Category: Uncategorized

The Muslim Vibe (December 6, 2017).

This is the second of a two-part series and was originally a speech delivered by Dr John Andrew Morrow (Imam Ilyas Islam) at the 13th Annual National Muslim Congress Conference in Dallas, Texas, in the United States of America. You can read part 1 here.


In order to cultivate a relationship with the Creator, we must be lovingly obedient and we must walk the path of love. We must slowly and gradually attempt to acquire the attributes of Allah (swt). If Allah is al-Sabbur, the Most Patient, we train ourselves to be patient. If Allah is al-‘Alim, the Most Wise, we strain ourselves to become ‘alims or scholars. We must remember Almighty Allāh at all times, knowing, full-well, that “Wherever you turn, there is the face of God.” [2:115] “We are nearer to the human being than the jugular vein,” [50:16] and “He is with you wherever you are.” [57:4] And most importantly, we must love Almighty Allah with all our hearts and all our souls since “He loves them, and they love Him.” [5:54] As Allah, the Loving, states in his Book of Love: “Those of faith are overflowing in their love for Allah.” [2:165]

It goes without saying that the lovers of the Most Loving express their love by respecting the ‘usul al-din and by performing the furu’ al-din, namely, by accepting the Roots of Faith and by practising the Branches of Faith. You must walk before you can run. This is how you distinguish a real ‘arif, a real su, and a real walī from a spiritual charlatan. One cannot be a spiritual authority unless one obey the shari‘ah. Nobody is above the law. At the same time, the simple fact that one follows the shari‘ah, and specializes in the shari‘ah, does not make one a spiritual authority. If the simple fact of obeying the law or knowing the law makes one a holy person than any law-abiding citizen and any attorney is a holy person. No. Obeying the shari‘ah does not suffice to make someone a holy man. It does not even guarantee that someone is a good Muslim. In fact, there are plenty of people who obey the law who are horrible human beings. As Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq warned, “If you want to know the religion of a person, do not look at how much he prays and fast but rather look at how he treats people.”

If love has a spiritual and religious dimension, it also has social, political, and economic dimensions. People were not made to serve religion. Religion was made to serve people. The purpose of religion is knowledge of God and knowledge of self. Its purpose is to teach morals, values, and ethics. Its purpose is spiritual edification, self-improvement, and moral reformation. Faith does not suffice for salvation. Deeds without religious devotion are like seeds without water and soil. As Muslims, we are called to put our faith into practice and to place religion at the service of society and humanity. As Almighty Allah (swt) instructs us in the Glorious Quran:

“It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allāh and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfill the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the God-fearing.” [2:177]

They are so-called Sufis who believe that politics are below them. They are apolitical: the very manifestation of privilege. They suffer from spiritual arrogance. There are those who wish to reduce Islām to politics. They are the so-called Islamists. There are those who are so stupid and narrow-minded that they wish to reduce Islam to violence. They are the so-called Jihadists. Beware of extremes. Beware of extremists: liberals and conservatives; fundamentalists and reformists; the Gnostics and the literalists; the apolitical and the political. We must stand our religious and spiritual ground by sticking to the straight path. The straight path is the path of the law and the path of love. To walk the path of love, we must love Allah, Allah First, and Allah Last, Allah forever and ever and ever. Love Allah and feel Allah with every breath you take and with every move you make. If you love Allah, then you love the Prophets, Messengers, and Imams that were sent by Allah. Why? Because the Most Loving send them to us in love.

As Almighty Allah explains in the Glorious Quran: “We have notsentd you but as a rahmah [an an act of mercy and love] to all the worlds.” [21:107] He further says: “The Prophet is preferable for the believers even to their own selves.” [33:6] So, if we are true believers, we love the Prophet more than ourselves; however, that love is not unilateral: it is reciprocated. As Almighty Allah says in the Glorious Quran, “For the believers,” the Prophet “is full of kindness, mercy, and love.” [9:128] If we love Allah, we love the Prophet, and if we love the Prophet, we love the Progeny of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon them all. “Train your children in three things,” said the Messenger of Allah, “the love of your Prophet, the love of his Progeny, and recitation of the Quran.” [Suyuti] He also stated: “Love Allah for the favours He has granted you, love me out of love of Allah, and love my family out of love for me.” [Tirmidhi]

As the Messenger of Allah said: “I have left among you two precious obligations as a testament: if you love them you will never go astray. They are the Book of Allāh, which is like a rope extending from heaven to the Earth, and my children, my Ahl al-Bayt” (Tirmidhī, Sadūq, Mufīd, Kulaynī). “The love for my Ahl al-Bayt is an obligation,” said the Prophet (Ṭabarānī, Nabahānī, Ibn Ḥajar). I could go on for hours stressing the importance of loving the Prophet and His Purified Progeny, ‘alayhim ṣalawātu wa salām.

Loving God, the Prophet, and his Family, is not enough. We must love our wives as well. As we read in the Glorious Qur’ān: “It is He who created you from a single soul, and made his mate of like nature, in order that ye may dwell with her [in love]” (7:189). Men and women were created from a single soul. They long to be united as one in the same fashion that all souls yearn to be united with Allāh in total tawḥīd. Of the Prophet’s three loves, the other two being perfume and prayer, the foremost was women. As the Messenger of Allāh, peace and blessings be upon him, stated: “It is the tradition of the Prophets to love women.”

The union of husband and wife is an expression of divine union. Men are the embodiment of the masculine attributes of God whereas women are the embodiment of the feminine attributes of God. The love of women takes many forms. The exegesis of these traditions is profound. As the Messenger of Allāh,ṣalawāt Allāh ‘alayh, stated: “The words of a husband to his wife, ‘I truly love you,’ should never leave her heart” (‘Amilī).

The Prophet, peace be upon him, said that “Women are the likes of men.”Women complete men. Women represent the feminine attributes of the Divinity. Loving women, purely and spiritually, that is, is a form of worship. As Imām Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq stated:  “Whoever’s love for us increases, his love for women must also increase” (‘Amilī). To love, respect, and revere women is synonymous with being a follower of Ahl al-Bayt. It suffices to say that one cannot be a pious Muslim while simultaneously being a misogynist. At the same time, the Messenger of Allāh stresses that “The best of you among women are those who are loving and affectionate” (Majlisī).

We love Allāh. We love the Prophet. We love the Imāms. We love our wives. We also love our children and our families. As the Messenger of Allāh, ‘alayhi ṣalawātu wa salām, said: “The creatures are Allāh’s family so the most loved one of Allāh is he who shows kindness to his family” (Bayhaqī). The sixth Imām, Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq, peace be upon him, said: “Verily, Allāh, the Mighty and High, is merciful to the man who loves his child intensely” (Kulaynī).

As you will note, the love that I describe is emanating outward, from the Center, from Allāh, to the Prophet, to the Imāms, and to our families. For most people, love does not extend beyond this small circle. However, since Allāh is One, and we, as Creation, are one, our love should truly be all-encompassing.

The Prophet and the Imāms, peace be upon them, did not only speak about loving our women: they spoke of loving all women. They did not say that we should only love our children: they said that we should love all children. As the Messenger of Allāh, ṣallalahu ‘alayhi wa alihi wa sallam, taught: “Love children and be compassionate with them, and when you promise them something, always fulfill it, because they certainly consider you their benefactors” (Kulaynī). And while he instructed us to tell our wives that we loved them, he also spoke in general terms, stating: “When you love someone, let the person know” (Majlisī).

As the Messenger of Allāh, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “None will move from his place of reckoning on the Day of Judgment until he has stated four things: how he lived his life, how he spend his wealth, how he earned his living, and whether he loved the Ahl al-Bayt” (Ṭabarānī, Suyūṭī, Nabahānī). So, we need to love Ahl al-Bayt, but we need to live a moral life, earn a moral income, and share our income with the poor and needy. As Almighty Allāh, ‘azza wa jalla, Mighty and Majestic, says in a ḥadīth qudsī: “O Son of Adam! Behave with the people with good manners until I love you” (Shīrāzī). And yet again: “Purify your deeds… until I dress you with the clothes of My love” (Shīrāzī).

“Islām started as a social justice movement. The Prophet Muḥammad taught his followers to reject sexism, racism, and most of all, classism” stated a silly girl who should seriously study Islām. Islām is a religion, a worldview, a complete and total way of life, with spiritual, religious, social, political, and economic dimensions. It is a culture. It is a civilization. For God’s sake, Islām is much more than a “social justice movement.” It is a faith. It is rooted in monotheism. It is a belief system which, if followed properly, will ensure social justice and eradicate sexism, racism, and classism. Allāh is very clear about this in the Qur’ān: “Serve Allāh, and join not any partners with Him; and do good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbors who are near, neighbors who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess.” (4:36)

Faith in one God, first and foremost. Pure monotheism followed by good deeds to family, relatives, neighbours, orphans, the poor, the needy, the indigent, the homeless, refugees, the sick, the elderly…

Love is central in Islām. It is at the heart of the Golden Rule. As the Messenger of Allāh, peace and blessings be upon him, stated: “None of you have faith until you love for your neighbor what you love for yourself” (Muslim); “Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and to enter Paradise… should treat the people as he wishes to be treated” (Muslim); “None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself” (Nawawī);  “None of you is a believer if he eats his full while his neighbor hasn’t anything” (Aḥmad); “Do unto all men as you would wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourselves” (Abū Dāwūd); “Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you” (Farewell Sermon); and “There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm” (Ibn Mājah). In fact, the Qur’ān goes beyond the Golden rule by encouraging Muslims to “Return evil with kindness” (13:22, 23:96, 41:34, 28:54, 42:40).

Why must be love others? Because as Rūzbihān Baqlī of Shīrāz explains in is‘Abhār al-‘āshiqīn, “The soul is nurtured through human love until love becomes firmly rooted in the inmost mystery.” How can you love a God you cannot see when you cannot even love a human being that you can see? Start seeing God in others and you will see wonders. As Almighty Allāh, subḥānahu wa ta‘alā, states in a sacred saying:

“Allāh will say on the Day of Judgment, ‘Son of Adam, I was sick but you did not visit Me.’ ‘My Lord, How could I visit You when You are the Lord of the Worlds?’ ‘Did you not know that one of My servants was sick and you didn’t visit him? If you had visited him you would have found Me there.’ Then Allāh will say, ‘Son of Adam, I needed food but you did not feed Me.’ ‘My Lord, How could I feed You when You are the Lord of the Worlds?’ ‘Did you not know that one of My servants was hungry but you did not feed him? If you had fed him you would have found its reward with Me.’ ‘Son of Adam, I was thirsty, but you did not give Me something to drink.’ ‘My Lord, How could I give a drink when You are the Lord of the Worlds?’ ‘Did you not know that one of My servants was thirsty but you did not give him a drink? If you had given him a drink, you would have found Me with him.” [Muslim]

And yet again,

“My servant does not draw near to Me with anything more loved than the religious duties that I have imposed upon him, and My Servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works so that I shall love him. When I love him, I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes, and his foot with which he walks.” (Bukhārī)

This is what is meant when we speak of being at one with the One. This is the true meaning of tawḥīd or unity between the Creator and the created. This is what happens when a human being acquires the attributes of Allāh. The is the station of al-insān al-kāmil: the perfected human being. This is what the Imāms, peace be upon them, meant, when they said: “We are the Most Beautiful Names of God.” This is the destination of the path of love.  This is what Imām Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq meant when he asked: Is the religion anything but love?

The Muslim Post (December 5, 2017)

By Dr. John Andrew Morrow (Shaykh Ilyas Islam)

(Presented at the Sound Vision Benefit in Houston, Texas, on December 2, 2017, and at the Annual Seerah Conference in Chicago, Illinois, on December 3, 2017)

I take refuge in Allah from Satan the Rejected. In the Name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, the Loving and the Just, and peace be upon the best of the prophets and messengers, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah, along with his family and faithful companions.

I am delighted to participate in Sound Vision’s Annual Seerah Conference. I would like to thank everyone involved in making this event a reality, including, but not limited to, Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid and Imam Musa Azam. I would also like to thank all the speakers for sharing their time and knowledge with the community, including, but not limited to, the Right Honorable Lord Nazir Ahmed. And I would like to thank you all, the audience, that is, for taking time out of your busy schedules, to expand your intellects and cultivate your spirituality. Now then…

I have been invited to address a topic of timely concern and universal importance: “Coalition Building as a Major Strategy of Prophetic Success.” All I can say is masha’ Allah, in the good sense, not in the “O my God!” sense. It is evident that a great deal of strategic thought was placed in the selection of themes to be explored at this conference. Although I deliver many highly-academic, graduate-level, lectures, today, I will opt for clarity and simplicity. The scholarly approach and the popular approach are both valid. They each have a time and place.

Muslims need to know Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. Non-Muslims need to know Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. Unfortunately, some of the biographies of our beloved Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him peace, do us a relative disservice. They provide us with a chronology of events and place an overemphasis on wars and battles. They read, very much, like the life of a CEO, a chief-executive officer, or a military commander. Some are filled with boring, tedious, and mind-numbing detail. Others are full of action, no doubt, however, they speak very little about the Prophet as a person, the Prophet as a husband, the Prophet as a father, the Prophet as a friend, the Prophet as a spiritual and ethical being, the Prophet as a community leader, and the Prophet as a coalition builder.

The Messenger of Allah, may Allah shower him with blessings and grant him peace, was a complete and total human being. He had many dimensions. He was a warrior, no doubt. He was a legislator, a judge, and a jurist. He was a political leader. He was a religious leader. He was a philosopher. He was an orator. He was an economist. He was an abolitionist. He was a suffragist. He was a civil rights activist. He was a human rights activist. He was a racial, economic, and social justice activist. He was a democrat, an advocate of democracy (not a member of the Democratic Party, thank you very much). He was a proponent of pluralism who created a Confederation of Believers based on the Constitution of Madinah and the Covenants of the Prophet.

With all of this information in mind, it is no wonder that Michael H. Hart ranked Muhammad as the most influential figure in human history. As he explained, “he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels.”

How is it, then, that a poor, uneducated, orphan, from some back-water in Arabia became one of the most powerful leaders in the world with billions of believers? “Violence, bloodshed, terrorism, and mass-murder” respond the intentionally ignorant Islamophobes and hard-hearted hate-mongers. Baraka bi al-kudhubKafa min al-kidhb. Enough with the lies already. He did not receive revelation, proclaim his prophethood, and impose his authority by force. If Muhammad, the son of ‘Abd Allah, was successful, it was because he was a master communicator and coalition builder.

While it may come as a surprise to some, Muhammad’s bridge-building predates the appearance of the Angel Gabriel on the Mountain of Light. Although it has become a dogma that Muhammad only left Arabia on two occasions, once when he was a boy, in the company of his uncle Abu Talib, and yet again, when he was a young man in the service of Khadijah, such a belief is not evidence-based. Early Muslim and Christian sources clearly confirm that Muhammad was well-traveled, that he participated in caravans throughout Arabia, Yemen, the Sinai, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Persia, Armenia, Abyssinia, and parts of the Roman and Byzantine Empires, including, perhaps, North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula. I am not making such claims. I am simply sharing what early sources state.

The monks from monasteries throughout the Greater Middle East claim to have been in personal contact with Muhammad when he was a child and a young man. Many of these monks, from Egypt, the Sinai, Syria, and beyond, recognized Muhammad as the Prophet that was foretold in the prophecies they had in their possessions. The monks from St. Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai asked Muhammad to protect them when he would proclaim his prophethood. He is said to have provided them with a print of his palm as a promise.  By the will of God, and according to His Master Plan, Muhammad appears to have been laying the groundwork for his future mission.

At home, in Arabia, Muhammad also earned the respect, trust, and reverence of the Arab people. When the Ka‘bah needed to be rebuilt, and the question of who should return the Black Stone to its place arose, the Arabs turned to Muhammad al-Amin, the Trustworthy, to resolve the dilemma. He placed the stone on a sheet and had the leaders of each tribe hold on to it, lift it, and return it to its place.

Due to unethical business dealings, conflict arose between the Arabs. Who did they call upon to resolve the conflict? To Muhammad. He spear-headed an alliance to establish fair commercial dealings. It was known as Hilf al-Fudul, the League of the Virtuous, in which tribal leaders agreed to respect the principles of justice and collectively intervene in conflicts to establish justice.

Although this event took place before Muhammad received revelation, and even though the parties were non-Muslims, it is considered an important precedent in Islamic law and ethics. Years later, when Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah became Muhammad Rasul Allah, he insisted that the pact remained valid and binding.

After Muhammad, Allah shower him with countless blessings, received the revelation on the Mountain of Light, he commenced the Islamic tradition of coalition-building. Who did he appeal to? The rich? The powerful? No. He reached out to his family first and foremost. He then appealed to his friends. He focused on building a small, spiritually-strong, community.

When he had the support of those who were close to him, Allah asked him to andhira ‘ashiraka al-aqrabin or “warn your closest kindred.” (26:214). Consequently, he sought permission from the tribal chiefs to preach on Mount al-Safa. They agreed to listen to him because they had never heard him tell lies.

Unfortunately, the Arabs of Quraysh responded with hostility to the peaceful, non-violent, message of the Prophet which focused on faith and justice. Eventually, the persecution took such a toll that the Prophet proposed to send his supporters to Abyssinia, the land of a just Christian king where no one was wronged.

If one peruses the correspondence between Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and al-Najashi, one is struck by their familiar, as opposed to formal, tone. The Prophet spoke to the Abyssinian leader, who appears to have been Judeo-Christian in faith and practice, as if they were friends.

For all intents and purposes, it appears that both men knew and respected one another. If so, this is, once again, evidence that Muhammad had long engaged in alliance-building. Thanks to these efforts, many Companions of the Prophet found refuge in Abyssinia in the year 615 CE.

In the year 619 CE, early Muslim and Christian sources state that the Prophet Muhammad, Allah bless him and grant him peace, received a delegation of Christians in Makkah. This was several years after the first hijrah to Abyssinia and several years before the second hijrah to Madinah. The delegation appears to have consisted of Armenian Christians from Jerusalem. They had long been expecting the rise of an Arabian prophet. They knew that his faith would conquer the world. They knew that he would free them from the oppression of Byzantium. Hence, they asked him to protect their Christian faith and to grant them possession of the holy sites in Jerusalem. This document survives to this day and was ratified by ‘Umar, ‘Ali, and Salah al-Din, among many others.

As a result of extensive epistolary outreach and the diplomatic efforts of his envoys, the Messenger of Allah was able to conclude the Pledge of ‘Aqabah and was able to migrate to Madinah, along with most of his persecuted followers. And who guided the Prophet to Madinah? Who did he select to bring him to safety? Was it a Muslim? No. Was it a Christian? No. Was it a Jew? No. It was an Arab polytheist whom the Prophet trusted with his life. Why did the guide risk the wrath of his own polytheistic people? Because he knew the Prophet as a person. Humanity trumps religion.

The Prophet Muhammad did not impose himself on the people of Madinah: he was invited by the people of Madinah. He was a popularly-acclaimed leader who was asked to act as a mediator between the Jews and polytheists of the prosperous city-oasis. Muslims, at the time, numbered in the hundreds. Non-Muslims numbers in the tens of thousands. The people of Madinah were not converted by force, turned into dhimmis or slaughtered. They gradually entered Islam in the years and decades to come. Some, however, remained Jewish: loyal Jewish allies of the Muslims. So, don’t generalize.

How, then, did the Prophet consolidate power in Madinah? It was certainly not by force for as Almighty Allah confirms in the Qur’an: “There shall be no compulsion in religion” (2:256). It was by means of shura’ or consultation: wa shawirhum or “Consult with them in the matter” (3:159). As Almighty Allah confirms in the Qur’an, the correct method of community-building consists of consultation. The believers are those “whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves” (42:38) or amruhum shura.

In accordance with the Qur’an, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, consulted with the community in Madinah. He met with tribal and faith leaders. He deliberated with them. Then, under his leadership, but in collaboration with non-Muslims, he created and promulgated the Covenant of Madinah, the first constitution in the history of humanity which provided equality for all, regardless of religion, tribe, race, gender or social class. “They are one community [or ummah],” proclaims the Covenant of Madinah: “conditions must be fair and equitable to all.” Jews, Muslims, and polytheists all had to contribute equally to the defense of the Ummah.

The religious rights of the People of the Book were protected: “The Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs.” “To the Jew who follows us belong help and equality,” it proclaims, “he shall not be wronged, nor his enemies aided.” Muslims were even obliged to protect and defend the allies of the Jews: “The close friends of the Jews are as themselves.”

The enemies of the Ummah, namely, the pagans from Quraysh, who persecuted the Muslims and non-Muslims who followed the Prophet, were to be given no protection. All members of the Ummah were bond “to make peace and maintain it.” However, in the event they were attacked by their common enemies, they were all required to rally in defense of it.

The Covenant of Madinah established the rule of law among a lawless people: “Whenever you differ about a matter it must be referred to Allah and to Muhammad.” The teachings of the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an, became the law of the land, governing their respective communities. The Prophet was to oversee their implementation impartially. He was the final arbiter.

Word of the Prophet Muhammad’s rise continued to spread to the four corners of the world. In the second year of the hijrah, a delegation of monks from St. Catherine’s Monasteryvisited him in Madinah where they reminded him of his promise of protection. There, in his mosque in Madinah, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, dictated to ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, the ‘ahd al-nabi, the ‘ahd nabawi, the ashtinameh, the Covenant of the Prophet Muhammad with the Monks of Mount Sinai, which guaranteed freedom of religion, protected religious establishments, granted tax-free status to priests, monks, and nuns, and prohibited forced conversions.

The Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and grant him peace, provided the same protections to the People of the Book throughout the Greater Middle East. He protected the Christians of Najran, Aylah, Egypt, Syria, Persia, Armenia, and the world. He protected the Samaritans in Palestine. He protected the Jews from the Yemen and Maqnah. He also protected the Zoroastrians. None of this is new. None of this is comes from me or some revisionist reading of Islam.

All of this is authentic and confirmed in early Jewish, Samaritan, Christian, and Muslim sources, both Sunni, and Shii. Don’t take it from me. Read it for yourself. Read the Constitution of Madinah.

If you are proficient in Arabic, read Majmu‘ah al-Watha’iq al-siyasiyyah li al-‘ahd al-nabawiwa al khilafah al-rashidah by Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah, the famous Sunni scholar and Western academic. It is nearly 1,000 pages long. It contains hundreds upon hundreds of letters, treaties, and covenants of the Prophet. It clearly shows the massive diplomatic endeavors of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon them.

Read Makatib al-Rasul, a commentary of Hamidullah’s compilation, by Ayatullah Ahmadi Minyanji, the respected Twelver Shiite scholar. It consists of four volumes. So, it’s about 4,000 pages long. You can also read the Arabic translation of my work: Uhud al-Nabi li Masihiyyi al-‘alam which is published by Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah.

If you are only familiar with English, read Power Manifestations of the Sirah by Zafar Bangash, a Sunni intellectual from Canada. It provides an excellent analysis of the Prophet’s coalition-building efforts.

If you wish to understand how the Prophet engaged with Christians, I recommend my work, The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World.

If you wish to broaden your understanding of how the Messenger of Allah built bridges with the People of the Book, Jews, Samaritans, Christians, and Zoroastrians, read Islam and the People of the Book: Critical Studies on the Covenants of the Prophet, a three-volume encyclopedia which features three dozen studies on the subject by leading Muslim scholars along with translations of the Covenants of the Prophet in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Dutch, Russian, Tamil, Indonesian, Urdu, Persian, Azeri, Turkish, and Arabic.

Allah is Just. The Prophet was just. And we Muslims must strive to be just. Coalition-building is the key to success.  I send you greetings of peace and prayers for success and prosperity in this life in the next. Al-salaamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu.

Por John Andrew Morrow

SHAFAQNA – Después de ser bombardeados por la propaganda salafita-wahhabita-takfirita durante tanto tiempo, la aparición en el escenario musulmán del sheij Hamza Yusuf fue refrescante. En las últimas décadas, este erudito con base en California,  ha desempeñado un papel primordial en la difusión del Islam tradicional ―el Islam de Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Tasawwuf― en el mundo occidental, con lo que acercó a decenas de creyentes a las regulaciones de la fe musulmana. Debe ser elogiado por esto.

Muchos se pusieron contentos al ver que un erudito norteamericano asumía una posición de liderazgo en el mundo occidental, esperanzados en que comenzaría a cambiar el rumbo del colonialismo religioso y de la interferencia en nuestros asuntos internos en la materia. Pero debido a que el sheij Hamza Yusuf recibía apoyo financiero, político y logístico de Gran Bretaña, Emiratos Árabes Unidos y Turquía, se puso en entredicho si actuaba o no con independencia. Ese tipo de ayuda es una forma temible de influencia atractiva, porque por lo general los fondos de los actores mundiales y regionales cuentan con condiciones implícitas o explícitas. Por esta cuestión merece una advertencia.

A pesar de que el sheij Hamza Yusuf fue uno de los primeros estudiosos musulmanes en recibir una copia de “Los pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo”, se negó categóricamente a firmar la Iniciativa de los Pactos, declaración que ha sido avalada por cientos de eruditos, intelectuales y activistas musulmanes. Es sorprendente que su objeción se centrase en lo siguiente:

Los abajo firmantes nos comprometemos a la protección de los cristianos del mundo en función del espíritu y la letra de los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad (la paz y bendiciones sean con él), a los que consideramos auténticos y parte de la ley (Shariah). Aclaramos que nunca nada en esta los contradijo, según la interpretación correcta y tradicional.

Como ciudadanos víctimas del terror, la impiedad, la atmósfera del secularismo militante y la falsa religiosidad extendida por todo el mundo, entendemos su sufrimiento como cristianos a través de nuestro sufrimiento como musulmanes y profundizamos en el grado de nuestro sufrimiento a través de la contemplación del que sufren ellos.

Quiera el Más Misericordioso de los Misericordiosos tener en cuenta el sufrimiento de los justos y los inocentes. Quiera Él fortalecernos en total sumisión a Su voluntad, para seguir el espíritu y la letra de los pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los cristianos del mundo en todas nuestras relaciones con ellos.

En resumen, la Iniciativa de los Pactos, reitera, simplemente, nuestro compromiso como musulmanes de respetar los tratados y promesas que el Profeta Muhammad cumplimentó con la Gente del Libro. Por cierto, nadie está obligado a firmar peticiones o declaraciones y el sheij está totalmente en su derecho de rechazar tal invitación. Dejamos constancia de que los Pactos del Profeta han sido ampliamente adoptados por la comunidad musulmana. La lista de firmantes solo representa un pequeño segmento de seguidores.

Al igual que otros eruditos, el Sheik Hamza Yusuf tiene derecho a mantener sus puntos de vista. Es libre de hacerlos público o no. Podría haber expresado su apoyo a los Pactos del Profeta. Si tenía reservas sobre la autenticidad de ellos, podría haberlas manifestado a través de un análisis sustancioso. También podría haber adoptado una posición de neutralidad, cosa que le cabe perfectamente.

Sin embargo, la realidad es que el sheij Hamza Yusuf se opuso activamente a los Pactos del Profeta. Miembros de la facultad de la primera universidad musulmana acreditada en los Estados Unidos hicieron varios intentos por organizar conferencias sobre los Pactos del Profeta. Otras numerosas tentativas fueron hechas por terceros que deseaban organizar conferencias sobre los pactos muhammadianos en la universidad Zaytuna. Todos esos esfuerzos fueron presuntamente frustrados por el sheij Hamza. Si esto fue así, entonces debería rendir cuentas.

Convoco al sheij Hamza Yusuf a hacer suyos los Pactos del Profeta ―la paz y las bendiciones sean con él―. Lo convoco a la reconciliación, la fraternidad y a la amistad. Y si nada de eso fuese posible, lo desafío a un debate público televisado en terreno neutral, ante un público neutral, moderado por una personalidad imparcial, sobre la autenticidad de los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con la Gente del Libro.

Por Dr. John Andrew Morrow (Imam Ilyas Islam) – un erudito musulmán, autor y activista en distintos campos. Es el director de edición deIslam and the People of the Book: Critical Studies on the Covenants of the Prophet (“El Islam y la Gente del Libro: Estudios Críticos sobre los Pactos del Profeta” ―2017―), obra enciclopédica en tres volúmenes de cartas, tratados y pactos de Muhammad, el Mensajero de Allah.

SHAFAQNA – He was there when I left to work in the morning. He was sitting next to my doorway dressed in army fatigues surrounded by US army duffel bags. He was also there when I returned late in the evening. He was a soldier, an American soldier.

As much as I respected soldiers for their discipline, obedience, skills, and courage, this man, in my mind, was a servant and slave of the American Empire. The mere sight of his uniform invoked the atrocities and mass murder committed across the globe in places such as Southeast Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. Although every man is a book, I judged him by his cover as opposed to his content.

Although I never looked at him directly when I set off to teach at an institution of higher learning earlier in the day, merely catching a glance of him thanks to my peripheral vision, I looked at him directly upon my return, ignored him, entered my apartment, and was anguished by guilt.

“He’s been there all day,” said my wife. “Do you have any idea how hot it is?” “Offer him something to drink,” she suggested. I struggled, in my heart and mind, between my commitment to revolutionary convictions and my commitment to humanity and hospitality. That day, my wrath gave way to my mercy.

“You must be tired, thirsty, and hungry,” I stated, looking at him directly in the eyes as I stepped outside of my cool and cozy apartment. “Please join my wife and I for dinner,” I said, inviting a complete and total stranger into the privacy of our domestic domain: “We would be honored to host you.”

“God bless you,” he said, as he rose. The physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual barriers that divided us had now disappeared. I had decided to judge not lest I be judged. I had emptied my heart of prejudice and hate. I grounded myself in my humanity and gave my guest a blank slate. We were no longer strangers. We were acquaintances. I had cast off layers of darkness.

Famished and parched after spending more than twelve hours in the un-air-conditioned hallway of an apartment complex, the man that I was hosting eagerly consumed the water and food that my wife had lovingly prepared. When I first glimpsed at him earlier that day, I had assumed that he was uncouth, low-of-class, and devoid of respect for women. As he interacted with my wife and I at the dinner table of our humble home, the young man was polite, calm, and courteous.

Details of his early life were sketchy. He mentioned that his father had died when he was in his early teens, that his mother had left him to fend for himself, and that she had passed away a few years later. As the issue was painful, he did not wish to elaborate, nor did I press him for more information. It was clear that he had lived a very difficult life leaving him with little more than the military in way of opportunity.

“What do you do in the armed forces?” I asked inquisitively. “I joined the infantry,” he responded.” “Good God,” I responded, “that is the most dangerous of all ranks.” “My duty is to serve where and how I am needed,” he explained. “There is no greater honor than to die for God and country.”

As we conversed on that calm night, I was intimately aware of the dual nature of his discourse. To one unversed, the words of the soldier were simple and straightforward. To one versed, they took on entirely new shades of meaning. I became increasingly engrossed and utterly attentive to his every word. He was very much a teacher teaching a teacher the teachings of the tariqah or path.

“Take me to my brother,” he asked, “for I am headed to the Sahel in North Africa.” I knew then that the lesson was over. He bid my wife goodbye with words of gratitude. I helped him gather his belongings and loaded them into my vehicle. I drove him down the road where his brother was said to live. The man in question refused to come down to greet him or help him with his belongings. The people from the apartment were vile and devoid of hospitality.

“They don’t deserve him,” I thought, sinning once again. Who was I, I scolded myself, to question his mission? After all, had I not abandoned him at my doorstep myself? And now, shortly after, my heart was aching that he was leaving. How I wanted him to stay! “Who are you?” I asked as he prepared to leave my vehicle. “They call me George,” he said with a smile. We looked at each other as friends. That day, he killed the dragon that was devouring my heart.

“Do you know who that was?” I asked my wife: “He was St. George or al-Khidr. He was a servant from among our servants (18:65). “Whether or not he was al-Khidr,” answered my wife wisely, “he was a man sent by God to teach you a lesson.”

Dr. John Andrew Morrow (Imam Ilyas Islam) is a proud member of the Métis Nation, one of the three aboriginal peoples recognized by the Canadian government. He embraced Islam at the age of 16 after several years of serious study. He has been a student of the Islamic Sciences for over thirty years and has acquired knowledge around the world. His teachers have included traditional scholars of Islam from various schools of jurisprudence and spiritual paths as well as Western academics. He received his PhD from the University of Toronto at the age of 29 and reached the rank of Full Professor by the age of 43. He retired from academia in 2016 to devote his time entirely to research, scholarship, and service. Dr. Morrow has authored hundreds of academic articles and over thirty scholarly books, the most influential of which is The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World (2013). He is also the Editor-in-Chief of Islam and the People of the Book, a three-volume encyclopedia on the Muhammadan Covenants which features critical studies by over twenty leading Muslim scholars along with translations of the treaties of the Prophet in over a dozen languages. Dr. Morrow received an interfaith leadership award from the Islamic Society of North America in 2016 and a Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition from the US House of Representatives in 2017. An award winning academic, author, and activist, he lectures around the world and acts as an advisor to world leaders.

By Dr. John Andrew Morrow (Ilyas ‘Abd al-‘Alim Islam)

During the meeting Hujjat El-islam Sheikh Abdul Mahdi al-Karbalai welcomed personalities such as Dr John Andrew Morrow, prominent scholar and author of the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World, US Congresswoman Cynthia McKeeney, film-maker Nader Talebzadeh and many others.

Sheikh Abdul Mahdi al-Karbalai stressed the importance of compassion and tolerance when addressing world issues, highlighting the universality of Imam Hussain’s message and legacy.

“Once must ponder over the secret behind Imam Hussain’s message when millions upon millions continue to brave hardship and dangers to reunite with their Imam. What is that secret.”

Sophia Imaginalis: Journal of Visionary Art, Sacred Art, Traditionalism and Esoteric Studies

By Charles Upton

[This open letter has five themes: the present cultural and socio-political situation in the United State; the Covenants Initiative; the need to prevent metaphysics from devolving into ideology; the application of the doctrines of René Guénon to social analysis; and the plans of the globalist elites to weaken, control or virtually eliminate the world’s major religions.]

Dear Mr.Bannon:

Greetings. I believe that we may have certain things of serious import to discuss, so I have written you this open letter.I am a writer in a genre I call“metaphysics and social criticism”. I am associated with the Traditionalist or Perennialist School of comparative religion and traditional metaphysics, a school considered to have been founded by René Guénon, who I understand has also been a great influence on you.

My publisher, James Wetmore of Sophia Perennis is editor of the collective works of René Guénon and is almost single-handedly responsible for keeping them in print in English.Since 2013 I have been associated with an organization I conceived of called the Covenants Initiative, which has now become an international movement within Islam to counter radical Islamic extremism and defend persecuted Christians. Our movement is based on a truly ground-breaking book by Dr. John Andrew Morrow entitled The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World[Angelico/Sophia Perennis, 2013].

The covenants of the Prophet with various Christian communities, which Dr. Morrow re‐discovered in obscure monasteries and collections and sometimes newly translated, also providing powerful arguments for their validity, uniformly command Muslims not to attack or kill peaceful Christians, rob them, damage their buildings, stop their churches from being repaired, tear down their churches to build mosques, or even prevent their Christian wives from going to church and taking spiritual direction from Christian priests and elders. On the contrary, the Prophet commands all Muslims to actively defend these communities “until the coming of the Hour”—the end of the world.Thus the Prophet Muhammad himself, whose commands are law to every Muslim on earth, declared that groups like the mad dogs of ISIS lay under the curse of Allah before they ever drew breath.

When ISIS burned St. Mary’s Cathedral in Mindanao, the Philippines, in May of this year, the Governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao immediately invoked the Covenants of the Prophet to prove that this action was “un-Islamic”. I can confidently state that this was due almost entirely to our efforts. Speaking for myself, I see the Covenants Initiative as—among other things—one of the possible exoteric expressions of the esoteric principle that René Guénon, and his followers in the Traditionalist or Perennialist School, call “the transcendent unity of religions.” And one of the great values of this principle, when applied to society, history, and politics, is that it prevents those who follow it from making an idol out of this or that political ideology, since it teaches them to base their thoughts and actions on eternal metaphysical principles, not ad hoc ideological strategies.

For this reason I have been able, though not without a few wrong steps in my earlier years, to largely steer clear of identifying myself as either a Liberal or a Conservative. Speaking as a Muslim who also accepts the validity of the Christian revelation, I can define American Liberalism as the secularization of Christian Mercy, and American Conservatism as the secularization of Christian Justice and Morality. And the problem with both Liberalism and Conservatism is, precisely, secularization, which is nothing less than an implicit or outright atheism thatacts to drive an unholy and unnatural wedge between Mercy and Justice.

In Christianity—that is, in God—Mercy and Justice are never and can never be separated. The Rulers of the Darkness of This World, however, have done their best to alienate Mercy and Justice from each other and set them at war. They have contrived false and counterfeit forms of them, perverting them both and thereby making both of them hateful to us. Extreme and authoritarian Liberalism, in an act of unparalleled viciousness, has transformed Mercy into what Dr. Morrow calls “compulsory immorality”, into the insidious vice of permissiveness—a cruel permissiveness that loves corruption and targets anyone who struggles to live a life of purity and decency, doing all it can to drive such conscientious people to despair—not simply by giving them no help in their struggles but by portraying their very love of virtue as a kind of self-loathing, and their desire to proclaim that love, and see it take root and grow and spread its loveliness throughout human society, as bigotry and hate.

It has imposed a loathsome regime of “political correctness”, a system which has resulted in an ideologically enslaved population who believe that anyone who does not agree with their own brand of Liberal extremism must be a Nazi or a Klansman or a Russian agent, as well as making them mortally afraid, not only of even the most moderate conservatives, but finally even of their own thoughts, thereby going a long way toward destroying freedom of speech in this country by defining certain opinions, in the terminology of George Orwell’s 1984, as thought crime.

Likewise its distrust of traditional moral values has expressed itself as an attack on Christianity, leading to a serious erosion of freedom of religion as well. It has exploited crucial and necessary efforts like environmental protection, the social advancement of women, and the struggles for survival of often-disadvantaged groups such as Blacks or Gays or Muslim and/or Latino immigrants, into unholy Liberal causes, causes which they then cynically employ to weaken the constitutional rule of law and attack and undermine their political opponents, as well as to impose extreme and destructive social experiments upon an initially unwilling, but often finally beaten and compliant, American public.

In so doing they have built up a backlog of racial and sexual hatred that the extreme Conservatives have no qualms about exploiting openly. And while pretending to still be in some sense “Leftists”, they have suppressed nearly all viable economic and class analysis, replacing it by “ethnic studies”, “gender studies” and a socially engineered racial conflict and hatred between the sexes that has poisoned this society from sea to shining sea. By this they have made Mercy itself hateful to many—and there is no greater crime than this.

Extreme and reactionary Conservatism, drawing partly on its own inherent tendencies and partly on a growing and widespread reaction against the excesses of Liberalism, has transformed the majestic virtue of Justice, Justice which is nothing less than militant Mercy, into a justification for tyranny and oppression, a code-word whose actual meaning and effect is to throw all support to the economic “1 percent” who have looted this country root and branch, destroyed the middle class, further impoverished the poor, made widespread unemployment and underemployment—cleverly concealed behind twisted and lying statistics—into the new normal, hypocritically praised family values while economically attacking and destroying actual families.

In the name of Justice and Morality they have turned the love of virtue into a license to hate and oppress anyone who does not live up to their own often ill-conceived and blindly imposed “moral” standards, recommending thrift and diligence to those who have spent years looking for a job and failed, recommending a stiff upper lip and decreased reliance on opiates to those who are in chronic pain and lack the resources to access more sophisticated treatments—standards they are zealous in imposing on others but often lax in applying to themselves, doing battle with the speck of dust in their neighbor’s eye while ignoring the two-by-four in their own.

They have made war on the poor, denying them health care, denying food stamps to the chronically mal-nourished, while doing all they can to give free rein the predatory economic forces that have brought us the savings-and-loan scandal, the Enron scandal, the sub-prime mortgage scandal, the Great Recession that has made this once rich and hopeful country into a nation of paupers, of old people who can never retire and young people who see no future but to drown themselves in the abyss of cyberspace while being a burden to their parents, who can never make marriages or families, who can never become adults! And their hatred of the poor is only equaled by their hatred of the environment, of the very Earth that sustains us all—even them. In so doing they have transformed the divine virtue of Justice which gives to everyone his or her rightful portion into an armed guard standing watch at the iron gate of the City of Robbery and Usury, making sure that the meek never will inherit the earth, that only the money-changers, those with the blood of the poor and defenseless still hot on their hands, will be granted admittance.

The terminal corruption of both Liberalism and Conservatism is clearly revealed by two sterling examples: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump—Clinton, who openly despises the white working class and whose impending though finally derailed election, according to the Defcon website, brought the estimated danger of nuclear war with Russia to its highest level since the Cuban Missile Crisis—and Trump, who—though I applaud his powerful blows against ISIS, his apparently sincere desire to wipe them off the face of the earth—wants to cut Medicaid, deny food stamps to the poorest of the poor, axe environmental protection laws and privatize the national parks, and who—though his stated aim of rationalizing immigration policy to protect the U.S. from foreign terrorists makes a degree of sense, as long as it targets terrorists and not just Muslims—continues to offer inflammatory statements, without retracting them, that many have translated as “open season on immigrants and Muslims”, leading to a massive increase in hate crimes.

And behind both Liberalism and Conservatism lies the Deep State, the cadres of the Global Elites, who believe in nothing whatsoever, only in themselves and in the Satanic principle they worship, and who, from their position of inverted, Luciferian transcendence, can use either Liberal or Conservative ideology as they so choose, cynically, indifferently, with equal force, equal cruelty and equal and conspicuous success, according to which of these two hopeless alternatives the American people happen to have placed their feeble hopes in during a particular decade, a particular presidential administration, a particular year, in order to advance their transformation of this planet into a living hell .That’s why I thank the living God every day that He has led me to the noble science of metaphysics—and, in so doing, freed me from ideology.

Remember, Mr. Bannon—and I call on myself also to remember—that there is no Mercy without Justice and Morality; whoever believes in the contradiction of an unjust Mercy will be sorely punished by being transformed into a Liberal. Likewise there is no Justice without Mercy; whoever believes in the impossibility of a merciless Justice as will be severely chastised by being turned into a Conservative. What has Almighty God to do with flimsy human categories like Liberalism or Conservatism, the Left or the Right?

God is of neither the East nor the West: He is the Inner, the Outer, the End, the Beginning, the Highest of all, the Deepest of all, the Center of all, the Total Field—Light upon Light. To whom or what else should we turn to learn what Mercy is, and what Justice is, and how to enact them, and where to find the power to enact them? There is much good in liberality, in generosity, in compassion, in catholicity of taste, in breadth of sympathy—but Liberalism is a travesty.

Likewise there is much good in tradition, in holding to the right, in militantly protecting and defending the good, the true and the beautiful—but Conservatism is a curse. God is far above such weak and shameful human attempts to do His work for Him. And what is God? God—Mr. Bannon, and my dear friends—God is Love: Love Who is the sweetest of Mercies and the most relentless hand of Justice in a single, incandescent, thunderous, face of Truth.

By whatever Name He may be known, His is the standard I bear. So if you really want to do Justice to the profound truths that René Guénon has revealed to us, and find Mercy in them, and thereby grasp the essence of the great God-given religions, of Judaism and Hinduism, of Zoroastrianism and Buddhism, of Christianity and Islam, then take care that you never espouse a principle or give support to a policy that violates either the Justice, or the Mercy, of Love—because if you do, you will have joined the army of the Enemies of Love, and thereby made Love Himself your enemy, that being a fate more terrible than human words can express.

So what is my purpose in sending you this message? To begin with, I simply wanted to alert you to the fact that a movement like the Covenants Initiative, which has already had great influence in the Muslim world and has gained a degree of notice in the Christian world as well, could have come out of the work of two American Muslims, Dr. John Andrew Morrow and myself, over the past four years. I hope that this piece of information will provide you with a new point of reference and challenge you to entertain the possibility that American Muslims might have a greater and more active role to play in the struggle against radical Islamic extremism than simply protesting their innocence and issuing disclaimers—a role based on the commands of the Prophet Muhammad himself.

Secondly, I felt that it might be useful for you to realize that a person such as myself with an early Catholic background like yours, someone who considers himself a follower of René Guénon just as you do, could have unexpectedly risen from obscurity to play a real though modest part in world affairs in the 21st Century. What is going on here? Most of my colleagues in the Traditionalist School in the English-speaking world have long resigned themselves to social marginalization, willingly accepted their apparent duty to keep the lamp of traditional metaphysics burning, even though we might have to hide it under a bushel basket to prevent it from being snuffed out by the Darkness of This World.

That some version of Traditionalist doctrine, which we had considered to be essentially a-political, could suddenly rise to prominence in the United States, Russia and elsewhere in terms of various political ideologies, has come as a real shock to many of us. Our surprise can partly be explained by the de-emphasis of Julius Evola in our branch of Traditionalism, since Evola has been the main road for many toward a political application ofGuénon’s ideas. Yet when the covenants of the Prophet suddenly appeared in my life, due to the ground-breaking research of Dr. John Andrew Morrow, I immediately saw that they represented a legitimate and entirely Traditional way of applying the Traditionalist doctrine of the transcendent unity of religions to social action.

This development has all the marks of a prophetic sign—but a sign of what? Is Traditionalism finally “coming into its own”? Or has the Darkness of This World at last found a way to co-opt and neutralize it? These are matters that merit serious discussion. Third and last, if there ever was a time when the world’s religions need to stand together against their common enemies, it is now. The forces of militant secularism, false magical/psychic religion and fundamentalist extremism are attacking all the God-given religions.

The time is therefore ripe for a “united front ecumenism” that recognizes this threat and begins the serious work of developing strategies to counter it. Unexpectedly, Guénon’s categories from The Reign of Quantity have proved highly useful for analyzing the emerging globalist hegemony; this is partly due to the fact that, at least since the Iranian Revolution, religion has begun to have a greater influence on social change and social conflict than (perhaps) at any time since the Reformation. One face of this hegemony is the direct atheist/secularist attack on religious faith; this would correspond to Guénon’s “Anti-Tradition.” The false magical or psychic religion of the New Age, its predecessors and successors, fits Guénon’s definition of “Pseudo-Tradition”. And the Luciferianism of the global elites expresses the very essence of his categories of “Counter-Tradition” and “Counter-Initiation”.

The globalist master plan to wipe the traditional religions off the face of the earth is based on two main strategies. The first is to weaken the faiths by infiltrating them with Pseudo-Traditional doctrines and practices, many of which are based on the idea that all the religions are naturally “evolving” toward one universalist meta-religion which will incorporate the “best” of each in the process of supplanting all of them—a meta-religion of which the globalist elites themselves would constitute the priesthood.

The long-term Freemasonic attack against Roman Catholicism is perhaps the clearest and most successful example of this strategy. (Parenthetically, the greatest contradiction—and irony—in Guénon’s doctrines is his hope that Masonry could be used to re-introduce a true esoteric spirituality into the Western world; he never seems to have realized that the Freemasonic lodges almost perfectly satisfy his own definition of Counter-Initiatic organizations.)

And even if the goal of a One-World Religion, or a federation of all the world’s religions under a single secular authority, is never in fact attained, nonetheless the push for it will have so weakened the traditional religions that they will no longer be able to stand in any effective way against the globalist hegemony. One of the tools employed by the global elites in their attack on the traditional religions is the established Interfaith Movement, which is heavily subsidized and directed by national governments, including the U.S. State Department, as well as various globalist foundations and think-tanks. (This criticism certainly does not apply to all Interfaith organizations, nonetheless the globalist influence remains a dangerous factor which is not often recognized for what it is.)

The globalist-influenced Interfaith Movement influences the religions to soft-pedal various “divisive” doctrines in the name of “tolerance” and “unity”, thus weakening their basic structure and making them more vulnerable to Pseudo-Traditional incursions. The Traditionalist doctrine of the transcendent unity of religions is strictly opposed to this sort of promiscuous Liberal ecumenism since it takes the differences between the faiths as providential and sees their unity not as a desirable worldly possibility but as a transcendent reality; the paths of the various faith finally come together only in God.

Likewise the Covenants Initiative does not require any degree of doctrinal unanimity between Islam and Christianity outside the belief in One God, necessarily supplemented by the understanding that any traditional religion that affirms this belief will find itself a target of the globalist elites. The second strategy, conceived and directed by these same elites, is to subsidize the various radical fundamentalist movements within the traditional religions—movements which, ironically, have often grown up as blind, narrow-minded and ill-conceived reactions against globalism: a perfect example of the venerable technique of the “controlled opposition”.

The radical fundamentalists—who are actually another form of Anti-Tradition—are useful to the elites because they tend to oppose and attack both the religious tradition out of which they have developed, seeing it as degenerate and heretical, and all the other religions as well, seeing them as false, Satanic counterfeits of the True Faith. This allows the elites to turn various hired religious or pseudo-religious terrorist organizations—ISIS is a prime example—against both the religion they profess to follow and every other traditional faith they can get their hands on.

This is why I believe that the meta-strategy of the globalists in supporting Islamic terrorism is to neutralize ALL the religions. After all, why should an elite cadre of oligarchs backed by global finance who aspire to world domination sit back and do nothing when the beliefs and aspirations and moral standards of billions of people are determined by “out-moded” religious institutions that they do not control? And if anyone still doubts that both “religious tolerance” and mutually-destructive inter-religious war could be subsidized by the same people at the same time for the same purpose, I can report from personal experience that, during the Obama administration, the Christian/Muslim Dialogue in my home town Lexington, Kentucky was hosting speakers from Homeland Security, the Federal Attorney’s Office, the State Department and the FBI, at the very same time that this same administration, via the CIA and other entities, was subsidizing and directing the Arab Spring and the growth of ISIS.

I refer those who still remain incredulous when faced with this claim to an article by Seumas Milne that appeared in the Guardianin June of 2015, entitled “Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq”. It maybe viewed at:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq?CMP=share_btn_fb

In conclusion, I only wish to point out that the emerging globalist hegemony, whether or not it finally takes the form of a One-World Religion or incorporates such a religion as one of its “ministries”, perfectly fits the prophesy of René Guénon, in The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times, that the Counter-Tradition will ultimately express itself in terms of a visible organization that would be “the counterpart, but by the same token the counterfeit, of a traditional conception such as that of the ‘Holy Empire’”—a regime controlled by an “inverted hierarchy” which would be nothing less than the kingdom of Antichrist, the one that we Muslims call al-Dajjal, “the Deceiver”.

But still the question remains: what does it mean that the doctrines of an abstruse and reclusive French metaphysician who died in 1951 have been one of the factors that have brought both of us to our respective commitments to social action in this darkest of times in human history, the final days of the Kali-yuga? It’s a question worth discussing.


Explore the groundbreaking work and thought of Charles Upton here: www.charles-upton.com

Por Taraneh Tabatabai
 

SHAFAQNA – El Dr. John Andrew Morrow, autor, activista y ganador de premios académicos, recibió un Certificado de Reconocimiento Especial por parte del Congreso de EEUU en el Centro Cultural IMAN en Los Ángeles (California) el 24 de septiembre de 2017.

El extraordinario reconocimiento al Dr. Morrow fue dado por su conferencia sobre “Los Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo”, publicado ahora como un libro.

El reconocimiento, firmado por Karen Bass ―miembro del Congreso de California por el distrito 37―, fue dado por la señora Parvaneh Kadivar, quien describió al profesor Morrow como “un escritor prolífico, un erudito  acreditado y un buen ser humano que ha dedicado su vida a la construcción de puentes entre las comunidades de fe diversa, invirtiendo su vida en la búsqueda de la verdad documentada”.

Dijo el Dr. Morrow (Imam Ilyas Islam) durante su conferencia sobre Los Pactos: “Teniendo en cuenta que la continuación del conflicto entre cristianos y musulmanes en todo el mundo ha sido artificialmente impulsado por las fuerzas del imperialismo ―especialmente en África, Oriente Medio y Asia―, el contenido de estos documentos históricos que son de un valor inestimable, puede arrojar luz sobre la historia temprana del Islam. Por medio de la información que provee esta documentación, somos testigos de la relación primordial entre los musulmanes y el Pueblo del Libro. Por lo tanto, estos Pactos pueden servir como fuente de inspiración para el establecimiento de una armonía sin igual entre las tres religiones abrahámicas: judaísmo, cristianismo e Islam”.

Relations between Muslims and Christians have been described as a centuries-old “clash of civilizations,” a binary worldview in which “Western Christendom” is “civilized” and the “Muslim world” is backward. This clash of civilizations proclaims that Western values and Islamic values are mutually exclusive and cannot coexist alongside one another in the same society or nation.
Current relations between Muslim and Christian communities are negatively shaped, even further, by the persecution of Muslims in Western countries and the persecution of Christians in Muslim-majority countries, especially across the Middle East. Considering these all-too-avoidable realities, it is essential to distinguish the rise of Islamophobia among Christians and the mistreatment of Christians by Muslims from Prophet Muhammad’s revolutionary Covenants. Simply, these Covenants are a set of charters or writs ratified by Prophet Muhammad which grant protection and other human rights to Christian communities in his midst. They help to contextualize current affairs and provide us with the necessary tools to build a more just world in which Muslims and Christians can live alongside one another in peace.

Muhammad’s Covenants with the Christian Community

While long known to religious scholars, Prophet Muhammad’s Covenants with the Christians of his time have largely been neglected or ignored by Muslim and non-Muslim leaders and policy makers alike. These Covenants, which have been resting for centuries in old monasteries and libraries across the world, have been made accessible to non-specialists thanks largely to Dr. John Andrew Morrow, author of The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World. In his book, Morrow describes the Covenants as:

a clear rejection of classism, elitism, and racism… all [people under the jurisdiction of the Covenants] are equal before God for whom the most important thing is not language, skin color, social status or class position, which exclude others, but rather the degree of piety, humanity, love for others (which includes not only human beings but the entire natural order), sincerity of faith, the acceptance of His Commandments, and complete certainly as to the special place occupied by His Prophets, Messengers, and Imams.

Morrow refers to the Covenants as the third foundational source of Islamic scripture, and as entirely compatible with the Qur’an and Hadith. These documents uniformly command Muslims not to attack peaceful Christian communities, rob them, stop churches from being built, or tear down churches to build mosques.

One of the most well-known Covenants is that of “The Covenant of the Prophet with the Monks of Mount Sinai,” which has been housed at Saint Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt for the last nine centuries. According to the Covenant with the Christians of Mount Sinai, a “Muslim nation” must extend protection to Christian communities including their buildings and leaders. Consider the following passage from this Covenant:

A bishop shall not be removed from his bishopric, nor a monk from his monastery, nor a hermit from his tower, nor shall a pilgrim be hindered from his pilgrimage. Moreover, no building from among their churches shall be destroyed, nor shall the money from their churches be used for the building of mosques or houses for the Muslims.

So long as the monks of Mount Sinai submitted to Muslim authorities and sought the protection of Muslims, Prophet Muhammad was prepared to support them. Indeed, under the Prophet’s egalitarian vision, the Christian monks of Mount Sinai received the special statuses of dhimmi, or “protected peoples,” and al-mu’minin, or “the faithful.” This worldview is also one that supports democratic principles, such as the right to private property and freedom of religion.

Religious pluralism is clearly a central theme of the Covenants. According to Professor Diana Eck of the Harvard University Pluralism Project, religious pluralism is, among many things, an energetic engagement with religious diversity, as well as between religious communities. Religious pluralism involves speaking and listening as well as criticism and self-criticism, between and within religious communities. While religious pluralism has been discussed primarily as a Western sociological construct, as the Covenants reveal, the West does not have a monopoly on religious pluralism. The concept has a long history amongst philosophers of Islam and theologians of various schools of fiqh, or Islamic jurisprudence.

The Prophet’s Example

The freedom that Prophet Muhammad granted to the monks of Mount Sinai directly contrasts with the actions of ISIS, a group which persecutes and attacks Christian communities in their midst. In February 2017, The Washington Post reported that Christians had recently been forced to flee the Sinai Peninsula in fear of attacks by Egypt’s ISIS affiliate. ISIS had targeted hundreds of Coptic Christians, as well as Coptic clergymen and human rights activists. Several deadly skirmishes have also taken place between Egyptian military forces and ISIS operatives, near the walls of Saint Catherine’s.

To confront these developments, Pope Francis traveled to Egypt in April 2017 in the hope of countering attacks on Christians and building bridges between Muslim and Christian communities. In a speech he gave at an international conference in the Egyptian capital of Cairo, the Pope called on Muslim and Christian leaders to build a “new civilization of peace” by declaring together “a firm and clear ‘no’ to every form of violence, vengeance and hatred carried out in the name of religion and in the name of God.”

The Pope’s message of peace is clearly echoed in Prophet Muhammad’s Covenant with the monks of Mount Sinai:

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

I protect them from interference with their supplies and from the payment of taxes save what they willingly renounce. There shall be no compulsion or constraint against them in any of these matters.

Prophet Muhammad made it obvious that protecting Christians was a priority under his leadership. What this passage also makes apparent is that in the levying of the jizya—the poll tax on Christian communities which was similar to the Islamic “spiritual tax” or zakat—Muslim leaders should not extract money if Christians are unable to pay the tax. Rather, Prophet Muhammad asks Muslims to negotiate with the Christians on these and other matters, without forcing them into an agreement or committing any violence against them. Such conditions were clearly stated in several other Covenants, including the “The Covenant of the Prophet with the Christians of the World,” “The Covenant of the Prophet with the Christians of Persia,” and “The Covenant of the Prophet with the Christians of Najran.”

“The Covenant of the Prophet with the Christians of Najran” stems from the Prophet’s early contact with the Christians of Najran around the second year of the hijrah, or great migration of Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Medina. Around 631 CE, Prophet Muhammad sent letters to various religious and ethnic communities in the region, encouraging them to embrace Islam and accept his authority. The Najrans lived approximately 450 miles south of Medina in what is modern-day Yemen. Although they did not accept Prophet Muhammad’s call to Islam, the Christians of Najran sent a delegation of roughly forty-five scholars and fifteen assistants to Medina. When they arrived, Prophet Muhammad allowed these Christians to pray inside his mosque. Together, they later agreed to the Treaty of Najran, which, according to Abu Bakr, one of the Prophet’s senior companions, conferred complete religious and political autonomy to non-Muslims living in the Islamic state.

As the Covenant with the Christians of Najran underscores, Prophet Muhammad was a religious pluralist who engaged in a form of proactive cooperation with other religious groups, for the sake of the well-being of all members of the Islamic state. Consider this passage from the Covenant with the Najrans:

The Muslims must not abandon the Christians, neglect them, and leave them without help and assistance since I have made this pact with them on behalf of Allah to ensure that whatever good befell Muslims it would befall them as well and that whatever harm befall Muslims would befall them as well.

A similar passage is found in the Covenant with the monks of Mount Sinai, in which Muslims and Christians are asked to work alongside one another:

If in the interest of the benevolent Muslim public, and of their faith, Muslims shall ask of the Christians for assistance, the latter shall not deny them that help, as an expression of friendship and goodwill, they are to render… we deem all help and succor rendered to them every way legitimate.

These passages command Muslims and Christians to depend upon one another for both safety and prosperity. In doing so, they align closely with the Qur’an (16:91): “And fulfill the covenant of Allah, when you have made a covenant, and do not break (your) oaths after making them firm, and you have indeed made Allah your surety. Surely Allah knows what you do.” In this Qur’anic passage, God proclaims that mutual dependence between Christians and Muslims fosters a sound and healthy society. The sense of justice exuding from the passage can help to protect society from bitterness and violation of human rights.

Civic principles were also important to Prophet Muhammad’s vision for an Islamic state. The Prophet refused to allow the Islamic state to devalue citizens based on their ethnicity, religion, race, or cultural orientation. In the Covenant with the Christians of the World, he made it clear that he would not inflict harm on Christians or interfere with their privacy, simply because they were Christians:

The covenant of Allah is that I should protect their land, their monasteries, with my power, my horses, my men, my strength, and my Muslim followers in any region, far away or close by, and that I should protect their businesses. I grant security to them, their churches, their businesses, their houses of worship, the places of their monks, the places of their pilgrims, wherever they may be found.

The rights that Prophet Muhammad granted to Christians in his realm are neutral in nature. He did not grant different rights to different religious communities. Nor did the Prophet pursue policies that would result in the disenfranchisement of Christians. Citizenship, as outlined in the Covenants, relied on the right of all people to have a “fair hearing” of their views and “fair protection” of their interests and lives, regardless of their beliefs or religious preference.

Toward Religious Pluralism

The Covenants—alongside the Qur’an and Hadiths—attest to Prophet Muhammad’s support for religious pluralism and equal citizenship rights. The Qur’an (2:256) underscores the correctness of this belief, stating, quite clearly, that “There shall be no compulsion in religion.”

This should come as no surprise to those individuals and groups who have a clear understanding of the place of Christian communities in the Islamic tradition. A special place is reserved in Islamic scripture for Christians, as well as Jews. The Qur’an refers to both populations as ahl al-kitab (“People of the Book”), or people who have received the word of God. As the Qur’an (2:62) notes:

Those who believe in the Qur’an and those who follow the Jewish scriptures, and the Christians and the Sabians – any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Without a doubt, the Covenants offer a blueprint for advancing freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and civic rights in “Muslim nations” and beyond. In the context of Islam, the Covenants remind us that the ummah is a form of social consciousness and an imagined community where Christians are also treated as “righteous believers.” This egalitarian creed, which stands for freedom and equality, entitles Christians and other non-Muslim communities to a secure and protected place in all Islamic societies.

So what can be done to improve relations between Muslims and Christians worldwide? It is simple: follow the example that Prophet Muhammad set by fostering religious pluralism and citizenship rights in societies across the world.

Posted by

19 Oct, 2017

Australasian Muslim Times 

Dr John Morrow recognised by US Congress

Dr John Andrew Morrow, the award-winning academic, author, and activist, received a Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition at the IMAN Cultural Center in Los Angeles, California on 24 September 2017.

The extraordinary recognition to Dr Morrow was given for his presentation of a lecture on The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World, that has now been published as a book.

The recognition, signed by Karen Bass, Member of Congress for California’s 37th District, was presented to Dr Morrow by Mrs Parvaneh Kadivar, who described Professor Morrow as “a prolific writer, an accomplished scholar, and a fine human being who has devoted his life to building bridges between and among the diverse faith communities and who has spent his life in search of truth in scrolls and scriptures.”

During his lecture on the covenant Dr Morrow (Imam Ilyas Islam) said, “Considering that the continued conflict between Christians and Muslims across the world has been artificially ignited by the forces of imperialism, especially in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, the content of these priceless historical documents can shed light on the early history of Islam. Via this information, we are witness to the primordial relationship between Muslims and People of the Book. Thus, these covenants can serve as a source of inspiration for the establishment of insuperable harmony between the three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.”

 15 de octubre de 2017

SHAFAQNA – Por: Dr. John Andrew Morrow (Imam Ilyas Islam)

Como parte del “gran juego” que tuvo lugar a finales del siglo XIX y comienzo del siglo XX, las potencias occidentales conspiraron para dividir y destruir la ummah (comunidad) musulmana por medios tanto suaves como violentos. Se inició entonces una campaña de propaganda dirigida a socavar el Imperio Otomano interna y externamente.

El objetivo era convencer a musulmanes, cristianos y judíos de diversos orígenes étnicos, lingüísticos, culturales y tribales, que el mundo otomano era una fuente de estancamiento científico mientras que el mundo occidental era la encarnación del progreso. Lo que se desarrolló fue, en gran medida, una guerra entre lo religioso y lo secular, entre quienes creían en Dios y lo negaban.

Siguiendo la antigua estrategia imperial del divide et impera (divide y vencerás), los británicos, franceses y alemanes convencieron a las diferentes comunidades confesionales que estaban siendo oprimidas bajo el gobierno otomano y que tenían derecho a poseer sus propios estados-naciones homogéneos. ¡Arabia para los árabes! ¡Una patria para los judíos en Palestina! ¡Una república para los armenios! Y ¡un país para los kurdos!

De esa manera los imperialistas occidentales seculares consiguieron destruir el Imperio Otomano, erradicar de la Tierra el Islam como poder político y dividir a la poderosa ummah (comunidad) musulmana en un sinnúmero de estados-naciones débiles. Pero al no inventar esas naciones-estados con características étnicas y lineamientos religiosos claros y definidos, podrían ser usadas para que choquen entre ellas en el futuro. (Si bien eso sucedió), los kurdos, que participaron activamente en el exterminio de comunidades cristianas en el papel de instrumento de los imperialistas occidentales, se quedaron en definitiva sin el Kurdistán prometido por sus amos infieles.

Los nómadas kurdos, una antigua población de origen incierto, eventualmente desarrollaron un sentido de identidad étnica y solidaridad alrededor de los siglos XII y XIII. Aunque los imperialistas occidentales estimularon sus aspiraciones nacionales, el comienzo del siglo XX los encuentra esparcidos por distintas naciones: Siria, Turquía, Irak, Irán y Azerbaiyán.

La decisión de tener escindidos a los kurdos era deliberada. A pesar de que fueron traicionados por los poderes occidentales que los utilizaron cuando se rediseñaron las fronteras en la zona luego de la Primera Guerra Mundial, siguieron siendo fieles a sus (mandamases extranjeros) traidores y se volvieron más laicos que los musulmanes. Sus actuales amos infieles ―sionistas y norteamericanos― los atendieron convenientemente al considerarlos elementos valiosos para instrumentar en Oriente Medio la sedición interna, la división y la discordia desestabilizadora.

 

(Por su parte) los kurdos, en su papel de aliados incondicionales de norteamericanos e israelíes, se benefician de una campaña de relaciones públicas positiva en el mundo occidental, donde se presentan como liberales progresistas, democráticos y seculares cuando, en realidad, su ideología comunista maoísta y su comportamiento criminal se compara al de los guerrilleros de Sendero Luminoso, quienes aterrorizaron Perú durante décadas.

El líder del PKK (Partido de los Trabajadores del Kurdistán) ―Abdullah Öcalan― tiene la compasión de una cobra y sus combatientes han cometido crímenes de guerra de todo tipo. Lo mismo ocurre con las YPG (Unidades de Protección del Pueblo): como aliadas de los Estados Unidos e Israel, se confabularon con el ISIS para limpiar, arrasar a los árabes musulmanes y asirios cristianos del territorio que sería en un futuro la “patria” de los kurdos.

La mayor parte de lo que se presenta en los mapas como “Kurdistán”, es el territorio tradicional de los cristianos asirios. Se trata de zonas que fueron capturadas, ocupadas y reclamadas por los kurdos a través de un proceso de limpieza étnica que comenzó a finales de 1800, se intensificó a principio de 1900 y parece estar queriéndose ponerle el broche final antes que finalice el actual decenio.

Si los imperialistas finalmente logran su cometido, habrá un país para árabes suníes en partes del norte de Irak y Siria, un país para árabes shiitas en el sur de Irak y un país para los kurdos, luego del robo de territorio de Siria, Irak, Turquía e Irán. La creación de Kurdistán en tierras asirias es equivalente a la creación de Israel en tierras palestinas. Es una injusticia histórica de proporciones catastróficas.

En lugar de vivir en un falso presente, los musulmanes necesitan revivir un pasado basado en hechos para comprender las mentiras de esta época. ¿Quiénes son los asirios y quiénes los kurdos? ¿Qué relación tienen los musulmanes con los asirios? ¿Cuáles son nuestras obligaciones hacia ellos? Es necesario y obligatorio responder estas preguntas.

Según antiguos relatos asirios e islámicos, un Obispo cristiano llamado Sa’id junto a una delegación, visitó al Profeta Muhammad. El Obispo aceptó pagar el tributo correspondiente al Profeta en función de que los musulmanes garantizaran a los cristianos asirios el disfrute de la libertad de culto. Puesto que los asirios en cuestión provenían de Hakkari en Mesopotamia, la cédula al efecto fue escrito en lengua persa.

A la misma se la conoce bajo el nombre de Pacto del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos Asirios. Este inestimable documento fue transmitido de generación en generación por la familia Shimun, los patriarcas herederos de la iglesia Asiria de Oriente. La redacción original o “firman” del Mensajero de Dios fue realzada al hacérsela en un pergamino con letras de oro y escrito de manera circular alrededor de la impresión de la palma de la mano del Profeta estampada en el centro. Junto con ese Pacto, el Profeta entregó a la familia patriarcal una daga con un mango de plata en el que había una porción de coral rojo, en tanto que en la hoja había una inscripción con incrustaciones de oro.

El origen del Pacto del Profeta con los Cristianos Asirios se encuentra sólidamente establecido según criterios históricos (Nota del traductor: Los criterios históricos no establecen per se una verdad. En el tratamiento histórico lo que fundamenta la aceptación de la verdad es la actitud crítica de peso. Es decir, que el juicio de algo se arraigue en cuestiones demostrables y basadas en análisis rigurosos. Es lo que hace el Dr. Morrow en el tratamiento de este y otros Pactos).  Se lo atribuye al Profeta († 632 C.) y fueron testigos del mismo sus Compañeros (siglo VII C.). Sus principios fueron respetados por Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman y ‘Ali (632-661 C.). Las protecciones (a los cristianos asirios) que albergaba, resultaron ejemplares para Maris (siglo XII C.), Bar Hebraeus (1226-1268 C.) y Amrus (siglo XIV C.).

Su autenticidad fue confirmada por Asahel Grant (1841); Horatio Southgate (1856); Adolphe d ‘Avril (1864); Thomas William Marshall (1865); Bedr Khan Beg († 1868), su hijo y su nieto; Vital Cuinet (1891); Saturnino Ximénèz (1895); Earl Percy (1901); la Sociedad para la Propagación del Evangelio en el Extranjero (1904); George David Malech (1910); William Ainger Wigram (1910, 1920 y 1929); Abraham Yohannan (1916); Surma D’Bait Dar Shimun (1920); JG Browne (1937); Jeanne Aubert (1938); William Chauncey Emhardt y George M. Lamsa (1970); Carleton Stevens Coon (1972); John Joseph (1983); Gabriele Yonan (1996); Albert Edward Ismail Yelda (2001, 2002, 2004); AM Hamilton (2004); RS  Stafford (2006); Theodore D’Mar Shimun (2008); Areej Zufari (2012); John Andrew Morrow (2013 2015, 2017); los cientos de firmantes de la Iniciativa de los Pactos (2013 hasta la actualdiad) y Aḥmed El-Wakil (2016).

El Pacto del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos Asirios fue depositado en la Catedral de Mar Zaia, el principal pueblo de Jilu, en las montañas de Hakkari. Era tomado de allí todos los años para una celebración especial, ocasión en la que un clérigo musulmán lo leía púbicamente a los cristianos e islámicos. Su texto ha permanecido en la conciencia colectiva de ambas comunidades de la región desde el siglo VII C. hasta el presente.

¿Qué sucedió con el Pacto del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos Asirios, preciosa reliquia del siglo VII C. dictada directamente por el Mensajero de Allah a los seguidores de Cristo que habitaban la región de Hakkari?

El glorioso líder de los kurdos Bedr Khan Beg (1803-1868) declaró la guerra a los cristianos asirios, es decir, a los mismos a los que el Profeta Muhammad ―la paz y las bendiciones sean con él― les dio protección. Bedr masacró a más de diez mil, agredió sexualmente a sus hijas y mujeres, destruyó sus casas y quemó sus iglesias, catedrales y monasterios.

Y, ¿qué pasó con el Pacto otorgado por el Profeta? Fue destruido durante las masacres antes mencionadas a lo largo la década de 1840 por Bedr Khan Beg, último caudillo del emirato de Bohtan.

(Por lo tanto,) el nacionalismo kurdo se construye sobre la sangre de los cristianos asirios, tierras robadas en función de intereses antirreligiosos y la profanación y destrucción sacrílega del Pacto del Profeta. Como musulmanes, debemos ubicarnos junto a nuestro Profeta. Y nuestro Profeta ―la paz y las bendiciones sean con él― defendía y apoyaba a los cristianos asirios. Lo testimonia claramente:

Dios me ha dicho en una visión qué hacer, y yo confirmo Su Orden dando mi promesa solemne de mantener este acuerdo. (Nota del traductor: se refiere al respaldo a los cristianos asirios a través de lo enunciado en el Pacto con ellos). 

Digo a los seguidores del Islam: lleven a cabo mi orden, protejan y ayuden al pueblo nazareno (es decir, a los cristianos) en este país nuestro, en sus propias tierras. 

Dejen en paz sus lugares de culto; ayuden y asistan a su jefe y a sus sacerdotes cuando necesiten ayuda, (ya sea que) estén en las montañas, en el desierto, en el mar o en su casa. 

Dejen en paz todas sus posesiones, se trate de viviendas u otras propiedades, no destruyan nada de sus pertenenciaslos seguidores del Islam no dañarán ni molestarán a ninguno de esta nación, porque los nazarenos son mis súbditos, me pagan tributo y ayudarán a los musulmanes. 

No se recogerá de ellos ningún otro tributo más que el acordadosus iglesias quedarán como están,no pueden ser destruidas, modificadas o reemplazadas por otros edificios, sus sacerdotes podrán enseñar y adorar a su manera, los cristianos tienen plena libertad de culto en sus iglesias y hogares.

Ninguna de sus iglesias será derribada o convertida en mezquita, excepto que se lo haga con  el consentimiento y libre decisión de los nazarenos. Si alguien desobedece esta orden, la ira de Dios y Su Profeta serán sobre él. 

El tributo pagado por los cristianos se dedicará a promover la difusión del Islam y se deberá depositar en el bayt al-mal (es decir, la Tesorería General). El hombre común deberá pagar un dinar(un tipo de moneda), pero los comerciantes y las personas dueñas de minas de oro y plata y que sean ricas, pagarán doce dinares. A los extranjeros y a las personas sin vivienda ni otras propiedades raíces, no se les cobrará impuestos. Si un hombre hereda la propiedad, pagará una suma que será depositada en la Tesorería de bayt al-mal. 

Los cristianos no están obligados a hacer la guerra a los enemigos del Islam, pero si un enemigo ataca a los cristianos, los musulmanes no negarán su ayuda sino que les darán caballos y armas si los necesitan y los protegerán de los males de afuera y mantendrán la paz con ellos. Los cristianos no están obligados a hacerse musulmanes, hasta que la voluntad de Dios los haga creyentes. 

Los musulmanes no obligarán a las mujeres cristianas a aceptar el Islam, pero si ellas desean adoptarlo, los musulmanes serán amables con ellas. 

Si una mujer cristiana se casa con un musulmán y no quiere abrazar el Islam, tiene la libertad de practicar su culto en su propia iglesia según su propia creencia y su esposo no debe tratarla mal a causa de su religion. 

Si alguien desobedece esta orden, desobedece a Dios y a su profeta y será culpable de un gran delito. 

Si los nazarenos desean construir una iglesia, sus vecinos musulmanes deben ayudarlos. Se procederá así porque los cristianos nos han obedecido y han venido a nosotros suplicando paz y misericordia. 

Si entre los cristianos hay un gran hombre y erudito, los musulmanes deben honrarlo y no envidiar su grandeza. 

Si alguien es injusto y cruel con los cristianos, será culpable de desobedecer al Profeta de Dios. 

Los cristianos no deberán albergar a un enemigo del Islam o darle caballo, arma o cualquier otro tipo de ayuda. 

Si un musulmán necesita (ayuda), el cristiano lo recibirá y dará refugio de sus enemigos durante tres días y noches. 

Los cristianos, además, protegerán a las mujeres y a los niños musulmanes y no los entregarán ni los expondrán al enemigo. 

Si los nazarenos no cumplen con estas condiciones, perderán su derecho a la protección y el acuerdo será nulo e inválido. 

Este documento quedará en manos del jefe cristiano y cabeza de su iglesia para su custodia.

El Dr. John Andrew Morrow (Imam Ilyas Islam) es un orgulloso miembro de la Nación Métis, uno de los tres pueblos indígenas reconocidos por el gobierno canadiense.  Abrazó el Islam a los 16 años de edad luego de estudiarlo seriamente durante cierto tiempo. Lleva más de treinta años analizando las ciencias islámicas y recorrió el mundo en búsqueda de conocimiento. Entre sus maestros se cuentan académicos tradicionales del Islam de diferentes escuelas de jurisprudencia y caminos espirituales. Asimismo, académicos occidentales. Se doctoró en la Universidad de Toronto a la edad de 29 años y alcanzó el rango de profesor titular a la edad de 43 años. Se retiró de ese trabajo en 2016 para dedicar todo su tiempo a la investigación y el culto. Lleva escritos cientos de artículos académicos y más de treinta libros académicos, el más influyente de los cuales es Pactos del Profeta Muhammad con los Cristianos del Mundo (2013). También es el director de redacción deIslam y la Gente del Libro, una enciclopedia de tres tomos sobre los Pactos Muhamadianos que cuenta con estudios críticos de más de veinte de los principales eruditos musulmanes y las traducciones de los Pactos del Profeta en más de una docena de idiomas. La Sociedad Islámica de América del Norte (ISNA) confirió al Dr. Morrow en 2016 el premio de liderazgo interreligioso y en 2017 la Cámara de Representantes de EEUU le otorgó un Certificado de Reconocimiento Especial. Además de ser un académico galardonado, escritor y activista, dicta conferencias en distintas partes del mundo y asesora a líderes mundiales.