Month: May 2017

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.