Can Fresh Interpretations of Islamic Text Prevent a Possible `Clash of Civilizations?` Tawfik Hamid - Aug 01, 2009
www.Tawfikhamid.com
Since 9/11, the possibility of a clash of civilizations has become an unavoidable area of discussion among intellectuals as well as the general public. The inaction of Islamic scholars around the world to those who incorrectly interpret the religion`s sacred texts to further the influence of extremism undoubtedly increases the likelihood of such a clash. The war declared by jihadists on the free world has resulted in the killing and torturing of thousands of people. This has ranged from terror attacks, and the murder of innocent victims in the name of Islam, to paralyzing vital cities such as Mumbai. All such events share the common involvement of Islamic groups that are fueled by ideologies of hatred and violence.
The passive attitude of many Muslims and Islamic scholars has aggravated the problem because this passivity is interpreted by the jihadists - correctly or incorrectly - as a permission for terrorist activity. What message do these scholars convey when they issue a fatwa of apostasy against Salman Rushdie for writing a novel or when they issue other fatwas against many modern Islamic reformers without issuing a similar one against Bin Laden and the terrorists? As an ex-jihadist, I believe that such a fatwa labeling terrorists as apostates can prevent many young Muslims from pursuing the path of terror.
In addition, Islamic scholars need to start teaching certain phrases in the Quran differently. As a Muslim who is dedicated to telling the truth, I must admit that there are certain phrases and expressions in the Islamic text that have the capacity to encourage violence unless that text is taught in peaceful way. For example, there are verses in the Quran about killing infidels and idolatries, as well as fighting Jews and Christians. These include the well-known verse of the sword that says "...slay the Idolatries wherever you find them" {Quran 9:5}. Jihadists simply use such verses to create a mindset of hatred and violence toward others.
Current books of Islamic jurisprudence add more fuel to the fire by noting that it is an obligation for the Muslim Umma to declare wars on non-Muslim nations until the people of these nations convert to Islam. According to ALL accepted schools of Islamic jurisprudence, non-Muslims are to be offered conversion to Islam, to pay a Jizzia (humiliating tax), or to be killed. Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri was therefore not inventing a new rule when he offered the US subjugation to Islamic rule in order to stop terrorism.
The jihadists are responsible for their acts of violence, but so too are our Islamic scholars for teaching such jurisprudence and not changing it. These same scholars, who loudly proclaim that "Islam is a religion of peace," still teach that Jews are pigs and monkeys. For example, in Friday prayer service on Jan 9 2009, inside the al-Azhar Mosque, a 1,000-year-old center of religious learning, the preacher Sheik Eid Abdel Hamid Youssef described the Jews as: "... a people whom God has become angry at and whom he cursed so he made monkeys and pigs out of them. They killed prophets and messengers and sowed corruption on Earth. They are the most evil on Earth." This anti-Semitic view is not solely that of this preacher, but rather is a widespread teaching articulated by many Islamic scholars that is derived from mainstream Islamic books.
One of the ways to solve some of the aforementioned theological problems is to look deeply into the Quranic text itself. ALL verses that order believers to declare wars on non-believers or to use violence against infidels use the suffixes Al or Alazhina (meaning "The") before the word "Infidel." The use of this expression really applies more to a certain stage in history when early Muslims were fighting with other tribes. The difference in Arabic between kill "Man Kafar" (any Infidel) and Kill "Al-Kafereen" (the Infidels) is like the difference between visiting "a white house" and visiting "the white house" in Washington!. Therefore, emphasizing the meaning of "The" in the Quranic verses can serve to better prevent many young Muslims from pursuing the path of generalized violence. Without teaching the text in this manner, we actually allow radicals to use such texts to win the hearts and minds of young Muslims.
It is hard to deny the presence of inflammatory statements against the Jews in our Islamic text. The Quran uses at least 5 different expressions that describe certain groups of Jews in different historical contexts. The first of these is Yahood {Quran 5:64; 9:30}, or certain tribes in the Arabian Peninsula during the early stages of Islam who, according to Islamic history, had a conflict with Mohamed. Others are AlaZhina Hadu, which are those who returned back to God {Quran 7:156}, and Bani Israel, which refers to Children of Israel {Quran 44:30}. The fourth is Ashab Al-Sabt {Quran 4:47}, which was a village that disobeyed Moses and the Torah, and the fifth is Ashab Mosa {Quran 26:61}, Israelites who crossed the sea with Moses.
All of these Arabic expressions are interpreted and translated simply as "Jews" However, this incorrectly targets all Jews throughout history, even those in the present day. It is essential to teach the proper context of any text in order to better curb the influence of radical Islam. For example, most of the criticism in the Quran is directed toward the "Yahood" and to "Ashab Al-Sabt" rather than to the Children of Israel.
In fact, Muslim scholars who insult the Children of Israel must realize that most of the messengers described in the Quran belong to these Children. Therefore, insulting all the Children of Israel by labeling Jews as pigs and monkeys is an insult to these messengers. Such an insult is considered a grave sin in Islam. In fact, the Quran actually has positive verses about the Children of Israel {2:47; 44:32; 45:16}.
In addition, the Quran forbids judging someone by the mistakes of someone else {Quran 6:164; 17:15; 35:18; 39:7}. Therefore, judging and hating the current Jews based upon possible historical conflicts between some of them and Mohamed is - in actuality -un-Islamic. The same goes for judging all Jews based solely on the grievances many Arabs have with the Israeli government. Applying the verses about the Yahood or Ashab Al-Sabt to all Jews and, on the other hand, limiting the usage of the more positive ones about the Children of Israel in Islamic religious textbooks, has resulted in an unprecedented wave of anti-Semitism in the Muslim world.
In short, if Islamic scholars issue a fatwa labeling the terrorists as apostates, start limiting the use of "The" in violent Islamic texts to ONLY a historical context, and stop cursing all Jews as well as calling them pigs and monkeys, a possible war of civilizations can be better avoided.
Full Version: Can Fresh Interpretations of Islamic Text Prevent a Possible `Clash of Civilizations?`
QUOTE (Gary Konecky @ Aug 3 2009, 05:41 PM) 
Can Fresh Interpretations of Islamic Text Prevent a Possible `Clash of Civilizations?` Tawfik Hamid - Aug 01, 2009
www.Tawfikhamid.com
Since 9/11, the possibility of a clash of civilizations has become an unavoidable area of discussion among intellectuals as well as the general public. The inaction of Islamic scholars around the world to those who incorrectly interpret the religion`s sacred texts to further the influence of extremism undoubtedly increases the likelihood of such a clash. The war declared by jihadists on the free world has resulted in the killing and torturing of thousands of people. This has ranged from terror attacks, and the murder of innocent victims in the name of Islam, to paralyzing vital cities such as Mumbai. All such events share the common involvement of Islamic groups that are fueled by ideologies of hatred and violence.
The passive attitude of many Muslims and Islamic scholars has aggravated the problem because this passivity is interpreted by the jihadists - correctly or incorrectly - as a permission for terrorist activity. What message do these scholars convey when they issue a fatwa of apostasy against Salman Rushdie for writing a novel or when they issue other fatwas against many modern Islamic reformers without issuing a similar one against Bin Laden and the terrorists? As an ex-jihadist, I believe that such a fatwa labeling terrorists as apostates can prevent many young Muslims from pursuing the path of terror.
In addition, Islamic scholars need to start teaching certain phrases in the Quran differently. As a Muslim who is dedicated to telling the truth, I must admit that there are certain phrases and expressions in the Islamic text that have the capacity to encourage violence unless that text is taught in peaceful way. For example, there are verses in the Quran about killing infidels and idolatries, as well as fighting Jews and Christians. These include the well-known verse of the sword that says "...slay the Idolatries wherever you find them" {Quran 9:5}. Jihadists simply use such verses to create a mindset of hatred and violence toward others.
Current books of Islamic jurisprudence add more fuel to the fire by noting that it is an obligation for the Muslim Umma to declare wars on non-Muslim nations until the people of these nations convert to Islam. According to ALL accepted schools of Islamic jurisprudence, non-Muslims are to be offered conversion to Islam, to pay a Jizzia (humiliating tax), or to be killed. Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri was therefore not inventing a new rule when he offered the US subjugation to Islamic rule in order to stop terrorism.
The jihadists are responsible for their acts of violence, but so too are our Islamic scholars for teaching such jurisprudence and not changing it. These same scholars, who loudly proclaim that "Islam is a religion of peace," still teach that Jews are pigs and monkeys. For example, in Friday prayer service on Jan 9 2009, inside the al-Azhar Mosque, a 1,000-year-old center of religious learning, the preacher Sheik Eid Abdel Hamid Youssef described the Jews as: "... a people whom God has become angry at and whom he cursed so he made monkeys and pigs out of them. They killed prophets and messengers and sowed corruption on Earth. They are the most evil on Earth." This anti-Semitic view is not solely that of this preacher, but rather is a widespread teaching articulated by many Islamic scholars that is derived from mainstream Islamic books.
One of the ways to solve some of the aforementioned theological problems is to look deeply into the Quranic text itself. ALL verses that order believers to declare wars on non-believers or to use violence against infidels use the suffixes Al or Alazhina (meaning "The") before the word "Infidel." The use of this expression really applies more to a certain stage in history when early Muslims were fighting with other tribes. The difference in Arabic between kill "Man Kafar" (any Infidel) and Kill "Al-Kafereen" (the Infidels) is like the difference between visiting "a white house" and visiting "the white house" in Washington!. Therefore, emphasizing the meaning of "The" in the Quranic verses can serve to better prevent many young Muslims from pursuing the path of generalized violence. Without teaching the text in this manner, we actually allow radicals to use such texts to win the hearts and minds of young Muslims.
It is hard to deny the presence of inflammatory statements against the Jews in our Islamic text. The Quran uses at least 5 different expressions that describe certain groups of Jews in different historical contexts. The first of these is Yahood {Quran 5:64; 9:30}, or certain tribes in the Arabian Peninsula during the early stages of Islam who, according to Islamic history, had a conflict with Mohamed. Others are AlaZhina Hadu, which are those who returned back to God {Quran 7:156}, and Bani Israel, which refers to Children of Israel {Quran 44:30}. The fourth is Ashab Al-Sabt {Quran 4:47}, which was a village that disobeyed Moses and the Torah, and the fifth is Ashab Mosa {Quran 26:61}, Israelites who crossed the sea with Moses.
All of these Arabic expressions are interpreted and translated simply as "Jews" However, this incorrectly targets all Jews throughout history, even those in the present day. It is essential to teach the proper context of any text in order to better curb the influence of radical Islam. For example, most of the criticism in the Quran is directed toward the "Yahood" and to "Ashab Al-Sabt" rather than to the Children of Israel.
In fact, Muslim scholars who insult the Children of Israel must realize that most of the messengers described in the Quran belong to these Children. Therefore, insulting all the Children of Israel by labeling Jews as pigs and monkeys is an insult to these messengers. Such an insult is considered a grave sin in Islam. In fact, the Quran actually has positive verses about the Children of Israel {2:47; 44:32; 45:16}.
In addition, the Quran forbids judging someone by the mistakes of someone else {Quran 6:164; 17:15; 35:18; 39:7}. Therefore, judging and hating the current Jews based upon possible historical conflicts between some of them and Mohamed is - in actuality -un-Islamic. The same goes for judging all Jews based solely on the grievances many Arabs have with the Israeli government. Applying the verses about the Yahood or Ashab Al-Sabt to all Jews and, on the other hand, limiting the usage of the more positive ones about the Children of Israel in Islamic religious textbooks, has resulted in an unprecedented wave of anti-Semitism in the Muslim world.
In short, if Islamic scholars issue a fatwa labeling the terrorists as apostates, start limiting the use of "The" in violent Islamic texts to ONLY a historical context, and stop cursing all Jews as well as calling them pigs and monkeys, a possible war of civilizations can be better avoided.
www.Tawfikhamid.com
Since 9/11, the possibility of a clash of civilizations has become an unavoidable area of discussion among intellectuals as well as the general public. The inaction of Islamic scholars around the world to those who incorrectly interpret the religion`s sacred texts to further the influence of extremism undoubtedly increases the likelihood of such a clash. The war declared by jihadists on the free world has resulted in the killing and torturing of thousands of people. This has ranged from terror attacks, and the murder of innocent victims in the name of Islam, to paralyzing vital cities such as Mumbai. All such events share the common involvement of Islamic groups that are fueled by ideologies of hatred and violence.
The passive attitude of many Muslims and Islamic scholars has aggravated the problem because this passivity is interpreted by the jihadists - correctly or incorrectly - as a permission for terrorist activity. What message do these scholars convey when they issue a fatwa of apostasy against Salman Rushdie for writing a novel or when they issue other fatwas against many modern Islamic reformers without issuing a similar one against Bin Laden and the terrorists? As an ex-jihadist, I believe that such a fatwa labeling terrorists as apostates can prevent many young Muslims from pursuing the path of terror.
In addition, Islamic scholars need to start teaching certain phrases in the Quran differently. As a Muslim who is dedicated to telling the truth, I must admit that there are certain phrases and expressions in the Islamic text that have the capacity to encourage violence unless that text is taught in peaceful way. For example, there are verses in the Quran about killing infidels and idolatries, as well as fighting Jews and Christians. These include the well-known verse of the sword that says "...slay the Idolatries wherever you find them" {Quran 9:5}. Jihadists simply use such verses to create a mindset of hatred and violence toward others.
Current books of Islamic jurisprudence add more fuel to the fire by noting that it is an obligation for the Muslim Umma to declare wars on non-Muslim nations until the people of these nations convert to Islam. According to ALL accepted schools of Islamic jurisprudence, non-Muslims are to be offered conversion to Islam, to pay a Jizzia (humiliating tax), or to be killed. Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri was therefore not inventing a new rule when he offered the US subjugation to Islamic rule in order to stop terrorism.
The jihadists are responsible for their acts of violence, but so too are our Islamic scholars for teaching such jurisprudence and not changing it. These same scholars, who loudly proclaim that "Islam is a religion of peace," still teach that Jews are pigs and monkeys. For example, in Friday prayer service on Jan 9 2009, inside the al-Azhar Mosque, a 1,000-year-old center of religious learning, the preacher Sheik Eid Abdel Hamid Youssef described the Jews as: "... a people whom God has become angry at and whom he cursed so he made monkeys and pigs out of them. They killed prophets and messengers and sowed corruption on Earth. They are the most evil on Earth." This anti-Semitic view is not solely that of this preacher, but rather is a widespread teaching articulated by many Islamic scholars that is derived from mainstream Islamic books.
One of the ways to solve some of the aforementioned theological problems is to look deeply into the Quranic text itself. ALL verses that order believers to declare wars on non-believers or to use violence against infidels use the suffixes Al or Alazhina (meaning "The") before the word "Infidel." The use of this expression really applies more to a certain stage in history when early Muslims were fighting with other tribes. The difference in Arabic between kill "Man Kafar" (any Infidel) and Kill "Al-Kafereen" (the Infidels) is like the difference between visiting "a white house" and visiting "the white house" in Washington!. Therefore, emphasizing the meaning of "The" in the Quranic verses can serve to better prevent many young Muslims from pursuing the path of generalized violence. Without teaching the text in this manner, we actually allow radicals to use such texts to win the hearts and minds of young Muslims.
It is hard to deny the presence of inflammatory statements against the Jews in our Islamic text. The Quran uses at least 5 different expressions that describe certain groups of Jews in different historical contexts. The first of these is Yahood {Quran 5:64; 9:30}, or certain tribes in the Arabian Peninsula during the early stages of Islam who, according to Islamic history, had a conflict with Mohamed. Others are AlaZhina Hadu, which are those who returned back to God {Quran 7:156}, and Bani Israel, which refers to Children of Israel {Quran 44:30}. The fourth is Ashab Al-Sabt {Quran 4:47}, which was a village that disobeyed Moses and the Torah, and the fifth is Ashab Mosa {Quran 26:61}, Israelites who crossed the sea with Moses.
All of these Arabic expressions are interpreted and translated simply as "Jews" However, this incorrectly targets all Jews throughout history, even those in the present day. It is essential to teach the proper context of any text in order to better curb the influence of radical Islam. For example, most of the criticism in the Quran is directed toward the "Yahood" and to "Ashab Al-Sabt" rather than to the Children of Israel.
In fact, Muslim scholars who insult the Children of Israel must realize that most of the messengers described in the Quran belong to these Children. Therefore, insulting all the Children of Israel by labeling Jews as pigs and monkeys is an insult to these messengers. Such an insult is considered a grave sin in Islam. In fact, the Quran actually has positive verses about the Children of Israel {2:47; 44:32; 45:16}.
In addition, the Quran forbids judging someone by the mistakes of someone else {Quran 6:164; 17:15; 35:18; 39:7}. Therefore, judging and hating the current Jews based upon possible historical conflicts between some of them and Mohamed is - in actuality -un-Islamic. The same goes for judging all Jews based solely on the grievances many Arabs have with the Israeli government. Applying the verses about the Yahood or Ashab Al-Sabt to all Jews and, on the other hand, limiting the usage of the more positive ones about the Children of Israel in Islamic religious textbooks, has resulted in an unprecedented wave of anti-Semitism in the Muslim world.
In short, if Islamic scholars issue a fatwa labeling the terrorists as apostates, start limiting the use of "The" in violent Islamic texts to ONLY a historical context, and stop cursing all Jews as well as calling them pigs and monkeys, a possible war of civilizations can be better avoided.
Altruism; noun...Devotion to the interests of others; disinterested benevolence; opposed to egoism...Funk and Wagnalls Practical Standard Dictionary.
Egoism;noun....In ethics, the doctrine that the supreme end of human conduct is the perfection or happiness of the ego, or self, and that all virtue consists in the pursuit of self-interest; also, that part of the theory or practice of conduct or duty that has reference to oneself, as distinguished from altruism. 2. selfishness 3. Egotism....Funk and Wagnall's
Egotism; noun....is the giving the "I" undue supremacy in thought; egotism is giving the "I" undue prominence in speech and action....also Funk and Wagnall's
"The pen is mightier than the sword." Would it be fair to say that the written word of treaties, of contracts, religious doctrine, or political declarations as conceived by others, usually has hidden within them, ulterior motives that would of course favor the one putting it on paper? And might it also be fair to say that when these documents are issued, they seldom take into an honest account the welfare of the recipients? Or, that the authors who penned them never intended to enforce them or abide by the ethical and moral standards they have declared? As a Native American whose history is riddled with these types of documents comprised of loopholes and prejudices against my people, by the authors of those treaties that were filled with self-interests, and exploited the inability of Indigenous Peoples' to accurately interpret the language of Britain, France, Spain, and America, I fully understand the context of Mr. Hamid's message. But hidden in all of the rhetoric of the preceding posts are the ulterior motives by every nation involved, that are certainly not altruistic in nature, but egotistic and full of egoism. They have at their very core, an ungodly motive to exploit and control the other, regardless of which side you may be on.
In this world of arrogance and egomania, of amoral, unethical, and immoral practices, we have somehow lost the capacity to be objective and fair to one another. Our egoism has taken control and we seek only to fulfill our own agendas with, or without, the prior approval or knowledge of the others. And in this pursuit we have forgotten the most basic of God's commands, to love Him and our neighbors. While I doubt there will ever be any lasting concessions of peace in this world, (because I am an admitted cynic of the human condition) I will nevertheless advocate for fairness in these proceedings. And that must include a full knowledge of interpretation of conditions set forth in any contract between these countries and honoring them to the letter. Not only that, but the participating parties should consider the suffering, welfare, and impact heir decisions will have for all the innocent people who are at the mercy of those who negotiate these affairs. This has never, and will never, be the case so long as our species remains self-seeking, self-centered, proud, arrogant, and egomaniacal.
I have said it before, the acronym for EGO is Edging God Out. And so long as God is left out of the equation, we will inevitably fail at our presumed and half-hearted attempts to attain a fair and lasting peace. In my opinion, what is occurring in our world today, is a soul sickness and spiritual blight that ever fails to ask for Good Orderly Direction. Did you get that acronym? GOD...Good Orderly Direction! Is that really what we seek? Or is it really to get the upper hand and take advantage over those we label as our "enemies" and justify our actions through claims of righteousness? Are we all children of the same universe? According the the ancient scriptures of Torah, Bible and Quran, we are all brothers and sisters through the same father, Abraham. Hmmm....I wonder. After it is all over, who is the "winner"?....May God's Love and Justice prevail....To`na Wanagi
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.