There is a saying that violence begins from the mind. This is true also of countering violence: countering Muslim militancy also begins from the mind. We find a model for this in how America dealt with the Communist ideology. America staunchly opposed communist Russia, but rather than drop a nuclear bomb on it, it devised and supported a literary campaign against the communist regime. Innumerable books were published in various languages and widely disseminated, which were critical of the philosophy of Communism. A great deal of careful planning had gone into challenging Communism at the ideological level. This strategy was successful, and in 1991 the USSR collapsed, after sixty-nine years of existence.

This is a good model for tackling the current so-called ‘Islamic’ terrorist movements. Terrorism in the name of Islam is based entirely on the misinterpretation of Islamic texts. One example of this misinterpretation derives from a verse of the Quran, which says: ‘All power belongs to God alone’ (12: 40). In this verse, power is used to denote the supernatural power of God. However, Muslim extremist thinkers have misinterpreted it to mean political power. Furthermore, these extremist thinkers claim that Muslims, as representatives of God, should establish God’s rule on earth. This assumption is wrong because it is based on a Quranic verse taken out of context.

Another verse in the Quran says: (5:8) ‘Follow the principle of justice [in your life]’. Misinterpretation of this verse has given it the transitive sense, instead of the original intransitive sense used in the Quran. The verb used above does not have any direct object of action, but the wrong interpretation has taken the object of action as the outside world. Thus, the verse is being taken to mean that justice should be imposed on people by force. This misinterpretation has politicised the concept of justice, although such a notion cannot be inferred from the text.

Any interpretation of the above kind is false. And this falsehood must be made manifest so that people understand with certainty that the present militancy has no sanction in Islam, and so that the extremists abandon their violence on realising that their actions are completely unIslamic. The terrorist phenomenon is based on misinterpretation of the scriptures. It can be eradicated only by universally publicising the right interpretation of Islamic texts.

In a speech on July 19, 2015, British Prime Minister David Cameron, expressing his anxiety about youngsters traveling to Iraq and Syria to join the so-called ‘Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’ (ISIL), said,

‘We must de-glamorise the extremist cause, especially ISIL. This isn’t a pioneering movement—it is vicious, brutal, and fundamentally abhorrent.’

It is true that present Muslim extremism is the result of the glamorisation of the self-styled concept of global Khilafat or Caliphate. The solution lies in de-glamorising this false ideology developed by extremists through a misinterpretation of Islamic sources. De-glamorisation of the Khilafat can be achieved only by de-Islamising this concept of the Khilafat based on a political interpretation of Islam. And political Islam has no basis in Islamic scriptures.

The UN has rightly adopted this dictum: ‘Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.’ To eradicate terrorism, we shall have to re-engineer the minds of terrorists along peaceful lines. No other method will be of any avail.

Source: Spirit of Islam November 2015

The responsibility for the present-day hatred and violence in the name of Islam does not lie with those Muslim youth who driven by acrimony carry out violent activities. Rather the responsibility for such action is to be borne by those so-called Islamic thinkers who, in the name of bringing about an “Islamic revolution”, gave such a way of thinking to Muslim youth whose result could be nothing but violence and hatred in the name of Islam.

The method of Islam is that of dawah or peaceful dissemination of Islamic teachings. The way of politics is contrary to dawah. While the basis of dawah is peace, politics is based on confrontation with others. Present-day Islamic thinkers gave a political interpretation to Islam, as a result of which the Islamic movement became a political movement. This culminated in all those unpleasant aspects—generally identified with politics—to be associated with Islam as well.

Those engaged in dawah consider others as potentially their friends. The case of politics is totally opposite to this, as those who are involved in politics look at others as their rivals or opponents. This is why dawah culture fosters mercy and compassion between people, while political activism leads to the spread of hatred. All kind of good finds its way in a society where people have mercy for each other, while the culture of hatred breeds animosity and violence. No virtue can ever be found alongside hatred.

Source: Spirit of Islam April 2019

The root cause of Muslim militancy is the political interpretation of Islam. According to this, it is Muslims’ bounden duty to establish the political system of Islam all over the world, even if it involves the use of force.

This wrong interpretation was a result of the distortion of Quranic teachings. For example, a verse says: “…So that men may conduct themselves with justice.” (57:25) This is an injunction to believers to adhere to justice. But this was changed to mean: ‘You have to implement justice in the world.’ This kind of misinterpretation has been done with several teachings of the Quran. The result was that Quranic teachings which are the subject of self-following have been turned into a subject of implementation on others by force.

When you take the above Quranic verse in this sense: ‘It is my duty to follow justice in my life’, it creates no problems at all. However, if you take the verse in this sense: ‘I have to enforce justice on others’, then it is bound to create a rivalry. Because there are already some people occupying the seat of power. Under the influence of this interpretation, you will make an attempt to unseat them in order to implement your so-called Islamic order. This would inevitably lead to conflict. If the first interpretation makes you see other people as your friends, the second interpretation causes you to consider others as your rivals.

Another example of this misinterpretation derives from a verse of the Quran, which says: In al-hukmu illa lillah. That is, “All power belongs to God alone.” (12:40) In this verse, hukm is used in the sense of the supernatural power of God as the Sustainer of the universe. However, some Muslim extremist thinkers misinterpreted it to mean political power. Furthermore, it is said that Muslims, as representatives of God, should establish God’s rule on earth. This assumption is wrong because it is based on a Quranic verse that has been taken out of context.

The real message of Islam was: ‘Be followers of Islam’, but because of the wrong interpretation it became: ‘Be soldiers of Islam.’ There is no Quranic verse that gives the directive to Muslims to establish Islamic rule.

Political rule is not an essential part of Islam, rather it is determined by circumstances. If Muslims are in the majority in society and are invested with authority, they can by the will of the people form political rule according to religious teachings. But if the majority in a society is not religious and does not want to be governed by religion, then Islam will accept the social will.

Source: Spirit of Islam August 2017

The spiritual target Islam sets before man is given in the Quran in these words: 'A soul at rest' (89:27). Thus the spiritual goal of Islam is to attain this state of peace in the soul.

According to the Quran, this is the ultimate stage in a man's spiritual development. When he reaches this stage of progress, he qualifies himself to be ushered into Paradise, the perfect and eternal world of the Hereafter. The Quran addresses such souls in these words: ‘O serene soul! Return to your Lord joyful, and pleasing in His sight. Join My servants and enter My paradise' (89:27-30).

In this world man has to lead his life in circumstances in which he experiences various kinds of situations: there are times of gain, times of loss; times of happiness and times of grief. Sometimes he receives good treatment at the hands of others, at other times his fate is quite otherwise.

The ideal human being of the Quran is one who undergoes all these experiences without losing his integrity. Under no circumstances is his inner peace disturbed. However, untoward the occasion, he can maintain his natural balance. Success does not make him proud. Power does not make him haughty. No bad treatment by others drives him to seek vengeance in anger. At all events, he remains serene. It is such a man who is called 'a peaceful soul' in the Quran. And it is this man who, according to the Quran, has achieved the highest spiritual state.

The realization of God joins man with his Maker. Such communion with the divine brings about a state of spiritual elevation. Having been thus raised to a higher plane of existence, man becomes of a 'sublime character,' (68:4) as it is expressed in the Quran.

Source: The True Face of Islam

In present times, numerous violent movements are being spearheaded in the name of establishing the ‘Islamic System’ or the ‘Prophetic System’. These movements, however, are simply a ruse to engage in a quest for political leadership in the name of Islam, and this is in spite of the fact that to launch and conduct a movement in order to acquire political dominance is itself not permissible in Islam.

The aim of a genuine Islamic movement is the Islamization of individuals (The Quran, 20:76), not the Islamization of the government or the state. Accordingly, for centuries the Sufis focused on the Islamization of individuals. This work continued, using peaceful methods, and never became a source for spreading hatred and violence. The Sufis always promoted peace and humanity, while the so-called ‘revolutionary Islamic’ movements of today are producing completely the opposite results.

The linking of Islam with hatred and violence is entirely the result of the misguidance of certain modern-day so-called Muslim leaders, who have been spearheading violent movements aimed at acquiring political power. Through their actions, these people have made Islam seem like a religion of hatred and violence, although, in actual fact, the Islam sent by God is a religion of peace and concern for the welfare for all. A true Muslim is one who is concerned about the welfare of humanity, not someone who is at war with humanity.

Source: Spirit of Islam September 2015

Establishing an Islamic state is not the mission given to Muslims. The Prophet of Islam never said: ‘I have been sent to establish an Islamic state.’ The Prophet’s mission was a peaceful dawah mission—inviting people to God’s path—and not a political mission.

If we read the Quran, we will not find any commandment that says: “Aqim dawlat al-islam” or ‘Establish an Islamic State.’ Why is a commandment of this kind absent in the Quran? The reason for this is given in the Hadith in these words: “Kama takunu kazalika yuammaru alaykum.” (Mishkat al-Masabih) That is, “As you are, so shall be your rulers.” It means that according to Islam, government emerges from the society. It is not imposed on the society from the outside.

Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (d. AD 634) was the first political head in Islam. But he was referred to as amir al-mominin, or leader of Muslims, rather than khalifah al-muslimin. What was the method through which Abu Bakr reached this position? After the death of the Prophet, the Sahaba or Companions of the Prophet assembled in a place called Saqifa Bani Saidah in Madinah. At this place, all the people came together and open consultations took place between the Companions. Through the consensus of the Companions, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq became the head of the state of Madinah.

According to available information, ISIS is a Sunni extremist group. In its self-proclaimed status as a ‘Caliphate’, it claims religious authority over all Muslims across the world and aspires to bring most of the Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control, beginning with Iraq, Syria and other territories in the Levant, including Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus and part of southern Turkey. In June 2014, it had at least 4,000 fighters in its ranks in Iraq. The number of fighters in the group has increased to 50,000 in Syria and 30,000 in Iraq. It has claimed responsibility for attacks on government and military targets and for attacks that have killed thousands of civilians.

This kind of a self-proclaimed state or caliphate has no place in Islam because it has no sanction in the Quran and Sunnah. Such a state is totally against the Islamic spirit. According to the Quran and Sunnah, no person has the right to proclaim sovereignty on his own. To declare someone as a sovereign ruler is solely the people’s domain, and not that of any particular individual. The case of ISIS is certainly a case of illegal coup, rather than an Islamically-lawful act.

Source: The True Face of Islam

Contrary to common belief, Islam does not teach extremism. It actually teaches its adherents to follow the moderate or balanced path. In the fourth chapter of the Quran the following injunction has been given: “Do not go to excess in your religion.” (4:171)

The same point has been made in a hadith. The Prophet of Islam observed: “You should restrain yourselves from committing excesses (ghulu) in religion. For it was due to their having gone to extremes in religion that the previous communities were destroyed.” (Al-Nasai, Ibn Majah, Musnad Ahmad, 1/215, 347)

Ghulu means extremism. The way of extremism is wrong, whatever the circumstances, for it goes against the spirit of religion. Indeed, it is proneness to extremism, which at times culminates in war and violence. Those who suffer from extremist tendencies remain dissatisfied with the path of moderation since this strikes them as being far from the ideal. That is why they so easily incline towards violence and are ever ready to open hostilities in the name of achieving their objectives.

Moderation, which is the opposite of extremism, is closely interlinked with peace. When people possess the virtue of moderation, they necessarily think in terms of peace and will engage in their struggle in a peaceful manner. Where there is moderation there is peace, and vice versa.

According to a Hadith, the Prophet Muhammad observed: That moderate action is the best of all actions. Hazrat Ali advised the people: ‘Adopt the middle path.’ (Tafsir Qurtubi, 154/2)

The middle path means the path of moderation. One instance of it can be seen in the following verse of the Quran: ‘Be neither miserly nor prodigal, for then you should either be reproached or be reduced to penury.’ (17:29)

The same point, worded differently, has been made in another verse which characterizes “the true servants of the Merciful” as “those who, when they spend, are not extravagant and not niggardly, but maintain a just balance between those extremes.” (The Quran, 25:67)

According to this verse, moderate spending means neither lavishness nor miserliness but rather a balanced expenditure, which will make life much easier to lead. In the same way, as regards optional fasts, prayers, etc., a middle path is desirable for man, as this enables him to maintain such a pattern of behaviour over a long period of time.

The middle path, to put it differently, is the non-emotional way. If a man loses his mental balance when confronted with any difficult situation in life, he goes to one extreme or the other. But if he keeps his feelings under control, he will be able to determine the proper course of action by giving it ample thought. A well-considered deed is always a moderate one. One who does not follow a moderate path will exceed all bounds both in friendship and in enmity. He will also be given to undue optimism and pessimism in respectively positive and negative situations, and will unnecessarily regard some individuals as too bad and others as too good. However, it is the verdict of nature that in this world a moderate approach in life always succeeds, while taking the path of extremes inevitably leads to failure.

Source: The True Face of Islam

The Quran teaches us not to be extremist in our religion. Its exact words are: ‘People of the Book! Do not go to extremes in your religion.’ (4: 171)

We also learn from a saying of Prophet Muhammad that extremist tendencies have always been the chief reason for religious groups going astray. That is why the Prophet once observed:

‘’Sedulously refrain from extremism, for previous communities were destroyed only because of their extremist tendencies in religious matters.”

Although there are many actions which in form appear to be morally acceptable, it is to the spirit of these acts rather than their external form that Islam attaches real importance.

Ghulu, meaning extremism, is engendered in a religious community when it goes into a state of decline, and this, in fact, is a sign of its degeneration. There is a tradition of Prophet Muhammad that forewarns his followers of the rot that has set in. He said that all those evils which had arisen in previous communities would also arise in his own community on a greater scale. To make his meaning clear, he said:

“Where previous communities were divided into 72 sects Muslims will be divided into 73 sects.” (Abu Dawud, Hadith No. 4597)

There are innumerable cases of ideological extremism in Islamic history. But we also find among Muslims another kind of extremism that probably never existed in previous communities. When the Prophet said that while the previous communities were divided into seventy-two sects and the Muslims would be divided into seventy-three sects, he was giving an example of this other kind of ghulu (extremism) which can be described as political extremism. No previous community had ever been crowned by such political glory as was enjoyed by the Muslims for almost a thousand years after the emergence of Islam. Political glory was not, however, a part of the Islamic creed, but a part of history. But Muslims stressed this fact of political glory to such an extent that, for all intents and purposes, it became incorporated into their religious creed. The result of this political extremism is the violent jihad we experience in the Muslim world of today.

Source: Spirit of Islam April 2016

According to a hadith report contained in the Sunan Abu Dawud, the Prophet advised the Muslims not to adopt the path of violence, or else, he said, their conditions would become even more severe (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith No. 4904). The veracity of this statement is clearly evident today in every Muslim country where people have adopted violence to attain their objectives. This has happened in Kashmir, too.

The culture of violence that has gripped Kashmir has had no beneficial consequence at all. On the contrary, the destruction that it caused has been so enormous as to be simply indescribable. It has devastated Kashmir’s economy and educational system. It has led to the death of over a hundred thousand people, with many more being injured and crippled for life. It has played havoc with moral values. The Kashmiriyat in whose name this militant movement was launched was itself destroyed. This culture of violence forced huge numbers of capable and highly educated Kashmiris to leave Kashmir and shift elsewhere. Kashmir’s tourist industry, which played a major role in the state’s economy, was decimated. In short, this movement, launched in the name of the Kashmiri people, produced no benefit whatsoever for the common Kashmiris, although it has certainly benefitted the self-styled leaders of Kashmir.

The Quran (57:23) tells us in clear words: “   […] You may not grieve for what has escaped you […]

This Quranic verse tells us of a law of Nature that God has established in this world. According to this law, every person and every community has to experience some form of loss, at some time or the other. No person or community is exempted from this law of Nature, for this is part of God’s creation plan. In other words, this is God’s law, and so it is impossible for anyone to change it.

But, along with this, there is another law of Nature—that in this world, opportunities never cease. Here, whenever one opportunity is lost, at once another one emerges. Hence, wisdom demands that we should forget our lost opportunities and, instead, should make use of the new ones that are available to us. This is precisely what the Kashmiris should do today.

Exploitative leaders thrive on fanning people’s sense of being denied or deprived. On the other hand, true leaders lead movements that are based on achievements rather than denial or deprivation. They point out to people openly-available opportunities, not closed doors, and in this way, help chart a new future for their people.

Source: Peace in Kashmir

I give here an example of how we have been able to re-engineer the minds of people on peaceful lines. In the course of a conversation I had with a Kashmiri Muslim, he said: “We have travelled a long way from October 1989 to October 2011. Formerly, we used to throw stones at the soldiers. Now, we present them with the Quran.” These words tell us of the new revolution commencing in Kashmir. It is a sign of a new beginning. When a healthy process sets in in history, it goes on uninterruptedly until it reaches its destination.

The words of the Kashmiri Muslim denote that earlier, the Muslims in the valley were living in a state of unawareness. Now they have learned to live in a state of awareness. Kashmiri Muslims at first regarded others as their rivals. Now they have come to regard them as madu. The Kashmiri Muslims never used to stop short of violence, but now they have discovered the secret of living in peace. Having adopted a culture of violence earlier, the Kashmiri Muslims have now decided to follow the culture of peace. This new decision by the Muslims of Kashmir is the beginning of a new phase for Kashmir. It is the declaration of the dawn of a bright morning following upon a dark night.

Source: The Dawn Over Kashmir

Building a peaceful society requires the re-engineering of the mind. This task can be carried out only through education—more through informal education than formal education. By informal education, I mean gaining knowledge through the media, literature, seminars and conferences, dialogue and discussion, and so on.

Here, I am not just theorizing about peace: I have experimented with it in practice. The venue of this experiment was Kashmir. I have been working towards inculcating peaceful thinking among Kashmiris since 1968, and I am still continuing with my efforts. There has been a sea change as a result of this movement, and now, in almost every house in Kashmir, the peace-promoting literature of our mission is read.

In 2011 we organized a meeting of those Kashmiris who are acquainted with our ideas. On this occasion, someone representing a group of Kashmiris said in the course of conversation: ‘We have traveled a long way from October 1989 to October 2011. Formerly, we used to throw stones at the Indian army. Now, we present them with literature about peace.’

Kashmir, which after 1947 was continually engaged in militancy, has now almost become a peaceful state. If there is any news of attack or violence from Kashmir, it is not due to the local Kashmiris but is the result rather of a proxy war conducted from outside.

The above example of bringing about ‘Peace through Education’ can be experienced everywhere. The most effective way of bringing about peace is only one—and that is, to educate people’s minds along peaceful lines.

The best way to bring about change in society is through education. In the pre-printing press age books were not available. So it was not possible to educate people on a large scale—war is a remnant of that ancient age. In those times people tried to bring about change through force, and this led to war.

Now we are living in the age of the printing press in which books exist in abundance. It is therefore possible to bring about a change in society through mass education. Those who are engaged in war for the sake of reform only show that they are unaware of this fact. If they realized this, they would throw away their guns and concentrate on education.

Source: The Age of Peace

Under the influence of certain thinkers who have interpreted Islam in political terms, a number of Muslims are obsessed with the politicized ideology of Islam. They have come to believe in the concept of establishing an Islamic system in the world; for this, they require political power but when they set out to establish this system, they see that a group is already occupying the political seat. So, they try to overthrow or unseat those who are in possession of political power.

It is this thinking that has led Muslims to perpetrate violence. But this thinking is completely un-Islamic because Islam enjoins its followers to follow its teachings at the individual level, rather than foisting them on others by force or violence. The need of the hour is to counter this problem. However, it cannot be countered by means of a gun. Modern Muslim militancy can be eradicated only by providing a counter-ideology. The issue of terrorism is an issue of ideology versus ideology and not one of ideology versus gun or ideology versus education. The right course is to re-engineer the modern Muslim mind. We should present to them the true ideology of Islam based on peace and tolerance. The real Islamic jihad is based on peace and spirituality. Therefore, the problem of Muslim militancy can be solved only by reviving the real Islam and not by taking recourse to any other means.

We have to present Islam as a religion of peace. Changing minds through this method of education will take considerable time, as it is a long-term method. Countering the problem with the gun cannot make those who are engaged in violence abandon their violent ways. Because these people are engaged in violence in the name of Islam, they can be stopped from indulging in such activities only if the true peaceful nature of Islam is shown to them.

The veracity of this method can be judged from the example of Kashmir. After Independence, militancy became widespread among Kashmiri Muslims. We, at the Centre for Peace and Spirituality, quietly disseminated peaceful literature among Kashmiris and today militancy in Kashmir has reduced considerably. The same literary campaign is required in other militancy-affected areas.

Source: Spirit of Islam January 2015

Fiqh, or Islamic jurisprudence, is a product of the exercise of human reflection, deduction, and ijtihad, and is not itself a form of divine knowledge. The development and compilation of the corpus of fiqh began after the period of the Prophet Muhammad and his Companions, particularly at the time of the Abbasids. The ulama of that period reflected on the Quran and Hadith and developed certain terms on their own. Three key terms in this regard are dar al-islam (‘abode of Islam’), dar al-kufr (‘abode of  infidelity’) and dar al-harb (‘abode of war’). The fuqaha, scholars of fiqh, made further finer distinctions within each of these daars or ‘abodes’, but here I will consider only these three main terms.

The conditions for which the later fuqaha invented the terms dar al-islam, dar al-kufr and dar al-harb were present at the time of the Prophet at different stages of his life and in different places. Yet, these places were not referred to at the time of the Prophet by these terms. Under these circumstances, one can rightly argue that, in coining these terms, the fuqaha of the Abbasid period exceeded the bounds of legitimate ijtihad. In other words, they sought to do something for which they did not have the right. It can, therefore, be clearly stated that these terms coined by the fuqaha are an instance of erroneous ijtihad. Hence, a scholar of Islam is within his rights in rejecting this ijtihad. Since they represent a bidat—innovation in religious matters—they must be rejected, for in a hadith report the Prophet said, “Whoever innovates into this matter of our religion that which does not belong to it, it will be rejected. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 2697). This means the Prophet of Islam exhorted Muslims to reject anything new that might be sought to be added in the name of religion.

From the Quran, it is evident that God does not view the world on the basis of, or in terms of, divisions between dar al-islam, dar al-kufr and dar al-harb. God regards all human beings through one, and only one, perspective. He will deal with human beings after their death by the single common criterion of deeds performed on earth. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the Quran sternly forbids people from imagining that they are loved more by God than other peoples just because they belong to a certain community. (The Quran, 5:18) The Quran clearly states that in God’s eyes a person’s value is determined not on the basis of his communitarian association or race, but, rather, on the basis of his or her own actions. (The Quran, 53:39)

These statements of the Quran indicate, therefore, that the true Islamic perspective is to see the cosmos in terms of God versus humanity, rather than in terms of Muslims versus non-Muslims. The latter way of thinking is a narrow, communal one, and has no relationship with the Quran or Islam. It is against God’s creation plan, for God has made this world for all His creatures, and not just for Muslims alone. This is why, in the light of the Quran, if the concept of daar or abode is to be used, it can be said that the entire world is dar al-insan or ‘abode of humanity’.

Source: Jihad, Peace and Inter-Community Relations in Islam

The coining of such terms as Darul-Islam, Darul-Kufr and Darul-Harb is an extremely serious matter. It relates to the Muslim worldview. It is responsible for inculcating the mentality of 'the chosen people' among Muslims. It is a sign of the decline of a nation.

We learn from the Quran that God does not divide human society on the basis of such demarcations as Darul-Islam, Darul-Kufr and Darul-Harb. God sees and deals with all human beings in the same light. The Quran refutes notions of God’s 'favoured people' in the strongest of terms.

The Quran tells us that in the eyes of God, everyone’s worth is determined by their personal actions or character, rather than by their belonging to a particular race or community (The Quran, 53:39). One verse of the Quran in this regard will suffice for this purpose: “The believers, the Jews, the Christians and the Sabeans all those who believe in God and the Last day and do good deeds will be rewarded by their Lord; they shall have no fear, nor shall they grieve. (The Quran, 2: 62)

Muslims, Christians, Jews, and all others are equal in the eyes of God. God will judge people based upon their deeds, rather than upon their belonging to a particular community.

Determining the status of other groups in relation to Muslims is a sectarian viewpoint, which is contrary to the universal approach of Islam. It goes against the creation plan of God. God has made this world for all human beings, and not just for Muslims.

Once, when the Prophet of Islam was in Madinah, a funeral procession passed by. On seeing it, the Prophet stood up. His Companions said to him that it was the funeral of a Jew, indicating that, therefore, there was no need to stand up. The Prophet replied by asking them if the person was not a human being. This incident has been recorded by Al-Bukhari.

This act of the Prophet of Islam clearly shows that every human being is worthy of respect and honour, regardless of his religion. This Hadith clearly shows that the way of Islam is to regard everyone as one regards oneself. The sight of a human being should remind us of the Creator who has created all human beings. It should remind us of God’s miraculous powers to grant life. Thus, it must bring us to God-realization. This tradition clearly tells us of the practice of the Prophet of Islam regarding respect for all people. It is strange that none of the commentators of the Hadith have taken the main lesson from this.

Source: Spirit of Islam February 2014

The terms Darul Islam, Darul Harb, and Darul Kufr do not occur in the Quran or Hadith. There were invented for the first time by Muslim jurists, during the Abbasid period. According to this terminology, the world was divided into two large regions. The part of the world, ruled by Muslims, was called by the Muslims Darul Islam. The rest of the world ruled by others was called by Muslims Darul Kufr or Darul Harb (the land of kafirs or the land of war). For the Muslims, there were, therefore, these two distinct spheres of influence: the land of Islam, which meant the land where Muslims had full freedom to practice their religion, and the land of war, which meant a place where Muslims had no such freedom. The land of war indicated those areas of the world where Muslims found themselves in unfavourable circumstances and war was imminent at any point in time. The jihad of present-day Muslims is, in fact, a legacy of this early, potentially unstable situation.

According to this division spelled out in Islamic law (fiqh), Muslims have come to feel, consciously or unconsciously, that in those countries where Muslims are not in a position of power, they are always in danger; and that a war with non-Muslims could be in the offing at any given time. According to this division, Darul Harb (lit. territory of war) was, in fact the Darul A’da (the land of the enemies). That is why the idea took root in the minds of the Muslims that those potential enemies should be fought and subjugated so that they were no longer a threat to them.

Muslim thinking continued along these lines over a period of a thousand years. In present times, Muslims have had certain bitter experiences at the hands of other nations. This has caused them to think that their enemies have rallied and united against them. This idea has come to be so firmly entrenched in the Muslim psyche that a certain section of Muslims have started an armed jihad on the grounds that all nations other than Muslim nations are the enemies of Islam.

This whole problem has nothing to do with the tenets of Islam. In fact, Islam is a universal religion revived by the Prophet of mercy for mankind (The Quran, 21:107). Rather it is the creation of early Muslim jurists.  If, in ancient times, Muslims had to practice their religion in defiance of, or under the dire threat of religious coercion, they now had ample opportunities to follow their religion in an atmosphere of complete religious freedom. That is to say, what had formerly been possible only in Darul Islam, now became equally possible in Darul Harb and Darul Kufr. This denotes a sea-change in present-day circumstances, which calls for a revision of the terms of the Abbasid period in order to bring them in line with the latest developments.

Now, with the altered situation, the whole world, in terms of religious freedom, is Darul Islam. Those circumstances no longer exist which necessitated the world being divided into three separate categories. After the establishment of religious freedom on a global scale, the entire world has become one, and now only one phrase Darul Amn (the abode of peace) or Darul Insaan (the abode of human beings) may properly be applied to it.

Source: The Prophet of Peace

The Quran says: 'Do great jihad with the help of the Quran.' (25: 52) ‘Jihad’ refers to the peaceful mission of spreading the ideology of the Quran. The message of the Quran is given in Chapter Jonah in these words: “Wallahu yadu ila dar as-salam.” (10: 25) That is, ‘And God calls to the home of peace.’

Peace is the central theme of the Quran. Where there is peace there is a peaceful mind, and where there is a peaceful mind there is positive thinking. Positive thinking helps in the building of a positive personality. A peaceful society is composed of members who are positive-thinking individuals.

Islam has nothing to do with violence. The Islamic target is peace, and peace can be established only by peaceful methods. The Islamic mission referred to in the Quran as dawah ilallah is the peaceful dissemination of the divine message. Jihad refers to the peaceful spirit of this mission, that is, to exert one's utmost effort to spread this peaceful message.

Modern Muslim militancy in the name of jihad is a total distortion of Islam. This phenomenon is a twentieth-century concept. Muslim writers such as Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdudi (1903-1979) of Pakistan and Syed Qutb (1906-1966) of Egypt, provided a political interpretation of Islam. Those influenced by this interpretation tried to establish an Islamic state in Muslim countries. This being the age of communication it spread rapidly throughout the Muslim world.

The aim of establishing such a state began as a literary campaign. Its proponents sought to overthrow existing regimes led by secular Muslims and establish in its place what they called Khilafah or Hukumat-e Ilahiyyah (Divine Rule). They totally failed in this endeavour. They assumed the Muslim masses were on their side and oblivious that the secular Muslim rulers were supported by the West. They developed negative thinking against the West. De-stabilizing the Western world seemed to be the only way to achieve their target. 9/11 was a result of this thinking. Suicide bombings by Muslims throughout the world are also an example of this thinking. The genesis of current Muslim militancy lies squarely in this political interpretation of Islam.

It is imperative to dispel this interpretation and completely eradicate this political thinking from the Muslim mind. We have to provide them with the peaceful literature of Islam. Only this can root out the menace of Muslim militancy.

UNESCO says, ‘Violence begins from the mind.’ The present Muslim militancy begins from the wrong interpretation of Islam. This militancy can be countered by spreading literature that represents the true ideology of Islam based on peace and put to end Muslim militancy.

Using rational argument, it has to be shown how the political interpretation of Islam is wrong and has no ideological base. This would be the cure to end the scourge of Muslim violence.

Source: Spirit of Islam July 2015

Some Muslims perpetrated acts of violence in France and Denmark. As usual, these acts were performed in the name of Islam. After these incidents, the US administration organized a three-day conference in Washington during February 17-19, 2015. The theme of the meeting was: Countering Violent Extremism. Sixty nations participated in the conference. A number of Muslim organizations were also among the participants.

Speaking on this occasion President Barack Obama said that Islam as a religion was not responsible for the recent violence. It was rather an external ideology—not based on Islamic teachings—that was behind these acts. Those who commit violence draw inspiration from this external ideology.

The political interpretation of Islam has become an ideology that promotes violence.

What is this ideology? President Obama did not mention this. It is the political interpretation of Islam, devised in the twentieth century. There were two champions of this ideology: Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966) in the Arab world and Syed Abul Ala Mawdudi (1903-1979) in the Indian subcontinent. For various reasons, this ideology spread widely amongst Muslims.

It is important to understand why the political interpretation of Islam foisted an ideology that promoted violence. It made Islam a subject of imposition, whereas earlier Islam was regarded as a subject of adherence or following. If Islam is subject to be followed, then the goal is to focus on oneself—one must discover God, lead a God-oriented life, and try to spiritually elevate oneself. With such a goal, there can be no question of violence. But when Islam is considered a subject of imposition, the goal then becomes the external political system. The aim now is to dethrone the political rulers so that the political system of choice may be imposed on all. Here lies the root of violence.

The political ideology is inherently violent. It is imperative to come up with a counter-ideology to eradicate violence—one that is sound and robust. The wrong notion that Islam is a political system must be dispelled and instead clearly establish it as non-political. The objective of Islam is Islamization of the individual and not Islamization of the state.

In 1917 the Communist government was formed in Russia and the USSR was established in its wake. This situation was perceived as a threat by the United States of America. America countered the problem not with violence but through a sound counter ideology. Anti-communist literature was published on a wide scale and the entire world was flooded with it. One example of this is mentioned below: “Yugoslavia’s Communist politician, Milovan Djilas (1911-1995) wrote a powerful book New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System (1957) criticizing the Communist system. It was introduced in Reader’s Digest under the heading, Milovan Djilas and the Book that is Shaking the Communist World.” (Eugene Lyon, October 1957)

The political interpretation of Islam is inherently a violent ideology that has no basis in Islam’s original sources—Quran and Sunnah. Therefore, a counter-ideology is required to face this violent ideology. Given these historic precedents, the need to publish strong and powerful literature against the terrorist ideology is imperative—powerful enough to shake the terrorists at their very roots. So that a commentator may be able to remark: ‘This is the book that is shaking the terrorist world.’ This is the only solution to rid violence in the name of Islam that plagues the world today. No other solution will work in this regard.

I have prepared literature based on Islamic sources that is acting as a counter-ideology in the form of books like The Age of Peace, The Prophet of Peace, and The Political Interpretation of Islam.

Source: Spirit of Islam June 2015

The root cause of violence perpetrated in the name of Islam is the erroneous political interpretation of Islam that has been developed by some Muslim scholars. According to this interpretation, a central place was bestowed on politics in the religion. For those scholars who gave such an interpretation, the religion or deen was tantamount to establishing its political domination. They saw this as the very purpose or goal that God wants His servants to strive towards. Naturally then, in this understanding of Islam, the rest of deen came to be subordinated to politics. Politics assumed the central place, through which every aspect of deen could be understood and its importance ascertained. In this way, in their understanding of Islam, every aspect of it acquired a political hue. This naturally resulted in a major deviation.

The political interpretation of the religion of Islam led to a new view about life and the universe in which politics had a pre-eminent place. While accepting that God has given free will to mankind, and the world is a testing ground on one hand, the proposers of the political interpretation contradict themselves by saying that people must establish the divinely revealed Shariah which was conveyed through God’s messengers. This law covers a wide gamut of issues, including beliefs, morals, society, civilization, and politics. In addition, the political theory finds it necessary to accept God as the Emperor, Ruler, and Lawmaker. They further go on to say that, if someone simply accepts God and believes Him to have no partners, but at the same time, claims to be fully independent in the sphere in which humans have free will, he actually revolts against God.

According to them, such people should be set right through guidance, instruction, exhortation, and preaching, but if these methods fail to get them the desired result of establishing Divine Government, then a believer is compelled to take to war so that he can remove the hurdles in the path of this task.

The above interpretation of deen presents God’s sending of the prophets to the world in a particular political light. Assuming that the prophets’ concern was to acquire power and that they had acquired it, is absolutely wrong, for the very mission of the prophets was to guide people to goodness and what is right.

When Islam is made out to be a political ideology, then quite naturally, the Islamic community is made out to be a political party. Amongst such a party, worship is reduced to a preface to politics. Piety and spiritual excellence come to be shaped in a distinctly political mould. Witnessing to the truth becomes a political act. In other words, in this political interpretation of Islam the whole of the religion of Islam wrongly comes to be seen as a collection of parts whose individual and collective significance cannot be understood without linking them with politics.

The above-mentioned two reasons of historical exigency and the political interpretation develop the mindset of militancy in its followers. The solution to this is to present Islam as it is from the original sources, the Quran, and the life and teachings of the Prophet. I have written many articles and books that show that this political interpretation of Islam has no basis in Islamic sources—the Quran and Sunnah.

Source: Spirit of Islam March 2018

Islam holds suicide bombings to be totally Unislamic. Muslims are not permitted to commit suicidal bombings in order to destroy the enemy. Strapping explosives onto oneself and hurling oneself upon the civilian settlements of even those with whom one is at war, for the purpose of destroying the enemy, and in the process killing oneself deliberately, is totally un-Islamic. This can in no way be termed ‘Shahadah’ (martyrdom). According to Islam, we can become martyrs, but we cannot court a martyr’s death deliberately.

Religion-based terrorism is perhaps the most dangerous phenomenon in Muslim history. Throughout Islamic history, that is, until very recently, action has always meant result-oriented action. But in modern times, for the first time, the Muslim mentality has become so distorted that, on occasion, fruitless action has also come to be considered desirable. Suicide bombing, which shows a preference for death over life, falls into this category. While in the early history of Islam, this was an alien concept, in modern times, for Muslims, it has acquired the position of a superior course of action.

How has the act of suicide come to rate so highly as a solution to political problems? The reason is not traceable to some special devotional attachment to Islam but is due rather to an inimical attitude towards man. As the suicide bomber ties the bombs onto his body, it is not pro-Islamic, but rather anti-humanity sentiments, which motivate him to adopt such a deadly course. This is a reality that no one in his senses can deny.

According to the Quran, a Muslim is one who is man’s well-wisher. But the greatest weakness of the Muslims of today is that they do not in their hearts possess any feelings of well-wishing towards others. They hold all nations to be their foes. This animosity has so increased that they are ready to cross all moral limits when it comes to attacking their supposed enemies. If they think they can harm them by killing themselves, they are willing to take the extreme step of suicide bombing.

The truth is that suicide is totally forbidden (haram) in Islam. It is forbidden to the point where, if someone is dying, and it is certain that he will not survive, even in his final moments Islam does not allow him to take his own life.

An incident, which illustrates this, has been recorded in Sahih Muslim. It took place in the lifetime of the Prophet during the Battle of Khaybar, one of the defensive battles fought between the companions of the Prophet and their enemies. A soldier from the Muslim side, by the name of Quzmaanuz Zufra, fought very bravely and his death. The Muslims said that he was a martyr and would go to Paradise. But the Prophet said that he would go to hell. The companions were astonished.

So the Prophet asked them to find out the cause of his death. On inquiry, it was discovered that he had indeed fought very bravely for the Muslims and then had fallen down gravely wounded. But then, finding the pain of his injury unbearable, he ended his life with his own sword. (Fathul Bari, Commentary Sahih Bukhari, Kitabul Maghazi, 7/540)

The Prophet’s disapproval of his action makes it clear that suicide bombing is not lawful in Islam under any circumstances. According to Islam, life is so precious that it can never be terminated at will on any pretext. Islam is a harbinger of life. It gives no license for premature death. That is why the virtue of patience—sabr—is given the utmost importance in Islam. Patience means tolerating the severest affliction rather than taking any such step as putting an end to one’s life.

Source: The True Face of Islam

The root cause of suicide bombing is that in present times, the Muslim community has come to think of the world as being divided between Muslims and kafirs (non-believers); that, besides Muslims, everyone else is kafir; that the countries ruled by Muslims are dar as-salam (Land of Islam) whereas the countries ruled by people other than Muslims are dar al-kufr (Land of Disbelief). Due to this mindset, Muslims think that any heinous act may be perpetrated with impunity against supposed disbelievers.

It is because of this negative mentality of the Muslims of the present day that the ulama, or Muslim scholars, have become emboldened to publicly declare suicide bombing as lawful—an act that has always been unlawful in the absolute sense.

Moreover, there are certain Muslim scholars who have gone to the extent of openly issuing fatwas or verdicts, claiming that suicide is lawful. They have coined a new term—istishhad (to seek martyrdom)—to give justification for suicide bombing.

Such fatwas are undoubtedly wrong. And it is strange that the entire community of religious scholars has not openly condemned this patently wrong fatwa.

The method of suicide bombing—known as hara-kiri—was first adopted in a big way by Japan. Traditionally practiced in that country, it was a ritual form of suicide carried out by slashing one’s abdomen. As we know, the method of hara-kiri adopted by Japan in the Second World War turned out to be totally ineffective, and it was subsequently abandoned.

The practice of suicide bombing by Muslim militants has likewise become totally ineffective. By such attacks, they put an end to innocent lives, but this fails to produce any positive results. The question then arises as to why this deadly method of suicide bombing still continues.

The reason is that Muslims on their own have developed a baseless belief that a believer killed in a battle becomes a martyr, and therefore goes straight to heaven. This is a false belief. According to Islamic teachings, there is absolutely no doubt about the fact that those Muslims who kill themselves in suicide bombings will die an unlawful death. No heaven is waiting to welcome them.

Islam believes that the whole world including the Muslim world is dar al-insaan (the abode of human beings). It is Muslims’ bounden duty to regard all human beings as God’s creatures. Once, in Madinah, the Prophet of Islam, on seeing the funeral procession of a Jew, stood up in deference to it. When one of his companions asked him why he did so, he replied:

         ‘Was he not a human being?’(Sahih, Al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 1312)

The Prophet Muhammad thus recognized a commonality between himself and a Jew—that the God who had created him had also created the Jew. This is the real basis of human equality.

Source: The Age of Peace