Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Better Than I Thought

See how far you can get on this word list. My daughter was able to read the grade 5 and 6 list pretty easily which means that maybe I should step it up some more. Of course, that means more work for me but it also reminds me not to go too easy on her.


I've been thinking about going towards the Charlotte Mason approach via an altered Ambleside Online approach. I don't know yet. She's doing so well but I feel as if I am not challenging her enough. My biggest fear in homeschooling has always been that I would not recognize her talents and nurture them sufficiently and at the same time be hands-on and creative without burning out or overwhelming her. Any thoughts? Has Ambleside worked for you? Read More...

Mini Mu'min Free Posters

I'm late to the game on this one but I just got a new color printer and want to put it to good use. What better than these? Read More...

Friday, June 26, 2009

Mini-Books Tutorial For Lapbooks

Pretty much any type of mini book is here. Read More...

Thursday, June 25, 2009

I'm Giving This A Try

My husband went to one of those big warehouse sales (Everything Must Go! Lowest Prices in Town, One Weekend Only, blah,blah) and bought some lesson planner software for $3.


School Tools For Your Classroom

It looks pretty good because it has a grade keeper and two extra discs with school fonts (you can use these for handwriting practice, etc.)

The best part is that it was marked down from $116.43!

Their Price vs Our Price

It's available used on Amazon for $2.97 US if you want one too. It's compatible with Windows and Mac. Read More...

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Full-Color Number Cards

These are from the lovely blog Homeschool Creations. It's nice to see so many dedicated homeschool moms out there. Read More...

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

5 Senses Arabic/English

This is from Gabby at Work of Childhood.

She also has a matching game to go along with it. Read More...

Monday, June 22, 2009

Grade Four Science Books



It's free to download and print.
JazakILLAH Khairin Umm Obaidah! Read More...

Chocolate

The Tasneem Cocolate Garden is in Malaysia, yum yum. Read More...

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Granny Went Home

Well, I have to say that it's always a pleasure to see my mom and the reaction of the children when she arrives.They really went all out - we blew up balloons and put up the welcome sign, literally seconds before they arrived, lol. It's always last minute around here.

Welcome Granny and Zay


We were very busy this time, and we took advantage of the nice weather and took the ferry to Centre Island.

Sailing I

My mother-in-law, husband's cousin and her family and brother-in-law's family also came.

The Whole Family



Just about everyone that my children love were there all at once - a real novelty for them.

My Daughter Took This
My daughter took this one!

The best part for me is always the pier overlooking Lake Ontario.

Too close to the edge


Cute Mischief


Flower Girl


Her Favorite Sport



The weather was gorgeous all day but as soon as we got back to the van the sky opened up and my whole backside got soaked in an instant!

Storm is Coming


It's a good thing we didn't wait for a later ferry.


Sun is going down

My husband even convinced me to go to the Ontario Science Centre (he's the king of free passes, lol).


Cousins

This time, the bottom floor had snakes and lizards as the main display.

Python



Chameleon



The kids were very sad to see her go and there were tears rolling down cheeks as they said their goodbyes at the airport.

Granny going home

She's not that far away and they talk nearly everyday but there's nothing like having your granny snuggle in the bed with you! Read More...

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Tell Your Children About the Prophet Nuh

And then you can make one of these arks.


A Collection of Arks

Let them express themselves and then paste the ark onto the paper. Very simple and not really messy.

Color the Paper, Not Your Hands Read More...

Islam, Peace and Jihad



By Maulvi Yahya Nomani

(Translated and edited by Yoginder Sikand)


The basic law underlying inter-community relations in Islam is peace and reconciliation (sulh). Ideally, the relations that a Muslim state should enjoy with other states in the world should be based on peaceful reconciliation. At the same time, however, the Quran gives Muslims permission to fight under some circumstances. It mentions that fighting is permitted to those who have been made the target of war by others and because they are oppressed.

As the Quran very rightly points out, ‘Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter.’ (Quran 2:217). In the same Quranic verse, Muslims were for the first time instructed to take to fighting in the following words:

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter.

From these Quranic verses, it very clearly emerges that Islam regards war as, being in essence, something bad or negative. At the same time, it concedes that war might sometimes become essential for eliminating what it calls fitna. This is why, following the Battle of Badr, the Quran, in Surah Anfal, ordered Muslims to fight the pagans of Mecca so that the religious persecution and oppression by the latter came to an end and the hurdles that the Meccans had put in the path of inviting people to Islam in Arabia were removed. The Quran went further in exhorting Muslims to wage war:

“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides whom ye may not know but whom Allah doth know.” (Quran 8:60).

After this, the Quran exhorted Muslims to spend their wealth in making preparations for war, but, at the same time as it inspired them to take to the battlefield, it also proclaimed:

“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the one that heareth and knoweth (all things). Should they intend to deceive thee― verily Allah sufficeth thee.” (Quran 8:61-62).

The particular background and specific context of the revelation of the above-quote verse needs to be noted. Just before this verse, other verses exhorted the believers to make preparations to wage war against the oppressors. On the other hand, this verse instructed them to accept peace if their enemy inclined towards it. Now, it could be possible that doubts could arise as to the intention of the enemy in suing for peace, for the enemy might use this as a deceptive stratagem. In response to this, this verse says that Muslims should incline towards peace and place total trust (tawwakul) in God, adding that this trust alone is the true support for the believers.

These verses of the Quran were revealed with regard to the Jewish tribes of Medina or the pagans of Mecca with whom the Muslims were then at war with. They were stiff opponents of Islam. They had conspired to extirpate Islam and destroy the citadel of Islam, Medina. The Jewish tribes were hand-in-glove with the Meccan pagans in this venture. The actual aim of these verses was to exhort Muslims to go to war in defence, but yet, in the same context, the Quran advised Muslims that if their enemies inclined towards peace, they must do the same, and place their trust in God. At the same time, it also suggested that, despite this, Muslims should make suitable preparations since the enemy was untrustworthy and that it was possible that it could renege on its promise and betray them.

On the basis of these verses, we can say that it is wrong to suppose that peace between Muslims and others is conceivable only when the Muslims’ position is so weak that they are unable to wage war. The background of these verses that speak about the need to accept the offer of peace of the enemy indicates that the Muslims’ position at that time was certainly not weak. In fact, the verses exhorted Muslims to fight. One of these verses even declares:

O Prophet! Rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding (Quran 8:65)

It must be remembered that these verses were revealed after the grand victory of the Muslims at the Battle of Badr. So, if at such a time Muslims were ordered to accept the offer of peace made by such a fierce enemy, it obviously indicates that it is completely wrong to believe that peace can only be accepted when Muslims are weak and that it should not be accepted when Muslims are in a strong position. This argument is completely bogus, because at the time when this Quranic verse was revealed the Muslims were not under any compulsion.

Why, then is Peace Considered to be Merely Temporary in the Corpus of Fiqh?

The above-mentioned verses clearly indicate that when the possibilities for peace exist, Islam teaches that peace must be accepted. Yet, at the same time, the corpus of fiqh or Muslim jurisprudence developed by Muslim scholars after the Prophet does not, in general, reflect this notion that the basic principle of Islam underlying inter-community relations is peace. Instead, the books of fiqh create the impression that peace is something to be accepted only as a temporary measure.

The reason for this must be located in the particular historical context when the corpus of fiqh came to be developed, including the then prevailing level of civilization and inter-communal and political situation. It must be remembered that at that time the concept of permanent peace simply did not exist anywhere in the world. In both practical as well as ideological terms, the notion of such a peace was completely foreign for governments and states in that age. The state of human civilization at that time was such that if any state found it possible or feasible to declare war and capture the territory of another state, it considered it its duty to do so.

There was another aspect of the then prevailing system of inter-community relations because of which the ulema of that period felt it their duty to warn Muslim rulers to accept peace only when they were compelled to do so. This had to do with the fact that, in those days, every state was closely allied to and identified with one or the other religion. In fact, every government was based on some or the other religious ideology. Naturally, in that period it was simply inconceivable that any non-Muslim government would open the doors to Muslims to call people in the lands they controlled to God’s path. It was simply not possible. Almost every non-Muslim government resisted, sometimes through force, this mission of Islam in their territories. In this way, they became a major hurdle between God and His slaves, preventing the latter from hearing and accepting God’s message. In such a context, accepting peace as the permanent norm would naturally have meant that Muslims would have to abstain from their duty of calling others to God’s path and His service. Obviously, it was impossible for the Muslim ummah to accept this, for that would have gone completely against the basic role and duty of the ummah. This is why the ulema and scholars of fiqh of those times expressed the view that Muslim states should accept peace with non-Muslim states only on a temporary basis and simply out of pragmatism and the compulsion of circumstance. [Obviously, the conditions in today’s age are very different, where freedom to practice and propagate religion, including Islam, is generally allowed in most countries.]

The Quran’s insistence that war can be declared to overcome the fitna of the agents of falsehood that use force to damage or block the mission of the prophets of God and that are a barrier between God and His slaves is undoubtedly correct. Other than for this, however, it must be noted, peace remains the basic principle underlying inter-community relations, according to Islam.

Some people claim that the above-quoted verse that speaks of making peace with enemies has been abrogated, and that it was replaced by other verses that were revealed after it that command Muslims to wage war against the polytheists. However, most Quranic commentators do not agree with this claim. For instance, with regard to this verse Ibn Jareer Tabari writes:

‘If they [the enemies] agree with you to stop fighting and accept peace, and, irrespective of whether they accept Islam or pay the jizya or reconcile or establish peace in any other way, you [Muslims], too, should incline towards peace and do what you want and give what you want.’

With regard to those who claim that these verses have been abrogated, Ibn Jareer Tabari writes that:

‘No proof of this [claim] can be advanced from the Quran or the Sunnah or from reason (aql) or nature (fitrat).’

In actual fact, the two different types of Quranic verses (exhorting Muslims to fight, and ordering them to make peace) were revealed for different conditions and circumstances. The verses that talk of peace relate to a situation when the opponent wishes to cease fighting and accept peace. On the other hand, the verses that exhort Muslims to fight relate to a situation when their opponents had unleashed a full-fledged war against the Muslims. In that situation, obviously, for Muslims to sit back and not take action would have been tantamount to weakness and accepting degradation. That is why this was forbidden, and the Quran declared:

Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace. When ye should be Uppermost: for Allah is with you and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds (Quran 47:35).

An Important Clarification

In the above-mentioned verses, Muslims were exhorted to fight the Meccan pagans so that fitna and religious persecution could be ended and religion was for God alone. The Arabic word fitna means to harass, oppress and to force someone. Those commentators who have wrongly interpreted fitna to mean simple shirk or polytheism have done so because, once a series of wars had broken out between the Muslims and the pagan Arabs, the Muslims were ordered to continue fighting until the very roots of polytheism were uprooted from Arabia. In actual fact, however, fitna does not mean polytheism alone.

A major clarification needs to be made here. This relates to the point made in the Quran that war should continue till religion is for God alone. This certainly does not mean that people must be forced, through war, to accept Islam. The fact that the Quran allows Muslims to take jizya from non-Muslims and then enter into a peace treaty [to protect them] clearly suggests that non-Muslims are not to be forced to become Muslim. Further, it also does not mean that the concept of jihad is based on the notion that only Muslims, and no other community, have the right to establish an independent government of their own.

In actual fact, the order of fighting the polytheists [till religion exists only for God] applied only to the Arabian peninsula, where Muslims were told not to allow any government but that based on Islam to exist. The Quran very clearly indicated that the status of Mecca was like an ‘Abrahamic and Ismaili endowment’ [because of its historical association with the Prophet Abraham and his son Ismail] and that the entire land inhabited by the descendants of Ismail—the Arabs—must be reserved only for Islam, the religion of Abraham, so that it could be the centre for the Abrahamic call to faith (da‘wat). Accordingly, the final objective of the series of wars in the Arabian peninsula was to make the whole of that territory to come under the religion of God.


From this detailed discussion, it clearly emerges that if any non-Muslim community sincerely wants to establish peace with Muslims, its offer of peace must be accepted. This also means that if any non-Muslim state agrees to be at peace with Muslims, and allows for the peaceful practice and propagation of Islam in its territories, and does not engage in any force or fitna in this regard, Muslims must accept this offer and use peaceful methods, exerting all their efforts in this path of inviting others to the faith, so much so that the ‘proofs’ (hujjat) of God are established. After this, in accordance with His established ways (sunnat), God will open a way. That He will certainly do when all ‘proofs’ have been established.

*
If something leads to distance from God,

It causes knowledge to be fitna;

Children, Wealth and Lands to be fitna;

The sword that is wielded for the oppressed to be fitna;

Not just the sword, but even the call ‘God is the Greatest’ [Allahu Akbar] to be fitna.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(This is a translation of excerpts from Yahya Nomani's Urdu book, al-Jihad [Lucknow: Al-Mahad al-Ali Lil Darasat al-Islamiya, 2009. Yahya Nomani works with the Lucknow-based Urdu Islamic monthly, al-Furqan)

Read More...

Islam, Peace and Jihad



By Maulvi Yahya Nomani

(Translated and edited by Yoginder Sikand)


The basic law underlying inter-community relations in Islam is peace and reconciliation (sulh). Ideally, the relations that a Muslim state should enjoy with other states in the world should be based on peaceful reconciliation. At the same time, however, the Quran gives Muslims permission to fight under some circumstances. It mentions that fighting is permitted to those who have been made the target of war by others and because they are oppressed.

As the Quran very rightly points out, ‘Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter.’ (Quran 2:217). In the same Quranic verse, Muslims were for the first time instructed to take to fighting in the following words:

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter.

From these Quranic verses, it very clearly emerges that Islam regards war as, being in essence, something bad or negative. At the same time, it concedes that war might sometimes become essential for eliminating what it calls fitna. This is why, following the Battle of Badr, the Quran, in Surah Anfal, ordered Muslims to fight the pagans of Mecca so that the religious persecution and oppression by the latter came to an end and the hurdles that the Meccans had put in the path of inviting people to Islam in Arabia were removed. The Quran went further in exhorting Muslims to wage war:

“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides whom ye may not know but whom Allah doth know.” (Quran 8:60).

After this, the Quran exhorted Muslims to spend their wealth in making preparations for war, but, at the same time as it inspired them to take to the battlefield, it also proclaimed:

“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the one that heareth and knoweth (all things). Should they intend to deceive thee― verily Allah sufficeth thee.” (Quran 8:61-62).

The particular background and specific context of the revelation of the above-quote verse needs to be noted. Just before this verse, other verses exhorted the believers to make preparations to wage war against the oppressors. On the other hand, this verse instructed them to accept peace if their enemy inclined towards it. Now, it could be possible that doubts could arise as to the intention of the enemy in suing for peace, for the enemy might use this as a deceptive stratagem. In response to this, this verse says that Muslims should incline towards peace and place total trust (tawwakul) in God, adding that this trust alone is the true support for the believers.

These verses of the Quran were revealed with regard to the Jewish tribes of Medina or the pagans of Mecca with whom the Muslims were then at war with. They were stiff opponents of Islam. They had conspired to extirpate Islam and destroy the citadel of Islam, Medina. The Jewish tribes were hand-in-glove with the Meccan pagans in this venture. The actual aim of these verses was to exhort Muslims to go to war in defence, but yet, in the same context, the Quran advised Muslims that if their enemies inclined towards peace, they must do the same, and place their trust in God. At the same time, it also suggested that, despite this, Muslims should make suitable preparations since the enemy was untrustworthy and that it was possible that it could renege on its promise and betray them.

On the basis of these verses, we can say that it is wrong to suppose that peace between Muslims and others is conceivable only when the Muslims’ position is so weak that they are unable to wage war. The background of these verses that speak about the need to accept the offer of peace of the enemy indicates that the Muslims’ position at that time was certainly not weak. In fact, the verses exhorted Muslims to fight. One of these verses even declares:

O Prophet! Rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding (Quran 8:65)

It must be remembered that these verses were revealed after the grand victory of the Muslims at the Battle of Badr. So, if at such a time Muslims were ordered to accept the offer of peace made by such a fierce enemy, it obviously indicates that it is completely wrong to believe that peace can only be accepted when Muslims are weak and that it should not be accepted when Muslims are in a strong position. This argument is completely bogus, because at the time when this Quranic verse was revealed the Muslims were not under any compulsion.

Why, then is Peace Considered to be Merely Temporary in the Corpus of Fiqh?

The above-mentioned verses clearly indicate that when the possibilities for peace exist, Islam teaches that peace must be accepted. Yet, at the same time, the corpus of fiqh or Muslim jurisprudence developed by Muslim scholars after the Prophet does not, in general, reflect this notion that the basic principle of Islam underlying inter-community relations is peace. Instead, the books of fiqh create the impression that peace is something to be accepted only as a temporary measure.

The reason for this must be located in the particular historical context when the corpus of fiqh came to be developed, including the then prevailing level of civilization and inter-communal and political situation. It must be remembered that at that time the concept of permanent peace simply did not exist anywhere in the world. In both practical as well as ideological terms, the notion of such a peace was completely foreign for governments and states in that age. The state of human civilization at that time was such that if any state found it possible or feasible to declare war and capture the territory of another state, it considered it its duty to do so.

There was another aspect of the then prevailing system of inter-community relations because of which the ulema of that period felt it their duty to warn Muslim rulers to accept peace only when they were compelled to do so. This had to do with the fact that, in those days, every state was closely allied to and identified with one or the other religion. In fact, every government was based on some or the other religious ideology. Naturally, in that period it was simply inconceivable that any non-Muslim government would open the doors to Muslims to call people in the lands they controlled to God’s path. It was simply not possible. Almost every non-Muslim government resisted, sometimes through force, this mission of Islam in their territories. In this way, they became a major hurdle between God and His slaves, preventing the latter from hearing and accepting God’s message. In such a context, accepting peace as the permanent norm would naturally have meant that Muslims would have to abstain from their duty of calling others to God’s path and His service. Obviously, it was impossible for the Muslim ummah to accept this, for that would have gone completely against the basic role and duty of the ummah. This is why the ulema and scholars of fiqh of those times expressed the view that Muslim states should accept peace with non-Muslim states only on a temporary basis and simply out of pragmatism and the compulsion of circumstance. [Obviously, the conditions in today’s age are very different, where freedom to practice and propagate religion, including Islam, is generally allowed in most countries.]

The Quran’s insistence that war can be declared to overcome the fitna of the agents of falsehood that use force to damage or block the mission of the prophets of God and that are a barrier between God and His slaves is undoubtedly correct. Other than for this, however, it must be noted, peace remains the basic principle underlying inter-community relations, according to Islam.

Some people claim that the above-quoted verse that speaks of making peace with enemies has been abrogated, and that it was replaced by other verses that were revealed after it that command Muslims to wage war against the polytheists. However, most Quranic commentators do not agree with this claim. For instance, with regard to this verse Ibn Jareer Tabari writes:

‘If they [the enemies] agree with you to stop fighting and accept peace, and, irrespective of whether they accept Islam or pay the jizya or reconcile or establish peace in any other way, you [Muslims], too, should incline towards peace and do what you want and give what you want.’

With regard to those who claim that these verses have been abrogated, Ibn Jareer Tabari writes that:

‘No proof of this [claim] can be advanced from the Quran or the Sunnah or from reason (aql) or nature (fitrat).’

In actual fact, the two different types of Quranic verses (exhorting Muslims to fight, and ordering them to make peace) were revealed for different conditions and circumstances. The verses that talk of peace relate to a situation when the opponent wishes to cease fighting and accept peace. On the other hand, the verses that exhort Muslims to fight relate to a situation when their opponents had unleashed a full-fledged war against the Muslims. In that situation, obviously, for Muslims to sit back and not take action would have been tantamount to weakness and accepting degradation. That is why this was forbidden, and the Quran declared:

Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace. When ye should be Uppermost: for Allah is with you and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds (Quran 47:35).

An Important Clarification

In the above-mentioned verses, Muslims were exhorted to fight the Meccan pagans so that fitna and religious persecution could be ended and religion was for God alone. The Arabic word fitna means to harass, oppress and to force someone. Those commentators who have wrongly interpreted fitna to mean simple shirk or polytheism have done so because, once a series of wars had broken out between the Muslims and the pagan Arabs, the Muslims were ordered to continue fighting until the very roots of polytheism were uprooted from Arabia. In actual fact, however, fitna does not mean polytheism alone.

A major clarification needs to be made here. This relates to the point made in the Quran that war should continue till religion is for God alone. This certainly does not mean that people must be forced, through war, to accept Islam. The fact that the Quran allows Muslims to take jizya from non-Muslims and then enter into a peace treaty [to protect them] clearly suggests that non-Muslims are not to be forced to become Muslim. Further, it also does not mean that the concept of jihad is based on the notion that only Muslims, and no other community, have the right to establish an independent government of their own.

In actual fact, the order of fighting the polytheists [till religion exists only for God] applied only to the Arabian peninsula, where Muslims were told not to allow any government but that based on Islam to exist. The Quran very clearly indicated that the status of Mecca was like an ‘Abrahamic and Ismaili endowment’ [because of its historical association with the Prophet Abraham and his son Ismail] and that the entire land inhabited by the descendants of Ismail—the Arabs—must be reserved only for Islam, the religion of Abraham, so that it could be the centre for the Abrahamic call to faith (da‘wat). Accordingly, the final objective of the series of wars in the Arabian peninsula was to make the whole of that territory to come under the religion of God.


From this detailed discussion, it clearly emerges that if any non-Muslim community sincerely wants to establish peace with Muslims, its offer of peace must be accepted. This also means that if any non-Muslim state agrees to be at peace with Muslims, and allows for the peaceful practice and propagation of Islam in its territories, and does not engage in any force or fitna in this regard, Muslims must accept this offer and use peaceful methods, exerting all their efforts in this path of inviting others to the faith, so much so that the ‘proofs’ (hujjat) of God are established. After this, in accordance with His established ways (sunnat), God will open a way. That He will certainly do when all ‘proofs’ have been established.

*
If something leads to distance from God,

It causes knowledge to be fitna;

Children, Wealth and Lands to be fitna;

The sword that is wielded for the oppressed to be fitna;

Not just the sword, but even the call ‘God is the Greatest’ [Allahu Akbar] to be fitna.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(This is a translation of excerpts from Yahya Nomani's Urdu book, al-Jihad [Lucknow: Al-Mahad al-Ali Lil Darasat al-Islamiya, 2009. Yahya Nomani works with the Lucknow-based Urdu Islamic monthly, al-Furqan)

Read More...

Friday, June 19, 2009

Islamic Perspectives on Inter-Community Relations


By Maulvi Yahya Nomani

(Translated from Urdu by Yoginder Sikand)


The issue of what Islam has to say about inter-community relations is one about which much misunderstanding exists. Anti-Muslim propagandists claim that Islam preaches hatred for non-Muslims, and that the Quran is a menace to world peace. They go so far as to argue that world peace is simply impossible as long as the Quran exists. In order to back their propaganda, they have deliberately twisted and misinterpreted certain verses of the Quran. Many people with little knowledge have fallen prey to this poisonous propaganda, which has been aggressively spread on an enormous scale through the media.

At the same time, we must also admit that some Muslims themselves entertain misunderstandings and extremist views about the issue of relations between Muslims and others that are based on a completely wrong interpretation of the Quran and the Sunnah, the practice of the Prophet. This calls for a detailed study, so that misunderstandings, wrong interpretations and extremist views about Islamic teachings regarding relations between Muslims and others can be countered.

It is true that Islam stresses that Muslims, here understood in the sense of true submitters to God, are distinct from others in terms of their religious views and ethical virtues. It cautions them from imitating others, especially their religious symbols and rituals, which Islam does not accept. It is also true that Islam strictly forbids befriending enemies of the faith and those who conspire against Muslims. At the same time, however, Islam exhorts Muslims to relate to other non-Muslims with softness, good manners, gentleness and love.


Respect for the Human Race

Islam teaches that all human beings, irrespective of community or race, are children of the same set of primal parents, and, so, are bound together by their common humanity. As the Quran states:

O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you.” (Quran 49:13).

This basic Islamic teaching about the whole of humankind being children of the same parents stresses the need for consciousness of our common humanity and of us being brothers unto each other. This is why, according to a hadith report, the Prophet would, after finishing his prayers, supplicate with God, saying, ‘O Allah! Sustainer of myself and of everything! I bear witness that all human beings are brothers of each other.’

According to the Quran, human beings are creatures worthy of respect:

“We have honoured the sons of Adam […]and conferred on them special favours, above a great part of Our Creation.” (Quran 17:70)

This clearly indicates that Islam regards human beings as deserving respect, love and concern on the basis of their humanity. A hadith report well illustrates this teaching. Once, the Prophet was present along with some of his disciples when a funeral procession passed by. The Prophet stood up. Seeing the Prophet stand out of respect for the dead man, some of his companions informed him that the man had been a Jew. But, the Prophet responded, ‘Was he not a human being?’ After the Prophet, some of his companions, too, followed this example of his, as is related in the books of Hadith compiled by Bukhari and Muslim.

In another hadith report, the Prophet exhorted his followers to relate with kindness to all creatures thus:

‘God is merciful to those who are merciful. Deal with mercy towards creatures on earth and He in the heavens will be merciful towards you.’ (Sunan Tirmidhi, 1924; Sunan Abu Daud, 4941).

This hadith report very clearly expresses a basic Quranic teaching. The Quran states that the true path to salvation is through showing mercy and love to others:

And what will explain to thee, the path that is steep? (It is:) freeing the bondman; Or the giving of food in a day of privation to the orphan with claims of relationship, or to the indigent (down) in the dust. Then will he be of those who believe, and enjoin patience, (constancy, and self-restraint), and enjoin deeds of kindness and compassion. Such are the Companions of the Right Hand.” (Quran 90: 12-18)

This is the path of salvation—not simply to be kind-hearted, but also to participate in the mission to promote, in practical terms, kind-heartedness and compassion for others. Such are the steps on the path to salvation. Islam does not restrict good behaviour simply to other human beings. Rather, it insists that Muslims should behave in this way with all living creatures. Thus, according to a hadith recorded in the Sahih of al-Bukhari, the Prophet said, ‘There is merit (sawab) in behaving well towards all living creatures.’

The Bond of Nation/Community (Qaum)

Islam recognizes a certain sort of brotherhood and feeling of oneness among members of the same community/nation as an established fact. This is expressed in the Quran in the form of various prophets, such as Hud, Saleh, Shoeb and so on, addressing the non-Muslim members of their communities as brothers, and, in this way, accepting a relationship of nation- or community-based brotherhood between Muslims and non-Muslims belonging to the same nation or community. When these prophets of God preached His message to their own people (who were not Muslims, or ‘submitters’ to God), they addressed them as ‘ya qaum’ or ‘O my people’, appealing to their hearts and reminding them of the common bond of community that they shared with them. This clearly indicates the sort of concern and love that Muslims should adopt when addressing their non-Muslim compatriots and in seeking to cement bonds with them.

The importance of how concern and love should infuse relations between people belonging to a common race or nationality, despite their religious differences, is evident from the fact that the Prophet Muhammad cared for the (the then non-Muslim) Egyptians just because the mother of the Prophet Ismail (Ishmael), son of the Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham), was from Egypt. The Prophet instructed the Arabs to remember this ancient racial tie, saying that they would soon conquer Egypt and that he wanted them to deal with the Egyptians kindly because they had the right to protection (haq-e zimma) and because their racial ties with the Arabs demanded this.

Kind Behaviour Towards Non-Muslims: Some Examples

Various Islamic teachings and Sunnah or practice of the Prophet indicate the kindness and concern that non-Muslims deserve from Muslims. The Quran mentions that needy non-Muslims are deserving of the financial assistance of Muslims, and that, therefore, they should be helped. In the Surah Al-Baqara of the Quran, God says that guiding others to the faith is not the work of human beings, and that God guides whom He wills. The Quran adds that we must not refuse to help a needy person simply because he or she refuses to accept Islam. It says that we shall be rewarded for whatever we spend in God’s way:

It is not required of thee (O Messenger) to set them on the right path but Allah guides to the right path whom He pleaseth. Whatever of good ye give benefits your own souls and ye shall only do so seeking the "Face" of Allah. Whatever good ye give, shall be rendered back to you and ye shall not be dealt with unjustly.” (Quran 2:272)

This verse indicates that while providing financial help to others it is not necessary to distinguish between those who accept Islam and those who do not. In other words, all needy people are deserving of such help.

Elaborating on this verse, the noted scholar Imam Ibn Jareer Tabari wrote in his Tafsir-e Tabari that the verse commands Muslims not to deprive non-Muslims of charity. He was of the view that this was how numerous companions of the Prophet and those who came after them in the next generation understood this verse.

This was also the practice of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs. Thus, as mentioned in the Kitab al-Kharraj by Abu Yusuf, the Caliph Umar sent a letter to his governor, instructing him to provide for his poor and needy non-Muslim subjects from the wealth of the Muslims.

Reconciliation and Kind-Heartedness


Islam stresses kindness towards relatives, especially close relations, so much so that it says that God declares war against he who does not fulfill his responsibilities towards his relatives (Masnad Ahmad 1684; Sahih al-Bukhari 5987-5989). It also declares that those who sunder their relations with their relatives will have no place in heaven (Sahih Muslim, 2556).

Kindness towards and reconciliation with relatives applies to all relatives, Muslim as well as non-Muslim. It is their right. Islam seeks to cement relations, not to destroy them. Thus, non-Muslim relatives have all the rights over a Muslim, so much so that the Quran lays down that if a Muslim’s parents are not Muslim themselves, and even if they seek to pressurize their Muslim son or daughter to abandon Islam, they must be treated well under all conditions, although one should not yield to their pressure. As the Quran puts it:

And We have enjoined on man (to be good) to his parents: in travail upon travail did his mother bear him, and in years twain was his weaning: (hear the command) "Show gratitude to Me and to thy parents: to Me is (thy final) Goal. "But if they strive to make the join in worship with Me things of which thou hast no knowledge obey them not; Yet bear them company in this life with justice (and consideration) and follow the way of those who turn to Me (in love): in the End the return of you all is to Me, and I will tell you the truth (and meaning) of all that ye did.”(Quran 31:14-15).


The mother of Abu Hurairah, a companion of the Prophet, used to say bad things about the Prophet, but Abu Hurairah tolerated this. When he complained about her behavior to the Prophet, the latter prayed for her, rather than expressing hatred for her. Because of this, she was guided (Sahih al-Muslim, 2491).

The mother of Hazrat Asma bint Abu Bakr was a polytheist. In the wake of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah between the Muslims, led by the Prophet, and the Meccan pagans, relatives from both sides were able to meet each other. At this time, Hazrat Asma’s mother came to Medina to meet her, bringing along with her some gifts. Hazrat Asma thought of reciprocating this gesture by giving her mother some presents when she was returning. However, she hesitated for a bit, not sure if Islam allowed for Muslims to present gifts to their non-Muslim relatives. Accordingly, she approached the Prophet and asked him if she should seek to strengthen her ties (silah rahmi) with her mother. In reply, the Prophet said she must, and instructed her to give her gifts. (Sahih al-Bukhari 2602; Fath al-Bari).

Some commentators have claimed that Hazrat Asma’s mother had come to Medina because she was in need of help. But, the fact is that she was a well-off woman, and Hafiz Ibn Hajar and other scholars have written that she herself had brought gifts for her daughter. Thus, it could be that she wanted to restore her bonds with her daughter that had been earlier sundered. In other words, Hazrat Asma’s giving of gifts to her mother appears not to have been an expression of help to a needy mother, but rather, a way of expressing and fulfilling her duty of familial love.

Other Social Relations Between Muslims and Others

While Muslims have been forbidden to engage in such relations with non-Muslims that might undermine or destroy their religious distinctiveness, Islam stresses that Muslims must relate with concern, and a high standard of morality with non-Muslims in order to create a better society. Treating neighbours kindly is such an important Islamic teaching that in the corpus of Hadith, narrations relating to the Prophet, it has been said that not abiding by this teaching can sometimes even lead to the danger of one’s own faith being taken away. The Prophet thrice proclaimed that he who is a source of discomfort to his neighbour is not a true believer (momin) (Sahih al-Bukhari, 6016).

One’s neighbour, who deserves exemplary treatment, can be a Muslim or a non-Muslim, and the above-mentioned principle applies in both cases. This is well-illustrated in the following story. One day, a goat was slaughtered in the home of Hazrat Abdullah Ibn Umar. When he returned home, the first thing he did was to ask if some of the meat had been sent to the house of his Jewish neighbour. ‘I have heard the Prophet stressing the importance of kindness towards neighbours’, he said (Abu Daud, 5152).

One aspect of the life of the Prophet, which serves as a model for Muslims to emulate, is that even if an enemy is in great trouble one should supplicate for him with God. On the one hand, the Prophet would beseech God to punish bloody oppressors, but, on the other hand, we see the Prophet helping the Qureish of Mecca, who stiffly opposed him, when they were faced with a severe famine. In that critical situation, Abu Sufiyan, the Qureish leader who had stridently opposed the Prophet, came to him. Invoking their relationship, he said that the Quraish, the tribe that the Prophet himself belonged to, were dying, and requested him to beseech God. The Prophet prayed to God, and because of his prayer the situation was cured (Sahih Bukhari, 4824).

It is said that if a Jew present in the Prophet’s congregation would sneeze, the Prophet would do the same dua, ‘May God give you guidance and improve your condition’, for him as he would for a Muslim (Sunan Abu Daud 5040). Because they were so fond of this dua, some Jews would pretend to sneeze, but the Prophet still do this dua for them. In the Masannaf Ibn Abi Shiba, the Masannaf Abdur Razzak and the Sahih of al-Bukhari, there are numerous narrations about the Prophet making dua for non-Muslims. This clearly shows that Islam exhorts its followers to deal kindly with people of other faiths.

Commensality or eating together has great importance in building relationships. The Prophet used to invite non-Muslims for meals. Expressing concern for the oppressed and distressed, irrespective of religion, is something basic for good social ties, and the Prophet Muhammad also abided by this. He would visit the homes of non-Muslims when they were sick, to enquire about their health (Sahih al-Bukhari 5657). The Prophet also gave gifts to non-Muslims, and courteously accepted the gifts that they presented him with, as has been recorded in the books of Hadith. It is said that a non-Muslim ruler sent the Prophet a beautiful silken cloak, which the Prophet accepted (Sahih al-Bukhari 2616). He gave it to Ja‘afar bin Abi Talib, saying that he should send it to his ‘brother’, Najashi, the Christian ruler of Abyssinia, who had helped the Muslims (Masnad Ahmad 13214). The Caliph Umar sent a valuable cloth as a gift to a ‘polytheist brother’ of his, and the Prophet knew about this (Muslim 2068). The ruler of Aila sent the Prophet cloth and a mount, which were put to use (Sahih Bukhari 3161). At the time, when the Prophet was departing from this world, he instructed Muslims, especially their leaders, that delegations of guests (who were generally non-Muslims) that would come to them should be given presents while departing, as he himself had done (Sahih al-Bukhari 3053, Sahih al-Muslim 1637).

From these references to the shariah and the Sunnah, the practice of the Prophet Muhammad, it is clear that Islam stands for humanitarianism, love, concern, compassion, large-heartedness and good behaviour with people of other faiths, in general. That is to say, if a person who follows another faith is not an oppressor or an enemy of Islam or a conspirator or is not waging war against Muslims, Islam considers him or her worthy of help and solidarity and stresses respect for his or her humanity.


(This is a translation of excerpts from Yahya Nomani's Urdu book, al-Jihad [Lucknow: Al-Mahad al-Ali Lil Darasat al-Islamiya, 2009)











Read More...

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Shukr Clothing Has Come to Canada

I like their clothing and haven't purchased anything in a while, but at least I can have less hassle and get in on the shipping deals now that they are targeting Canada. Read More...

Granny Has Come to Visit

She's been here since Saturday and will be here until Friday so maybe I will give a proper post on the weekend, InshaALLAH. Read More...

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Clarifications About the Concept of Jihad in Islam

By Maulvi Yahya Nomani

(Translated from Urdu by Yoginder Sikand)

Introduction


Critics of Islam allege that the notion of jihad, as contained in the Quran and Hadith, is a license for cold-blooded murder and indiscriminate killing. Ironically, among the most bitter opponents of Islam who are today in the forefront of a concerted campaign to depict Islam as a bloody religion are influential intellectuals and leaders in the West, the very same West that, for the last three centuries and more has drowned the rest of the world in seas of blood. The West, which has such a bloody record, has today chosen to portray Muslims, who have suffered the greatest loss of innocent lives at its hands, as purveyors of terror.

Had the brutal Western imperialists not been able to craftily manipulate world opinion through their control over the media, the world would have demanded to know how they could arrogate to themselves the right to talk about peace before giving a full record of the brutal crimes that they have been responsible for over the last three centuries. The Westerners killed off almost all the aborigines of Australia and North America , and dealt with the Africans in a manner even worse than wild animals. And now the West has the gumption to ask the rest of the world to uphold human rights! As if the rest of the world has forgotten the history of Western barbarities! The world will not let the West continue trumpeting its rhetoric about human rights, which it is craftily using as a cover to hide its own blood-stained record.


There is a limit to the oppression that people can endure. If unceasing oppression and killing provokes feelings of revenge among some members of an oppressed community and instigates them to exceed the limits and to take wrong steps, it is an indication of the intolerable suffering that the community faces. In the face of enormous and sustained oppression heaped on their community, some Muslims have reacted in an unwise fashion, based on a completely wrong interpretation of ‘struggle in the path of God’ (jihad fi sabil Allah), one that is totally contradictory to the shariah and that violates the limits for jihad that the shariah sets down. Deviating from the opinion of the ulema, they have adopted the path of extremism. This has given Islam and Muslims a bad name. They have given their opponents an excuse to heap even more oppression on the Muslims.

It is true that the number of Muslims who have taken to extremism is relatively small, but that they do exist is an undeniable fact. We must admit that they have engaged in wrong and immoral activities. At the same time, we cannot deny that in several countries, including in the West, ruling establishments and their secret service agencies have been behind some acts of terror which they have wrongly attributed to Muslims.

The situation facing us today is extremely complex. On the one hand is the mounting wave of Islamophobia, based on a false projection of Islamic jihad, which aims to create hatred in the minds of people, Muslims as well as others, for the Quran and Islamic teachings. On the other hand, faced with unenviable conditions and driven by a desire for revenge or having fallen prey to an extremist ideology, are those ignorant Muslims who are either being used by global agencies or are acting on their own, and who, by their actions, are defaming the concept of jihad and creating major problems for the Muslims themselves. It is these people who have provided the pretext to America and their own governments, whom they brand as agents of the West, to clamp down on Islamic movements and institutions.

And there is a third category of people, who, under the pressure of present circumstances and cowed down by the torrent of allegations against Muslims are now altogether denying jihad, a very important part of Islam, or else interpreting it in such a way as to please the West and its client regimes. All this, then, has created an absurd confusion.

The situation thus demands that the Islamic teachings about jihad be properly explained. Islamic teachings are based on wisdom and justice, and this includes jihad as well. In actual fact, jihad, if construed correctly, can be a source of mercy for all humankind, Muslims as well as others.

Reacting to anti-Islamic propaganda by adopting an apologetic stance with regard to the doctrine of jihad is not the right approach. The Quran teaches us that the upholders of the truth are not concerned about fame or insult, their mission being to sincerely communicate God’s message. As the Quran says:

Who delivered the messages of Allah and feared Him, and feared none save Allah. Allah keepeth good account. (Quran 33: 39).

While studying the doctrine, laws and ethics of jihad it is important to bear in mind the process of evolution of civilizations and the international context. This suggests that the conditions in different ages demand that with changing contexts the regulations of jihad be reformulated (az sar-e nau tadveen) accordingly. The Quran, and, then, after it, the practice of the Prophet Muhammad, have given us certain permanent and unchangeable principles with regard to jihad. God has blessed them as sources of justice and welfare. Islamic jurisprudents developed detailed regulations on the basis of these principles, keeping in mind the social conditions and international contexts of their own times. The rules that they produced, as detailed in the books of fiqh or Muslim jurisprudence, can provide us insights, but, as in the matter of other rules of fiqh, it is possible that with the change of customs (urf), the social environment and the international context, the detailed regulations concerning jihad that are a result of the ijtihad or personal interpretation of the earlier jurists can be changed and replaced with new regulations to accord with the demands of wisdom and justice in the light of the Quran and the Prophet’s practice. God has placed this miraculous ability in the Quran and the Prophet’s practice that those who carefully study them can gain appropriate guidance in accordance with the demands of their own times so that they can deduce new regulations that are based on truth and justice. This is precisely what this book seeks to highlight.

In developing detailed regulations for every new age and on every issue it must be kept in mind that Islam champions the best and most balanced system of ethics and morality. Especially in today’s age, the twin issues of jihad and legitimate violence demand that such detailed regulations be derived in the light of the Quran and the Prophet’s practice in such a manner as to prove and reinforce our claim that the Islamic shariah is the best upholder of truth and justice, and that on other ideology and system can represent truth and justice in a better way.

The Truth About Jihad

Respect for Human Life

It must be noted that, according to the Quran and the Prophet’s practice, the doctrine of jihad is meant to promote peace, protection of human life and freedom. The Quran places great value on the life of a single human being, as indicated in the following verse:

On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person―unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land― it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. (Quran 5:32)

All the legal systems of the world consider the killing of innocent people as a grievous crime. Islam not only provides legal protection of human life, seeking to prevent killing of innocent through instilling the fear of the law, but also seeks to develop in people’s hearts a deep respect for the sanctity of human life. In a hadith mentioned in the Sahih of al-Bukhari (6871), the Prophet is said to have declared killing, along with associating partners with God (shirk) as the greatest sin. According to a report in the Sahih of Muslim (1678), the Prophet reportedly said that on the Day of Judgment, God will first settle cases of murder.

This respect for human life applies to every person, Muslim as well as non-Muslim. The Prophet very explicitly stated that if someone slays a non-Muslim who he is not engaged in an openly declared war with or who had the protection of a peace agreement with a Muslim government, that person would never even get to smell the fragrance of paradise (Sahih Bukhari 3166).

Permission to Fight

War wreaks destruction. Bloodshed is inevitable in any war. But, Islam, as has been indicated above, lays great stress on respect for human life. That is why Islam has provided for war only in certain unavoidable and exceptional circumstances. The Quran describes war as something bad or destructive, but, like other religions, it does not ignore the fact that at times groups, communities or governments do resort to such terror and oppression so that the only way to stop them is through defensive war. Such brutal oppression of innocent people is a true fact of life, and Islam is a religion of truth and is not blind to reality. It is not like the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ that insists that if someone hits you on one cheek, you must willingly offer your other cheek for him to slap. Instead, it calls for the hands of oppressors to be restrained, and considers this is a way to serve humankind and to gain God’s favour. Islam permits the oppressed whose very lives are under severe threat to take to arms to protect their lives, property and honour. Likewise, it considers it a duty for any country to react in like manner if it is invaded by any other country.

All legal systems in the world agree that it is the right, and even the duty, of every oppressed country or group to reply if it attacked. Reason and human conscience also agree to this. As the Quran lays down:

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight) because they are wronged― and verily, Allah is Most powerful for their aid (Quran 22:39)

Further, the Quran instructs the believers thus:

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. (Quran 2:190)

These teachings are basic to the preservation of the life, respect and freedom of a community, the denial of which would spell death for it, causing it to fall prey to strife and degradation. Islam aims at character-building and shaping of morals so that people become models of virtue. How, then, can it allow them to sink into degradation by denying them the right to struggle against oppression and persecution? But, it must be remembered, mere fighting in defence against oppression does not constitute a legitimate jihad. Rather, jihad is governed by a host of spiritual and moral principles and laws, observing which alone can qualify it to be truly called ‘struggle in God’s path’ (jihad fi sabil Allah).

The biggest misunderstanding about jihad is that it is a communal struggle or war of Muslims, a war that Muslims launch against other communities to capture power or territory. In actual fact, this has nothing whatsoever to do with jihad, and the Quran condemns such violence as ‘strife on earth’ (fasad fi ‘l ardh). In other words, not every war in which Muslims are involved can be called a jihad. In order for a war to be qualified as a legitimate jihad the Quran lays down that it must be for only certain purposes and conducted according to specified principles and rules. Any war engaged in by Muslims other than for the purposes laid down in the Quran or that violates the rules governing jihad, as specified in the Quran, is not jihad. Rather, it is strife and chaos (fasad), which will earn God’s wrath.

Aims of Jihad

1. Jihad for the Sake of Freedom of Religion

The Quran declared war against the Meccans in order to end their religious oppression. The Meccans had imprisoned Muslims and subjected them to extreme torture and oppression simply because, heeding the voice of their conscience, they had accepted Islam. News of their persecution reached the Prophet in Medina . The Quran then commanded the Muslims thus:

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere (Quran 8:39)

The Arabic word fitna is used in the above-mentioned verse with regard to oppression. The verse lays down that the aim of war is to end fitna. The word actually means ‘test’ or ‘examination’, and, according to some noted Arabic scholars, where the word is used in the Quran it mostly means, or is related to, this sense. The word fitna has consistently been used throughout Islamic history to describe efforts by the enemies of Islam to use force and oppression in an effort to cause Muslims to stray from their faith or to make to difficult for them to stay on the path of Islam. For instance, the Quran uses a derivate of the word fitna in the context of Pharoah’s use of force and oppression to seek to cause those who had accepted the teachings of the Prophet Moses to abandon their faith and return to infidelity:

But none believed in Moses except some children of his People, because of the fear of Pharaoh and his chiefs, lest they should persecute them (Quran 10: 83).

Elsewhere, the Quran says:


Those who persecute (or draw into temptation) the Believers, men and women and do not turn in repentance, will have the Penalty of Hell: they will have the Penalty of the Burning Fire. (Quran 85:10)

Some Islamic scholars, including in the past, have interpreted the term fitna or its derivatives that are mentioned in such verses to mean shirk or associating partners with God. However, in Arabic fitna does not mean just shirk or shirk without force, oppression and testing. In today’s context, fitna can be described as ‘religious persecution’. Today, the sort of religious persecution that could be called fitna, such as was the torment and testing that the early Muslims faced in Mecca or that those who believed in the Prophet Moses had to contend with, is extremely rare.

The duty of Muslims to continue fighting till religious persecution is no more, as laid down in the above-mentioned Quranic verse, is echoed in another verse of the Quran, in the Surah Baqara. With any doubt, both these verses relate to the polytheists of Mecca . But, yet, who can deny that seeking to forbid people to follow the religion of their choice by oppression or even killing them is such a heinous crime that demands that the defenders of the truth rise up against this, if they have the capacity to do so?

2. Jihad for the Sake of Freedom of the Oppressed.

The Quran repeatedly refers to the people who engaged in fitna in Mecca , seeking to force Muslims to renounce their faith, as enemies of God who were persecuting God’s weak servants and threatening their lives. The cruelly oppressed Muslims had been crying out for help, appealing for assistance to relieve them of their torment. Finally, God permitted the Muslims of Medina to fight in defence in the face of the war that had been unleashed on them and to protect their lives, their faith and the citadel of Islam. They were informed that the conditions had so drastically changed that God’s earlier instruction to them to restrain themselves and patiently and steadfastly endure the tortures inflicted on them was no longer necessary. God now told them to fight against those Meccan opponents of theirs who had declared war on them. As indicated earlier, one of the aims of this war was to put an end to fitna, understood here as religious persecution aimed at preventing Muslims from following their faith. As the Quran says:

And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?―men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from Thee one who will protect; and raise for us from Thee one who will help!?" (Quran 4:75)


With regard to the above-mentioned verse, it can be asked if, in the face of the desperate cries for help of the oppressed, a community does not rise up to repel oppression or is indifferent to the plight of those who are suffering immense persecution, can it not be said to be totally bereft of human feelings? No divine scripture allows for its followers to sit back and relax in comfort while innocent people are being persecuted in this brutal way.

It is true that the oppressed people referred to in the above-mentioned text, whom Muslims were exhorted to help, were themselves Muslims. Because of the bond of Islamic brotherhood that they shared with the other Muslims they had an even greater claim on their help. Yet, this Quranic verse, as well as statements attributed to the Prophet, clearly indicate that it is the duty of a Muslim state to respond to the cries of any wrongfully oppressed community, no matter what its religion, if it has the power to do so and, for this purpose, to fight against the oppressors of those people. People with a proper appreciation of, and commitment to, Islam need not be reminded that Islam desires that its true followers must rush to the rescue of every wrongfully oppressed person or community, irrespective of religion, without having any other motive. As a hadith contained in the collection of Abu Daud relates, the Prophet is said to have declared:

‘Beware! By God! Keep calling people to the good and preventing them from evil. Catch the hand of the oppressor and force him to ensure justice and keep striving to bring him to the true path. (In this lies your welfare) otherwise God will cause your hearts to clash with each other’s and will curse you, just as He cursed those communities in the past who did not abide by this duty’.

With regard to this sort of jihad to end oppression, the Prophet very clearly stated, as is evidenced in numerous hadith reports, that to make any distinction between the oppressed on grounds of religion, between Muslims and others, is against the spirit of Islam. Thus, according to a hadith report contained in the Sunan of al-Tirmidhi, the Prophet is said to have instructed his followers to help their ‘brothers’, whether they were oppressed or oppressors. His followers responded, ‘We understood [the need to] help the oppressed, but how should the oppressor be helped?’ The Prophet answered, ‘Stop him from oppression. This is the help that you should give him.’


Not War, but Struggle in the Path of God (jihad fi sabil Allah)

War fought in defence and to overcome oppression is a basic human right and duty, but here one point is of extreme significance. In Medina , when the Prophet was receiving revelations and was guiding his followers, the town was attacked by the enemies of Islam. That is why God finally sent down revelations ordering the Prophet and his companions to make preparations to defend themselves in the face of these brutal assaults. Yet, at the same time, these verses made it very clear that this defensive war that the Muslims must fight was not just for their political defence or for protecting their honour or for their political freedom. Rather, the Quran repeatedly stresses that they were not like any ordinary human group that fights for worldly goods and pleasures. Instead, it describes them as a group that had turned its face from the trappings of the world and gathered round God’s Prophet in order to worship God and strive for the welfare of the whole of humankind. It depicts them as a group that had vowed to live in poverty, if needed, and to make major sacrifices so that others could be also guided to the straight path. That is why the sort of war that they were ordered to engage in was not like any war fought for worldly ends. Rather, it was termed as jihad fi sabil Allah or ‘struggle in the path of God’, a war fought for God’s sake.

Every community in the world has the right to defend itself by fighting, in accordance with accepted norms and within acceptable limits. But, the fighting that the Prophet and his followers resorted to was not for freedom or for the communal rights of Muslims. The early Muslims had become, as it were, the salt of the earth at a time when (and this remains so even today) there was no community in the world that was wholly and completely based on devotion to and service of God. Through not just their words, but their actions as well, the Prophet and his followers proved that they had no lust for the luxuries of the world. They adopted poverty for themselves, and took up as their mission the guidance of humankind and the establishment of justice. Caring nothing for worldly comforts, they led a life in service to God and in accordance with His will. So, when they were ordered to fight in defence against those who had launched a reign of terror and oppression against them, they were told by God that this was not simply to defend themselves, but, rather, to defend God’s faith on earth. This is why these wars were termed as jihad fi sabil Allah and were deemed a source of great reward.

The cold hearth of the Prophet’s house and the fact that sometimes the Prophet went to sleep without food, with a stone tied round his stomach, are testified to in the history books. Even when wealth began coming into Medina , the Prophet’s house remained empty. The Prophet passed away from this world in a state of poverty. His daughter Fatima once approached him and spoke of how her hands had become knotted due to constant use of the grinding stone and how her body was weak. She spoke about how her husband, Ali, was suffering from asthma. She asked the Prophet for financial help. His reply to her was that there were still orphans left in Medina , who had to be helped. So, instead of giving her money, he told her to recite Subhan Allah, Alhamdullillah and Allahu Akbar thirty-three times each every day, adding that this was greater than all the wealth of the world put together.

As I mentioned earlier, the sort of fighting that is regarded as legitimate in Islam has been described in the Quran as ‘struggle in the path of God’. To repeat a point I made earlier, such fighting cannot be for the communal or worldly interests or defence of Muslims or for advancing their power and glory. Rather, for a war fought by Muslims to be regarded as a jihad it must be fought, not for communal defence or the defence of Muslims’ lives and properties, but, rather to gain God’s acceptance, protect His faith, guide humanity, promote its welfare and save it from oppression and strife. This is why the Prophet explicitly announced that those who fight for their communal interests are not mujahids.

According to a narration by Hazrat Abu Musa al-Ashari, as recorded in the Sahih of al-Bukhari, once a man appeared before the Prophet and asked him to explain what fighting in the name of God was. The Prophet replied that that fighting carried out for the sake of God alone could be said to be a struggle in God’s path.

The aims of jihad that I have outlined above relate to defence in the face of extreme oppression. All legal systems in the world, as well as common sense, regard this as a reasonable justification for taking up arms. But for such a struggle to be called a jihad it is a must that the vast majority of those who participate in it should be so trained, and their hearts should be so purified by following in the path of the prophets of God, that they should not be motivated in any way by the desire to capture political power for their own community or to enslave another community. Nor should they be driven by lust for booty or for communal supremacy or by the feeling of revenge. Rather, their motive must be to win the pleasure of God, uphold His faith, communicate His guidance to humankind, and help the oppressed.

Unfortunately, in today’s age Muslims have forgotten the real aims of jihad. Their general condition does not at all indicate that in God’s eyes Muslims have anything to do with the goals of jihad that I have mentioned and elaborated upon above. Our condition is now a major cause for our own degradation, and for oppression and misfortune for the rest of humanity. Today, there is no community that genuinely follows truth and champions justice and that has made service of God its mission, for which it is willing to sacrifice its life and worldly luxuries.

The Relation Between Jihad and Faith-based Character

The Quran further specifies that those oppressed people who are given permission to fight back must be so committed to God and the welfare of humanity that if the world were given to them to rule, they would do so in a manner completely different from ordinary rulers. They would use their power and resources for promoting the good and establishing worship of God. Their system of governance would be based on belief in God and on a just distribution of wealth. They would spend on the poor, and make the promotion of virtue and the stopping of vice their guiding principle.

The chapter of the Quran that for the first time gives permission to the companions of the Prophet to engage in physical jihad also mentions:

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight) because they are wronged― and verily, Allah is Most powerful for their aid (39) (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right― (for no cause) except that they say "Our Lord is Allah." [ …] (They are) those who, if We establish them in the land, establish regular prayer and give regular charity, enjoin the right and forbid wrong: with Allah rests the end (and decision) of (all) affairs. (Quran 22: 39-41)

Besides purity of the aims of fighting, proper intention, and strict obedience to Islamic rules and shariah limits in the conduct of war, this verse of the Quran also indicates that those Muslims who take to the path of jihad must be so pure in their service of and commitment to God and so morally upright that, if as a result of their struggle they gain control of any territory, they would use their powers not to satisfy their lusts and base, worldly desires, but, instead, to spread goodness and the service of God and to rid the world of wickedness. Their power would be pressed into the service of God and the reform and welfare of humankind. As the Quran clearly says:


Allah hath purchased of the Believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the Garden (of Paradise ): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in Truth, through the Law, the Gospel and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme. (111) Those that turn (to Allah) in repentance: that serve Him and praise Him; that wander in devotion to the Cause of Allah;― that bow down and prostrate themselves in prayer; that enjoin good and forbid evil; and observe the limits set by Allah; (these do rejoice). So proclaim the glad tidings to the Believers. (Quran 111-112)


Undoubtedly, jihad undertaken by such a group would be a blessing for humanity, and that is why God rewards such a struggle with great merit. To qualify as a legitimate jihad, it must be a struggle for noble aims and engaged in by a group of pure souls, to protect humanity from oppression, as a step to be taken when all other means have failed.


Offensive Jihad?

I have explained the logic and rationale of jihad undertaken in defence and for ending oppression, but the question now arises if offensive jihad is also permissible. Can jihad be declared against a non-Muslim government that does not in any way oppress Muslims? Can such a government be told either to accept Islam or else hand over power to Muslims?

This is a very crucial question. It is necessary to study it in the light of the basic teachings of the shariah. Some Islamic scholars believe that jihad is permissible in self-defence and for ending fitna and oppression, as well as against forces of falsehood that are a hurdle to the spreading of the message and the accomplishment of the mission of the prophets. According to these scholars, after the demise of the Prophet, many of his companions spread out of Arabia into other lands and fought wars for this purpose.

With regard to this issue, it should be kept in mind that in those days all states were identified with one religion or the other. Every state was strictly identified with a particular religion, and so it was simply inconceivable that any non-Muslim government would allow Muslims to invite its subjects to God’s path. This is why the issue was never even discussed then of how Muslims should relate to a non-Muslim state that explicitly allowed Islam to be practiced in its territory or that permitted its subjects to accept Islam and follow it.

In the view of some scholars, in such a situation Muslims must adopt the path of peacefully inviting others to the faith, making use of it to the utmost extent possible so much as to that all the adequate proofs (hujjat) of God be made known. After this, God will decide, in accordance with His practice, which He invariably does after all His proofs have been clearly established, and which can take any form. My own limited understanding leads me to believe that this opinion is in closer accordance with reason, the spirit of the shariah, and the aims and wisdom of God’s revelation. This position can be backed by Hadith reports that insist on the need for peaceful propagation of Islam before fighting can at all be envisaged. And, it must be remembered, today it is no longer forbidden for Muslims to communicate their faith to non-Muslim rulers or non-Muslims in general.

Several Muslims opine that a non-Muslim government would necessarily spread faithlessness, and so God-fearing believers must provide it with just two options: to accept Islam or else to hand over power to them. These Muslims argue that the wars that took place in the early period of Islam against states outside the Arabian peninsula were fought on the basis of this principle.

Many of those who hold this view ignore some of the basic and essential conditions of jihad, and so their warped interpretation of jihad becomes unacceptable to non-Muslims as well as many faithful and pious Muslims themselves. I believe that a careful study of the Quran and the Prophet’s practice can supply an adequate answer to this issue.

It must be kept in mind that Islam’s teachings about jihad have not been revealed for any community named as ‘Muslims’. The basic cause of misunderstanding about jihad stems from conceiving of Muslims as a community, like any other, whose main purpose in life is to lead a life of luxury and grandeur. Unfortunately, like others, many of us, too, define the Muslim ummah in this narrow, communal sense, so much so that it is even reflected in the writings of many Islamic scholars. In contrast, as the Quran conceives it, the Muslim ummah is a group of people who are motivated by success in the life after death, by the desire to serve God and humankind, and by a concern to guide others to God’s path, being ready to exert themselves to the utmost for this purpose.

When this ummah came into being under the leadership of the Prophet Muhammad, it was founded with the following declaration:

Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah [Quran 3:110]

The Muslim ummah referred to here was that group that came into being, not on the basis of colour or race or region or land, but, rather for the purpose of promoting the welfare of the whole of humankind and service of God. This ummah was described as ‘the best ummah’ (khair-e ummat) not just because it had the Quran in its hands, but also because, as the above-quoted verse indicates, their character was noble and they led the life of those who had truly submitted to God, as expressed in their words and deeds. It was through this nobility of character and purity of faith that they were able to communicate to others the necessary proofs of God. In other words, this ummah of Muslims, who had truly submitted fully to God, rose to the position of a group charged with the mission of establishing God’s proofs before humankind and upholding the truth. This is indicated in the following Quranic verse:

Thus have We made of you an ummah justly balanced That ye might be witnesses over the nations and the Messenger a witness over yourselves (Quran 2:142)

In other words, the status of the ummah of Muslims, understood here as a group that has sincerely and wholly submitted to God, is that of being witness to the truth and herald of welfare and beneficence. By bearing such witness with regard to God’s path they leave no room for differences or doubts. The Quran explains that this witness of theirs is like the witness established before the Muslims with the advent of the Prophet such that he cleared all their doubts.

Elsewhere, the Quran repeats the same point:

It is He Who has named you Muslims, both before and in this (Revelation); that the Messenger may be a witness for you, and ye be witnesses for mankind! (Quran 22:78)


It is the fulfilling of this mission of bearing witness that is the real aim of true jihad. This is why the companions of the Prophet addressed the Iranians, saying that they had been sent by God in order to deliver humanity from servitude to other beings and guide them to serve God instead.

The crux of this argument is that this ummah of Muslims that had been formed as the deputy of the Prophet to guide and reform humankind and work for its welfare was willing to make every sacrifice for this purpose. If such a group were told that, if they had the capacity, they should demand from the governments of the world to accept their invitation and thereby be allowed to remain in power, or else, if they opposed them, they should forcibly remove them from power so that God’s creatures could be served in accordance with God’s will, would there by anything wrong with this?

The trouble, however, arises from the fact that the Muslims of today are not the same as that pure ummah of true believers of the time of the Prophet. Hence, it is wrong for Muslims today, despite not living up to the high standards of faith and piety of the early Muslims, to interpret jihad in such a way as to demand that if a non-Muslim state does not accept Islam they should declare war against it and replace it with a government of their own. No one can at all doubt that the Muslims of today do not at all measure up to the standard of being witnesses unto humankind, unlike the companions of the Prophet. On the other hand, their condition is so pathetic as to make other people develop negative feelings for Islam. They are almost wholly bereft of faith in God. In contrast to Islamic teachings, they give greater stress to this world than the world to come after death. In fact, the vast majority of those who call themselves Muslims today lead lives that represent revolt against God and open disobedience of Him. In fact, as far as efforts to establish justice and serve humanity are concerned, which are the basic aims of jihad, many non-Muslim communities are far better than them. It cannot be denied that in causing this sorry decline from what should have been their status the biggest culprits have been Muslims themselves. Like other people, we have become slaves of the glitter and glamour of this world. Our general state is not that of a community driven by service to God and the desire for success in the Hereafter. In fact, in terms of morals, we are much worse off than many other communities.

In such a situation, who can at all accept the claim that if the reigns of power be taken away from others and given to the Muslims, the latter would put an end to oppression and conflict, and replace them with genuine human welfare? In fact, if others think that all our talk about disinterested service of humanity and sincere obedience to God is nothing but verbal falsehood, we must accept that our collective hypocritical character alone is responsible for this. Glance at the communal character of Muslims today, at their countries and societies, and think if anyone will at all believe that Muslims actually want to fight other communities in order to end strife on earth and replace it with welfare!

In such a situation, this sort of interpretation of jihad and Islam clearly reflects a very superficial understanding of Islam, a very dangerous violation of the limits set by the shariah. Lamentably, in the recent past several Muslim thinkers and leaders of Muslim movements widely propagated this wrong interpretation of jihad.


Those who have studied the Quran and the Prophet’s practice well know that whenever Muslims betray their role of being witnesses to the truth, stray from the path of Islam and earn God’s anger, they can never get the sort of power or honor needed to launch any offensive struggle. Today, the Muslims are unable to defend even their own freedoms, let alone being able to win God’s pleasure. In other words, according to the shariah, in this period, when the present-day Muslims have strayed away from God, a period characterized by much tumult and destruction, they are not qualified to engage in this sort of offensive jihad. The Quran very clearly and explicitly explains this.


(This is a translation of excerpts from Yahya Nomani's Urdu book, al-Jihad [Lucknow: Al-Mahad al-Ali Lil Darasat al-Islamiya, 2009)
Read More...

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Special Needs Children Have Someone Who Cares

This is very touching, AlhamduLILLAH. Make du'a for the instructors and the children, InshaALLAH. Read More...

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

This is Wild!

Look at this paper art. Read More...

Monday, June 8, 2009

Book Review: On Pakistani Madrasas


Name of the Book: Islam and Education—Conflict and Conformity in Pakistan’s Madrassahs



Author: Saleem H. Ali



Publisher: Oxford University Press, Karachi



Year: 2009



Pages: 214



Price: Rs.495 (Pakistani)



ISBN: 978-0-19-547672-9



Reviewed by: Yoginder Sikand





Much has been written about the role of madrasas, or Islamic schools, in fomenting sectarian violence and terrorism in Pakistan. Today, large parts of Pakistan are faced with the alarming rise of armed vigilante groups, often led and manned by madrasa-trained maulvis, some of which are presently involved in warring against their own government. The link that numerous commentators have made between madrasas and violence in Pakistan is what this book is all about. Based on investigations and comparisons drawn from two selected areas in Pakistan, Ahmedpur East, in the southern Punjab, and Islamabad, the country’s capital, the author seeks to explore if and how madrasas are involved in promoting terrorism, which today threatens to drown Pakistan in the throes of a bloody and seemingly never-ending civil war.



Ahmedpur East is a largely rural area, where landholdings are extremely skewed. Much of the land in the area is owned by ‘high’ caste Shia landlords, while the bulk of the peasantry are from the rival Sunni sect. As in much of rural Pakistan, state services are sorely lacking in the area. The public education system is in a shambles, and in many places landlords do not even allow government schools to function for fear that education will make their peasants restive. This particular context, Ali argues, has provided fertile ground for a rapid rise in the number of madrasas in the area, most of which provide free boarding, lodging and education and so attract students mainly from poor and lower-middle class families. In other words, the pathetic failure of the Pakistani state to provide decent education to the country’s poor is one of the most salient reasons for the mushrooming of madrasas all over the country, including in Ahmedpur East, in recent years.





As elsewhere in the Muslim world, the madrasas of Ahmedpur East are not simply Islamic institutions pure and simple. Rather, each of them represents a particular sectarian brand or version of Islam. One of the many tasks of a madrasa is precisely to articulate and champion the version of Islam that the sect it is affiliated to adheres to, in the face of competing versions. In seeking to do this, madrasas routinely denounce other sectarian versions of Islam as ‘un-Islamic’ and even ‘anti-Islamic’. Sectarianism, therefore, Ali indicates, is endemic, indeed central, to the madrasa system as it presently exists. Not surprisingly, the sectarian hatred actively taught by many madrasas often gets translated into sectarian violence in Pakistan. Ali notes the involvement of various madrasas, belonging to different Muslim sects, particularly the Deobandis, the Barelvis and Shias, in instigating sectarian conflict in Ahmedpur East, which sometimes takes overtly physical forms. Sectarian rivalries in the region are compounded by complex class factors. Since most of the large landlords belong to the Shia minority, Sunni-Shia conflict, instigated by radical Sunni groups that are led by madrasa graduates and leaders, can also be seen as an expression of severe class antagonisms.



It is, however, not simply poverty that has led to the mushrooming of madrasas in Pakistan, Ali notes. Nor is it true that material deprivation necessarily leads to radicalism and violence. Ali compares the madrasas of Ahmedpur East to those in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, a city with modern amenities and services, and finds that there, too, sectarianism is endemic to the madrasas in terms of their self-representation. He also notes that the growth of madrasas in Islamabad has actually been facilitated by the state, rather than fuelled by local demand. Almost all the city’s madrasas have been built on state-owned land, many of them illegally, and the vast majority of their students are not from the city, but, rather, from impoverished parts of the North-West Frontier Province, who live, Ali writes, like aliens in the city. Ali mentions various measures taken by successive Pakistani rulers, starting with the military dictator General Zia ul-Haq, to curry favour with the ulema or clerics of the madrasas, which must be taken into account in seeking to understand the enormous growth in the number of madrasas all over Pakistan, including in Islamabad, where, he says, demand for madrasa education now far outstrips supply. In Islamabad, as in Ahmedpur East, Ali notes, numerous cases have been reported of madrasa teachers and students being actively involved in violent political demonstrations, sectarian clashes, bombings and providing refuge to suspected terrorists.



It is not Ali’s case that madrasas are necessarily, and by definition, hubs of terror. Indeed, he argues, relatively few madrasas in Pakistan are actually involved in violent activities or in providing armed training to their students. Yet, he says, this should not cause us to overlook the fact that stern opposition to, or even hatred of, rival Muslim sects and other religions and their adherents is actively instilled in most madrasas, along with a pervasive sense of supremacy of the particular sectarian version of Islam that each madrasa is associated with. This is further reinforced by so-called jihadist literature, websites and mosque sermons that many Pakistani madrasa students are exposed to. It is thus not surprising, Ali tells us, that the majority of the students and teachers in the madrasas that he surveyed favoured violent revolution as an instrument for political change in Pakistan, supported war as a means for resolving Pakistan’s disputes with India, considered women as inferior to men, had extremely negative views about other religions and their adherents, and, in the case of Deobandi madrasas, favoured the Taliban as their role model for what they called the ‘Islamization’ of Pakistan.



This leads Ali to argue that, ‘It is high time that we become more aware of the perils of extremist educational institutions, which have a far broader base in Pakistan than we care to admit. The only way to address the problem is by […] ensuring curricular development in partnership with the reformist ulema’ (176). In this regard, he advocates the inclusion of ‘peace education’ in the madrasa curriculum and the promotion of inter-sectarian and inter-religious dialogue, in which the ulema should be actively involved. That, however, is easier said than done. Ali offers no practical suggestions as to precisely how this should be attempted and how the ulema of the madrasas can be convinced to get involved in these benign activities.



Ali makes a brief survey of the various measures that the Pakistani Government claims to have adopted, particularly after 9/11 and under American pressure, to ‘reform’ the country’s madrasas. He concludes that these measures have been half-hearted and not seriously pursued, and that, consequently, they have miserably failed. That very few madrasas have chosen to register themselves with the government authorities is a sign of the considerable resistance on the part of those who control the madrasas to what they see as unwarranted American and Pakistani Government interference in the realm of Islamic education. Likewise, the few ‘model’ madrasas that the Pakistani Government recently set up, combining secular and religious education, have also had few takers. Matters have been made worse by bureaucratic wrangling and gross mismanagement in the Government-appointed Madrasa Board, which was meant to oversee the process of madrasa ‘reforms’. Ali writes that the Board’s very rationale has been seriously undermined with the Government’s announcement that curricular reform is not part of its mandate. Ironically, Ali adds, Lt. Gen. (retd.) Javed Ashraf Qazi, the person appointed as the head of the Board, whose task is to de-radicalise the militant madrasas, is the former head of Pakistan’s notorious secret services agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), who had himself supervised the recruitment of students from Pakistani madrasas for the radical Taliban in Afghanistan. So much, then, for the Pakistani Government’s ostensible commitment to madrasa ‘reform’ and to clamping down on terrorism in the name of Islam.



Ali wisely remarks that it is not simply religious bigotry that has led to a mounting sense of anti-Americanism and radicalism among large numbers of madrasa students and teachers (besides many other Muslims). Rather, a host of unresolved regional conflicts involving Muslim groups, particularly Palestine, but including other trouble-spots, such as Kashmir, southern Thailand, Chechenya, Iraq and Afghanistan, continue to cause deep resentment among many Muslims. He rightly remarks that solving these conflicts is inextricably linked to countering radicalism in Pakistan’s madrasas.



At the same time, and very lamentably, Ali displays a pathetic optimism in American Government efforts to ‘reform’ the madrasas. He cites, with uncritical approval, the instance of American state funding of Islamic educational institutions in countries such as Indonesia and Uganda, holding these out as examples of positive collaboration for the production and dissemination of ‘moderate’ Islam. Given the fact that Ali’s study was funded by the United States Institute of Peace, known for its close links with the American establishment, it is perhaps not surprising that Ali should laud such cosmetic efforts while ignoring both the politics of this funding and the earlier American funding and support for Islamist radicalism in Pakistan and elsewhere against the erstwhile Soviet Union. Likewise, his argument that American intentions must not be suspected or questioned, even in the face of the record of American support to dictatorial regimes in the Muslim world and elsewhere and the nefarious role of the CIA, is quite unforgivable. So, too, is his claim that ‘The United States has probably learned from its past mistakes and is willing to change’ (142).



As a basic introductory text to some aspects of madrasa education in contemporary Pakistan, this book makes interesting reading, although it fails to provide any new information or arguments. The author claims to have done intensive fieldwork, but the perspective from the field is almost wholly absent—all we have are long tables with cold statistics. The book lacks a central focus and many of its various sections seem hopelessly disjointed. These many lacunae may, however, be forgiven when considered in the light of the pathetic state of social science research in Pakistan.




Read More...