By Mohamad R. M. Farook
June 13, 2019
A microscopic group of a recent origin and ‘supposed to be Muslims’, indoctrinated, grown and nurtured in terrorism by, maybe, extremist ISIS and by all standards apparent apostates of Islam, executed the massacre on Christians on April 21 in Sri Lanka where the different communities had been living with understanding and mutual respect whatever there had been in terms of war or violence which were based essentially in politics, racism, chauvinism and geopolitics. The entire Muslim community, like all other communities, was shocked, saddened and grieved at this tragedy of suicidal mass killing. Muslims were angry and shocked because the perpetrators were supposed to be ‘Muslims’ and there is no room in Islam to hurt, let alone kill, any other religionists.
Qur’an: “For you is your religion, and for me is my religion”, implying that those who follow other faith(s) are free to do so and not to be antagonised. Yet the duty of Muslims (as of any other religionists) is to convey the message of their religion (Islam) in a peaceful manner, Qur’an:
“Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and reason with them in ways that are best and most gracious”.
This is the correct approach not only for Islam but for all religions.
The message of Islam must be made reachable to all so that anyone having any misconception of Islam may be made aware of the true Islam. This process should be through discourses by speech, print or electronic media and never through arrogance, force or physical/mental manipulations. Qur’an:
“There is no compulsion in religion” –
this means that Muslims cannot force others to become Muslims. This Verse is Universal and for all times and so under no condition should an individual be forced to accept a religion or belief against his or her will according to the Quran. The above Verse “There is no compulsion in religion” does not get abrogated by any later Verses as had been erroneously interpreted out of context by a few early Islamic scholars, Christian interpreters of the Qur’an and finally as of today by Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi and his ISIS followers and cohorts. The prophet of Islam was sent to preach the good news of Islam and to warn and correct those who were in complete error. Qur’an:
“And We have sent you [O Muhammad (SAW)] only as a bearer of glad tidings (news) and a warner”.
It is the prerogative of Allah (SWT) to make one accept Islam or not and Muslims can go that far in their Dawah (religious propaganda) work in upholding preaching only and no other influencing interventions whatsoever.“Indeed it is not such that you can guide whomever you love, but Allah guides whomever He wills; and He well knows the people upon guidance” [Qur’an 28:56]. Therefore, Muslims cannot get involved in or commission any practical interventions or conceptual formulations in their Islamic propagation efforts that will go against the Quranic verses cited above. Thus all the suicide bombers of the Easter massacre were adherents to a criminal ideology created and developed by Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi and his cohorts – ISIS – who are infidels/apostates of Islam.
This is what the Muslims say of the suicide bombers. Unfortunately, or rather impulsively, different segments of the Sri Lankan society formed their own opinions as to the identity of the perpetrators of the Easter massacre and were erroneously trying to assign the blame on the Muslim community. This is to be expected as contemporary Sri Lanka had been immersed in racial and religious prejudice and violence against the Muslims by a small group of extremist Sinhala Buddhists. Yet, the Christians and their churches understood the real perpetrators and were silently grieving on the deaths of their brothers and sisters without intending to unleash any harm on the Muslim community. Archbishop His Eminence Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith of the Catholic Church was immediate in his declaration that the Muslim community of Sri Lanka should not be blamed for what a deviant group of eight terrorists ‘supposed’ to be ‘Muslims’ were responsible for the Easter tragedy. This prevented any backlash on the Muslim community.
By now all must be able to note what type of deranged persons the suicide bombers were – they must have been trained, indoctrinated and inculcated with hatred towards specific religious groups on the premise what they (the extremists/terrorists) uphold to eliminate (kill) their others (opponents) is correct, justifiable and absolutely necessary in the present context of anti-Muslim world hegemonies. This ‘philosophy’ is un-Islamic and the only entity that preaches advocates and implements this criminal ideology is none other than Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi and his ISIS.
The purported rationale of ISIS for their attacks on Christians and American interests is taking revenge for America’s enmity towards Muslims in terms of murdering Muslims worldwide – this does not hold water as ISIS have murdered more Muslims than others for not following their (ISIS) criminal ideology which is nothing but Satan inspired Jewish creation. Islamic history has many instances where devout Muslims have gone astray through Satanic influences and that is the case with Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi and his ISIS which does not have Islam in its structure and therefore an outcast of Islam. ISIS is a hidden arm of Jewish terrorism.
While the Easter massacre has made the Muslims be pejoratively looked upon with a sense of suspicion and guilt as if they were responsible for the tragedy, three weeks after that a different calamity emerged in the form of anti-Muslim violence in Negombo, Chilaw, Kurunegala, Gampaha, Minuwangoda. The police curfew declared to contain the violence was of no help to the Muslims of the areas. It helped the rioting mobs to destroy Muslim homes, business places and in the murder of an adult Muslim. The government should have foreseen that violence against Muslims could happen to make use of the Easter tragedy and pro-actively taken measures to contain any violence. The government failed to do this though this government have all information regarding violence against Muslims in the recent past from Aluthgama, Beruwala, Ampara, Digana and connected areas.
Along with the tragedy and violence emerged a challenge to a certain group of the Muslim women viz. covering the face in public places was banned under security measures. Public security takes precedence/ primacy over any other issues even religious – Islam allows this – Maslaha (Public Interest). Muslim community accepted this without any reserve. All Muslim women do not cover their faces (Niqab). Those who cover their faces follow the translation of a particular interpretation of the Qur’an whereas other interpretations allow the face to be uncovered.
Islam allows under exceptional situations such as personal reasons of safety, public security, hardships, misuse/abuse of Niqab by criminal elements, Muslim women need not cover their faces. Islamic scholars throughout had been divided over the issue of face-cover each group citing valid evidence to justify their stand.
Source: Daily News, Ceylon