[soc.religion.islam] Article on stereotyping of Islam

ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) (02/14/91)

This article was written by Sajjad Ahmed as a response to a posting on
soc.culture.indian, but it has relevance to soc.religion.islam too.  I
would appreciate if you could could post it:

In article <Feb.12.01.30.50.1991.18165@pilot.njin.net>,
joolee@pilot.njin.net (Jooh Lee) writes:
|> There are been a spate of articles on SCI recently about
|> Islam. If the followers of Islam were really such
|> nice guys are has been portrayed by some of the Muslim
|> netters, could one our muslim brothers/sisters
|> explain why the Zorastrians had to flee Iran, or why
|> B'hai's are/were persecuted there (to virtual extinction),
|> even today...or for that matter why 300,000 jewish population
|> in Iraq a few decades ago has been reduced to mere 3000?
|> Isn't it the same anti-other-religion trend in Islam that 
|> has driven the Hindus out of Pakistan since independence?
|> Is this lack of religious tolerence towards non-believers
|> a religious mandate in Islam? Is fanaticism synonymous with
|> Islam?
|> 
|> 
|> I am just trying to understand the religious behavior of different
|> religions.
|> So please stay with the issues.


The article on hand describes alleged crimes that have been committed
against non-Muslims in Muslim countries.  This is then being attributed
to the conclusion that Islam is intolerant towards other religions.  There
clearly seems to be a gap in logic somewhere, based on lack of knowledge
and strong built-in prejudice against Islam.
Let us clarify a few points.  The alleged crimes against the non-Muslims
were committed, if they were committed at all (let us, to the writer's
sake's, assume for the moment that they were), by governments in certain
Muslim countries.  These governments - take the case of Iraq, or Saudi
Arabia, are brutal and oppressive regimes, allowing no opposition to exist,
not only oppressing non-Muslims but also Muslim "fundamentalists" alike.
Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and many other Muslim countries have persecuted
Muslim "fundamentalists" by torturing and massacring them.  There are many
cited examples of such happenings all of these countries - if anybody wishes
to obtain them I will post them.  The question therefore arises: what sort
of Muslims are these indeed, who not only persecute non-Muslims, but also
those Muslims who are the most fervent about Islam?
The answer is obvious - these governments, these governments in all of these
Muslim countries, are not considered to be Muslims by the masses of the
people.  Who set up these governments?  Who set up these brutal and oppressive
regimes?  One only needs to look at history and analyze how the Western
colonial powers set up puppet monarchies in the Gulf to suit their political
and economic interests.  One only needs to look at who it is that made
Saddam Hussein the monster that he has become, who provided him active
military and financial support to wage a bloody 8-year war against the
Muslim brothers in Iran, and who made him so powerful as to now show his
fist at everyone?  What sort of a Muslim government would kill its own
Muslim people.  The answer is clear - such a government is not Muslim.
All Muslims agree nowadays that there is no true Islamic state on the face
of this earth.  The true Islamic states were eradicated a long time ago by
the Western colonial powers, only to be replasced by years of brutal colonial
rule, and, after that, by not any less brutal puppet regimes.
This, then, explains how non-Muslims have been persecuted in Muslim countries
in recent history.  The challenge remains to prove that Islam is intolerant
and that the Muslim people are intolerant of other religions.  Let us have
a look at the situation when there was a true Islamic state, ranging in its
vastness from Spain to India.  The writer of the article is asked to provide
just one example of any persecution of non-Muslims in the Islamic nation.
On the contrary, Western books themselves admit to how Islam spread   with
amazing rapidity across all of the regions that the Muslims passed through
without the lifting of a single sword.  Finally, the West is beginning to
acknowledge these facts after years of extreme stereotyping and production
of ridiculous slander about Islam and Muslims.  To cite but a few examples:

        "The picture of the Muslim soldier advancing with a sword
         in one handand the Koran in the other is quite false."
          (Basanta Coomar Bose, Mahomedanism, Calcutta, 1931, p.33)

        "History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical
         Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point
         of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically
         absurd myths ever repeated."
         (De Lacy O'Leary, Islam at the Crossroads, London, 1923, p.8)

Once under Muslim rule, the non-Muslims, according to Islamic law, were
given total freedom to practise their own laws and were not subject to the
laws of the Islamic state.  What sort of persecution and intolerance is this?
What sort of intolerance can be attributed to a people that gave absolute
freedom to the non-Muslims to practise their own and religion and laws and
live as freely as the Muslims with no bias or prejudice against them in any
way?  Where is this more evident than Spain, 800 years under Muslim rule,
yet when the Muslims left not one person had been converted by force, not
one had been persecuted because of belonging to a different religion?  Not
one church or synagogue had been destroyed, rather magnificent buildings
were built next to them, revered to this day by the Spanish.  Let's see
what the Jews themselves have to say about their period under Muslim rule in
Spain:
        "The Jewish historians of the 19th Century, as in the case of
         Graetz (the author of a classic ten-volume history of the Jews),
         who were deeply embittered by the contrast between enlightened
         ideas of that century and the denial of civic rights to the Jews
         in many European countries, pointed out most emphatically that the
         legal and actual position of the Jews during the Middle Ages was
         much better in Muslim-Arab countries than in Christian Europe; and
         the 'GOLDEN AGE' of Judaism in Muslim Spain has become a phrase
         which has found its why even to the most popular accounts of Jewish
         history."
          (S.D. Goitein in his "Jews and Arabs," p.7)

So this is the condition that the Jews lived in under Muslim rule, admitted
openly by the Jews.  Little thanks do they give too - one can hardly call the
present era the Golden Age of the Palestinians.
What kind of intolerance is this indeed, I wonder?  How does this compare to
what the Christians did after reconquering Spain.  The notorious Spanish
Inquisition, that tortured Muslims and Jews alike, massacring them in many
places.  It seems the Christians never get blame for any intolerance when
they crossed the oceans to the new worlds.  They seemed to have found the
most effective solution - they couldn't be bothered to convert the indigenous
people, be they American Indians, Incas, Aztecs or Aborigines.  So they just
wiped them out in brutal massacres that lasted many years.  Strangely
enough, if the Muslims had used the same methods, entire Asia and Africa
would have been Muslim lands, Spain would have become a completely Muslim
country, Columbus would have been a Muslim, and the entire North America
and South America would have been Muslim continents.  I wonder in whose
power the world would be now, and who would be blaming who for religious
intolerance.
Nay, but Islam prohibits religious intolerance of any kind, which is why
the Muslim  rulers of those days forbade any use of force or persecution
against of non-Muslims.  In the days of the Prophet (pbuh), non-Muslims used
to come to the Prophet to settle disputes between themselves, and also between
themselves and Muslims, because they knew that he was just and exercise
justice equally, be it on Muslims on non-Muslims.  He never favored Muslims
over non-Muslims when it came to judging.  This is openly admitted by
everyone.  So what kind of religious intolerance is this?  How many Christian
missionaries used such justice when dealing with the "backward" and "primitive"
"natives" (as they called them)  in Africa and the Americas?
Let those who accuse Islam of being intolerant provide one example in the
Qur'an or Hadiths that bring substance to their horrible and slanderous
accusations.  Rather, we invite them to overcome the centuries of prejudice
they are accustomed to, and open the Qur'an themselves themselves and see
with their own eyes with what beautiful words the Qur'an commands the Muslims
to live in peace with the non-Muslims, not to treat them unjustly in any way,
and never, ever, to begin any hostilities of any kind against them.
Indeed, the prejudice is strong, as attacks against Muslims and Islamic
institutions throughout the whole country are showing (especially after the
outbreak of the war), but it is our duty to inform the people of the truth.
(One immediately begins to wonder how tolerant this society really is when
mosques across the whole country are getting bombed and others receiving
bomb threats, and Muslims are being attacked by people waving American flags -
then the Muslims really begin to understand the American dream).
I end again with the famous Surah in the Qur'an:

        In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful,

        Say, O you disbelievers!
        I worship not that which you worship,
        Nor do you worship that which I worship,
        And I will not worship that which you are wont to worship,
        Nor will you worship that which I worship,
        To you be your way, and to me mine.

I ask you, is this your idea of intolerance, of persecution?  I sincerely
hope not.

                                Sajjad W. Ahmed