The editor
of The New Republic, Leon Wieseltier,
aptly said, ‘No faith has suffered more
at the hands of the improper usage than Islam.’ Since the beginning of the
twentieth century and onward, especially
post late 70s, Islam has been presented as a form of human-made revolutionary
ideology operating under the flag of Islamism by some groups. The word Islamism
appeared in the late 19th century and was used mainly by
Orientalists to divide Muslims. It has no place in the Islamic sacred text and
in scholarly works before the 19th century at all.
Just like other faiths, Islam is no stranger to suffering assaults. There
is no other religion which is attacked as much as Islam in the last three
decades, particularly since 9/11. Some Muslims’ responses have included various
acts in the guise of Islamic behavior such as radical speeches, burning flags
and effigies and condemning entire nations which have created more enemies than
friends despite the injustice and tyranny against them. Such acts have been
viewed as a religious obligation, or holy struggle, and therefore a necessary
display of Muslim power in defense of Islam and Muslims. Sometimes these acts have
turned into incidents of violence. Such behavior has been reactionary more so than proactive and it has provided
ammunition to be used by against Islam and Muslims.
Instead of questioning the accuracy of this methodology, whether it contradicts
with the Qur’an and Sunnah or not, it has been portrayed as an Islamic response
by most of the media.
The Qur’an set guidelines on how to respond to assaults. The story of
Prophet Abraham (pbuh) in the Qur’an was revealed when Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)
faced death threats, persecution and harsh treatment at the hands of the
polytheists of Mecca. There are
many moral lessons that can be learned from the story of Abraham and the Sunnah
of the Prophet in regard to how to respond to aggression.
When
Abraham’s polytheist father threatened to stone him to death (Qur’an, 19:46) he
was still kind in his speech and treatment towards him. In his response, he
said “Ya abati “, which means my dearest father (19:47). In Tabari’s (838-923)
exegesis, Abraham’s response to his father’s threat was ‘Even if you stone me,
I will not harm you.’ Ibn Kathir (1301-1373) extends this further adding ‘I
will not harm, insult or even disrespect you’. God commanded Moses
and Aaron to speak gently with the Pharaoh (20:43-44).
Al-Qurtubi (1214-1273) interprets the command to mean speaking gently, implying
that Moses should not use any word implying hatred or animosity. He goes on to
state that this is a general rule to be applied by those who seek to enjoin
good and forbid evil. Al-Qushayri (986-1072) extends this rule to cover not
only a person’s speech but also their demeanour.
When the Prophet’s actions
and sayings are analysed, it can be said that his response to aggression was
based on making friends out of his enemies and channelling the anger of Muslims
for a common good rather than animosity. Otherwise, Mecca would not have been
conquered without bloodshed. yucelsalih@yahoo.com
