This is a Readers Article. The views, opinions and understanding expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect our own understanding on the issue. Any visitor, with a membership may write an article which would be posted on these pages.
In Ronald Smith’s article, he made a series of statements
with regards to how Muslims should deal with people of other faiths.
Because this topic has been given much attention, I would like to respond
to some of the issues he raised.
Before discussing some of his points, I would like to make
a fundamental concept very clear. The
primary objective of which all the Prophet were raised was to give mankind the
warning that he would have to account for what he has done in this life.
Every action that has been commanded through revelation is primarily
directed such that man can attain success in the next life.
Even the period of the Messengers are directed for this express purpose
in mind. Further, success rests
solely on the individual’s attitude with respect to the truth.
Before proceeding, I think it is necessary that one must
guard against a misunderstanding. Such
a notion does not in anyway, shape, or form, imply that success in the next life
means negligence of this life, or that the injunctions of revelation are meant
to impede on man enjoying the ‘bounty’ of his Lord.
“It is He, Who has made the earth like a submissive
camel for you: Walk about its shoulders and eat of the blessings that He has
provided for you. [Enjoy all these provisions, but do not forget your
responsibility towards the Provider.” (surah Mulk, trans. Moiz Amjad)
The Qur’an considers that its injunctions bring not only
success in the next world, but also happiness and prosperity in this world.
“I said: ‘Seek forgiveness from your Lord, indeed He
is extremely forgiving. He will [then] bless you with plentiful rain [for your
crops] and shall increase you in wealth and in progeny and shall provide you
with [beautiful] gardens and with [flowing] rivers’.” (Surah Nooh, trans.
Moiz Amjad)”
The reason I have brought out this point with respect to
salvation, I want to make it expressly clear that Islam’s objective is not
political supremacy, nor does it seek to destroy civil society. Islam’s objective is to save humanity from its own deeds that lead it on
the road to perdition. Whether it is through sincere advice and propagation, or
jihad, Islam has this objective in mind. It
can work within a system, as illustrated by Yusuf (AS), or it can work from
without, through offensive jihad, which was exceptional and a God-given right
ONLY to the Messengers and their Companions.
When a Muslim realizes that he will have to answer for his
deeds on such a momentous event, he becomes conscious that he is desperately in
need of God’s grace. The natural
corollary to this is that pride within himself gradually disappears and he
becomes more humble with respect to others. He preaches primarily for his own salvation, and he preaches for others
salvation. He does not preach to
disrupt civil society, nor does he preach for political purposes and begin to
trivialize his deen as viewing it as some sort of political slogan to jump on.
To proceed:
“One of the most damaging tools of the contemporary
anti-Muslim propaganda is the claim that the “Muslims hate Barbarica”.
The Muslims almost uniformly fall into the trap by either saying, “Yes, we
do”, or, “No, we don’t”, thus further increasing the level of
confusion (if at all possible).”
The fundamental error is from the Muslim’s perspective.
The same pride that had penetrated the hearts of Bani Israel has rooted
itself in the Muslims.
“Children of Israel, recall My blessings, which I
bestowed upon you and that I preferred you (with My guidance) over the
humankind. And fear the Day, when no soul shall be able to benefit another in
the least; and no intercession shall be accepted on its behalf; and no ransom
shall be accepted from it; and no one shall get any help from anyone.”
(trans. Moiz Amjad)
The Qur’an has brought out a very profound point in these
very verses. Even though the
Children of Israel were bestowed guidance, God did not absolve them with respect
to their own selves. God
immediately after recounting his bounty to the Bani Israel destroys any notions
of self-pride saying that “Do not think because you are among a certain
nation that you can escape from your own accountability. In fact, your responsibility
has increased and you will also have to
answer for your deeds. “So from this perspective, Muslims should clear their discourses from any talk of
establishing their domination of others because of a “God-given” right.
After clearing men of such self-pride, God says:
“Indeed those, who have believed [now] and those, who
became Jews and the Nazarenes and the Sabaeans, whoever truly believes in God
and the Day of Judgment and does good deeds [in keeping with his belief], they
shall have their reward with their Lord. There they shall neither fear [the
future] nor regret [the past].”
Thus, we find that salvation is based upon the attitude
towards life. The discourse that is
common today is in direct violation of the spirit of the Qur’an.
The Qur’an views life as a test, and God created man to test whether he
will believe or not. Belief and sincerity with respect to the truth are beyond the
knowledge of human beings and only God can judge the hearts. Muslims have absolutely no right to preach from the pedestal of
self-righteousness and the discourse that is all over the Muslim world and is
bent on creating a divisive world is nothing but the creation of fitna and
fasad.
Islam, right from its beginning, sought a peaceful
methodology towards its propagation and it would not be incorrect to say that if
the original Muslims were allowed to preach, they would not have been permitted
to fight. But, as Moiz Amjad, on
this site forcefully argues, the periods of Rasool’s are exceptional and they
serve as signs for those that follow that man will be judged with respect to the
truth that came to him. The
disbelievers earned their judgment of destruction when they witnessed
Messengers aided by God himself performing miracles that were ‘clear proofs’.
Thus, their ‘Day of Judgment’ occurred in this very life.
The period of revelation is over, and nobody can claim to
speak on behalf of God Almighty.
If Barbarica means “the earth or the ground which
constitutes the territory of Barbarica”, then no, we don’t hate it.
If Barbarica means “the people living in
Barbarica” then, again no, we don’t hate it.
But if Barbarica means, “the Barbarican culture and
ideology which constitute the Barbarican system of kuffr”, then yes, we
reject it and we hate it (along with all its followers and advocates
irrespective of their nationality and place of residence), and we have good
Islamic reasons to do so.
One can only be boggled by such a division.
How does one determine the kufr of the system? It is well-documented about Hadhrat Umar (R) that when the Muslims
conquered the surrounding lands, he maintained much of the prevailing system
that existing, including land distribution and management.
Obviously, he forbade injustices that existed but he retained all that
was good. Can our writer mark the
boundaries of where the system of kufr started and stopped in Persia, Syria and
Egypt? The Muslims learned the art
of accounting from these same ‘kaffirs’. Can
our writer mark the boundaries of where the system of kufr in democracy starts
and stops?
It is significant to note that when the Queen of sheba was
presented with the letter of Suleyman (AS), she told her counsel a very
significant point:
“She said: Surely the tyrants, when they enter a town,
ruin it and make the noblest of its people to be low, and thus they (always)
do.”
It seems that our own Muslims, who have proven that they
cannot even correct their own affairs, want to humiliate others.
Islam is a complete system and it provides guidance at
all times and in all situations until the day of judgment. If we Muslims want to
make any progress, we have to be acutely aware of the following facts:
The Prophet (pbuh) was also faced with a system of kuffr in
his time. He rejected it without any compromises and he did so in a certain
manner and with a certain method. We too must reject today’s systems of kuffr
and we have to abide by the method of the prophet (pbuh) while doing so.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding.
The Prophet (S) preached primarily to the LEADERS of Quraysh.
if they had chosen to accept, they would have remained in power and the
Prophet (S) would have advised them in their policies.
In fact, it is not surprising that a Prophet could exist under the rule
of a King. This was evident among
the bani Israel who asked their Prophet to make the petition to God to
“Appoint for us a king so that we may fight…” But, because of their rejection, the leaders of Quraysh proved their
unworthiness with respect to the legacy of Ibraheem (AS) and had to be replaced.
Because they manifested their kufr, and the period of a
Messenger is one in which the truth and false become delineated, God gave
revelation to the Prophet (S) to migrate and LATER ON permission to make jihad.
Even then, God did not allow him to migrate until he sent the revelation
down. “Do not be like the Companion of the Fish.”
It is well known that when Yunus left, and His People saw
the punishment coming, they realized what Yunus had brought was true.
Thus, while Yunus had perceived his people would not accept and began his
journey, his people turned to Islam and were saved the punishment.
A significant point to note is that even a Prophet (S) does not no the
state of hearts of the people, and it is only through revelation that God
provides. Surely our brother Ronald Smith does not possess that
knowledge and surely he must fear to even make such pronouncements about whom is
deserving to be replaced and which society is to be disrupted.
The Muslims did not engage in physical struggle with
the kuffar until the Islamic State was established in Medina.
The fact that the prophet established an Islamic state has
significance and legal effect.
The author is attempting to argue that it was the migration
that allowed the Muslims to perform jihad. But it is well-known that even the permission to fight jihad was made
after almost a year of Medina’s existence. Our author would have an extremely difficult time arguing that the
condition of jihad was made binding simply upon the establishment of a political
state.
The Muslims suffered severely under the persecution of
the kuffar in Makka and were only able to defend themselves, establish justice
and remove the physical obstacles toward inviting people to Islam after the
Islamic State was established.
And Yusuf (AS) made changes through the system of Egypt,
and other Prophets (AS) made reforms through the systems in which they lived.
And Muhammad (S) attempted to make changes within the system itself by
preaching to the Quraysh to accept the deen. When Jafar (R) went before the King of Abyssinia and was asked why they
were persecuted, not once did Jafar mention that they were attempting to
establish a political state. He
spoke about the idolatry that prevailed, and the immorality that permeated the
whole society. Jafar spoke eloquently about the notions of helping the
needy, and poor, and preserving the rights of the women. Not once did he make a distinction between helping only
Muslims and not ‘kaffirs’. In fact, the Quraysh could have simply argued that the Muslims were political rebels and
the refugees would have been simply returned by the Abyssinians.
These periods in which messengers live serve as SIGNS so
that ALL OF MANKIND may take heed, and they are directed with the same purpose in mind the other injunctions are; man may become conscious of his
accountability before His Maker. Just
as God has presented his signs in nature and man, God has also presented certain
periods of history as signs. Once
again, these periods serve as proofs for the Day of Judgment and not injunctions
to wage bloodshed and killing in the name of religion. God save us from such an attitude.