Category: Uncategorized

Uncategorized by drjamorrow

By Dr. John Andrew Morrow

I: Introduction

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

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

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

II: Structure

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

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

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

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

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

III: Tools 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV: Conclusions

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

Dr. John Andrew Morrow is Native North American a proud member of the Métis Nation. After taking his Shahadah at the age of 16, he became both a qualified Western academic and a Muslim ‘Alim. He has authored over thirty peer-reviewed books and over one hundred scholarly articles. His most influential work to date is The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World. His websites include http://www.covenantsoftheprophet.com and http://www.johnandrewmorrow.com. His videos and lectures can be found on The Covenants of the Prophet Channel on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqM3-puvWuKuCEJsDQDZFrA . His Facebook accounts include @johnandrewmorrow and @covenantsoftheprophet. He can be followed on Twitter @drjamorrow.

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

Uncategorized by drjamorrow

13 JUIN 2017

BY CAMILLE NAJM

Libnanews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C’est le certificat écrit par Mohammed fils d’Abdallah, le Prophète de Dieu et Son messager à toute l’humanité, livrant à la fois des promesses et des menaces, et ayant dans sa garde le dépôt de Dieu pour Sa Création, que les hommes n’aient aucun plaidoyer après la venue des messagers. Et Dieu est puissant et sage. C’est ce qu’il a écrit au peuple de la religion Chrétienne, et à ceux qui professent la religion Chrétienne dans l’Est et l’Ouest, de près ou de loin, parlant clairement et barbare, connu et inconnu. Il l’a écrit pour eux comme une charte, et quiconque viole, modifie ou transgresse l’alliance à cet égard, aura violé l’alliance de Dieu, rompu sa promesse, ridiculisé sa religion, et obtenu sa malédiction, qu’il soit un souverain ou tout autre Musulman. Si un moine ou pèlerin se retranche dans la montagne, vallée, grotte, canton, sur le sable ou à l’église, je serai derrière eux pour les défendre de tous qui vont les envier, par moi-même, par mes compagnons, par mon peuple, par ma secte et par mes disciples, dans la mesure où ils sont mes sujets et le peuple de mon alliance. Et je les dispense des contrariétés de victuailles qui sont endurées par le peuple du Pacte en ce qu’ils doivent payer la taxe, sauf dans la mesure où ils l’offrent de leur propre gré, et il doit y avoir aucune contrainte ni force utilisées. Aucun évêque sera retiré de son diocèse, ni moine de son monastère, ni ascétique de sa cellule, ni pèlerin de son pèlerinage, ni aucun de leurs lieux d’assemblée ou églises sera démoli, et nul de la richesse de leurs églises sera utilisée pour la construction de mosquées ou des maisons des Musulmans ; et celui qui fait cela aura violé la charte de Dieu et celui de Son Prophète ; en plus, aucun impôt ni amende sera pris des moines, évêques ou ministres. Je maintiendrai leur sécurité partout où qu’ils soient, que ce soit sur terre ou sur mer, à l’est, ouest, nord ou sud. Ils doivent être en tout temps et en tous lieux sous ma protecon et inscrits dans mon alliance et dans l’immunité de tout méfait. De même, les ermites dans les montagnes et les lieux bénis ne doivent pas payer l’impôt foncier, ni la dîme sur ce qu’ils sèment, ni une partie de leur part sera prise puisque celle-ci est assez juste pour leur propre bouche. Ils n’auront pas non plus l’obligation de prêter assistance au moment de la récolte, ils ne seront forcés de sortir pour le service en temps de guerre. Pas plus de douze dirhams par an seront exigés de ceux d’entre eux qui paient l’impôt foncier et des propriétaires de biens et domaines et ceux qui s’engagent dans des marchandises. Aucun d’entre eux doit être obligé de payer plus que ce qui est dû et ils ne seront pas efforcés sauf dans une bonne affaire. Ils doivent les garder sous l’aile de la miséricorde en les gardant loin de tout méfait, où qu’ils soient et où qu’ils habitent. Et si les Chrétiens habitent chez les Musulmans, ces derniers doivent les satisfaire et les permettre de prier dans leurs églises, et ne doivent pas gêner en aucune façon avec la pratique de leur religion. Et quiconque viole la Charte de Dieu et fait le contraire de celle-ci, est considéré comme un rebelle contre son alliance et contre son messager. En plus, les Musulmans doivent aider à la réparation des églises et lieux Chrétiens, qui resteront à la garde des Chrétiens à condition qu’ils maintiennent dans leur religion et qu’ils agissent selon la charte. Aucun d’entre eux ne sera contraint de porter les armes, puisque les Musulmans vont les protéger. Et personne ne violera cette charte pour tous les temps, jusqu’au Jour du Jugement et la fin du monde. (Cité. Zaydan 123-124)[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annexe

Le pacte du Prophète avec les chrétiens de Najran

Au nom de Dieu clément et miséricordieux.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[8] John Morrow, op.cit.

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

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

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

Camille Najm

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

June 13, 2017

By Dr. John Andrew Morrow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncategorized by drjamorrow

June 7, 2017

By Hanan al-Harbi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncategorized by drjamorrow
05/31/2017
By Dr. Craig Considine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed, what have we got to lose?

Uncategorized by drjamorrow

Melik Kaylan, CONTRIBUTOR

I cover conflicts, frontiers and upheavals mired in history.

Forbes Magazine

May 31, 2017

After the recent spate of barbaric assaults on innocents by death-cult Islamists, the world seems as far as ever from a solution to the scourge. No amount of retaliatory or even pre-emptive violence stems the tide nor all the surveillance capacity at the disposal of modern states. The threat must be scotched at its roots in the mosques and madrassas, and across the internet – wherever unholy ideas germinate. That prospect too seems altogether too far-off for any present comfort. Yet, a little-known trove of documents once renowned and obeyed throughout the lands of Islam could stop the atrocities of ISIS, Al Quaeda and Salafists everywhere. According to scholars, the Ottoman archive in Istanbul contains a historically momentous document dating back to the prophet Mohammed himself. Arguably, it has the power to defang Islamic radicalism and, at the risk of sounding Dan Brownish, even to prevent atrocities in the West by dint of ancient precedent.

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

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

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

This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.

Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.

No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses.

Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.

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

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

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

Uncategorized by drjamorrow

By Charles Upton for New Age Islam

30 May 2017

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

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

The Covenants Command:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—-

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

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

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

Uncategorized by drjamorrow

John Andrew Morrow for Crescent International

Ramadan 06, 1438

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncategorized by drjamorrow

25 de mayo de 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncategorized by drjamorrow
By Dr. John Andrew Morrow for New Age Islam

25 May 2017

Introduction

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

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

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

Strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

6) Disseminate the Constitution of Medina. Islamists claim that they wish to create an Islamic State; however, they ignore the fact that the Prophet Muhammad produce the first political constitution in the history of humanity, an inclusive and pluralistic Political Charter that granted equality to all citizens regardless of religion, race, or gender.

7) Disseminate the covenants and treaties that the Prophet Muhammad concluded with Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian communities. These include the Treaty of Maqnah, the Treaty of Najran, the Covenant with Monks from Mount Sinai, the Covenant with the Christians of Persia, the Covenant with the Assyrian Christians, the Covenant with the Armenian Christians, the Covenant with the Coptic Christians, the Covenant with the Syriac Orthodox Christians, and the Covenant with the Parsis, among others.

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

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

ISNA’s Muslim Code of Honor?

A Common Word between Us and You

Shoulder to Shoulder

Dr. Qadri’s Fatwa against Terrorism and Suicide Bombing

Dr. Qadri’s Fatwa against ISIS

The Covenants Initiative

The Genocide Initiative

Shaykh Bin Bayyah’s Fatwa against ISIS

The Letter to Baghdadi

The Amman Message

The Statement by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation

The Fatwa from Al-Azhar

The Statement from the Arab League

The Fatwa of Mufti Mehmet Gormez

The Statement of CAIR

The Statement of the Muslim Council of Great Britain

The Fatwa of the Fiqh Council of ISNA

The Joint Sunni-Shiite Fatwa by 100 UK Imams

The Statement from the Muslim Public Affairs Council

The Statements from Nahdlatul Ulema from Indonesia

Shaykh Yaqubi’s Refuting ISIS

The Muslim Youth Group’s Jihad Against Extremism

The Statement by Dr. John Andrew Morrow

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

The Marrakesh Declaration

The Grozny Declaration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

—-

Dr. John Andrew Morrow is Native North American a proud member of the Métis Nation. After taking his Shahadah at the age of 16, he became both an academic and a Muslim ‘Alim. He has authored over thirty peer-reviewed books and over one hundred scholarly articles. His most influential work to date is The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World. His websites include http://www.covenantsoftheprophet.com and http://www.johnandrewmorrow.com. His videos and lectures can be found on The Covenants of the Prophet Channel on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqM3-puvWuKuCEJsDQDZFrA . His Facebook accounts include @johnandrewmorrow and @covenantsoftheprophet. He can be followed on Twitter @drjamorrow.

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

Begin typing your search above and press return to search. Press Esc to cancel.