The Real Issue: Choice Between Modesty and Nudity

Historically, African Americans have looked at the country of France with respect and admiration. When African American solders were sent to France in 1917, during WW I, they were treated with respect and consideration. The French citizens demonstrated open-mindedness toward African Americans soldiers. The recognition and respect, without marginality, demonstrated by France was in direct contrast to America's Jim-Crowism and segregation leveled at its Black citizens.

However, after 93 years France has shifted its political and social policies of democracy and equality toward 'secularism' at a cost of religious freedom. In America, where 24-30% of its Muslim population are African Americans, the respect for France has shifted to regret and condemnation at the French Senate, which adopted into law banning Muslim women from wearing veils -- including the burqa, the full-body covering worn by some Muslim women. This law denies Muslim women the right to cover their faces in public arenas such as hospitals, schools, government buildings and while using public transportation.

The law imposes a fine of 150 euros ($190) and/or a citizenship course as punishment for wearing a face-covering veil. Forcing a woman to wear a women to wear a niqab or a burqa will be punishable by a year in prison or 15,000-euro ($19,000) fine, the government said, calling it "a new form of enslavement that the republic cannot accept on its soil."

The ban pertains to the burqa, a full-body covering that includes a mesh over the face, and the niqab, a full-face veil that leaves an opening only for the eyes. The hijab, which covers the hair and neck but not the face, and the chador, which covers the body but not the face, apparently are not banned by law.

The real issue, from a Muslim's perspective, is framed around the choice between 'modesty' and 'nudity'. The non-Muslim political face may suggest that the real issue is the choice between 'religion' and 'secularism'. Secularism may be viewed as the endeavor to maintain the separation between 'church' and 'state'.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community believes that a person's choice of dress is a personal matter. Islam teaches modesty for both men and women but underlying all Islamic injunctions is the Qur'anic principle that 'There is no compulsion in religion'. Thus if a woman, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, chooses not to cover her head then that is her right but on the other hand if a woman, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, chooses to cover her head or face then that too is her right and ought never to be interfered with. This belief was echoed by President Barack Obama in a speech in Cairo last June 09. He said:

"...it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit - for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim women should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism."

America! Religious freedom is a gift that we must honor, preserve and protect. Our claim as a great nation is not through discrimination, prejudice and intolerance, but through exemplifying the qualities of freedom, justice and equality.

Allah, bless America!

Is Burning Scriptures A Biblical Teaching?

On the ninth anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Dove World Outreach Center is planning to hold a "Burn a Koran Day," citing Islam as an evil religion and claiming that "Islam is of the devil." The Center is defending its plans with a Biblical reference from The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 19, verse 19.

And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them. Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, we adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds. Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed. (Acts 19:11-20)

This is the only such incident of "book burning" recorded in the New Testament. However, for verse 19:19 to be used in support of Christians gathering together to burn the scriptures of other faiths publicly is not logical and is unsupported by any other Christian teaching. The scrolls that are burnt in this verse are burnt by their owners themselves, the implication being that they are aware that what is contained within is not truthful and they fear being disgraced as those as those who has been using Jesus' name to drive out demons were disgraced. They openly confess their actions and then burn the scrolls to show they are putting an end to such practices in the future.

This is a completely different scenario from the one being presented by the Dove Center to justify burning the Qur'an. In fact burning a Holy book of believers of another faith was not and could not have been the teaching of Jesus, who taught love, compassion and forgiveness:

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. (Matthew 5:5)

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. (Matthew 5:7)

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:9-10)

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good and sendeth rain on the just and unjust. (Matthew 5:43-45)

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (Matthew 6:14-45) 

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (Matthew 7:1-2)

And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. (Mark 11:25)

In light of these clear teachings, we urge the Dove World Outreach Center to reflect upon the peaceful message of Jesus (peace be upon him) which is clearly a message of peace, not hatred.

Love for All, Hatred for None


All Biblical references are from the King James Version

Stand-up and Preserve Freedom of Religion

A police officer shows guns and ammunition recovered from Taliban insurgents
who storm Ahmadiyya mosque and massacred 86 worshipers. - Photo by AP

Muslim fundamentalist elements of Pakistan were so threated by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's message of 'Love for All Hatred for None' that they brutally massacred 86 worshipers during Friday Prayer services May 28, 2010, at two mosques in Lahore. 


The attacks are the culmination of years of un-policed persecution of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, which is a minority sect in Pakistan. In 1974 government legislation was passed that declared Ahmadiyya Muslims to be 'non-Muslim' and in 1984 further legislation was passed in which the practice of their faith was outlawed. At regular intervals since then Ahmadiyya Muslims have been attacked, but the May 28th massacre is the most cruel and barbaric.  The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, who are based in 195 countries, are peace loving and tolerant people and yet they are continually targeted by extremist factions.   


In America, the opium of religious intolerance has once again addicted her right-wing Christian fundamentalist elements. Their irrational attacks on American Muslims by the GOP's leadership not only runs counter to the American ideal of religious tolerance, but poses a threat to our national security. Rants by the GOP leadership have instigated a fire storm of hatred, fear and religious bigotry from the likes of Joe, the Plumber to Mary, the Cashier. This xenophobic behavior reinforces the perception that the U.S. is obsessively anti-mosque, anti-Muslim, and anti-Islam. 


Christian Fundamentalism is to America what the Muslim Fundamentalist is to Pakistan. Muslim Fundamentalist in Pakistan spawned the Taliban insurgents, which massacred 86 Ahmadiyya Muslims in a fit of religious intolerance. Likewise, in America, the day will not be far off when the flames of religious intolerance incite individuals and groups of Christian zealots to murder in the name of God unless people speak out and act out against Islamophobia. 


America is a multicultural society; Its religious landscape is diverse and the people are encouraged to exhibit the will to frame America's future in the light of its founding principles. The principles that support freedom of religion are more relevant now than ever. The notion that America is a Christian centered nation, when viewed in the light of its religious diversity, is the thinking of theorist. In practice America strives when it rises to meet the standards of its founding principles. Its greatness rest on its ability to shape a future where its citizens have freedom of religion. We must "try real hard to understand that bumping into your neighbor’s customs and faith ought to bring you a sense of warmth, curiosity, and compassion—not fear, not revenge ..." 


Above it all we don't want America to be reduced to a Pakistan. Pakistan, a country founded on noble principles, but after 60 years its government has made it a capital crime for its religious minorities to practice their religion. 


In the words of Rabia Munawar Mir, contributing writer for the Muslim Sunrise magazine, "Pakistan is a nation in turmoil. It is a nation condemned by the international community for harboring extremists in its borders. It is a nation condemned by its citizens for being unable to provide basic public security services. It is a nation condemned by democratic standards wherein a running candidate's assassination becomes a rouse for giving power to her poorly educated husband. It is a nation condemned by human rights groups that constantly scream "wolf" loud and clear and without the fear of threat to their own lives. And though every time there is a wolf, they go unheard, ignored, their voices suppressed beneath a deluge of political excuses and administrative flaws" (Muslim Sunrise, Fall 2010, page 13). 


We can not just standby and watch this happen to America. Every American citizen has the responsibility to preserve our religious freedom and our collective dignity as a nation. 

Freedom of Religion Means Any Religion 

Shameless Schemers like Sarah Palin, the Tea Partiers and Right-Wing Christians Trying to Start a New Religious War Against Muslims CounterPunch / By David Rosen

 

The building of a Muslim community center two blocks from the site of the WTC has become the latest controversy in America's long fought religious wars.

August 15, 2010 

     Baitul Hafeez  Masjid,  ST. Louis, MO


The building of a Muslim community center in an abandoned building two blocks from the site of New York’s former World Trade Center has become the latest controversy in America’s long fought religious wars. The construction of the center, often referred to as a mosque, has become the latest rallying issue for the Christian right, Tea Party proponents and Republican operatives in their war to impose moralistic and corporatist values on America.

It is too early to know how the Muslim center issue will be resolved, but it is clear that the rantings of Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Abe Foxman (of the Anti-Defamation League) and others have played an important role pushing a local issue into the center-stage of national politics. Since the horrendous attacks of 9/11, Muslims in general and American Muslims in particular have been the targets of an undeclared religious war promoted by Christian fundamentalists and self-serving Republicans. For some among these religious zealots, Islam is a threat to their belief that the U.S. is a white Protestant nation. Over the last four centuries, Quakers, Mormons, Catholics, Jews and many others have been targets of religious persecution, often the victims of imprisonments, hangings, lynchings and other acts of violence.

Rightwing ranters might well not know the history of religious intolerance in America, but they are surely aware that they are fueling a deep-seated rage among a certain scary segment of the Christian populous. This round in the ongoing religious culture wars has yet to explode into the ugly violence that took place in the aftermath of 9/11, and one can only hope that the current controversy will not lead to attacks on Muslims.

Sadly, like the attacks that followed 9/11, rightwing ranters like Palin and Gingrich will act “shocked” by the violence if it occurs and will claim innocence as to their roles fomenting it. With a knowing sneer, they will wash their hands of the blood they have caused and seek out other innocent victims.

* * *

In an excellent article on Tomdispatch, Stephen Salisbury details the current Manhattan Muslim center controversy and the spreading anti-Muslim hysteria being whipped up around the country over the opening of new local mosques. As Salisbury opines, “The angry ‘debate’ over whether the building should exist has a kind of glitch-in-the-Matrix feel to it, leaving in its wake an aura of something-very-bad-about-to-happen.” [tomdispatch.com, August 11, 2010]

Salisbury discusses the ongoing protests against mosques also taking place in New York’s Brooklyn and Staten Island as well as in California, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee and Wisconsin. He connects these controversies to the headline-grabbing opportunist comments by Palin (in true Palin-speak, “peaceful Muslims” need to “refudiate” the center) and Gingrich (who calls on Saudi Arabia to open churches and synagogues).

He also draws attention to the pernicious role played by Rick Lazio, New York State Republican gubernatorial candidate, who assails the center as subverting the right of New Yorkers “to feel safe and be safe.” Because New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and New York State Attorney General (and likely Democratic gubernatorial candidate) Andrew Cuomo have come out in support of the Muslim center, it will like be a major issue in the November election.

Most importantly, Salisbury provides an invaluable overview of the anti-Muslim campaign that arose in the wake of 9/11, reminding readers just how alarmingly vicious good-old Christian love can be.

* * *

Part of the “glitch-in-the-Matrix feel” that Salisbury notes is the absence of a recognition that the current Muslin center controversy is part of a long history of religious intolerance in America.

In the days following the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush, a born-again Christian, in a spontaneous and unscripted statement blurted out the unspoken truth that guided the U.S.’s initial military counter-attack campaign in Afghanistan: "This crusade," he said, "this war on terrorism." While Bush’s admission was later repudiated and disappeared from the public discourse, it define the unstated goal of the ultra-reactionary Christians who were his core-constituency and knew full well what he meant.

At the heart of Bush’s crusade agenda was an invocation of the "shock and awe" tradition that defined religious wars since the grand crusades of the Middle Ages and an acknowledgement that they needed to be applied in Afghanistan. The grand crusades waged by the Roman Church were against Muslims and Jews to capture and hold ancient Jerusalem and the Holy Lands, and to defeat Orthodox or Eastern Christianity. Many perished. Similar, crusaders were waged against Christian heretics, including early Protestants, and done so in the name of their absolutist god.

This tradition was brought over to the New World with the Pilgrims and other early British settlers. The worst and most sustained form of religious war in America has been waged against the Native people. For all the annual whitewashing that takes place at Thanksgiving Day parades, early Puritans fought the Pequot Indians in Eastern Connecticut until 1637 when the General Courts of the Plymouth and Massachusetts Colony launched a war of extermination against them. (Native people found that the Pilgrims stunk, literally; Europeans rarely bathed, believing it unhealthy, and seldom were naked, believing it immoral.) The white Christian race and religious crusade against Native North American people persisted for centuries.

Pilgrims also imposed religious intolerance on themselves. Early Massachusetts Bay Colony settlers were aligned with the Church of England and looked badly upon those who contested their orthodoxy. Those challenging Calvinist dogma were subject to banishment, whipping, branding, ear-lobbing and even hanging. Early leaders like Thomas Hooker, Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson were banished. Early Quaker settlers in Plymouth were also banished and four were hung publicly.

Over the subsequent centuries, Americans have witnessed repeated bouts of religious intolerance. Not surprisingly, these episodes were often accompanied by the same shrill rhetoric we find shouted today by those opposing the Muslim center.

The Know Nothing movement grew out of the Second Great Awakening or the Great Revival of the 1830s and became the American Party that flourished during the late-‘40s and early-‘50s. It got its name when members where asked the party’s positions and simply said, "I know nothing." It drew together Protestants who felt threatened by the rapid increase in European immigrants and, most especially, Catholics, flooding the cities. It felt that Catholics, as followers of the Pope, were not loyal Americans and were going to take over the country. It had strong support in the North that witnessed large-scale Irish immigration after 1848. The American Party captured the Massachusetts legislature in 1854 and, in 1856, backed Millard Fillmore for president, who secured nearly 1 million votes, a quarter of all votes cast.

The Ku Klux Klan was established in 1866 and, during Reconstruction, began a systematic campaign against freed African Americans. However, by the ‘80s, it had lost its way as a racialist organization. It was revitalized in the wake of the Atlanta trial of Leo Frank, a Jewish businessman who had been falsely charged and convicted of murdering Mary Phagan, a 13-year-old white Christian girl, in 1913. In 1915, after the Georgia governor commuted his sentence, Frank was forcibly removed from the state penitentiary where he was being held by a mob of white Christians and lynched. Subsequently, many of those who participated in Frank’s murder came together to re-launch the Klan.

In the late-‘10s, the Klan aligned with nativists, eugenicists and the Anti-Saloon League (ASL) to not only promote temperance but racialist and anti-immigrant policies. As WWI hysteria mounted, ASL’s New York representative, William Anderson, equated being pro-German with being anti-American: German beer, saloons and breweries were the unnamed enemy. He had a deep antipathy toward Catholics, accusing the Church of mounting an “assault on law and order,” of opposing Prohibition because it was promoted by Protestants and accusing it of engaging in “efforts to destroy [the Prohibition] victory and bring back the saloons.” Anti-Catholic antipathy contributed to the defeat of the country’s first Catholic nominee, Al Smith’s, in the 1928 presidential election.

Many other episodes of religious intolerance have taken place since the ‘20s. However, John Kennedy’s 1960 presidential victory marked the moment in American history when anti-Catholic appeals in national election were no longer acceptable. Similarly, the growing acceptance among Christian evangelicals of the notion of the “last days” has lead to a weird embrace of Jews and Israel and may have contributed to a moderation in anti-Semitism.

* * *

In the days before 9/11, most informed people accepted Islam as a variant within the Abrahamic tradition. However, in the aftermath of the attacks, even this claim came under suspicion. Earlier this summer, Ron Ramsey, a Republican candidate for governor of Tennessee, claimed that Islam is a “cult” that did not deserve First Amendment protection: “You can even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, a way of life, or a cult -- whatever you want to call it... .” Challenged by a diverse assortment of Tennesseans, including traditional conservatives, Ramsey has backed off this assertion.

If truth be told, the Manhattan Muslim center is both a real issue and a fictitious spectacle. It is real in the sense that its being built at the designated site on Park Place will be a victory for religious tolerance. America is undergoing a profound economic and cultural realignment. Traditional white society is giving way to a truly multi-cultural America; conventional Protestantism is giving way a significant increase in the Catholic populous (mostly Hispanics) and growing Muslim, Hindu and Sekh communities.

The Muslim center story, like that of Michelle Obama’s holiday in Spain, is a false issue, a spectacle promoting social deception. Since Obama’s victory, the Republican right has implemented a very effective wrecking-ball strategy, attempting to destroy every issue considered. Its guiding principle is simple: Obama and the Democrats can do no right. To realize this goal, it did anything and everything in its power to make sure as little as possible got through Congress, got honestly assessed in the media and got to help ordinary Americans. Sadly, the Christian Republican right is succeeding and the Obama leadership remains clueless.

A century-and-a-half ago white Protestants came to accept Irish immigrants as white. While hard to imagine today, early Irish immigrants, those who came to America in the wake of the 1848 famine, were seen by many traditional Protestants as “n------,” not really different from African Americans. Faced with the inevitabilities of post-Civil War modernization, old-world Protestants changed. And with it, racism changed.

The challenge that faces today’s Anglo-American Protestant descendents, those who see Muslims as “n------,” is whether then can change and accept America as a multi-cultural society.

Questions from a Christian Son to His Muslim Father: Question #2

Written below is the response that my son, Bashiruddin Mahmud, gave concerning my answer to his question #1.

Bashiruddin replied, “Thank you. That was an excellent, well thought out, well articulated, and enlightening response to my question. I specifically appreciated the clarification on Jihad (and the different types) in relation on the misconception on what it means in western society which is "Holy War". I can definitely sympathize with the view of many Middle Eastern Muslims on the United States. I do not believe that I see eye to eye on the issue of Israel however. I appreciate the historical context you provided for each interpretation. I have to say I don't remember much about Islam from my childhood but I do remember that peace seemed to resonate in every Islamic community I was exposed to. I don't remember any hostility or intolerance for any individual persons, religion, etc”.

Within your answer to [my] question #1 you quoted this verse: "Say, `We believe in ALLAH and that which has been revealed to us, and that which was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Tribes, and in that which was given to Moses and Jesus and other Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them and to HIM we submit.’" (Qur’an 3:85)

Question: This verse seems to say that the God of the Bible and Allah are one and the same. Would you agree with that statement?

Answer: I could and do agree that the god of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jesus and all other Prophets (peace be on them) are the same. The God Who has manifested Himself to all the Prophets, and appeared to Moses on Mount Sinai and appeared to Jesus on Mount Seir and appeared to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be on all of them), on Mount Paran, is the same Mighty and Holy God.

“Allah” is the proper name for the one God and has been around in pre-Islamic times. One cannot say that the god for Muslims is different from the God for the Jews or the Christians. Muslims do not hold the belief that the God, who sent down messengers before the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw), was any different than the God who sent the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) and the Qur’an. The Holy Qur’an states, “And say, ‘We believe in that which has been revealed to us and that which has been revealed to you; and our God and your God is one; and to Him we submit.’” (29:47)

The above verse clearly states that we all worship the same God. Even in Arab countries today, ‘Allah’ is used by the Christians and Jews to refer to God. Even in the Bible, God is translated as "Allah".

I hope this answer will satisfy your 2nd question.

Questions From A Christian Son to His Muslim Father: Question #1

My son, Bashiruddin Mahmud, became a Christian devotee some years ago. Although we fell out of contact for a number of years I would always remember him in my prayers. A couple of months ago, out of the clear blue sky, I received a Facebook message from him. He found me via the internet and we have since started communicating with each other for the first time after twelve years.  

A few days ago my son indicated that he had questions about Islam and asked if I would be willing to answer them. I said, "Yes...if I'm able." His first question and my answer is written below. I will share his other questions, with my answers, as he presents them. The idea here is to share with the readership of this blog the conversation between a Muslim father to his Christian son, who converted to Christianity after leaving the nest.

Question: Can you explain (elaborate) the differences between Radical Islam, Mainstream Islam, and the Ahmadiyya interpretation of Islam? If you would please touch on the major differences and also any similarities you think are relevant to sufficiently answer the question.

Answer: Islam is the term used in the Holy Qur’an to describe a religion and way of life.

Islam, is the name given by Allah to this religion (“…This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favor upon you and have chosen for you Islam as religion.”  Qur’an 5:4), is an Arabic word which literally means obedience and peace. ISLAM is derived from the Arabic root "SALEMA": peace, purity, submission and obedience. So 'Islam' would mean the path of those who are obedient to Allah and who establish peace with Him and His creatures. Its followers are called Muslims.

Islam is not a new religion. It is, in essence, the same message and guidance which Allah revealed to all prophets before Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. Allah says in the Qur’ân:

"Say, `We believe in ALLAH and that which has been revealed to us, and that which was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and in that which was given to Moses and Jesus and other Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them and to HIM we submit." (Qur’an 3-85)

Given the above, the terms “Radical Islam” or “Mainstream Islam” are not used in the Holy Qur’an and therefore are not legitimate terms to describe the religion. The best that can be said about the terms “Radical Islam” or “Mainstream Islam” is that it is an effort to contextualize Islam so that it may be understood by the Occident. It is the Occident who coined the terms “Radical Islam” and “Mainstream Islam”.

Radical Islam: This term is understood to mean Islam’s war against the West. It presents dreadful and graphic depictions showing radical Muslims all over the world preaching hatred and exciting violence and Jihad against the West and the United States of America. It is propaganda prepared to scare the Christians and to get sympathy for Jews and Israel. Many Christian clergymen criticized this approach and say that it carries the wrong motives.

Before going further, we should be honest in self-criticism, and try truthfully to identify the causes of the war waged by radical Muslims against the West, particularly the United States of America. We should acknowledge the fact that for millions of Muslims all over the world, the image of America is troublesome: To them it seems as if the USA is determined to invade, occupy or dominate the oil-rich Muslim countries for economical gains. America calls for freedom and democracy, but at the same time it has supported world’s worst authoritarian dictators and oppressive governments in the past, such as the Shah of Iran and Pakistani army dictator General Zia-ul-Haq. The Muslim public feels that the U.S.A.’s attitude towards Israel is different as compared with the Muslim countries. Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land, establishing illegal settlements, and use of force is not condemned by America. But any Palestinian resistance to Israeli illegal occupation is denounced as “terrorism” and is responded by Israel with overwhelming armed attacks. This causes further radicalization of resistance factions in Palestine and elsewhere in the Muslim world.

America is known as providing financial help in support of the military strength of Israel to maintain its illegal occupation of Palestinian lands. The radical Muslims resent the fact that Israel is getting $3 to $6 billion of American taxpayers’ money every year. It equals to 15 million dollars each day. This financial aid is perceived as being used against the Muslims. They see the atrocities committed against their children; women and civilians conducted by means of the American money are convinced that the state of Israel also possesses weapons of mass destruction.

In addition, we should also understand that America’s close connection with the oil-rich Saudi Arabia is seen with suspicion by the Muslim radicals. The holy cities of Mecca and Medina are located in Saudi Arabia. The US armed forces’ presence in Saudi Arabia to protect the Saudi monarchy and its oil fields provides fuel to the fire to the radical Muslim agitators. The fact which is not well known to most of the Americans is that the Saudis profess a radical form of Islām known as Wahhābism, and the Saudi Kingdom most generously funds the theological schools known as madrasas all over the world. We should know that these madrasas are the breeding incubators of radicalism in Islām. In these madrasas, orphan and poor boys are admitted and trained to become Mujāhidīn. They are trained to make explosives and other weapons, and how to use them. Also, the students are brainwashed to become suicidal bombers. The Wahhābī Saudis also provide training to the imāms (religious leaders) from all over the world—including the United States. These imāms, trained in Saudi Arabia, come to the Western countries and lead Muslim congregations teaching and preaching radicalism to the young Muslims attending their mosques.

Mainstream Islam: The mainstream is by definition that branch of an organization which is most vocal and controls the policies of the organization. Thus we refer to the mainstream media as the most visible outlet of journalism, with the most access to the policy makers. The non-violent branch of Islam may be the numerical majority.

The aforementioned is defined by the Occident. Muslims may find themselves giving-in to these definitions, but from a Qur’anic perspective it isn’t a legitimate term. The term “Mainstream Islam” becomes convenient when trying to contextualize Islam within a social, political or economic arena.

The difference between “Radical Islam” and “Mainstream Islam” may be expressed in numbers. Islam is a pretty big thing. It has about a billion and a half adherents, about five times the population of the United States. The question may be asked ... how many people practice Mainstream Islam? And how many of the people practice Radical Islam? The radical/total people ratio is so small that it is unbelievably prejudiced to think that the entire religion is or endorses Radical Islam. That's like seeing a couple people in American with 9 fingers and thinking everyone in the country does. I know, repeat KNOW most Muslims are compassionate humane people. The violent people make up about .1 % of the Muslim population. Anyone who says otherwise are ignorant.

Ahmadiyya Interpretation of Islam: Ahmadi Muslims believes in the Messiah and the Ahmadiyya interpretation may be best viewed by subject.

Sanctity of Life: The Holy Qur’ān teaches sanctity of human life and reaffirms the Biblical teachings that whosoever unjustly kills a single person, it shall be as if he slaughtered all mankind; and whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had protected the life of all mankind (5:33). “You kill not the life which God has made sacred” (6:152). Killing of the innocent and committing suicide both are grievous sins in Islam. The Quran forbids suicide (4:30), and it is an unforgivable sin in Islam.

The Qur’ān gives comprehensive instructions against all evil thoughts and plans, all kinds of abusive behavior and every form of cruelty and inequity. The Qur’ān gives injunctions to protect the person, property, honor or good name of another person. The Qur’ān declares it in unambiguous words, God does not love those who create disorder on earth (5:65) and (28:77); He does not love who are unjust (3:57); and does not love those who exceed the limits (2:191) and (5:88).

What is the true meaning of Jihād? Jihād does not mean “Holy War.” It means striving, contention and taking action dedicated to a noble cause: In Arabic language, Jihād is a verbal noun derived from the root jahada, which is defined as exerting one’s utmost power, effort, endeavor, or ability in contending with an object of disapprobation (An Arabic-English Lexicon, Edward Lane).

As a matter of fact, Jihād in Islām is of different kinds. Various terms have been used to make distinction between them, such as: Jihād of the heart, Jihād of the tongue, and Jihād with the pen. The greatest Jihād in Islām is remaining firm in faith, and to overcome sinful temptations of one’s own self.

Jihād in the Bible: For Christians it would be easy to understand the concept of Jihād by some examples taken from the Bible: In Luke 13:22-24, the Bible says about Jesus Christ, “And he went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying towards Jerusalem. Then said one unto him, ‘Lord, are there few to be saved?’ And he said unto them: Strive to enter in that narrow gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” This striving and making an utmost effort to enter the narrow gate–(that the Holy Qur’ān calls it the straight path) is the highest form of Jihād in Islām.

From Islāmic perspective, St. Paul was asking the Philippians to engage in a Jihād when he wrote to them,'"That ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind, striving together for the faith of the gospel." (Philippians 1: 27)

In Islām, striving by means of the Qur’ān is called the Great Striving—Jihādan Kabīran (25:53). 

Again, in the First Epistle to Timothy, St. Paul wrote,"This charge I commit onto you … fight a good fight; holding faith, and a good conscience." (Timothy, 1:18) 

In the same Epistle, St. Paul wrote,"But they that will be rich fall into temptation and snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But you, O man of God, flee from these things and follow after righteousness, goodness, faith, love, patience, meekness. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto you are also called, and have professed a good profession before many witnesses." (Timothy, 6:9-12)

This fighting the good fight, holding faith and good conscience, laying hold of eternal life is what we call the real Jihād in Islām. It is entering through the narrow gate. It is staying on the straight path.

The next form of Jihād is the struggle to improve the quality of social life by removing societal evils and establishing good moral values. This is Jihād against poverty, ignorance, disease, hunger, immorality and crime. Social and moral reformation under the guidance of the Qur’ān is called the “Jihādan Kabīran”—a “mighty striving”—the Great Jihād (25:53). 

The last form of Jihād is to repel an armed aggression in self-defense for maintaining religious freedom. As compared to other forms of Jihād, fighting against an armed and aggressive enemy is called in Islām Jihādan Saghīran—the lesser Jihād. 

The Qur’ān says,"Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made because they have been wronged—and Allāh indeed has power to help them—Those who have been driven out of their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allāh’—And if Allāh did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques wherein the name of Allāh is oft commemorated. And Allāh will surely help one who helps Him. Allāh is indeed Powerful, Mighty" (22:40-41)

This concept of Jihād is closer to the Christian doctrine of “just war.” But it is not called a “holy war” in Islām. Modern Occidental thought, strongly influenced by Crusades-era terminology of “holy war,” tries to portray Jihād as an Islāmic war against all the non-Muslims. But most clearly, the permission to fight back is not to destroy the churches, temples or synagogues. On the contrary, the Qur’ān makes clear that it is to protect them along with protecting the mosques. In other words, it is to protect religious freedom for all those who worship God in accordance with their own faith traditions.

The great spiritual Jihād of standing firm in faith against satanic temptations and social evils is of permanent nature—an ongoing obligation for all the Muslims. But the lesser Jihād, fighting in self-defense is only occasional and isolated, and is to be conducted only in a crisis situation. Only a legitimate head of state has the authority to declare war. Any preacher or so-self-made leader, or scholar has no right to pronounce an armed struggle against an aggressor. Moreover, the strict rules governing the conduct of warfare are to be obeyed; for example, non-combatants cannot be killed. Women, children, elderly and the clergy or monks cannot be targeted. Property cannot be destroyed. Disfiguring of dead bodies is prohibited. Prisoners of war are to be treated humanely. 

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community believes that the doctrine of Jihād has been entirely perverted by the so-called “fundamentalists” or "radical Muslims" and needs to be rescued, and the offenders stopped by all possible means.

Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is the only Islamic organization to believe that the long-awaited Messiah has come in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908) of Qadian. Ahmad(as) claimed to be the metaphorical second coming of Jesus(as) of Nazareth and the divine guide, whose advent was foretold by the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (as). Ahmadiyya Muslim Community believes that God sent Ahmad (as), like Jesus(as), to end religious wars, condemn bloodshed and re-institute morality, justice and peace. Ahmad’s(as) advent has brought about an unprecedented era of Islamic revival. He divested Islam of fanatical beliefs and practices by vigorously championing Islam’s true and essential teachings. He also recognized the noble teachings of the great religious founders and saints, including Zoroaster(as), Abraham(as), Moses(as), Jesus(as), Krishna(as), Buddha(as), Confucius(as), Lao Tzu and Guru Nanak, and explained how such teachings converged into the one true Islam.

Did I answer your question?

The Holy Prophet Muhammad's Example: Keeping Company with Ex-slaves and Poor Muslims

One day the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) was sitting with Salman (Persian ex-slave), Bilal ibn Rabah (African ex-slave), Ammar (Yeman ex-slave), Suhayb (Roman ex-slave), Khabbab (African ex-slave and the 6th person to accept Islam) and a group of poor Muslims. When some unbelievers passed by and saw these 'unimportant' people with the Prophet, they said, "Have you chosen these persons from among your people? Do you want us to follow you along side them? Has Allah bestowed His favor on them, that they have believed, and not us? You better remove them from around you; if you do so, then perhaps we would follow you." The Prophet did not agree to their demand, and Allah sent down the following verses in respect to this scenario.

"And do not drive away those who call upon their Lord in the morning and the evening seeking His pleasure. Thou are not accountable for them nor are they at all accountable for thee. In case you do it you would be counted as the unjust. In this way have We made a distinction in some of them from the other with the result that they say: Are these lowly ones whom Allah has favored by choosing them from among us? Does not Allah know best the grateful? And when those who believe in Our signs come to you, say: "Peace be upon you, your Lord has taken Himself to show mercy..." (Holy Qur'an 6:53-55)

Salman, Bilal, and 'Ammar said, "When Allah revealed these verses, the Prophet turned towards us, called us to come nearer to him, and said, 'Your Lord has ordained mercy on Himself.' Then we used to sit with him, and when he wanted to stand up to leave, he did so. Then Allah revealed:

"And keep yourself attached to those who call upon their Lord morning and evening, constantly seeking His pleasure; and let not thine eyes pass beyond them, seeking the adornment of the life of the world;..." (Holy Qur'an 18:29)

"When this was revealed, the Prophet used to make us sit so near him that our thighs almost touched his thighs; and he did not stand up before us. When we felt that the time had come for him to stand, we took his leave; and then he stood up after we had gone. And he used to say to us, 'I thank God, who did not take me out of this world until He ordered me to keep patience with [this] group of my community. I shall spend my life with you, and after death, shall remain with you.' " *

Back in the days of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) many of those who were attracted to Islam were ex-slaves and poor people. Like wise, in America today, many of those who have accepted Islam are ex-slaves and poor people. This scenario has repeated itself going back, in American history, to the Islamic movement, which began here in the early 1900's. During the 1920's the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community began to preach the true Islam, which was taught and practice by the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

The Occident is the "unbeliever" in this day and age. They are the people who look upon themselves as being above the ordinary, belong to what is called higher society and would consider it beneath them to join a Divine movement where there are ex-slaves and the poor in it. They're message of material prosperity, sympathy, kindness, godliness and gentle behavior, plays magic on ears with its mellow music. It is this world of romance which generally attracts people to Occidental culture. However, at the same time they maintains systems that result in cruelty, suppression, gross injustice and large scale subjugation of defenseless ex-slaves and the poor from having an equal footing with them.

True Islam is the way to end this inhuman cruelty and the true followers of Islam will dismantle those systems, not by physical means, but by spiritual means. The true representatives of Islam will be engaged in prayer and divine worship day and night. Ex-slaves and the poor have the promise of success and Divine Mercy from Almighty Allah.

* Source: Al-Majlisi, M.B., Hayatul Qulub, vol. II, Tehran: Kitabfurushi-e Islamia, 1371 AH, pp.562-3; Abu Naim Ahmad al-Isfahani, Hilyatul Awliya, vol. I, Beirut, 1967, pp. 146-7