Monday, December 08, 2008

Islamism in the Maghreb: Taming Islamists by Integrating Them into the Political System

    Monday, December 08, 2008   No comments
by Isabelle Werenfels
After the electoral victory of the Islamist Hamas party in Palestine, the Western media has been quick to draw parallels to the 1991 massive electoral success of the Islamist Front Islamique du Salut (FIS) in Algeria. Such comparisons are problematic, not least because the success of Hamas can only be understood in the context of the Israeli occupation. Reference to the Algerian case is nonetheless useful for quite very different reasons.

Algeria can serve as a model case highlighting the fatal developments that can result from the flawed strategy of suppressing an Islamic mass movement. In Algeria, the election victory of the Islamists was followed by the suspension of elections by the army and the banning of the FIS. This resulted in a civil war in which some 150,000 people lost their lives.

Meanwhile, the Algerian leadership has learned the lessons of its past mistakes and, since 1997, has pursued a parallel policy of combating Islamic extremists while selectively including Islamic parties in the political process, as long as they adhere to the rules set down by the regime.

Very different strategies

A glance at Tunisia and Morocco, Algeria's neighbors, shows how differently the ruling elites in the three Maghreb states have reacted to the Islamist challenge, which has been growing in strength since the 1980s. In 1997, King Hassan II of Morocco opted for a selective integration of the Islamists, not least in response to the escalating violence in Algeria at the time. The rationale behind this move was to force a split in the Islamist movement and to "domesticate" the legalized forms of Islamism.

To achieve legal status, the Islamist parties had to recognize the dual constitutional role of the monarch as both religious leader and policy maker. Currently, two such parties are registered – the Parti de la Justice et du Développement (PJD), the third largest party in parliament since 2002, and the Al-Badil Al-Hadari (Cultural Alternative), legal since 2005. The strict Islamic Al-Adl Wal-Ihsan movement (Justice and Charity) remains forbidden, primarily because it rejects the monarchy in its existing form. The group's activities, however, are generally tolerated.
During the course of Algeria's civil war, the country's political decision-makers, consisting exclusively of the military before the election of Bouteflika as president in 1999, managed to come to an arrangement with Islamist parties similar to that found in Morocco. In an attempt to split the Islamist spectrum, politically marginalize the FIS, and boost their own tarnished legitimacy, authorities have permitted three Islamist parties to take part in elections since 1997 – the An-Nahda party, the Mouvement de la Réforme Nationale (MRN), currently the third largest party in parliament, and the Mouvement de la Société pour la Paix (MSP).

This last party even joined the 1997 governing coalition and held 5 of 41 cabinet posts. In 1991, An-Nahda and the MSP had unsuccessfully competed against the FIS. As a rule, those individuals and groups capable of mobilizing the masses are shut out of politics. This applies especially to former key members of the FIS, even those who today have explicitly committed themselves to the democratic process.

Tunisia's lapse into authoritarianism

Under President Ben Ali, Tunisia has, to a certain extent, chosen the opposite route. Following a short period of partially integrating Islamists in the late 1980s, Ben Ali has adhered to a zero-tolerance strategy since 1990. This was triggered by the strong performance of independent candidates coming from the milieu of the non-recognized Islamist Nahda party in the 1989 parliamentary elections. The subsequent wave of repression has lasted to this day. No Islamist parties are permitted in Tunisia. Islamists are neither allowed to engage in politics nor assemble for charitable activities.

If the different state strategies in dealing with Islamists were only judged in terms of limiting the movement's strength, then the Tunisian policy of repression would have to be ranked as the most successful. Islamists in Tunisia have completely disappeared from public view. Presumably, it is also difficult for them to reorganize underground.

By contrast, Islamists in Morocco continue to gain ground. In 2007, the PJD may emerge as the big winner from parliamentary elections. The Algerian Islamists still remain split and, therefore, politically weaker than they were a few years ago. Even in a free and fair election, none of the existing Islamist parties would win. Yet, if they combined forces, they would fare quite well.

The reverse side of success

A far more complex picture emerges if the various integration and suppression strategies are judged using more sophisticated benchmarks, and if other factors, such as the reform potential of the respective political system and how well the policies have effected the objectives of individual Islamists, are taking into account.

Then the reverse side of the Tunisian success story can be observed. Over the course of its struggle against Islamists throughout the past 15 years, Tunisia has transformed itself from a potential democracy into an authoritarian Arab state. Tunisians have experienced a general decline in political freedom and civil rights that has gone hand in hand with the suppression of the Islamists. Even secular opposition groups hardly have the opportunity to organize, are regularly arrested, and are the victims of smear campaigns in the state media.

The conclusion to be drawn from the Tunisian experience is that the exclusion of Islamists prevents democratization, since such policies inescapably encourage authoritarian structures and block political competition. The Algerian experience in the early 1990s clearly shows how such exclusion policies together with an explosive socio-economic situation can lead to violent confrontation.

Pragmatic policies

Conversely, the integration of Islamists in Algeria and Morocco has yielded positive effects in two respects. First of all, the objectives of the Islamist parties have changed. Of course, religious teachings remain the basis of all their pronouncements. Yet, in practice, the legal Islamist parties increasingly behave like other parties. In everyday political life, their actions are determined by the criteria of power politics and they are increasingly prepared to step back from socio-political policies based on religious values when it comes to matters of national interest or even their own status.

The Moroccan and Algerian parliaments have become more representative through the participation of the Islamists. The Islamist parties have a greater self-interest in the democratic process than other parties, because they stand to gain the most from free and fair elections.

In Algeria, the MRN has participated in electoral law reform, with the aim of achieving greater transparency. Certain Islamists may still be secretly promoting the "one man, one vote, one time" option. Yet there is a growing awareness among Islamist parliamentarians that they must come to agreement with significant dissenting groups rather than try and subjugate them. This is becoming increasingly apparent in talks with Islamist parliamentarians.

Moral conceptions and Moroccan 'realpolitik'

Paradoxically, the political reform agenda of the Islamists greatly coincides with that of external actors, such as the EU, the USA, and Bretton Woods Institutions, who insist on good government leadership, the rule of law, the fight against corruption, transparency, and accountability. In the area of social policy, however, Islamists tend to put on the brakes.

In Morocco, the PJD only agreed to the new, progressive family law in 2003, because after the terrorist attacks in Casablanca, any other decision would have been sheer political suicide. It must be said, though, that the moral conceptions of PJD are far closer to those of the morally conservative Moroccan society than those of the country's Western-oriented elite.

To what extent, if at all, Islamists are a key to reform is not relevant to the issue of whether they should be integrated into the political process. The fact is that they represent a considerable portion of the population. In the long term, the political costs of their exclusion – a blocking of reform and the resulting potential for conflict, especially in times of economic crises – could be extremely high.

This article is an abridged version of a text that was previously published in the Swiss daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

Translated from the German by John Bergeron

Isabelle Werenfels is a researcher at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) in Berlin.

Mohammad Shabestari on Faith, Freedom, and Reason

    Monday, December 08, 2008   No comments
by Roman Seide

Can there be such a thing as Islamic human rights? Do the commandments set forth in the Koran have eternal validity, or can they be modified according to the demands of reason? Iranian clergyman Mohammad Shabestari has devoted his life to exploring these issues in modern religious and political Islamic thinking. By Roman Seidel

Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari, born in 1936, moved to the city of Qom, the center of Shiite learning in Iran, in early years in order to embark on a religious career.

Studies at the theological seminaries consisted back then, as they still do today, primarily of the subjects of Islamic law, Islamic theology, mysticism, and philosophy, usually with a focus on jurisprudence.

Shabestari was among those young students who found a one-sided concentration on the dry legal compendia inadequate, and who more eagerly devoted their attention to the subjects of philosophy and mysticism, which have been marginalized by most Islamic legal scholars.

Two teachers in particular were prominent in these fields at that time and exercised a powerful attraction for students: the philosopher and author of a highly acclaimed Koran commentary, Allameh Tabataba'I, and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the later revolutionary leader and "father" of the Islamic Republic.

From advocate of the Islamic Revolution to dissident

What impressed Shabestari and many other students about Khomeini, besides his philosophical and mystical teachings, was his political thinking. For Khomeini, Islamic ethics was not limited only to private personal relationships, but should also be reflected in the state and its form of government, a view that Khomeini began to combine with increasingly open criticism of the Shah’s regime starting in the 60s.

In the spirit of the political Shia in 60s and 70s Iran, Shabestari also felt closely associated with the thinking of religious intellectuals such as Jalal Al-e Ahmad and Ali Shariati, as well as the politically motivated cleric Morteza Motahhari.

In 1970 Shabestari became director of the Shiite Islamic Center in the Imam Ali Mosque in Hamburg, where he was later succeeded by current Iranian President Mohammad Khatami.

During the period he spent in Hamburg, Shabestari strongly supported the Christian-Islamic dialogue and extended the mosque’s scope of influence by opening it up to all Muslims. He also learned German and was able to pursue his interest, already evident in Qom, in Western philosophy and Christian, especially Protestant, theology.

He studied the writings of theologians such as Paul Tillich, Karl Barth, and Karl Rahner, as well as the thinking of philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, Wilhelm Dilthey, and Hans-Georg Gadamer.

As a follower of Khomeini and a defender of the Islamic Revolution, Shabestari returned to Iran in 1979 and the following year was elected as representative of the province of Azerbaijan in the first parliament of the Islamic Republic.

However, he soon retired from politics and began to take a more skeptical view of the ideology of the Islamic Republic and its governmental practices.

His thinking underwent a transformation, from confidence in 'Islam as solution' to a more emancipatory and ideologically critical understanding of religion. This change of direction was virtually paradigmatic for a whole group of leading religious intellectuals and reformist thinkers of the time, all of whom had formerly been staunch supporters of Khomeini and proponents of the Islamic Republic.

Toward a more critical approach to religion

Shabestari has been a professor of Islamic philosophy at the University of Tehran since 1985, where he also teaches comparative religion and theology. He regularly organizes international conferences on the theme of Christian-Muslim dialogue.

Since the early 90s, he has been increasingly active in publishing articles in liberal daily papers and magazines in which he argues for a new, more critical approach to religion. With this journalistic work, as well as through a series of public lectures at universities and other public forums, he has played an active part in the religious and political discourse and has become one of the foremost religious intellectuals in contemporary Iran.

Iran's reformist thinkers and dissidents

The critical intellectual spectrum in Iran today is anything but homogeneous. At one end of the spectrum are secular human rights activists who, in their call for a state based on the rule of law, reject any recourse to religion out of principle, and invoke international law as the exclusive model for government.

Then there are activists who likewise plead for a comprehensive reform of the legal system in line with international standards, but do so from an Islamic standpoint.

These two groups, whose members frequently fight side by side, work on a small scale, for example as lawyers in court cases, for the freedom and rights of the individual. Secularist attorney Mehrangiz Kar and Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi are glowing examples of this reformist current.

A somewhat different role is played by those religious intellectuals, political activists, and politicians who support the system of the Islamic Republic in their different ways – whether for pragmatic reasons or because of true conviction – but who advocate reforms to its constitution.

Prominent exponents of this groups are, for example, the journalist Akbar Ganji, Mohsen Kadivar, and not least President Mohammad Khatami himself.

Next to Abdol Karim Sorusch, Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari is one of the most prominent members of a group of Iranian religious intellectuals who seldom make concrete reference to day-to-day politics or plead for actual constitutional reforms.

Shabestari keeps his distance in particular from the discussions surrounding a new understanding of the state doctrine of the 'rule of the (highest) jurist' ("velayat-e faqih"), and he is careful not to criticize the representatives of the current religious political establishment.

It is perhaps thanks to this cautious attitude that he has not yet come into serious conflict with the Iranian legal system, which frequently tries to hush up critical voices by imposing long terms of imprisonment.

Nevertheless, a large portion of Shabestari’s writings can be understood in the political sense and in the context of the religious political discourse in Iran today. This is demonstrated not least of all in his arguments for the unconditional acknowledgement of universal human rights and democracy, without his trying to ascribe these to or to derive them from Islam, or even to try to limit them by it.

Historicizing and contemporary readings of the Koran

In Shabestari’s view, human rights and democracy are products of human reason that have developed during the course of time and continue to evolve. As such, they are not already prescribed in the Koran and Sunna.

Indeed, the Koran remains mute with regard to our modern understanding of human rights, and yet these do not in any way contradict the divine truth contained in the Koran. Drawing on modern hermeneutics, Shabestari dismisses any claim that man could ever come into direct possession of God’s absolute truth.

Making such a claim would be tantamount to the reification of God, thus constituting a violation of the principle of tauhid, the unity and transcendence of God. Our knowledge of God and his commandments is always mere human knowledge and as such is mutable and never absolute.

Assumptions and expectations or questions posed by the interpreter of the revelatory text are, however, not a shortcoming that clouds our right understanding of its message, but are rather the necessary requirements for any kind of understanding of the revelation.

Only through the questions posed by the interpreter and his attitude can the Koran be made to speak to us. However, it is necessary that the interpreter be as conscious as possible of the assumptions he brings to his reading.

A legal scholar, for example, who wishes to frame a legal opinion, must have good knowledge of the object of this expert opinion. This presumes that the scholar is able to draw on the pool of knowledge of his own times, taking into consideration the findings of the modern sciences. Mere recourse to traditional legal compendia is not sufficient.

It is likewise not enough to search the Koran and Sunna for precepts and legally relevant passages and then to take them out of their context for use as answers to contemporary questions. Because, as Shabestari explains, most of these commandments were answers to social questions pertinent in the days of Mohammad, the prophet of Islam, and cannot simply be applied one-to-one to our present-day situation.

Shabestari thus advocates a historicization of revelation. The revelation contained in the Koran is an historical phenomenon, which took place in a specific place and time and under specific social conditions.

All of the verses of the Koran and all of the wisdom passed down by the prophet necessarily refer to the times of the prophet and are in their literal sense applicable without limitation only to those times.

Justice as eternal commandment

Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between two aspects of the revelation: on the one hand, the core of the divine message, and on the other hand, the social conditions that gave this message its specific form.

One must then abstract from this form in order to arrive at the actual aims and values on which the prophetic message is based. The form of the message – i.e. the law-like texts in the Koran and in the prophetic tradition – merely served the purpose of realizing the actual goals.

Shabestari does not deliver any binding catalogue of values and goals. He frequently refers to the concepts of freedom and responsibility. As what is perhaps the central value, Shabestari cites the principle of justice – one that is exemplary for Islamic thinking – a respect for which was imposed on mankind by God as an eternal precept.

However, no concrete rulership theory can be derived from the Koran. It is instead up to human reason to continually reinterpret the concept of just rulership, like justice itself.

The obvious question here is whether all that remains as the eternal and immutable object of revelation under these considerations is not a mere thin skeleton of abstract concepts. Is there not remarkably little left of this Koran that represents for all Muslims the eternal word of God?

In the tradition of Islamic mysticism

Shabestari counters this objection with a strong thesis. Namely, for Shabestari the revelatory text as such is not to be understood per se as the eternal word of God. It only constitutes the word of God insofar as it evokes a religious experience in the recipient. Consequently, this word exists in the present time only within the recipient. And it is this religious experience that Shabestari regards as the core of faith.

Faith is, according to Shabestari, neither a conviction nor a knowledge of something. Religious convictions, opinions, theories, etc. can be an expression of faith, but they are not themselves faith. Faith is instead complete submission to the existence of God, assurance in God, and thus an inner encounter between man and God. With this concept of faith, Shabestari draws on the tradition of Islamic mysticism, especially that of Ibn Arabi, as well as on the existentialist theology of Protestant theologian Paul Tillich.

What Shabestari is after here is to rehabilitate faith as the core of religion in place of a more legalistic understanding. Faith as religious experience should become the core pillar of a "New Theology" and replace or at least supplement the overemphasis of law on the one hand and metaphysical statements about God on the other.

Freedom as condition for true faith

Alongside the spiritual dimension, Shabestari also emphasizes a further aspect of faith. He sees faith as resting on free will, which is among the key traits characterizing humanity.

At the same time, however, man is an imperfect being, neither all-powerful, nor all-knowing, nor even immortal. Faith is the search for salvation from one’s own imperfection in the perfection of God.

Faith is a conscious decision for stability in God that is based on the inner freedom of man. This does not connote a one-time decision that is valid for all time, but instead one that, in face of the constantly changing conditions of life, must be renewed again and again.

The faithful must continually reflect upon what is a part of faith and what is not. This means that they must distinguish between behavior based on a freely made inner decision, which is hence the result of a spiritual or religious experience, and conduct that is ultimately a purely superficial imitation of religious acts and truisms.

In order to achieve such awareness, one must seriously and openly come to terms with contemporary criticisms of religious thinking – whether coming from Muslim or non-Muslim quarters. Shabestari thus combines highly self-critical and emancipatory aspirations with the concept of faith.

General human rights in the Islamic sense

The inner freedom of man must correspond with an outer freedom, because the inner decision for God cannot be forced upon people from the outside. All religious dogmas that prescribe what people should or should not believe in are thus not guideposts to true faith, but rather barriers that hinder the free development of faith.

As soon as a group that exercises extensive political and social influence claims to have a monopoly on the faculty for distinguishing what is right and wrong in the religious sense, and thus propounds an official reading of the religion, that religion becomes instrumentalized and robbed of its core, which is faith.

It is before this background that we can best understand Shabestari’s argumentation for the recognition of general and universal (and not specifically Islamic) human rights on the part of Muslims, and his plea for a democratic political system.

Human rights and democracy are in keeping with Islam, not because they have been dictated by the Koran or the prophetic tradition or legitimized by the Sharia, but because they are a sensible and contemporary interpretation of just rule.

Their realization enables us to create the basic political and social conditions under which a free and therefore true faith can be fostered rather than hindered. Democracy and human rights thus serve Islam much better than any "Islamic," yet authoritarian, system.

Roman Seidel studied Islam, Iran, and philosophy in Mainz, Bochum, Tehran, and Berlin. He holds a post-doctoral position at the Institute for Islamic Studies of the Free University of Berlin and acts as coordinator of the interdisciplinary center "Bausteine zu einer Gesellschaftsgeschichte des Vorderen Orients" (Social and Cultural History of the Middle East).

Monday, August 11, 2008

Joking About Killing Iranians with Bombs and Cigarettes

    Monday, August 11, 2008   No comments
What Qualifies "Them" for the Death Sentence?


Discussing the rising U.S. exports of cigarettes to Iran recently, Senator McCain joked, "Maybe that's a way of killing them." We have seen the unfortunate impact that Iran has on the Senator’s sense of humor before (the famous “Bomb, bomb, bomb” song). But this essay is not about Mr. McCain or the election. It is about the circumstances that make it possible for him to voice the death wish: “our” deep ambivalence toward “them,” the Iranians.

The Americans who travel to Iran, an average of 300 a year, find the country full of surprises. Before they arrive in Tehran, they know a thing or two about the country. They know that a religiously oriented government is in place and the constitution extends its tentacle deep into personal lives. They know that many young Iranians long for living in a more western society. Not an unrealistic assessment. But there is a lot they don’t know. Iran has a constellation of highly developed urban centers. Literacy is pretty high (over 90% among 15 to 25 year olds). Universities are filled with women students. The infant mortality and population growth rates are under control. And the country is at the forefront of stem cell research. If these are not enough, there is a bigger shocker: Iranians like Americans.

Why is it then that, here in the U.S., Senator McCain can safely issue Iranians a collective, supposedly humorous, death sentence? After all, if he did that to the Poles, or the Senegalese, he’d be jeopardizing his political career.

Interestingly enough, the legitimacy of Mr. McCain’s comment is rooted in a handful of stories. In the past year or so, as we have gone about our daily lives, these stories have floated in the background developing – gradually but surely – into “facts.” In truth, they are neither facts nor fabrications. They are a selective arrangement of truth with important parts missing. And they all have one message: Iran is dangerous.

Take the story of the “clandestine” nuclear program which Iran is said to have kept secret for twenty years. It refers to the nuclear facilities at Natanz outside the historic city of Isfahan. The building of this center was not announced until about three months before nuclear materials were introduced into it. The missing detail here is that the None Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which Iran is a signatory, allows its members to do exactly that: announce a facility three months before it becomes operational.

Then there is the story of the Iranian “sabotage” of our success in Iraq and Afghanistan. Few Americans know that Hamed Karzai and Nouri al-Maliki both consider Iran a valued ally of their respective government. Few know that Iran is building a dental college in Kabul and supplying Baghdad with electricity. Even fewer know that the lethal roadside bombs killing the American troops are made in Iraqi factories not in Iran:

Occasionally, there is news that could debunk one of these stories completely. In May, L.A. Times reported an unprecedented confession by the US military: the weapons they had recently found in Iraq did not include a single item made in Iran. The news should have grabbed the attention of all major papers. If it did, their reporting did not show it.

But all is not lost. Like Iran, America has its surprises. While presidential hopefuls find it easy, even funny, to construct scenarios of mass killing, many ordinary Americans dedicate their lives to understanding situations of crisis and preventing wars.

On Tuesday, July 8, Andrew Wimmer, and fourteen other members of the Center for Theology and Social Analysis in the Forest Park Southeast neighborhood of St. Louis, visited the office of William Lacy Clay, Jr. of Missouri's 1st District and spoke with him via teleconference. The purpose of the visit was to discuss with him the House Concurrent Resolution 362 "expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony.”

Four days later, in these very columns Andrew wrote: “House Concurrent Resolution 362 and its companion, Senate Resolution 580, pave the way for open war with Iran. It is that simple, and we must be equally clear and bold in our opposition.”

When Representative Clay observed: "Look, I'm sure that we all agree that we need to send a clear message to Iran that they cannot continue building nuclear weapons and killing our soldiers in Iraq. "No," responded the group: "that is precisely what we do not agree on because neither of those claims has been substantiated and repeating them only propagandizes for war." In Andrew’s words, the group speaking to the Senator “included young and old, veterans and veteran activists, teachers and students.”

On Wednesday, July 9, William Lacy Clay became the first member of the House to withdraw his sponsorship of Resolution 362. It appears that Iranians are not naïve in their liking the Americans. They realize that for each Senator McCain, there are many Andrew Wimmers – and one would hope – Lacy Clays.

Fatemeh Keshavarz is Chair of the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages and Literature at Washington University and the author of Jasmine and Stars: Reading more than Lolita in Tehran.

Wednesday, August 06, 2008


    Wednesday, August 06, 2008   No comments

After verifying that a Google search yielded no results, I decided to take the liberty myself and inject the term Islamobamaphobia into the language and discourse of the 2008 United States presidential campaign.

Before proposing a definition though, it is first important to understand its origin and derivation from the more familiar word, ‘Islamophobia’.

Islamophobia was actually coined well before Sept. 11, 2001, and is simply defined as the fear of, or aversion to, Islam and/or Muslims. A formal analysis of it was undertaken in 1996 by the Runnymede Trust, a United Kingdom think tank promoting multiculturalism and diversity. Authored by the Commission of British Muslims and Islamophobia on their behalf, Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All was published in 1997 (1).

The report laid out eight features characteristic of Islamophobia. Included among them is the perception that Muslims are the “separate and other – not having any aims or values in common with other cultures” and, exhibiting a “hostility towards Islam used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.”

So what then is Islamobamaphobia?

It is the fear that Barack Obama is, or might be, sympathetic to the issues and concerns of Muslims. Importantly, it also describes Obama’s subsequent (and misguided) attempts to dispel that notion.

Initially of course, the fear was that Obama himself was Muslim. The idea was promulgated by the Hillary Clinton campaign in a variety of ways. He was portrayed as the “separate and other” articulated by Runnymede. The confusing juxtaposition of this anxiety with overt Islamophobia managed to find its way onto the July 21st cover of The New Yorker (2).

Although a small but not insignificant portion of the U.S. population still harbors suspicions he is Muslim, it is now far outweighed by the terror that Obama may be inclined to deal with Muslims, or the Muslim world, in a fair and even-handed manner.

Obama has done his utmost to shatter any such illusions quickly, whether it was in his speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in promising all of Jerusalem to Israel as its undivided capital, or by his vote on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill giving retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies complicit with the Bush administration’s policy of warrantless wiretapping.

Indeed, evidence of the veracity of Islamobamaphobia’s corollary—that Obama himself has become a perpetrator of Islamophobia in order to distance himself from suspicions that he may treat Muslims equitably—is overwhelming.

“Fight the Smears”

In the “Fight the Smears” section of his website, Obama disparagingly refers to the belief that he is Muslim as a “smear” rather than a mischaracterization, implicitly demonizing those who do adhere to the faith. Despite objections voiced about such terminology, the word ‘smear’ has not been removed.

Not in my picture

At a June campaign rally in Detroit, two women wearing the hijab, or Islamic headscarf, were barred from sitting behind Obama’s podium and therefore appearing in full view of the cameras covering the event (3). The campaign denied there was a specific policy prohibiting Muslims from being seen with Obama. This is belied by the fact, however, that two different campaign volunteers—in two separate incidents—prevented each of the women from being seated in the backdrop of a major and televised event.

“The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters,” said one of the women.

Again, according to Runnymede report, one of the hallmarks of Islamophobia is “…discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.”

Obama did call to extend his apologies to them, but only after he was confronted by an irate Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the first American Muslim congressman, in a closed door session of the Congressional Black Caucus (4).

Thanks, but no thanks Rep. Ellison

Ellison himself had already been rebuffed by Obama when he offered to speak on his behalf at a mosque in Cedar Rapids, Iowa (5). According to Ellison, an Obama aide showed up at his Washington office to explain that the reason they did not want him was because they had “…a very tightly wrapped message.” He was also forced to cancel stops for the senator in “conservative” North Carolina.

Despite many engagements held with both Christian and Jewish groups in churches and synagogues, Obama has yet to hold a single public event in a mosque or speak to Muslims in any venue for that matter. The strategy of ignoring the American Muslim community could very well backfire in the swing states of Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, all of which have significant Arab and Muslim constituencies and are keys to winning the November election. Realizing this, it appears that he has just appointed a “national coordinator” for Muslim and Arab-American affairs.

No green ties allowed

In a bizarre story reported by Politico, Obama apparently banned anyone from wearing green clothing during his recent trip to Jordan, Israel and Ramallah, fearing it may be associated with Hamas (6).

The story quotes Mohamad Bazzi, professor of journalism at New York University and former Middle East bureau chief for Newsday as saying “I guess green is the ‘Hamas color’— but it's also the color of Islam! That's one way for the Obama campaign to alienate 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide.”

Richard Bulliet, professor of Middle Eastern history at Columbia University, described the order as being “…overcautious to a ridiculous degree.”

Such extreme, misplaced and irrational behavior on the part of Obama goes well beyond acknowledging the proverbial political climate of the day. It is manifest discrimination which negates the “hope” and “change” he purports to bring to the White House should he become president.

When it comes to Islamophobia—or now more aptly named Islamobamaphobia—Barack Obama has been both its victim, and ever increasingly, its villain.

Rannie Amiri is an independent commentator on the Arab and Islamic worlds. He may be reached at: rbamiri (at)


1. "Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All" (summary). Runnymede Trust, 1997.

2. <>

3. “Muslims barred from picture at Obama event.” Ben Smith for, 16 June 2008.

4. “Muslim Lawmaker Confronted Obama Behind Closed Doors on Head Scarf Gaffe.” The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room, 23 June 2008.

5. “Muslim Voters Detect a Snub from Obama.” The New York Times, 24 June 2008.

6. “Obama ban: What not to wear where?” Carrie Budoff Brown and Ben Smith for, 21 July 2008.

A 21st-century warning from a 13th-century poet

    Wednesday, August 06, 2008   No comments
By Fatemeh Keshavarz

Sa'di of Shiraz, a 13th-century Iranian poet, was a man for all seasons. Distinct among his peers for a rare poetic talent and a sharp humor, he was a traveler, teacher and master ghazal writer all in one. But, above all, he loved to tease and to question. In a most serious love poem, he warned the beloved: "I was ruined by your love. I will not go to others to get well." And lest the beloved get all the credit for uniqueness, he added: "Broken gold vessels cannot be repaired with glue."

In real life, Sa'di offered his own glue for fixing broken lives and social relations: a set of compassionate and pragmatic ethical teachings published in his two celebrated books, "The Orchard" and "The Rose Garden." Despite hailing from 13th-century Iran, what Sa'di has to offer is relevant to our lives in 21st-century America.

Reading "The Orchard" last week, I found what I took to be allusions to "enhanced" interrogation techniques — the politically correct term for "torture" — and to House Resolution 362: "Children of Adam are limbs in a single body," Sa'di concluded an anecdote. "If one is hurt, none will be able to rest."

Let me elaborate:

Physicians for Human Rights, the Massachusetts-based group that shared the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts to ban landmines, recently published an important report. Prepared by physicians and other health care professionals, it evaluates accounts of torture inflicted by the United States during interrogations of prisoners at U.S. detention facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In an introduction to the report, retired U.S. Army Gen. Antonio Taguba describes the report as "the largely untold human story of what happened to detainees in our custody when the Commander-in-Chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture." He goes on to say "This story is not only written in words: It is scrawled for the rest of these individual's lives on their bodies and minds."

The report is fraught with gory details pointing to physical violence, psychological abuse and sexual humiliation. However, as you read further, if you can stomach the details, something unexpected happens: You start to feel sympathy not only for those subjected to these "enhanced" interrogation techniques but also for those who applied them. This is not because it is easy to overlook the responsibility of the torturers. It is because you know deep down that no one can injure someone else to this degree without injuring himself or herself in the process.

You don't have to struggle to understand why you get this feeling; Sa'di already has done so: If one limb is injured, the whole body suffers.

The so-called enhanced interrogation techniques may leave minimal evidence on the tortured body, but nothing can protect the torturer from the knowledge of what he or she has done. The universal human connection to which Sa'di refers is written into our being.

Almost at the same time that the physicians group's report was released, U.S. Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., co-sponsored House Resolution 362, which calls for intensifying sanctions on Iran and imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or leaving that country. Some analysts have said that this could require a U.S. naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the strategically crucial sea passage between the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. Such a blockade could be viewed, analysts contended, as an act of war.

Are we talking, then, about more wars, more prisons and more "enhanced" interrogation techniques? How many more of our limbs can we damage before our whole body is plunged into a state of shock?

Even Sa'di refrained from pushing the metaphor that far. Perhaps he hoped we would be wiser.

Fatemeh Keshavarz chairs the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages and Literature at Washington University. She is the author, most recently, of "Jasmine and Stars: Reading More Than Lolita in Tehran" and is working on a monograph on Sa'di of Shiraz, a medieval Persian poet.

Thursday, June 26, 2008


    Thursday, June 26, 2008   No comments


The word Islam as a verbal form is derived from the infinitive Arabic trilateral root of silm, salamet (peace and security). So if its nature has been peace and salvation, how can we interpret jihad verses? The subject of this article focuses on this point. In the article I discuss the subject and the impact of this apparent paradox on the direction of Islam according to Qur’anic verses. The interpretation of Jihad that I will explore best fits the religion which is nature peace and salvation.

by Hayati AYDIN [1]

The word Islam as a noun, is a system of beliefs revealed by Allah to Muhammad. But as a verbal form Islam is derived from the infinitive of transitive four category verbs
namely if’al, Islam is “ef’ale-yüf’ilu’s infinitive form. The root of this too comes (derives) from the infinitive Arabic trilateral root of silm, salamet (peace and security). For this reason Islam is not only as R. Bell, H. A. R. Gibb, A. J. Wensinck and some Encyclopaedias are saying i.e. that the meaning of Islam is submitting,[2] resignation[3] (oneself or one’s person to God or the will of God) , surrender to the will of Allah (God),[4] but is also the transitive meaning (tadiyet), becoming (sayrurat), becoming of anything over an adjective and preterit ion (ta’riz),

For this reason Islam is not only submission, the believer’s submissions to Allah, but also to have peace, safety, and to give peace to others. It is therefore, not only a benefit to the individual, but also to the society including that individual.

According to Mustafa Sadık Ar-Rafiî’ Arabic especially the Qur’anic words have very rich meanings and derivatives, as the words in their primary use were created by Allah. For this reason, the word of Islam, like these meanings, comes from its divine character. [5]

As already stated the word of Islam is very multi dimensional. But I want to focus on its ‘becoming’ (sayrurat) meaning. It is this dimension which has both individual and social direction.

With this dimension to say “aslama” means sare zâ silmin / to find confidence and to reach safety” [6]

From this etymology we understand,

1. To be Muslim is to find confidence and to reach safety, to find calmness. Therefore, Islam gives confidence and security to the souls. For instance, Prophet Muhammad (p.u.h.) wrote a letter to Heraklius it included the following crucial statement:

“ Feinnî ad’uke bidiayeti’l-Islam. Aslim taslim / I invite you to be Muslim. Be Muslim find peace of mind,” [7]

As seen in this letter: “Being a Muslim means finding peace of mind. So it is implying that if a man is Muslim he captures higher states of existence which give tranquillity and serenity, calmness. Being Muslim is reaching a new fulfilling world of the soul. Because religious terms convey many symbols, the term salam conveys a lot of functional meaning from the angle of safety, security and salvation. Because salam is evidence of being safe, secure and greeting in Islam it is salam that comes from the same origin as safety, security (silm)

For example the other form of this term (salam) is to be far from physical and spiritual disasters.[8] The complement of this and its internal, spiritual dimension iman comes from e-m-n origin. E-m-n is the soul’s confidence and disappearance of fear.[9] For this reason Muhammad Iqbal says: “Iman is not merely a passive belief in one or more propositions of a certain kind; it is living assurance begotten of a rare experience.” [10]

So Isutsu impacts on this meaning, namely the meaning of becoming (sayrurat) and in particular that Islam is to have a new life:

“God Himself has chosen this as the name of the new Arabian religion. But it is also due to the fact that Islam, as an inner personal religious experience of each individual person means the occurrence of an important event that marks the initial point from which real obedience and humbleness begin. It marks a decisive turning point in the life of man. A turning point the religious sense of which cuts his whole length of life into two halves (A, B) that will hence forward stand diametrically opposed to each other. Grammatically speaking, the verb aslama belongs to a particular group of verbs called inchoative’. In other words, instead of denoting permanent nature, it signifies something new that comes into being for the first time; it marks the beginning of a new situation, the birth of new nature. Only in the participial form Muslim does it signify a more or less permanent attribute. But even then the implication is that it is an attribute which has ensued from the decisive step taken”.[11]

Because Islam gives a very good spiritual condition to the soul, its rituals have an immense effect. Since the biggest dhikr is prayer (salat), the prayer transmits man’s soul from this body to a spiritual realm. Owing to this peculiarity of the prayer Prophet Muhammad (p.u.h.) was saying to Bilal[12] on the time of azan“ (O Bilal ) stand up make quit us by azan” [13] As told Muhammad Iqbal the timing of the daily prayer restores self-possession to the ego by bringing it into closer touch with the ultimate source of life and freedom, is intended to save the ego from the mechanising effect.[14]

It is this dimension of prayer that provides calmness, the tesbihat starts by telling the first rosary after prayer “Allahümma ante salamu ve minkessalam / My Allah you are provider of soundness and calmness, the soundness and calmness is from you”. Essentially this tesbihat is a transmission to the name of Allah “es-Salam / who gives soundness, calmness which is at the verse of Haşr, 59/22. [15]

This dimension has a close relationship with the social dimension too. Because if the individuals of an association are restless, then the social structure of this association will be in jolt, crisis and chaos. Naturally the basic elements of the social tranquillity and serenity, calmness structure are individuals, so if the individuals are restless they will infect the association.

2. As for the base of social association, being Muslim, entering to the safety implies silm (peace) namely being in social reconciliation. When Muhammad Hamdi Yazır explains expression of Islam, he describes Islam as “a mutual entering into safety”. [16] Nevertheless Islamic expression is a template relating to if’al vazin (measure) and this bab (category) of transmitting peace to others does not imply partnership and surrender. It is implying that Muhammad Hamdi Yazır considers that the meaning of expression requires a second party to be in receipt of the peace in order to move from a purely individual state to a societal state. From this it is implies meanings of both partnership and surrender. The best example of this dimensional meaning can be found in the following saying of the prophet: Some people asked Allah’s Apostle (p.u.h.) “ Who’ s Islam is the best? i.e. (Who is a very good Muslim)? He replied: Al Muslimu men salime’l-Muslimune min lisanihi ve yedihi / The Muslim is who from those one has to “fear neither the hand nor the tongue”[17] A man asked the prophet (p.u.h.) “What sort of deeds or (what qualities of) Islam are good?”. The Prophet (p.u.h.) replied, Tut'imu’t-teame ve takrau’s-salame alâ men arafte ve men lem ta’rif” / To feed (the poor) and greet those whom you know and those whom you do not know” [18] with which the Prophet emphasized that the best of the Muslims are those who reinforce the social peace and harmony as a prerequisite of Islam.

In an other Hadith it is told,“ Lâ tadhulune’l-Cennete hatta tü’minu vela tü’minu hatta tahâbbu. Evelâ adüllüküm alâ şeyin izâ fealtümuhû tehababtüm. Efşüsselâme / spread salam. As long as you don’t believe (in God) you will never go the heaven. You can not be a believer until you like each other. Don’t I show to you a thing when you do it, that you like each other spread salam amongst you.” [19]

In the context this has been said in the Qur’an:

“ O Believers, enter into silm whole –heartedly; And do not follow in the footsteps of Satan your acknowledged foe” ( Al-Baqarah, 2 / 208)

From the verse, it is implying that the religion of Islam aims to finally bring a universal peace to humanity; all mankind united in it. A community in which everybody respects the rights of other, each one likes the other as a brother. Because Muslim play an important role in this universal peace and it is stipulated that the believers must strive for global reconciliation. Because from the “silm” expression in the verse it is understood that Islam is reconciliation. [20] As from this origin entitling Islam as Islam is indeed because of containing surrender. According to Fahrettin Al-Razî silm is generally used for reconciliation, discontinuing warfare. Using it for this meaning means that in reconciliation, each of two sides submits to the other one.[21] In that case it is more exact to understand that this Qur’anic expression implies both Islam and reconciliation together. Namely this common, global silm can only be achieved with Islam. In the same way Muhammad Hamdi Yazır understands the verse in this way and says: It is implied from the verse that Allah wants all believers to enter to a common, global reconciliation with the Islamic religion. This verse partly wishes to express that. You believers will establish such a perfect social setup, such a perfect reconciliation and peaceful vicinity by submitting to Allah’s prescriptions and nothing results from insurrection, separation, aggression to Allah’s right and his servants right among you; everyone exists in reconciliation and peace. Everyone should be busy with their task in security and love and in an entire presence, win their world and the other future life. Thwart disturbances and defeatisms that vitiate this. [22]

In the hadith (mentioned above) a Muslim described in such a way:

Al Muslimu men salime’l-Muslimune min lisanihi ve yedihi / The Muslim is who from those one has to “fear neither the hand nor the tongue”[23]

In the Hadith hand represents bodily, tongue represents spiritual action. So Muslim by body and soul provide security and safety in society. The word Islam contains the meaning silm and salamet, which shows Islam’s function on security and safety in individual and social direction. So it has been understood that those believing in Islam aim at creating a man whose soul and society are at peace and Islam’s perfect heart is the heart of man.

Of course with Islamic creed, belief in the Oneness of God leads to the unity and brotherhood of mankind and, this destroys all of the barriers that are among humans. For example tavhid means to see the God as one. The individuals of society unite in the One (Allah) and this delivers unification of souls.

Interpreter Said Nursî says, faith makes every believer as brothers under a father’s wings; unbelieving is a cold thing that removes brothers from brotherhood.[24] In my opinion, in this context, one of the great functions of Islam is to constitute a powerful conscience and soul that accept the society as a family of the individuals in society. This conscience and soul have lead them into great devotion and heroism. But this phenomenon had only been seen in the period of Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman lives in real terms. Islam is bringing into being this conscience and soul by faith and worship.

Islam aims at bringing the community within the context of a unified community (vahdet community). The philosophers of Hermeneutics dictates that for the best understanding of Islam if you want to understand an achievement you must go to the time of the achievement. So the best understanding of Islam’s contribution to peace we must go to the time of Muhammad.

In Eastern cultures, enmities continue across generations. At the time of Muhammad (p.u.h.) there were two tribes: Avs and Hazrec. Avs and Hazrec’s enmity was inherent along generations as confirmed by Jung’s collective unconscious theory[25] (that above-mentioned verse uses a style to confirm this). This enmity brought about a phenomenon that has been incorporated into the chromosomes of the two tribe people. This collective unconscious was operating in a small way and consequently, there was much bloodshed. In addition, the tribe’s pride and the culture of ignorance (the culture of jahiliyah) was igniting it. In spite of this, Islam made them brothers to each other. This was an amazing revolution.

The power of Islam to proliferate peace, at the time of Muhammad (p.u.h) manifests itself in the following verse and shows how it has the ability to unify enemies and allow them to live in peace.

“Whose hearts He cemented with love. You could never have united their heart even if you had spend whatever (wealth) is in the earth; but God united them with love, for He is all-mighty and all wise” ( Al- Anfâl, 8 / 63)

So, the Islamic faith caused a big revolution in their souls, softened their hearts and united them. This verse mentioned above explains the eternal enmity that had been between Avs and Hazrec was stopped by Islam, and the mercy wrought by Islam that was intensified in the community.

The word Islam comes (derives) from (silm and salamet) word peace, so the Religion of Islam means living in peace. For this reason Islam would not permit terrorism. This direction of Islam had been emphasized by Muslims of The European Conference (Istanbul, 1- 2 / July 2006) by these words: “Terrorism in all its forms is an affront to our humanity. Under no circumstances does Islam permit terrorism and the killing of civilians. Terrorism is indirect contravention to the principles of Islam.”[26] I agree with them. However some people, by referring to the wars waged in Islamic history, attempt to equate Islam with violence and terrorism. Looking at the life of Muhammad (p.u.h.) it will be evident that Prophet Muhammad waged wars for defensive purpose. The following verse substantiates this claim that Islam is a religion of peace and salvation.

“ That is why We decreed for children of Israel (for their book being the first divine book) [27] that whosoever kills a human being except (as punishment) for murder or for spreading corruption in the land, it shall be like killing all humanity; and whosoever saves a life, saves the entire human race. Our apostles brought clear proofs to them; but even after that most of them committed excesses in the land” (Al-Mâ’idah, 5 / 32)

Islamic scholars bring that interpretation to this verse: The right of life is fixed for all spirits. Killing one of the spirits is an aggression to the life right that everyone has in common. Killing a person unjustly is a crime against humanity. Killing of one person is as killing of all humanity.[28]

This emphasizes the sanctity of human life: It is essential for preservation of human life that everyone should regard the life of others as sacred and help to protect it. The one who takes the life of another without right, does not commit injustice to that one alone, but also proves that he has no feeling for the sanctity of human life and mercy for others. Hence he is most surely the enemy of the whole human race, for if every individual suffered from the same kind of hard-heartedness, the whole human race would come to an end. On the contrary, if one helps to preserve a single human life, he is indeed a helper of all mankind for he possesses those qualities upon which depends the survival of whole human race.[29]

Taking a life effects all of humanity whereas, saving one man’s life is like saving all of humanity.

According to Islamic scholars the aim of the simile in the two rulings of this verse is to emphasize the sanctity of human being life; to tell the wrongdoing of killing human beings; to tell that there is a public advantage of preserving life in a clear and effectual mode; to discourage humans from murdering and to encourage keeping the spirit alive.[30] When a person who kills zealously thinks that it is wrongdoing as great as killing all of the people, he gives up murdering and when he thinks that keeping a person alive has an advantage as great as keeping alive all of the people then (by wavering his retaliation right) his wishes and tenacity to forgive murder and reclaiming the people who are in risk, increases. [31]

So if in its nature, have been peace and salvation like this religion how we can interpret jihad verses?


Jihad is the most misunderstood Islamic concept. Some other religion’s adherents and unbelieving people constantly take up this subject with a view to discrediting Islam and always take it to mean war and fighting. Therefore, we Muslim academic people have to explain jihad, its causes, purposes and related topics in the context of Qur’anic verses. This is our duty.

The Arabic word Jihad is a very comprehensive term. It includes every kind of effort, exertion, conflict and war. The root of jihad is drives from j-h-d which means striving one’s utmost or exerting one’s utmost power, efforts, endeavours, toil or hard work and ability in contending with an object of disapprobation. [32]Because of this word's root carries this meaning, ijtihad which comes from the same root is the man's spending his power to get a work from the works that requires difficulty and hardness. At-Tahanavî says for the reason that this word is especially being used for the hardness Arabians say 'Ijtahada fi Hamli Al-Hacar '. Otherwise they don't use this word for the easy works as 'Ijtahada fi Hamli Al-Hardala'.[33] From the origin have been told Jahade e’ş-Şahsu: Jadde, kane yajhadu lien yukmile dirasatehu fi vaktin mubakkirin. S’aa hatta wasala ila al-gaye./ The man struggled (Jadde, kane yajhadu) to finish his lesson in early time and finally he reached to his aim. [34] So, jihad refer to the maximum struggle and sacrifice of a Muslim, physically, orally, mentally and materially, in the cause of Islam; strive for Allah, as the combat for Him demands. [35]

So jihad not only means combat against enemies but also has other meanings. For this reason jihad in Hadith sources has used these meanings: “ the (true) believer and he who struggles against his nature” (Tirmizî, Fadâilü'l-Jihad, 2), “The most deserving fight is (to speak) just words before an iniquitous sovereign” (Ebu Davud, Malâhim, 17; Tirmizî, Fiten, 13;), “ Person’s combat against his self / personality in serving his parent is jihad” (Bukhârî, Jihad, 138; Müslim, Birr, 5); “The best jihad is accepted as pilgrimage to Macca” (Bukhârî, Jihad, 1) “ Mumin (Believer) combat by his sword and tongue” (Ahmed b. Hanbel, Musnad, III. 124).

Although from the use of the word jihad people understand it’s the meaning to be war against enemies generally but this is not the reality. This misunderstanding is a consequence of wars carried out due to a very broad interpretation of the meaning of jihad which is in fact only a very small element. Other more peaceful interpretations are generally ignored.

The word of jihad has been used nowhere in the Quran to mean war in the sense of launching an offensive. It is used rather to mean ‘struggle’. For fighting and war another word called ‘qital’ is used. Qital is to engage in war at the time of aggression on the part of the enemies. This qital or war is purely in self-defence in order to counter aggression. Since fighting in self-defence in accordance with God’s commandment also involves a struggle this came to be called jihad as well.[36]

In reality the doctrine of jihad mobilizes and motivates Muslim people to protectiveness in all areas. This mobilization and motivation is strongly fed by the Quran. If a man acts in a way according to Qur’anic verses and gets God’s consent he will go to paradise. Jihad manifests it’s true character in the Quran when it represents a move from aimlessness to an aim for the sake of Allah. The characteristic term used in the Quran is “Jihad fi sebiliallah” i.e. “strive in the way of Allah” this shows the aim of jihad has to be for the sake of Allah in war as well.

This is an order which will remain in force till the Last Day. There is nothing in the Noble Qur’an from the first page to the last which does not accord with this judgement. It is necessary at this point to state clearly that the fighting referred to in the Noble Qur’an is conditional on its being for the sake of Allah and not for any other reason. Fighting for the sake of personal glory or private benefit or aggressive nationalism has no Qur’anic mandate whatsoever.

The fighting which has dominated the world in recent times, fighting for national or tribal domination or to gain the wealth of weaker nations by colonising their lands, is certainly not fighting for the sake of Allah. This kind of fighting has been incumbent on the righteous since the beginning of time.[37]

There are certain verses in the Qur’an conveying the command to do battle (qital) Al- Hajj, 22 / 39. The first point in this connection is that the launching of an offensive by the believers is not totally forbidden. It is permissible with certain conditions. The Quran states: (Al-Baqarah, 2 / 190). This clearly shows that only defensive war is permitted in Islam. The believers are allowed to fight in self defence. Initiating hostility is not permitted for Muslims. The Qur’an says: “They were the first to attack you” At-Taubah, 9 / 13)

In particular there are two verses in the Qur’an which are normally quoted by those most eager to criticise Qur’anic teaching on war: Al-Baqarah, 2 / 191[38] and verse At-Taubah, 9 / 5; the name of this verse is Sword Verse. This verse has been made the basis of attack upon Islam. [39]

But according to some Islamic scholars the sword verse is At-Taubah 9 / 36.[40] Whereas, some other scholars say that both or other verses are sword verses. [41]

The former verse of Al-Baqarah, 2 / 191 is this verse:

‘Fight in the way of God those who fight against you, but do not transgress. God does not love the transgressor’ (Al-Baqarah, 2 / 190)

According to my view every verse that includes qital (war) has a historical context and has a revealed cause (sebeb-i nuzul) and this is primarily related to its first event and, manifests a character that belongs to this event.

For good understanding of these verses we must look the historical background of these verses. These two verse were revealed in Madina especially At-Taubah, 9 / 5 revealed in the latter period in Madina. The contents of the surah are related to events arising from the Treaty of Hudaybiyah….The ancient Jahiliyah of Arabia resorted to desperate acts of belligerency. On the occasion of the Battle of Hunayn other tribes loyal to jahiliyah mustered their military forces together in a bid to prevent the spread of Islam’s reformative revolution which, after the capture of Macca, had almost reached its zenith.[42]

The enemies of Islam, both the idolaters and People of the Book, refused to allow the Message to be spread peacefully and came to blows with Islam in a fight which was bound to end in their defeat. They refused to acknowledge the truth and refrain from aggression, behaving like a fox who pretends to be dead in order to gain time and resume its treachery and killing. Individuals and groups formed coalitions hampering and attacking the Muslims.[43]

The Muslims always did and will continue to keep the peace with those who keep the peace with them and make war on those who make war on them as we understand from Al-Baqarah, 2 / 190 verse. For example during the twenty-two years before the revelation of Sura at -Taubah, Arab paganism was dealt with in the wisest and most merciful manner. In Mekka, Islam was an outlawed religion without any possibility of self-defence. After the Hijra to Madina, the Muslims engaged in about thirty battles and expeditions against their enemies in the course of all of which only about two hundred unbelievers were killed.[44]

In reality the first given permission about qital is in the Qur’anic Al-Hajj 22/ 39- 40 verses.[45] When Muslims were persecuted by all and threatened by the Quraysh of Mecca who were now waging war against them, God gave permission to fight back in these words: [46] “Permission is given to those who fight because they have been wronged-God is Most Powerful for their aid-those who have been unjustly expelled from their homes only because they say: Our Lord is God” (Al-Hajj, 22 / 39- 40) is considered the first revelation allowing the Muslims to engage in fighting

This was the first passage of the Qur’an which allowed Muhammad and his companions to defend themselves against their enemies by force, and was revealed a little before the emigration to Madina.

Prophet Muhammad (p.u.h.) had not been given permission to fight (qital) or allowed to shed blood before this verse. He (p.u.h.) had simply been ordered to call men to God and to endure insult and forgive the ignorant.[47] Until that time Prophet Muhammad (p.u.h.) had exhorted his Muslims to suffer the injuries offered them with patience which is also commanded in above seventy different places of the Qur’an. [48] Commentators say that Allah related the cause of this permission to be exposure to persecution. Because until this verse companions of Muhammad had been coming to Him (p.u.h.) wounded. He (p.u.h.) had always advised them to be patient and He (p.u.h.) said “I haven’t been ordered to make war”.[49] This, was the first verse which allowed Muslims to make war after some 70 verses had been revealed (sent down) that rejected going war. [50]

A.Guillaume, explains this period like this: The Apostle (Hz. Muhammad (p.u.h.) had not been given permission to fight or allowed to shed blood before the second ‘Aqaba. He had simply been ordered to call men to God and to endure insult and forgive the ignorant. The Quraysh had persecuted his followers, seducing some from their religion, and exiling others from their country.

When Quraysh became insolent towards God and rejected His gracious purpose, accused His prophet of lying, and ill treated and exiled those who served Him and proclaimed His unity, believed in His prophet, and held fast to His religion, He gave permission to His apostle to fight and to protect himself against those who wronged them and treated them badly (Al-Hajj, 22 / 40-42).[51]

There were only three instances of Muslims really entering the field of battle-Badr, Uhud and Hunayn. The events tell us that on all these occasions, war had become inevitable. The prophet (p.u.h.) was compelled to encounter the aggressors in self-defence. The Qur’an in no circumstances gives permission for violence. [52] All the battles that took place during the Prophet’s lifetime, under the guidance of Qur’an and prophet, have been surveyed and shown to have been waged only in self-defence or to pre-empt an imminent attack. For more than ten years in Mecca, Muslims were persecuted, but before permission was given to fight they were instructed to restrain themselves (An-Nisâ, 4 / 77) and endure with patience and fortitude: (Al-Baqarah, 2 / 109; Al-Ankabut, 29 / 59; An-Nahl, 16 / 42) After the Muslims were forced out of their homes and their town, and those who remained behind were subjected to even more abuse, God gave His permission to fight ( Al-Hajj, 22 / 39- 41).[53]

Clearly, this commandment to fight back was given to the Muslims only for self-preservation and self defence. It should be noted that the Quran, in treating the theme of war, as with many other themes, regularly gives the reasons and justifications for any action it demands. The Quran says “Permission is given to those who fight because they have been wronged”. Permission had been given to them for Muslims were under oppression and cruelty. We understand from this that for Muslims to participate in war there must be valid justifications, and strict conditions must be fulfilled. So because of events like these sometimes war may become necessary for Muslims to stop evils attack against them. Under these circumstances, fighting becomes obligatory on all Muslims in order to protect not only their ideology and beliefs but their homes, lives, property and everything else. Thus whenever a Muslim state is attacked by any other state or states, it becomes the religious duty of every Muslim of that state to join in fighting (qital) against the invaders. [54]

Like this in some conditions war become necessary. For example we understand from (Al-Baqarah, 2 / 217) fighting being necessary in defence of sacred things and faith. If Moslem people are faced with people who are determined to make Moslem people abandon what they have and enter into their religion they have no choice but to fight and will be held accountable for it if they do not.

Thus we understand from the Quran fighting becomes an obligation for self-defence (Al-Baqarah, 2 / 190; Al-Hajj, 22 / 39- 40), defending religious freedom (Al-Hajj, 22: 39- 41), and defending those who are oppressed: men, women and children who cry for help (An-Nisâ, 4 / 75) . It is the duty of the Muslims to help to oppressed, except against a people with whom the Muslims have a treaty (Al-Anfal, 8 / 72) [55]

Thus we can say Qital is one aspect of jihad, but the final stage of it. Qital is the waging of holy war in the defence of one’s life, religion, country, home, property, religious brothers that are under oppression i.e. against any aggressors.

Thus we understand jihad’s use is different from qital in the Quran. Actually the root of jihad is j-h-d, which means striving one’s utmost as stated initially. For instance we say in Arabic bazala juhdahu (I exerted my utmost struggle) jihad or ijtihad thus means, ‘striving one’s utmost in any matter’[56]

For this reason Jihad does not mean fighting and killing for propagating Islam. Faith is a matter of conviction and conscience and no amount of force and coercion can ever bring a man to believe in something of which he is not convinced. Faith cannot, therefore, be thrust upon anyone by force nor is this method recommended by Islam: (Al-Baqarah, 2 / 256).[57] Nowhere in the Quran is changing people’s religion given as a cause for waging war. The Qur’an gives a clear instruction that there is no compulsion in religion (Al-Baqarah, 2 / 256). It states that people will remain different (Hud, 11 / 118), they will always have different religions and ways and this is an unalterable fact (Al-Mâ’idah, 5 / 48) [58]

If we look carefully at the revealed cause of the related verses of the Quran and read them against a background of the Quran as whole, we will see that jihad is an attempt against transgressors who wronged Muslim people and treated them badly.

The reality is that a lot of western authors have a prejudicial approach to Islam and Muslims.[59] They say that the Islamic state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world.[60]

They always look to them superciliously and think their world is superior to our world and our world depends on their world.[61] They always want to dominate, restructure and have authority over the Orient. This is always their style.[62] This perspective between Europe and the Orient resulted in the European expansion which came with imperialism and colonialism[63]

Who is to be Fought

Peters, Rudolph asks: “It is not clear whether the Qur,an allows Muslims to fight the unbelievers only as a defence against aggression or under all circumstances. In support of the first view a number of verses can be quoted justifying fighting as a reaction against aggression or perfidy on the part of the unbelievers “And fight in the way of God with those fight you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors” (Al-Baqarah, 2 / 190) and “But if they break their oaths after their covenant and thrust at your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief” (At-Taubah, 9 / 12). In those verses that seem to order the Muslims to fight the unbelievers unconditionally, the general condition that fighting is only allowed by way of defence could be said to be understood “Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush” (At-Taubah, 9 / 5)” and “ Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled” (At-Taubah, 9 / 29)

Classical Muslim Qur’anic interpretation, however, did not go in this direction. It regarded the Sword Verses: 9 / 5, with the unconditional command to fight the unbelievers, as having abrogated all previous verses concerning the intercourse with non-Muslims.”[64]

According to Islamic scholars the aim of the verse Al-Baqarah, 2 / 190 is Qureys.[65] Zamakhsharî says the aim of the verse is Qurays’s idolaters who fought against Muslims not Qurays’s idolaters who didn’t fight against Muslims. On this point the verse, 2 / 190 is abrogated by Taubah, 9 / 36. According to Rabi b. Anas the verse is the first verse which is about war revealed in Ma’dina.[66] Qurtubî is of the same opinion. According to him Al-Baqarah, 2 / 190 is the first verse that relates to making war. War was prohibited before Hicre (by Al-Mâ’idah, An-Nisâ, 4 / 13; Fussilat, 41 / 34; Al-Muzzammil, 73 / 10, Al-Ghashiya, 88 / 22) Like this verse none of the verses revealed in Macca allowed the instigation of war. When Prophet Muhammad moved to Madina the verse, Al-Baqarah, 2 / 190 was revealed.[67] According to Zamkhsari The Prophet (p.u.h.) was fighting those who fought Him verse (2 / 190) alone until At-Taubah, 9 / 36.[68] But according to Qurtubî this kind behaviour of the prophet’s continued until At-Taubah, 9 / 5 but this verse was abrogated by At-Taubah, 9 / 36 and had contained orders in it to go to war against all idolaters. [69] According to Ibn Al- Arabî, there isn’t any abrogation. According to him the first verse about war is Al-Hajj, 22: 3 and in it had been given permission for war, the second verse is 2 / 190 the permission turned to obligation but in it fighting with those who fought Muslims, the third verse that is 9: 5 ordered in it to fight all of idolaters.[70]

Suyutî did not accept any abrogation on the verses which mentioned the relations with the musrik (idolater) too. He defined this kind of Qur’anic verse in the traditional understanding of the Islamic theology namely Munşaat. It means that when the situation and the condition of necessity came about and whichever Qur’anic verses coincided with the events, they could be applied to its own meaning in the context of time. The systematically method of Qur’anic interpretation evaluates verses under different conditions, however, we use one of the proposition of the Qur’anic hermeneutical method; if the first categorical condition vanishes in any occasion, the second categorical Qur’anic verses could be active in their own meaning in the context of time. For instance; the Quran advised the Muslims how to struggle against idolaters. In weaker position, such verses advised Muslims to be patient against their cruelty but when their power increased, they were instructed to defend themselves or fight aginst their oppressors. [71] So regarding the wisdom of gradually of the verses Fahreddin Al-Razî and Ibn Kasîr say this: The cause of this is related to first time of Islam. During this time Muslims were weak and the conditions of the time required this kind behaviour. But after getting strong Once the strength of Muslims increased the verse Taubah, 9 / 5 ordered in it the fighting all of idolaters.[72]

But Sankitî analyses the reality according to laws of the soul and says the wisdom of the gradually is this: When Allah wants a behaviour which is hard on souls, legalization of it is accorded gradually (tedric), otherwise the reality of the new law being imposed suddenly would be too hard on those obliged to follow it. Jihad is like this. Because jihad is very hard on souls. For jihad includes death and surrendering of property. For the reality about jihad firstly they have been told “Permission is given to those…” (Al-Hajj, 22/ 39). Later, when the souls of obliged people were used to jihad, they have ordered to them “And fight in the way of God with those fight you…” (Al-Baqarah, 2 / 190) This is passing from permission to a private proposal. Lastly, when obliged people were further use to the new condition (namely act according to war which ordered in Al-Baqarah, 2 / 190. God ordered to them to fight against their enemies completely “Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them…” (At-Taubah, 9 / 5)” and “ …Fight the idolaters to the end as they fight you…” (At-Taubah, 9 / 36) etc. The reality of gradually is in all of the requirements of hard behaviours in the Quran. The prohibition of drinking alcohol and fasting is like this[73]

Islamic scholars giving these explanations show At-Taubah, 9 / 5, 36 are the latest verses about war.[74] They are putting into effect the aims to kill Quraysh’s idolaters and their partners. But the verse is not simply an order for killing, but also to take slaves, prisoners and to look after them appropriately.[75] According to the Islamic scholar The People of Book and Zoroastrians are not attacked by Muslims until they have broken their pledge and have caused harm and have to pay special tax (jaziyah)[76] according to At-Taubah, 9 / 29 verse[77] but, women, children, old people, men who want live in peace, monks, men who have made a pledge, and sick people are excluded from fighting in all conditions so long as they have not been in private actions against Muslims

When Abu Bakr (r.a.) sent Usamah’s arm to war said them those: “Oh army, stop and I will order you (to do) ten (things); learn them from me by heart. You shall not engage in treachery; you shall not act unfaithfully; you shall not engage in deception; you shall not indulge in mutilation; you shall kill neither a young child nor an old man nor a woman; you shall not fell palm trees or burn them; you shall not cut down (any) fruit-bearing tree; you shall not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel except for food. You will pass people who occupy themselves in monks’ cells; leave them alone, what they busy themselves in which are varieties of food; if you eat anything from (those dishes), mention the name of God over them. [78]

When Umar sent Ya’la b. Umayyah to Yaman he commanded him to evacuate the people of Nejran, according to the instructions of Prophet in His (p.u.h. last) illness regarding that in His (last) illness. He Said: “Come to them, do not tempt them away from their religion, then remove those among them who keep to their religion. But confirm the Muslims (in their residence). Survey the land of each of them whom you remove, then offer them a choice of countries (to which to emigrate), informing them that we are removing them according to injunction of God and His Messenger, “Two religions ought not to be left in the Arabian peninsula. Therefore let them depart, whoever among them keeps to his religion. Then give them land equivalent to their land, in recognition of their right against ourselves and in fulfilment of (our) guarantee of security to them, according to what God has commanded regarding that, in Exchange between them and their Yemani and other neighbours fort hat which has gone to their neighbours in the countryside”[79]

When Ibn Taymiyah meets Kutlusah, the commander of Mongols, to negotiate regarding the slaves held, he strongly declared “unless the last of the Muslim, Jewish and Christian slaves are released, the war goes on. Jews and Christians are under our protection. We don’t accept any single one of them to remain as a slave.” In response to this determined attitude, not daring risk a new war, Mongul commander Kutlusah released all the prisoners. [80]

So we understand from the interpretations of the classical interpreters that sura Taubah 9/ 5 and 36 abrogated all the 124 verses which encouraged positive attitudes such as forgiveness, refraining from bad, establishing good relations and working towards peace.[81] Examples of the verses which aim at establishing good in this world can be Al- Baqarah, 2 / 190, 217; An-Nisâ,, 4 / 90, 94; Al- A’raf, 8 / 61, Al- Mumtahanah, 60 / 11.[82] It goes without saying that this classical and radical interpretation implies that ninety percent of the verses in the same theme were abrogated. Indeed, with due respect, this cannot be accepted. This is the failure of these great mufessirs in terms of not adopting a holistic and integrated approach despite their immense contribution to hermeneutics of Qur’an. Whereas if we take Ibn Al-Arabî’s opinion (without abrogation) on the subject, which in my opinion is the most logical approach, we can see there is a gradually that infers Islam does not want war. This opinion is the best opinion on the subject according to Qur’anic perspective and its holistic background as a whole, because the Qur’anic universal rule is “ there shall be no coercion in matters of faith” (Al-Baqarah, 2 / 256)

So Taubah, 9 / 5 and 36 th verse’s purpose is Qurays and the idolaters of The Arab Peninsula. They were persecuting Muslims, exhibiting extreme behaviours against them, breaking their pledge and beginning to offer resistance, wanting new Muslim converts to be again like them, idolaters. All of these were showing that they were a great danger for the new religion. For these reasons we understand Taubah, 9 / 5 and 36 th verse’s purpose is Qurays and the idolaters of The Arab Peninsula.

If we think in this way then any unabrogated verses offer an explanation and give meaning in context. This is the best interpretation as it fits the religion which is by nature peace and salvation. Moreover Ibn Al-Arabî says the aim of sword verse (At-Taubah, 9 / 5) is the idolaters who fought with Muslims.[83] Cassas, in same parallel says “Wa anne zalike innama kane hassen fi kavmin minhum kanu ehle gadrin ve khiyanetin” / the verse is a private rather than general verse the aim of which is for the idolaters who had been misleading Muslims.[84] Because they were instigating this behaviour and oppressing Muslims. They were wanting Muslims to convert, be like them idolaters.[85] For this reason Prophet Muhammad (p.u.h.) said: “In Arab Peninsula don’t join together two religions”[86] The verse of Al-Baqarah, 2 / 193 impacted on the reality. In the verse Taubah, 9 / 123 “O believers, fight the unbelievers around you, and let them realise that you are firm. Remember, God is with those who are pious and obedient to Him” All of these show the verses about fighting are related to the Arab peninsula’s idolaters especially those who fought with Muslims. For the area is a sensitive area within the Islamic religion.

Abu Hanifa says the idolaters in the Arabic peninsula must be Muslim or they will be killed, there is no other alternative for them; for the prophet Muhammad had been sent from them, to them, the Quran was sent by their language. For this reason there is no alternative for them; either be killed or be Muslim.[87] In my opinion some classical interpreters arrived at this conclusion as a psychological consequence of living under conditions of war. But according to modernist authors, this is due to situation prevalent during the first centuries of Islam, as the Islamic state was then surrounded by bitter enemies. The believers were at war. [88] Since the second half of the nineteenth century, modernist authors have asserted that the relationship between the Islamic and the other states and tribes had essentially a peaceful character. They argue that this principle is firmly rooted in the Quran and cite the following verses: [89] “If they withdraw from you, and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God assign not any way to you against them” (An-Nisâ, 4 / 90) “ …Do not say to him who offers you a greeting (salam, which also means peace)’ Thou art not a believer, ‘seeking the change goods of the present life” (An-Nisâ, 4 / 94) and “And if they incline to peace, do thou incline to it; and put thy trust in God”(Al-Anfal,8 / 61)

For example Muhammad Asad says: “Every verse of the Quran must be read and interpreted against background of the Quran as whole. The Taubah, 9 / 5 verse, which speaks of a possible conversion to Islam on the part of “those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God” with whom the believers are at war, must, therefore, be considered in conjunction with several fundamental Qur’anic ordinances. One of them, “ there shall be no coercion in matters of faith” (Al-Baqarah, 2 / 256), lays down categorically that any attempt at a forcible conversion of unbelievers is prohibited-which precludes the possibility of the Muslims’ demanding or expecting that a defeated enemy should embrace Islam as the price of immunity. Secondly, the Qur’an ordains, “Fight in God’s cause against those who wage war against you; but do not commit aggression, for, verily, God does not love aggressors” (Al- Baqarah, 2 / 190); and the verse An-Nisâ, 4 / 91. Thus, war is permissible only in self-defence.” Not in here other way. The only way of Muslims avoid, desisting from hostility. [90]

Because modernist interpreters have liked this view I agree with the modernist scholar’s ideas. Perhaps the classical interpretations of jihad verses had an important function in historical time. Maybe the great expansion of Islam in the short time after its inception was largely due to the militant spirit of the new faith. Jihad verses of this kind played a large part in creating a conquering spirit in historical times; however this may not be the case in today’s modern world. Jihad expresses the struggle of intelligence and persuasion. I agree Said Nursi’s this view: “jihad of the time being by love not by terror. The outside jihad being by the glory of the certainty of Islam. Because outside enemies are civilized people we must do jihad with evidences of Shari’ah (Sari’a)”.[91]

[1] Associate Professor in the Divinity Faculty of Yuzuncu Yil University in Van / Turkey

[2]Bell, Richard, Bell’s Introduction to the Qur’an (Completely Revised and Enlarged by W. Montgomery Watt), Edinburgh at the University press, 1970, p. 119; Gibb, H. A. R., Mohammedanism, Oxford University Press, New York, 1953, p. 1; Wensınsck, İslam Ansiklopedisi, “Müslim” Article., M. E. B., 1993; Darkot, Besim, İ. A., M. E. B.,“İslam” Article.

[3] Arnold, T.W., First Encyclopaedia of Islam, “Islam”, 1987, Leiden, p. 539; Sherif, Faruq, A Guide to Contents of the Qur’an, Garnet Publishing, 1995, p. 117-118; Thomas, Patrick Huges, B. D., M. R. A. S., A Dictionary of Islam, Premier Book House, Lahore, p. 220

[4]Bell, Ibid, p. 119; Gibb, H. A. R., Mohammedanism, p. 1; Wensinsck, Ibid Article, Darkot, Ibid Article., Gibb, H. A. R. and Kramers, J. H., Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam’ Leiden and London, 1953, p. 176; The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume: 6, P. 409; Arkoun, M. ‘Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an, Brill, Leiden-Boston, 2002, Volume II, p. 565

[5] Rafiî, Mustafa Sadık, Tarihu Adabi Al-Arab, 4. etd., Dar Al-Kitab Al-Arabî, Bairut, 1974, I. 178-179

About this subject Mustafa Sadık, Ar-Rafiî’ says: “If someone seriously gives himself / herself to the mystery of Arab language, enquires its words, contemplates ways, examines their place in the language, sets each example to the places where necessary in accordance with the aim and places them to their categories and the measures, he/she obtains most of vad’(the setting down, placing of nouns in first time), mysteries (of the Arab language); (then) he/she unbelievably unveils the wisdom that situated in the fineness of this strange language, understands that this language is the language of natural intelligence; nature is however steadily exposed to an divine plane. This language shows in it the origin of the perfection, not perfection itself. This language is virtually as miracle. If a person says that this language is established by Allah at the point of “harmony and inspiration”, this is not an extreme expression. The impact of this brings up itself in Qur’an”. Rafii, Ibid, I. 178-179

[6] Look. Taftazani, Sadüddin, Tadric Al-Adani Hamiş alâ Metni Al-Zencani, Salah Bilici Kitabevi, İstanbul, s. 24

[7] Tabarî, Abu Ja’fer Muhammad b. Jerir, The History of Al-Tabarî / Târih Al-Umam wa Al-Mülûk, Bairut, 1407, I. 130; Hamidullah, Muhammad, Al-Vesaiku Al-Siyasiyye, Daru Al-Nefâis, Bairut, 1985, p. 109; Hamidullah, Muhammad, İslam Prophet (Translated to Turkish language by: Salih Tuğ), 4. edt., İrfan Yayınevi, İstanbul, 1980, I. 361

[8] Al-Isfehanî, Rağıb, Al- Müfradât fı Ğarib Al-Kur’ân, Dârü’l-Marife, Bairut, p. 239

[9] Al-Isfehanî, Ibid, p. 239

[10] Iqbal, Mohammad, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Shaikh Muhammad Ashraf, Lahor, 1954, p. 109

[11] Izutsu, Toshihiko, God And Man In The Koran, Ayer Company Publishers, 1987, p. 200

[12] Bilal was a friend of prophet Muhammad (p.u.h.). When the time of prayer came he was calling people to the pray by Azan (the invitation of the prayer)

[13] Abu Davud, Süleyman b. Aş’as b. İshak al- Azdî, Sünen / Adab, 4985, 4986, Çağrı Yayınları, İstanbul 1992; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Sunan, Çağrı Yayınları, İstanbul 1992, V. 364

[14] Iqbal, Sir Muhammad, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Kasmiri Bazar-Lahore,

1954, p. 109

[15] In this verse the term of “Al-Salaam” is a noun infinitive that using as hyperbole meaning. According to the first dimension the meaning is as follows: (He it is)“who far from deficiency”, and secondly, (He it is) “who is giving tranquillity, serenity, calmness” Zamakhsharî, Mahmud b. Umar, Al-Kaşşâf an Hakâiki Gavâmid At-Tanzîl wa Uyunil Akavil fi Vucuhi’ At-Tavil, Dâr Al-Kitab Al-Arabî, 1987, Bairut, IV. 509; Razî, Fahreddin, Tefsir Al-Kabîr, Dâr Al-Kütub Al-İlm, Tahran, X.513; Âlusî, Şihabuddin Mahmud, Ruh Al-Meânî fî At-Tafsir Al-Qur’ân Al-Azîm wa Sab’i Al-Masânî, Dar Al-Fikr, Bairut, 1987, XXVIII. 63

[16] Yazır, Muhammad Hamdi, Hak Dini Kur’ân Dili, Eser Neşriyat, 1979, II. 1062

[17] Bukhârî, Iman 10, Rikâk, 26, Çağrı Yayınları, İstanbul 1992; Muslim, İman, 64- 65, Çağrı Yayınları, İstanbul 1992; Abu Davud, Jihâd, 2, Çağrı Yayınları, İstanbul 1992; Tirmizî, Kıyâme, 52, Çağrı Yayınları, İstanbul 1992; Dârimî, Rikâk, 4, 8, Çağrı Yayınları, İstanbul 1992; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Sünan, Çağrı Yayınları, İstanbul 1992, II. 160, 163, 178, 191, 193, 195; V. 2, 206, 209, 212

[18] Bukhârî, İman, 20, İst’zan, 9, 19; Muslim, İman, 63; Abu Davud, Edeb, 131; Nasaî, İman, 12, Çağrı Yayınları, İstanbul 1992; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Ibid, II. 169

[19] Bukhârî, İman, 20; Tirrmizî, At’ime, 45

[20]About the statement’s caming to the mean of Islam and peace too Look. Qurtubî, Abu Abdillah Muhammad b. Ahmad, Al-Câmiu lî Ahkâm Al-Kur’ân, Dâr Al-Kütub Al-İlmiyye, Bairut, 1988, III. 17; Baydawî, Abdullah b. Umar, Anvarü Al-Tenzil wa Asrarü Al-Te'vil (Min Haşiyeti Shaikhzâde) Hakikat Kitabevi, İstanbul, 1991, I. 510

For example Razî says that the statement has come to mean Islam and peace. For this reason if we take the verse to mean peace this would explain to us the lifting of war and disputes. The verse therefore can be interpreted as follows:

“ O Believers, enter into ‘silm’ (peace totally, namely on the help to the religion and for sake of Him resist to difficulties, being in harmony don’t follow in the footsteps of Satan on making inclination to the world and encourage arguments between each other your acknowledged foe” (Al-Baqarah, 2 / 208)

Razî, Ibid, II. 353

[21] Look. Razi, Ibid, II. 352

[22] Yazır, Ibid, II. 736

[23] Bukhârî, Rikâk, 26; Muslim, İman, 64- 65; Abu Davud, Jihâd, 2; Tirmizî, Kıyâme, 52; Dârimî, Rikâk, 4, 8; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Sünen, II. 160, 163, 178, 191, 193, 195; V. 2, 206, 209, 212

[24] Nursî, Bediüzzaman Said, Mesneviî Nuriyye (Translated to Turkish language by. Abdülmecid Nursî), Edited by. Sözler Yayınevi, İstanbul 1977, p. 81

[25] Jungs theory is this: The centre of all the psychic material that does not come from personal experience. It extends across cultures and across time. Jung identifies the collective, or transpersonal, unconscious as the centre of all psychic material. Jung postulates that the mind of infant already possesses a structure that moulds and channels all further development and interaction with the environment. This basic structure is essentially the same in all infants. Although we develop differently and become unique individuals, the collective unconscious is common to all people and is therefore one. See: Frager, Robert and Fadıman, James, Personality and Personal Growth, United States 1998, Fourth Edition, p. 67, 91; Jung, Carl Gustav, L’homme â la Decouverte de Son Âme / İnsan Ruhuna Yöneliş (Translated to Türkish language by. Engin Büyükinal ) Edited by. Say, İstanbul, 2003, p. 30-31

[26] True Islam and The Islamic Consensus on the Amman Message, p. 154- 155

[27] İbn Al-Arabî and Baydawî' says having the ruling of Kabil’s murder found in the old testament first time is an indication for it being the first divine book. (Bkz. İbn Al-Arabî, Abu Bekr Muhammad b. Abdillah, Ahkâmü'l-Kur'ân, Dâr Al-Kütub Al-İlmiyye, Bairut, 1988, II. 88; Baydawî, Ibid, II. 210) If this statement was a general unwritten statement before the Old Testament, it should be induced that it should be a general anonymous statement. İbn Al-Arabî, Ibid., II. 88

[28] Kutub, Seyyid, Fî Zılâl Al-Kur'ân, Dâr Al-Şurûk, 1980, II. 877

[29] Baydawî, Ibid., II. 210; Yazır, Ibid, III. 1658; Mawdudi, S. Abul A’la, The Meaning of the Qur’an, 3.edt. Islamic Publications Ltd., 2002, I. 447

[30] Zamakhsharî, Ibid, I. 627; Baydawî, Ibid, II. 210; Razî, Ibid, IV. 344; Şavkânî, Muhammad b. Ali b. Muhammad, Feth Al-Kadîr, Mustafa Al-Babî Al-Halebî, Mısır, II. 34; Yazır, Ibid, III. 1658; Mawdudî, Ibid, I. 421

[31] Zamakhsharî, Ibid, I. 627; Şavkanî, Ibid, II. 34

[32]Ibn Manzur, Abu Al-Fadl Camaluddin, Muhammad, Lisan Al-Arab, Daru Bairut, 1955, “Jahd” Article, III. 133- 135; At-Tahanavi , Muhammad Ali b. Ali b. Muhammad, Kassafu Istlahati Al-Funun, Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyya, Bairut, 1998, I. 267; M’aluf, Louis, Al-Muncid, Al-Matbaatu’l-Katulikiyya, Bairut, 1951, p. 101; Steingass, Ph. D., Arabic-English Dictionary, London, 1884, p. 250; Cemaatun minel Kubarai’-Lugaviyyinni’l-Arab, Al-Mu,camu Al-Arabiyya Al-Asasiyya, Matbaatu li At-Terbiyyeti wa As-Sakafa, 1989, p. 281-282; Baalbaki, Dr. Rohi, Al-Mawrid, Dar Al-Ilm Lilmalayin, 1997, p. 437, Firestone, Reuven, Jihad The Origin of Holy War in Islam, New York Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 16; Khanam, Farida, (Editors: Singh, N. K.-Agwan, A.R.), Encyclopaedia of the Holy Qur’an’ Global Vision Publishing House, Delhi-India, 2000, II. 669

[33] At-Tahanavi, Ibid, I. 267

[34] Cemaatun minel Kubara-i’-Lugaviyyinni Al-Arab, Ibid, p. 281

[35] At-Tahanavi, Ibid, I. 267; Blachere, Regis, Pellat, Charles and esc (others), Dictionnaire Arabe-Francais-Anglais, G.-P. Maisnneuve et Larose, Paris, 1976, III. 1823; Louis, Ibid, p. 101; Afzalur Rahman, Islam Ideology and the Way of Life, Seerah Foundation, London, II Edition, 1988 p. 170

[36] Khanam, Farida, Ibid, II. 670

[37] Ghazalî, Muhammad, A Journey Through the Qur’an Themes and Messages of the Holy Qur’an, Dar Al-Takva, 1998, P. 16- 17

[38] About this verse Afzalur Rahman says these: The Muslims are told to retaliate against those who fight against them in these word ‘Fight in the way of God those who fight against you, but do not transgress. God does not love the transgressor’ (Al-Baqarah, 2 / 190). But Muslims never will be the first to attack any innocent and peaceful people. Peaceful co-existence between non-Muslims and Muslim (At-Taubah, 9 / 4), Afzalur Rahman, Ibid, P. 173

The prohibition is regularly reinforced by Qur’anic verses: ‘Do not transgress, God does not love the transgressors’ indeed. Transgression has been interpreted by Qur’anic exegetes as meaning initiation of fighting those with whom a treaty has been concluded, surprising the enemy without first inviting them to make peace, destroying crops or killing those who should be protected. About the subject Mahmud Shaltut says those: These verses order the Muslims to fight in the way of God those who fight them and to scatter them just as they had once scattered the Muslims. They prohibit the provocation of hostility and this prohibition is reinforced by God’s repugnance to aggression and by his dislike of those who provoke hostility. Then they point out that expelling people from their homes, frightening them while they are safe and preventing them from living peacefully without fear for their lives or possessions is persecution worse than persecution by means of murder and bloodshed. These verses also prohibit fighting in holy places or in holy periods, unless the Muslims are under attack. For if their sacred protection is violated and fighting becomes lawful for them, they are allowed to meet the hostility by the same means by way of retaliation. Seltut, Mahmud, Al-Qur’an wa Al-Kital, Cairo, Matbaatu Al-Nasr, 1948, p. 60- 61

According to Abdel Halem ‘Those who fight against you’ means actual fighters-civilians are protected. The Prophet (p.u.h.) and his successors, when they sent out an army, gave clear instructions no to attack civilians-women, old people, religious people engaged in their worship-nor destroy crops or animals.

Discrimination and proportionality should be strictly observed. Only the combatants are to be fought, and no more harm should be caused to them than they have caused (Al-Baqarah, 2 / 194). Abdel Haleem, Muhammad, Understanding the Themes and Style, I.B. Tauris, London, New York, 1999, p. 63

[39] According to Abdel Haleem The main clause of the sentence“ kill the polytheists” is single out by some Western scholars to represent the Islamic attitude to war: even some Muslims take this view and allege that this verse abrogated other verses on war. According to him, this is pure fantasy, isolating and decontextualising a small part of a sentence. The full picture is given in At-Taubah, 9 / 1-15, which gives many reasons for the order to fight such polytheists. They continuously broke their agreements and aided others against the Muslims, they started hostilities against the Muslims, barred others from becoming Muslims, expelled Muslims from the Holy Mosque and even from their own homes. At least eight times the passage mentions their misdeeds against the Muslims. Consistent with restrictions on war elsewhere in the Qur’an, the immediate context of this ‘sword verse’ exempts such polytheists as do not break their agreements and who keep the peace with the Muslims (At-Taubah, 9 / 7). It orders that those enemies seeking safe conduct should be protected and delivered to place of safety they seek (At-Taubah, 9/ 6) The whole of this context to V.5 with all its restrictions, is ignored by those who simply isolate on part of a sense to build their theory of war in Islam on what is termed ‘The Sword Verse’ even when the word ‘sword’ does not occur anywhere in the Qur’an. Abdel Haleem, Muhammad, Understanding the Themes and Style, Tauris, London, New York, 1999, p. 65- 64

[40] Zamakhsharî, Ibid, I. 235

[41] Riza, Resit, Al-Manar, Dar Al-Marife, Bairut, X. 166

[42] Mawdudî, Ibid, III. 177

[43] Ghazalî, Ibid, p. 115

[44] Ghazalî, Ibid, p. 117

[45] Look. Tabari, Muhammad b. Jerir, Jami ‘Al-Bayan fi Tafsir Al-Qur’an, Bairut, Dar Al-Ilmiyya, 1999, IX. 161

[46] Sale says about this permission (Al-Hajj, 22/40) these: “That is, the public exercise of any religion, whether true or false, is supported only by force, and therefore, as Muhammad would argue, the true religion must be established by the same means” E. M. Wherry, M. A., A Comprehensive Commentary on The Qur’an, London, Trubner’s Oriental Series, Vol. III. p. 166

As always Sale has been twisting like this the best right reason shows it other kind

[47] Look. Guillaume, A., The Life of Muhammad (A Translation of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah), Oxford University Press, London, New York, Toronto, p. 212

[48] E.M. Wherry, M.A., Ibid, III. p. 165

[49] Vahidî, Abu Hasan Ali b. Ahmad, Asbab Al-Nuzul, Daru Ibn Kasir, Dimask, 1988, P. 258; Hazin, Alauddin Ali b. Muhammad b. Ibrahim, Tefsiru Al-Hazin (Lubab AI- Te’vil fi Maani Al-Tenzil), Daru’l-Fikr, III. 291; Al-Bagavî, Abu Muhammad Al-Huseyn b. Mas’ud, Tafsiru Al-Bagavi (Maalimu Al-Tanzil), Daru Al-Ilmiyye, Bairut, 1993, III. 344; Savkani, Muhammad b. Ali, Fath Al-Kadir, Sirkatu Mustafa Al-Babi Al-Halabi, Misir, III. 456

[50]Zamakhsharî, Ibid, III. 160; Baydawî, Ibid, III. 386; Razi, Ibid, VIII. 228; Abu Hayyan, Al-Andulusî, Al-Bahrul Al-Muhit, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, Beirut-Lebanan, 2001, VI. 346; Alusî, Sihabuddin Mahmud, Ruhu Al- Maani, Dar A-Fikr, XVII. 162

[51] Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad A Introduction of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, Oxford University Press, London, 1955, p. 212

[52] Khanam, Farida, Ibid, II. 670- 671

[53] Abdel Haleem, Ibid, p. 61

[54] Look, Afzalur Rahman, Ibid, p. 173

[55] Look, Abdel Haleem, Ibid, p. 63

[56] Firuzabadi, Muhammad b. Ya’kub, Al-Qamus Al-Muhit, “Jahd” Article, I. 286; Ibn Manzur, Ibid, “Jahd” Article, III. 133- 135; Az-Zabidî, Murtada, Sharh Al-Qamus Al-Musamma Taju Al-Arus min Jawahir Al-Qamus, II. 329; Khanam, Ibid, II. 669

[57] Afzalur Rahman, Ibid, p. 174

[58] Abdel Haleem, Ibid, p. 61

[59] Gibb, H. A. R., Mohammedanism, Oxford, Preface; Firestone, Reuven says those about this subject: Islam is perhaps the misunderstood religion to the west, and many stereotypes still hinder clarity about its tenets and practices. Western prejudice toward Islam itself. Even before Muhammad, the nearly inaccessible Arabian Peninsula became a haven for practitioners of heterodox from of Christianity that sought refuge from persecution by Orthodox church. The church in response, considered Arabia a “breeding ground of heresies “hearesium ferax” even before the great civilization that arose along with it represented Europe’s greatest threat both politically and intellectually, for a thousand years. From the conquest of Spain in the early eight century to the siege of Vienna by Ottoman Turks in 1963, Islam represented a threat to the very physical existence of Christendom. This and Islam’s achievement in all scientific and intellectually fields during its heyday in the Middle Ages caused a reaction in west that epitomized Islam as cruel, evil, and uncivilized. This negative characterization began when Islam was powerful and Christianity weak but has continued into our own day. Firestone, Ibid, p. 13

For example about Muslims Peters, Rudolph says those: Throughout Islamic history, governments and opposition movements have declared their Muslims adversaries to be heretics or unbeliever (takfir, declaring someone to be a kafir unbeliever) in order to justify their struggle against them. Peters, Rudolph, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam, Markus Wiener Publishers Princeton, 2005, p. 7

In the other place says these: During Islamic history, but especially in 18th and 19th centuries, radical movements, striving for a purification of Islamic the establishment of a purely Islamic society proclaimed jihad against their opponents, both Muslims an non-Muslims. To justify the struggle against their Muslim adversaries, they would brand them as unbelievers for their neglect to adhere to and enforce the strict rulers of Islam. Peters, Ibid, p. 5- 6; See, Ibid, p. 103

[60] Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam, Baltimore, 1955, p. 51; Bernard Lewis, "Politics and War" the Legacy of Islam, Oxford, 1974, p. 175; Ülken, Hilmi Ziya, İslam Düşüncesine Giriş (foot note: 2), İbrahim Horoz basımevi, İstanbul, 1954, p. 17

[61] Said, Edward W. Orientalism, Penguin Books, p. 7; Kennedy, Valery, Edward Said A Critical Introduction, Polity Press, p. 23

[62]Said, Edward W., Ibid, p. 3; Kennedy, Ibid, p. 21

[63] Kennedy, Ibid, p. 22

[64] Peters, Ibid, p. 2; Riza, Resit, Ibid, X. 166

[65] Vahidî, Ibid, p. 46; Zamakhsharî, Ibid, II. 289

[66] Zamakhsharî, Ibid, I. 235

[67] Qurtubi, Ibid, II. 231- 232

[68] Zamakhsharî, Ibid, I. 235

[69] Ourtubî, Ibid, II. 232

[70] Ibn Al-Arabî, Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Abdillah, Ahkamu Al-Qur’an, Bairut-Labanon, 1988, I. 144

[71] Suyutî, Calaladdin, Al-Itkan fi Ulumi Al-Qur’an, Daru Ibn Kasir, Bairut-Dimask, 1987, II. 703-704

[72] Razî, Ibid, II. 288; Ibn Kasir, Tafsiru Al-Qur’an Al-Karim, Daru’l-Hadis, Kahira, 2002, V. 446-447

[73] Sankitî, Muhammad b. Muhammad, Advau Al-Bayan fi Iydahi Al-Qur’an bi Al-Qur’an, Alamu Al-Kutub, Bairut, V. 700-701; the prohibition of alcohol drinking is like this: abandon of drinking is hard on souls. For this reason when Allah wanted to prohibit of alcohol He prohibited it gradually. Firstly He told of the harms of it “ They ask you of (intoxicants,) wine and gambling. Tell them: “ There is great enervation though profit in them for men; but their enervation is greater than benefit…” ( Al-Baqarah, 2 / 219). Later when their soul becomes used to it, the negative effects are more than the benefits. Allah prohibited alcohol during prayer times “O you who believe, do not perform your service of prayer when you are intoxicated…” (An- Nisâ, 4 / 43). After this verse was revealed people drank alcohol only when its effects would not continue into prayer time. These times were after Isa and fecr prayer. The prohibition was gradual and began with this explanation of the damaging effects of alcohol. When the people had become used to these prohibitions Allah prohibited it completely by saying “O believers, this wine and gambling, these idols, and these arrows you use divination, are all acts of Satan (evil); so keep away from them. You may haply prosper” (Al-Ma’idah, 5/90). Similarly with fasting Allah gradually legalised fasting, for the abstinence of self from lust and food was difficult for the people to comprehend completely and suddenly. Firstly He gave people the freedom to fast or give food to the poor “Those who find it hard to fast should expiate by feeding a poor person. For the good they do with a little hardship is better for men. And if you fast it is good for you, if you knew” ( Al-Baqarah, 2 / 184) when the souls of people had become accustomed to this Allah ordered fasting certainly “So when you see the new moon you should fast the whole month…” (Al-Baqarah, 2 / 185) Sankitî, Ibid, V. 701

Some scholar says the legalization of fasting had been in three stages. Firstly Allah ordered people to carry out easy fasting, as Asura fasting; every month people must carry out three days of fasting. Later when Allah wanted Ramadan fasting He made this order gradually, as we said before in two stages. Sankitî, Ibid, V. 701

[74] Look. Alusî, Ibid, I. 74; Qurtubî says, Surat At-Taubah revealed after Al-Baqarah about two years later. Qurtubi, Ibid, II. 234

[75] Resit, Riza, Ibid, X.166; Kasimî, Muhammad Camaluddin, Tafsiru’l-Kasimî (Mahasinu At-Ta’vil), Darul Fkir, Bairut, VII.132; Maragî, Mustafa, Tafsiru Al-Maragî, X.57

[76] Look. Tabarî, Jami ‘Al-Bayan, II. 190; Alusî, Ibid, I. 76; Not the verses related the The People of Book. According to Islam scholars the People of the Book have to pay the pool tax under Islam ruler. (Alusi, Ibid, II. 236) They are free people in their religion. (This reality supported by some the Book persons: ) The The People of Book not be converted by force allowed to live as protect peoples (dhimmis) if they pay a special tax and live a condition of humility (Look. Firestone, Ibid, p. 53). For example the Jews of Medina were not attacked by the Messenger until they had broken their pledge and had begun to offer resistance, just as the polytheists had done before. The Messenger only fought those fought him, and that his fighting had no other aims than repelling oppression, warding off rebellion and aggression and putting an end to persecution for the sake of religion (Look. Mahmud Seltut, Al-Qur’an Wa Al-Kital, Cairo: Matbaatu’n-Nasr, 1948, p. 60- 61). The letter of Umar b Khattab to the people of Jerusalem (in the time 636-37) is supporting to right of the reality:

“In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This is the assurance of safety (amman) which the servant of God, Umar, the Commander of the Faithful, has granted to the people of Jerusalem. He has given them an assurance of safety for themselves, for their property, their churches, their crosses, the sick and the healthy of the city, and for all the rituals that belong to their religion. Their churches will not be inhabited (by Muslims) and will not be destroyed. Neither they, nor the land on which they stand, nor their cross, nor their property will damaged. They will not be forcibly converted. No Jew will live with them in Jerusalem. The people of the (other) cities, and they must expel the Byzantines and the robbers. As for those who will leave the city, their lives and property will be safe until they reach their place of safety; and for those who remain, they will be safe. They will have to pay the poll tax like the people of Jerusalem. Those of the people of Jerusalem who want to leave with the Byzantines, take their property, and abandon their churches and their crosses will be sate until they reach their place of safety. Those villagers (ahl al-ard) who were in Jerusalem before the killing of so-and-so may remain in the city if they wish, but they must pay the poll tax like the people of Jerusalem. Those who wish may go with the Byzantines, and those who wish may return to their families. Nothing will be taken from them before their harvest is reaped. If they pay the poll tax according to their obligations, then the contents of this letter are under the covenant of God, are the responsibility of His Prophet, of the caliphs, and of faithful. The persons who attest to it are Khalid b. al-Walid, Amr b. al-Asi, Abd al-Rahman b. Awf, and Mu’awiyah b. Abi Sufyan. This letter was written and prepared in the year 15 / 636- 37” (Tabarî, Abu Ja’fer Muhammad b. Jerir, The History of Al-Tabarî, Translated and Annotated by Yohanan Friedmann, State University of New York Press, 1992, Vol. XII. p. 191- 192)

Prophet Muhammad (p.u.h.) ordered that jizayah should be collected from the Hajar people which they were Zoroastrians (Look. Ibn Al-Arabî, Ibid, I. 156-157). Hajar’s people’s this event confirming to the reality of Zoroastrians that they have been treading as the The People of Book:‘Umar accepted no tribute from the Zoroastrians until ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn Avf testified that the Prophet (p.u.h.) had collected tribute from the Zoroastrians of Hajar (in southern Bahrayn) and had said : Establish for them the same custom as for the people of the book, for they have a similar book”. Thus they are regarded as possessing the Book.Look. Gatje, Helmut, The Qur’an and its Exegesis Selected Texts with Classical and Modern Muslim Interpretations (Translated and Edited by Alford T. Welch), Routledge and Kegan Paul, London and Henley’ 1971, p. 138- 139; Alusî, Ibid, X. 79

[77] “Fight those people of the Book who do not believe in God and the Last Day, who do not prohibit what God and His apostle have forbidden, nor accept divine law, until all of them pay protective tax in submission” (Taubah, 9 / 29), Jaziyah, is a tax levied on non-Muslims for protection and other services.

[78] Tabarî, The History of Al-Tabarî, X. 16

[79] Tabarî, The History of Al-Tabarî , XI. 175-176

[80] Ahmad Emin, Islamin Bugunu (Translasted by. Abdulvahhab Ozturk) Ankara, 1977, p. 137

[81] Kasimî, Ibid, p. 134; Resit Riza, Ibid, X. 166

[82] Al-Nahhas, Abu Cafar Ahmad b. Muhammad, Al-Nasih wa Al-Mansuh, Muassasatu Al-Risale, 1991, p. 487- 488 p. 487- 488; Suyutî, Ibid, II. 712

[83] Ibn Al-Arabî, Ibid, II.457; Zuhaylî, Ibid, X. 110

[84] Cassas, Abu Bakr Ahmad b. Ali, Ahkamu Al-Kur’an, Dar Al-Fikr, 1993, III. 126; Zuhaylî, Ibid, X. 111

[85] Look. Razî, Ibid, II. 291

[86] Razî, Ibid, II. 289

[87] Alusi, Ibid, X.79; Like the idea see also: Zuhaylî, Ibid, X. 108

[88] Asad, Muhammad, The Massage of the Qur’an, Dar Al-Andalus, Gibraltar, 1980, p. 256 ; Darvaza, M. Izzat, Al-Tafsiru Al-Hadis (Translated to Turkish language by: Mehmet Baydas, Vahdettin Ince), Ekin Yayinlari, VII. 279-280; Ates, Suleyman, Yuce Kur’an’in Cagdas Tefsiri, Yeni Ufuklar Nesriyat, I. 332-335

[89] Look. Peters, Ibid, p. 112

[90] Asad, Ibid, p. 256

[91] Nursî, Said, Ictima-i Receteler, Tenvir Nesriyat, 1990, II. 273, 298


AL-MAJALLA site is a community repository of digital content relevant to the Islamic civilization since the 7th century.
If interested in publishing with AL-MAJALLA, please read the instructions on Publishers' page.

Copyright ©