Ahlul Kitab: Dulu dan Kini


"Sesungguhnya agama yang diakui Allah adalah al-Islam. Dan tidaklah kaum yang diberi al-Kitab itu berselisih paham, kecuali setelah datangnya bukti yang meyakinkan karena kedengkian di antara mereka." (QS Ali Imran: 19).

Al-Qur'an juga menyebutkan bahwa kaum ahli kitab (Yahudi dan Nasrani) memang tidak sama. Ada yang kemudian beriman kepada kenabian Muhammad shalallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam. Jumlahnya sedikit (QS 2:88). Tetapi sebagian besar fasik. (QS 3:110). Di zaman Rasulullah shalallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam, ada dua tokoh Yahudi yang terkemuka yang akhirnya memeluk Islam, beriman kepada risalah yang dibawa Nabi Muhammad shalallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam. Keduanya, yakni Hushein bin Salam dan Mukhairiq, menjadi bahan cemoohan kaumnya sendiri. Jika sebelumnya mereka sangat dihormati, setelah masuk Islam, mereka dikucilkan.

Moenawar Khalil, dalam bukunya, Kelengkapan Tarikh Nabi Muhammad shalallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam (Jakarta: GIP, 2001), menceritakan, Hushein bin Salam kemudian diganti namanya oleh Rasulullah shalallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam menjadi Abdullah bin Salam.

Dia pernah membuktikan bagaimana sikap kaumnya terhadap dirinya. Suatu ketika, kaum Yahudi datang kepada Rasulullah, saat Abdullah bin Salam sedang di sana. Dia berpesan kepada Rasulullah agar menanyakan kepada kaumnya, bagaimana pandangan mereka terhadap dirinya. Saat kaum Yahudi datang, Rasulullah shalallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam bertanya pada mereka, bagaimana pandangan mereka terhadap Husein. Yahudi menjawab: "Ia adalah sebaik-baik orang kami dan sebaik-baik anak lelaki orang kami. Ia adalah semulia-mulia orang kami dan anak lelaki dari seorang yang paling alim dalam golongan kami, karena dewasa ini di kota Madinah tidak ada seorangpun yang melebihi kealimannya tentang kitab Allah (Taurat)."

Kaum Yahudi itu memuji-muji Abdullah. Kemudian Abdullah muncul dan mengajak kaum Yahudi untuk beriman pada kenabian Muhammad shalallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam. Abdullah mengatakan kepada kaumnya, bahwa mereka sebenarnya telah memahami Muhammad adalah utusan Allah, sebab sifat-sifatnya telah disebutkan dalam Kitab mereka.

Mendengar ucapan Abdullah bin Salam, kaum Yahudi berbalik mencaci maki, dan menuduhnya sebagai pendusta. Sebab, dia sudah tidak lagi memeluk agama Yahudi. Ketika itu, turunlah wahyu kepada Rasulullah shalallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam:
"Katakanlah: "Terangkanlah kepadaku, bagaimanakah pendapatmu jika Al Qur'an itu datang dari sisi Allah, padahal kamu mengingkarinya dan seorang saksi dari Bani Israil mengakui (kebenaran) yang serupa dengan (yang disebut dalam) Al Qur'an lalu dia beriman, sedang kamu menyombongkan diri." Sesungguhnya Allah tiada memberi petunjuk kepada orang-orang yang zalim". (QS Al-Ahqaf ayat 10).

Setelah kabar keislaman Abdullah bin Salam tersiar di kalangan kaum Yahudi, maka mereka dengan congkak dan sombong  mengata-mengatai, mencaci-maki, menghina, menjelek-jelekkan dan memusuhinya dengan sekeras-kerasnya. Abdullah bin Salam tidak mempedulikan caci maki keluarga dan kaumnya. Dia terus bertahan dalam Islam dan termasuk sahabat Nabi dari kaum Anshar. Ia meninggal tahun 43 H di Madinah, di masa Khalifah Mu'awiyah.

"Mereka itu tidak sama; di antara Ahli Kitab itu ada golongan yang berlaku lurus, mereka membaca ayat-ayat Allah pada beberapa waktu di malam hari, sedang mereka juga bersujud (sembahyang). Mereka beriman kepada Allah dan hari penghabisan mereka menyuruh kepada yang ma'ruf, dan mencegah dari yang munkar dan bersegera kepada (mengerjakan) pelbagai kebajikan; mereka itu termasuk orang-orang yang saleh. Dan apa saja kebajikan yang mereka kerjakan, maka sekali-kali mereka tidak dihalangi (menerima pahala) nya; dan Allah Maha Mengetahui orang-orang yang bertakwa." (QS Ali Imran ayat 113-115).

Abdullah bin Salam termasuk diantara kaum Yahudi yang menyimpang dari tradisi kaumnya yang menolak kenabian Muhammad shalallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam. Ia  berani menentang tradisi kesombongan kaumnya sendiri. Di antara kaum Yahudi, ada juga yang berani mengkritik ajaran agamanya dan praktik-praktik kebiadaban kaumnya sendiri, meskipun mereka tidak sampai memeluk agama Islam. Salah satunya adalah Dr. Israel Shahak. Guru besar biokimia di Hebrew University ini memang bukan Yahudi biasa. Dia tidak seperti sebagaimana kebanyakan Yahudi lainnya, yang mendukung atau hanya bengong saja menyaksikan kejahatan kaumnya. Suatu ketika, saat dia berada di Jerusalem, pakar biokimia dari Hebrew University ini menjumpai kasus yang mengubah pikiran dan jalan hidupnya. Saat itu, hari Sabtu (Sabath) Shahak berusaha meminjam telepon seorang Yahudi untuk memanggil ambulan, demi menolong seorang non-Yahudi yang sedang dalam kondisi kritis.

Di luar dugaannya, si Yahudi menolak meminjamkan teleponnya. Orang non-Yahudi itu pun akhirnya tidak tertolong lagi. Prof. Shahak kemudian membawa kasus ini ke Dewan Rabbi Yahudi, semacam majelis ulama Yahudi di Jerusalem. Dia menanyakan, apakah menurut agama Yahudi, tindakan si Yahudi yang tidak mau menyelamatkan orang non-Yahudi itu dapat dibenarkan oleh agama Yahudi. Lagi-lagi, Prof. Shahak terperangah. Dewan Rabbi Yahudi di Jerusalem (The Rabbinical Court of Jerusalem) menyetujui tindakan si Yahudi yang mengantarkan orang non-Yahudi ke ujung maut. Bahkan, itu dikatakan sebagai "tindakan yang mulia." Prof. Shahak menulis: "The answered that the Jew in question had behaved correctly indeed piously."

Kasus itulah yang mengantarkan Prof. Shahak untuk melakukan pengkajian lebih jauh tentang agama Yahudi dan realitas negara Israel. Hasilnya, keluar sebuah buku berjudul Jewish History, Jewish Religion (London: Pluto Press, 1994). Dalam penelitiannya, ia mendapati betapa rasialisnya  agama Yahudi dan juga negara Yahudi (Israel). Karena itulah, dia sampai pada kesimpulan, bahwa negara Israel memang merupakan ancaman bagi perdamaian dunia. Katanya, "In my view, Israel as a Jewish state constitutes a danger not only to itself and its inhabitants, but to all Jew and to all other peoples and states in the Middle East and beyond."

Sebagai satu "negara Yahudi" (a Jewish state), negara Israel adalah milik eksklusif bagi setiap orang yang dikategorikan sebagai "Jewish", tidak peduli dimana pun ia berada. Shahak menulis: "Israel 'belongs' to persons who are defined bu the Israeli authorities as 'Jewish', irrespective of where they live, and to them alone."

Dr. Israel Shahak menggugat, kenapa yang dipersoalkan hanya orang-orang yang bersikap anti-Yahudi. Sementara realitas pemikiran dan sikap Yahudi yang sangat diskriminatif terhadap bangsa lain justru sering diabaikan. [Dr. Adian Husaini - INSIST]

RA Kartini - pun Tolak Kristen & Kristenisasi !


Sangat menarik apa yang ditulis sejarawan Muslim Indonesia Ahmad Mansur Suryanegara dalam bukunya - Api Sejarah - tentang penolakan Raden Ajeng (RA) Kartini terhadap politik Kristenisasi di Tanah Jawa. Tak banyak buku sejarah yang mengungkap hal ini. Boleh jadi, pihak Barat dan kaum sekuler sengaja menutupi fakta sejarah ini. Beruntung, melalui buku ini dapat terbuka cakrawala baru bagi kebenaran sejarah.

Siapa sangka, ternyata RA Kartini pernah menolak ajakan sahabat penanya Ny. Van Kol - asal Belanda itu - untuk memeluk agama Kristen. Menurutnya, agama Kristen sangat rendah derajatnya. Ini bukti bahwa RA Kartini memiliki ketauhidan (Islam) yang sangat kokoh.

Dari surat-suratnya yang dikenal dengan Habis Gelap Terbitlah Terang (Door Duisternis tot Licht), ternyata RA Kartini tidak hanya mendobrak dominasi jender saat itu, tetapi juga menentang politik Kristenisasi dan Westernisasi. 

Didalamnya terbaca juga tentang tingginya nilai Islam dimata rakyat terjajah saat itu. Islam dalam pandangan RA Kartini adalah martabat peradaban bangsa Indonesia. Sebaliknya, Kristen dinilai merendahkan derajat bangsa, karena para gerejawan  berpihak, menjadi pendukung paham politik imperialisme dan kapitalisme.

Ketika Ny. Van Kol mengajaknya untuk masuk agama Kristen, RA Kartini menolaknya, seraya mengatakan, "Yakinlah Nyonya, kami akan tetap memeluk agama kami yang sekarang ini (Islam)." Selanjutnya, RA Kartini berbalik mengingatkan Ny. Van Kol agar Barat dapat bertoleransi terhadap agama Islam.

Dalam suratnya kepada E.C Abendanon - Habis Gelap Terbitlah Terang - 
RA Kartini juga mengingatkan: "Zending Protestan jangan bekerja dengan mengibarkan panji-panji agama. Jangan mengajak orang Islam memeluk agama Nasrani. Hal ini akan membuat Zending memandang penduduk Islam sebagai musuhnya. Dampaknya, semua agama akan menjauhi Zending."
Mengapa demikian? RA Kartini menjelaskan, "Orang Islam umumnya memandang rendah kepada orang yang tadinya seagama dengan dia, tetapi kemudian melepas keyakinannya dengan memeluk agama lain."

RA Kartini mengatakan, "Karena yang dipeluknya agama orang Belanda, sangka dia sama tinggi derajatnya dengan orang-orang Belanda". RA Kartini juga memberi nasehat kepada Zending Protestan, agar Zending mengajarkan ketauhidan seperti yang telah melekat pada keimanan Islami di hati bangsa Indonesia. "Janganlah menasranikan orang," kata Kartini 31 Januari 1903 M.

Kekaguman pada Al-Qur’an

Sikap RA Kartini yang istiqamah, nampak setelah ia membaca Tafsir Al-Qur'an. Kekagumannya terhadap nilai ajaran Al-Qur'an dituturkan kepada E.C Abendanon: "Alangkah bebalnya, bodohnya kami, kami tiada melihat, tiada tahu, bahwa sepanjang hidup ada gunung kekayaan di samping kami".(15 Agustus 1902).

RA Kartini menilai Al-Qur'an sebagai gunung kekayaan yang telah lama ada disampingnya. Akibat pendidikan Barat, Al-Qur'an menjadi terlupakan. Namun, setelah Tafsir Al-Qur'an dibacanya, beliau melihat Al-Qur'an sebagai gunung keagungan hakikat kehidupan. 


RA Kartini dengan surat-suratnya juga memberikan gambaran, bahwa agama Kristen atau Katolik tidak mendapatkan tempat di hati rakyat Indonesia. Hal ini disebabkan Agama Protestan sebagai agama penjajah Belanda. Demikian pula Katolik dikembangkan oleh penjajah Portugis, sebelum penjajah Protestan Belanda.

"Jika demikian fakta sejarah yang sebenarnya, timbul pertanyaan, apakah benar teks dalam Diorama Monumen Nasional, Katolik dan Protestan sebagai pemersatu bangsa?" tanya Ahmad Mansur Suryanegara, sejarawan Muslim asal Bandung itu.

Ahmad Mansur sangat menyayangkan jika umat Islam di Indonesia belum menggali sejarah bangsanya sendiri, terutama ulamanya. Kata Mansur, Ulama hanya mampu membaca abunya sejarah, tetapi tidak dapat menangkap apinya sejarah. Para ulama selalu disibukkan oleh masalah fiqiyah, sehingga membiarkan masalah distorsi penulisan sejarah di sekitarnya tidak terjawab.

Akibatnya, pemerintah kolonial Belanda-lah yang mengadakan pemugaran dan penulisan sejarah Indonesia dengan penyimpangan-penyimpangannya. Termasuk mengagung-agungkan kisah masa jaya dan keemasan Hindu dan Budha. Bahkan kolonial Barat berusaha memadamkan cahaya Islam melalui penulisan sejarah yang sengaja digelapkan. "Melalui interpretasi sejarah, pemerintah Kolonial Belanda mencoba membentuk opini supaya publik bangsa Indonesia berpendapat bahwa Islam sebagai agama asing dari Arab, dan kedatangan Islam dianggap merugikan bangsa Indonesia. Sebuah penulisan sejarah yang keliru besar," kata Mansur.

Menurut Mansur, RA Kartini benar-benar memperjuangkan anak bangsa agar memperoleh kesempatan pendidikan, sekalipun bukan dari suku Jawa. Lagi pula RA Kartini bukan dari kalangan Kejawen. Kebangkitan juangnya sangat dipengaruhi oleh ajaran Al-Qur'an. Dan lingkungan kehidupan Kabupaten Jepara merupakan medan persemaian tumbuh kembangnya ajaran Islam di kalangan Bupati yang berpikiran maju sejalan dengan gerakan kaum muda.

Terlepas dari kritikan yang menyebut alam pemikiran RA Kartini juga bercorak theosofi Yahudism, setidaknya apa yang diungkap sejarawan Muslim Ahmad Mansur Suryanegara adalah sisi lain dari sosok RA Kartini yang tak banyak diungkap sejarawan lain, yaitu bahwa ia pernah menolak ajakan Ny. Van Kol untuk masuk agama Kristen dan menentang politik kristenisasi dan westernisasi di negeri ini. [voa-islam]. 

> Next: Bung Karno, Saatnya Shalat di Amerika

History of the Bible


If someone asked you where to find the Bible verse that begins, “For God so loved the world…you’d probably know he was asking about John 3:16. If you had a Bible, you could find it for him in no time. But there was a time when no one could find a single verse in the whole Bible. There was no John 3:16, Genesis l:l or any other verse because the Bible wasn’t divided into verses or even chapters. Worse yet, there were hundreds of years when there weren’t even any word divisions. Punctuation marks, capital letters and even vowels were omitted. In those days, if Genesis had been written in English, it would have started: NTHBGNNNGGDCRTDTHHVNSNDTHRTH.” You would have had to spend hours or days just to find your favorite verse.

Words were divided by Jesus’ time, but vowels weren’t used in Hebrew Old Testaments until the sixth century A. D. Gradually, capitalization, punctuation and paragraphing worked their way into the Old and New Testaments. But Bible chapters such as we have today didn’t come into being until the 13th century. They were the work of Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

For the next 200 years, the Bible, now divided into chapters, continued to be copied by hand. Then in 1448, Rabbi Nathan startled the world by breaking the Old Testament into verses. The New Testament wasn’t divided into numbered verses until 1551 when a French printer, Robert Estienne did the job. He was planning a study Bible that would have side-by-side columns in three translations when he got the idea. He was so rushed for time he decided to do the dividing on a trip from Paris to Lyons. Some people have suggested he did the work on horseback and his sometimes awkward divisions resulted when his “jogging horse bumped his pen in the wrong places.” Yet, with a few exceptions, Estienne’s divisions provide us with the verses we have today.

So just as number of people were used in writing of the Bible over a period of centuries, it was the contribution of countless scribes, hundreds of years, and three men in particular—a Catholic archbishop, a Jewish rabbi and a Protestant printer --- who turned:  “NTHBGNNNGGDCRTDTHHVNSNDTHRTH” into Genesis l:l.

Sejarah Alkitab (Bibel)


Jika seseorang bertanya kepada Anda di mana Anda bisa menemukan ayat Alkitab yang dimulai dengan, “Karena begitu besar kasih Allah akan dunia
ini …. Anda mungkin tahu ia sedang menanyakan Yohanes 3:16. Jika Anda memiliki sebuah Alkitab, Anda bisa mencarikan untuknya saat itu juga. Tapi ada suatu masa ketika tak seorang pun bisa menemukan satu ayat dalam seluruh Alkitab. Tidak ada Yohanes 3:16, Kejadian 1:1 atau ayat lainnya karena Alkitab tidak dibagi dalam ayat-ayat dan bahkan pasal-pasal. Lebih buruk lagi, selama ratusan tahun bahkan tidak ada pembagian-pembagian kata. Tanda-tanda baca, huruf besar dan bahkan huruf hidup tidak ada. Dalam zaman itu, jika Kejadian ditulis dalam bahasa Inggris, ini akan berbunyi: NTHBGNNNGGDCRTDTHHVNSNDTHRTH.” Anda harus memakai waktu berjam-jam atau berhari-hari hanya untuk menemukan ayat favorit Anda.

Kata-kata dibagi dalam zaman Yesus, namun huruf hidup tidak dipakai dalam Perjanjian Lama Bahasa Ibrani sampai abad keenam Masehi. Secara bertahap, huruf-huruf besar, tanda baca dan alinea mulai dipakai dalam Perjanjian Lama dan Baru. Namun pasal-pasal Alkitab seperti yang kita lihat sekarang ini belum ada sampai abad ke-13. Mereka merupakan hasil karya Stephen Langton, Uskup Besar Canterbury.

new unholybible !
Selama 200 tahun selanjutnya, Alkitab dibagi dalam pasal-pasal, diperbanyak dengan cara menyalinnya dengan tangan. Kemudian pada tahun 1448, Rabi Nathan mengejutkan dunia dengan membagi Perjanjian Lama dalam ayat-ayat. Perjanjian Baru tidak dibagi dalam sejumlah ayat hingga tahun 1551 ketika seorang pemilik percetakan, Robert Estienne melakukan pekerjaan tersebut. Ia sedang mempelajari Alkitab dengan tiga kolom berdampingan dalam tiga terjemahan ketika ia mendapatkan ide tersebut. Ia dikejar waktu sehingga ia memutuskan untuk membagi-baginya dalam perjalanan dari Paris ke Lyons. Beberapa orang memberi kesan bahwa ia melakukannya sambil menunggang kuda dan kadang-kadang pembagian yang janggal terjadi akibat “lompatan kudanya sehingga penanya menandai tempat yang salah.” Meskipun demikian, dengan sedikit pengecualian, pembagian Estienne membuat kita memiliki ayat-ayat sekarang ini.

Jadi sejumlah orang dipakai dalam penulisan Alkitab selama suatu periode berabad-abad, ini adalah kontribusi dari para penulis yang tak terhitung jumlahnya, ratusan tahun, dan tiga pria secara istimewa – seorang uskup besar Katolik, seorang rabi Yahudi, dan seorang pemilik percetakan
Protestan --- yang mengubah: “NTHBGNNNGGDCRTDTHHVNSNDTHRTH” menjadi Kejadian 1:1.

Dr. Gary Miller: The Difference Between the Bible and the Qur'an


Previously, Dr. Gary Miller is a Christian missionary who is extremely active and very knowledgeable about the Bible. However, after reading the Qur'an to try, to find faults so that he may be able to take advantage of the Muslim people to move into in Christianity, but even he himself became an adherent of Islam. And this is an important article from him about what he mastered very well. Please read it, may benefit!

The Difference Between the Bible and the Al-Qur'an

The Bible is a collection of writings by many different authors. The Qur'an is a dictation. The speaker in the Qur'an - in the first person - is God talking directly to man. In the Bible you have many men writing about God and you have in some places the word of God speaking to men and still in other places you have some men simply writing about history. The Bible consists of 66 small books. About 18 of them begin by saying: This is the revelation God gave to so and so… The rest make no claim as to their origin. You have for example the beginning of the book of Jonah which begins by saying: The word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Elmitaeh saying… quote and then it continues for two or three pages.

If you compare that to one of the four accounts of the life of Jesus, Luke begins by saying: "many people have written about this man, it seems fitting for me to do so too" . That is all… no claim of saying "these words were given to me by God here they are for you it is a revelation", there is no mention of this.

The Bible does not contain self-reference, that is, the word 'Bible' is not in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible talk about itself. Some scriptures are sometimes pointed to in the Bible, say: Here where it talks about itself, but we have to look closely. 2nd Timothy 3:16 is the favourite which reads: "All scripture is inspired of God" and there are those who would say, here is where the Bible it talks about itself, it says it is inspired of God, all of it. But if you read the whole sentence, you read that this was a letter wrote by Paul to Timothy and the entire sentence says to Timothy: "Since you were a young man you have studied the holy scriptures, all scriptures inspired by God" and so on… When Timothy was a young man the New Testament did not exist, the only thing that stems he was talking about are scriptures – which are only a portion of the Bible - from before that time. It could not have meant the whole Bible.

There is at the end of the Bible a verse which says: "Let anyone who takes away from this book or adds to this book be cursed". This to is sometimes pointed to me saying: Here is where it sums itself as a whole. But look again and you will see that when it says: Let no one change this book, it is talking about that last book, number 66, the Book of Revelation. It has too, because any reference will tell you that the Book of Revelation was written before certain other parts of the Bible were written. It happens today to be stacked at the end, but there are other parts that came after, so it can not be referring to the entire book.

It is an extreme position held only by some Christian groups that the Bible – in its entirety - cover to cover is the revealed word of God in every word, but they do a clever thing when they mention this, or make this claim. They will say that the Bible in its entirety is the word of God; inerrant (no mistakes) in the original writings. So if you go to the Bible and point out some mistakes that are in it you are going to be told: Those mistakes were not there in the original manuscript, they have crept in so that we see them there today. They are going on problem in that position. There is a verse in the Bible Isaiah 40:8 which in fact is so well known that some Bibles printed it on the inside front cover as an introduction and it says : "The grass weathers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever". Here is a claim in the Bible that the word of God will stand forever, it will not be corrupted, it won't be lost. So if today you find a mistake in the Bible you have two choices. Either that promise was false that when God said my word wont fade away, he was mistaken, or the portion which has the mistake in it was not a part of the word of God in the first place, because the promise was that it would be safeguarded, it would not be corrupted.

I have suggested many times that there are mistakes in the Bible and the accusation comes back very quickly: Show me one. Well there are hundreds. If you want to be specific I can mention few. You have for example at 2nd Samuel 10:18 a description of a war fought by David saying that he killed 700 men and that he also killed 40000 men on horsebacks. In 1st Chronicles 19 it mentions the same episode saying that he killed 7000 men and the 40000 men were not on horsebacks, they were on foot. The point be what is the difference between the pedestrian and not is very fundamental.

Matthew 27:5 says that Judas Iscariot when he died he hung himself. Acts 1 says that no he jumped off a cliff head first. If you study Logic very soon you will come in your course to what they call an "undecidable propositions" or "meaningless sentences" or statements that can not be decided because there is no contextual false. One of the classic examples sited is something called the Effeminites paradox. This man was Cretan and he said "Cretans always lie", now was that statement true or false? If he was a Cretan and he says that they always lie is he lying? If he is not lying then he is telling the truth then the Cretans don’t always lie ! You see it can not be true and it can not be false, the statement turns back on itself. It is like saying "What I am telling you right now is a lie" would you believe that or not? You see the statement has no true content. It can not be true and it can not be false. If it is true it is always false. If it is false it is also true.

Well in the Bible at Titus 1:12 the writer is Paul and he is talking about the Cretans. He says that one of their own men – a prophet - said "Cretans always lie" and he says that what this man says is true. It is a small mistake, but the point is that it is a human mistake, you don’t find that if you carefully examine the true content of that statement. It can not be a true statement.

Now I come back to the Qur'an, and as I mentioned the speaker in the Qur'an is - in the first person - is God. The book claims throughout that it is the word of God. It names itself 70 times as the Qur'an. It talks about its own contents. It has self-reference. The Qur'an states in the first Sura after Fatiha that "This is the book, there is no doubt in it, it is a guidance for those who are conscious of God" (Qur'an 2:1) and so on and so on… It begins that way and continues that way stressing that. And there is one very amazing statement in the Qur'an when you come to the fourth Sura 82nd Ayah which says to those who say Qur'an is something else than the word of God. It challenges them saying: "Have they not considered the Qur'an, if it came from someone other than God they will find in it many mistakes" (Qur'an 4:82). Some of you are students, would you dare to hand in a paper after you completed a research work or something at the bottom you put down there "You wont find mistakes in this". Would you dare to challenge your professor that way?. Well the Qur'an does that. It is telling: If you really think you know where this came from then starts looking for mistakes because you wont find any. Another interesting thing the Qur'an does is that it quotes all its critics. There has never - in hundreds of years - ever been some suggestion as to where that book came from but that the Qur'an does not already mention that objection and reply to it. Many times you will find the Ayah saying something like: Do they say such and such and so, say to them such and such and so . In every case there is a reply. More than that the Qur'an claims that the evidence of its origin is in itself, and that if you look at this book you will be convinced.

So the difference in Christianity and Islam comes down to a difference of authority and appeal to authority. The Christian wants to appeal to the Bible and the Muslim wants to appeal to the Qur'an. You can not stop by saying: This is true because my book say it is, and somebody else would say something else is true because my book says differently, you can not stop at that point, and the Qur'an does not. The Christians may point to some words that it is recorded Jesus said and say this proves my point. But the Muslim does not simply open his book and say: No, no the Qur'an says this, because the Qur'an does not simply deny something the Bible says and say something else instead. The Qur'an takes the form of a rebuttal, it is a guidance as the opening says (Huda lil mutakeen). So that for every suggestion that the Christian may say: My Bible say such and such, the Qur'an will not simply say: No that is not true, it will say: Do they say such and such then ask them such and such. You have for example the Ayah that compares Jesus and Adam. There are those who may say that Jesus must have been God (Son of God) because he had no father. He had a woman who was his mother, but there was no human father. It was God that gave him life, so he must have been God’s son. The Qur'an reminds the Christian in one short sentence to remember Adam - who was his father? - and in fact, who was his mother? He did not have a father either and in fact he did not have a mother, but what does that make him? So that the likeness of Adam is the likeness of Jesus, they were nothing and then they became something; that they worship God.

So that the Qur'an does not demand belief - the Qur'an invites belief, and here is the fundamental difference. It is not simply delivered as: Here is what you are to believe, but throughout the Qur'an the statements are always: Have you O man thought of such and such, have you considered so and so. It is always an invitation for you to look at the evidence; now what do you believe?

The citation of the Bible very often takes the form of what is called in Argumentation: Special Pleading. Special Pleading is when implications are not consistent. When you take something and you say: Well that must mean this, but you don’t use the same argument to apply it to something else. To give an example, I have seen it in publications many times, stating that Jesus must have been God because he worked miracles. In other hand we know very well that there is no miracle ever worked by Jesus that is not also recorded in the Old Testament as worked by one of the prophets. You had amongst others, Elijah, who is reported to have cured the leper, raise the dead boy to life and to have multiplied bread for the people to eat - three of the most favorite miracles cited by Jesus. If the miracles worked by Jesus proved he was God, why don’t they prove Elijah was God ? This is Special Pleading, if you see what I mean. The implications are not consistent. If this implies that then in that case it must also imply the same thing. We have those who would say Jesus was God because he was taken up in the heaven. But the Bible also says the a certain Einah did not die he was taken up into the heaven by God. Whether it is true or not, who knows, but the point is if Jesus being taken up proves he is God, why does not it prove Einah was God? The same thing happened to him.

I wrote to a man one time, who wrote a book about Christianity and I had some of the objections I mentioned to you now. And his reply to me was that I am making matters difficult to myself, that there are portions in the Bible that are crystal clear and that there are portions that are difficult, and that my problem was that I am looking at the difficult part instead of the clear parts. The problem is that this is an exercise in self deception - why are some parts clear and some parts difficult? It is because somebody decided what this clearly means, now that makes this very difficult. To give you an example, John Chapter 14 a certain man said to Jesus: Show us God and Jesus said: If you have seen me you have seen God. Now without reading on the Christian will say: See Jesus claimed to be God, he said if you have seen me you have seen God. If that is crystal clear then you have a difficult portion when you go back just a few pages to Chapter 5 when another man came to Jesus and said show us God and he said you have never seen God you have never heard his voice . Now what did he mean there if on the other occasion he meant that he was God? Obviously you have made matters difficult by deciding what the first one meant. If you read on in Chapter 14 you will see what he went on to say. He was saying the closest you are going to seeing God are the works you see me doing.

It is a fact that the words "son of God" are not found on the lips of Jesus anywhere in the first three Gospel accounts, he was always calling himself the Son of Man. And it is a curious form of reasoning that I have seen so often that it is established from Bible that he claimed to be God because - look how the Jews reacted. They will say for example he said such and such and the Jews said he is blaspheming, he claimed to be God and they tried to stone him. So they argue that he must have been claiming to be God because look ! - the Jews tried to kill him. They said that’s what he was claiming. But the interesting thing is that all the evidence is then built on the fact that a person is saying: I believed that Jesus was the son of God because the Jews who killed him said that’s what he used to say! His enemies used to say that, so he must have said it, this is what it amounts to. In other hand we have the words of Jesus saying he would keep the law, the law of Moses and we have the statement in the Bible, why did the Jews kill him? Because he broke the law of Moses. Obviously the Jews misunderstood him, if he promised he would keep the law, but they killed him because he broke the law, they must have misunderstood him, or lied about him.

When I talk about the Bible and quote various verses here and there I am often accused of putting things out of context, to say you have lifted something out of what it was talking about and given it a meaning. I don’t want to respond to the accusation as such, but it doesn’t seem to occur to many people that perhaps those who wrote portions of the Bible in the first place were guilty of the same thing. Maybe they – some of those writers - believed a certain thing and in order to prove it quoted from their scriptures – the Old Testament, the Hebrew writings - quoted out of context to prove their point. There are examples of that kind of thing. In Matthew 2 it said that a king wanted to kill the young child Jesus so he with his family went to Egypt, and they stayed there until that king died, and then they came back. When the writer of Matthew, whoever he was, because the name Matthew wont be found in the book of Matthew; when he described this event saying that he came back out of Egypt, he said: "This was to fulfill a prophecy which is written" and then he quotes Hosea Chapter 11 "Out of Egypt I called my Son". So he said because Jesus went to Egypt and then came back out of Egypt and we have this passage in the Hebrew scriptures "Out of Egypt I called my son" Jesus must have been the son of God. If you look and see what he was quoting, Hosea 11:1 he quotes the second half of a complete sentence, the complete sentence reads: "When Israel was young I loved him and out of Egypt I called my son". Israel the nation was considered as the son of God. Moses was told to go to Pharaoh and say to him: If you touch that nation of people, you touch my son; warning him, warning Pharaoh: don’t touch that nation, calling the nation "the son of God". So that this is the only thing talked about in Hosea 11:1. "Out of Egypt I called my son" can only refer to the nation of Israel. I mentioned this point some months ago here in another talk, to which a young lady with us objected that Israel is a symbolic name for Jesus. You will have a hard time finding that anywhere in the Bible because it isn’t there. You can take an index of the Bible and lookup the word "Israel" everywhere the word occurs and you will find no where in any place that you can connect the word Israel with Jesus. But never mind - suppose it is true, read on, the second verse says "and after that he kept on worshipping Bal", because this is what the Israelites were guilty of, very often they kept falling back into Idol worshipping. So if that "Israel" really meant Jesus and it means that Jesus is the son of God that came out of Egypt they must also mean that Jesus from time to time used to bow down to that idol Bal. You have to be consistent, and follow through on what it says. So the point is whoever wrote Matthew and Chapter 2 was trying to prove a point by quoting something out of context, and he undid himself, because if you follow through on it, it can not be so.

Now I can come back to the claim the Qur'an makes that it has internal evidence of its origin. There are many many ways that you can look at this. As one example, if I single out somebody here and say: You know, I know your father - he is going to doubt that, he has never seen me with his father. He would say: how does he look like, is he tall short does he wear glasses? and so on, and if I give him the right answers pretty soon he will get convinced, "Oh yes, you did meet him". If you apply the same kind of thinking when you look at the Qur'an, here is a book that says it came from the one who was there when the universe began. So you should be asking that one: So tell me something that proves it. Tell me something that shows me you must have been there when the universe was beginning. You will find in two different Ayahs the statement that all the creation began from a single point, and from this point it is expanding. In 1978 they gave the Noble prize to two people who proved that that is the case. It is the big bang origin of the universe. It was determined by the large radio receivers that they have for the telephone companies which were sensitive enough to pick up the transmissions from satellites and it kept finding background noise that they could not account for. Until the only explanation came to be, it is the left over energy from that original explosion which fits in exactly as would be predicted by the mathematical calculation of what would be this thing if the universe began from a single point and exploded outwards. So they confirmed that, but in 1978. Centuries before that here is the Qur'an saying the heavens and the earth in the beginning they were one piece and split and says in another Ayah : "of the heavens we are expanding it".

Let me tell you about a personal investigation, it occurred to me that there are a number of things you can find in the Qur'an that give evidence to its origin – internal evidence. If the Qur'an is dictated from a perfect individual; it originates with God, then there should not be any wasted space, it should be very meaningful. There should be nothing that we don’t need that you can cut off, and it should not be missing anything. And so that everything in there should really be there for a specific purpose. And I got to thinking about the Ayah which I mentioned before, it says, the likeness of Jesus is the likeness of Adam. It is an equation, it uses the Arabic word (mithel), it says Jesus, Adam, equal. You go to the index of the Qur'an, you look up the name ISA it is in the Qur'an 25 times, you lookup the name Adam it is there 25 times. They are equal, through scattered references but 25 of each. Follow that through and you will find that in the Qur'an there are 8 places were an Ayah says something is like something else, using this (mithel), you will find in every case and take both sides of it whatever that word is look it up in the index and it will be lets say 110 times and lookup the other word and it will be said to be equal to the same 110. That is quite a project of co-ordination if you try to write a book that way yourself. So that everywhere you happened to mention that such and such is like such and such that then you check your index, filing system, or your IBM punch cards or whatever, to make sure that in this whole book you mentioned them both the same number of times. But that’s what you will find in the Qur'an.

What I am talking about is built on a thing that is called in Logic: Use and Mention of a Word. When you use a word, you are using its meaning. When you mention a word, you are talking about the symbol without the meaning. For example, if I say Toronto is a big city - I used the word Toronto as I meant this place Toronto is a big city. But if I say to you Toronto has 7 letters, I am not talking about this place Toronto, I am talking about this word - Toronto. So, the revelation is above reasoning, but it is not above reason. That is to say we are more up not to find in the Qur'an something that is unreasonable, but we may find something that we would have never figured out for ourselves.

The author of this sentence said if this book came from someone besides God then you will find in it many Ikhtalafan (inconsistencies). The word Ikhtilaf is found many times in the Qur'an. But the word Ikhtalafan is only found once in the Qur'an. So there are not many Ikhtilafan in the Qur'an, there is only one - where the sentence is mentioned. So you see how things are put together perfectly. It has been suggested to mankind: Find a mistake. Man could not get hold of a mistake, and he is very clever, because this sentence could also mean: Find many Iktilafan and so he quickly goes to the index to see if he can find many of them and there is only one... Sorry clever person !

[Dr. Gary Miller (Abdul-Ahad Omar) - A former missionary who has embraced Islam]. [source: quranicstudies.com].

Dr. Gary Miller (Abdul-Ahad Omar)


A very important Christian missionary converted to Islam and became a major herald for Islam, he was a very active missionary and was very knowledgeable about the Bible. This man likes mathematics so much, that's why he likes logic. One day, he decided to read the Qur'an to try to find any mistakes that he might take advantage of while inviting Muslims to convert to Christianity. He expected the Qur'an to be an old book written 14 centuries ago, a book that talks about the desert and so on. He was amazed from what he found.

He discovered that this Book had what no other book in the world has. He expected to find some stories about the hard time that the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) had, like the death of his wife Khadijah (may Allah be pleased with her) or the death of his sons and daughters. However, he did not find anything like that. And what made him even more confused is that he found a full "Sura" (chapter) in the Qur'an named "Mary" that contains a lot of respect to Mary (peace be upon her) which is not the case even in the books written by Christians nor in their Bibles. He did not find a Sura named after "Fatimah" (the prophet's daughter) nor "Aishah" (the Prophet's wife), may Allah (God) be pleased with both of them. He also found that the name of Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) was mentioned in the Qur'an 25 times while the name of "Muhammad" (Peace Be Upon Him) was mentioned only 4 times, so he became more confused. He started reading the Qur'an more thoroughly hoping to find a mistake but he was shocked when he read a great verse which is verse number 82 in Surat Al-Nisa'a (Women) that says:

"Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy"

Dr Miller says about this verse: "One of the well known scientific principles is the principle of finding mistakes or looking for mistakes in a theory until it’s proved to be right (Falsification Test). What's amazing is that the Holy Qur'an asks Muslims and non-muslims to try to find mistakes in this book and it tells them that they will never find any". He also says about this verse: "No writer in the world has the courage to write a book and say that it's empty of mistakes, but the Qur'an, on the contrary, tells you that it has no mistakes and asks you to try to find one and you won't find any".

Another verse that Dr Miller reflected on for a long time is the verse number 30 in Surat "Al-Anbiya" (The Prophets):

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of Creation), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"

He says: "This verse is exactly the subject of the scientific research that won the Noble Prize in 1973 and was about the theory of the "Great Explosion". According to this theory, the universe was the result of a great explosion that lead to the formation of the universe with its skies and planets.
Dr Miller says: "Now we come to what's amazing about the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and what's pretended about the devils helping him, God says:
 
"No evil ones have brought down this (Revelation), it would neither suit them nor would they be able (to produce it). Indeed they have been removed far from even (a chance of) hearing it". The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 26, Verses 210-212. 

"When thou does read the Qur'an, seek Allah's protection from Satan the Rejected One" The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 16, Verse 98. 

You see? Can this be the devil’s way to write a book? how can he write a book then tells you to ask God for protection from this devil before reading that book? Those are miraculous verses in this miraculous book! and has a logical answer to those who pretend that it's from the devil.

And among the stories that amazed Dr Miller is the story of the Prophet (PBUH) with Abu-Lahab. Dr Miller says: This man (Abu Lahab) used to hate Islam so much that he would go after the Prophet wherever he goes to humiliate him. If he saw the prophet talking to strangers, he used to wait till he finishes and then ask them: What did Muhammad tell you? If he said it's white then it’s in reality black and if he said it’s night then it's day. He meant to falsify all what the prophet says and to make people suspicious about it. And 10 years before the death of Abu Lahab, a Sura was inspired to the prophet, named "Al-Masad". This sura tells that Abu Lahab will go to hell, in other words, it says that Abu Lahab will not convert to Islam. 

During 10 years, Abu Lahab could have said: "Muhammad is saying that I will not become a Muslim and that I will go to the hell fire, but I’m telling you now that I want to convert to Islam and become a Muslim. What do you think about Muhammad now? Is he saying the truth or no? Does his inspiration come from God?". But Abu Lahab did not do that at all although he was disobeying the prophet in all matters, but not in this one. In other words, it was as if the prophet(PBUH) was giving Abu Lahab a chance to prove him wrong! But he did not do that during 10 whole years! he did not convert to Islam and did not even pretend to be a Muslim!! Throughout 10 years, he had the chance to destroy Islam in one minute! But this did not happen because those are not the words of Muhammad (PBUH) but the words of God Who knows what's hidden and knows that Abu Lahab will not become a Muslim. 

How can the prophet (PBUH) know that Abu Lahab will prove what is said in that Sura if this was not inspiration from Allah? How can he be sure throughout 10 whole years that what he has (the Qur'an) is true if he did not know that it’s inspiration from Allah?? For a person to take such a risky challenge, this has only one meaning: that this is inspiration from God. 

"Perish the hands of the Father of Flame (Abu Lahab)! perish he! No profit to him from all his wealth, and all his gains! Burnt soon will he be in a Fire of blazing Flame! His wife shall carry the (crackling) wood; As fuel! A twisted rope of palm-leaf fibre round her (own) neck!" The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 111. 

Dr Miller says about a verse that amazed him: One of the miracles in the Qur'an is challenging the future with things that humans cannot predict and to which the "Falsification Test" applies, this test consists of looking for mistakes until the thing that is being tested is proved to be right. For example, let's see what the Qur'an said about the relation between Muslims and Jews. Qur'an says that Jews are the major enemies for Muslims and this is true until now as the main enemy for Muslims are the Jews. 

Dr Miller continues: This is considered a great challenge since the Jews have the chance to ruin Islam simply by treating Muslims in a friendly way for few years and then say: here we are treating you as friends and the Qur'an says that we are your enemies, the Qur'an must be wrong then! But this did not happen during 1400 years!! and it will never happen because those are the words of The One who knows the unseen (God) and not the words of humans. 

Dr Miller continues: Can you see how the verse that talks about the enmity between Muslims and Jews constitutes a challenge to the human mind?

"Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the Believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant. And when they listen to the revelation received by the Messenger, thou wilt see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognize the truth: they pray: "Our Lord! We believe; write us down among the witnesses" The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 5, Verses 82-84. 

This verse applies to Dr Miller as he was a Christian but when he knew the truth, he believed and converted to Islam and became a herald. May Allah support him. 

Dr Miller says about the unique style of the Qur'an that he finds wonderful: No doubt there is something unique and amazing in Qur'an that is not present anywhere else, as the Qur'an gives you a specific information and tells you that you did not know this before. For example:

"This is part of the tidings of the things unseen, which We reveal unto thee (O Prophet!) by inspiration: thou was not with them when they cast lots with arrows, as to which of them should be charged with the care of Maryam: nor was thou with them when they disputed (the point)" The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 3, Verse 44. 

"Such are some of the stories of the Unseen, which We have revealed unto thee: before this, neither thou nor thy People knew them. So persevere patiently: for the End is for those who are righteous" The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 11, Verse 49.

"Such is one of the stories of what happened unseen, which We reveal by inspiration unto thee: nor was thou (present) with them when they concerted their plans together in the process of weaving their plots" The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 12, Verse 102. 

Dr Miller continues: "No other holy book uses this style, all the other books consist of information that tells you where this information came from. For example, when the Holy Bible talks about the stories of the ancient nations, it tells you that a this King lived in a this place and a that leader fought in that battle, and that a certain person had a number of kids and their names are. But this book (Bible) always tells you that if you want to know more, you can read a certain book since that information came from that book"

Dr Gary Miller continues: "This is in contrary to the Qur'an which gives you the information and tells you that it's new!! And what's amazing is that the people of Mecca at that time (time of inspiration of those verses) used to hear those verses and the challenge that the information in those verses was new and was not known by Muhammad (PBUH) nor by his people at that time, and despite that, they never said: We know this and it is not new, and they did not say: We know where Muhammad came from with those verses. This never happened, but what happened is that nobody dared to say that he was lying to them because those was really new information, not coming from the human mind but from Allah who knows the unseen in the past, the present and the future".

Karen Armstrong: ISLAM AND THE WEST (discusses MES in US universities)


"What more concessions should the West make to Muslims? When should we draw the line and stop sacrificing our ideals?" The question was posed by a young Englishman at the end of a lecture on "Understanding Islam" at Oxford University's Institute for American Studies in England. While the question revealed many Western concerns and assumptions, as well as the extent to which an anti-Islamic mood has prevailed in the West since the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September last year, the answer, however, was quick. "Muslims did not ask us to give up our ideals and values. On the contrary, it is the West which does not honour these very ideals when dealing with Muslims and Islam," said the lecturer, Karen Armstrong, a Catholic nun turned Christian theologian.

After studying English at Oxford, Armstrong became a nun, and 17 years later she left her convent and wrote a book called Through the Narrow Gate (1981), an account of her years spent there. This was followed by further books, including The First Christian, Tongues of Fire, The Gospel According to Woman, Holy War and Muhammad. In 1993 she published an important work on the three monotheistic religions called The History of God: From Abraham to the Present. This sold well and was followed by another best-selling book, Muhammad: a Biography of the Prophet in 1996. 

In Armstrong's view, what 11 September revealed was "a new awareness" striking at the integrity of Western culture and its value system. "We were posing as a tolerant society, yet passing judgment from a position of extremes and irrationality," the 58-year-old Armstrong told the Weekly in an exclusive interview at her house in London. 

Since the attacks, Armstrong has been on mission in the United States and South America lecturing on Islam. It has not been an easy task. "September 11th has confirmed a view of Islam that is centuries old, which is that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant of others," she said, going on to offer a first-hand account of the situation in the United States nine months after the attacks.

"The events have been a great shock to the Americans, and they are now in a state of numbness and depression," Armstrong explained. "There is still a lot of hostility and anger directed against the Muslim community there. There is, however, some reason to believe that a change in the American perception is not impossible."

"On the East Coast where I spent most of my time, people descended en masse on the bookstores and took off the shelves everything they could find about Islam. While some did this to confirm old prejudices and fears -- depending on who you choose to read -- the majority was keen on learning about Islam." In fact, Armstrong's own handbook, Understanding Islam, has sold more than a quarter of a million copies on the East Coast of the United States alone. And many of the questions posed to Armstrong during her lecture tour reflected not only a sense of wanting to know more about Islam, but also how deeply rooted were media representations of Islam in the American psyche. 

The key question would be, "why do they hate us?" Armstrong said, followed by others, such as: "What do Muslims think of Christians and Jews? Is Islam an inherently violent religion? Why do we always hear bad rhetoric about Christians? What about women in Islam? Is Islam against modernity?" 

In responding to such questions, Armstrong walks a fine line between deconstructing long- held stereotypes while at the same time not becoming apologetic. She noted that there are differences in the way her views are received in the US and in Europe. "One of the good things about the Americans is that they do like to know," she says. "There is earnestness about them that one does not observe in a European society such as Holland, for example. They are open to criticism in a way that does not exist in Europe, where people assume they know it all." 

At the age of 19, Armstrong joined a Catholic convent, staying there for 17 years before deciding to leave in order to study the world's monotheistic religions, beginning with Islam. Does she think that the religious establishment in the West -- ie the churches themselves -- are responsible for Western hostility to Islamic culture?

"Anti-Islamic doctrine is in-built in the Western ethos that was formulated during the Crusades," she says. "This was the period when the Western world was re-defining itself. The 11th century marked the end of the Dark Ages in Europe and the beginnings of the new Europe. The Crusades were the first co-operative act on the part of the whole new Europe, and the whole crusading ethos shaped the psyche of the key actors performing at this crucial time."

"Islam was the quintessential foreigner, and people resented Islam in Europe much as people in the Third World resent the US today. One could say that Islam then was the greatest world power, and it remained so up until the early years of the Ottoman empire. Muslims were everywhere in the Middle East, Turkey, Iran, South- East Asia, China. Wherever people went, there was Islam, and it was powerful, and people felt it as a threat."

The period of the Crusades was a crucial historical moment during which the West was defining itself, and Islam became a yardstick against which it measured itself. "Islam was everything that the West thought it was not, and it was at the time of the Crusades that the idea that Islam was essentially a violent religion took hold in the West. "Europe was projecting anxiety about its own behaviour onto Islam, and it did the same thing too with the Jewish people," Armstrong said.

Even in non-religious societies such as England, Armstrong believes that prejudice against Islam remains, saying that "I think it is in-built into people that Islam is a violent religion." These hostile feelings were given a new lease of life during the colonial period, Armstrong believes, since many of the colonised countries were Muslim countries, and the colonial powers saw in them what they regarded as 'backwardness', attributing this to Islam.

Although she feels that university campuses are almost the only places in the US where big questions are asked, Armstrong says that the events of 11 September divided US academics into two camps. The first camp, led by Martin Kramer, head of the Near and Middle East Studies Institute in Washington DC, accused Armstrong, together with academics such as John Esposito, head of Islamic-Christian Dialogue at Georgetown University, of 'duping' people into believing that Islam was not a threat, an argument Kramer claimed had been proved wrong by the attacks. Only a few weeks after 11 September, Kramer wrote an article, Ivory Towers Built on Sand, in which he put the blame squarely on academics for failing to predict the atrocities.

Armstrong explains how the media in the US attempted to silence opposing voices after 11 September. For example, she had been commissioned by the New Yorker magazine to write an article on Islam, but the article was killed and the magazine published one by the academic Bernard Lewis instead.

"They thought I am an apologist for Muslims, because my article was about the prophet as a peacemaker, and this did not suit their agenda as much as Lewis's did. Both Lewis and Kramer are staunch Zionists who write from a position of extreme bias. But people need to know that Islam is a universal religion, and that there is nothing aggressively oriental or anti-Western about it. Lewis's line, on the other hand, is that Islam is an inherently violent religion," she said.

Earlier, in the mid 1980s, Armstrong was commissioned by Channel Four television in Britain to make a documentary about the life of St. Paul. This required visits to the Holy Land and to Jerusalem. However, when Armstrong went to Israel and saw the kind of racism against Arabs that dominated Israeli society, she realised that "there was something fundamentally wrong" going on in Israel.

"I was deeply shocked that people could call other people 'dirty Arabs' when some 30 or 40 years before they had talked in Europe about 'dirty Jews'. I was struck by the inability of the Jewish people to learn from past sufferings, but of course it is human nature that suffering does not make us better. The problem with Israel now is that it cannot believe that it is not 1939 any more; the Israeli people are emotionally stuck in the horrors of the Nazi era," she says.

Could it be that this is an Israeli ploy to manipulate public opinion? Armstrong answers that "I don't think that this is the case at a profound level. Of course, there are politicians who will use this, but I think there is a profound inability among Israelis to believe that they have left the past behind. They still regard the present as a period of Jewish weakness, when in fact it is a period of Jewish power."

"The West has to share a responsibility for what is happening in the Middle East. If it had not persecuted the Jews, there would not have been the need for the creation of the State of Israel. The Muslim world did nothing to the Jews, and the Palestinians are paying the price for the sins of Europe. Therefore, a solution has to be found because there will be no peace in the world without one. But if Israel has America behind it, it does not have to worry about what the rest of the world thinks. This gives a sense of omnipotence. At the moment there is no hope; they, the Israelis, can do what they want because America will always support them. I wish Europe would play a better role, but Mr Blair is running after Mr Bush like a poodle."

Armstrong believes that the Israeli occupation is responsible for the kind of violent resistance it meets from the Palestinians. "The resistance will be as ruthless and violent as the occupation is," she says. "Every occupation breeds its own kind of resistance." Armstrong believes that the phenomenon of the Palestinian suicide bombers has more to do with politics and hopelessness than it does with religion. "I don't think people sit at home and read the Qur'an and say, yes, I must go and bomb Israel. This is not how religion works, and I see just absolute hopelessness when people have nothing to lose. Palestinians don't have F- 16s, and they don't have tanks. They don't have anything to match Israel's arsenal. They only have their own bodies."

"Violence of any sort always breads violence, and the occupation itself is an act of extreme violence, domination and oppression. The way things have been moving has been aggressively against the Palestinians."

While she believes that there has been a shift in the way British public opinion views the Palestinian struggle, she warns that the killing of civilians could create a backlash. "In the news coverage after every suicide bombing you see Israeli mothers with their children talking in plain English about their sufferings. One does not get to see the same sufferings of the Palestinian mothers and their children, though they are the weaker party in the conflict."

Armstrong thinks that charges of anti-Semitism in Europe play into the hands of the Zionist lobby in America because "this will discredit anything Europe says. They say Europe is anti- Semitic because for the first time Europe is becoming aware of the plight of the Palestinians. It is part of a campaign to discredit European input in any future peace process."

Turning to the recent rise of the extreme right in European politics, Armstrong feels that this has been more hostile to Europe's Muslim population than it has to European Jews.

However, she says, "I think it has to do with race rather than religion, especially in Britain where people are uninterested in religion. The riots in places like Bradford, for example, had to do with race. In Northern Europe, there is very little interest in religion, or knowledge about religion. It is not the case here that people are fired with religious zeal when they go after Muslims, since they are not interested in religion at all. In America, on the other hand, people are interested in religion and want to know what Muslims believe. Here, they don't care; they simply don't want Muslims in their country. They want a white England for white English people."

"We have to take the extreme right- wing groups very seriously," she says. "This is the European form of fundamentalism; because we don't express discontent in a religious form it comes out in a right-wing way. It's the desire to belong to a clearly defined group combined with a pernicious fear of the other -- a sense of pent-up rage and disappointment with multi-cultural society giving way to this kind of emotion, which feeds into fundamentalism."

Armstrong's Muhammad: a Biography of the Prophet has sold millions of copies since it appeared in 1996, and she has become used to accusations of being "an apologist for Islam", while not taking much notice of such rhetoric. "It is very nice that people think that the book was written by a Muslim," she says, "but what a religious scholar tries to do is to enter into a religion by a leap of the imagination, in order to understand not just the beliefs, or the history and doctrine, but also the underlying feel of the religion, and I try to do this with all religions and not just with Islam. I did the same when I wrote the history of Judaism, and I am doing the same now that I am writing a biography of the Buddha."

Armstrong is currently also working on a history of the period from 800 BC to 200 AD when many great world faiths came into being. "Europe," she says, "is about the only place where religion does not matter much. People in Europe might need to rinse their minds of all their bad and lazy theology. People in Europe have not yet asked the big questions about religion; they have tried get rid of primitive forms of religion, but very often what we see in the churches today is exactly the kind of religion that these people are trying to get rid of... Jesus would be horrified by the practices of the church today. I would love to show him around the Vatican, when Christians cannot even share a church together. He would be appalled, much as Mohamed would be appalled if he knew that September 11th was done in the name of Islam."

How does she think that the Western world and Islam can come together? Is there any common ground between them?

Armstrong believes that both sides should try and deal with the extremism in their midst. "The West, like it or not, is a fact of life," she says. "Muslims should try to use the media; they have got to learn to lobby like the Jews, and they have got to have a Muslim lobby, if you like ....this is a jihad, an effort, a struggle, that is very important. If you want to change the media, then you have got to make people see that Islam is a force to be reckoned with politically and culturally. Have a march down the street at Ground Zero in New York, call it 'Muslims against Terror'. They need to learn how to manage the media and how to conduct themselves in the media."

"Similarly, the West has got to learn that it shares the planet with equals and not with inferiors. This means giving equal space in a conflict such as that between Israel and Palestine. It doesn't mean just using governments to get oil: you promote Saddam Hussein one day, and the next day he becomes public enemy number one. The West promoted people like the Shah of Iran simply because of its greed for oil, even though he had committed atrocities against his own people. There should be no more double standards, because double standards are colonialism in a new form. Western people have also got to disassociate themselves from inherited prejudices about Islam."

"Muslims can run a modern state in an Islamic way, and this is what the West has got to see... There are all kinds of ways in which people can be modern, and Muslims should be allowed to come to modernity on their own terms and make a distinctive Islamic contribution to it." [Karen Armstrong was interviewed by Omayma Abdel-Latif].


Karen Armstrong: ISLAM AND THE WEST (Real History)


On the eve of the second Christian millennium, the Crusaders massacred some thirty thousand Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem, turning the thriving Islamic holy city into a stinking charnel house. For at least five months the valleys and ditches around the city were filled with putrefying corpses, which were too numerous for the small number of Crusaders who remained behind after the expedition to clear away, and a stench hung over Jerusalem, where the three religions of Abraham had been able to coexist in relative harmony under Islamic rule for nearly five hundred years. This was the Muslims' first experience of the Christian West, as it pulled itself out of the dark age that had descended after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the fifth century, and fought its way back on the international scene. The Muslims suffered from the Crusaders, but were not long incomdedmo by their presence. In 1187 Saladin was able to recapture Jerusalem for Islam and though the Crusaders hung on in the Near East for another century, they seemed an unimportant passing episode in the long Islamic history of the region. Most of the inhabitants of Islam don’t were entirely unaffected by the Crusades and remained uninterested in western Europe, which, despite its dramatic cultural advance during the crusading period, still lagged behind the Muslim world.

Europeans did not forget the Crusades, however, nor could they ignore the Dar al -Islam, which, as the years went by, seemed to rule the entire globe. Ever since the Crusades, the people of Western Christendom developed a stereotypical and distorted image of Islam, which, they regarded as the enemy of decent civilization. The prejudice became entwined with European fantasies about Jews, the other victims of the Crusaders, and often reflected buried worry about the conduct of Christians. It was, for example, during the Crusades, when it was Christians who had instigated a series of brutal holy wars against the Muslim world, that Islam was described by the learned scholar-monks of Europe as an inherently violent and intolerant faith, which had only been able to establish itself by the sword. The myth of the supposed fanatical intolerance of Islam has become one of the received ideas of the West.

As the millennium drew to a close, however, some Muslims seemed to live up to this Western perception, and, for the first time, have made sacred violence a cardinal Islamic duty. These fundamentalists often call Western colonialism and post-colonial Western imperialism al-Salibiyyah: the Crusade. The colonial crusade has been less violent but its impact has been more devastating than the medieval holy wars. The powerful Muslim world has been reduced to a dependent bloc, and Muslim society has been gravely dislocated in the course of an accelerated modernization programme. All over the world, as we have seen, people in all the major faiths have reeled under the impact of Western modernity, and have produced the embattled and frequently intolerant religiosity that we call fundamentalism. As they struggle to rectify what they see as the damaging effects of modern secular culture, fundamentalists fight back and, in the process, they depart from the core values of compassion, justice and benevolence that characterize all the world faiths, including Islam. Religion, like any other human activity, is often abused, but at its best it helps human beings to cultivate a sense of the sacred inviolability of each individual, and thus to mitigate the murderous violence to which our species is tragically prone. Religion has committed atrocities in the past, but in its brief history secularism has proved that it can be just as violent. As we have seen, secular aggression and persecution have often led to a heightening of religious intolerance and hatred.

This became tragically clear in Algeria in 1992. During the religious revival of the 1970s, the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) challenged the hegemony of the secular nationalist party, the National Liberation Front (FLN), which had led the revolution against French colonial rule in 1954, and had established a socialist government in the country in 1962. The Algerian revolution against France had been an inspiration to Arabs and Muslims who were also struggling to gain independence from Europe. The FLN was similar to the other secular and socialist governments in the Middle East at this time, which had relegated Islam to the private sphere, on the Western pattern. By the 1970s, however, people all over the Muslim world were becoming dissatisfied with these secularist ideologies which had not delivered what they had promised. Abbas Madani, one of the founding members of FIS, wanted to create an Islamic political ideology for the modern world; Ali ibn Hajj, the imam of a mosque in a poor neighborhood in Algiers, led a more radical wing of FIS. Slowly, FIS began to build its own mosques, without getting permission from the government; it took root in the Muslim community in France, where workers demanded places of prayer in the factories and offices, incurring the wrath of the right-wing party led by Jean-Marie Le Pen.
By the 1980s, Algeria was in the grip of an economic crisis. FLN had set the country on the path to democracy and statehood, but over the years it had become corrupt. The old garde were reluctant to attempt more democratic reforms. There had been a population explosion in Algeria; most of its thirty million inhabitants were under thirty, many were unemployed, and there was an acute housing shortage. There were riots. Frustrated with the stagnation and ineptitude of the FLN, the young wanted something new and turned to the Islamic parties. In June 1990 the FIS scored major victories in the local elections, especially in the urban areas. FIS activists were mostly young, idealistic and well educated; they were known to be honest and efficient in government, though they were dogmatic and conservative in some areas, such as their insistence upon traditional Islamic dress for women. But the FIS was not anti-Western. Leaders spoke of encouraging links with the European Union and fresh Western investment. After the electoral victories at the local level, they seemed certain to succeed in the legislative elections that were scheduled for 1992.

There was to be no Islamic government in Algeria, however. The military staged a coup, ousted the liberal FLN President Benjedid (who had promised democratic reforms), suppressed FIS, and threw its leaders into prison. Had elections been prevented in such a violent and unconstitutional manner in Iran and Pakistan, there would have been an outcry in the West Such a coup would have been seen as an example of Islam's supposedly endemic aversion to democracy and its basic incompatibility with the modern world. But because it was an Islamic government that had been thwarted by the coup, there was jubilation in the Western press. Algeria had been saved from the Islamic menace; the bars, casinos an discotheques of Algiers had been spared; and in some mysterious way, this undemocratic action had made Algeria safe for democracy. The French government threw its support behind the new hardline FLN of President Liamine Zeroual and strengthened his resolve to hold no further dialogue with FIS. Not surprisingly, the Muslim world was shocked by this fresh instance of Western double standards.

The result was tragically predictable. Pushed outside the due processes of law, outraged, and despairing of justice, the more radical members of FIS broke away to form a guerrilla organization, the Armed Islamic Group (GIA), and began terror campaign in the mountainous regions south of Algiers. There were massacres, in which the population of entire villages was killed. Journalists and intellectuals, secular and religious, were also targeted. It was generally assumed that the Islamists were wholly responsible for these atrocities, but gradually questions were asked which pointed to the fact that some elements in the Algerian military forces not only acquiesced but also participated in the killing to discredit the GIA. There was now a ghastly stalemate. Both FLN and FIS were torn apart by an internal feud between the pragmatists, who wanted a solution, and the hardliners, who refused to negotiate. The violence of the initial coup to stop the elections had led to an outright war between the religious and secularists. In January 1995 the Roman Catholic Church helped to organize a meeting in Rome to bring the two sides together, but Zeroual's government refused to participate. A golden opportunity had been lost. There was more Islamic terror, and a constitutional referendum banned all religious political parties.

The tragic case of Algeria must not become a paradigm for the future. Suppression and coercion had helped to push a disgruntled Muslim minority into a violence that offends every central tenet of Islam. An aggressive secularism had resulted in a religiosity that was a travesty of true faith. The incident further tarnished the notion of democracy, which the West is so anxious to promote, but which, it appeared, had limits, if the democratic process might lead to the establishment of an elected Islamic government. The people of Europe and the United States were shown to be ignorant about the various parties and groups within the Islamic world. The moderate FIS was equated with the most violent fundamentalist groups and was associated in the Western mind with the violence, illegality and anti-democratic behavior that had this time been displayed by the secularists in the FLN.

But whether the West likes it or not, the initial success of he FIS in the local elections showed that the people wanted some form of Islamic government. It passed a clear message to Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia, where secularist governments ad long been aware of the growing religiosity of their countries. In the middle of the twentieth century, secularism had been dominant, and Islam was thought to be irredeemably passe. Now any secularist government in the Middle East was uncomfortably aware that if there were truly democratic elections, an Islamic government might well come to power. In Egypt, for example, Islam is as popular as Nasserism was in 1950s. Islamic dress is ubiquitous and, since Mubarak's government is secularist, is clearly voluntarily assumed. Even secularist Turkey, recent polls showed that some 70 percent the population claimed to be devout, and that 20 percent prayed five times a day. People are turning to the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan, and Palestinians are looking to Mujamah, while the PLO, which in the 1960s carried all before it, is now looking cumbersome, corrupt and out of date. In the republics of Central Asia, Muslims are rediscovering their religion after decades of Soviet oppression. People have tried the secularist ideologies, which have worked so successfully in Western countries where they are on home ground. Increasingly, Muslims want their governments to conform more closely to the Islamic norm.

The precise form that this will take is not yet clear. In Egypt it seems that a majority of Muslims would like to see the Shariah as the law of the land, whereas in Turkey only 3 percent want this. Even in Egypt, however, some of the ulama are aware that the problems of transforming the Shariah, an agrarian law code, to the very different conditions of modernity will be extreme. Rashid Rida had been aware of this as early as the 1930s. But that is not to say that it cannot be done.

It is not true that Muslims are now uniformly filled with hatred of the West. In the early stages of modernization, many leading thinkers were infatuated with European culture, and by the end of the twentieth century some of the most eminent and influential Muslim thinkers were now, reaching out to the West again. President Khatami of Iran is only one example of this trend. So is the Iranian intellectual Abdolkarim Sorush, who held important posts in Khomeini's government, and though he is often harried by the more conservative mujtahids, he strongly influences those in power. Sorush admires Khomeini, but has moved beyond him. He maintains that Iranians now have three identities: preIslamic, Islamic and Western, which they must try to reconcile. Sorush rejects the secularism of the West and believes that human beings will always need spirituality, but advises Iranians to study the modern sciences, while holding on to Shii tradition. Islam must develop its fiqh, so as to accommodate the modern industrial world, and evolve a philosophy of civil rights and an economic theory capable of holding its own in the twenty-first century.
[islamicity.com].