ISLAM AND NON-MUSLIMS        

Malaysia Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad

On Islam and Non-Muslims

On account of incorrect interpretation there is a misunderstanding among Muslims regarding the teachings of Islam on relations with non-Muslims. The Qur'an clearly states that the Christians are the friends of Muslims. It was this that prompted Prophet Muhammad (Salla Allah alaihi wa sallam) to advise his followers who were being persecuted by the idol-worshippers of Makkah to seek refuge in Abbyssinia (modern Ethiopia). The Christian king provided the Muslims full protection.

The relations with non-Muslims are fully explained by the Qur'an: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you. But do not transgress the limits for Allah loveth not transgressors" (2:190). It further advises: "IF the enemy inclines towards peace do thou (also) incline towards peace and trust in Allah, for He is the One that heareth and knoweth" (8:61). Certainly, the Zionists and their supporters who advocate violence against Muslims must be regarded as enemies. However, those who do not fight the Muslims should not be treated as such.

It was during the time of the Crusades that Christian Europe really worked up feelings against Islam. Since then, the deliberate whipping up of anti-Muslim feelings has continued unabated to this day. Thus, the fact that Christians and Jews could freely practice their religions in Muslim Spain was hardly ever mentioned in European history books. The fact that the Christian reconquest of Spain led to the expulsion of Muslims and Jews, or forced conversions or executions has never been condemned. Or, that the Jews actually preferred migrating to Muslim North Africa rather than stay in Christian Spain is regarded as of no consequence.

In the Balkans the Christian Slavs actually helped the Muslim Turks defeat the Byzantines. Despite the Turkish rule, most remained Christians, surely testifying to the liberalism of the Turks toward non-Muslims.

The misunderstanding of Islam by the West today is perhaps at its peak.

No Muslim or non-Muslim can deny that some Muslims have committed terrorist acts. But then a lot of terrorism has been perpetrated by non-Muslims. The difference is that if a Muslim is involved, the deed is immediately attributed to his faith, but if a non-Muslim commits the most heinous of terrorist acts, his deed is not linked to his religion.

It has not been noted that the victims of Muslim fanatics and misnamed "fundamentalists" are insignificant compared to the number of Muslims and non-Muslims massacred by terrorists of the Christian faith. The misunderstanding of Islam and Muslims is such that the West naturally assumes that terrorism is a Muslim creed and is confined to Muslims. Evidence to the contrary is ignored.

Fundamentalism. is equated with extremism. Yet if the teachings of Islam are studied, it would be clear that the best Muslims are the fundamentalists. The fundamentals of Islam are based on peace. On the contrary those who ignore these fundamentals or deviate from them fall into the trap of fanaticism.

Malaysia has a Muslim majority and the government is Muslim dominated; despite their numbers the Muslims have not chosen to rule the country on their own. Instead, they deliberately chose to share power with the non- Muslim minorities. The official religion is Islam but Buddhist, Hindu and Taoist temples and Christian churches are to be seen everywhere. The different races and religions join each other's celebrations, and non- Muslims in Malaysia do not regard Muslims as terrorists or Islam as violent creed.

Despite this interreligious harmony, the West and its media refuse to recognize that the Malaysian Muslims actually exemplify the teachings of Islam. Instead, the West prefers to regard Malaysian Muslims and their behavior as aberrations and continue in their futile search for "fundamentalism" in Malaysia.

Islam is indeed a misunderstood religion. Such is the misunderstanding and prejudice against it that Muslim and non-Muslim alike often regard it as an impediment to peaceful relations between Muslims and non-Muslims and even between Muslims and Muslims. Instead, both regard this religion that brought greatness to the Arabs as being responsible for everything bad that happened to non-Muslims and Muslims.

Ignorant of the teachings of Islam and frustrated by the apparent failures of Islam and their own countries, some Muslims tend to deride and even condemn the religion. Some of their kind even fault the Qur'an and suggest its revision. The Western media makes heroes and heroines out of such religiously ignorant and untutored people. I suspect that all the West wants to see is the removal of Islam as a faith, the way that communism was debunked. However, this will rot serve the cause of good interreligious or non-religious relations between Muslims and others. The answer lies in correcting or abandoning the tendentious and incorrect interpretations of Islam by some scholars.

What Muslims must do is to go back to the Qur'an and the genuine hadith, study and interpret them in the context of the present world. It is Allah's Will that the world has changed. it is not for humankind to reverse. what has been willed by Allah. Islam is not meant for seventh century Arabs but it is for all times and for every part of the world. If the Muslims understand this, then there will be fewer misunderstandings among them. If the non-Muslims appreciate the problems that Muslims have in trying to adjust to modern changes, then they will not misunderstand Islam and the Muslims as much as they do now.

(Source: The Islande Horizons, July/August, 1996)

The Economist, London on West's Coexistence with Islam

Think of Islam, and bombs and bigots may come to western minds.

Despite the unpromising context, the merits of coming to terms with political Islam are being cautiously debated. Should the movements which act in Islam's name be kept out of power at all costs, or given the chance to promote their causes by non-violent means? The experiment underway in Turkey- an important Muslim country with a foot inside Europe - gives the debate new urgency. Turkey now has an Islamist prime minister, Necmettin Erbakan, leader of the Welfare Party. Should the West respond with horror to political Islam gaining a toe-hold in NATO? Or applaud the historic compromise that has been achieved by a resilient democracy?

There are grounds for cautious hope that the more accommodating trends within political Islam are beginning to assert themselves well beyond Turkey. It is sometimes supposed that Islamic politics are special, that normal rules do not apply. Part of the myth is that Islamism the "fundamentalism" of the popular imagination-is homogeneous. In fact, it has numerous currents: violent and non-violent, revolutionary, reactionary and middle-of-the-road. The typical Islamist movement is a loose, and often not very coherent, coalition of different trends. The radical trends make news. But their victory is far from inevitable.

Radical Islam, epitomized by Iran and Sudan, is showing signs of exhaustion.

The attempts by these two regimes to export their revolutions have not had much success. There has been no "domino effect" in the Muslim world. No regime has fallen as a result of their efforts. Many Islamists have stopped seeing them, if they ever did, as models to be emulated. Instead, they are more likely to learn from their mistakes than their achievements.

None of this means that militant Islam is a spent force. Its grassroots appeal remains impressive. But the old-fashioned, largely secular, nation-state is proving surprising sturdy. Even states which Islamists regard, with some justice, as corrupt and incompetent - Algeria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to name but three have succumbed to the jihad (holy war).

This is leading some thoughtful Islamists to reassess their prospects. If more Islamic revolutions are, from their point of view, wishful thinking, should they settle for less? It is in this context that the Turkish test-case is important.

The liberal trend is not going unchallenged. It has to compete, and compete hard, with authoritarian trends still stubbornly persistent in Muslim societies as well as Muslim politics. But there are Muslim thinkers who are eager to engage with "Modernity", not turn their backs on it, and who believe Islamists must come up with clearer programmes. (They) see themselves, self- consciously as the children of Mohd. Abduh, the 19th century Egyptian reformer who set out to reconcile Islamic and modern western thought. They accept democracy and political pluralism, and on this basis say Islamists should be allowed to compete with other parties and, if they win, take power. But do they speak with forked tongues? Sceptics argue that, given the chance, Islamist, will use democracy as a ladder to power, then kick it away. The possibility should not be ignored. But the evidence suggests that the alternative - bottling up Islamist dissent - simply does not work.

Take Algeria, where democracy was suddenly introduced and just as suddenly withdrawn when a well- organised Islamist party came within a whisker of winning power through the ballot-box. The result has been four years of brutal conflict at a cost, so far, of perhaps 50,000 lives. Most observers still find it hard to imagine a way out unless the military-backed regime allows genuine outlets for Islamist opinion.

(Is) it reformable? And can we live with it? West should perhaps be asking the questions about with Islam is hard and occasionally painful, the political Islam. One answer might be that, though detente alternative could be much worse.

(Courtesy: The Hindustan Times, 30 June, 1996)