Islamic Quran and Science

Mankind is at the threshold of the 21st century in terms of the common era. This age is rightly called the information age with computers, electronic mail and business and commerce and the Internet with WEB pages. To many thinkers religion is alien to science. Science simply means a specialized branch of knowledge. In Arabic it is called 'Ilm. A scientist in Arabic is called an 'Alim. The west is wrong in separating Science from Religion. The great universal Muslim scientists about thousand years ago were at the forefront of knowledge particularly in the sciences and technology without ever giving up their religion. In fact Islam in general and the Qur'an in particular inspired the Muslim scientists to seek and advance knowledge. Hence they achieved all these without any conflict with religion. Today many western educated Muslims follow the western path of separation of religion from science. On the other hand those Muslims trained in Islamic theology have refrained from modern sciences.

By moving away from the reading and in depth study of the Qur'an Muslims have lost the golden opportunity of many a scientific discovery and advancement of knowledge. By moving away from their Scriptures the Western people made many scientific discoveries and inventions. This is because of the suppression and obscurantism practiced by the Church against the scientists and intellectuals in the past. Even the scriptures themselves were a hurdle to the cause of seeking the truth through observation and experimentation as lucidly pointed by Dr. Maurice Bucaille in his most popular book " The Bible, Qur'an and Science."

Science is not a divine revelation but it provides a means for the welfare of man and to better understanding the creation of Allah(SWT), the natural phenomena and their purpose. In simplest terms science means knowledge and Islam exhorts its followers to relentlessly pursue knowledge. The Noble Qur'an, Allah (SWT) ordained His servants to pray to Him thus:

" O Lord! Increase me in knowledge." (20: 114)

It is reported that the Messenger of Allah (SWT) peace be upon him to have once said," Learning comprises treasure houses whose keys are queries." Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) encouraged the spirit of investigation and analysis of facts. One of the most inspiring Ayath (verses) in the Qur'an is the following:

" And He has subjected to you, as from Him, all that is in the heavens and on earth: behold, in that are signs indeed for those who reflect." (45: 13)

To reflect is really the scientific spirit, which leads to understanding and discoveries about Allah's (SWT) creation and natural phenomena. Allah (SWT) guides the efforts of the scientists to meaningful purposes.
The more one investigates the more one knows about Allah (SWT) and His design of the universe. The emphasis is on thinking which leads the way to the cherishing care of Allah to establish all things in nature to service for the benefit of mankind. Allah (SWT) has given us the faculties and the intellectual genius for this purpose. The Muslim should never regard the study of natural sciences as forbidden territory or "haram". According to the Muslim traditions he who seeks knowledge is blessed, but the seeker who also attains success is twice blessed. The Muslim intellectuals have proved this in the past and they already set the trend.

This work was undertaken to prove there is no conflict between science and Islam and many chapters in this book have been based on the Qur'anic inspirations the author derived from reading different Ayath (Verses). Even at the dawn of the 21st century of the CE, the Muslims can derive inspiration from the in depth study of the Qur'an and make new scientific discoveries and push forward the frontiers of knowledge. Many of the Chapters in the book were published as articles in many Muslim magazines and intellectual journals throughout the world. At the urging of many of my friends and Muslim scholars I have collected them in these two volumes titled " The Qur'an and Science." I humbly believe that the younger generation of Muslims will get inspiration from the revelations in the Qur'an and do investigate and contribute to the bank of knowledge.

Pakistan Daily (www.Daily.pk)

Muhammad (S) – The Prophet of Islam – Part 1

By Habib Siddiqui

It may not be an exaggeration if I were to state that in the annals of human history, there has never been a man who has been so much loved and villified as Muhammad (S) the Prophet of Islam. To the faithful Muslims, he is the best of mankind that was ever created by God (Allah).
The poem below by Hassan ibn Thabit (Radi Allahu Anh', meaning: May Allah be pleased with him) shows how Muhammad’s (S) companions felt about him:
By God, no woman has conceived and given birth To one like the Apostle, the Prophet and guide of his people;Nor has God created among his creatures One more faithful to his sojourner or his promiseThan he who was the source of light,Blessed in his deeds, just and upright.
- Sirat Rasulallah by Muhammad Ibn Ishaq
Muslims don't utter Muahmmad's (S) name without the salutation: sal-lal lahu alayhi wa sal-lam (meaning: blessings of Allah and peace be upon him; abbreviated here as (S)). The Muslim testimony of faith includes the sentence: There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. During the call of prayer (ad'han), five times daily - from pre-dawn hours to night, the same words are repeated from the minarets of masjids (mosques) urging Muslims to come and pray to Allah. A Muslim also ends his/her prayer with a supplication to Allah seeking blessing and bounties for the prophet and his family the same way He had blessed the family of Abraham (Ibrahim alayhis salam).

To the faithful Christians, Muhammad (S), on the other hand, is the blasphemer of Christ. Not surprisingly, therefore, that there was not a period in European or American history since the Middle Ages in which Islam was generally discussed or thought about outside a framework created by passion, prejudice and political interests (see “Islam Through Western Eyes” by late Professor Edward Said). Truly, anti-Islamic polemics is older than the Crusades. Since the time of John of Damascus (c.675-c.749), Islam has been depicted as a Christian heresy, and its founder a false prophet. John claimed that the Qur'an was not a revealed scripture but was created by the Prophet Muhammad (S) and that he was helped in his task by a Christian monk. (See this author's essay – "An Analysis of Anti-Islamic Polemics" for detailed discussion on this subject.)

In recent years, in the aftermath of 9/11, the attack against Islam and Muhammad (S) in non-Muslim countries has only multiplied several fold. In their new found hatred, most Christians are oblivious of the charter of privilege granted by the Prophet (S):
"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.

Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.

Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.
No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)."

Such were the precious words of Prophet Muhammad (S) in the year 628 CE, when he granted this historic document, also known as the Charter of Privileges, to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai. As can be seen, this Charter, more than 13 centuries before the promulgation of the (modern) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, consisted of several clauses covering all aspects of human rights including such topics as the protection of Christians (minorities) living under Islamic rule, freedom of worship and movement, freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and maintain their property, exemption from military service, and the right to protection in war.

Sounds strange? Not so, if one cares to recall that in 622 CE, the year of Prophet's migration (Hijrah) from Makkah (Mecca) to Madinah (Medina), Muhammad (S) signed a Treaty between Muslims, non-Muslim Arabs and Jews of Medina, which was put in writing and ratified by all concerned parties. This stipulated:
“In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful. This is a document from Muhammad, the Prophet, governing the relation between the Believers from among the Qurayshites (i.e., Emigrants from Mecca) and Yathribites (i.e., the residents of Medina) and those who followed them and joined them and strived with them. They form one and the same community as against the rest of men. … Whosoever among the Jews follows us shall have help and equality; they shall not be injured nor shall any enemy be aided against them.... The Jews shall maintain their own religion and the Muslims theirs. Loyalty is a protection against treachery. … The valley of Yathrib (Medina) shall be sacred and inviolable for all that join this Treaty. … Allah is the Guarantor of the piety and goodness that is embodied in this covenant. … Allah approves the truth and goodwill of this covenant. This treaty shall not protect the unjust or the criminal. Whoever goes out to fight as well as whoever stays at home shall be safe and secure in this city unless he has perpetrated an injustice or commited a crime.... Allah is the protector of the good and God-fearing people.”
Such was Muhammad (S) who never broke his promise. He was the most trustyworthy person. He was also the most generous of men. Neither a dinar (gold coin) nor a dirham (silver coin) would be left with him without being disbursed to the needy ones. He was never asked for anything but that he gave it to the one who sought it. He would prefer the seeker to himself and his family.
'Ali (RA), one of his closest Companions, said: "Of all men he was the most generous, the most open hearted, the most truthful, the most fulfilling of promise, the gentlest of temper, and the noblest towards his family. Whoever saw him unexpectedly was awed by him, and whoever was his intimate loved him." Whoever was over-awed by his presence would be comforted by him: "Be at rest. I am not a king. I am only the son of a woman of the Quraysh, who eats dried meat." He was so humble that when anyone called his name, he would answer: 'At your service.' When questioned about his humility, he would reply: "I was sent to complete the noble qualities of character." (Ihya' Ulum al-Dinby Imam al-Ghazzali (R))
Muhammad (S) was unschooled, and yet he was the most learned sage of his era. The following narrative (from this author's book – Wisdom of Mankind; Musnad-e Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal) is illustrative of his great wisdom.
A bedouin came one day to the Muhammad (S), the Messenger of Allah and said to him: "O Messenger of Allah! I have come to ask you a few questions about the affairs of this life and the Hereafter."
The Messenger of Allah (S) replied: "Ask what you wish."
- I would like to be the most learned of men.- Fear Allah, and you will be the most learned of men.
- I wish to be the richest man in the world.- Be contented, and you will be the richest man in the world.
- I would like to be most just man.- Desire for others what you desire for yourself, and you will be the most just of men.
- I want to be the best of men.- Do good to others and you will be the best of men.
- I wish to be the most favored by Allah.- Engage much in Allah's praise, and you will be favored by Him.
- I would like to complete my Iman (or faith).- If you have good manners, you will complete your Iman (faith).
- I wish to be among the Muhsin (i.e., those who do good).- Adore Allah as if you see Him. If you do not see Him, He sees you. In this way you will be among those who do good (i.e., you will be a Muhsin).
- I wish to be obedient to Allah.- If you observe Allah's commands you will be obedient.
- I would like to be free from all sins.- Bathe your body from impurities and you will be free from all sins.
- I would like to be raised on the Day of Judgment in the light.- Do not wrong yourself or any other creature, and you will be raised on the Day of Judgment in the light.
- I would like Allah to bestow His mercy on me.- If you have mercy on yourself and on others, Allah will grant you mercy on the Day of Judgment.
- I would like my sins to be very few.- If you seek the forgiveness of Allah as much as you can, your sins will be very few.
- I would like to be the most honorable man.- If you do not complain to any fellow creature, you will be the most honorable of men.
- I would like to be the strongest of men.- If you put your trust in Allah, you will be the strongest of men.
- I would like Allah to enlarge my provision.- If you keep yourself pure, Allah will enlarge your provision.
- I would like to be loved by Allah and His messenger.- If you love what Allah and His messenger love, you will be among their beloved ones.
- I wish to be safe from Allah's wrath on the Day of Judgment.- If you do not lose your temper with any of your fellow creatures, you will be safe from the wrath of Allah on the Day of Judgment.
- I would like my prayers to be responded.- If you avoid forbidden actions (Haram), your prayers will be responded.
- I would like Allah not to disgrace me on the Day of Judgment.- If you guard your chastity, Allah will not disgrace you on the Day of Judgment.
- I would like Allah to provide me with a covering protection on the Day of Judgment.
- Do not uncover your fellow creatures' faults, and Allah will provide you with a covering protection on the Day of Judgment.
- What will save me from sins?- Tears, humility and illness.
- What are the best deeds in the eyes of Allah?- Gentle manners, modesty and patience in adversity.
- What are the worst evils in the eyes of Allah?- Hot temper and miserliness.
- What assuages the wrath of Allah in this life and in the Hereafter?- Concealed charity and kindness to relatives.
- What extinguishes hell's fire on the Day of Judgment?- Patience in adversity and misfortunes.
Dr. Habib Siddiqui has authored seven books. His latest book: The Counsel – is now available in Malaysia from the Islamic Book Trust.

- To be continued –

- Asian Tribune -

Malaysian Groups Want Islam Bolstered

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — Some 100 Islamic groups in Malaysia called Wednesday for wider powers for Shariah courts and stricter enforcement of religious and moral doctrines ahead of general elections next month.
In a list of election demands, the groups said the government should declare Malaysia an Islamic-majority nation and reject any attempt to make it a secular state.
The demands were made by the Defenders of Islam, a loose coalition of about 100 mostly conservative Islamic organizations representing students, professionals and others.
Yusri Mohamad, president of the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia, which leads the coalition, said recent racial and religious tensions stemmed from efforts by certain groups to challenge Islam's role in the multiracial country.
"We want to remind all Malaysians to preserve and maintain the status quo. The formula may not be perfect but it has worked reasonably well. It is acceptable and sustainable," he said.
The ruling National Front coalition, which has governed Malaysia since 1957, is led by the United Malays National Organization, which draws support from Malay Muslims and espouses a generally moderate form of Islam.
About 60 percent of Malaysia's 27 million people are ethnic Malay Muslims. The rest are Christians, Buddhists and Hindus from the Chinese and Indian communities.
The Islamic groups' demands follow a campaign by Malaysian churches urging Christians to choose candidates in the March 8 polls who champion religious freedom.
There are growing concerns among religious minorities that their rights are being eroded by a rise in Islamic fervor, which many blame on overzealous Muslim bureaucrats in Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's government.
The fears have been fueled by a recent government ban on the word "Allah" in Malay-language Christian literature, the demolition of Hindu temples, and court judgments favoring Muslims in disputes with non-Muslims.
Yusri said the Islamic demands, which will be distributed to all candidates and political parties, were aimed at highlighting Muslim needs, not countering the Christian campaign.
The groups' statement called for asserting "the significant role of Islam in the state."
It also called for the power of Islamic Shariah courts to be strengthened and new laws to block the propagation of other religions among Muslims, especially in states with large minority populations.
The groups sought more Islamic studies in schools, increased scholarships for Muslims and the implementation of Islamic practices, such as prayers during school assemblies. They also said television stations should ban Western entertainment programs such as reality shows and promote Islamic programming.

Republished Danish cartoon of prophet Muhammad ignites tensions

Muslims have protested Danish and Dutch actions they see as insulting to Islam.

By Julien Spencer

More than two years after the publication of cartoons in European newspapers depicting the prophet Muhammad unleashed a heated debate and a fury of rage among Muslims that left more than 50 people dead, the controversy has been reignited with the republication of one of the cartoons in Danish and Dutch newspapers, stirring talk of everything from boycotts to severing of diplomatic ties.

The BBC reports Danish newspapers have reprinted one of several caricatures, originally published in 2005, that sparked violent protests across the Muslim world the following year. The cartoon was arguably the most controversial, as it depicted the prophet with a bomb in his turban. Muslims consider depictions of the prophet Muhammad offensive.

They say they wanted to show their commitment to freedom of speech after an alleged plot to kill one of the cartoonists behind the drawings....

The cartoons were originally published by Jyllands-Posten in September 2005.

Danish embassies were attacked around the world and dozens died in riots that followed.

On Feb. 12, the Guardian reported, three men were arrested in Denmark for allegedly plotting to kill Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist who drew the original caricature satirizing Muhammad.

Police officials said they made the arrests to "prevent a terror-related murder" after a long period of surveillance, but did not say which cartoonist had been targeted.

The case shows that, unfortunately, there are in Denmark groups of extremists that do not accept and respect the basic principles on which the Danish democracy has been built," said the prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

Following the arrests, the left-leaning Danish broadsheet Politiken reprinted the cartoons, calling the murder plot an attack on Denmark's democracy. In an editorial, the newspaper wrote that:

Regardless of whether Jyllands-Posten [the first newspaper to publish the cartoons in 2005] at the time used freedom of speech unwisely and with damaging consequences, the paper deserves unconditional solidarity when it is threatened with terror.

The republication of the cartoons has drawn condemnation among Muslims. Arab News reported from Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, that the secretary-general of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) had expressed regret about the new move.

Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu urged Muslims to use legal and peaceful means to protest the outrage. He said that he wished the Danish media would have chosen another subject as a test case to reassert the freedom of speech instead of supporting a blatant act of incitement to hatred in a most unfortunate and senseless manner, noting that the newspapers were aware that this act would offend not only Danish Muslims but the world's other 1.3 billion Muslims who have nothing to do with the alleged three-man terror plot.

In Iran, which has also attempted to prevent the screening of a controversial film – it would air views about the Koran held by a Dutch right-wing populist lawmaker – the cartoons sparked immediate backlash from parliamentarians, reported the Tehran Times:

In a letter to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, some 215 MPs in Iran's 290-seat assembly said Iran should review trade and political links with Denmark and the Netherlands to respond to "an anti-Islamic and Islamophobic current" in the two countries.

We, representatives of the honorable Iranian nation, condemn this devil measure. We ask the president ... to seriously review Iran's political and trade ties with these countries," the lawmakers wrote in the letter, state radio said.

The Danish government, however, has refused to condemn the republication of the cartoons and, in an act praised by Israel's Ynet News, the government canceled an official delegation that was due to travel to Iran:

A group of Danish lawmakers has cancelled a trip to Iran because Tehran demanded they condemn the reprinting of Prophet Muhammad cartoons in newspapers, a spokeswoman said Saturday.

Ten members of the parliament's Foreign Policy Committee, including Denmark's former foreign minister Mogens Lykketoft, were scheduled to visit Iran between Feb. 18 and Feb. 21.

Mette Vestergaard, a committee official, confirmed the cancellation. "The Iranian ambassador asked the Foreign Policy Committee to condemn the drawings. They can't and they won't," she said without giving more details."

The American Muslim has mentioned some of the other immediate consequences of the republication of the cartoon:

Once again we are seeing protests in Pakistan, young people rioting in Denmark's immigrant areas which has now gone on for seven nights, calls for a total boycott of Denmark by Kuwaiti MP's and by an Arab consumer group, and diplomatic difficulties.

The reaction bears strong resemblance to the outcry that followed the original publication of the cartoons in 2005, as reported The Christian Science Monitor at the time:

The bomb threat comes in the aftermath of the September 2005 publication of the 12 cartoons, some of which seemed to equate Muhammad with terrorism. Since publication, Jyllands-Posten and Denmark have become the focus of the ire of the Muslim world. Demonstrators in Gaza have burned Danish flags, Saudi Arabia and Libya have withdrawn their ambassadors to Denmark, and Danish goods are being boycotted across the Middle East.

This time, however, a new virtual debate has also been spawned by the controversy. In Denmark, the battle of Facebook sites (registration required) defending the pros and cons of the cartoons has already begun:

"Now young Danish student Anders Boetter says he has decided to start a Facebook site called Sorry Muhammad to apologise to Muslims on behalf of ordinary Danes and also give them a voice in the controversy over the row.

Anders says that in the last two years since the first printing of the cartoons, the media has built up a debate which is very black-and-white.

"Either you were for the Muhammad drawings or you were against it, but I believe there are many Danes who do not feel that way - they're somewhere in between and I am one of them," he explains."

[Editor: Look, how stupid these Danish & Dutch newspapers are, mindless bigots who never learn from the past. They are ruining their countries' economy and everything else....]

Analysis: Nationalism vs Islam?

By Basheer Nafi

Al Jazeera English

Understanding the relationship between Islam and Arab nationalism has always been problematic.
The separation between Islamists and Arab nationalists, and the period of their political conflict, is a relatively recent development in Arab history.
In the early 1950s, a series of military coups brought young Arab nationalist officers to power in many Arab countries, including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Algeria.
It was during this period that Arab nationalism, expressed in exclusive, radical and even socialist discourse, became the official ideology of the Arab states.
But the military background of the ruling forces, their fragile base of legitimacy, and the sweeping programmes of modernisation and centralisation they pursued, turned the Arab nationalist entity into an authoritarian state.
One of the major results of this development was the eruption of a series of confrontations between the Arab nationalist regimes and the Islamic political forces, in which questions of power, identity and legitimacy were intertwined.

Rise of Islamism

One of the first confrontations came in 1954, when Egypt embarked on a desperate drive to destroy its Islamic opponents.
Thousands of Muslim activists were jailed, often without trial, and subjected to East German methods of torture and psychological destruction, while eminent ulama - Muslim intellectuals - were executed or forced to live in permanent exile.

Supported by scores of nationalist intellectuals and brandishing a utopian project of socialist development enveloped in anti-imperialist rhetoric, the Arab state accused its Islamic opponents of being reactionary, employing religion for political purposes and serving the interests of foreign powers.
The Islamists, in turn, depicted Egypt's radical regime and its supporters in a monochromatic picture of a deliberate war against Islam and the Islamic identity of the Arab peoples.
Both views were essentially self-serving, non-historical and fell captive to the contingencies of political conflict, but memory is often made as much of the legend as of the real.

For a long period of time, The Arab Awakening of George Antonius (1938) represented the dominant paradigm in understanding the formative stages of Arab nationalism, not only in academic circles but also within the ranks of Arab nationalists.
Followed by Albert Hourani's Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age (1962) and Hisham Sharabi's The Arab Intellectuals and the West (1970), Antonius underlined the secular nature of Arab nationalism, while giving little consideration to the role played by the Muslim intellectuals in shaping the early Arabist vision.
Later works have, however, shattered the dominance of the "secular version" and illustrated the close relationship between the rise of the Arab-Islamic reform movement and the emergence of Arab nationalism in the early decades of the twentieth century.

Asserting Arab identity

In many respects, Arab nationalism (or Arabism as it was then called) was the political expression of the reformist discourse of Rashid Rida, Abd al-Rahman al-Kawakbi, Tahir al-Jaza’iri, Abd al-Hamid al-Zahrawi, and their students.
For the Arab-Islamic reformists, Arabism was meant to reassert the Arab identity, seen by increasing numbers of the Arabs as the answer to the Ottoman failure to defend Islam and protect the Arab and Muslim lands.
In this sense, Arabism was not only defined in Islamic terms, but was also envisioned as inseparable from the Islamic revival. During the inter-war period, although students of the Arab-Islamic reform movement continued to play a major role in the Arab anti-imperialist struggle, the gradual transformation of the social and intellectual making of the Arab elites contributed to the evolvement of an exclusive, ethnically based Arabist narrative.
In the face of the Arabs’ failure to establish their united and independent state after World War I, young Arab nationalists, like Darwish al-Miqdadi, Zaki al-Arsuzi, Edmond Rabat and Qunstantin Zurayq, graduates of the American University of Beirut and French and British universities, sought to re-emphasise the project of Arab unity by employing the power of an imagined ethnic essence.
The French bombardment of Damascus in the mid 1920s, the British disregard of the Arab opposition to the Jewish immigration into Palestine, and the brutal crushing of the Palestinian revolt of 1936-39, as well as the imperialist divisive policies in Morocco, all contributed to intensifying the Arab feeling of defeat, and thus to the radicalisation of the Arab nationalist discourse.

Laying the foundation

In the face of what appeared as the destruction of the Arab nation and precluding its revival at the hands of the colonial administrations, the Arab intellectuals of the 1930s and 1940s responded by laying the foundations of an exclusive Arab nationalist ideology. The inclusive outlook of the early generation of Arabists, which allowed Arabised Kurds, such as Muhammad Kurd Ali and Khayr al-Din al-Zirikli, to carry the banners of the Arab movement, was replaced with defined linguistic, ethnic and geographical borders.
And while Islam had been the ultimate goal of the Arab-Islamic reformists, Islam was now conceived by Sati' al-Husari and Zaki al-Arsuzi, and many others of their generation, as a mere validating element of Arab nationalism. But since the top priority for all shades of the Arab political forces during the inter-war period was national liberation and independence, it was not until the early 1950s that the divisive political climate would develop.
Even the Islamic vision of the Young Muslim Men Society and the Muslim Brotherhood was coloured with a strong belief in Arab unity and Arab identity. With the rise of the Baath Party, the Arab Nationalist Movement (Harakat al-Qawmiyyin al-'Arab), and the Arab-nationalist military officers, the divorce between the Arab nationalists and Arab Islamists reached a critical stage.

Inter-Arab conflict

Years of inter-Arab conflicts re-enforced the political division and laid heavy layers of amnesia over the formative period of Arabism and its inextricable association with the Arab-Islamic reform movement.
Both the Arab Islamists and Arab nationalists moved to legitimise their existence by rewriting their own history in isolation from the history of others, or even by de-legitimising the other. The defeat in the June 1967 war was a turning point in the Arab political and cultural configuration.
The defeat was not only seen as the ultimate failure of the Arab state, but also signalled the beginning of the end for the alliance between the Arab nationalist intellectuals and the ruling clique.
For the great majority of Arab intellectuals, disengagement from the state looked as the only way for survival.
While the nationalist intellectual joined the opposition camp of Arab politics, the state entered a post-nationalist age, in which crude ideological control and authoritarian policies were replaced with a limited political and economic openness, anti-imperialism turned into various degrees of association with the western powers, and Arab-Israeli conflict into Arab-Israeli negotiations and peace treaties.
If it had ever been, Arab nationalism was no longer in power, and as the Arab intellectual moved away from the state, his discourse grew more and more to resemble that of his Islamist counterpart.

Convergence

Links between Islamism and Arabism have always had a history of difficultyThe holding of the first Arab Nationalist-Islamist Conference in 1994 was partly the result of this key shift in the position of the Arab nationalist intellectual vis-à-vis the state.
It was also born out of a growing realisation on the part of a great section of the Arab Islamists that the optimism of the late 1970s and 1980s was largely premature.
Throughout the Arab world, the spectacular rise of Islamic political forces was adding a new dimension to the Arab political and intellectual divisions; yet, the 1979 victory of the Islamic revolution in Iran proved hard to repeat.
Equally important was the fact that although the Islamists had the masses on their side, they lacked influence among the Arab elite circles, and were largely unable on their own to break the political impasse impeding the process of democratic transformation in most Arab countries.
An Islamic-nationalist convergence could bolster the legitimacy of the Islamic project and broaden its base of representation. Both sides were also aware of the formidable challenges facing Arab societies as a consequence of the Middle East peace process, the increasing integration of the Arab markets in the world economy, and the rising tension in Arab-Western relations.
The Arab nationalist-Islamist convergence, however, is not the end of history. Although the bitter legacy of the years of inner conflict has almost totally been avoided, one might say that a deep but an unacknowledged sense of suspicion is still lingering on the horizon of Arab political and intellectual life.

New chapter

Equally significant is the absence of any serious attempt to (re-)define the relation between Islam and Arab nationalism, or to formulate a theoretical framework for a common agenda, especially in regard to the state in question, democracy and the place of religion in Arab society and politics. Yet, the meeting of the Arab nationalists and Arab Islamists has opened a new chapter in modern Arab history.
In many respects, Islamism and Arab nationalism have been, and still are, the most powerful movements in Arab political and cultural life.
It is true that neither holds power in any of the Arab countries, but their influence in society and within civil organisations is beyond doubt.
For the increasing diversification of Arab cultural systems during the past few decades, nationalism and Islamism can no longer claim to possess an exclusive hold over the Arabs' imagination.
All this, however, should in no way diminish the importance and meaning of their convergence for the future course of Arab politics and culture.
For more than half a century, the Arabs have lacked a solid, durable level of consensus, a middle ground, around which the political process normally revolves and in which political stability is anchored.
Although not yet very clear, the Islamist-nationalist convergence has a great potential to develop such a consensus.

Basheer Nafi is an academic and historian. His latest publications include: Islamic Thought in the Twentieth Century (in association with Saeed Taji-Farouki), and Iraq: Contexts of Unity and Disintegration.

Egyptian Islamic scholar Al-Qaradawi advocates limiting term of ruler

Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi

Doha Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel Television in Arabic at 1905 gmt on 3 February carries a new episode of its weekly talk show "Life and Religion," moderated by Uthman Uthman in the Doha studios. The programme hosts Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi, president of the International Association of Muslim Scholars. The topic of this episode is "Islam and the roots of despotism."

Uthman begins by asking Al-Qaradawi the following question: "The Islamic political fiqh [jurisprudence] was very strict on the issue of revolting against the ruler so that the ruler's term in power will not seem as if it is eternal and a divine decree, why?"

Al-Qaradawi says that "all the rules and laws of Islam contain all that is in favour of people in this life and the hereafter." He adds: "The Islamic shari'ah serves the interests of mankind in their life and religion." He says: "Among these are the political interests. What God decreed in the political field in terms of laws is aimed at establishing the truth and justice, safeguarding dignity, and taking care of people's rights. This is why it was very strict on the issue of revolting against the ruler. By revolting here I mean armed revolt. This is because this will pave the way for sedition and indiscipline. As a result, perhaps blood might be shed, people might be killed, and houses and property might be destroyed."
Al-Qaradawi adds: "The issue is not that if anyone becomes angry at a ruler he then should brandish his sword and revolt against him. No. It is true that Islam does not accept the culture of submissiveness and humiliation by the rulers, but it is also does not accept that if anyone becomes angry at another one he then should carry out an armed revolution, especially since this will lead to instability and pave the way for interference by others and foreigners in the country's affairs." Al-Qaradawi then gives examples of revolts against rulers from the Islamic history.
Al-Qaradawi says: "In our age, we have seen the violence used by the Islamic groups which hold all modern rulers to be infidels and therefore they should be fought. To achieve their objectives, these groups resorted to violence and used weapons to shed blood and to confront these rulers, such as the Jihad Group in Egypt, Al-Jama'ah al-Islamiyah [Islamic Group], the Salafi Jihadist Movement, Al-Qa'idah, and the like. However, have they achieved what they wanted? They have not achieved anything. On the contrary, blood was shed, houses were destroyed, and funds were squandered. The result now was that the Al-Jama'ah al-Islamiyah has issued 12 books revising this violent past. It believes that it has made mistakes."
Answering another question, Al-Qaradawi says: "One of the foundations of Islamic governance is the Bay'ah [pledge of allegiance]. Leading members of the society elect the ruler and pledge allegiance to him after which all the people should pledge allegiance to him." He adds that "the orthodox caliphate was not hereditary." He says that "when the rulers began to transmit power by inheritance to their sons, they deviated from the principles of orthodox caliphate." He says that "all the governments in the states around us were either elected by Bay'ah and Shura [consultation], which are very few, or either by the act of conquering by some ones who carried out military coups in some countries and seized power in them." He says that the "Islamic fiqh is a realistic fiqh."
Answering a question on whether the "Islamic fiqh gives legitimacy" to the existing regimes, Al-Qaradawi says: "If the legitimacy becomes stable, begins to run people's affairs, and the people accept its leadership, then you should recognize it."
Answering a question on whether this means that "stability should be given priority over rights," Al-Qaradawi says: "Stability should safeguard rights. Stability does not mean that I should deny people their rights. However, I should recognize reality and demand rights. Rights should also be safeguarded."
Answering a question that democracy "has now become an institution but Shura has not reached this stage, particularly in the modern age," Al-Qaradawi says: "This is because the whole world was in the past a world of despotism. Perhaps, the Muslim caliphs and kings were the best rulers on earth at the time despite their weaknesses. We criticize Mu'awiyah [Ibn Abi-Sufyan, Umayyad caliph in Damascus], Abd-al-Malik Bin-Marwan [fifth caliph of the Umayyad dynasty], and Harun al-Rashid [the fifth of the Abbasid caliphs of Bagdad]. However, in spite of their weaknesses, they were the most equitable rulers on earth."
Answering a question on whether "there is any limit to the term of the Islamic ruler in Islamic fiqh," Al-Qaradawi says: "No, there is no limit. At the time, there was no limit for the term of any ruler in the whole world. The ruler used to rule forever. Caesar or other kings used to rule as long as they live." He adds that "this is not obligatory" in Islam, but now the world has opted for the "rotation of power." Whether Islam prevents us from "rotating power," Al-Qaradawi says "no." He adds that the basic principle in Islam necessitates that "we should look for the best one to rule the nation and the one who establishes justice in the life of people."
He adds: "I personally believe that in the modern systems, the best thing to do in order to avoid dictatorship is to limit the length of the term of the ruler. All the republican systems now stipulate the limitation of the term of the ruler or the president. Despite this, we can see that the ruler in many of our Arab countries extends his term for one, two, three, or even four times. He is even not satisfied with that, but he transmits power by inheritance to his sons after him. So, they became hereditary republics."
Uthman then asks the following question: "We talk about despotic regimes, about presidents who turned the rule into a hereditary one, but what about leaders of the Islamic movement who also stayed for a long time in leading the Islamic movement? Why there was no rotation on the leadership of the Islamic movement?"
Answering this question, Al-Qaradawi says: "It is not only the Islamic movement, but this also applies to all the leaders of the political parties in our region." He then gives example of this. He says: "The bylaws of the Muslim Brotherhood stipulate that the guide should be elected for four or six years and his term can be renewed for one time, but in practice, you cannot see this. Perhaps, due to the fact that they are not officially recognized in a country like Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood cannot meet to change the guide, and so the eldest one remains the guide until he dies."
On how he assesses the "current political fiqh," Al-Qaradawi says: "Political fiqh has continued to be at a standstill for many centuries. This also applies to fiqh in general." He adds: "The political fiqh had continued to be at a standstill because there was no change in the political life. The prevailing pattern had continued to prevail." He says: "All the scholars, who were concerned with the state fiqh in Islam, spoke about political fiqh, human rights in Islam, the rights of minorities, women's rights, and the nomination of women in elections, and about all these issues." He gives names of authors and books on this issue. He adds: "We do not say that the discussion of all these issues was completed, but all issues were discussed. Some of them became mature and others are still on their way to maturity. As long as the door remains open we will eventually achieve this goal. However, all issues are open to discussion."
Answering a question on the "relationship between the ruler and the ruled" in Islam, Al-Qaradawi says: "Islam says that the relationship between the ruler and the ruled is one of amity, trust, and cooperation." He says that Islam prohibits "mistrust" between the ruler and the ruled. He adds: "Islam does not want people to be slaves to the rulers. On the contrary, this is not the culture of Islam. Islam rejects this culture, the culture of submissiveness and subservience." He says: "Despotism is not power, but it is real impotence. The mighty person is the one who listens to the people's opinions and the one who does not do everything by himself or cares less about the people's opinions. This is what the Koran calls tyranny and despotism." He says that the "Prophet, may God's peace and blessing be upon him, says that the best kind of jihad is the word of truth against an unjust ruler." He adds that the "strong nation is the one where there are people who confront the ruler and tell him that you are unjust if he is unjust."
Answering a question on the way of confronting the ruler and whether it is through "demonstrations, rebellion, or revolting against the ruler," Al-Qaradawi says: "Every age has its own ways to confront the rulers." After giving examples of this from the history of Islam, he adds: "Our age created ways, such as strikes, demonstrations, civil disobedience, and the like."
He says: "We have the right to discuss these means in our political fiqh. Some scholars in our political fiqh prohibited strikes because they obstruct works, destroy the country, and cause harm to the economy. Imam Al-Mawdudi, may God have mercy on him, said something like this. However, life, the facts of life, and the tyranny of the rulers have forced many of these jurisprudents and scholars to change their opinion and to say that we have the right to use these means as a result of the tyranny, despotism, and dictatorship of the rulers who want to impose themselves on the people by iron and fire."
Answering a question on the "ruler's relationship with the scholar, the mufti of the republic with the ruler, and the Awqaf Ministry or minister with the ruler," Al-Qaradawi says: "These people are employed by the rulers. The problem is that when the scholar is an employee for the ruler who is the one who appoints and dismisses the scholar." He adds: "The problem and the catastrophe is that when the scholar needs the worldly life of the rulers but the rulers do not need his religion or knowledge at a time when he needs a salary so he and his children can eat. The secret of the strength of the Shi'i scholars is that they are not employees for the state. They take Al-Khums tax [The fifth of the total salary of every Shi'i follower]." Concluding, Al-Qaradawi says that this makes "scholars strong."

Source: Al-Jazeera TV, Doha, in Arabic 1905 gmt 3 Feb 08

Turkey: Parliament debates Islamic head scarf ban at schools

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — Legislators on Wednesday will debate one of secular but predominantly Muslim Turkey's most fiery issues: whether to allow female students to enter university campuses wearing Islamic head scarves.
Parliament will hold a first round of debate and voting on the Islamic-rooted government's proposed amendments to the secular constitution, which would remove the decades-old ban. The proposal includes the insertion of a paragraph stating that "no one can be deprived of (his or her) right to higher education." A second and final round of voting is slated for Saturday.
The head scarf issue is a source of tension in Turkey and has divided the population among those who consider the ban an affront to religious freedoms of pious Muslims and those who fear removing the ban would erode Turkey's secular education system.
Military-backed secularists regard the head covering as a political statement and argue it has no place in schools. They also fear that lifting the ban at universities would pile pressure on female students to cover themselves up.
More than 125,000 people — mostly women — marched in Ankara over the weekend to denounce plans to remove the ban. University deans from dozens of private and state universities also gathered in the capital last week to show their opposition.
The deputy head of Turkey's Appeals Court joined the fray on Monday, warning that the move would "weaken" secularism. The military, however, has chosen to stay out of the debate for now even though generals have periodically spoken up against what they view as moves to undermine secular principles introduced by the national founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
The government has the backing of a nationalist opposition party, and together they have more than the two-thirds majority in the 550-seat assembly required to amend the constitution.
But the secularist Republican People's Party — which has said that lifting the ban would amount to a first step toward a more Islamic rule — has vowed to challenge any change at the Constitutional Court.
To ease concerns, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's party has stated that a loosening of the ban would be limited to universities, and would not be expanded to high schools or public offices.
In an attempt to soften secularist opposition, the government is also making changes to regulations governing higher education, to make clear that female students would be allowed to wear head scarves at universities as long as they tied them under the chin, leaving their faces more exposed. That attire, is accepted in barracks and military guest houses and is not necessarily associated with Islam.
Ataturk, who founded modern Turkey after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, banned religious attire in daily life. The ban has been vigorously enforced in public office and schools since a 1980 military coup.
Both Erdogan's wife and President Abdullah Gul's wife wear Islamic-style head scarves.
Gul's wife challenged Turkey's head scarf ban at the European Court of Human Rights after being barred from university in 1998 — only to withdraw her complaint when her husband became foreign minister.

Editor: The story about head scarve ban for female university students in Turkey baffled me for a long time. Fortunately Turkey now has "sane" leaders (of sound mind) who could change this madness introduced by the madman by the name of Kamal Atarturk.