Poverty is treated as WMD (weapon of mass destruction) of modern world. Eradication of it bears very importance. The economic systems like capitalism and communism have presented number of instruments for the alleviation of the poverty from the world. But, these extreme ideologies failed to satisfy the need of the people. Private ownership of property, laissez-faire policy of capitalism and class war, dialectical materialism, state ownership of property of communism didn't touch the real cause of poverty. This situation necessitates seeking the possibilities of Islamic economics in alleviating poverty. The aim of poverty alleviation can be attained, in an Islamic Economic system through reducing the inequality. It never means attaining equality but equity and justice in the income and wealth distribution. Islam eliminates the absolute inequality which arises from unequal distribution of income, but relative inequality emerges from equitable distribution of income and wealth.

First part of this article has given a small introduction to both conventional economics and Islamic economics. Then it provides a picture of poverty of current world and Islamic perspective of poverty. Then Islamic economics instruments to alleviate poverty such as zakat, sadaqa, qard hasan, ganima, khums, fay, jizya, mudaraba, musharaka, prohibition of interest, abolition of extravaganza, prohibition of speculation and hoarding have been mentioned in briefly. Influence of Islamic economic instruments on marginal propensity to consume, multiplier, price investment and production have been dealt with.

The books and articles I referred for this article are Dr. Dr.Sabahuddin Azmi's Islamic Economics, S. M. Hasanuzzaman's Economic function of an Islamic state (The early experience), Towards understanding the economic system of Islam written by Dr.P Ibrahim and Introduction to the economic system by Moulavi.M.V.Saleem.

Introduction

Nobody can undermine the importance of economics which is a social science that studies the production, distribution, trade and consumption of goods and services. This very importance of economics resulted in emergence of different economic systems in the world and all of those economic systems claim that they will fetch economic welfare. Those dominating and prominent economic system's failure to accomplish economic justice, prosperity, the eradiation of the inequality and poverty make necessary an alternative economic system which can successfully make a starvation free and poverty free world.

Definition of Economics

Social scientists have developed various definitions of economics. Lionel Robinson's scarcity definition of economics is most accepted amongst them. According to Robinson "economics is a science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses" This definition is based on two points which are scarcity of resources and the never ending needs. But in reality former is a myth. The survey conducted by UNO shows that are enough resources for 20000 million people on earth we have only 6000 million people on earth residing now. Latter point 'never ending needs' is also incorrect as the desire and greed of the man is unlimited but the need is countable and controllable.

Definition of Islamic Economics

As a system of life Islam has not left any area of human life without guidance. Whether it is spiritual, individual, social, economical or political Islam gives clear cut guidelines. By considering the economic guidelines of Islamic sources, Islamic economists have developed plethora of definitions. Derivation of each definition of Islamic economics is based on guidance given in the basic sources of Islamic shariah which are Quran and hadith.

According to Yusuf Ibrahim, professor of Islamic economics, Qatar University "Islamic economics is a science studying the guidance of the human behavior towards the use of resources to satisfy the needs". This definition is based upon the following facts.

1. The resources are enough for satisfying the needs.

2. But the resources should be protected from the waste, and improper use.

3. The human behavior towards the resources should be controlled by divine injunctions.

4. Only legal needs, needs that build life on the earth, should be satisfied.

5. Illegal needs (desires), which destroy life on earth, should not be satisfied; they are never ending and never satisfied.

Islamic economic system, a normative economic system, has been built upon certain fundamental Islamic philosophies. According to Quranic teachings real and absolute ownership of the wealth belongs to the creator of the same, Almighty God. Quran says "To Allah belongs to everything in the sky and on the earth" (2:284).Role of the man is considered as trustee who is to manage the trust, i.e. wealth according to the directives of the real owner; God. Quran clearly states "And spend of that where of hath made you trustees" (57:7). So man has been granted

conditioned and limited ownership.

Another Islamic philosophy is universal brotherhood and equality of men as their creator is one and parents are same. Hence distinction based on color, caste, creed, races do not suffer at any cost. This concept induces the people for cooperation and participation in their all efforts instead of cheating, exploiting and making fraud each other. Another aspect of Islamic philosophy is the faith in the Day of Judgment after death. In the life after death man is accountable for his deeds on earth. The implication of this faith is that economic choices one makes in world are to be judged according to the norms Allah has laid down.

These are the revolutionary points which differentiate Islamic economics from the liberal, capitalistic, imperialistic, mainstream, usurious economic system and communist, class war, state dictatorship economic system. Islam constructs a just world on the spirit of everlasting divine concepts.
Poverty

Evil of any economy is poverty. The presence of begging hands in an economy pulls that economy into decades back. Poverty midst plenty is the challenge faced in the modern world. Impact of the poverty cannot confine into starvation only, but poor people, apart from starvation, suffering limited income which leads to inaccessibility of good education it disables them for challenging careers which requires number of years long education. Absence of nutritious food results in more child morality among deprived sections. Since limited access for information and knowledge those are prevented from market and opportunities.

Every country and international organizations like World Trade Organization, World Bank and Asian Development Bank hard work to construct the countries and world on the foots of self sufficiency respectively. Mission of the World Bank is described as global poverty reduction and improvement of living standards. General Council of UN has declared October 17 as International day for the eradication of poverty. It shows how seriously they took poverty as a problem

But, it is wondering that out of 6.1 billion world population more than 1 billion are finding their livelihood in less than $1 per day and almost 3 billion on less than $2 per day. You might be provoked that 74% of total income of world is shared by the 20% of the elite class of the world. It is heartening you that there are countries whose national income is less $800 and morality of below five years age children is about 26%.It is worrying that 110 million primary school age children are out of school and 60 percent of them are girls.
.
Poverty and Islamic Economics

Below Poverty Line (BPL) fixes in Islamic economics system on the basis of ownership of nisab, which limit makes one eligible for the payment of zakat Whosoever wealth on or over the nisab is responsible for the payment of zakat. Those wealth is below nisab are zakat recipients and they are treated as poor. Hence, in Islamic economics, the size of deprived come under BPL will be large. Starvation and inaccessibility of food, shelter, cloths and education could not suffer in an Islamic economy which aims human falah, i.e. human welfare. It does not support any economic instrument that leads to the deprivation of the man. Since poverty emerges in an economy as a result of various causes so wiping out of these causes is primarily important.

Limited income, unequal distribution of income and wealth, misdistribution of resources, regional disparities, unemployment, social injustice, and decreased investments ...etc are some of the obstacles in the way of attainment of self-sufficiency and welfare. Islam considers the fulfillment of basic needs of every member of society is economic, moral as well as religious obligation of the ruler. List of the basic goods extends from traditional food, clothing and shelter to seasonal clothing, personal attendant to disabled person, and expenditure on marriage of poor and expenditure on entire family of poor, which are intensified by scholars from time to time and likely to extend the list time to time for the welfare of the citizen. Islamic economic system introduces a bunch of divinely guided instruments which bring to an end of poverty and build
poverty less world.

Islamic Economic Instruments to eliminate poverty

It is advised to Muslim citizens in an Islamic county, as the part of believe, to practice certain things in their life, some of them are compulsory nature and the rest are voluntary nature. The practice of these will have vast economic implications apart from the reward of God. Non Muslim citizens also have to make certain compulsory payments, which have economic impacts, as the part of their citizenship in the Islamic country. Compulsory duties and agreements of citizens are governed by the Islamic country and violation of any part would not suffer Islamic state. In addition to these functions there are other things the Islamic state has to carry out similar to any nation does for the welfare of citizens. Both positive and negative measures have recommended by Islam for wiping out the reason of poverty.

Positive Measures

There are numerous Islamic orders and injunction to perform certain things which have immense influence on economies justice, prosperity and growth. Important divine injunctions amongst them and their influence upon the economy are briefed below.

Zakat

Zakat is the yearly obligation of wealthy Muslims to poor and it is the share of have-nots in the property and wealth of the rich. Quran commends "establish worship and pay the poor his due (zakat) and obey the messenger". Technically we can call it as spiritual tax. It is imposed on those forms of wealth which have the capacity to grow in value or otherwise produce further, is having the custody of whole year and have exceed a certain minimum value called 'nisab'. Quran has stated the eight specific heads for the distribution of zakat.
Due to the divine spirit for the performance of zakat, chances for evasion are less. The imposition of zakat on idle wealth urges the owners for the productive and profitable employment of idle wealth which increases the wealth of economy and again the share of zakat.

Donations

Sadaqa is the one of the voluntary economic instrument. No limit and eligibility criteria for performing contributions to needy. It can be divert, apart from the eight heads mentioned for the distribution of zakat, to any needy. and it will strengthen what economic implications emerged by zakat.

Qard hasan

It is an arrangement of interest free loans for unproductive purposes or for the needy to meet the expenses like hospital expenses, home expenses and education expenses etc which are do not make any earnings. So it is not able to charge any material benefit, like profit share, from qurd hasan. These are provided as the part of kindness to human beings. In an Islamic economy individuals and institutions like Islamic banks will offer this type of loans expecting the reward of Allah. Availability of qard hasan reduces the financial burdens like interest, of deprived.

Profit and loss sharing

Islam formulates profit and loss sharing as the tool of trade contracts instesd of interest. The motivation behind it is the cooperation amongst the people. In profit sharing there are different types of financing such as mudaraba (profit and loss sharing) and musharaka (participation) ...etc
Mudaraba is the agreement between both capital owner and entrepreneur to share the profit arises from the business and in case of loss capital owner's capital reduces and entrepreneur's time and effort loose. Musharaka is the agreement to share profit and loss where all contributors participate in management of business. Both mudaraba and musharaka help the people, who have inadequacy of capital, to engage in business, production and contribute their share into the welfare nation and earn for their own.

Ganima (war booty), Khums (one fifth) and Fay

Ganima is the property Muslims seize from the enemy. Four fifth of the ganima is divided among the fighting army and one fifth (khums) of the entire ganima move to state fund, which is earmarked for the special beneficiaries mentioned in Quran. Fay is the property receives from the enemy without actual fighting. This source of state revenue is generalized for the common good of the entire population and public welfare.

Kharaj (Land- Tax)

Land-Tax, a source of revenue of state, is the levy imposed on land produce. This is actually the rent for the use of value of agricultural land. The rate of kharaj and method of collection can be declared by state from time to time as there is no direction of Quran and tradition of prophet in this regard.

Jizya (Poll tax)

Jizya (poll-tax) imposed on the non-Muslim citizens of Islamic country for securing their wealth, property and lives from damage. It helps them to contribute their skill, talent, health, wealth and property for the prosperity of the country

Waqf (Endowment)

Waqf (endowment) is regular source of revenue which is earmarked and dedicated fund of Muslim for supporting charitable and welfare activities
State ownership on uncultivated land:
Any economic instrument that hinders productivity is harmful to economies prosperous. According to Islamic shariah, if a land is remained uncultivated three consecutive years lead to moving of ownership of that land from current owner to other who is ready for cultivate the land and produce. Prophet (pbuh) said "The original rights of ownership in land are God's and the prophets and then yours afterwards. But he who revives any dead land acquires the right of ownership to it". There is an another institution, iqta, boost the circulation and tax revenue of the state by transferring the uncultivated/dead land to someone in return for ushr or khraj.

Combined ownership of natural resources:

Individual ownership of natural resources like fire, water, pasture and salt are restricted by the Islamic shariah. People have combined ownership in these natural resources which should be accessible to anyone. This rule allow anyone to use the benefit derives from the natural goods and ensure that nobody is away from the natural goods which are easy to get to without any hard work.. List of natural goods, in addition to mentioned goods, can be extended into more goods in time to time. Prophet (pbuh) said "people are joint owners in water, pasture and fire".
There are other sources of revenues like property of deceased with no legal heir, lost and found with no claimants and additional taxations.

Negative Measures

There are some prohibitions of God which has influence on the economies prosperity and welfare of every men of country.
Prohibition of interest
Interest, whatever form, has been contemned by Allah and His messenger. Quran says "Allah has permitted trade and hath prohibited riba" (interest). Islam doesn't support interest but profit and loss sharing. Every financial transactions of Islamic economy should be free of Interest. But absence of interest in an Islamic economy doesn't create any hindrance to prosperity but flourish the prosperity.

Prohibition of speculative instruments

Instruments which don't have any advantage to real economy such as futures and option are not permitted in Islamic economy. Stock market instruments like day trading, marginal trading are prohibited, either. Absence of these instruments in the economy reduces speculation which is harm to the entire economy.
Implications

The implementation of shariah guidelines we discussed above in an economy lead to number of positive fruits which make the state free from every form of poverty.
Increased redistribution of income and wealth will result in, when the people perform the religious obligations like zakat, donation, waqf, inheritances, fithr zakat and kaffarath etc... It leads to flow of wealth and money from rich to poor. Thus the concentration and accumulation of wealth in a few hands come down. Poor and needy spend approximately eighty percent of their earnings to fulfill their basic needs. Economically Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPC) of the poor is larger than middle and high class. A large portion of whatever comes into handy of poor will flow to economy for consumption of basic goods; it lead to more demand for primary goods and then it result in the increased production of basic goods. It is difficult to restrict luxurious consumption and production completely by law and force. But the increased rate of redistribution of wealth and income increase the demand for basic goods and decrease the demand for luxurious goods. Automatically it reduces the utilization of resources for the production of luxuries. Consequently, natural resources use for the production of basic goods and for the benefit of public welfare
This increased redistribution of wealth to poor enables them to get the accessibility of good education and nutritious food. Increased knowledge and skills help the poor to get good jobs and earn. This raises the entire poor family and dependence to heights. In turn, increase of income more than a certain limit make them capable for performing zakat and other voluntary donations for the sake of the benefit of have-nots. Rise in the redistribution help to reduce the gap between haves and have-nots and bring economic justice to all citizens.

Increased MPC of poor as the redistribution of income results in more multiplier effect in economy that fuels more income to the overall income of economy that help the poor section of people to raise their per capita income and living standards.

According to Professor Keynes, investment depends on two variables which are current rare of interest and the marginal efficiency of capital or expected profit rate. Investment would take place only if the expected rate of profit exceeds of interest. Due to the absence of interest, in an Islamic economy, only the size of expected rate of profit of profit will be the determinant of investment.

Speculative motive of money and liquidity theory of money will have no place in an interest free economy which reduces investment. But the presence of only expected rate of profit will result in investments, even in low rate of expected rate of profit to increase their principle amount and to avoid the deterioration of principal through zakat. The increased investment raises the production, employment, wages and overall national income of economy. It flows wealth to poor and raises their economic status.

Fisher's quantity theory which states that quantity of money affects the price and value of money. It means that increase in the supply of money will proportionately increase the price in economy but the output will not increase. But in the case of Islamic economy money should not be supplied without making increase in the output. The central bank and commercial banks of Islamic state increase the money supply through making investment contracts on the basis of profit and loss sharing. So every flow of money into economy results in output growth without making proportionate hike in price. It is helpful to the poor to get need things at reasonable price

Conclusion

Way of eliminating poverty in Islamic economy is simple. Faith in the oneness of God (tawheed) motivates to the performance of zakat and profit and loss sharing and avoiding interest and extravaganza. Increased redistribution and productivity are the outcome of these instruments which helps finally to attain alleviation of poverty.
*-*-*-*-THE END*-*-*-*

Writer's Address& Phone Number:

Nabeel.K.N

92 Mimson House

L T Marg, Mumbai

India

Ph.022-2347 2118

Email.nabeel_kn@rediffmail.com

Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request
Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request

The Ahmadiyyah movement (Ahmadi) is a sect in Islam which was founded towards the end of the 19th century in Punjab, India, and spread from there to different countries. Most members of the sect are centered in South-East Asia: India, Pakistan and Indonesia, and it numbers 15 Million believers.

The members of the sect preach enlightenment, peace, and brotherhood between nations and love of others. The Ahmadiyyah way opposes religious coercion, and therefore does not support spreading Islam through Jihad, "Holy War". They prefer placatory persuasion. The sect is named for its founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian (1835-1908), who, at the age of 40, announced that Allah has entrusted him with the task of renewing the Muslim religion and bringing justice and integrity to the world.

The Principles of the Ahmadiyyah obligate its believers to be loyal to their country of residence. A believer of the sect can not defy the laws of his country, so he can live in peace in this world. Muhammad Sharif, head of the Ahmadiyyah in Israel, explains: "As a citizen I am bound to obey Allah, the Prophet and those who lead the country even if I do not approve of the leader". The Ahmadiyyah are forbidden from joining demonstrations, even ones on behalf of peace.

Faced with the traditional Islamic belief, that Muhammad is the Final Prophet, the Ahmadis maintain that even following his death prophecy still remained, and it was transferred to the founder of the sect and his students. The Ahmadiyyah sees itself as a global religion that is supposed to include not only Muslims, but also Christians, Jews and Hindis.

According to Ahmadi belief, Jesus was a man who was neither crucified nor transported to heaven, but was taken down from the tree by his students, traveled to India, where he died at the age of 120 in Srinagar, Kashmir. Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the sect, is in their eyes a reincarnation of both Jesus and Muhammad. He is the promised "Mujaddid". For his followers, he is the "Mahdi", a savior or a messiah, and there are those who see him as a prophet.

Once India split into a Hindu state and a Muslim state, the religious center was transferred to Pakistan. The movement was persecuted in Pakistan for years, and moved its religious activity to London. Today, centers of the Ahmadi movement can be found in many countries. During the hundred years of its existence, the Ahmadiyyah sect has managed to create a well organized movement, including missionary forces, educational institutions and cultivated religious centers, spread over many countries around the world: In Asia, Africa, Europe and America.

The Ahmadis in Israel

According to Muhammad Sharif Odeh, head of the Ahmadi in Israel, the sect has 1500 members in Israel. On the 17th of March 1928, the "Center of the Ahmadi Delegation to the Middle-East Countries" was transferred from Damascus to Kababir village on Mt. Carmel in Haifa. Today the village is a neighborhood of a thousand, surrounded by Jewish neighborhoods. The Ahmadi community in Haifa has a large octagonal Mosque patterned after the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. The current head of the sect in Israel is the son of its founder in Israel. The sect has a number of vehicles to spread its beliefs: A monthly magazine named "Al-Busra Al-Islamia Al-Ahmadiyyah" (The Ahmadiyyah Muslim Gospel); a website, as well as a satellite television station, mta.tv.

Although the sect's religious center hosts organized groups from the entire country, not many have heard of it. "It does not interest the media, because we provide no action", Muhammad Sharif Odeh tells Omedia, "Maybe because we do not throw rocks". It is possible that they are ignored because they broadcast a message of "Love for All, Hatred for None", while the media in Israel is deficient in its reporting methods and publishes mainly news items and articles of the "dog bites man" genre.

According to the Ahmadis, the main problem of radical Islam is the distorted interpretation of the Quran that the fundamentalists have adopted. According to Sharif, the problem in Islam, as in other religions, is the total adherence to the words of clerics, whose words are perceived as the words of Allah. "We believe that the interpreter can be mistaken. Let us return to the source rather than to interpretations that divide between people, as if a religious ruling of a cleric is the divine word, similar to what obtains in the Catholic Church, where the Pope is infallible".

Sharif notes that the perception of "Muhammad Baseif", i.e. the call to spread Islam by the sword, does not appear at all in the Quran, nor is it mentioned in the Hadith (Interpretations by Muslim wise men). "It is just an invention of some Sheikh. It does not obligate me, nor any other Muslim".

According to Sharif, the meaning of the word Jihad as it appears in the Quran means a supreme effort, endeavor, and not the interpretation adopted later. They are bound, so they say, by the original interpretation of the word. The call of Jihad, for them is: "Call to your sovereign, and argue with him in the best way possible. Islam clearly states that you can not employ coercion and force in matters of religion and faith".

Elastic Rules

Bu the problem of the Ahmadis is not with normal interpretation, but specifically with an interpretation that "contradicts the text". Sharif defines it: "An interpretation that harms the principles of justice or contradicts science. All the time you need to return to the source, reinvestigate the religion. In Islam the rules are not set in stone, but elastic, and dependent on the changing situation. If there is a scientific development that contradicts an existing interpretation then that interpretation is no longer holy". It should be noted that one of the recent Nobel Laureates in physics, Prof. Abdul Salam, is a member of the Ahmadi sect.

The Ahmadiyyah Movement published an ad opposing the latest comments by the Pope against Muhammad, but which also criticized the "barbaric" reaction, as Sharif terms it, to these comments. Sharif says it would have been better to respond to the Pope with words, "With scientific proof and not by burning churches (Such as after the caricatures in Denmark). Nobody has the right to injure another for no reason. The Quran clearly states that you are forbidden to damage the prayer locations of other faiths".

Radical Islam is a misrepresentation of Islam. The Ahmadi call upon their fellow Muslims "Let us return to the Quran. We will not find any verse in the Quran that forces anyone to accept the religion or a verse that speaks of a Muslim theocracy. The Quran clearly states 'if you are a ruler - rule justly'. If an atheist is fit to be a minister or prime minister, there is no reason not to choose him. I need to choose a person who fits the job professionally, not because of his religion and nationality. We should return to the Quran and not the interpretations that serve as a stumbling block by differentiating between religions and nations. This interpretation has transformed religion into a source of hatred and hostility - into a new form of Paganism. It is an attempt to conquer another in Allah's name". The Ahmadi sect, according to Sharif is a nonpolitical movement and therefore is opposed to involving religion being in political issues.

"As Muslims, We Have Made Terrible Mistakes"

Sharif does not deny Islam's militant past, and notes that "The Muslims have made terrible mistakes". However, according to him it can not be attributed to the core of Islam. The Quran teaches how to treat the enemy. The founder of the sect said, based on the Quran: "The principle is that in our heart we have love for all of humankind. Loving every human is the duty of a good believer. I love humankind as a mother loves her children. The Muslim within you is the part doing its best to bring happiness to all. And that is a universal message, rather than one based on sector".

Muhammad Sharif does not know where the Muslim insult to Jews "sons of monkeys and pigs" derives from. "Some very horrible mistakes resulted from interpretations which originated in Islam", and notes that the Inquisition in Spain and Portugal, furnishes a similar example of horrible deeds inspired by Christianity.

No Religious Distinction

According to Sharif, the Quran is a collection of all holy books which preceded it. "A Muslim has no qualms with any religion. There is no real difference between Chirstianity and Judaism and Islam. Each one complements the other". He states that in the Quran there is a call for an alliance between those who believe in one God, "that we have no god aside from Allah". The sect forbids looking down on others because of their religion and nationality. The prayers in the Ahmadiyyah mosque are the same as in any other mosque, but Sharif emphasizes that "once the rite becomes an end and not a means, religion transforms itself into a form of paganism".

When it comes to the sacredness of Islamic land (The Waqf), the Ahmadiyyah movement also takes a different approach. As Sharif explains: "The Prophet of Islam said that it is better that the Kaaba (The holiest location in Islam) be destroyed brick by brick, than to allow one drop of blood to be shed. Why die for Al-Aqsa? For the holiness of stones?

An Unequivocal Stance Opposing Terror

As a result of his approach, Sharif's stance on terror is clear. Sharif notes that those who executed terror attacks "Received legitimization from religious rulings" and notes that he has managed to make some people transfer from activity in radical Palestinian movement to adopting the Ahmadi views. "Not with Apache helicopters, but by proving to them that terror goes against the Quran". For example, a former terrorist from Tul-Karem, currently lectures at the Ahmadiyyah religious center.

In an interview to Omedia, Sharif also referred to September 11 unequivocally. "It is a terrible thing, even in the midst of a war of self defense. Islam clearly states 'God does not like to create hostility', but even during an attack and in a war of self defense, the Prophet of Islam said clearly to all 'do not kill women and elders, do not kill children, do not kill a woman, do not even harm a tree'. These are the words of the Prophet Muhammad. A true Muslim does not harm others, not by words nor by deeds".

Islam's Treatment of Ahmadis

In the Arab press the Ahmadis are venomously attacked: "They depict us as evil, as collaborators with the English, and even as creatures of the English. They also call us enemies and collaborators with the Jews", and they have even termed us the 'new Islam from Tel-Aviv'. The internet has hundreds of hate sites against the sect and the malevolent preaching against them in the Mosques, before mass audiences, continues.

The Ahmadis in Israel, unlike their brethren in the West Bank, are not ashamed for being part of the sect. "In the West Bank the members of the sect fear to reveal their identity, because there is a new religious ruling issued by the supreme council of the Muftis", says Sharif. "The Mufti of Nablus delivered a ruling last year against the sect characterizing us as converts. This is worse than being a heretic. In the orthodox Muslim approach, those who convert from Islam are sentenced for death".

Sharif notes that the newspaper of the Islamic Movement in Israel "Sauth Al Haq" also terms them converts. The Movement has also published a book against the Ahmadis. This situation has physical repercussions in the Muslim world. Last year, a terrorist entered an Ahmadiyyah mosque in Bangladesh and carried out a mass murder of worshippers during prayer.

Despite the war waged against them, there are new members from the West Bank as well - from Tul-Karem, Nablus, Bethlehem, East Jerusalem, and villages near Jenin. According to Sharif, a few also join from villages in the Galilee and the Sharon. He is happy to note that most of the new members are young and most of them are academics.

The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel

Beyond noting the fact that Ahmadis are loyal to the country where they dwell, such as Israel, Sharif does not hesitate to mention the right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel, as it appears in the Quran. "It is clearly written in the Sura (chapter) of the People of Israel that this right is granted them by Allah", says Sharif. And he adds: "A prophecy written in the Quran 1400 years ago, clearly declared that God will bring the People of Israel to the Land of Israel from all over the world, and there would be an ingathering of the exiles in the land of Israel - and this enjoins a true Muslim to enter a dialog with the 'People of the Book' (The Jewish People were first called so in the Quran - R.F.) and it states: 'Do not argue with the People of the Book, but only in the most appropriate of ways".

According to Sharif, the Quran does not call for harming a Jew because he is a Jew. He notes the opening Sura that states: "God, bless me as you have blessed them (The Jews)". As for the inter-religious dialogue, Sharif notes that despite his meeting with Rabbi Shaar Yishuv Hacohen, Haifa's Rabbi, there is no inter-religious dialogue of real depth. He believes that "If you know the other well rather than superficially, you will change your opinion of him".

Peace Begins with Moderate Islam

In light of the rampage of radical Islam, it is refreshing to listen to one who clearly corresponds to the definition of "moderate Islam" - the Ahmadiyyah movement. If there is to be a prospect for a better world in general and in our region specifically, it is important that the messages transmitted by the Ahmadis reach attentive ears in the Muslim world, especially Muslims in Israel, and even those within pre 1967 Israel..

The success of this progressive movement would gradually moderate the hate level radical Islam in Israel, i.e. the Islamic Movement and all its wings, including the Southern one (The Southern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel is considered more moderate), so that it would harbor less hatred to Jews and the Jewish State. Then there would be hope for true peace in the region. It is also important for Jews to know of this sect, so that we may understand that there is a different Islam, and the desire for peace begins not only with us, but with them, as well.

Ran Farhi is the political and media matters commentator in "Omedia", The leading site in security and terrorism issues, focusing on the Middle East and matters concerning Israel.

Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request
Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request

Time, people, culture, society, and the environment we are surrounded by, can produce the formation of many perspectives regarding an issue that we see in today's society. One of many controversial topics is Islam and the Hijab. Many questions and generalisations are often formed in the minds of many non-Muslims in regards to the concepts behind the Hijab through the influence of the media.

Throughout the years of conflict between the "West" and "Islam", the media has strongly altered the minds of non-Muslims by negative exploitation of Islam, and Muslims, in particular on Muslim women. Misconceptions such as, "Are you bald underneath" "Do you go to sleep with that on?" to the association of "terrorism" that contrasts to what Muslim women believe the Hijab represents.

A common misconception is "the Islamic Hijab is something cultural, not religious". The use of the word "cultural" is faulty when describing the Hijab as it implies that it is a result of customs and practices that are something separate from Islam. The cultural dress is referred to the ancient Pre-Islamic Era (Jahiliyah). It is the veil from the Pre-Islamic Era that is considered as "traditional" which stops women from contributing in society. On the contrary, the Islamic Hijab is not considered as an informal tradition, nor does it lower her self-respect. The Hijab is aimed at presenting women with poise and equality in society. An example of Pre-Islamic era in our modern world is the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Taliban are a party who regard such activities un-Islamic for women, who are prohibited from exercising their primary rights. The Taliban have banned women from employment outside the home, apart from the health sector, and have terminated education for girls.

Prophet Mohammad (peace & blessings be upon him) said, "Seeking knowledge is incumbent upon every Muslim". Even Henry VIII forbid women to study the Bible when the first English translations began to appear. It's an irony although the Taliban claim their guiding philosophy on women are in place to ensure the physical protection and self-respect of women, where as, many Afghan women have been killed, beaten and publicly hung. For many Afghan women fear of being severely punished by the Taliban is their main security concern.

Another misconception is "Muslim women have no right in Islam". Islam gave women rights over 1400 years ago, which is still ignored by many Muslims and non-Muslims today. Firstly, Islam has given women the basic right to freedom of speech. In the early days of Islam, the leaders of the Islamic state regarding legal issues consulted women. Rights that were appointed to Muslim women since the beginning of time are only just surfacing for non-Muslims. In Islam, a woman is free to be whom she is inside, and protected from being portrayed as a sex symbol and lusted after. Islam praises the status of a woman by commanding that she "enjoys equal rights to those of man in everything, she stands on an equal footing with man" (Qur'an, Nadvi: 11) and both share mutual rights and obligations in all aspects of life.

Many women are treated in ways far from Islamic ideals, yet in the name of Islam. The Taliban is an example of a cultural and political name that has been branded with Islam. There is no freedom for women if they are imprisoned in their home in the name of the Hijab and Islam. Moreover, the veil of Islam is not associated with the veil of oppression.

Women that are regaining their identity and role in society, are now wearing the Hijab and are embracing its concept of liberation. They are taking their lawful places that Islam had awarded them fourteen hundred years ago. In fact, the western women had no rights nor did they have rights over their husband. Not only were woman the property of their husband but so were their possessions. In 1919 women in England fought for their rights to be elected to parliament. Because of their demands, they were imprisoned by the government and suffered greatly. It was not until the late nineteenth and early twentieth century when women were given these rights.

A quote from the Qur'an in Surah 2: 26 states:

"And for women has rights over men, similar to those of men over women."

The background history between Islam and the West will shed some light as to why Muslims are portrayed so negatively in the media. Some strong contributing factors are the medieval western conflict, the crusades, the oil crisis of the 1970's, the Lebanese civil war, the Iranian revolution, the Gulf war, and the explosive Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the September 11 bombings, the Bali Massacre and the London bombings. All these events have caused Islam to be consistently associated with violence and unresolved conflict. Furthermore, the view of Muslims as being violent typically explains why Muslims are seen to establish a threat to the West. One of the most effective ways the media attempts to somehow prevent Islam being seen in a positive frame is to develop propaganda against Muslims and Islam.

The media is able to use the Hijab as a means of exploiting Muslim women, and degrading them. The media assumes, in some cases, that the actions of one Muslim are representations of the general Muslim population. This is generalisation. This sets a example for members of society to abuse and degrade them.

An image of a Muslim woman wearing the chador was labelled as "like death out for a walk" in the Australian Magazine, 25-26 Jan. 1995 issue. The media implied to locate the position of women in Islamic society as dominated. The image also portrayed the difference between Muslim and Western Women in today's society.

In current affair programs, people watching are bombarded with images of Muslims as savage terrorists, killing innocent people with no remorse. What results from this is the viewers of these programs, recognise and accept only the labels, and therefore with Islam immediately associating it with negative images.

I asked a resident from Parramatta, who wished to be kept anonymous if "the September 11th bombings altered their mind about Islam and Muslim women?" He said "I never knew Islam and the Qur'an preached terrorism. It has made me aware of Islam and the teachings. It increased my awareness of the complexities of Islam and politics in the Middle East including the veiling of Muslim women". This answer shows how influential the media is towards its viewers.

Throughout the western society, the practice of Muslim women wearing the Hijab has resulted in extreme points of view towards their so-called "oppression" and lack of freedom. Despite the obvious portrayal of Muslim women and myths that surround it such as; "Muslim women are oppressed", there continues to be an abundance of Western women reverting to Islam. What Islam uses to protect women is the Hijab. This is ironic because the Western media often portray the Muslim veil as a suppressive force in a woman's life.

Every Muslim woman is required to wear a scarf or some sort of head covering and loose-fitting, modest attire. This is not a means of controlling a woman's sexuality or suppressing her but rather, a means for protection. It implies by dressing this way she will not be seen as a mere sex symbol but will be appreciated for her intellect. Furthermore, it will not subject her to harassment. It is interesting to state the head covering for women is not an Islamic innovation but was also practiced by Judeo-Christian women centuries earlier, and yet is laughed at by the West today.

Naima Omar, a student of University of Western Sydney says "It is funny to say the same veil worn by catholic nuns for God is despised and presented as a symbol of subjection and domination when it is worn by Muslim women for the intention to protect themselves and devoting themself to God".

The term Islam means "submission to the will of Allah" and "peace". Muslims believe Islam is not a religion but a gift that has been awarded to them. They believe Islam is the way of life and that is harmonious however the media portrays the opposite.

Maria Moskovakis, 18, a Greek Orthodox says "yes of course Muslims are presented negatively in the news. An action by one Muslim is presented with so much bias. If one Muslim commits a crime, it is not the person but the religion presented that goes to trial. What we hear and see is all controlled.

As El-Gharib (1996-97) noted, television, books, newspapers, and magazines are used to present Islam as being a backward and barbaric religion. It has been seen as oppressive and unjust; and more than this, it is seen as being most oppressive to women. These various forms of media misrepresent Islam in different ways, however largely achieve the same negative result - the creation of a growing barrier of misunderstanding and hostility between Islam and it's followers, and the West.

Muslims have an obligation to fulfil which is to educate themselves, their children to gain knowledge which is ordained upon them regardless of their race, gender and marital status etc.

A Hasan Hadith narrated by Ibn Majah in the Qur'an states:

"Seeking knowledge is a duty on every Muslim" and therefore gaining knowledge is regarded as an act of worship. Stopping any Muslim from gaining an education regardless of age and sex is not Islamic.

Dr Homer of Sweden was asked by the United Nations in 1975 to study the status of Women in the Arab countries and said: "It is the Swedish woman who should demand her freedom, as the women in the Arab countries has already reached the peak of her freedom under Islam." From "Status Of Women In Islam" page 23.

Many have become used to believing the false information that they are spoon fed every time they turn on the screen, listen to the radio or open a newspaper.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/women.htm

http://www.feminist.org/afghan/facts.html

http://www.karelma.com/english/history/henry-VIII.html

http://www.indiatogether.org/manushi/issue98/islam.htm

[http://www.famsy.com/salam/Portrayal0402.htm]

Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request
Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request

How the plans to build a Mosque near Ground Zero have incited fervor, and exposed us for who we really are.

Since it has been proposed, there has been heated verbal exchanges surrounding the construction of the 13 story "Park 51" Islamic Center and Mosque in Downtown Manhattan. It has become a clash of politics and passion. But reason suggests that angst on either side of any issue can neither be dismissed with cavalier disregard, nor should irrational precepts determine our actions. The concerns that inspire our feelings over whether this Mosque should or should not be built must be addressed honestly, so as to constitute their legitimacy or lack thereof. If we hope to achieve any judicious socio/political resolution, the reality on which our perceptions are based must in fact BE reality, and not arrived at through censored language so as to accommodate special interests.

Americans are in an age where we are inundated with information, both accurate and otherwise. With honest introspection becoming increasingly rare, the prevailing tendency is to gravitate towards abstracts which will subscribe to our predilections. It is the nature of human subjectivity to justify our predispositions, and as a result there is often a lack of consideration for opposing viewpoints. The indignation that comes with certainty does not accord constructive dialogue. Worse yet, is when that very sense of self-righteousness is derived through bias, and a lack of factual information.

Which raises the simple question: Does Islam pose a legitimate threat to America or is it, in fact, a religion of peace compromised by extremists?

As I write this, I am troubled by my own lack of neutrality concerning Islam. As someone whose sensibility will not allow for the leap of faith it takes to believe in an omnipotent creator of the universe, there is an according lack of sensitivity on my part towards any of man's interpretations of God's will. Although religion and I have never been very compatible, I am hoping that my lack of faith in regards to any system of supernatural belief will offer some rational, unbiased perspectives. However as I gather information and try to temper it with reason and historical context, there is evidence that bears out some uncomfortable, and politically incorrect truths.

While most Americans recognize the Constitutional right to freedom of religion, many are conflicted about violence that is being carried out in the name of Islam, and are having difficulty reconciling religious liberty with the governments responsibility to ensure domestic tranquility, and to protect the citizenry from all threats, foreign and domestic. The concern is whether any newly introduced culture's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness will come at the expense of our own. It is not unreasonable to inquire whether Islamic doctrine can allow Muslims to effectively assimilate into American culture and if the Koran is open enough to interpretation for them to do so.

There is much about Islam that is difficult for non-Muslims in the West to intellectually harmonize with. Culturally, we operate from such different premises that there are some counter intuitive dynamics to Sharia (Islamic Law) that simply do not coincide with our sense of propriety. Indeed, there is much about the Islamic faith which offends the American sensibility, particularly where it concerns misogyny, censorship, and personal liberty... and while state and Federal laws have legal jurisdiction on domestic soil, they are difficult enough to implement inside the home, let alone within the hearts and minds of the faithful. It invariably becomes a matter of trying to enforce the laws of the land, opposed to what many Muslims feel is the law of Allah.

It is also important to acknowledge that these conditions are not unique to Muslims, and they actually occur in one form or another across virtually every ethnic and religious population here in the United States. But just as this might be the case, the disparity between Western culture and Islam is particularly diametric. While there are many Muslims, both here and abroad who are liberal in their faith, and who feel that the West has much to offer, the determining factor as to how the social, economic, political and religious landscape of the world will be shaped in the future is most likely dependent on how America negotiates Islamic assimilation.

At over 1.5 billion people, Islam is the fastest growing religion on Earth. It would be unwise for America to ignore that fact. However it would be even more foolish to believe that we can respond by pompously imposing Western values around the globe. As Islam increases its appeal to the economically oppressed who cannot conceptualize freedom, it becomes our responsibility to introduce humanitarianism or risk isolation and ideological conflict. In the global recruiting war, Islam is clearly winning the battle for the souls of the impoverished, and disenfranchised. Governments around the world are compelled to acknowledge this as a growing political force. This fact alone is foreboding.

But with religion having significant political power both in America and abroad, few (if any) dare attempt to define where the line is between religious, and political precepts. In this regard, virtually all religions are complicit in each other's efforts to control public thought, and by extension, political influence. Thus it makes it extremely difficult to present the merits of Westernized freedom and the separation between Church and State versus the promise of eternal paradise. Regarding religion's global socio/economic power one must ask what determines any religion's viability.

To offer some perspective: As offensive as this may be to some, if a group of people were to create a religion based on Nazism, and adopted Mein Kampf as their God inspired holy writ, and Adolf Hitler as their prophet... it would not be difficult for them to meet standardized religious criteria. In fact, in comparison to Islam there are some staggering parallels. Both ideologies are derived from totalitarian doctrine. Both are vehemently anti-Semitic. The Koran consistently commands that infidels (non-believers) be either killed, or converted, whereas Mein Kampf mandates a "New World Order". Indeed, both set out to conquest via jihad.

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"The only true faith in God's sight is Islam." (Surah 3:19)

Those who are offended by the comparison will point out that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not condone violence perpetrated in their religion's name, which is true. However the same could be said of any individuals who identify with various tenets of philosophy that conflict with one another. So while it is important to acknowledge that an individual should not defined by his or her affiliation alone, ideologies need be culpable for when violence occurs in accordance with it's convictions. There is simply no denying that Islam is at the center of much of the world's conflicts, and it would be injudicious to not seek the answer as to why.

So what actually determines how we perceive what constitutes religion as opposed to a political platform? Is it longevity, population, or the mere assertion that a philosophy is God inspired? One must consider what makes it so politically incorrect to contrast one belief system with another. Surely time helps shape perspective, but so too do the media, and those who write history. Although it would be irresponsible to unilaterally cast a billion and a half human beings in an oblique light, it would be equally nonsensical to ignore the accompanying social trends in countries where Muslims have immigrated to, both past and present.

From a historical perspective, Islam is approximately 600 years younger than Christianity, which weighs heavily on how Americans perceive it in relation to our predominantly Judeo/Christian Culture. If we were to turn back the clock to this point in Christian lineage, the contemporary Islamic mindset is more easily recognizable in ourselves. During what we refer to today as "The Dark Ages", there were countless atrocities carried out by Papal mandate in the name of Christianity. The Inquisitions, in a fanatical search for heretics were ruthless in their tactics, and the Church itself endowed inquisitors with the ability to use torture as a means to coerce confessions. Devices were invented to increase a victim's suffering while simultaneously sustaining agony. Murder was committed with abandon, and women who dared voice an opinion were denounced as "witches" and burned alive. By today's Christian standards, the barbarism that took place is unthinkable.

Of course, as evidenced by our being here, things eventually changed. What allowed Christianity, and moreover, humanity to evolve out of the Dark Ages and into what we now refer to as "The Enlightenment" can be traced back to the introduction of a single concept. Martin Luther's challenge of the Papacy empowered people to express skepticism regarding Church Law, and as reason gathered momentum, new ideas sprouted in it's wake. Questions were asked, and answers were sought. Art, literature and science thrived. Hypothetical, and theoretical constructs which were once considered heresy by the church (e.g. gravity) were able to be written about and discussed openly, without fear of holy retribution. The concept that religious doctrine could be interpreted as metaphor was of particular significance, because still allowed people to maintain their faith while asking questions.

...and herein lies the hope for American Islam.

However there are some compelling differences between medieval Christianity, and contemporary Islam, the most notable of which involves their canons. For instance, it is extremely difficult to read the New Testament on which Christianity is based and justify any acts of violence carried out in it's name, let alone the savagery of the Inquisitions. And despite a wrathful Old Testament, this ethical contradiction made the questioning Church authority much easier. But the same cannot be said of Islam and the Koran, which is replete with directives to kill in the name of Allah, and dissociate one's self from no-believers. It is simply more of a metaphorical challenge to interpret "When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads" (Sura 4-89) as "live and let live".

Another noteworthy difference is that we now live in a nuclear age. While we can only speculate over what medieval Muslim conquerors or Christian Crusaders would have done with weapons of mass destruction in the fourteenth century, several modern Islamic regimes have defiantly expressed their intentions should nuclear weapons come into their possession. They would use them...on us.

This becomes all the more alarming when we consider the amount of Islamic immigrants to both the United States, and our European NATO allies. Presently, there is a cultural "Islamification" occurring in England, Italy, France and Spain where a disproportionate influence on government policy is being imposed by a small, but growing Muslim population. The looming threat of violence, as well as actual acts of terrorism are giving Muslim protestors increasing leverage, as they petition to have Islamic Law institutionalized throughout Europe. The religious and cultural "tolerance" that is demanded is rarely returned, and it seems the peace they claim to be seeking can only be arrived at through subjugation.

A growing concern is that by utilizing the same tactics that have won so much political leverage across the ocean, Islamics are taking advantage of American tolerance and a politically correct, albeit historically ignorant media.. Fully aware that choosing a location so near to Trade Center attacks would create public outrage, executive director of Park 51, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf arrogantly moved forward with his building plans with utter disregard for people's sensitivities. Having written a book Titled "What's Right With Islam is What's Right With America" Rauf surely understands that the tenets of Islam reject much of the American constitution, and why many are cynical as to his intentions. A simple castigation of Islamic human rights violations would go a long way to ease people's fears and allow for a level of hope, but sadly those words never seem to come. Even promoting individual liberty, equality of men and women, equality of Muslims and non-Muslims, the right to private property, and freedom of religion would allow for a certain level of optimism. To the casual observer, Rauf doesn't seem remotely concerned with his public image, and that many feel he's pouring gas on his own fire, and burning the very bridge he is alleging to build.

The Contradictions, if not the hypocrisy are equally infuriating. While Imam Rauf is utilizing the first amendment, and his right to both freedom of speech and freedom of religion, he and his supporters (including NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg) are offended by those expressing opposition to an ideology that does not seem willing to adapt to American principles. Perhaps this is because Sharia prohibits preaching religions other than Islam, and does not allow for critical speech. In the spirit of political correctness, American magnanimity must include tolerating other people's intolerance, or else be labeled as bigoted.

Yet the significance of The Park 51 Islamic Center are even more profound when we consider recent history. Following the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, Osama bin Laden gave a chilling videotaped speech to the Muslim world that few Americans recall beyond the anger they were feeling at the time. After praising Allah for the Towers coming down, he then spoke of reestablishing Islam in Granada, Spain, which was liberated from conquering Moors by native Spanish Christians in 1492. Two years after the Trade Center attacks, the Mosque of Granada was erected, symbolizing Islam's return to al-Andalus - the Arab name of their paradise in the Iberian Peninsula. In 2004, Spain was rewarded for their religious tolerance with an Islamic train bombing in Madrid, Killing 191, and injuring 1800.

Likewise there have been similar terror attacks all over Europe and even a few failed attempts here in the United States since 9/11. The more accommodating we become in our desire for peaceful interaction, the more dire the cultural relationship becomes. One could easily assert that what ideological Islam couldn't maintain militarily in the early part of the last millennium, they are attaining through (mostly illegal) immigration today. The conquerors are returning to Europe, only this time the invaders are utilizing the infidel's benevolence in lieu of swords. And despite what is apparent, America remains in denial as to this clear and present danger.

In order for 21st century Muslims to be able to peacefully cohabitate with the rest of the world, history has shown the path they must take. Fundamentalism as to excuse violence must be denounced. The concepts of analogy and implied comparison must be acknowledged so as to create an exchange of dialogue and culture. A prominent Muslim, in the spirit of Martin Luther must be brave enough to stand up and recognize that ideas, and the human spirit can never be contained by holding them hostage, and that in order to avoid needless bloodshed Sharia Law must adapt itself to accommodate the West, and not the other way around. But such idealism is bloodless on paper, and to date, no Islamic leader, including Feisal Abdul Rauf has shown such impetus.

Certainly there are Muslims who see the futility of extremism and violence. All one has to do is search the internet for Middle Eastern dialogue where Muslims are defending Western civilization on Arab television, let alone acknowledge that there are in fact, many European and American Muslims who are making real efforts to peacefully coexist. Once the socio/political strife is put aside, there is much that Middle Eastern culture can offer the West. Islamic contributions to Art, Mathematics, Science, Literature and Architecture are staggering. To deny this is as ignorant as those who believe that fundamentalism can be diplomatically negotiated with altruism.

Therefore it is incumbent upon The United States to protect these people. Their interests are ours. Their willingness to acclimate both here and abroad needs to be cultivated if we hope to expose the senselessness of violent extremism to the world. Although presently there may be too few to make a significant change in the prevailing ideological mindset, that doesn't negate our responsibility. But willfully overlooking history and current European sociology in regards to Islam betrays both Americans, and peace seeking Muslims.

What is disturbing to many Americans, is that politicians unilaterally claim Islam to be a "religion of peace" without ever having read the Koran. Very few in a position of authority are even asking questions about Islam for fear of what the answer might be. Rather than braving a socially awkward observation, the climate of political correctness dismisses any suggestions of violent cultural assimilation. As a result, instead of making determinations based on factual information (even if those very same facts would lead them back to their original affirmations), cowards on both sides of the political aisle are making assertions based on how they will be portrayed in the media.

Although opponents of Park 51 are referring to its construction as a "Trojan Horse"... whether it truly is or not remains to be seen. It has, for better or for worse drawn national attention to Sharia law. It has also focused on the larger issue of how America will address Islamic acculturation moving forward. How can we balance reason, fear, and the dictates of our passions? Will we take the politically correct approach, and capitulate to cultural demands even when they violate our Constitution? Or will we protect the American Muslims, as well as the majority of Americans who desire peace but require reciprocity for our tolerance?

America has it's own dark history, no doubt. Our international reputation for arrogance is undeniable. But in just over 200 years our sensibilities have evolved significantly, and phony nationalism notwithstanding, we do have a lot to be proud of. Although we are subject to human frailty and still struggle with ethical issues, the freedoms and equality that Americans have is worth defending. It is neither arrogant, nor boastful to claim that a culture that values human life, individual liberty, and free speech is better than one that would apply draconian executions on homosexuals and adulterers... or stone a pregnant woman to death in public.

I make such assertions unapologetically.

Note: I would like to thank Professor and Language and European Culture Dr, "A" for her invaluable contribution to this article, and for setting a standard for integrity that makes me better at what I do.

Rich Woods is a Published Author, Talk Show Host, Public Speaker, and Syndicated Columnist. To get information about his books or seminars, you can visit his website http://www.unlearnnow.com or watch his socio/political Satire "UnLearn w Rich & Tony" @ http://www.unlearn.tv.

Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request
Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request

The January 6, 2008 edition of the New York Times Book Review was devoted to "Islam," as the header for the edition boldly proclaims. The edition aims to highlight some of the most relevant historical, literary, political and theological issues informing contemporary discourse around the topic of Islam, as it is found in recent literature. The effort to shed light on such an important subject is laudable. What follows are my comments on the various articles and essays. They follow the order presented in the Book Review. 1. This issue of the Book Review begins with Tariq Ramadan's excellent essay Reading the Koran. Ramadan is able to capture in a concise essay both the simplicity and the nuanced complexity of the Koran (Qur'an). Its simplicity is rooted in its ability to singularly address the believing heart. At this level the Qur'an is simple and universally accessible. Each person finds in its message, filtered through the prism of his or her personal experiences, knowledge, joy, pain, triumphs and setbacks, a distinct intimacy. At this level, the message requires "no intermediary." This is the basis of what Ramadan refers to as the dialogue that exists between the Qur'an and its reader. Ramadan beautifully captures the spirit of that dialogue.

However, the Qur'an is also nuanced and its message can be quite complex at another level, a more complex one that seeks to accurately understand the legal, social, and moral implications of the message. Here, the challenge, Ramadan informs us, is "to derive the Islamic prescriptions that govern matters of faith, of religious practice, and of its fundamental precepts." Here literalism and dogma do not take one very far, although they inform much of the contemporary polemics surrounding discussions of the Qur'anic messages in the pontification of both Muslims and non-Muslims.

As Ramadan mentions, this is a domain that requires the specialized methodological tools of the Qur'anic scholar. It is those tools that allow for the productive application of reason to the divine text. That such an application is possible is illustrated throughout the long history of Islam, and captured in the rich literate we have inherited from the great Qur'anic exegetes. These methodological tools, would include a deep knowledge of the poetry and language of the Arabs, grammar, rhetoric, logic, knowledge of the Meccan and Medinan verses (signs) of the Qur'an, and other sciences that Ramadan does not mention.

Possession of those tools is augmented by the possession of a final, critical one that Ramadan does expound on-a deep spirituality that creates an inseparable fusion between the heart and the mind. It is this fusion that really opens the door to a faithful and deep understanding of the guidance contained in the Qur'an. In Ramadan's words, "Reason opens the Book and reads it-but it does so in the company of the heart, of spirituality."

In our day the need for a deeper reading of the Qur'an has perhaps never been greater, for the vast difference between the society that witnessed the original revelation of the text and the time we live in has never been greater. Hence, there is a tremendous need for a harmonizing between the text and our context, a harmonization that is impossible as long as there is not a deep harmony between the heart and the mind. Ramadan makes this point quite emphatically. If we Muslims are able to effect a reconciliation between our hearts, which are oftentimes blinded by the sometimes luminous, sometimes dark glare of the modern condition, and our minds, which are oftentimes numbed by the seductive illusion of certitude, then perhaps we can help to effect a reconciliation between not only the text of the Qur'an and the context we endeavor to apply its guidance in, but also between the various people vying for preeminence, or simply trying to survive in an increasingly interconnected world.

2. Irshad Manji's review of John Kelsey's, Arguing The Just War in Islam, is plagued by two of the tendencies that characterize her own works-namely, a strong ideological bias and the lack of a deep understanding of Islamic Law, exegesis, and methodology. Both of these tendencies work to undermine the seriousness of her scholarship and the veracity of her conclusions.

An example of the former is illustrated by her comment on Kelsay's statement that in the light of classical Islamic legal reasoning civilian deaths may be justifiable "when an enemy's military resources are deployed in the midst of a civilian population. ...Soldiers whose actions take place under such conditions are excused from the guilt associated with unjust killing." Manji comments, "That ruling would let Israeli Defense Forces of the hook for collateral damage in their 2006 war in Lebanon, since Hizbollah deliberately operated in residential Beirut." Manji's defense of the IDF would be more credible, but no more acceptable, if the destruction caused by the IDF during the war was restricted to the slums of southern Beirut. However, it does little to excuse the killing of hundreds of Lebanese civilians in areas where there was no Hizbollah presence, the wanton destruction of Lebanese civilian infrastructure, and the dumping of hundreds of thousands of cluster bombs on Lebanese fields and arable farmland. Are these to be glibly dismissed as forms of collateral damage that Muslims have no moral or theological authority to question because of a perceived loophole in classical Islamic strategic thinking?

The latter tendency is illustrated by her concluding remarks surrounding the Qur'anic verse that "tells believers that slaying an innocent is like slaying all of mankind unless it is done to punish villainy." She goes on the mention the incumbency of "reform-minded Muslims" reinterpreting this verse. She then concludes that the nature of that reinterpretation "could well be the next chapter in reclaiming Shariah reasoning and the richness of Islam itself." To reduce the reform of Islamic legal thought to the reinterpretation of a single verse, particularly the one is question is a highly untenable proposition.

Although Kelsay's work is probably quite insightful, it is indicative of a genre of writing about Islam that is highly problematic. That literature seeks to explain developments in the Islamic world based on easily sensationalized cultural variables that pale in the face of the analytical strength of other more nuanced ones. In this case the cultural variable is religion. Manji quotes Kelsay as saying, "Those who wish to argue that Islam has nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11 or the tactics of Iraqi 'insurgents' will find no comfort here..."

The implicit assumption underlying this statement is that if we can understand Islam, specifically its legal reasoning, then we can understand why 9/11 occurred or why the Iraqi insurgents choose the tactics they do. I would argue that Islamic legal reasoning has little to do with understanding either. If suicide terrorism is the issue to be explained then Islam would give us little insight into what motivated the Tamil Tigers when they were engaging in arguably the prototypical-and to date the most successful-suicide terror campaign in history. If car-bombing is the tactic to be explained then Islam will do little to explain the ruthless campaigns of the Zionist Stern Gang in Palestine during the 1940s, or the highly effective campaign of the Viet Cong and their supporters during the American campaign in Viet Nam during the 1960s. How does Islam inform the tactics of contemporary Islamic radicals who employ such methods in ways that differ fundamentally from the two groups mentioned above? As Robert Pape demonstrates in the case of suicide bombings it would be far more productive to consider other variables.

If any one thinks that the application of "premodern precedents" goes further in explaining contemporary acts of violence in the Muslim world than globalization, foreign occupation, economic marginalization, inadequate education, and a host of other factors, then that misunderstanding will not only inform flawed policies for dealing with the current crisis, it will also help to perpetuate the type of ignorance that lends public support to those policies.

It is interesting the Book Review did not choose to highlight a publication that deals with the types of explanations I mention above. Pape's, Dying to Win, Michael Scheuer's, Imperial Hubris, and Olivier Roy's Globalized Islam are examples of works that could have been mentioned in this regard. This is not to argue that Kelsay's thesis has no validity. However, its true relevance is highly questionable.

3. Jeffrey Goldberg's, Seeds of Hate, is a review of Matthias Kuntzel's, Jihad and Jew Hatred: Islamism, Nazism, and the Roots of 9/11. Goldberg echoes Kuntzel is seeing the poorly packaged nonsense that is at the basis of Jew-hatred that does exist in the Muslim world as "scandalously ubiquitous." The Muslim world is quite expansive, and it would be a stretch of the imagination to think that the sort of anti-Jewish hatred that appears in pamphlets littering some of the bookstores of the Arab heartland of Islam is widespread in places like Muslim West Africa, the Muslim nations of Central Asia, or the Southern Philippines. Even Goldberg realizes that we are not talking about a ubiquitous phenomenon and more accurately states at the end of his article, "Still Kuntzel is right to state that we are witnessing a terrible explosion of anti-Jewish hatred in the Middle East..."

The dubious nature of Kuntzel's claim along with an indication of the nature of the scholarship supporting it is found his allegation that (in Goldberg's words) "two Muslim leaders in particular willingly and knowingly carried Nazi ideology directly to the Muslim masses." These two leaders are the Palestinian, Amin al-Husseini, and the founder of the Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood, Hasan al-Banna. During his lifetime, to say nothing of today, it would be difficult to find a Muslim outside of Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia who had even heard of Amin al-Husseini. Although Hasan al-Banna's ideas would be indirectly influential in the programs of some Islamic organizations, such the Jamaati Islami of India and Pakistan, that influence was largely confined to a few countries outside of the Arab heartland of Islam, and did not extend beyond the Western-educated elite that formed the backbone of such movements. The masses in those lands were always attached to more traditional types of Islamic organizations such as the Sufi brotherhoods.

In mentioning the role of Hasan al-Banna in transferring those hideous ideas from their European birthplace to the Muslim world, Kuntzel gives too much weight to a yet to be resurgent Islam. The role of Arab nationalism, and nationalist thinkers such as Sati al-Husri during the 1930s and 1940s in that transferal is far more significant. Those were the heady days of the Arab nationalist revolution, and nationalist thinkers such as al-Husri, Michel Aflaq and others saw far more to be learned from the mass mobilization techniques, the manipulation of nationalist symbols, and the racist propaganda of Mussolini and Hitler than Islamic figures like al-Banna ever did.

Kuntzel's use of the word "Jihad" in his title is also significant. The juxtaposition of "Jihad" and "Jew-Hatred" seems to suggest that somehow Jew-hatred has something to do with motivating the actions of 21st Century jihadists. Such a linkage would be very difficult to prove. Most analysts of contemporary jihad movements note the almost total neglect both Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have given to the Palestinian problem. When it is mentioned by them or their cohorts, it is usually done so in a language that bespeaks of tokenism. Why then use such language? I would argue that it is an emotive way of obscuring the real issues pushing some Muslims to violence.

The same could be said by the inclusion of the phrase, "...and the Roots of 9/11," in the subtitle. Even those who accept the woefully inadequate official version of the events of that day seldom if ever mention the hatred of Jews as being one of the factors motivating those implicated in carrying out the attacks. It is again curious that Kuntzel would make such a linkage.

Kuntzel does point to a real problem. However, he appears to be overly simplistic in his analysis of its origins, and by implication its solution. To his credit, Goldberg points out this oversimplification. As he implies, the "excess and cruelty" of Israel has to be seen as a factor in the emergence of virulent Jew-hatred in parts of the Muslim world. That does not excuse it. However, it is certainly a factor in explaining it.

4. Fouad Ajami's essay dealing with Sam Huntington's Clash of Civilization thesis is his acknowledgement that Huntington was right all along. It took the events of 9/11 to lead Ajami to see the light. As Ajami states, "Those 19 young Arabs who struck America on 9/11 were to give Huntington more of history's compliance than he ever could have imagined." He further observes that those radicals and their ilk had "overwhelmed the order of their homelands..."

All of this strikes me as strange. As far as I can see it is authoritarian business as usual in all of the Muslim countries that have witnessed the threat of radical Islam. Egypt dutifully crushed Ayman Zawahiri and his minions, forcing them to seek refuge in the caves of Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia has survived the challenge of Bin Laden and al-Qaeda without even a minor disruption in the flow of oil. Even in Pakistan, a land where the radical Muslim youth are seen as most menacing, far from being overwhelmed, President Musharraf, along with the military and feudal land-owing elites he serves as a front for are firmly in charge. No informed observer would believe otherwise. Musharraf has been able to skillfully use various Islamic groups to give the impression of an exaggerated Islamic threat to his western backers; and of course, he is the only one capable of dealing with that threat.

In the most secular of Muslim countries, Tunisia, the vanquished Islamic movement, and its exiled leader, Rashid al-Ghanoushi, show little signs of a comeback. Even in Turkey, where Ajami places an exaggerated emphasis on the Islamists roots of the current ruling party, it is clear that the politicians, regardless of their Islamist origins, tow the army's line and have been forced to engage in many embarrassing compromises to prevent the direct intervention of the avowedly secular military into the political arena. In the Central Asian Muslim republics, brutal repression prevents the emergence of even a peaceful Islamic movement.

Ajami's effort to lend credence to Huntington's thesis leads to an incredible lack of analytical depth. He cites for example the fact that the percentage of the world's population under the direct political control of the west has fallen from 40 percent in 1900 to 15 percent in 1990, whereas Islam's share has risen from 4 percent in 1900 to 13 percent in 1990. Even if we discard the fact that most of the growth in the Islamic realm can be attributed to disproportionately high population growth rates, Ajami's failure to grasp the nature of neo-colonization is telling. The premise of the new colonization is that it no longer requires expensive and politically-damaging direct control. The details of the working of new relationships of domination and control are well known, and their impact on the developing world is well documented.

Ajami's analysis also ignores the economic realities of the current global system. If we were to look at the economic domination of the former colonial powers we would surely find that the forms of economic dependency in the former colonies, and wealth sharing patterns between them and their old vassals has actually worsened. The nature of globalization has rendered whole sectors of the population of many developing countries structurally unemployed or unemployable, even in places like India where a relative handful of people have benefited by the "outsourcing" of IT services.

To make his case Ajami must overlook other critical developments, such as a pervasive western-orchestrated globalization that is just as severe in the Muslim world as it is elsewhere. The young Arabs and Muslims Ajami sees as the "shock-troops of a new radicalism" are wearing blue jeans, blazers and communicating via cell phones and the internet. Their frustration in many instances is bred by the lack of control they have over their life chances because of the vagaries of the global economy.

9/11 notwithstanding, Huntington's clash of civilizations is bad history and it is bad social science. From a historical perspective it would be difficult to argue that Islam and Christianity are two distinct civilizations. They both spring from common roots and are integrated by the dynamics that have forged the peoples of the Mediterranean region into an integrated if oftentimes conflicting whole. The diet, language, dress, and social mores of a Palestinian Christian differ little form those of a Palestinian Muslim. To posit that religion alone somehow casts them into divergent civilizations, civilizations defined by culture no less, is not a sound proposition. If somehow European Christians are distinct from their Latin American or Middle Eastern brethren, something that Huntington seems to suggest, then those differences likely have nothing to do with religion.

The clash of civilization thesis is based on many conclusions that do not stand up to facts. For example, Huntington claims that sharing a common civilization will mitigate conflicts that do occur. Yet the two world wars, fought primarily between the Christians of Europe were the bloodiest and most costly conflicts in history. More recently in the Muslim world the Iran-Iraq War, which raged from 1980 until 1988, leading to the deaths of well over one million combatants, was the bloodiest war in the history of the region despite the fact that both sides were Muslim. Sharing a common "culture" was no mitigating factor in these conflagrations.

Furthermore, the neat fault lines Huntington draws up are not so clear on the ground. Was the 1991 Gulf War an example of a clash of civilizations? The Christian American and Brits teamed up with the Muslim Saudis and Kuwaitis to destroy Muslim Iraq. How do we draw the fault lines in looking at that conflict?

Ajami grudgingly concedes, "I still harbor doubts about whether the radical Islamists knocking at the gates of Europe, or assaulting it from within, are bearers of a whole civilization." I can assure Mr. Ajami that they are not even the bearers of a partial civilization. As Olivier Roy points out they are the children of globalization. Furthermore, unlike the Ottoman Turks when they twice besieged Vienna, they are not knocking at the gates of Europe, and unless some European country grants them a visa they can get no where near the estate.

5. William Dalrymple's review of Ghalib Lakhnawi and Abdullah Bilgrami's The Adventure of Amir Hamza is a welcome addition the Book Review's collection. Such works go a lot further than any number of speeches or educational initiatives to humanize the Muslim world. With so much attention given to the bloody things that lead in the headlines of the coverage given by the western media to the Muslim world, it is refreshing to read about a great work of literature. Dalrymple's concise overview of the development of this genre of writing is lucid and insightful.

His review is also saddening, for as he points out, this art form, along with virtually of all the classical Islamic arts-with the notable exception of calligraphy-are almost dead. In this context, Dalrymple issues a subtle challenge to Muslims when he states, "If the Sackler's "Hamzanama" exhibition was the first time a Western audience has been exposed to the Hamza story, it also served as a wake-up call to Urdu and Persian scholars. It quickly emerged that this epic, said to be the longest single romance cycle in the world, has been almost forgotten." The wake-up call Dalrymple mentions extends far beyond scholars of Persian and Urdu. It is one that should be heeded by all Muslims.

Being a viable and competitive nation includes far more than the ability to produce doctors and engineers, the primary professions most Muslim parents direct their children towards. Without relevant and engaged scholars in the humanities and social sciences, it is difficult to see how the type of Islamic world expressed in the pages of the Hamza tales will be recaptured. That world is a world rooted in the realities that are shaped by real people engaging the world on human terms. It is a world capable of producing great art and literature, a world of subtleties and nuances, a world of heroes and heroines.

A true revival of Islamic civilization does not require a return to the prophetic epoch, nor does it require starting from scratch in the face of the novel contingencies presented by the modern and now post-modern conditions. It will require a deep appreciation of the tradition that emerged from the struggle of Muslims to apply our religion in the world as much as it will require a rededication to the underlying piety that drove that engagement. It will also require the creative imagination illustrated by the many minds that unwittingly collaborated over long centuries to produce The Adventures of Amir Hamza, as well as the creative assimilative genius that produced the distinctive Mughal art form displayed in the Hamzanama.

It is interesting, as Dalrymle points out, that The Adventures of Amir Hamza begins near Bagdad and unfolds in an area encompassing most of the Middle East that has become synonomous with conflict and strife. Bringing about a new day in that region will hinge in large part on how we in the West envision it. Hopefully works like The Adventures of Amir Hamza will help us to view the region and its wonderful people in a more human light.

6. Beyond the Burka, Lorraine Adams essay on the state of Muslim women in western literature is a call for the inclusion of a wider range of voices in literature about Muslim women currently available in the West. Adams points to the highly politicized nature of what gets translated, published, and by implication, effectively marketed. She mentions the case of Hirsi Ali's memoir, Infidel. Because Ali's work, whose truthfulness is dubious, reinforces all of the stereotypes associated with the type of Islam advocated by radical Islamists, today's enemy of choice, it is a best seller and its author fitting for a fellowship at the American Enterprise Institute.

Adams then proceeds to mention the likes of Nawal El Saadawi, the longtime Egyptian feminist scholar and activist, whose scholarship, integrity, and career accomplishments dwarfs those of Hirsi Ali, but whose ambivalence towards the American imperial project has relegated her works-those which have been translated into English-to the back shelves of obscure British bookstores.

Adams also demonstrates the power of the template by a brief examination of the work of the Iranian émigré Azar Nafisi, Reading Lolita in Tehran. The success of that work led to a slew of similar works by Iranian women. Collectively, those works serve to reinforce the stereotypical views most Americans have of the Islamic Republic, but do little to add understanding of the highly complex, highly nuanced Iranian social and political systems. They also unwittingly deny space for other Iranian female voices that are telling different types of stories. This is a dangerous trend in light of the fact that the American public will probably soon be called on to accept some form of military action against Iran. In the absence of understanding, blood unfortunately becomes a very powerful argument.

Perhaps the greatest shortcoming of Adams essay, one that is almost universal when Western women write about Muslim societies, is her failure to mention any works by women who readily and proudly identify themselves as practicing Muslims. She does acknowledge that "moderate Muslims, practicing but tolerant; and radical fundamentalists..." exist. However, her overview of the literature being produced by the women of the Muslim world gives no indication of any literary output from this quarter. It would certainly be instructive and enriching to find out what are the factors motivating such women to take the stands that have taken, and what is their view of the social reality some consider so insidious and demeaning to their gender.

Herein is a challenge for practicing Muslim women in the West, many of whom are fluent in both English and one of the major Muslim languages. Through original works and through translation let your stories and the stories of your sisters be known. It is only through the telling of such stories that the fullness, complexity, and richness of the Muslim world will come to be known. Only then will we begin to approach the fulfillment of the vision of Dedi Felman, who Adams quotes as saying, "We are asking people to recognize the Other not for what they want it to be or anticipate it to be, but for what it is." After all is said and done such an attitude is absolutely indispensable for mutual understanding.

End of Part One

http://www.newislamicdirections.com/nid/articles/review_of_islam_in_nyt_book_review/

For More Information:

Telephone: 510.387.2604 / 1.866.496.8598

Fax: 510.251.0993

Imam Zaid Shakir was born in Berkeley, California and accepted Islam in 1977 while serving in the United States Air Force. He graduated Summa Cum Laude and earned a BA in International Relations at the American University in Washington, D.C. and an MA in Political Science from Rutgers University. While overseas in Egypt, Syria, and Morocco, he studied Arabic and traditional Islamic sciences including Islamic law, Qur'an, and Islamic spirituality. He co-founded Masjid Al-Islam in Connecticut and taught Political Science at Southern Connecticut State University. He has written numerous articles for various magazines, journals, newspapers, and author of the groundbreaking books "Heirs of the Prophets" and "Scattered Pictures". Imam Zaid Shakir currently teaches full-time at the Zaytuna Institute in Hayward, California as a scholar- in - residence.

In the spirit of the great scholars of the past, the Imam embodies the rationality, spirituality and breadth of traditional knowledge, as well as cutting-edge academic intellect.

For interviews or press/media kit: info@zaidshakir.com

Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request
Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request

Khaled Mash'al, leader of the Hamas movement which won the Palestinian elections in January 2006 gave a speech in Damascus which was broadcast on al-Jazeera TV on February 3rd 2006. He told the European nations to apologise to Islam because: 'Tomorrow, our nation will sit on the throne of the world. This is not a figment of the imagination, but a fact. Tomorrow we will lead the world, Allah willing. Apologize today, before remorse will do you no good. Our nation is moving forwards, and it is in your interest to respect a victorious nation.' His speech went on to say that the first phase of the Islamic world conquest would be the elimination of Israel and the defeat of the West in Iraq.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad agrees. He said in Iran's holy city of Qom on 5th January, 'We must believe in the fact that Islam is not confined to geographical borders, ethnic groups and nations. It's a universal ideology that leads the world to justice.' He believes his main mission is to 'pave the path for the glorious reappearance of Imam Mahdi, may Allah hasten his reappearance.' According to Shiites, the 12th imam disappeared as a child in the year 941. They believe he will return and be known as the 'Mahdi' and reign on earth for seven years, before bringing about a final judgment and the end of the world.

At the same time the entire Islamic world has been roused to fury over cartoons printed in a Danish newspaper. We have evidence (available on request) which shows how the cartoons row has been cleverly manipulated by Islamic radicals with the aim of uniting Muslims against the West in order to create submission to Islamic demands and to defend Iran and Syria against censure from the UN. It is not a co-incidence that Denmark is set to assume the rotating presidency of the U.N. Security Council -- at the very time that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is expected to refer Iran to the Security Council and demand sanctions. At the same time the Security Council wants to question Syria and the regime of President Assad about the murder of Lebanese President Hariri. To portray Denmark as 'an enemy of the Prophet' would be helpful to the Islamic world in creating the idea that all censure of Muslim countries is part of an anti-Islamic western conspiracy.

In the UK, Islamic leaders are using the cartoons controversy to put pressure on the government to limit what can be said in the press about Mohammed. Patrick Sookdheo of the Barnabas Fund comments on this, 'If we pass laws or even simply create a new code of practice for the press specifically to protect Mohammed, I fear it could prove to be the thin end of the wedge. From self-imposed censorship we could soon move to more serious situations. In Pakistan there has been a mandatory death sentence since 1991 for 'defiling the name' of Mohammed.' He goes on to show how the Muslim Action Committee is using the cartoons furore to reverse the defeat suffered by the Muslims when the House of Commons unexpectedly voted to pass the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill in a form which does not provide the protection for Muslims which the government had intended.

The cartoon controversy led to a demonstration in the streets of London with slogans calling for 'infidels' to be beheaded and showing support of suicide terrorism. One said 'Europe you'll come crawling when Mujahadeen come roaring.' There was widespread outrage at this demonstration and moderate Muslims sought to distance themselves from it. However days later a poll of British Muslims revealed that 45% favour the establishment of Shari'a (Islamic) law in Britain.

This is in line with the world vision of Islam which from the days of its inception is to bring the world into subjection to Allah as defined in the Koran. Mohammed's mission was universal, with the aim of not only preaching, but also changing all existing societies into an Islamic society governed by the laws of Allah, known as the Shari'a.

Therefore Islam grants radical Muslims a mandate to change the existing society into an Islamic society, to make Islam supreme, and thus dominate every aspect of society. This is not only the desire of fundamentalists like Osama bin Laden, but would seem to be the desire of a large number of Muslims all over the world.

This desire is reflected in a document written in 1980 entitled The Islamic Movement in the West by Khurram Murad who was then the head of the Islamic Foundation with branches around the world. He outlined his Islamic revolution and the blueprint of how to bring it about in the West.

On page three of his document he posed the question: 'What is an Islamic movement?' He goes on to answer: 'An Islamic movement is an organised struggle to change the existing society into an Islamic society based on the Koran and the Sunna, and make Islam, which is a code for entire life, supreme and dominant.'

Such views can find ample justification in the Koran which teaches that Muslims must be supreme over non Muslims and should be engaged in a jihad to achieve this until the Day of Judgement.

'So lose no heart, nor fall into despair. For you must gain mastery, if you are true in faith. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya (poll tax to be paid by non Muslims living in a Muslim society) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.' Sura At-Tawba 9:29 (Yusuf Ali's Translation).

So will Islam rule the world? Of course expressing the aim of world domination and achieving it are two different things. Hitler promised 1000 year Reich but in 1945 Berlin lay in ruins and the Nazis were shattered. The Communist Manifesto spoke of the inevitability of world revolution and Communist dominance, but in 1989 the Berlin Wall came down and in 1991 the Soviet Union fell. I remember talking to wild eyed Maoists at Speaker's Corner in London during the 1970s who said their brand of Communism would be victorious and the thoughts of Chairman Mao would last 10,000 years. Now capitalism has come to China and Mao's Red Book is a collector's item. Will the same thing happen to the Islamic radicals? Can we find any clue about this in the prophecies of the Bible?

What the Islamists have going for them is the wealth generated by oil reserves in Middle Eastern countries which has financed much of the spread of Islam worldwide. It also provides a powerful means of exerting pressure on the rest of the world. 'Don't upset us if you want a regular supply of the oil necessary to keep your system going.' They also have a world wide network of mutual support groups through the mosques and Muslim organisations and the concept of 'umma' which ties Muslims to each other and means that if one is offended all are offended.

There are a number of things they do not have going for them however. While it is true that the West is dependent on oil most of which comes from Muslim countries, the Muslims are also dependent on the West to supply technology and trade. If they destroy the West they also will be destroyed in the process. It also needs to be said that despite the concept of 'umma' the Muslim world is divided along many lines - Sunni and Shi'a, moderate and radical, Arab and non Arab. In fact the biggest killers of Muslims in the world today are other Muslims. Amongst non Muslims terrorism and the kind of agitation unleashed by the cartoon controversy has increased a feeling of fear and hostility towards Islam in much of the world.

When we come to the Bible there are two major issues we need to look at relevant to this question. Firstly the issue of Israel and the surrounding nations. There are a number of passages in Bible prophecy which show that at the end of this age the Jewish people will return to Israel and make the once desolate land a fertile one again (Ezekiel 36). Jerusalem will be focal point of world attention (Zechariah 12.2-3).

The surrounding nations will be hostile to Israel and fulfil the words of Psalm 83.4, 'Come let us cut them off from being a nation, that the name of Israel may be remembered no more'. In verses 6-8 of this Psalm there is a list of nations, which can be identified with Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Gaza, Syria and Iraq. In 1948, 1967 and 1973 Israel has had to fight wars for survival against superior armies from these countries bent on pushing the Jewish state into the sea.

In this Psalm there is a reference to Zeba and Zalmunna, who said, 'Let us take for ourselves the pastures of God for a possession' (v 12). We find reference to Zeba and Zalmunna in Judges 8. They were kings of Midian, leaders of the army, which came against Israel in the days of Gideon. In Judges 8.21 we read: 'Gideon arose and killed Zeba and Zalmunna and took the ornaments that were on their camels' necks'. The Hebrew word used for 'ornaments' is 'ha saharonim', an unusual word, which is correctly translated in the New King James Version as 'crescent ornaments'. The crescent ornament showed dedication to the moon god of paganism. Today there is a world religion, which also uses the crescent as its symbol - Islam. Islam embodies everything spoken of in this Psalm in its attitude towards Israel. It is the dominant religion of the countries, which surround Israel. Nevertheless the countries which come against Israel in Psalm 83 are defeated and are not successful in their aim.

The prophecy of Ezekiel 38-9 goes further and brings in a great power to the uttermost north leading the armies of Gog and Magog which include Persia in their number. While there is much debate amongst commentators as to the identity of the nations involved there is no doubt where you get to if you go to the uttermost north of Israel - Russia. Russia today is emerging from the humiliation of the collapse of the Soviet Union to become a major player in world affairs with its huge oil and gas reserves and its growing arsenal of weapons. Russia has a large Muslim population within its borders and the Asia republics of the former Soviet Union have Muslim majorities. Although Russia became unpopular with the Islamic radicals over its policy in Chechnya, it has historically favoured the Arab states hostile to Israel. President Putin has invited Hamas leaders to Moscow and the Russians are supplying the material for the construction of the Iranian nuclear power station in Busheir which is the cause of the current crisis. If the United States or Israel attacks Iranian nuclear facilities it could bring Russia into the fray of the Middle East powder keg.

Whether Russia is the subject of this prophecy is debatable (we have a tape / CD on the subject available on request at £3 including postage). What is not debatable is that Iran / Persia is. Apart from the possibility of Russia, the nations which come against Israel on this occasion are Islamic. They come with the intention of wiping out Israel but they meet their doom on the 'mountains of Israel' as God intervenes directly and destroys those armies. (Ezekiel 38.18-23).

The next question to ask is whether or not this event is the same as Armageddon (Zechariah 14, Revelation 16 and 19). There are a number of reasons why I believe it is not (given on the tape already mentioned). If it comes some time before Armageddon one has to ask 'What would be the effect on the Islamic world of such an event?' Far from conquering the world by first conquering Israel, Islam would suffer a humiliating defeat at the hands of God not any human power. The Bible says that this event will cause the Lord (i.e. the God of Israel) to be 'hallowed in the sight of many nations' (Ezekiel 39.27). The clear implication of this is that Islam will not succeed in ruling the world.

The Bible teaches that 'the Antichrist is coming' but also that 'many antichrists have come' (1 John 2.18). It is my view that the Islamists are one of the 'many antichrists' who will come before the end of days but not the Antichrist. While they have many characteristics of antichrist - denial of Jesus as Son of God, persecution of Christians, a goal of worldwide rule - there are a number of features of the Antichrist which do not fit in with Islam. The main ones are these.

According to 2 Thessalonians 2.3-4 the second coming of Jesus will be preceded by the revelation of the 'man of sin ... who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.' In other words he opposes not only the true God but all gods. This is also shown in Daniel 11.37 and Revelation 17.16-17. He also proclaims himself to be god (just as the Roman Caesars did). Both of these aspects of the coming Antichrist are entirely contradictory to Islam which believes in submission to Allah and is wholly opposed to anyone claiming to be a god equal to Allah.

In Revelation 13 the false prophet sets up an image to be worshipped by all and causes all to receive the mark of the beast without which they cannot buy or sell. The worship of images is forbidden under Islam so how could an Islamic leader bring in such a system? This also implies a highly technological society which has developed the means to give everyone a number and to control them by some kind of mark which gives them the ability to buy or sell. This fits in much more with a society dominated by the technology developed in the West.

The Bible teaches that at the end of days the Beast or Antichrist will rule the world: 'And authority was given him (the beast) over every tribe, tongue and nation.' Revelation 13.7 and that he and the dragon (Satan) who gives him his power are worshipped by all peoples. As we have seen Islam aspires to world dominion. However in my opinion it lacks the ability to deliver on this. You can threaten countries with terrorism and cause chaos but this does not make you popular. The implication of Bible prophecy is that initially the Antichrist will be popular offering people 'peace and safety' (1 Thessalonians 5.3) and be worshipped in return, just as Hitler was very popular when he came to power and was worshipped by people raising their hands and saying 'Heil Hitler'. It is hard to see how Islam could ever be in such a position worldwide.

Finally the prophecies of Daniel 9.27 and Isaiah 28.14-19 imply that at the end of days the Antichrist will make a deceptive peace treaty with Israel. If Islam succeeds in ruling the world it would simply snuff Israel out like a child blowing out a candle. Why bother with a peace treaty?

Putting all this together in my judgement the most likely scenario goes as follows. There will be a failed Islamic assault on Israel with many seeing that God is not fighting for but against those who seek to destroy Israel. Out of the fear created by this war which threatens the safety of the whole world the Antichrist will arise offering 'peace and safety' probably out of the EU or the UN (or both). He will use the advanced technology of the West to impose a one world economic system backed by an occult religious system which will appeal to people disillusioned by the mess of contemporary religions (including Islam and nominal Christianity). Once this is in place the final period of the great tribulation will begin and a great time of persecution will take place.

The world will gather for the final battle of Armageddon involving all nations led by the beast and the false prophet. They will meet their doom when the Lord Jesus returns in power and glory with the saints (believing Christians). As a result of this the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Messiah and He shall reign for ever and ever (Revelation 11.15). In that day 'The Lord shall be King over all the earth. In that day it shall be 'The Lord is one and His name one.' Zechariah 14.9. Hallelujah!

Tony Pearce began Light for the Last Days in 1988 when he was working as a school teacher in north London and wrote a few articles about Bible prophecy which he circulated to his friends.

It has become a quarterly magazine giving up to date information on issues relating to the second coming of Christ, and a monthly CD/cassette tape called This Month in Prophecy. The magazine is now also available in French, German, Russian, Romanian and Malayalam. Tony has also produced a Bible Study course on the end times called The Omega Course. He has also written three books, The Omega Files, The Messiah Factor and The House Built on the Sand (published April 2006). These books can be ordered from http://www.newwineministries.co.uk

The website http://www.lightforthelastdays.co.uk contains past and present articles from the magazine. Email enquiries@lightforthelastdays.co.uk