Lack of Knowledge

Advocacy of Democracy

To illustrate this, we may quote the report's definition of advocacy of democracy:

A commitment to democracy as understood in the liberal Western tradition and agreement that political legitimacy derives from the will of the people expressed through free and democratic elections is a key marker issue in identifying moderate Muslims. Support for democracy implies opposition to concepts of the Islamic state.

It is quite clear that the authors of the report have no knowledge about the concept of "the state" in Islam and that it is a civil state that is neither governed by clergymen nor is it necessarily headed by scholars of Shari`ah; it is an Islam-based state where justice, equality, and respect for human rights constitute the pillars of its government. The history of humankind has never known respect for human rights and the establishment of justice and equality among people as it has recognized them under the religion of Islam.

History testifies to this fact. "When have you enslaved people while their mothers gave them birth as free people?" These words were said by the second Caliph, `Umar ibn Al-Khattab, after the son of the Companion `Amr ibn Al-`As, then the ruler of Egypt, had beaten a Coptic man and the latter complained to `Umar. Without delay, `Umar summoned `Amr and his son and ordered the Copt to beat `Amr's son before people in retaliation for what he had done to him. Then `Umar ordered the man to beat `Amr (the father) as well, because `Amr's son hit the Copt only by virtue of his father's authority. Another example worthy of being mentioned is how Judge Shurayh confirmed a Jewish man's right to a shield, though his opponent was Companion `Ali Ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) who was a Caliph then, - the highest ranking official in a typical Islamic state - because the latter had no proof that the shield was his. Seeing this, the Jewish man was much astonished to the extent that he embraced Islam.

This is real equality in citizenship: There is no difference between a Muslim and a non-Muslim. Here I have quoted two examples related to people of two different religions [Judaism and Christianity], so that it may not be said that Islam would take sides with a certain religion against another. Besides, Islam was the only religion that allowed multiplicity at a time when people were usually obliged to follow the religion of the state. Allah Almighty in the Qur'an explicitly says it, [Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion] (Al-Kafirun 109:6). Try to compare this principle to the notions that call for turning the world of today into one copy of one culture. Where are the so called human rights? Everybody knows what is going on in Guantanamo Bay detention center, what happened earlier in Abu Gharib, what is happening to children, women, and aged people in Palestine, and even what is happening inside the United States itself. Where are human rights in all this? Actually, such people are not entitled to speak about multiplicity and human rights!

Women Share in Inheritance

Some claim that Islam does not equalize between men and women. They take as evidence some cases where the woman's share in inheritance is half that of man as proof of their claim. They should have read the jurisprudent rules of inheritance before speaking about it, because it is obvious that they are much ignorant of this branch of jurisprudence. Let them know that in some cases, a female takes three times as much a male takes. For example, if a wife dies and leaves a daughter and a husband only, the daughter takes 75 percent of the inheritance while the husband takes only 25 percent, according to an unprecedented philosophy, first introduced by the very Islam these people attack. Therefore, to repeatedly say that women take half a man's share in inheritance reflects nothing but trivial knowledge of Islam.

Respect for Well-Established Basics

It is true that we are renewing our discourse to people while contemplating what Islam has allowed us to ponder over. But still, we have our unchangeable fundamentals, just as every nation has its own well-established basics. We do not turn away from our basics, neither harming anyone with them nor practicing any pressure upon anyone in this regard. We let alone non-Muslims who live in Muslim-majority countries with their basics; they can resort to and seek judgments from their own laws, and they can practice their own rituals and acts of worship freely.

When a delegation of Najran's Christians came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), he allowed them to say their prayers in his mosque while having their crosses with them, in spite of the fact that Islam does not confess crucifixion. Additionally, churches that were built before Islam are still intact nowadays. This may be the best witness testifying to this fact, as Muslims have done no harm to those churches. Evident still, the churches built under Islamic rule much outnumber those built before it, though Muslims in the West find it difficult to construct mosques in many countries.

Muslims have never blasphemed a prophet or a religion, and - quite the opposite - they have been subjected to various forms of insult and injustice, and their Prophet has been offended. The offensive cartoons against Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) stand as an evident testament to this fact. Where are human rights and multiplicity in all this?

If anyone questions the holocaust, even as included in a scientific research, they are jailed. Where is equality then?

Islam vs. Terrorism

Moving to terrorism, we find that Islam is totally free from such an accusation. Islam does not admit any form of terrorism, even if some of those who are attributed to it are said to have committed terror-based operations. Why should terrorism be always attached to Islam alone? Who was behind the Crusades? Was it not the clergy? What about the wars that took place in Europe between the different Christian sects, including the Catholics and the Protestants? Why has no one ever said that Christianity calls for terrorism?

We - Muslims - declare that revealed religions are free from terrorism, but the problem today is that some people do not want to speak frankly about the real causes of terrorism or about those who stand behind these causes. They avoid speaking about the oppression that is widespread all over the world as well as about the double-standard policy that governs the world, in addition to other such causes that stir up terrorism. They only advocate conflicts between civilizations, as they serve the interests of weapons mafia and provokers of wars, like what is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Palestine. Is this not violence, or is it only attached to those who defend their own lands? What about democracy and voting polls? What do they mean? People are much confused about them especially after the Algerian people chose their representatives in the early 1990s through polls then were prone to the events everybody knows. Likewise, the Palestinian people chose their government via free and fair elections, then the people themselves were besieged and boycotted. So let the RAND help us understand the concepts of such terms so that we may stop wondering!