pregnant from her rapist, fell from a bridge twice as she tried to escape. The final fall would prove fatal. The terrorists laughed at how difficult it was to kill such a big woman. The younger sister, who was only 14, was almost full term when she was murdered by the terrorists. Since nobody claimed to bodies, some terrorists decided to bury the remains of the young girl on the second of her murder. One witness claimed that the movements of the unborn child could still be detected.

The seventh case involves a young married woman. Armed extremists broke into her home, threatened her husband with rifle barrels to his head, and abducted her. The bloodthirsty mob of terrorists took her outside of town, stripped her naked, subjected her to mass rape, and hanged her from a tree. Thousands upon thousands of villagers witnessed the gruesomely horrific scene.

The eighth and final case involves a husband and wife who were accused of murdering a man. One thousand terrorists hunted them down and tied them to trees. Their fingers were cut off, one at a time, and their ears were chopped off. In an orgy of blood and gore, the terrorists used bore screws to extract pieces of raw, quivering, flesh from their arms, legs, and bodies, which they then kept as souvenirs. If one wandered through town, human remains in jars of alcohol were proudly displayed on the windowsills of terrorists.

This war against women, waged by misogynistic men, has cost the lives of nearly one-hundred-and-fifty daughters, wives, and mothers. The crimes were committed in Syria and Iraq between 2012 and 2017. The perpetrators of these atrocities all belonged to the same race. They all belonged to the same religion. Their actions were widely supported by religious and political leaders. The perpetrators were all Arabs and Muslims. The victims were Jamilah Salim, Layla Nur, Naylah Badawi, Maryam Salaam, Mariyyah Samir, Habibah Halabi, Ruh Husayn, and Karimah Hindi. Surely, Islam and Muslims are to blame.

In reality, the crimes were committed in the United States of America in the early decades of the 20thcentury. The perpetrators of these atrocities were all white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant Christians. They acted with the active and passive support of judges, police officers, and politicians. The victims were all African American women: Jennie Steers, Laura Nelson, Anne Barksdale, Marie Scott, Mary Turner, Miss Holbert, Maggie Houze, Alma Houze, and Cordella Stevenson. White Christian Americans: you have been served your own bitter medicine. Let it be a lesson to you all.

“How can we, white Christian Americans, be held accountable for crimes that we never committed?” you may ask. You cannot and neither can we as Muslims. “Well, why don’t you Muslims speak out against terrorism?” We do, but what about you? Why didn’t your ancestors speak out against slavery, segregation, racism, discrimination, and mass lynching? Slavery in America lasted from 1501 to 1865. Why did it take your good Christian ancestors three hundred and fifty years to stop it? Segregation lasted until 1964. Why did it take your Christian parents and grandparents nearly a century to put an end to such a despicable and dehumanizing practice?

If Islam is to blame for every crime committed by Muslims then Christianity is to blame for every crime committed by Christians. African Americans, Catholic Americans, and Native Americans were murdered, in the name of Christ, with crosses blazing, by the thousands. Millions upon millions of human beings were murdered by Christians during colonialism, imperialism, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Afghan War, and the Iraq War. The criminals self-identified as Christians. They attended church services. They received the blessings of army chaplains. They even identified some of the conflict in question as Crusades, Christian holy wars against non-Christians. So how dare you, self-professed Caucasian Christians, scapegoat all Muslims and lay the burden of blame on the religion of Islam. Learn something from the Christ you claim to follow: “Do not do unto others as you would not them to do unto you.”

As horrific and hard-hitting as these accounts may be, they serve as a sober reminder that the human condition is the same in all places and among all people regardless of their religious background. Since history is written to serve the interests of people in power, the barbarity of white Christians has always been minimized, including the savagery of the First and Second World Wars, while the barbarity of black Africans, Amerindians, and Asians, who were defending themselves from white aggression, has always been exaggerated. Whether it was in Europe, Africa, Asia or the Americas, white, so-called Christians, committed crimes beyond belief, both maliciously and hypocritically, “in the name of Jesus.”

Dr. John Andrew Morrow is an Amerindian with Canadian and American citizenship. He received his PhD from the University of Toronto in the year 2000. He worked as an Assistant, Associate, and Full Professor of Foreign Languages for over a decade and a half at Park University, Northern State University, Eastern New Mexico University, the University of Virginia, and Ivy Tech Community College. He is the author of over thirty academic books in the fields of Hispanic, Islamic, and Indigenous Studies. A public figure and activist, he lectures all around the globe and acts as an advisor to world leaders. In recognition for his accomplishments, Dr. Morrow received an ISNA Interfaith Leadership Award in 2016. He may be followed on Twitter at @drjamorrow. His websites are www.johnandrewmorrow.com as well as www.covenantsoftheprophet.com. His videos can be viewed on The Covenants of the Prophet Channel on YouTube.

By Hanan al-Harbi

On May 31, 2017, an article was published by Turkish-American journalist Melek Kaylan in Forbes Magazine. Titled “The Hidden Documents of Islam that can Help Defang Islamic Terror,” the piece marks the moment that the Covenants of the Prophet pierced the major, mainstream, media. Even though the documents in question have been consecutively transmitted by Jewish, Samaritan, Christian, Muslim, and Zoroastrian sources from the 7th century to the 21st century, and that they were attested and authenticated by hundreds of scholars, they lingered in the background, hidden in plain sight, like the Sun behind the clouds, waiting to spread their socio-political and spiritual rays as a precursor to the return of the Prophet Jesus and Imam Mahdi.

Rather than rejoice that a positive image of Islam was being presented to a worldwide audience, Rebecca Masterton, a British Shiite Muslim convert, proclaimed in pontifical fashion that the Covenants of the Prophet were believed to be 12th century forgeries. Like the fleeting whisperer, she shed doubts on the documents, without providing any proof to support her baseless contentions. If the Covenants of the Prophet were authentic, argued Masterton, then provide carbon-dating evidence that they date back to the 7th century. Such ill-intended ignorance is staggering.

Dr. Masterton affirms that the Covenants of the Prophet are 12th century forgeries. The original copy of the Covenant of Najran was found in the House of Wisdom in the 9th century. How, then, can this document be a 12th century forgery? The Covenant with St. Catherine’s Monastery was described in detail in the firmans of the Fatimid Caliphs dating as far back as the 10th century. How, then, can this document be a 12th century forgery?

Masterton also ignores that the existence of the original was confirmed by Sultan Selim and subsequent Ottoman authorities. The original, issued by the Prophet and handwritten by Imam ‘Ali, was also viewed in the Ottoman Treasury by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars from the 16th century until the early 20th century.

As can be evidenced by her comments, Masterton is obviously oblivious to the fact that other Covenants of the Prophet survive to this day in Syria, Palestine, Turkey, Iran, and India. These documents have been examined by experts who concluded that they date back to the 7th century. Whether these are originals or first hand copies of originals is subject to debate and has yet to be definitively determined. They are, nonetheless, some of the earliest documents in the history of Islam.

To suggest that the Covenants of the Prophet are forgeries unless they are confirmed to be carbon-dated to the 7th century is both ignorant and ill-intended. Rather than demand the results of scientific-dating methods, why doesn’t Dr. Masterton bring forth the original 7thcentury copy of the Qur’an that was revealed to the Prophet and written down by his scribes?

If she were a Sunni, she could be called upon to provide original 7th century copies of the prophetic sayings found in Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, Ahmad, Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, and Malik. Problem is, they date from the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries.

Since she is a Shiite, perhaps she can provide the original sources of the traditions found in Nahj al-Balaghah, which was only compiled in the 10th century. While she is at it, where are the original sources used by Kulayni, Ibn Babawayh, and al-Tusi in works that were compiled in the 10th and 11th century? Where is the original, carbon-dated, copy of the Sahifah al-Sajjadiyyah by Imam ‘Ali Zayn al-‘Abidin? Or does she accept Majlisi’s Bihar al-Anwar as authentic? The work in question was completed in the 17th century, in 1698, a full 1066 years after the passing of the Prophet.

Rebecca Masterton readily accepts copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies that were transmitted orally from narrator to narrator to narrator to narrator to narrator to narrator to narrator to narrator to narrator to narrator as authentic; however, she rejects primary documents as well as first, second, and third copies of primary documents as dubious forgeries.

Rebecca Masterton prefers to swim in the swamp of lies produced a millennium after the passing of the Prophet rather than accept copies of manuscripts that were dictated directly by the Messenger of Allah, handwritten by Imam ‘Ali and Mu‘awiyyah, and witnessed by dozens of Companions of the Prophet. People like Masterton live in the world of an imaginary Islam, accepting legends and myths as authentic, while rejecting the most significant of historical documents.

If Masterton believes that the Covenants of the Prophet are forgeries merely because some of the surviving copies supposedly date to the 12th century, and if she believes that every source is false unless we have original carbon-dated copies, she is completely and utterly ignorant of the Islamic textual tradition. After all, as the aphorism goes, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Considering the comments that Dr. Rebecca Masterton has made regarding the Covenants of the Prophet, her qualifications to comment on the subject of Arabic historiography can, and should, be called into question. In fact, at the 2015 Muslim Congress, she admitted to Dr. Morrow that “I am not an ‘alimah. I do not consider myself a scholar of Islam.” I could not agree with her more. However, who am I to judge? I defer the ultimate decision to Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, who clearly stated in the Covenant of Najran:

He who breaks it, opposes it or changes it, will carry his crime on his head for he will have betrayed the Covenant of Allah, broken his faith, resisted His Authority and contravened the will of His Messenger: he will thus be an imposter in the eyes of Allah. For protection is obligatory in Allah’s religion and the Covenant is confirmed. He who does not abide by this Covenant will have violated his sacred obligations, and he who violates his sacred obligations is unfaithful and will be rejected by Allah and by all sincere Believers. (Morrow, John Andrew. The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World. Tacoma, WA: Angelico Press and Sophia Perennis, 2013: 293)

Hanan al-Harbi is a Danish-Syrian journalist who is deeply devoted to Classical Islam. She is a graduate of the University of Iceland, in Reykjavík, where she studied Political Science. She spends her summers in Greenland where she finds solace in the island’s solitude and breathtaking beauty. She is a contributor to Veterans Today, Katehon, and The Muslim Post, among other publications.  

The Growing Movement to Inform the World of Prophet Muhammad’s Covenants With Christians

Forbes just published an article by Melik Kaylan which caught my attention and the attention of some of my colleagues. Kaylan refers to The Covenants Initiative, a body of scholars in the West which is spearheading a movement to promote Prophet Muhammad’s Covenants with the Christians of his time. These Covenants have been well documented by scholars, primarily by John Andrew Morrow, who brought them to life back in 2013 with his groundbreaking book.

As Kaylan mentions in his piece, successive Caliphs renewed the Covenants, which can be read here, because they provided explicit declarations of tolerance or, as some have theorized it – religious pluralism.

According to Kaylan, the Covenants demonstrate “incontrovertibly that the basic Wahhabist or Salafist notion of indiscriminate jihad amounts to heresy.” He proceeds:

… in the context of ISIS specifically, which purports to be a Caliphate founded on strict adherence to originalist tenets – [the Covenants are] a bombshell. With Mohammad’s own imprint on them they represent the strictest orthodoxy. There’s nothing mysterious about why people, and governments, forgot about the Covenants in the largely secular twentieth century… As sharia makes a widespread comeback in the Islamic world, the message of the Covenants becomes acutely germaine.

In his interview with Morrow, Kaylan asked several pertinent questions to which Morrow responded with clarity and courage. Morrow states in the writeup: “There’s a lot of money spreading dangerously partial knowledge [of Islam]. Our aim is to turn a scholarly pursuit into a movement to raise awareness worldwide among Muslims and non-Muslims alike.”

The Covenants Initiative, Morrow explains, has dozens of contributors and academics in many countries that are translating the Covenants into many languages. “It’s a pretty young endeavor but we’re gaining ground,” Morrow adds.

Kaylan ends his review of the Covenants Initiative by stating the following: “It’s really astonishing, not to say egregious, that we in the West are not mobilizing this resource with so much at stake. What have we got to lose?”

Indeed, what have we got to lose?

I cover conflicts, frontiers and upheavals mired in history.

Forbes Magazine

May 31, 2017

In fact, there are three such original documents in existence with the prophet’s own signature, actually his thumbprint, authenticating them. They were always legally binding on Muslims and exact copies were officially issued down the centuries with calligraphic precision by successive Caliphs. Oddly enough, their obscurity is only a relatively recent phenomenon. In the days of religious empires, up to World War 1, the world knew about them – they’re well documented in the historical record – as did the Muslim faithful and their leaders who publicly abided by them. In our time, they have become more relevant than ever, and, despite considerable resistance, a movement spearheaded by scholars in the West (the Covenants Initiative) is pushing to return them to prominence. According to experts and increasing numbers of prominent Imams the message in the texts have the potential to halt the dynamics of radicalization in the Muslim world.

The documents are known as Covenants, specifically Covenant dispensations granted originally by the Prophet vouchsafing the protection of Christians and Jews by Muslims. Successive Caliphs then renewed the Covenants – explicit declarations of tolerance – down to the Ottoman period until the abolition of the Caliphate by the Turkish republic of Ataturk. The Covenants demonstrate incontrovertibly that the basic Wahhabist or Salafist notion of indiscriminate jihad amounts to heresy. And in the context of ISIS specifically, which purports to be a Caliphate founded on strict adherence to originalist tenets – they’re a bombshell. With Mohammad’s own imprint on them they represent the strictest orthodoxy. There’s nothing mysterious about why people, and governments, forgot about the Covenants in the largely secular twentieth century. There was no need for Islamic law to protect minorities when most states adopted civil codes. Those that didn’t, like the Saudis, had always resisted central authority and followed their own heterodox code, one that became – with the support of oil money – the standard for madrassas globally. As sharia makes a widespread comeback in the Islamic world, the message of the Covenants becomes acutely germaine.

Below is the text of the Covenant in the Ottoman archives, actually an extract from the full text which is much longer. It was given by the Prophet in Medina to the visiting representatives of St.Catherine’s (Christian) monastery in Egypt’s Sinai where it remained until the Ottoman Sultan Selim 1 conquered the Middle East and claimed the Caliphate. He gave them a fresh declaration in 1517 with his imprimatur and took the original back to Constantinople. The monks still possess the Sultan’s version.

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 Allah! 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 the sacredness of their covenants.

No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).

Two other comparable original documents remain extant, according to the leading academic in the field Dr. John Andrew Morrow, a Canadian convert to Islam from Toronto who now lives in Indiana, director of the Covenants Initiative and author of seminal books on the subject since 2013. One document belongs to a Christian monastery in Syria which, under threat from ISIS, is now in a secret location. The other belongs to an Armenian monastery in Jerusalem and is closely guarded. Dr. Morrow’s research has also unearthed the texts of ancient Covenants with Jews retained down the centuries by communities from Yemen and Egypt. According to Dr.Morrow, “very few Muslims today are aware of the Covenants generally. Most Muslim Seminaries don’t teach them for whatever reason – willful amnesia perhaps. There’s a lot of money spreading dangerously partial knowledge. Our aim is to turn a scholarly pursuit into a movement to raise awareness worldwide among Muslims and non-Muslims alike. We have dozens of contributors, academics in many countries, working with us, translating into numerous languages. It’s a pretty young endeavor but we’re gaining ground.” Dr.Morrow has visited the White House and the Pope was photographed holding up one of his books. He lectured crowds and gatherings of Imams in the Gulf in 2015 and many other conferences since. “It’s amazing that we need to do this at all,” says Dr.Morrow, “but these Islamist extremists don’t read books. They’re thugs who find an excuse to wield power. It’s the age-old ignorance and bloodshed cycle that we’re trying to break.”

It’s a very odd circumstance that mainstream media in the West have almost totally ignored the Covenants despite growing awareness and numerous overtures by Dr.Morrow and others (including myself) to publicize their existence and spread their message. On at least one occasion a reluctant editor openly admitted that his publication didn’t want to wade into ‘fatwa territory’. Yet the story itself is a sufficiently compelling one having all the elements of a historical, archeological, investigative yarn that has acute relevance in the present, may indeed save lives. One newspaper turned it down as too academic. And there’s the rub because most mainstream media in the West wont wade into intra-Islamic controversy for fear of making mistakes or offending minority sensibilities. As the Covenants website shows, no such fastidiousness prevents the rest of global media from taking notice of the movement or its aims. According to Dr.Morrow, the Covenants are supposed to be as important as the Koran to Muslim doctrine. They are, at the very least, a legitimizing instrument on the side of any Imam facing down his extremist rivals in a community or country. It’s really astonishing, not to say egregious, that we in the West are not mobilizing this resource with so much at stake. What have we got to lose?

By Charles Upton for New Age Islam

30 May 2017

The Covenants Initiative has recently been approached by various people who were obviously hoping to insert the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, into this or that worldly agenda: that of Russia, that of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, that of Iran. Since these people have identified themselves to us as Muslims, we feel justified in addressing them in terms of the spiritual duties incumbent upon all Muslims according to the norms of our religion.

What many Muslims may not understand about the Covenants of the Prophet is that they are nothing less, under prevailing conditions, and given the present state of Islam, than a call to repentance. We have no interest in making them “acceptable” to various interests within the Muslim world who seem to believe that the clear word of the Prophet can be made consistent with, and even used to empower, various pseudo-Islamic ideologies that contradict it at every point. It is the fond hope of hypocrites, of worldly human beings pretending to religion that Truth and falsehood are, or can be made to be, fundamentally compatible. Hasn’t life as they have lived it proved this hypothesis? In their daily experience they have found truth useful for some things, falsehood a better approach for others, clarity appropriate in certain situations, ambiguity and prevarication the tools of choice for still others. This is simply the actual nature of human life in the world; it comprises a set of standards that both honest worldlings and religious hypocrites implicitly accept as the highest law, the de facto Shari’ah that determines and judges all their actions. Unfortunately for them—and most especially for the hypocrites—it is not the law of Allah. Because the indisputable fact is that the commandments issued by the Prophet Muhammad in his Covenants, which he made binding upon all Muslims “until the coming of the Hour”, are clearly and diametrically opposed to many of the teachings of terrorist ideologues such as Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab and Ibn Taymiyyah.

The Covenants Command:

Defend the Christians from their enemies; never fight them unless they have first taken up arms against you; never damage their buildings; don’t prevent your Christian wives from going to church—and never under any circumstances kill or persecute someone simply because he or she refuses to convert to Islam! Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab and Ibn Taymiyyah, on the other hand, teach that the blood of Christians is Halal simply because they are not Muslims. It is therefore as clear as day that if you accept the one, you are duty bound to reject the other. Truth has come and falsehood has vanished away; certainly falsehood is ever bound to vanish (Q. 17:81). Anyone who still has the temerity to claim that it is possible to accept both the validity of the Covenants of the Prophet and the orthodoxy of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab or Ibn Taymiyyah after being confronted with these facts has begun the process, not only of perverting his or her own conscience, but of destroying his or her own mind. And this is a trajectory that, once embarked upon, is very hard to reverse. O believers! if you obey some amongst those who have received the Scripture, after your very Faith will they make you infidels! (Q. 3:100)

Is there any way out of this impasse for those who have not been able to summon up sufficient moral courage to reject much of what they have heretofore erroneously believed to be the teachings of their own religion, the fundamental principles of Islam?

As I see it, only two ways are open to them. The first is to characterize, and accept, the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, as a liar and a hypocrite, one who made reassuring overtures of friendship to Christians and Jews and Sabaeans and Zoroastrians when it suited his purposes, and felt no qualms about stabbing them in the back when the winds had changed and another approach was called for. This “version” of the Prophet of Islam—which, by the way, is identical to that of the Islamophobes—presents certain apparent advantages to those Muslims who adopt it, since it allows Muhammad to act as the archetype and justification for their own cunning and dishonesty, their own cruelty and treachery. Unfortunately for them, the picture of the Prophet transmitted by both the Qur’an and the Prophetic Covenants gives the lie to this self-serving perversion of the peerless stature and unblemished reputation—unblemished in the sight of Allah if not in that of the dunya—of him who was sent “as a mercy to all the worlds”. It is clear as daybreak that those who take this approach have no fear of Allah, and consequently—unless they repent—they must encounter a painful doom.

The other way of escaping this impasse—the second brand of “wiggle-room”—is simply to assert that the Covenants are forgeries. This is a much more straightforward and honest approach; however, it has the drawback of committing those who adopt it to a rather exhaustive and time-consuming course of study and research—one that has thankfully been made much easier, however, by the work of Dr. John Andrew Morrow in his The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World, as well as the upcoming two volume anthology he contributed to and edited, Islam and the People of the Book: Critical Studies on the Covenants of the Prophet. It is our stated position that these works have proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, the substantial validity of the majority of the documents presented as Covenants of the Prophet, and of the rightly-guided caliphs. Let those who reject this conclusion, reassured and empowered by the certainty that they are right, proceed to confront our arguments, and refute them, one by one, marshalling the same thoroughness and accuracy of scholarship that we have employed in establishing their validity.

If, however, they shy away from taking on this task, which could certainly prove onerous, what can be said about them? At this point let there be no mistake: the Covenants of the Prophet are dangerous documents. If they are in fact legitimate, they will require many Muslims to change many things in both their communal and their personal lives. And if any Muslim merely suspects that these documents may be genuine, but says to himself, “they might be valid, but finding out for sure means more labour and inconvenience than I’m willing to put up with”, then that Muslim has shown himself to be a hypocrite in the Presence of Allah—and when are we ever not in that Presence?

Those who know too much have lost the right to make excuses. Any Muslim as ignorant of his or her religion as most Wahhabi/Salafi “authorities” might conceivably be exonerated under the “acts are judged by their intent” rule. But whoever has heard of the Covenants of the Prophet, and given even a cursory glance at Dr. Morrow’s research, already knows too much, which means that the person in question knows either that he has no interest in learning the truth of his religion; that he is lying to himself; or that he has deliberately destroyed the part of his mind that could ever inform him that he is lying to himself, and has thereby demonstrated that he has no fear of Allah. Certainly he fears the Dunya; he fears those who have the power to deprive him of his livelihood if not his life; such fear is understandable, maybe even (under some circumstances) excusable. But as for Almighty Allah, the Abaser, the Avenger, the Knower of Each Separate Thing, the All-Just, such a Muslim has proved that this Incomparable Reality is worth no more to him than a momentary shrug of the shoulders—and for this there is no excuse.  It is not their eyes that are blind but the hearts in their breasts that are blind (Q. 22:46). There are many who firmly believe that they believe in Allah, but in fact do not. How can we be sure that such people exist? Their existence is clearly demonstrated by the fact that actions speak louder than words.

In light of these facts, we would suggest that anyone who does not want to place his or her immortal soul in greater jeopardy than it is already threatened with should stay far, far away from the Covenants of the Prophet: we would suggest this, except for the fact that even to have heard news of them places the obligation on every Muslim to determine for him- or herself whether or not they are true. Anyone who shirks this duty, having thereby proved that the commandments of the Prophet and the Will of Allah are matters of indifference to him, will find him- or herself among the losers—not by defeat, but by default. It is our duty to issue this warning on pain of being charged with leading the Muslims astray.

Furthermore, just as any prophetic Hadith which flatly contradicts the Noble Qur’an must immediately be discarded, we also need to seriously consider reviewing the entire body of Ahadith literature dealing with the proper relations between Muslims and other religious believers in light of the Covenants of the Prophet. The Hadith collections we possess were codified around three centuries after Muhammad’s death, while the historical and textual trail establishing the substantial validity of most of the documents claiming to be Prophetic Covenants stretches all the way back to the Prophet’s lifetime. They have been referenced in both Muslim and Christian sources as well as being periodically renewed by caliphs and sultans; we even know the identity of several of the scribes the Prophet dictated them to, notably ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. Consequently, a case can be made that they possess a degree of authority greater than the Ahadith, second only to the Qur’an itself.

So we have now stated our position as clearly as we know how. There is no need for us to further repeat ourselves; it is our duty to warn, but it is not our duty to nag. We would only conclude by saying, to those who have made desire their god (45:23), the ones who are daily walking in the all-too-common dream that they will never die, never step into one pan of the Scales to be weighed against a feather, never be burned to the bone of their living souls by the steady gaze of the All-Seeing, but who depend upon the belief that they have time, time, infinite time to treat the world as a joke and a jest, a game and a pass-time, in safety, in security, in peace, in rest, in sleep—to these we say: sleepers, awake! Because there are some—all too many, in fact—to whom Mercy can come only as a warning: “Friend! Don’t step on that snake! His bite is venomous, and could well be fatal.”

And to those who, while they are not yet convinced, one way or the other, of the truth of the Covenants, have begun to fear in the secrecy of their hearts that we might be right, we only say: Alhamdulillah! Fear is Mercy! Your fear is the sign that Allah has not abandoned you.

—-

Charles Upton was born in 1948. His books include Day and Night on the Sufi Path, Virtues of the Prophet, Reflections of Tasawwuf, The 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 Muḥammad with the Christians of the World. In 1988, he embraced Islam. Since that time, under two shaykhs, he has followed the Sufi path. The website of the Covenants Initiative is http://www.covenantsoftheprophet.com.

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/charles-upton-for-new-age-islam/the-covenants-of-the-prophet-muhammad–a-call-to-repentance/d/111342

– See more at: http://www.newageislam.com/the-covenants-of-the-prophet-muhammad–a-call-to-repentance/islamic-ideology/d/111342#sthash.L0yxaH7V.dpuf

John Andrew Morrow for Crescent International

 “Where are the Moderate Muslims?” is a 4:57 minute video that has been watched by millions of people (https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/where-are-moderate-muslims). It is spreading like a deadly virus and that is exactly what it is: a politically transmitted disease. The video, which was produced by Prager University, immediately poses a problem of credibility. To commence with, Prager is not a university. It is merely a YouTube channel and a website. It is the mouthpiece of Dennis Prager, a conservative radio host, Republican, and Zionist who excoriated Keith Ellison for taking his oath of office on the Qur’an. Prager “University” is not in the business of education. It is in the business of propaganda, much of which could be labeled hate propaganda despite its professional production qualities. How anyone could consider Prager “University” a credible source is beyond comprehension. The fact that the video has drawn the attention of so many viewers is cause for concern. It highlights a lack of critical thinking capacity.

Although the video is polished, the same cannot be said of the speaker: Hussein Aboubakr. To all appearances, the man in question has no terminal degree and lacks scholarly credentials. He is a pro-Israel speaker, a Zionist troll, and an agent of Israel. He was featured in the video to provide “local color,” to give him “credibility” as a dark-skinned Arab with an accent who denounces Islam and Muslims. He is a member of JIMENA: Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa. The man is either a Jew posing as a Muslim or a former Muslim. As much as he pretends to be “liberal” and promote “reform,” the man is a hate-monger: nothing less. He specializes in antagonizing Muslims and inciting Islamophobia. He even wrote a piece about the “Holy (Anti-Semitic) Month of Ramadan.” Unlike other scholars who distinguish between the moderate Muslim majority and the extremist minority composed of Takfiri-Wahhabis, Hussein Aboubakr puts all Muslims in the same basket. Gross generalizations of this kind have no place in legitimate scholarly or political discourse. Demonizing entire populations is the work of demagogues, dictators, mass murderers, and genocidalists.

Aboubakr, who looks and sounds the part of the stereotypical immigrant taxi driver, claims to have grown up in a middle-class family. Although his family supposedly consisted of “moderate” Muslims, they were committed to the caliphate and believed that Muslims lost a place of prominence in the world when they stopped fighting, killing, and converting the infidels. If what he claims is true, and it is not merely an act to set the stage, then he was not from a mainstream Muslim family. He was from a Salafi-Jihadi family. He was from an Ikhwani or Muslim Brotherhood family. He was from an Islamist and Arab nationalist family. Although he can speak for himself and his potentially fictitious experience, he cannot speak for a billion and a half other Muslims who certainly do not share his views.

To give credibility to his claim that there are no moderate Muslims, Aboubakr relies on “data.” Polls, however, can be designed to obtain desired outcomes. They ask questions in a way that will elicit a specific response. Even when the polls are properly conducted, people can spin them. That seems to be the case here. If people want a sense on what Muslims think, they can consult Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think by Dr. John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed. The research conducted by Gallup and Pew is routinely used to highlight the moderation of most Muslims. Statistics show that less than 0.001% of Muslims are terrorists and that only 7% of Muslims support Islamism or Jihadism. That is not to say that they are terrorists; however, they do indeed support Islamist opposition movements.

Considering that Muslims have lived under brutal monarchs and military dictators since the end of colonialism, and that their rulers are notorious for violating fundamental civil and human rights, it is understandable that some of them would express solidarity with those who seek to overthrow oppressors. Most Muslims, however, recognize that the cure is worse than the disease and that however bad some of their leaders may be, the Islamist terrorists who fight them can only take them from purgatory to hell.

Understanding full well that viewers and listeners need to be provided with key terms or slogans that will linger with them, Aboubakr invokes the threat of Shari‘ah, a term that has been maligned and demonized over the past few decades. When Islamophobes speak of Shari‘ah, they think about stoning people to death, lashing people, beheading them, and burning them alive. However, shari‘ah (in the literal sense) simply means law. So, yes, most Muslims believe in obeying the law. When Muslims say that they follow the Shari‘ah, they mean that they pray, fast, pay charity, and perform the pilgrimage. It means that they are practicing Muslims. A Muslim who believes in the Shari‘ah is like a Jew who follows the Halakhah and a Catholic who follows the Canon Law. In other words, when Muslims are asked about the Shari‘ah, they have one thing in mind; however, when non-Muslims think of the Shari‘ah, they have an entirely different idea in mind.

Although virtually all Muslim-majority countries have inherited the legal systems of their Western European colonizers, and that only Saudi Arabia and Iran claim to implement Islamic law, the former in a barbaric 7th century style, and the latter according to a modernized model that differs little from most countries in most matters, Aboubakr invokes so-called Shari‘ah punishments in order to appeal to anger and outrage. He fails to mention that the Shari‘ah law was codified over 1,000 years ago. This is like citing medieval European law and blaming it on Christianity. These legal codes were the product of their period. If the legal system in the Christian world had the opportunity to evolve, the same cannot be said of the legal system in much of the Muslim world, the natural evolution of which was stunted as a result of colonialism and imperialism. Although Shari‘ah has become stagnant in much of the Sunni world, the process of ijtihad or interpretation of the law provides an avenue through which it could potentially be applied to changing times and circumstances.

As anyone who has studied comparative religion will acknowledge, some ancient Islamic punishments are comparable to ancient Jewish punishments. In many cases, Muslim law is far more moderate. Unlike Jews, Muslims are not commanded to kill their children if they disobey their parents (Deuteronomy, 21:18–21). Unlike the Bible, the Qur’an does not command Muslims to slaughter infants and nursing children (1 Samuel, 15:3). It does not praise the dashing of babies against rocks (Psalms, 137:8–9) or ripping open the stomachs of pregnant women (Hosea, 13:16; 2 Kings, 15:16). Compared to medieval Christian law, which was devoid of justice or reason, Islamic law was extremely sophisticated and civilized. Muslims had a highly developed legal system while the Anglo Saxons were tossing accused witches into ponds: innocent if she drowns but guilty if she floats, in which case she would be burned alive.

Although the corporal punishments formed part of the code of law, they were rarely implemented. They acted as a deterrent. They were relics of nomadic Bedouin times when justice needed to be swift and when other modes of punishment, such as incarceration, were non-existent. When Muslims became sedentary, their judges were urged to err on the side of mercy. They were encouraged to avoid administering corporal punishments by ambiguities. For example, a list of conditions needs to be fulfilled to amputate a person’s hand for theft. The guilty party needed to be an adult. The adult needed to be sane. The stolen object had to be of a certain value. For example, it could not be an apple. The crime had to be premeditated. The thief could not be poor or needy. Although a man or woman who committed adultery could, theoretically face the death penalty, the burden of proof was virtually impossible to meet as it required four eyewitnesses to the repeated act of penetration. With the exception of Takfiri-Wahhabis, these types of corporal punishments are not implemented in Muslim-majority nations.

Islamophobes also ignore the fact that there is no single Shari‘ah or legal code in Islam. There are over half a dozen major schools of law in Islam. They have different punishments for different crimes. Some schools of thought avoided corporal punishments. They replaced them with fines and prison terms. Although it is not permissible to make what is illegal legal or vice versa, it is permissible to apply different punishments to different crimes. What is more, certain schools of jurisprudence, like the Maliki one, believed that Muslims could adopt pre-existing legal systems so long as they did not contradict basic moral principles. As for Muslims in non-Muslim lands, their obligation was not to impose the Shari‘ah on non-Muslims: it was to obey the law of the land.

Aboubakr claims that the Shari‘ah calls for the death penalty for adultery and apostasy when both these issues are disputed by Muslim jurists. Although some traditions speak of stoning, they are related to Jewish women who demanded that they be punished according to the laws of the Torah. As for the Qur’an, it mentions 100 lashes for fornication/adultery (24:2). While it is true that many Muslims believe adulterers should be stoned to death according to Islamic Law, most Jewish people would also admit that Jewish Law calls for the same punishment (Deuteronomy, 22:22). Although it is true that some Muslim jurists ruled that homosexual relations merited the death penalty, the same can be said of the Bible. As we read in Leviticus, “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.” (20:13). Aboubakr cannot be anti-Muslim without also being anti-Christian and anti-Jewish.

As for leaving Islam, some scholars equate apostasy with desertion and treachery. If people left the Muslim community, and waged war alongside the enemies of Islam, then, and only then would they merit the death penalty. Historically, this is the same punishment that most nations have had in place for treason, desertion, and espionage. What is more, the Shari‘ah states that the punishment for apostasy only applies to adults who were born and raised Muslim, who were men, who were sane, and who refused to repent. Converts and women were generally excluded. Women, in particular, were only punished if they rejected Islam on three different occasions and then so, only by imprisonment. Many religions, including Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Catholicism, have condemned apostates to death. Other religious groups resort to shunning. Finally, not all Muslim scholars believe in putting to death people who leave the Islamic faith. After all, the Qur’an states, “There is no coercion in matters of conviction” (2:256).

Laws are used to promote what a society values and to discourage what it detests. If the Shari‘ah provides severe punishments for fornication, adultery, and sexual assault, it is because Islam places tremendous value on chastity and sexual purity. If the Shari‘ah provides severe punishments for insulting God and the Prophet (pbuh), it is because it has a strong sense of the sacred. The real issue is not the crime but rather the punishment. The issue is the death penalty. Many Muslims, like many Americans, believe in the death penalty for serious crimes such as homicide, armed robbery, kidnapping, sexual assault, drug-trafficking, pimping, and the sexual exploitation of children. For most of history, the most efficient method of putting a person to death was by beheading or by hanging. The Western world has been hanging and beheading people for thousands of years. When they developed bullets, some countries started to use the firing squad. Some countries use lethal injection or electrocution. Countries with the highest number of executions include the US, China, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. Either you are for the death penalty or you are against it; 62% of Americans support the death penalty. Does that make them extremists?

In an act of academic dishonesty, Aboubakr selectively cites and misrepresents the findings of the Pew Forum. He focuses on a few issues in a few countries while ignoring the dozens of other countries that were surveyed. He stresses that large numbers of Egyptians and Jordanians believe in the death penalty for leaving Islam; however, he conveniently hides the fact that most Lebanese, Iraqis, and Tunisians oppose this view and that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in southeastern Europe, Central Asia, and parts of Southeast Asia are also opposed to executing people for rejecting Islam.

For anyone interested in an honest assessment of the findings in question, he can refer to the interpretation of the data provided by the Pew Forum itself: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/.

The inarticulate Hussein Aboubakr continues his campaign of misinformation by asserting that Muslims are extremists because they oppose “gay rights.” If that is the case, most religious Christians and religious Jews are extremists as well. 61% of Americans support gay rights as do 77% of secular Jewish Americans. Does that mean that 39% of Americans and 23% of secular Jews are extremists? If 54% of all American Christians support gay marriage, does that mean that the 46% that do not are extremists? To top it all off, he claims that Muslims responded to the 9/11 attacks “with joy” when, in reality, they were widely condemned, even by Islamists. For Aboubakr, however, most Muslims are extremists, even young, educated, westernized Muslim women who do not wear hijab and who, unlike himself, speak perfect English. Rather than target the real culprits, the Takfiri-Wahhabis and those who sponsor them, Aboubakr wants non-Muslims to fear all Muslims.

The enemy has breached the gate. All Muslims, regardless of how westernized they appear and how moderate they may pretend to be, are extremists on the inside. This is a recipe for Islamophobic violence. This is the same sort of language that was employed by the propagandists of the Third Reich. It did not end well for the Jews. However, it did not end well for the propagandists either.

Most Muslims are not extremists. In fact, it is outrageous that Muslims are expected to prove they are moderates and loyal to the Western countries in which they live. If anything, non-Muslims need to prove that they are not extremists. They are by word and by action. Are Muslims risking a nuclear war with North Korea and China? No. Are Muslims risking a nuclear war with Russia? No. According to Statistica, 28,328 people died as a result of terrorism between 2006 and 2015. The so-called American Christians in the US armed forces have killed over 20 million people, 90% of them civilians, in 37 nations, since World War II. Belgian Christians under Leopold II committed one of the worst genocides in history, torturing, mutilating, and murdering more than 10 million human beings over the course of 20 years, leaving Congo virtually devoid of native inhabitants. Christians are therefore in no moral position to accuse Muslims of being “extreme.”

Islam does not need to further reject terrorism. Islam rejects terrorism inherently. Islam does not speak for itself: Muslims speak for Islam. And Muslims have been denouncing terrorism incessantly. The corporate-controlled media simply refuses to cover it. Although a few independent and alternative media outlets cover Muslim voices, they are small; hence, our voices get lost in the chorus. The statistics, however, speak for themselves. As the Pew Research Center has shown, Muslim views of ISIS are overwhelmingly negative. The huge majority of Muslims reject extremism and terrorism. If the Western world is so concerned about “radical Islam,” why is it in bed with the Saudis and the Qataris? They have been funding “Islamic terrorism” to the tune of billions of dollars for decades.

Although some Westerners are open to listening to the Muslim side of the story, most Trumpians, Republicans and Tea-Baggers have already concluded that “Islam is of the Devil.” The very fact that the video in question is circulating in the millions does not bode well for what was once a great nation. Even if someone succeeded in convincing major Western leaders that most Muslims are moderates, they remain surrounded by very influential people who are not exactly favorable to the idea of portraying Muslims in a positive light. Most presidents and prime ministers serve the interests of the global elites, not those of the citizens they are supposed to represent, not those of their countries, and most certainly not those of humanity.

The problem is not the person who pretends to have power. The problem is the System. Like Medusa’s head, it has snakes for hair. Even if one succeeded in cutting the head of a serpent, there are a thousand more that will remain to turn the passive masses to stone.

Finally, it is important to realize that the small percentage of people who support ISIS and other terrorist groups are all partisans of the Takfiri-Wahhabi ideology. In other words, they have been indoctrinated into the pseudo-Islam that is spread around the world by certain sectors. Consequently, if the center of Takfiri-Salafism is isolated and its influence blocked, the financial and ideological support that creates terrorists and terrorist sympathizers will disappear.

Let us learn a lesson from Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh used to tell his combatants that they had to move like fish in water. Clearly, for Ho Chi Minh, water represented the people, the huge mass of people. The US failed to win the trust of the people of North Vietnam. In short, they failed to deprive the fish of its water. It is for this reason that Ho Chi Minh won. It was not communism that won since communism is a negation of itself. This is evidenced by Vietnam after the triumph of Ho. This is evidenced by the disappearance of the former USSR.

Should we not learn lessons from a historical conflict that resulted in the loss of so many American lives? We must deprive the terrorist shark of its water. To achieve this goal, we must shut down the institutions of fake-Islam of the Takfiris. We must shut down the websites and social media sites that are financed by the Takfiris. We must shut down the terrorist training camps in various parts of the world. If we do not drain the swamp of takfiri terrorists, however small they may be numerically when compared to the world population of Muslims, they will continue to cause immense damage, engaging in all sorts of horrific atrocities, destroying entire groups of people and nations while devastating the environment. Basta ya basta. Enough is enough. The moderate true Muslims must revolt against the immoderate fake Muslims. Then, and only then, will truth stand in contrast to falsehood.

Let us “cast truth against falsehood so that it breaks its head and vanishes” (21:18). Then, and only then, will we, Muslims, no longer be subjected to the indignity of being asked, “Where are the Moderate Muslims?”

25 de mayo de 2017

SHAFAQNA – El último crítico en confrontar Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo antes de la publicación de El Islam y la Gente del Libro es José Carlos Martínez Carrasco, quien publicó una revisión de la versión española, que apareció bajo el título El minarete y el campanario: los pactos del Profeta Mahoma con los cristianos del mundo. Lo hizo en Miscelánea de estudios árabes y hebraicos (Vol. 66: 348-351) del corriente año.

Más que enfocar cuestiones de contenido, como lo haría cualquier revisor de buena reputación, Martínez Carrasco acomete un ataque personal poniendo en duda mis credenciales y manifiesta que nunca ha sido más importante conocer al autor antes de conocer su trabajo. Alega que la traducción al español de Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo “no es un estudio académico al uso, con una metodología acorde con el campo de estudios al que a priori pertenecería.”

Martínez Carrasco afirma que la revisión de mi CV demuestra que la formación académica que poseo tiene poco o nada que ver con el área de Estudios Árabes e Islámicos. Observa, con razón, que soy un profesor de lenguas extranjeras, un experto en la lengua española y estudios hispánicos y que completé una tesis doctoral sobre La Presencia Indígena en Rubén Darío y Ernesto Cardenal (2000). También afirma que mi interés en un campo que es tan diferente al de área de competencia profesional es el resultado de mi conversión al Islam a la edad de 16 años, algo que me lleva a profundizar los estudios relativos a la tradición islámica, tanto dentro como fuera del mundo académico.

Según Martínez Carrasco yo manifiesto que el Imam ‘Ali dijo a los Jariyitas: “En lo que dicen hay verdad y hay mentira.” Es cierto que terminé una licenciatura en español y francés, lengua y literatura, junto con una M.A. (Maestría) y un Ph.D. (Doctorado) en literatura hispanoamericana. Nunca oculté mis logros académicos.

El motivo por el que completé las especialidades de grado y posgrado en el Departamento de Español de la Universidad de Toronto se debió a que era el único lugar donde podía especializarme en los tres campos que más me fascinaban: estudios hispánicos, estudios nativos y estudios islámicos.

Como hispanista estudié el idioma y la lingüística española. Tomé cursos de historia española y logré una gran instrucción respecto de la influencia árabe en la lengua española. Como parte de mi formación, estudié cultura, historia y civilización española, incluidos los casi 800 años de gobierno árabe musulmán en al-Andalus. Por lo tanto, estoy perfectamente versado en la historia de la España islámica.

Obviamente, estudié literatura española y la influencia recibida de la literatura árabe e islámica. Esto se llama literatura comparada. Es lo que hacen eruditos como Luce López-Baralt. No se pueden comparar dos tradiciones literarias a menos que se sea experto en ambas. En consecuencia, no solo estoy muy bien preparado en literatura española sino que también lo estoy en literatura árabe. En consecuencia, soy hispanista y arabista.

Siendo estudiante de grado fui introducido a la literatura morisca por el distinguido Dr. Ottmar Hegyi. Fue él quien me animó a entrar en la escuela de posgrado y terminar una tesis sobre literatura aljamiada. Pasé más de una década investigando el tema en la preparación de mi tesis pero mi mentor, el profesor Hegyi, se retiró antes. Ese trabajo Shi’ismo en el Magreb y en al-Andalus, se publicará en un futuro cercano. Lo investigué y redacté mientras era estudiante de posgrado en la Universidad de Toronto.

Desde el retiro de mi mentor –una eminencia en literatura Aljamiada-morisca y la influencia del Islam en la literatura española– me quedé sin director de tesis. Entonces decidí completar una tesis sobre La presencia e influencia islámica en la América precolombina, una obra que relacionaba los estudios hispánicos e islámicos. Completé las investigaciones necesarias y escribí una parte importante del trabajo para enterarme que un sector de eruditos no lo consideró “políticamente correcto.” Sostuvieron de manera dogmática la idea de que antes de Colón nadie había entrado en contacto con las Américas. Mi trabajo, en su opinión, era revisionista histórico. Estoy seguro que padecieron ataques de ansiedad al establecerse que los escandinavos ya habían andado por estas tierras en el siglo x. Lance aux Meadows (en la isla de Terranova) debe haber sido una pesadilla para ellos. Aunque creo que algunos musulmanes y los nacionalistas negros exageran groseramente los reclamos de los contactos de africanos y árabes con las Américas, no dudo que algunos de los mismos cruzaron el Atlántico antes que Colón.

Decidí entonces seleccionar un tema aceptable para todos los miembros de la Facultad en el Departamento: La presencia indígena en Rubén Darío y Ernesto Cardenal. Este tema vinculaba dos elementos: el mundo hispano y el mundo indígena. Y aunque la conexión islámica no se presente evidente a los neófitos, cabe señalar que la obra de Ernesto Cardenal está influenciada por el sufismo y el Islam político. El hecho de que me especializase en la obra de Ernesto Cardenal explica mi redacción de Religión y revolución: el Islam espiritual y político en Ernesto Cardenal, una obra que sólo podía realizar una persona especialista en literatura hispánica e islámica.

Martínez Carrasco podría argumentar que yo carezco de preparación académica formal en el campo de la religión o estudios islámicos, pero no es así. En la Universidad de Toronto cursé filosofía, estudios religiosos y estudios islámicos. Uno de mis profesores fue el académico egipcio-armenio cristiano Dr. Solomon Alexander Nigossian, quien dictó cátedra en el Departamento de Religión de la Universidad de Toronto durante décadas y es autor de muchas obras sobre Islam. Fue él quien me enseñó la metodología empleada en el campo de los estudios islámicos y religiosos.

Martínez Carrasco tampoco menciona que completé estudios postdoctorales en árabe en varios institutos de idiomas en los Estados Unidos y Marruecos, por lo que no soy únicamente profesor de español sino también de francés y árabe. Fui quien concibió, planificó la totalidad del programa de árabe para una Universidad estatal, incluidas todas las ofertas de curso. Más aún, fui contratado por la Universidad de Virginia para enseñar estudios religiosos. Impartí un curso sobre Ibn Battutah, así como un curso sobre el Islam para su semestre en el Programa de Mar. Por último, todos mis cursos en cultura y civilización española incluyen un componente sobre la historia de al-Andalus.

Aunque Martínez Carrasco no le da importancia, también realicé el ciclo completo de estudios islámicos tradicionales de manera independiente y de la mano de eruditos musulmanes sunitas, shiitas y sufíes. Soy ampliamente reconocido como ustad [profesor de Islam], sheik [líder religioso musulmán], ‘alim [erudito religioso islámico] y hakim [fitoterapeuta o entendido en hierbas islámico]. No se trata de nominaciones asumidas con arrogancia sino otorgadas por mis pares.

El Imam Ilyas Fawzy de la Universidad al-Qarawiyyin afirmó respecto a mi persona: “su conocimiento de Islām es profunda.” Al-Sheij al-Habib ‘Ali al-Jifri dijo: “El Doctor John es extraordinariamente sólido en estudios islámicos.” Soy convocado para revisar obras de juristas musulmanes. Los responsables religiosos me consideran una autoridad religiosa. Esto debería ser suficiente como prueba de mis calificaciones. No considero necesario citar más elogios a mi persona de mis colegas y pares académicos. No obstante, Martínez Carrasco podría afirmar que las personas citadas son clérigos y no académicos. Pero todos saben que hay sacerdotes, rabinos y muftis eruditos.

Además, estoy muy lejos de ser el único que maneja los estudios hispánicos e islámicos. Hay otros eruditos en la materia: Ottmar Hegyi, Luce López-Baralt, María Rosa Menocal, J.T. Cutillas-Ferrer, María Luisa Lugo Acevedo, Francisco Marcos Marín, T.B. Irving, L.P. Harvey, Gerald Albert Wiegers, A.G. Chejne, Vincent Barletta, Karima Bouras y muchos más que se especializan en la literatura morisca-aljamiada y de la España islámica. Yo soy un aljamiadista y eso me hace hispanista, islamólogo y arabista. 

De todos modos, Martínez Carrasco repite: “no considero El minarete y el campanario… sea un estudio se ciña a criterios científicos, sino que se trata más bien de una apología religiosa cubierta de una retorica pseudo-histórica.” En otras palabras, el hecho de que yo sea musulmán me excluye automáticamente de ser un académico objetivo basado en una metodología científica. Esto es lisa y llanamente intolerancia. Es un decreto discriminatorio dictado desde un podio de prejuicios. Si ser musulmán me descalifica de escribir objetivamente sobre el Islam, ser no musulmán descalifica a Martínez Carrasco de escribir sobre Islam. Se trata de una persona que hace juicio de valores motivados en sentimientos y manifiesta hostilidad hacia el Islam.

Después de describir brevemente el contenido del libro, Martínez Carrasco afirma que “Ya desde las primeras páginas del libro, queda patente el objetivo que J. A. Morrow persigue con El minarete y el campanario…: lavar la imagen de los musulmanes en América y defenderse de quienes los tachan de extremistas”

Martínez Carrasco afirma que Los Pactos del Profeta es una respuesta a quienes acusan a Muhammad de ser un asesino sangriento que expande el Islam por medio de la espada. Por esta razón, afirma al crítico español, yo me centro exclusivamente en los Pactos con los Cristianos en tanto soy mucho más crítico de los judíos. Al parecer, eso se debería a que vivo en “un ambiente eminentemente cristiano.”

No soy un apologista. No tengo una agenda. Soy un académico. Estudio fuentes y dejo que hablen por sí mismas. Escribí y me referí a la gestación de Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo. Martínez Carrasco debería haber realizado algunas investigaciones antes de hacer tales acusaciones engañosas. Aunque intentó a su manera verificar mis antecedentes y juzgó mi libro, no pudo darse cuenta que los pactos del Profeta con los judíos, samaritanos y zoroastrianos me interesan tanto como los pactos con los cristianos.

Martínez Carrasco se queja de que “[t]odo el libro gira en torno a la idea del Islam como religión de paz, aglutinadora y superadora de los monoteísmos anteriores.” Y en base a eso argumenta que Héctor Horacio Manzolillo y yo destacamos la necesidad de un entendimiento interreligioso frente a nuevos desafíos, como el ecogenocidio que enfrenta el planeta. En otras palabras, Manzolillo y yo somos, en realidad, islámicos dominionistas (Nota del traductor: Dominionismo es un término usado para describir la filosofía de cristianos conservadores políticamente activos que, según se cree, buscan ejercer influencia o control sobre el gobierno civil secular a través de la acción política, especialmente en los EEUU, y cuyo objetivo es el establecimiento de una nación gobernada por cristianos, o de una nación gobernada por una comprensión cristiana conservadora de la ley bíblica. El uso y la aplicación de esta terminología es controvertida y existe un debate en curso acerca de la utilidad de este término). Dice Martínez Carrasco:

A pesar de ese afán por ir más allá de las diferencias entre cristianos, judíos y musulmanes, las páginas objeto de análisis esconden un mensaje un tanto peligroso sobre el que hay que llamar la atención. Quizás convenga recordar que se trata de una obra escrita por un converso al Islam. Subyace una carga ideológica que culpa de todos los males al materialismo de la civilización occidental, que se contrapone a la espiritualidad de un mundo árabe tomado (erróneamente) como un bloque homogéneo. Esta idea convierte a Morrow, a su pesar y de manera inconsciente, en rehén de una visión colonialista que hace de los árabes un pueblo ahistórico, ajeno a los cambios experimentados en el mundo a lo largo de los siglos, que los mantiene en un estado de «inocencia».

Nunca he visto tal interpretación retorcida en mi vida. ¿Desde cuando confundo árabes con musulmanes? La distinción la hago muy claramente. Soy el último que podría idealizar a los árabes y musulmanes. Acepto absolutamente al Profeta Muhammad. Respeto a otras autoridades del Islam clásico. Y fustigo a cualquiera que no adhiera a los principios éticos primordiales.

¿Qué tipo de persona considera que los pactos del Profeta con la Gente del Libro son peligrosos? Por el contrario, sostengo que los que se les oponen son particularmente peligrosos. Y en tanto yo culpo a Occidente por sus pecados y deficiencias, también soy el primero en alabarlo. Y lo mismo se aplica para el Este, el Norte y el Sur. Digo lo que es. Alabo cuando corresponde y critico cuando me veo obligado a hacerlo. Es mi deber como estudioso y académico responsable.

Martínez Carrasco alega que la crítica de Manzolillo a la democracia, utilizada como una panacea, es una indicio del tono general de la obra. ¿Cómo es posible que haga de un comentario en el prefacio algo valedero para lo esencial de la obra? Tal comentario no tiene que ver con la médula del trabajo. Al parecer, el crítico le dio tanta importancia al mismo, que pide a los lectores que (en base a eso) saquen “sus propias conclusiones.” En otras palabras, Morrow y Manzolillo se oponen a la democracia. Los juicios del crítico apestan a kilómetros de distancia.

Si Martínez Carrasco llevó a cabo la investigación adecuada, sabría perfectamente que Manzolillo y yo apoyamos firmemente la democracia participativa y representativa y que nos oponemos a toda forma de dictadura y despotismo. El hecho de criticar a la seudo-democracia de los antiguos griegos y romanos y las democracias de hoy que están controladas por corporaciones no nos hace anarqistas o totalitarios en nuestros criterios políticos.

Los comentarios de Manzolillo ciertamente tocaron una fibra sensible que a Martínez Carrasco afectan como un hueso en la garganta. Afirma que en lo esencial el libro consiste en una comparación entre las democracias occidentales, liberales y parlamentarias con el Islam a fuer de una entidad político-religioso. Manifiesta el crítico:

Argumenta J. A. Morrow que la democracia grecorromana era esclavista y profundamente desigual, mientras que el Islam, desde sus inicios, se mostró contrario a la esclavitud y propició la igualdad de todos, creyentes o no, independientemente de la edad o el género, lo que lleva inmediatamente, según este autor, a la superioridad del Islam frente a las democracias. Quizás olvide que, a día de hoy, se sabe que en el mundo islámico pervive el tráfico de esclavos, si bien se desconoce su volumen; como también quizás olvide Morrow que puede escribir libros como este gracias a los derechos que le garantiza un sistema tan pernicioso como la democracia.

No tengo la más mínima duda que la revelación del Islam promulgada por el Profeta Muhammad es muy superior a las llamadas democracias de los griegos y romanos. De hecho, cuando a los judíos, samaritanos, cristianos de Oriente Medio, norte de África y la Península Ibérica se les da a elegir entre los gobiernos islámico y bizantino de entonces, la mayoría optó por el régimen islámico, a pesar de que había pocos o ningún gobernante de los musulmanes que aplicase los estándares establecidos por el Mensajero de Allah. Así y todo, con sus deficiencias, el sistema de gobierno aplicado en las tierras musulmanas garantizaba los derechos, las libertades y la protección que recién emergió en el mundo Occidental en el siglo XX.

Si Martínez Carrasco es sincero, debería distinguir entre las enseñanzas del Islam predicada por el Profeta y las prácticas no islámicas de pseudo-musulmanes. El Profeta Muhammad nunca poseyó esclavos. Nunca animó a sus compañeros a que posean esclavos. Dijo que los traficantes de esclavos eran lo peor de la raza humana. Promovió e incluso impuso la liberación de los esclavos. Él y sus compañeros liberaron decenas de miles de esclavos. Basándose en una investigación de las primeras fuentes, se estima que liberaron 39.000 seres humanos esclavizados.

En lugar de atacar el Islam por el hecho de que algunos bárbaros en lugares como Sudán, Chad y Malí apañan la esclavitud, podría mirarse en el espejo de Occidente, donde las mujeres y niños son esclavizados en enormes cantidades. En los Estados Unidos se venden para la esclavitud sexual más de 100.000 niñas por año. En Europa los números son parecidos. La esclavitud sexual que practica el ISIS concita una gran atención de la prensa. Sin embargo, es un pálido reflejo de lo que abarca la esclavitud sexual en las democracias occidentales. Si bien en parte del Africa negra hay esclavos, esa situación prácticamente no se ha modificado desde la época medieval. Pero la esclavitud sexual en Europa Occidental y en los Estados Unidos –autoproclamados bastiones de la democracia y de los derechos humanos– es bastante distinta, independientemente de que ambas, las de Oriente y de Occidente, son absolutamente condenables.

Martínez Carrasco afirma: “[c]on estas premisas como punto de partida, es legítimo pensar que no se trata de un estudio científico acerca de unos hechos históricos en base a evidencias textuales. Por el contrario, lo que articula Morrow es un discurso netamente religioso, que no busca establecer un conocimiento más o menos riguroso del pasado, sino una Verdad teológica, con todo lo que ello implica.”

Martínez Carrasco insiste en que en el discurso teológico de Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo es evidente el uso incorrecto –por ignorancia– de la terminología histórica, que se interpreta continuamente de manera religiosa. El crítico afirma que mi abordaje de las fuentes islámicas casi siempre es acrítica y que cualquier hipótesis que cuestione el Canon islámico se desestima rápidamente porque sería producto de “eruditos espiritualmente inseguros.”

Aunque no tengo un título en historia, estoy formado en metodología histórica. Sé muy bien cómo manejar las fuentes. Cientos de académicos, incluidos historiadores, han elogiado y aprobado los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo. Por supuesto, estos hechos son ignorados por algunos cavernícolas españoles. Y en el caso de Carrasco, non capire que los pactos muhammadianos no forman parte del Canon islámico. Fueron ignorados. Fueron suprimidos. Fueron extirpados. Y ahora están siendo recuperados. Si el crítico se tomó la molestia de leer el libro en su totalidad, en lugar de centrarse en unas pocas palabras del traductor, sabría que no defiendo el status quo. Por el contrario, sostengo que los pactos del Profeta fueron ocultados por los supuestos dirigentes musulmanes que querían libertad de acción y no tomar verdaderamente en consideración los principios proféticos. En verdad, soy implacable en mi crítica al literalismo, al fundamentalismo y al extremismo.

Martínez Carrasco afirma que yo añoro “la «edad de oro» que representa el período profético durante el que Muhmmad ejerció el gobierno; un Muhammad presentado como un hombre de paz, anti-colonialista, pero que al mismo tiempo se muestra como gran estratega militar.”

Ni Manzolillo ni yo añoramos una “edad de oro” del Islam. No somos salafistas que sueñan con una imaginaria, legendaria y mítica utopía musulmana del siglo VII. Valoramos los aspectos positivos. Criticamos los aspectos negativos. Nos damos cuenta que nada es perfecto. Puesto que vivimos en el presente y planificamos para el futuro, no vivimos en el pasado. Sin embargo, estudiamos el pasado para obtener conocimiento, evitar errores anteriores y adoptar estrategias que resultarían exitosas. No pretendemos imitar. Tratamos de no reproducir. Buscamos derivar principios y aplicarlos.

En cuanto a Muhammad, el hombre era completo, polifacético. Era tanto un místico como hombre de pueblo. Era analfabeto y a la vez erudito. Era poderoso pero humilde. Podía transmitir conceptos tanto a estudiosos especializados como a simples pastores. Era cariñoso y compasivo pero podía ser feroz en la batalla. La guerra y la paz van de la mano. Si quieres la paz, lo mejor es que te prepares para la guerra. Se trata de la realidad. El propio Profeta Muhammad dijo: “sonrío y lucho.” Vino con la palabra y con la espada. Pero se trataba de la espada de la justicia social.

Continuando con el mismo postulado ridículo, Martínez Carrasco advierte: “El discurso queda enmascarado tras una pretendida equidistancia entre la «leyenda negra» y la «leyenda rosa.” Pero lo que realmente ofrece es una actualización de la segunda adornada con una argumentación que no se sostiene ante un análisis crítico, como la afirmación de que fue Muhammad quien elaboró el dogma de la Inmaculada Concepción.”

A menos que se esté familiarizado con la historia hispánica, la referencia a la “leyenda negra” y la “leyenda rosa” no será comprendida por la mayoría de los lectores. En el contexto hispano, la “leyenda negra” se refiere a las afirmaciones que los españoles cometieron genocidio contra los habitantes indígenas de las Américas. En el contexto musulmán, la “leyenda negra” mencionado por Martínez Carrasco sería la demonización del Islam y los musulmanes, algo común a lo largo de la historia europea, mientras que la “leyenda rosa” es la presentación del Islam –particularmente en la Península Ibérica–como una especie de “Edad de oro.”

En la mente del crítico, Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo es simplemente una versión reenvasada de la “leyenda rosa” que no resiste el análisis valorativo. Una vez más, si el crítico realmente leyó o en verdad entendió lo leído, sabría que elogio los principios y las protecciones que aplicó el Profeta en sus pactos con los judíos y los cristianos, a las que  considero deslumbrantes, impactantes. Y estoy positivamente asombrado por los líderes musulmanes que se ciñeron a ellos. En resumen, son la prueba de fuego que utilizo al evaluar la islamicidad de los llamados gobernantes islámicos.

En cuanto a la afirmación de Martínez Carrasco respecto a que yo dije que fue Muhammad quien elaboró el dogma de la Inmaculada Concepción, dejo que mi libro hable por sí mismo: “Aunque la mayoría de los musulmanes y los cristianos no son conscientes de esto, la primera persona en formular la doctrina de la Inmaculada Concepción fue Muhammad, algo reconocido por teólogos tanto católicos como protestantes (Grassi 74). Algunos pueden afirmar que el Profeta había aprendido tales doctrinas de los cristianos orientales cuando, en realidad, fueron ellos los que las aprendieron de él” (13). Pero, como cualquier lector inteligente observa, no soy yo quien hace la afirmación sino M. Grassi (Alfio) en su Charte Turque ou Organisation religieuse, civile et militaire de l ‘empire ottoman, publicada en París en 1826. Yo digo, simplemente, que hay una fuerte evidencia que apoya esta afirmación. No obstante, el comentario en cuestión es totalmente periférico en el estudio como un todo. ¿Estúpido o artero? Citando a Carrasco, dejaré que los lectores “saquen sus propias conclusiones.”

Para concluir lo que sería su revisión islamofóbica, Martínez Carrasco escribe: “El minarete y el campanario… habría que inscribirlo en el extremo opuesto a las obras de aquéllos revisionistas que cargan las tintas sobre los aspectos negativos del Islam. Persigue un objetivo legítimo, pero lo hace a costa de falsear el pasado, lo cual no conduce a un mejor conocimiento de la realidad islámica, sino a su conversión en una suerte de «paraíso perdido», en una utopía difícilmente realizable, repitiendo el tópico de la escasa capacidad de adaptarse a los cambios por parte de los musulmanes, siempre pendientes de un pasado que los paraliza.”

Aunque prácticamente no concuerdo con nada de lo que dice Martínez Carrasco, me siento orgulloso en coincidir en que Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo es una obra muy alejada de las revisionistas, es decir, la de académicos come papeles, musulmanes o no, decididos a destruir los fundamentos del Islam. Lejos de “falsificar el pasado”, lo ilumino intensamente, lo revivo y lo reivindico. Presento el Islam auténtico: como era, como es y como siempre debería ser. No será el “Islam” de los saudíes, los salafistas, los fundamentalistas, los extremistas, los literalistas, los absolutistas o los liberales, las feministas y los reformistas. Pero sí es el Islam del Profeta: sin condicionamientos, añadidos o peros.

En cuanto a la crasa generalización de que los musulmanes, en general, son incapaces de adaptarse al cambio y la modernidad, promueve estereotipos impropios de un erudito de categoría y renombre. Los musulmanes enfrentan muchos desafíos. Han luchado frente al colonialismo e imperialismo. Sufren la intervención extranjera en sus asuntos internos. Sufren el hedor que asfixia el espíritu, proveniente del libertinaje occidental, el materialismo, el hedonismo y el nihilismo. Y no obstante sobreviven, prosperan y están llenos de aspiraciones. Independientemente de lo “retrógrado” que puedan ser muchos musulmanes y a pesar de sus defectos morales, me enorgullece que representan el único gran grupo que niega someterse al secularismo militante, en tanto otras poblaciones se arrodillan precipitadamente con entusiasmo y ansias a los pies de Mammón.

Creo que el mayor punto débil de Martínez Carrasco es que se centra en la crítica a las intenciones del autor y del traductor. Por eso mismo se centra bastante en el prólogo. Pero aparte de mencionar los capítulos del libro y de qué trata cada uno, no hace ninguna crítica, ningún comentario, no aporta nada -ya sea a favor o en contra- a lo escrito en el libro. En vez de juzgar la obra juzga la intencion con la que se redactó la obra. O sea, a él no le importa la obra, no le importa la documentación, sino solamente desprestigiar la misma en base a las supuestas intenciones que tendría el trabajo, pero no por lo que dice el trabajo sino por lo que escribe Manzolillo y por que Morrow se convirtió al Islam a los16 años. Además, al proceder así es él quien muestra sus verdaderas intenciones.

Y ya que Carlos Martínez Carrasco comenzó su reseña del libro cuestionando mis acreditaciones, es lógico que concluya mi refutación con una revisión de sus títulos o diplomas. O falta de ellos. El señor Carrasco es “licenciado en historia por la Universidad de Granada.” O sea, no tiene una maestría ni un doctorado; no tiene un posgrado. El señor Carrasco es “investigador del Centro de Estudios Bizantinos, Neogriegos y Chipriotas.” En otras palabras, es un investigador en esos campos pero no tiene preparación académica formal en estudios religiosos, árabes o islámicos. El señor Carrasco no es profesor adjunto. Y sin duda, no es profesor titular. Simplemente, es adjunto en el Departamento de Historia Medieval de la Universidad de Granada. En cuanto a sus logros académicos, es autor de diez artículos, dos reseñas de libros y una conferencia. También escribió una novela.

Si Carlos Martínez Carrasco quiere criticar mi trabajo, que complete una maestría y doctorado en estudios religiosos, estudios árabes y estudios islámicos. En concreto, en cualquier grado superior de un campo relacionado en las humanidades. Y como también soy sheij, además de ser académico, permitamos que el señor Carrasco también se convierta en sacerdote católico o, si prefiere, en rabino. De ese modo, si no puede criticar mi trabajo como académico, por lo menos podrá criticarlo como clérigo. Y mientras se ocupa de eso, que se supere en las filas académicas convirtiéndose en profesor adjunto, profesor asociado y luego full professor o, como se denomina en España, Profesor Titular. Debería publicar también un centenar de artículos académicos, presentar docenas de revisiones bibliográficas de sus pares y realizar conferencias. Entonces y solo entonces José Carlos Martínez Carrasco sería uno de mis pares y estaría calificado para la revisión de mis libros. Y Dios es Justo; Todo lo Oye, Todo lo Ve.

El Doctor John Andrew Morrow es una autoridad religiosa, un académico y un activista. Ha publicado numerosos libros en el campo de los Estudios Islámicos. Su obra más elogiada por la crítica es El minarete y el campanario : los pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los cristianos del mundo. 

La cuenta de Twitter del Doctor John Andrew Morrow es @drjamorrow. Sus cuentas de Facebook son @johnandrewmorrow and @covenantsoftheprophet. Sus sitios de internet incluyenwww.johnandrewmorrow.com as well as www.covenantsoftheprophet.com. Sus videos pueden verse en la siguiente estación: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqM3-puvWuKuCEJsDQDZFrA

By Dr. John Andrew Morrow for New Age Islam

25 May 2017

Introduction

Preventing, combating, and countering radicalization is a complex matter without simple solutions. Consequently, a multi-pronged approach must be employed. The information war against Takfirism represents but a single piece of the puzzle. Extremism, fanaticism, and terrorism are simply symptoms of a broader problem. Unless all the causes are addressed simultaneously, subject to certain parameters, the war against Takfirism is ultimately bound to fail.

Whether it is ISIS, Boko Haram, al-Shabab or other similar groups, terroristic nihilism feeds on ignorance, poverty, as well as socio-economic and political injustice. There is no band-aid solution to these problems. There are no short-term solutions. They require long-term strategies.

Ignorance needs to be addressed through education. While some Muslim countries have excellent secular education, their religious education is lacking or indoctrinates students into intolerant, radical, and violent interpretations of Islam. If Islamic education is to be provided in the Muslim and non-Muslim world, it is traditional, civilisational, and classical Islam that is to be taught, not Salafism/Wahhabism/Takfirism/Jihadism/Islamism or Political Islam.

Strategies

In the struggle and information war against extremism and terrorism, we propose that the following strategies be adopted:

1) All efforts should be rooted in traditional, civilisational, and classical Islam. The content should promote an Islam without extremes. It should present the full spectrum of Islamic opinion. It should encourage Muslims to move from the fringes, restore the balance, and stick to the center.

2) The message should promote Islamic unity, oppose sectarianism, and encourage Taqrib or rapprochement between the various schools of thought. This is not to suggest that all schools of thought should merge; however, it should be stressed that diversity and difference is a blessing. There can be unity without uniformity. There can be unity within diversity.

3) Since the focus is on presenting Universal Islam, an Islam that embraces a full range of positions, the Muslim faith should not be promoted as a foreign faith, but the last chapter of a Divine Message that started eons ago. It may be time to look at Faith and Religion, not from a religious perspective, but from God’s viewpoint.

4) Promote The Study Qur’an, edited by Sayyid Hossein Nasr, as it provides a full spectrum of interpretations of the Qur’an. This can counter the one-sided, absolutist, approach taken by religious extremists.

5) Spread the traditional teachings of Islam to counter so-called Political Islam.

6) Disseminate the Constitution of Medina. Islamists claim that they wish to create an Islamic State; however, they ignore the fact that the Prophet Muhammad produce 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.

7) 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 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, the Covenant with the Syriac Orthodox Christians, and the Covenant with the Parsis, among others.

8) Disseminate the covenants that the Caliphs and Sultans concluded with non-Muslim communities. These include the Covenant of Abu Bakr with the Christians, the Covenant of ‘Umar with the Christians of Jerusalem, the Covenant of ‘Ali with the Christians, the Covenant of Salah al-Din with the Christians, the Covenant of Sultan Mehmet with the Franciscan Catholics of Bosnia…

9) Familiarize Muslims, and non-Muslims, with the over three hundred initiatives against extremism and radicalization, including:

ISNA’s Muslim Code of Honor?

A Common Word between Us and You

Shoulder to Shoulder

Dr. Qadri’s Fatwa against Terrorism and Suicide Bombing

Dr. Qadri’s Fatwa against ISIS

The Covenants Initiative

The Genocide Initiative

Shaykh Bin Bayyah’s Fatwa against ISIS

The Letter to Baghdadi

The Amman Message

The Statement by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation

The Fatwa from Al-Azhar

The Statement from the Arab League

The Fatwa of Mufti Mehmet Gormez

The Statement of CAIR

The Statement of the Muslim Council of Great Britain

The Fatwa of the Fiqh Council of ISNA

The Joint Sunni-Shiite Fatwa by 100 UK Imams

The Statement from the Muslim Public Affairs Council

The Statements from Nahdlatul Ulema from Indonesia

Shaykh Yaqubi’s Refuting ISIS

The Muslim Youth Group’s Jihad Against Extremism

The Statement by Dr. John Andrew Morrow

The Mass Fatwa by 100,000 Muslim Clerics from India, Bangladesh, and beyond

The Marrakesh Declaration

The Grozny Declaration

10) Expose the historical and current ties between “radical jihadis” and Western imperialists; namely, the use of the Wahhabis by the British Empire in order to undermine the Ottoman Empire; the use of “Jihadists” by all parties in the First and Second World Wars; particularly, the ties of so-called “Islamists” with the Third Reich during the Second World War; the CIA-support of the “Mujahidin” and al-Qaedah in Afghanistan; the CIA-support of “Jihadists” in Bosnia and Kosovo; and the continued support of the United States for “radical Islamists” who serve their geo-political interests. Show to Muslims that the “radical Jihadi” approaches benefit the enemies of Islam, so much so that those enemies facilitate or fabricate Jihadi groups and attacks.

11) Teach critical thinking to Muslims. Provide them with the tools to distinguish between Traditional Islam and so-called “Radical Political Islam,” better known as Salafism/Jihadism/Takfirism.

12) Educate Muslims on the true meaning of Jihad and the rules of just war to which all combatants are bound. Disseminate the commands that Abu Bakr and ‘Ali used to give to their fighters, prohibiting them from killing non-combatants, abusing women, destroying property, etc.

13) Enlist Muslim athletes and celebrities to promote traditional, civilisational, and classical Islam. Getting these artists/celebrities involved is another way of cracking the media.

14) Educate Muslims about the history of Islam in the Western world, from Muslims who accompanied European explorers to African Muslim slaves to the large waves of Muslim pioneers from Syria and Lebanon who settled the American Mid-West.

15) Showcase examples of coexistence between Muslims and the People of the Book throughout Islamic history, focusing on the Golden Age of al-Andalus, Sicily, and the Ottoman Empire.

16) Present positive quotes about the Prophet and Islam made by non-Muslims. This helps boost Muslim pride and illustrates that not all non-Muslims are enemies of Islam and Muslims.

17) Spread Qur’anic verses and prophetic traditions, particularly hadith qudsi, that focus on values, ethics, morals, compassion, mercy, and love. However, balance the focus on Mercy with the same focus on Justice.

18) Highlight contemporary cases of Muslims helping non-Muslims along with non-Muslims helping Muslims. This might include Muslim efforts to rebuild churches that were burned to the ground, cases of Muslims surrounding synagogues to protect them; instances in which Jews and Christians surrounded mosques to defend them from armed racists and Islamophobes.

19) Tell the full truth about the evils of imperialism and Zionism, that the USA and other Western governments are the world’s biggest terrorists, etc. so that (justifiably) angry individuals find mainstream Muslims to be legitimate. If orthodox Muslims stood up for justice as they are Qur’anically-commanded, fewer “idealistic” young people would be drawn into the ranks of Islamist terrorists. When Muslims listen to Uncle Tom Muslims on NPR, etc. it makes some of them want to join the global “jihad.” Many “moderate” voices contribute to the radicalization of young Muslims who have legitimate grievances against capitalism, secularism, and imperialism.

20) Allow Muslims to express their legitimate grievances against their governments peacefully and constructively and pressure such Muslim-majority States to abide by the traditional principles of Islam.

21) Expose the injustice, discrimination, racism, political and economic violence that is directed toward Muslim minorities in certain parts of the Western world. Support the struggle of such Muslims and provide them with the means to pressure their governments and improve their well-being by grass-roots, community, economic, and political efforts.

22) Support the legitimate aspirations of 2/3rds of the world’s Muslims for the re-establishment of the Muslim Ummah, a sane one, not the lunatic anti-Islamic ISIS version, which was created precisely to cast aspersions on the whole notion of a Caliphate. Although it can take many forms, an Islamic State must be based on the foundations of traditional, mainstream, classical Islam, and should be modeled on the Constitution of the Medina and the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad. It must be a tolerant, inclusive, and pluralistic state based on the spirit of Islamic values and ethics; and not on fossilized medieval interpretations of Islam.

23) Muslims must attain and maintain independence, namely, they must not depend on the support, financial or ideological, of foreign or domestic regimes. Otherwise, they lose all credibility in the eyes of disaffected and disenfranchised youth.

24) Chanel the legitimate frustration and grievances of Muslims constructively instead of destructively. Get them engaged in political and social activism, locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally. Organize Muslim missionary work. Create a Muslim Peace Corp. Many methods can be employed to exact desired change.

25) Provide educational opportunities to Muslim youth at home and abroad. Provide them with job opportunities. Encourage entrepreneurship. Help them build up businesses. Help them form families. People who have hope do not kill themselves and others. Extremism and violence feed on chaos and despair. Proper social, psychological, and spiritual services can prevent young people from descending into the darkness of extremism, fanaticism, and nihilism.

26)  Remember that as terrible as Takfiri terrorism may be, it forms part of an even more horrific plan; a genocidal agenda on the part of Western imperialists. The essence of this plan is to exterminate 80% of the world population, the “human surplus” which is increasingly being replaced by technology. If these elitist globalists, who wish to turn the planet into their own personal resort, have spread terrorism in the Muslim world to help cull its population, they have spread drugs, along with material and moral corruption, in the Western world to destroy it from within.

Conclusions

The Muslim Ummah is currently in conflict. A battle is being waged for the heart and soul of Islam. In some cases, the forces of True Islam and Fake Islam are facing off in full-fledged civil wars. In most instances, the overwhelming majority of orthodox Muslims are being assailed by a fringe minority of violent heretics. If anything prevents mainstream Muslims from cleaning up camp, it is the fact that they are powerless and at the mercy of oppressive leaders who have traditionally supported Takfiri terrorists to do their dirty geo-political work covertly while simultaneously condemning them overtly. It is shameful that a billion-strong majority of Muslim tigers are being pestered by one hundred thousand rats. It is time for them to act like big cats, as opposed to kittens, and to consume the rodents before they reproduce more and spread the bubonic plague. And when the tigers terminate the rats, they will need to turn their claws and jaws on those who released the rats in the first place. Then, and only then, will balance return to the ecosystem of Islam.

—-

Dr. John Andrew Morrow is Native North American a proud member of the Métis Nation. After taking his Shahadah at the age of 16, he became both an academic and a Muslim ‘Alim. He has authored over thirty peer-reviewed books and over one hundred scholarly articles. His most influential work to date 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.

– See more at: http://newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/islam-versus-anti-islam–simple-strategies-to-help-counter-isis-and-other-violent-extremists/d/111282#sthash.s9RAl941.dpuf

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