Month: March 2018

meettheauthor1By Dr. John Andrew Morrow

AMUST (March 27, 2018)

 

Prophet Muhammad (s) authored hundreds of letters. They are found in books of prophetic biography, traditions, jurisprudence, history, and Qur’anic commentary. Dozens of letters are cited in Jewish, Samaritan, Christian, and Zoroastrian sources. More than half a dozen originals survive in mosques, monasteries, museums, and private collections.

These documents were dictated by the Prophet himself. Although he used many different scribes, the major covenants with the People of the Book were written down by ‘Ali (r) and Mu‘awiyyah (r) and witnessed by dozens of prominent Companions of the Prophet, including Abu Bakr (r), ‘Umar (r), and Uthman (r), among many others.

The Messenger of Allah signed some of his correspondence with his palm-print and, later, when his ring was made, he marked them with his famous seal.

Most of the letters, treaties, and covenants of the Prophet can be found in al-Watha’iq, by Dr Muhammad Hamidullah, Makatib al-Rasul by Ayatullah Ahmadi Miyanji, and Kalimah Rasul al-A‘zam by Ayatullah Hasan Shirazi.

The most important studies on the subject include Power Manifestation of the Sirah by Zafar Bangash, the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World by Dr John Andrew Morrow, and Islam and the People of the Book: Critical Studies on the Covenants of the Prophet, edited by the former, which features contributions by dozens of leading scholars.

The letters, treaties, and covenants of the Prophet Muhammad (s) form a central part of his Sunnah. They permit us to properly interpret the Holy Book based on the Prophet’s instructions.

As a prophet, messenger, statesman, political leader, and military strategist, Muhammad (s) engaged in extensive diplomatic efforts to spread Islam, invite people, tribes, and nations to the Muslim faith, or offer them to enter into an alliance with the Confederation of Believers that he created.

By means of the Covenant of Madinah, the Prophet produced the first constitution in the history of humanity.

By means of the Covenants with the People of the Book, he produced declarations of human rights and charters of civil rights and freedoms, the likes of which would not be seen until the rise of modern Western democracies.

Prophet Muhammad (s) granted rights and privileges the People of the Book who formed part of the Muslim Ummah or who were its allies.

These include:

  • The Covenant of Madinah.
  • The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Monks of Mount Sinai.
  • The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of Najran.
  • The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of Persia.
  • The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Assyrian Christians.
  • The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Syriac Orthodox Christians.
  • The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Coptic Christians of Egypt.
  • The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Armenian Christians.
  • The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Samaritans.
  • The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Jews of Maqna.
  • The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Yemenite Jews.
  • The Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Zoroastrians.

Por Roberto Verttuti

Por cierto, el título también sería correcto si se dijese “¿Quién le teme a la verdad?”. Porque de eso se trata. Se teme tanto a la verdad como a quien la propala.  Se teme a Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo, porque estos y la verdad van junto con pegado. Pero el título de la nota entendemos que es mejor porque “verdad” es un sustantivo abstracto que adquiere “vida” al aplicárselo: la verdad va ligada al objetivo del conocimiento y se manifiesta cuando se obtienen resultados que no se pueden cuestionar porque resultan evidentes con seguridad y certeza. Independientemente del peso que tenga. Y Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo, objeto de conocimiento, no tienen nada de abstractos sino que son una realidad como el universo, como el río que corre, como el texto que usted lee. E incluso se teme más aún la difusión y/o aplicación de Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo. Nos explicamos. Luego del redescubrimiento de estos Pactos por parte del Dr. John Andrew Morrow, hubo intentos de volver a ocultarlos y desvirtuarlos, de distintas maneras, como decir que correspondieron a un período histórico que ya no tiene vigencia. También se ha usado aquello de “cambiar algo para no cambiar nada”, bajo la forma de “decir algo para no decir nada, para que todo quede igual”. A ese tratamiento de los Pactos, prácticamente perverso, se opone ―lo que hace a la diferencia― el estudio histórico, racional, en contexto, profundo, cimentado en pruebas. Esta es la consideración que les dio y da el Dr. John Andrew Morrow, lo cual creó un verdadero maremoto en las mentes anquilosadas y/o malintencionadas tanto de Oriente como de Occidente. Son esas mentes  decrépitas las que, asustadas, balbucean algo para no decir nada de peso ―como presentar el texto o supuesto texto de un pacto sin ningún tipo de explicación o clarificación―, excepto, de hecho, la negación y rechazo de los mismos. De ahí lo majestuosamente brillante del redescubrimiento de Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo  por parte del Dr. John Andrew Morrow, quien los analiza de manera muy profunda y meticulosa, expone sus investigaciones en distintos idiomas, polemiza de manera cierta y documentada con quienes los niegan-rechazan-desconocen y demuestra cómo fueron aplicados exitosamente ―aunque con muchas lagunas― a lo largo de los siglos. Y una actitud así, destaca sobremanera y ejemplarmente hasta al más humilde transeúnte de ese camino. Vale la pena destacar que quien lo transita, en este caso el Dr. John Andrew Morrow, se juega permanentemente en todos los planos de la vida en esa tarea pues quienes objetan dichos Pactos saben que de aplicárselos hoy día se terminaría con la mayor parte de la sangría asesina en pos del enriquecimiento sin límites que persiguen, precisamente, bastantes de quienes los denigran. Efectivamente, los grandes enemigos de la vida, que son los grandes enemigos de la verdad, y también los grandes enemigos de la humanidad, ven cómo el trabajo con esos documentos va creando los anticuerpos que anularán sus maniobras canallescas basadas en la mentira, el engaño y el robo criminal genocida.
El Dr. John Andrew Morrow devuelve a la luz del día un trabajo magnífico por su contenido y su meta: contiene estipulaciones dadas por Dios al género humano y persigue la tan ansiada paz, concordia y fraternidad entre todos los seres humanos de buena voluntad que buscan transformar los armamentos en instrumentos de progreso y bien público; los conciliábulos del mal y de la codicia en asambleas populares de la alegría y la felicidad; la miseria y egoísmo vejatorio de la dignidad en solidaridad, hermandad y convivencia pacífica. Y esto es odiado por los poderosos, por quienes quieren poner a toda la humanidad a su servicio a través de un esclavismo sanguinario y por medio de una mentira gigantesca que pasa por la demonización del Islam y la repulsa absoluta de Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo, a los que tratan, entre otras cosas, de “inventos de los cristianos”. Peor aún, esos poderosos que odian todas las religiones aunque se disfracen con algunas de ellas, quieren hacer desaparecer, para beneficio propio, a una sexto o más de la humanidad, como está documentado en distintas partes. Allí tenemos las Piedras Guía de Georgia (EEUU) erigidas en 1980, que proponen mantener la población mundial en 500 millones de personas gobernadas por un solo ejecutivo global, cifra parecida a la propuesta, con el mismo fin, por Mijail Gorbachov. También tenemos la propuesta del creador de CNN, Ted Turner, quien dice que como máximo deberían habitar el planeta solo 300 millones de individuos. O peor aún, contamos asimismo con la propuesta de Dave Foreman ―cofundador de “Earth First” ― que habla de que esa cantidad no debe pasar los 100 millones… Pero lo que sostiene el Dr. John Andrew Morrow, en base a Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo, es que el planeta está en condiciones de cobijar una población mucho mayor a la actual y que la condición a ese efecto es aplicar las estipulaciones enunciadas por el Profeta Muhammad en sus Pactos: que la Tierra sea una Confederación de Pueblos Libres regida por las pautas del Creador. Es por eso que hoy día lo más temido por los manipuladores del genocida Nuevo Orden Mundial es la posibilidad de que se vuelvan a aplicar Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo.
Quienes temen a ese redescubrimiento del Dr. John Andrew Morrow, es decir a Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo ―que no son pocos―, se sobrecogen ante la verdad. Porque Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo y la verdad son uno, como dijimos, en esencia y en espíritu.
¿Quiénes temen a la verdad? La verdad aterroriza al transgresor, al perverso, al terrorista, al egoísta, al usurpador, al timador, al criminal, al ególatra, al mezquino, al ruin, al materialmente poderoso, al salvaje militarista a ultranza, al mentiroso, al explotador y esclavista, al racista, al elitista, al farsante, al canalla, al inmoral, al hipócrita, al gobernante corrupto, es decir, a quienes adoran el escarnio…
Todos los que atentan contra la verdad, porque no les conviene o porque el odio cegador y absurdo los devora, se valen de cuanta maniobra política o acto repudiable les venga a mano para seguir manteniendo sus privilegios o conductas abominables. Por eso alguien dijo que la verdad y la política nunca se llevaron demasiado bien y que la verdad nunca fue considerada una virtud política. La política solo enaltece y se vuelve una virtud cuando es guiada y fundamentada en la normativa sagrada de los textos revelados y/o grandes expresiones espirituales o tradiciones genuinas. Resulta clarísimo. Los que temen a la verdad, es decir, los amantes de sus intereses políticos normalmente mezquinos, son los amantes del escarnio. Y cuando ante ellos se presenta un sol de justicia, amor, fraternidad, honestidad, entrega, esfuerzo, solidaridad y sacrificio por los demás ―las cosas que exhiben los textos revelados por Dios a la humanidad y Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo―, la cólera demente y arrasadora de quienes se sienten marcados por el oprobio trata de anular, por los medios que sean, esa manifestación. Por eso se teme a quien ilumina con ese sol.
La gran arma, la primera en usarse para anular algo, es la tergiversación, la mentira, el engaño. Enterémonos de quiénes abierta o encubiertamente se oponen al trabajo del Dr. John Andrew Morrow con Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo y conoceremos a las almas en las sombras que odian esos documentos. Desgraciadamente, no pocas veces se trata de individuos iluminados permanentemente por las lámparas de los escenarios pomposos o por la apariencia, en sus vidas de “grandes personajes”, “intelectuales probos”, “religiosos eméritos”, etc. Esas almas de la penumbra y la sombra podrán ser todo lo malvadas que se quiera pero por lo general no dejan de ser astutas. Usan todos los medios del caso para presentar la verdad como mentira y viceversa. Usan todo tipo de instrumentación intelectual-filosófica-ideológica-psicológica-política para hacer creer que algo no tiene existencia real o es inapropiado. Ponen en duda prácticamente todo, al punto de hacerlo increíble: lo existente no existe; lo que se dice nunca sucedió; las fechas que se dan como documentadas carecen de comprobación; se desconoce quienes redactaron tal y cual cosa aunque haya una lista de 10, 20 o 30 personas; las circunstancias históricas dadas son incomprobables y así de seguido. Crean una confusión muy enmarañada con el objetivo de que la gente se aburra, se sienta impotente para develar lo real, impotente para discernir. De lograrlo, “convencen” de que nunca aconteció tal cosa y hasta atacan con vehemencia y con las acusaciones más absurdas a quienes demuestran palmariamente la realidad de los hechos.
Por el contrario, quien se mueve con la verdad, quien presenta los hechos con fundamentos comprobables y sólidos, no necesita nada de eso. El de la verdad por lo general es Abel y el del engaño o tergiversación por lo general es Caín. La verdad, indiscutiblemente, siempre está en inferioridad de condiciones materiales frente a la mentira. Porque quien usa esta recurre a cualquier artilugio, por más falso e incierto que sea, para imponerse. Pero quien opera con la verdad jamás hace tal cosa. Por eso la mentira, engaño u ocultamiento resultan más “prácticos” en lo simplemente mundanal. Además y por lo general, la verdad molesta a muchos pues les impide, de atenerse a ella, la obtención de placeres y situaciones de regocijo ordinarios así como de poder material mediante la explotación y violación de los más elementales derechos humanos. Por eso son bastantes los que se alejan de los que no transigen con la mentira y la distorsión de la verdad. Muchas veces esta produce dolor y casi nadie está dispuesto a sufrir. Por eso muchos aceptan solo formalmente Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo. Dicen que están bien, que son auténticos, pero no obran en consecuencia. Ni los terroristas encubiertos en la mentira más enloquecida, ni los sátrapas genocidas disfrazados de buenas personas islámicas, ni otros con un gran morbo hacia el Islam ―que tampoco son pocos― están dispuestos a reconocer Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo ―más allá de lo formal― y actuar en consecuencia: proceden así porque de otro modo dañarían o irían en contra de sus intereses mezquinos, egoístas o antirreligiosos. Los hijos de la sombra, de la oscuridad que alberga a los bellacos, solo deambulan, se reproducen y son fuertes en las tinieblas. Por eso niegan la verdad, en este caso Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo.
En cambio, la verdad busca la luz, es amiga de la luz, evita ocultarse, se manifiesta con una gran transparencia.
Pero en el mundo, especialmente el actual, el engaño, la tergiversación, la mentira son las formas “normales” de operar. La mentira se ha metido en el conjunto de la sociedad humana como un hábito o costumbre y desprecia con pavor lo opuesto: la verdad. En esta sociedad, para mal de la inmensa mayoría de la población mundial y resultados calamitosos, se invierte todo. Los déspotas y mancilladores de la verdad se presentan como demócratas y paladines de la honestidad y la moral; los terroristas y violadores se presentan como liberadores; el corrupto se presenta como puritano virtuoso y persona de bien; el agresor como agredido; los que más promueven la violencia injusta y ruin como promotores y receptores de premios por la paz; los más injustos o incapaces intelectualmente como dignos “académicos de renombre”; etc.
Para las almas de la sombra todo vale, incluidas las mentiras y el invento de situaciones inexistentes. A eso los lleva el temor a Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo. Ya dijimos quienes son los que temen Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo. Y el porqué de ese pavor es evidente. Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo reducen a polvo toda la mentira ideológica y supuestamente religiosa que nutre al terrorismo antiislámico disfrazado de islámico y marca a fuego, de hecho, a quienes fueron y son los creadores del mismo: los imperios genocidas de Occidente (IGO) y sus viles servidores de la península arábiga y aledaños. La presentación de Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo a los reyezuelos antiislámicos de la península arábiga, a los terroristas y a los países integrantes de una de las alianzas más asesina como es la OTAN, tienen el mismo efecto que la presentación de La Biblia a Drácula: se caen todas su mentiras, quedan expuestas, de hecho, sus malditas tramas y complots urdidos a costa de sucesivas matanzas de inocentes en Occidente y en Oriente.
Para todos los artífices del mal, Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo son temibles porque no se trata de una teoría sino de algo aplicado con éxito. Intentar revivir esa práctica genera odio y temor a los habitantes de las sombras quienes, por ahora, la desconocen, la niegan, la rechazan.
Por último, no debemos dejar de tener en cuenta que, en grandísima medida, el mundo está manejado por los injustos, por las almas de la sombra. Pero están quienes, como Kant, sostienen que “los hombres no pueden tolerar la vida en un mundo privado de justicia” y que ese “derecho humano se considera sagrado sin tomar en cuenta los sacrificios que exija”. Todo indica que en ese camino está el Dr. John Andrew Morrow con su redescubrimiento y estudio de Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo, por lo que corresponde apoyarlo.-
Crescent International

In this first part of or our interview, we talk to Dr. John Andrew Morrow, author and scholar, about his life’s journey and thoughts. He is best known for his Covenants’ Initiative that aims to create better understanding between Muslims and Christians in the world today.

CI: Let us begin with your journey to Islam; tell us something about it.

Like most Métis and French Canadians, I was raised Roman Catholic and I am profoundly grateful that my parents, the Church, and the Bible cultivated my faith, morals, ethics, and values. Raising children without a divinely-revealed religion and without a sense of Natural and Divine Law is detrimental to both self and society. Like all human beings, I was born with a divinely-instilled inclination to believe. Consequently, I am who I was: a believer in the One. I am not a “New Muslim” nor am I a “revert” or a “convert.” I was raised as a follower of Jesus (a) as well as the prophets and messengers who preceded him. Due to historical, cultural, and geographical reasons, the message of Muhammad (pbuh), the final messenger of God, had not reached my people. My transition into Islam was natural. I did not move from disbelief to belief or from immorality to morality. I simply perfected my religion. I graduated from Christianity to Islam. At the time of the Prophet, there were unbelievers — pagans, heathens, idolaters, polytheists, and atheists — and there were believers: Jews, Messianic Jews or Judeo-Christians, and Christians. There were also the Hanifs, the Arabs who followed the ancient religion of Isma‘il and his father Ibrahim (a). Most members of these faith communities made a smooth transition into Islam. They recognized it as a continuation and completion of their faith traditions. So it was for me. Regardless of where I was born, I would have been a believer in one God: a Brahman in ancient India, a believer in the Great Spirit in pre-Columbian North America, a follower of Nezahualcoyotl in Mesoamerica, a Jew in the time of Moses, a Christian in the time of Jesus, and now, a Muslim in the age of Muhammad (a). I started to study Islam at the age of 13 and took shahadah at the age of 16. I have been a practising Muslim for 30 years and have never ceased to study. What was so appealing about Islam? Divine unity and divine justice; spirituality and social commitment; ethics and morality as well as the importance of family.

CI: Your book, Covenants of the Prophet with the Christians of the World, has received wide recognition among Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Let’s start with addressing some key issues in your book. You claim to have found evidence that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) spent a great deal of time with the Christian monks in Sinai during his twenties. Some detractors would argue that this claim feeds the orientalist narrative that the Prophet learned his teachings from Christians and Jews and then self-invented Islam. What is your response?

The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was well-traveled. This is a fact. It is well-established in classical Muslim sources. Abundant references to these can be found in The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World along with Islam and the People of the Book: Critical Studies on the Covenants of the Prophet. Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah, who was both a Western academic and a traditionally trained Muslim scholar, held this to be true. Consequently, one cannot exclude the possibility that he traveled to Mt. Sinai as it was located along the main trading routes that the Arabs, including Abu ˇalib, routinely employed.

As Muslims, we do not believe that Islam is a new religion. Islam, namely, the belief in One God, divine revelation, and the hereafter, along with major moral laws, was the religion of Adam, Idris (Enoch), Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Yahyå (John), Jesus, and Muhammad (a). The Prophet did not draw upon Jewish and Christian doctrines to create a new religion: he was the heir of the Judeo-Christian tradition and its culmination. Although some orientalists have argued that the Prophet learned his teachings from Jews and Christians and invented Islam — and they base this belief on the Cycle of Bahira Legends that circulated among some Christians who were unfriendly toward Islam, Muslims, and the Prophet — this is not the tradition that was passed down by the monks who were acquainted with the Messenger of Allah (pbuh). The tradition of the Prophet’s travel to the Sinai — which could have taken place when he was a youth, during the early days of his mission in Madinah, or even toward the end of his prophetic mission, namely, when he went to Maqna — has been transmitted by large numbers of sources over the past 14 centuries. I have cited them in “The Covenants of the Prophet: Questions and Concerns” and “The Provenance of the Prophet’s Covenants,” both of which are found in Islam and the People of the Book.

Curiously, none of these original traditions claim that the Prophet studied with Christian monks. On the contrary, they assert that a Christian abbot from St. Catherine’s Monastery witnessed a sign of God clearly showing him that Muhammad (pbuh) was destined to greatness and that he would become a powerful leader; hence, the abbot asked him to protect the monastery after he proclaimed his prophecy. This tradition does not reinforce the orientalist narrative any more than the tradition that both Bahira the Monk and Nastura the Monk recognized young Muhammad as a future prophet. These are not the only instances in which seers, monks, priests, and rabbis prophesized that Muhammad was the long-awaited prophet who would come from Arabia. They are found in both ancient Christian and Muslim sources. They confirm, rather than deny, his divinely-ordained prophetic mission and the truth of his teachings.

CI: You reside in the US. There is currently a great deal of polarization between the so-called left and the right spectrum of the political trend. Many Muslim organizations have accepted the mainstream liberal narrative that leftists are friends of Muslims and rightists are outright racist and enemies of Islam. Neither the left nor right is monolithic. Are there any healthy right/conservative groups and organizations in the US with whom Muslims could build a mutually beneficial alliance?

Most Muslims in the West have cast their lot with the liberals. They have naively bought into the lie that liberals are tolerant people who care about Muslims. Tell a liberal that you oppose abortion on demand, that you oppose fornication, adultery, homosexuality, lesbianism, gay marriage, and transgenderism, that you are convinced that the traditional family structure is in danger, that you believe that there are only two genders, that you oppose the use of alcohol and drugs, that you believe that both men and women should dress modestly, and that you are against illegal immigration since you believe in the rule of law, and see how tolerant they really are. You will be called by every profanity excluded from the dictionary. At the very least, you will be accused of being a racist, a sexist, and a fascist.

While I disagree with half of what Michael Savage has to say, I do agree with the other half, particularly his assertion that liberalism is a mental disorder. At the same time, however, I am equally convinced that conservatism is a mental disorder. Both are extremes. Both are symptomatic of spiritual, psychological, and social imbalance. While the political spectrum varies from country to country and from age to age, I stand at the center that was marked by Muhammad (pbuh), the Messenger of Allah, and the other Prophets of God who preceded him. Liberalism, both classical and social, had a platform in the past: opposition to slavery, racism, segregation, and discrimination, the right to vote for women, equal pay for equal work, along with a call for civil rights and human rights. Now, they spend their time cavorting with transsexuals, anti-white racists, and takfiri terrorists. The liberals sure have strange bed fellows.

What does liberalism stand for today? The right of children to choose their own gender? The right for illegal immigrants to invade Western nations with impunity? The right to blame white Westerners for crimes that they never committed and that most of their ancestors never committed? What does liberalism stand for today? Sexual anarchy? The destruction of the traditional family? The supplanting of religion by secularism? The right to change the ethnic, racial, cultural, and religious background of a country overnight as it ensures liberal votes, spreads secularization, and promotes globalization? The right to create a single people, speaking a single global language, sharing a single global culture, and sharing faiths “that are all the same” since they are all under the umbrella of the One World Religion? What does liberalism mean today? The right to destroy the sovereignty of nation-states to subject them to a New World Order controlled by the one-percenters, a bunch of billionaire elites who wish to exterminate most human beings who are overcrowding a planet they view as their personal country club and resort? As Muslims we categorically reject racism. We do, however, value diversity. Hence, we must oppose efforts to homogenize humanity, to weaken resistance, and to facilitate subservience. For the globalists, races, religions, languages, cultures, and ideologies are sources of division and conflict. If they are suppressed, there will only be submission, not to God, but to the real rulers of the world.

Although most Muslims feel that they share more affinities with liberals, who pretend to profess an unflinching belief in pluralism and an appreciation for diversity, they share just as much in common with certain conservatives, including, in some sectors, a clear sense of right and wrong derived from the prophets of the Old and New Testaments. As a Muslim, if I must choose between a person who believes in God and a person who is an atheist or an agnostic, I will side with the person of faith. As a Muslim, if I must choose between a person who believes in chastity and a person who advocates sexual immorality, I will side with the person who has a sense of human decency. Despite the slanderous propaganda of liberals, leftists, socialists, communists, anarchists, secularists, atheists and Satanists, most religious conservatives are not racist nor are they sexist. Simply because one believes in the teachings of the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an, the traditional family and the existence of two genders, does not mean that one is a racist, a bigot, a misogynist, an extremist, a fascist, or a terrorist. Tolerating the intolerable is not tolerance: it is complicity and advocacy. Jews, Christians, and Muslims have the right to stand their moral ground, stand for what is sacred, and advocate for what they believe is best for society based on revelation and reason.

While liberals and conservatives take different positions on social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, the role of the public sector, education vouchers, embryonic stem cell research, energy, euthanasia, climate change, gun control, healthcare, homeland security, immigration, private property, religion, same-sex marriage, social security, taxes, the role of the United Nations, and welfare, they are, in reality, but two sides of the same coin and the difference between liberal and conservative governments in the West is generally superficial since the world revolves around economic as opposed to social interests. Both liberals and conservatives are secular and believe in the separation of church and state. Both believe, not in the Great Prophet Moses, the Great Prophet Jesus or the Great Prophet Muhammad (a) but in the Great Profit Margin. Both serve the interests of the global economic elites as opposed to the interests of God, the Prophets, and the people. They place their trust, not in God, but in the Market, some type of Supreme Force that “regulates itself.” We just need to submit to it. We, believers in God and followers of His Prophets, however, hold that human beings were not created to serve the economy but rather the economy was created to serve people.

Although conservatism, like liberalism, has been co-opted by the economic elites, the neocons, and the alt-right, who are just as diabolical as the liberal degenerates they denounce, having turned conservatism into savage capitalism, racism, sexism, and imperialism, there are some conservatives with whom traditional Muslims can make common cause. This would include cultural conservatives, moral conservatives, religious conservatives, fiscal conservatives, paleo-conservatives, and traditionalist conservatives — but certainly not neoconservatives.

Despite their shortcomings, shortsightedness, and ignorance in certain areas, practicing Catholics have been firm when it comes to defending the fundamentals of their faith and its relevance in the world today. Orthodox Christians, in general, who tend to be even more conservative in theology and practice, also share universal, time-honored values. Although I am partial to the Catholic Church, both East and West, I admit that bridges can also be built with Protestants, particularly with conservative groups like the Amish, the Mennonites, and the Hutterites, as well as more liberal denominations like the Anglicans and Methodists.

I had long written off Southern Baptists, assuming erroneously that these predominantly white anglophones were all intolerant racists and white supremacists. My views changed when I met an old white preacher who was a Southern Baptist. He listened to a lecture I delivered in Jackson, Mississippi, in which I lambasted ISIS and shared the true teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Not only did I change the way he viewed Islam and Muslims, the man made me change the way I viewed Southern Baptists. Although Muslims tend to gravitate toward liberal Jews who share the same values, or lack thereof, of liberal Christians, there are plenty of conservative, orthodox, and even ultra-orthodox Jews who are very close to traditional Muslims in their worldview. Just like it is unfair to claim that all Muslims are anti-Jewish, it is also unfair to claim that all Jews are anti-Muslim. The message is clear: we, human beings, of different races, ethnicities, cultures, languages, religions, and political beliefs, must get to know one another. Then, and only then, will we see how much we share.

CI: What could Muslims in the US and Canada do to reach out to the conservative segment in society in these two countries?

Reaching out to conservatives is the same as reaching out to liberals. Make some calls. Send some emails. Knock on doors. Meet some people. Agree to agree. Focus on similarity. Learn from one another in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect. Work together toward common causes. Personally, I would focus more on religious conservatives, including some of the denominations I previously mentioned, than political conservatives. I would not advise Muslims to reach out to extreme Trumpians, the violent side of the alt-right, racist neocons, radical Zionists, and other overtly anti-Islamic parties. I know some brothers, both African American and Caucasian American, who dialogue with people on the fringe. It takes proper training and preparation — not to mention, courage. As normative Muslims, we should be willing to talk to anyone who wishes to talk to us in a constructive fashion. We should respond to those who reach out to us and, at times, we should also reach out to others. Some may or may not respond, but the offer of dialogue, peace, collaboration, and reconciliation should always be on the table.

%d bloggers like this: