Muslims have a responsibility not only towards their own community, but also towards humanity as a whole. For God enjoined in the Quran:
"He it is Who hath made you regents in the earth; so he who disbelieveth, his disbelief be on his own head." (Quran 35:39.
Muslims, as followers of the religion of peace, must uphold peace, and enjoin peace in every possible way. For too long has the umma been inward looking instead of outward looking. This unfortunate trait has bred whole generations of Muslims who tend to have only a one-sided view of the world. We mourn when we see pictures of limbless Afghan children lying in hospital beds, but how many of us pray for the souls of children who die in an earthquake in China? We seek only the betterment of our umma, ignoring our other responsibilities to the society that surrounds us. A society that, we must remember, is as diverse in range as the ways Muslims themselves practice their faith. Let's not turn a blind eye from the fact that the divide between Muslims, most especially between the Sunni and Shiite, has taken thousands of lives and consistently torn the umma (the Muslim community) apart. Diversity does not only exist in the world outside Darul Islam (House of Islam), but also within it.
Muslims who have been raised in an introverted umma cannot help but grow up in an environment of suspicion and distrust. There will always be the inevitable THEM and US. With such an environment, it is not a far step towards outright bigotry and intolerance of the other faiths and races. A recent poll in Indonesia revealed that almost 80% of Indonesians want other faiths outlawed. This intolerance is a new phenomenon in Darul Islam itself. It is sad to observe that the medieval umma had a far better record of "human rights" than today's introverted umma. Another questionable practice that may be a result of having Muslims who are inward looking is the Malaysian policy of "selective meritocracy", otherwise known as the bumiputra policy. The scheme only benefits Malays, and not, I must stress, Muslims in general. Not even a Chinese Muslim or an Indian Muslim is considered bumiputra, or literally, sons of the soil. It is interesting to note that nowhere in any Islamic school of jurisprudence will you find such a scheme being recommended for a particular race. The Malay Adat (traditions), after all, is not a god-given right! In fact, some Adat practices out rightly contradict Islamic teachings!
The fact of the matter is this. Muslims do not have to be the dominant community in any country. For many years, the Prophet and his followers were only a minority in Mecca and Medina, who struggled with the jihad of da'waah (preaching and charitable acts) during times of peace, and the jihad in defense of the faith when, and only when they were attacked by their enemies. In the Quran, God paints out a clear picture of an Islamic community.
"Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that ye may be witnesses against mankind, and that the messenger may be a witness against you. And We appointed the qiblah which ye formerly observed only that We might know him who followeth the messenger, from him who turneth on his heels. In truth it was a hard (test) save for those whom Allah guided. But it was not Allah's purpose that your faith should be in vain, for Allah is Full of Pity, Merciful toward mankind." (Quran 2:143.7)
Islam is the path of moderation, where laxity and the opposing force of excess are totally abhorrent principles. And yet, there exist among us radicals who still insist that what they are doing are Islamic in nature. That violence against non-believers is right and justified by verses in the Quran. They perpetuate an irreconcilable divide between Muslims and the "kafirs" (more affectionately known as the unbelievers). Muslims who promote this kind of dangerous divide obtain their reasons from the apocryphal belief that Darul Islam is constantly in a state of warfare with non-Muslims. Their idea stems from this verse in the Quran:
"O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." (Quran 9:73)
Radical Muslims who use this verse to justify their intolerance of non-Muslim culture are taking this revelation totally out of its context. If they would only bother to read the Quran further, they would find that the verse actually continues:
"They swear by God they have said nothing while they did pronounce the word of disbelief; they disbelieve after their commitment to (live in) peace and they meditated a plot which they were unable to carry out." (Quran 9:74)
The revelation refers to a plot made by the Prophet's enemies to kill him when he was returning from Tabuk. The plot failed. Amongst the plotters had been men from Medina, who had been enriched by the general prosperity that followed the peace established through Islam in Medina. As can be seen, the verse has nothing to do with calling on Muslims to make war on ALL unbelievers and non-Muslims.
By the same token, it is entirely possible to derive militant teachings from the Bible by taking what Jesus said out of its context.
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Bible, Matthew 10:34)
Islamic scholars who equate jihad with holy war are treading on very dangerous ground because Islam has never advocated violence as a means to an end. Many people, non-Muslims and (sadly enough) Muslims, think that jihad means holy war. But this is an impossible definition.
Ibn Rushd, in his Muqaddimaat, divides Jihad into four kinds:
1. Jihad by the heart;
2. Jihad by the tongue;
3. Jihad by the hand and
4. Jihad by the sword.
He defines Jihad by the tongue as to commend good conduct and forbid the wrong. A Muslim is only allowed to take up arms when he or she is revented from carrying out his religious duties, or is being treated unfairly. The Quran is extremely clear on this:
"Fight those who fight against you along God's way, yet do not initiate hostilities; God does not love aggressors." (Quran 2:190)
Muslims are not allowed to provoke a conflict with anyone, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Even before the Prophet conducted Jihad by sword against the unbelievers, he invited them peacefully, lodged protests against their actions and strove to remove their misgivings about Islam. When they refused, and waged a war against him, there was no alternative but to fight back.
Jihad by the sword is only sanctioned when all other choices have run out. It is the final resort, and represents a relentless stand against all forms of persecution and unfair treatment. Despite these stringent conditions, some Muslim jurists still enjoy quoting seemingly militant verses from the Quran. Verses like this one:
"You who believe, do not accept Jews or Christians as sponsors; some of them act as sponsors for one another. Any of you who makes friends with them becomes one of them. God does not guide such wrongdoing folk." (Quran 5:51)
The question arises: How can we show kindness, affection and good treatment to non-Muslims since God Himself prohibits Muslims to take unbelievers as friends, allies and supporters? This verse, therefore, is very popular amongst Muslims who believe that Jews and Christians and other non-Muslims are the natural enemies of Islam.
It must be understood, however, that this verse is not unconditional, to be applied to every single Jew, Christian or non-Muslim. Interpreting them in such a narrow-minded and barbaric manner flatly contradicts the injunctions of the Quran, which encourages affection and kindness to the good and peace-loving peoples of every religion.
The verses cited above were revealed in relation to those people who were hostile to Islam and made war upon the Muslims during the Prophet's time. The Prophet's initial peaceful co-existence with the Jews in Medina is a particularly telling example. It was only after the Jewish tribes had betrayed the Muslims and overturned the peace treaty that was in force that the Prophet decided to wage war against them.
These radical elements thrive on the imaginations of people; more specifically, Muslims who have little in the way of secular education, and hang onto every word that their clergy, or ulema says. In an Islamic utopia, faith, conscience, compassion and reason should always be the driving force for political considerations. Muslim leaders who struggle in a democracy face a paradoxical task in trying to garner support and maintaining their religious identity. Backed into a tight corner, these Muslims leaders have little choice but to use religion to sway the people. The focus of these leaders shifts from espousing a responsible and humble interpretation of Islam to a faith that is emotional, fierce, savagely besieged and armed with boundless hatred for the unbelievers and alleged hypocrites. In other words, they learn to play the "game", as we see every single time America or Great Britain holds a presidential election.
In developing nations like Indonesia and Pakistan, where the unemployment and poverty rate is high, such a dramatic interpretation of Islam is a highly attractive one.
Within the peripheries of such an uneasy political climate, the term hypocrite, or munafiqqin, is thrown about in a liberal and an almost indifferent manner, usually towards the direction of fellow Muslims who share the same faith, but not the same political party. Opposition parties who are led by unbelievers, or kafirs, do not even warrant a second glance. It is a topic not even the lowliest Muslim politician would waste any time on.
Muslims today are splintered and disunited. Even in countries that purport to be Islamic, Muslims are still a minority, divided more often than not, by political aspirations. When political considerations are placed before any need to maintain religious unity, a country will be torn apart. This is very clearly demonstrated in Indonesia, where the hearts and minds of its Muslims are pulled this way and that by quasi-religious political groups. Power is all they seek when they sanction their so-called hatred of ALL unbelievers by their selective interpretation of Islam. They quote verses from the Quran to justify their political integrity and stir up rallies and demonstrations against their government, not realizing that the Prophet himself discouraged such practices.
Hudhaifa bin al-Yaman narrated: "The Prophet said, 'there will be after me leaders who do not follow my guidance and do not follow my sunna, and there will be among them men whose hearts are like those of satan in the body of a human being.' And I asked the Prophet, 'What I should do at that time if I reach it?' He said, 'listen and obey the ruler, even if he lashed your back and took your money, listen and obey.'"
The hadith continues with this narration from Auf bin Malik: "O Prophet of Allah, do you recommend that we fight them (the Muslim wrongdoers)?" He said, "No, don't fight them as long as they do not prevent you from your prayers. And if you see from them something that you dislike, dislike their acts, do not dislike them. And do not take your hand out from obedience to them."
And the hadith continues with Abdullah ibn al-Abbas's narration: "if someone dislikes his ruler, he must be patient, because if he comes against the ruler in a rebellious or destructive manner by only a handspan and dies, he dies in a state of pre-Islamic ignorance (jahiliyyah) and sin."
We will only understand why the Prophet said this when we look at what happened in East Timor when so-called freedom fighters whose initial goal was to break free of the Indonesian government gradually expanded their activities to target innocent Chinese and Christian minorities.
Extremism, hence, is not Islamic in nature. People who use religion to cover their crimes are quite simply, nothing more than bloodthirsty monsters. They belong to no race or religion, creed or nationality, except to that special club who has seen such "luminaries" as Hitler, Milosevic, Saddame Hussein and Attila the Hun pass through its doors. They forget that the door only opens one way.
Even so, the media has, sadly enough, made the Muslims' task of dawaah more difficult and also more urgent. Compare the media today with the people in Mecca who used to follow the Prophet around the city, making fun of his preaching and his words. Despite his insurmountable obstacles, he persevered, and never raised a finger against his dissenters. He argued forcefully, but never in a brutal manner. He sought salvation for his dissenters, not their demise. He hated war, and loved reason and gentle behavior.
It is worrying that the media has had no compunction in publishing responsible and verified articles. The typical media's excuse is that they have to print out a diversity of views in order for the reader to make an "objective" and "informed' decision about how he is to see Muslims and their faith in general. How objective is their "objectivity" when the only result of this is that innocent Muslims all over the world are being targeted by hate-crimes? In Britain alone, attacks on Muslims have soared to over 13 times the average since the September 11th attacks. (Straits Times, 5th January 2002). 12 Muslims girls wearing headscarves have been sexually assaulted. This hatred and hostility to Muslims is not confined to Britain alone. It is widespread, especially amongst western countries.
Compare this to the events leading to the horrific massacre of more than six million Jews in Europe. The propaganda machines of European mass communication perpetuated reckless accusations that the Jews were "different" and "culturally-alien". The propaganda was so successful that German and Polish civilians had absolutely no problems betraying their Hebrew neighbors to the secret police. Even the Vatican had sheep's wool pulled over their eyes in the brutal round-up of Jews in Europe. It is heartening that the Pope has recently apologized for the Church's role in the genocide. But after six million deaths, nothing can take away that shameful part of history.
The media can continue to print all the diverse articles, but it must at least acknowledge that it is contributing to the already tense situation. This strain cannot be underestimated, because it may very well cause a chasm to open between the races in Singapore. In a way, the media is giving terrorists' groups like Al-Queda more than enough rope to tie a noose around the neck of the whole great republic of Singapore.
The Muslims in Singapore must realize that diversity is a fact of life. We cannot turn away from it just as we cannot turn away from the fact that we too have our own divisions and internal conflicts. Muslims must stand together and unite in condemning and eradicating all forms of violence and terrorism. Unity that is formed on the tail of a violent act is false. Unity that is formed from the basis of Islam, or peace, is the truest handhold. To do this, religious teachers must first be persuaded to teach a more responsible form of Islam. One that is at peace with itself; this more than anything else. From this, a stronger confidence will emerge, and bring Islam and Muslims into a new era of non-violence. Only when we have strengthened our umma can we be credible. I am certain that this newfound credibility will be significant in any request that we want to make of our government. One example being that of the issue of headscarves in our schools.
Throughout this essay, I have tended to ignore the external forces that shape the Islamic identity. Forces like Israel's and America's continued oppression of Palestinians, the paradoxical sanctions imposed on Iraq etc. I have ignored these because I strongly feel that whatever change must be done, has to begin from within the community itself. Only when we stand united do we have the chance to forge a fresh identity.
I love this country, please don't let it go up in flames.