certifired_img

Books and Documents

Interview (27 Oct 2015 NewAgeIslam.Com)



Tariq Ramadan on Refugees, Far-right, Extremism and Muslim Identity


By Inas Younis

23 October 2015





Professor Tariq Ramadan has been described as one of the “most important innovators for the 21st century” by Time magazine, and is considered as one of Europe’s most prominent intellectuals. Professor of contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford University, he is the author of a number of highly influential books on Islam.

Ramadan holds an MA in philosophy and French Literature and a PhD in Arabic and Islamic Studies from the University of Geneva. In Cairo, he studied classic Islamic scholarship from Al-Azhar University.

After the recent influx of refugees into European countries, how do you see the rise of far- right groups?

I do not think that the rise came after the influx. Over the last 20 years or so, what we have seen in many European countries, like France of course, but even in Britain, Austria and now in Norway and Sweden, is a discourse nurturing fear, coming from the far right parties and populist parties. Sometimes, they are not exactly the same. They are nurturing a sense that within globalization, the countries and people are losing their identities.

The populist parties are normalizing the discourse. So in fact, we are demonizing the far right parties but we are normalizing their discourse. And this is very dangerous because even though they are not going to win the election they are winning the narrative and shaping it in a way that is very problematic.

What do you mean by populism?

There are four main features that define populism. Populism is emotional politics. It deals with the emotions of the people and it nurtures a sense that we should not deal with facts and figures but deal only with anecdotes not rationality.

Second, it nurtures the victim as well as "us vs. them" mentality. Lastly, it offers simplistic answers to complex questions. If for example there is an unemployment problem, then the rhetoric becomes that these people are coming to take our jobs. When you are not dealing with actual politics you will be dealing with these four features.

The refugee crisis was the revealing factor and not the reason for the rise of far right groups. Because when you deal with facts and figures you realize that Europe needs refugees, they need migrants. And all the figures are showing them they need millions, not a few hundred thousand. Why? For one thing, the society is becoming old and the world around, the Africans and Asians are a young population.

What about the integration of those immigrants into new communities; Do you see calls for their assimilation?

The problem once again is to keep repeating as a mantra, “it's not working, it's not working. Those Muslims are not integrating,” and I am saying exactly the opposite. I am saying you are lying. At the grassroots level, far from the controversies at the national level of anecdotes, the historical movement is working. In cultural and religious terms, it’s working. What is not working is something else, which is social justice, urban policies, educational opportunities, and equality.

So we have to reconcile ourselves with the socio-economic approach and not to “ethnocise” or “Islamicise” the socio-economic problems. By doing so, this is where the populists are winning the game. And it has come down to become a discussion about assimilation. But I am sorry, cultural and religious integration is working. We need now to get past the integration discourse.

Don’t tell me if you can integrate, that’s done. Tell me how you can contribute. As long as we keep repeating as a mantra: ‘integration integration.’ We are nurturing this perception that it doesn’t work. The success of integration is to stop talking about integration.

I keep repeating this, but this is very important because the populists are working on emotions, meaning perceptions. So when for example, Huntington was talking about the Clash of Civilizations at Versailles, they responded to him by saying oh no, it’s a clash of ignorance. And I said no, it's neither this nor that, it’s a clash of perceptions. How you perceive and nurture perception is based on Emotions which are based on irrational constructions or non-rational constructions, which is not exactly the same.

How do you see the increasing rhetoric against Islam, especially after the rise of the so-called Islamic state, which uses Islam to justify terror?

Once again, we have to be very cautious. We have to keep the historical dimension here. What is happening with ISIL is not new. It happened also with the Taliban in Afghanistan. It started, in fact, in 1979 with the Iranian revolution and this became the starting point of this negative perception.

Now my take on this is, we as Muslims can keep saying ‘oh this has nothing to do with our religion’. But I think we are not addressing the issue. Yes, we have to come with a very clear religious discourse, saying that this is not Islamic. But we need to have a political discourse. And the political discourse should address the causes and reasons, because it's not as if this just happened out of nowhere.

For example, in the states you have those who say we have to tackle the issues of extremism, and at the same time, their governments are talking to Gulf States that are promoting literalism, which is the starting point of everything. So how do you call your citizens to be moderate when you are nurturing the literalist’s understanding of Islam? So there is a contradiction in terms, and in fact your economic interests are going against your social peace and stability. So you have to take a decision. What do you want exactly? So we need to politicize all of this a bit. We continue talking about the youth as if they are disenfranchised and so on and so forth. But look, it’s more than just frustration. They are asking good questions. They want to know what you are doing with justice in your policies.

Do you think that people’s fears regarding the rise of Islamic extremism are legitimate? And should Muslims share the same fears?

The far-right has been using anti-immigrants rhetoric to win supporters.

We are all scared. Do you know what the common disease we all share with Muslims, people of other faiths or our fellow citizens? It is victimhood. We are all victims. So where are the people who are responsible? You have George W. Bush saying we are victims and you have the other side saying we are victims of the American policy. So welcome to the world of no subjects, the world of all victims.

If you watch TV or the people in the media, of course it’s legitimate to be scared. So we have to acknowledge the fact that people are scared and to differentiate between the fears of people at the grassroots level of ordinary citizens from the way this fear is being ‘instrumentalised’ by populist parties.

It’s the instrumentalisation of fear that we have to struggle against. But we need to respect those who are feeling the fear. We must understand the difference between the grassroots fears of people and the way it’s being instrumentalised.

This is why we have to be willing to explain and be proactive. This is why we need to do, what I called for some 12 years ago, by embracing a “new We.”

How much of the rhetoric now that we are hearing in Western nations is mimicking the rhetoric that have been hearing in Muslim majority countries for decades, especially as it pertains to this growing obsession with identity politics.

Of course, if you have something that we are all sharing, which is the victim mentality, then you will have the identity business everywhere. How do we define ourselves? When you have a crisis in defining yourself, you are going to reduce your identity to only one thing. So it's only when you are at peace that you are going to understand that you have multiple identities. So, in a world where we are all scared, we end up reducing ourselves to one identity and this is the polarization and the ‘us versus them’ develops.

But if you understand that you have multiple identities that are overlapping with others, and that there are things that we are all sharing then, you will be at peace. But this takes time effort and education.

onislam.net/english/news/americas/495327-tariq-ramadan-on-refugees-far-right-a-extremism.html

------

Tariq Ramadan on Muslim Identity (II)

By Inas Younis

23 October 2015 00:00

Why do you think becoming an observant Muslim has become so confusing for young people these days?

Along with other reasons, including negative perceptions, we have a problem with the way we are educating our young Muslims, not only here but in Muslim majority countries as well.

When you are scared, when you are feeling on the defensive or you feel that you are in danger because everything that is being said about Islam is negative, you end up focusing, as a psychological natural reaction to norms, like Halal and Haram, which is wrong. In fact, it is not by law that you are going to be protecting yourself. You protect yourself through meaning and understanding. So, we need more education on the substance and not more on the limits. But as we are scared, it's become all about limits, limits, limits. And this is natural reaction. But it’s not the right reaction.

And sometimes what is natural is not right. The only way to feel at peace is to feel confident with the essence of the teachings, and with your spiritual journey. Teaching what it means to be autonomous, to be free: to free yourself from your ego in spiritual terms and to educate yourself among human being in social terms. This is so essential, so we have a crisis in education, which calls for us to go back to teaching the essence of the message.

Do you think that Muslims need to be more self-critical?

Yes, but you yourself are dealing with Muslims and you can see how self critical we really are, to the point that it has become distressful. All the Muslims are not happy with their leadership, we are not happy with the followers, we are not happy with our mosques, we are not happy with the imams, we are not happy with the men and women. So we are not happy. We are self-critical, but we are unhappy in an emotional way, so it's not structured, it's not sophisticated. We need to be able to confront some of our interpretations. There is such diversity in Islam so we have to be constructively self-critical in a rational and structured way and not in an emotional defeated way, as victims.

You wrote in one of your articles that it is imperative that we reject the “Islamisation” of education and socio-economic issues that require political, not religious solutions. Can you define “Islamisation” then elaborate on what you mean by political versus religious solutions?

When you deal with radicalization in the jails, or in the suburbs in France, or in the cities in the states you might come to think these people have a problem. Islam is creating this radical mindset and so Islam must be the reason. We tend to find cultural or religious reasons for things which have nothing to do with religion. For example, during the riots in France, some ten years ago, the minister of Interior at that time, Sarkozy, asked the Muslim organizations to issue a fatwa against violence. I said, what’s that? These are French people telling their government we need more justice, we need education, we need social institutions. This has nothing to do with Islam. So because you don’t know how to deal with them and to give them jobs and education, you ask the Muslims, where are the Imams. That’s wrong.

And we are doing the same thing everywhere. By reducing the discussion on violent extremism to just one religious side, you forget to deal with the other side, by asking what are your policies. What are you doing in this country? You will have voices which are going to be vocal. They are not going to keep quiet because they feel that they are American. We are Islamizing all the issues. As if the problem is Islam. No the problem is socio economic justice, education, equality. So don’t talk to me about the democratization process if you are not willing to talk about stability. You are making it all politics and structural. It’s not going to work if there is no economic stability. This shift of always turning against culture, or with Huntington’s feeling that the future is not going to be about political interest but about civilizations issues, is shifting the true questions about politics and justice away from reality towards China versus the U.S or Islam versus the west. That’s not the reality. But by shaping the mindset to think in those terms we are falling into the trap.

What is your core identity or is this concept a fallacy?

I have multiple identities some of them will be more at the forefront depending on the context. As a Muslim its quiet clear, I may be a Swiss or American by culture or memory, but at the moment I am dealing with my death or the death of the people I love, I am a Muslim, because this is the meaning of my life.

But when I am in involved in politics, I am a Swiss because I have to vote somewhere. At the moment I am dealing with international issues, I am a Universalist because I want for others what I want for myself. I do not want justice for the Swiss people and injustice elsewhere. So it depends on the context. Of course there is a part of our identity that is there no matter what the context or historical situation. And for me, at the end of the day I belong to my principles.

I will be against my government if it’s against my principles.

I will be against other Muslims if they are acting against my principles. This is what I got from my religion. My brotherhood has limits and conditions. If you are unjust, my brotherhood or sisterhood should react and resist this injustice.

What can you tell me about your personal faith and how it informs your day to day life?

It's an ongoing process. The way you are with Allah (swt) is the way He is going to be with you. There is something that we got from the mystical tradition, the traditional tradition and the legal tradition; renew your intention.

At the end of the day, ask why you are doing what you are doing. Are you doing it to serve God, which means serve humanity, because the best among you is the best to humanity? Or are you doing it for money, power and fame? What are your goals?

So my relationship with Allah is always to come back to myself. It's between you and yourself that you will find the very meaning of God’s presence in your life. I myself do not nurture the sense of guilt. I nurture the sense of responsibility and forgiveness. And this is very important to me.

Source: onislam.net/english/news/americas/495379-tariq-ramadan-on-muslim-identity-ii.html

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/interview/inas-younis/tariq-ramadan-on-refugees,-far-right,-extremism-and-muslim-identity/d/105068





TOTAL COMMENTS:-   11


  • Could a male Muslim marry with more than one Muslim slave?
    (سورة النساء, An-Nisaa, Chapter #4, Verse #3)-Mohsin Khan translation:
    ‘And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan-girls then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (the slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice.’
    No doubt the word, slaves, as mentioned above is in plural tense, it does not mention that a male Muslim could marry more than one Muslim slave to be his wives since the phrase, (the slaves) that you right hands possess, is mentioned above instead of the phrase, (the slaves) that (you have married).  Thus, the phrase, your right hands possess, as mentioned above with the plural word, slaves, does not give any right for a male Muslim to marry with more than a Muslim slave.  If a Muslim insists to marry with a Muslim slave, the phrase, if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them)…then only one, should apply.  Or in other words, if a male Muslim could not deal justly when he marries with more than a Muslim slave, he should only be entitled to marry to only one Muslim slave.  Could a male Muslim be able to marry more than a female Muslim slave and yet could not cause frustration and jealousy among them?  It is impossible for a male Muslim to deal with more than a Muslim slaves to be their wives justly since there could be jealousy and frustration and even anger among them.  As a male Muslim could not deal with more than one Muslim slave to be his wives justly, Quran demands him to marry with only one Muslim slave to be his wife.
    Could a male Muslim have sex with more than a female Muslim slave without marrying with them?  Quran forbids Muslims to commit adulteries.  The following is the extract:
    (سورة آل عمران, Aal-i-Imraan, Chapter #3, Verse #7)-Mohsin Khan translation:
     It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) the Book (this Qur'an). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkam (commandments), Al-Fara'id (obligatory duties) and Al-Hudud (LEGAL LAWS FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF thieves, ADULTERERS)]; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah (polytheism and trials), and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord." And none receive admonition except men of understanding. (Tafsir At-Tabari).
    As the phrase, (legal laws for the punishment of…adulterers, is mentioned above, Quran forbids a male Muslim to have sex with more than a female Muslim slaves without marrying with them.
    (سورة البروج, Al-Burooj, Chapter #85, Verse #10)-Mohsin Khan translation:
    Verily, THOSE WHO PUT INTO TRIAL THE BELIEVING men and believing WOMEN (by torturing them and burning them), and then do not turn in repentance (to Allah), then they will have the torment of Hell, and they will have the punishment of the burning Fire.
    The phrase, believing women, as mentioned above could refer to believing slaves or Muslim slaves.  Thus, the phrase, those who put into trial…believing women, could be interpreted as warning against those male Muslims that would put female Muslim slaves into trial.  Or in other words, Quran forbids any male Muslim to put female Muslim slaves into trial.  As they could not put female Muslim slaves into trial, they must not force them to have sex with them without their consensus.  Besides, a male Muslim that marries more than a female Muslim slave could cause frustration and jealousy and even anger among his wives and this would result in simply putting all his wives into trial.  There might be permanent frustration and anger among Muslim slaves against that male Muslim as a result of his marriages with more than a slave to be his wives.  Nevertheless, the above verse forbids a male Muslim to have more than one Muslim slave to be his wives.
    By zumamusa - 10/29/2015 7:54:57 PM



  • Does Quran 4:3 support that Muslims could have many Muslim slaves to be wives?
    Let's meditate the verse below:
    (سورة النساء, An-Nisaa, Chapter #4, Verse #3)-Mohsin Khan translation:
    And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan-girls then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (the SLAVES) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice.
    Despite the word, slaves, is in plural tense, it does not mention to marry more than a slave, instead, it only states (the slaves) that your right hands possess.  Nothing is mentioned that Muslims could marry more than a Muslim slave but to possess more than a Muslim slave.    Besides, as the phrase, your choice two or three or four, as mentioned before should refer to wives, the phrase, then only one, should refer to a wife too.  Thus, it would come to the conclusion that this verse restricts a male Muslim to a wife or a Muslim slave to be his wife if he could not deal with more than one justly.  Remember!  It is mentioned to possess more than a slave instead of to marry more than a slave.
    By zumamusa - 10/29/2015 5:55:03 PM



  • Quran prohibits male Muslims to have mistress.  The following is the extract:
    (سورة النساء, An-Nisaa, Chapter #4, Verse #3)-Mohsin Khan translation:
    'And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan-girls then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four; but IF YOU FEAR THAT YOU SHALL NOT DEAL JUSTLY (WITH THEM), THEN ONLY ONE or (the slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice.'
    As the phrase, if you fear that you could not deal justly (with them), is mentioned above with the phrase, then only one, it implies that Quran restricts a male Muslim to a wife if he could not deal with more than a wife justly. Nowadays Muslim women are educated.  Having more than a wife would cause jealousy and frustration among women, how could a male Muslim be able to deal with them justly to have mistresses in this contemporary world?  Thus, Quran demands a contemporary male Muslim to have only a wife.
    By zumamusa - 10/29/2015 5:22:19 PM



  • Dear Zumamusa,

    NAI has posted my jt publication Essential Message Islam in its book Section. The Chapter 19.1 interprets the identical verses 70:29/30 and 23:5/6 as follows:

    "and who preserve their private parts   (70:29) - except from their spouses (azwaj), that is (awe) those under their lawful trust (ma malakat ayman), and then (they are) not blame worthy (70:30).

    The interpretation is supported by the following argument:

    The traditional gender biased rendering of the underlined transliterated words (masculine for insan and feminine for the others) with normative translation of the particle awe (70:30) as ‘or’, instead of ‘that is' allows the verses 70:29/30 to be interpreted as a sanction for men to keep mistresses. This, however, contradicts Qur’anic family laws (which explicitly prohibit extra-marital relations), as well as Qur’anic inheritance laws (which do not mention any mistress or unwedded spouse, though claiming to cover all family relationships (4:33/Ch. 38.4). Our rendition maintains the gender integrity of the passage, is based on the Qur’anic usage of its particle awe in the verse 25:62,1 is supported by Muhammad Asad2 and conforms to the broader message of the Qur’an.

    By muhammad yunus - 10/29/2015 5:17:55 AM



  • What a disgusting conversation. Which century are you living in, and in which benighted age, that you can even discuss sex with slaves with such earnestness? That fellow was on a rampage, and after killing the men, the women were theirs to take. They did indeed have sex with war captives. You don't need to be a scholar to see that. Mr Mohammad himself had sex with a woman whose husband and brother he had freshly slaughtered. After a farcical marriage, of course. You have to be out of your mind to think that that woman was delighted at the prospect of being married to her tribe's murderer. The deep denial that the entire Muslim community is in about its own history and philosophy is unbelievable. 
    By secularlogic - 10/29/2015 5:09:48 AM



  • Dear Yunus Sahib and Zumamusa Sahib, I am thankful to you for your comments which clarify the position.  The ISIS people are obviously wrong and anti-Muslim. 
    By Satbir Singh Bedi - 10/29/2015 3:18:49 AM



  • Terrorists have used the following words from Quran to support their act in having sex with slaves:

     23.1. Successful indeed are the believers.

     23.5. And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts)

     23.6. Except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess, for then, they are free from blame;

     However, Quran forbids Muslims to have sex with female non-Muslims and considers them as adultery.  The following is the extract:

     (سورة النور, An-Noor, Chapter #24, Verse #3)-Mohshin Khan translation:

    ‘The adulterer-fornicator marries not but an adulteress-fornicatress or a Mushrikah, and the adulteress-fornicatress none marries her except an adulterer-fornicator or a Muskrik [and that means that the man who agrees to marry (have a sexual relation with) a Mushrikah (female polytheist, pagan or idolatress) or a prostitute, then surely he is either an adulterer-fornicator, or a Mushrik (polytheist, pagan or idolater). And the woman who agrees to marry (have a sexual relation with) a Mushrik (polytheist, pagan or idolater) or an adulterer-fornicator, then she is either a prostitute or a Mushrikah (female polytheist, pagan, or idolatress)]. Such a thing is forbidden to the believers (of Islamic Monotheism).’ 

     As Quran acknowledges it to be a sin to have sex with non-Muslim slaves, how could Jihadists use Quran 23:5, 6 to justify their act against them?

     The same is mentioned in the Quranic verse below:

     (سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #221)-Mohsin Khan translation:

    (سورةAnd do not marry Al-Mushrikat (idolatresses, etc.) till they believe (worship Allah Alone). And indeed A SLAVE WOMAN WHO BELIEVES IS BETTER THAN a (free) Mushrikah (idolatress), even though she pleases you. And give not (your daughters) in marriage to Al-Mushrikun till they believe (in Allah Alone) and verily, a believing slave is better than a (free) Mushrik (idolater), even though he pleases you. Those (Al-Mushrikun) invite you to the Fire, but Allah invites (you) to Paradise and Forgiveness by His Leave, and makes His Ayat (proofs, evidence, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) clear to mankind that they may remember. 

     The phrase, a slave woman who believes, as mentioned above refers undoubtedly female Muslim slaves instead of non-Muslim slaves.  Thus, Quran has high preference to Muslim slaves than non-Muslim slaves.

     البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #221)-Mohsin Khan translation:

     Quran also forbids Muslims to put female Muslims into trial as mentioned below:

     (سورة البروج, Al-Burooj, Chapter #85, Verse #10)-Mohsin Khan translation:

    ‘Verily, THOSE WHO PUT INTO TRIAL the believing men and BELIEVING WOMEN (by torturing them and burning them), and then do not turn in repentance (to Allah), then they WILL HAVE THE TORMENT OF HELL, and they will have the punishment of the burning Fire.’

     As the phrase, those who put into trial, is mentioned above with the phrase, believing women, it is obvious that Quran forbids Muslims to put women into trial. As Muslims must not put women into trial, it is irrational to use Quran 23:5 & 6 to justify the act of forcing female Muslim slaves to have sex with them.

     Thus, the only justifiable act is for male Muslims to marry female Muslim slaves.  However, Quran does not allow Muslims to force female Muslims to marry what they do not like.  The following is the extract:

     (سورة النساء, An-Nisaa, Chapter #4, Verse #3)-Mohsin Khan translation:

    ‘And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan-girls then MARRY (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (THE SLAVES) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice.’ 

     As the phrase, the slaves, is mentioned above with the word, marry, it implies that Quran could only permit muslims to have sex with slaves if they have married them.  Or in other words, Quran only permits Muslims to have sex with Muslim slaves who are also their wives.  As the phrase, deal justly (with them), is mentioned above with the word, slaves, it implies that Quran demands Muslims to deal with slaves justly.  How could Jihadists claim to deal with Muslim slaves justly if they force them to marry them to whom they dislike?  How could Jihadists claim to deal with Muslim slaves justly if they would force them to have sex with them to whom they dislike?  In order to deal with Muslim slaves justly, they have to have sex with them if they are willing and are married.  Besides, Quran forbids Muslims to put female Muslim slaves into trial by forcing them to have sex with them.  Thus, the act of Jihadists to have sex with Muslim slaves through violence is against the words of Quran.


    By zumamusa - 10/29/2015 12:01:28 AM



  • Dear Bedijee, ISIS can have any ambitions to attract the Muslims - specially those who have borne the brunt of recent invasions on Muslim lands and know what is happening in the Occupied land under Israel's brutal grip - that is pure and simple politics. But what they are doing in the process is demonizing Islam and cherry picking Qur'anic verses in isolation to promote their agenda. 
    Following arguments tabled in my article referenced below refute the notion of sex with slave women without marriage:
    ·         The passages date from the early Meccan period when Muslims were ‘just a few in number, weak and helpless in the land, and were afraid that their enemies might oppress and kidnap them’ (8:26). Accordingly, the Meccan Suras are full of exhortations for patience and self-restraint and it is least likely that the Qur’an would grant a sexual license at this stage except to mandate what was prevalent at that point in time – when marriage laws were a decade away. 

    ·         The passage 23:1-11 which incorporates the noted verses spell out some of the attributes of true believers. If this included extramarital sex with captive or slave women, the Qur'an would have accommodated the latter or their offspring in its inheritance laws, which cover all forms of relationships (4:33). There is no mention of ma malakat ae-man, or of their offspring as inheritors of property.

    ·         If the Prophet, or the Qur'an were to give any extra institutional sexual license to men, the pagan Arabs would have unquestionably charged him for this. They called him an impostor (30:58), insane (44:1, 68:51), and an insane poet (37:36). They charged him with forging lies and witchcraft (34:43, 38:4), forging lies against God, forgery and making up tales (11:13, 32:3, 38:7, 46:8), witchcraft (21:3, 43:30, 74:24), obvious witchcraft that was bewildering (10:2, 37:15, 46:7) and of being bewitched or possessed by a Jinn (17:47, 23:70, 34:8).They also found the revelation strange and unbelievable (38:5, 50:2), and condemned it as the legends of the ancients (6:25, 23:83, 27:68, 46:17, 68:15, 83:13). But not one single word did they utter that pointed, even remotely, to his sanctioning of any form of sexual license.

    ·         The traditional interpretation of ma malakat ae’man invoking an institution of slavery in the biblical or historical sense is totally misleading as expounded in the main body of this article.

    ·         The Qur'an sanctions similar ‘rights and duties’ to men and women in many areas and just and balanced ‘rights and duties’ on conjugal matters with monogamy as a social norm [3]. 

    It will be therefore be a gross mistake to interpret the verses 23:5/6, in a gendered manner to sanction unlimited sexual freedom to men-folk with female captives, slaves and their like. Moreover, the Qur’an fully clarifies itself with the progress of the revelation. Thus, as Muhammad Asad observes, quoting al-Razi and al-Tabari, the Qur’an prohibits sexual relation with any woman other than one’ lawful wife [4]

    Hence, any notion of slavery and sexual slavery are antithetic to the Qur’anic message. 

    By muhammad yunus - 10/28/2015 11:42:30 PM



  • The objectives of ISIS are as follows:
    To establish a caliphate on Sharia Law.
    Overthrow the Shia-led government in Syria,Iraq and later other nations of the Levant(Lebanon,Cyprus,Jordan)
    Eradication of Israel and total annihilation of Jewish community from the Middle East.
    Conquering whole of Afghanistan,Pakistan as well as India which include Gujarat,Kashmir,Punjab and Uttar Pradesh(Areas where the presence of Muslims in the total state population is sizable).
    Later on,ISIS also wanted to include entire North & West Africa as well as South East Asia in their empire.
    So,the major aim of ISIS is to carve an Islamic empire larger than the Mongol Empire during the rule of Chengiz Khan.

    According to a Pamphlet distributed by ISIS, it is permissible to have sex with a captive and to sell her.  For this purpose, they have quoted following verses from the Quran:

    23.1. Successful indeed are the believers.

    23.5. And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts)

    23.6. Except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess, for then, they are free from blame;

    The pamphlet also gives permission for captors to have sex with pre-pubescent girls.

    “It is permissible to have intercourse with the female slave who hasn't reached puberty if she is fit for intercourse; however if she is not fit for intercourse, then it is enough to enjoy her without intercourse,” one answer given to a number of questions in the pamphlet reads. 

    By Satbir Singh Bedi - 10/28/2015 10:44:54 AM



  • Quit a number of Muslim extremists from America, British, Indonesia and etc. join ISIS to war against Muslim countries and even non-Muslim countries.  Are they doing the right thing since ISIS intends to overturn the power of rulers from other countries by conquering them?  Do they not know that all the power has its derivation from Allah?  As all power is from Allah, the act of fighting against the power of rulers from other countries should not be considered as fighting in the way of Allah.  The reason is simply that these people are, indeed, fighting against the power from Allah.  

    Muslim extremists might consider all the rulers from democracy are elected by people instead of from Allah.  However, they fail to understand that their power that is from Allah.  As it is from Allah, should Muslims consider fighting against the power of rulers from other countries should be considered as fighting in the Way of Allah?  Indeed, the act of fighting against the power of rulers from other countries should be treated as not respecting the power that has been established by Allah.

    (سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #165)-Mohsin Khan translation:
    And of mankind are some who take (for worship) others besides allah as rivals (to allah). They love them as they love allah. But those who believe, love allah more (than anything else). If only, those who do wrong could see, when they will see the torment, that ALL POWER BELONGS TO ALLAH and that allah is Severe in punishment. 

    Hadith demands Muslims to obey the rulers.  The following is the extract:

    (Book #52, Hadith #203)-Sahih Bukhari:
    Narrated Ibn 'Umar: The 'Prophet said, "It is obligatory for one to listen to and OBEY (THE RULER'S ORDERS) unless these orders involve one disobedience (to Allah); but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed, he should not listen to or obey it."

    If rulers would make a decision that is against the words of Quran, Hadith does not demand Muslims to overturn the power of the rulers.  Instead, it only mentions that Muslims should not obey those rules that are against the Quran instead of all the rules.  

    By zumamusa - 10/27/2015 7:44:47 PM



  • Quran mentions that all power are from Allah.  The following are the extracts:

    (سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #165)-Mohsin Khan translation:
    And of mankind are some who take (for worship) others besides Allah as rivals (to Allah). They love them as they love Allah. But those who believe, love Allah more (than anything else). If only, those who do wrong could see, when they will see the torment, that ALL POWER BELONGS TO ALLAH and that Allah is Severe in punishment.

    As all power belong to Allah, it is not right for Muslims to hate the power that Allah has given to rulers.  Neither it is justifiable for Muslims to fight with the power that has been given to rulers.  They have to obey them.  However, they should not obey if the laws from the rulers are against the words of Quran.  Despite their laws could be against the words of Quran, Muslims should still respect their rulers since their power of ruling is from Allah.  Muslims should obey and follow those rules that have been laid down by rulers that are not against the words of Quran.

    The same verse in Yusuf Ali translation:
    Yet there are men who take (for worship) others besides Allah, as equal (with Allah): They love them as they should love Allah. But those of Faith are overflowing in their love for Allah. If only the unrighteous could see, behold, they would see the penalty: that TO ALLAH BELONGS ALL POWER, and Allah will strongly enforce the penalty.

    The phrase, to allah belongs all power, is mentioned above too.  As all power belongs to Allah, should Muslims frustrate with the rulers just because a few of their rules are against the words of Quran and to overturn the power of their rulers without respecting their power even though their power is from Allah.

    By zumamusa - 10/27/2015 5:56:42 PM



Compose Your Comments here:
Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.

Content