Doctrine of Abrogation

@umersultan There is no error in what was posted. All of it is completely accurate and comes directly from accepted authentic Islamic scholars, just not from Islamic Apologists that are obeying their religion through Taqiyya. When Osama bin Laden says Islam will dominate the world and that all is justified by the Qu’ran, Hadith, Sunnah/Sunnat and Islamic Apologists say Islam is a religion of peace, it is bin Laden who is being truthful.

And before you find it necessary to start quoting the Qu’ran about its peaceful Suras, they are subject to abrogation.

It is because Christians, and many Muslims, do not understand this doctrine of abrogation coupled with the nonchronological order of the Quran that they do not understand what is going on in the Islamic world at this time. On the one hand, many Islamic leaders will claim that their religion is a peaceful one, and quote passages from the Quran to prove it. On the other hand, other Islamic leaders will call for terrorism and jihad and base their call on the same Quran. Most of us would view this a simple matter of how the Quran is interpreted, but such is not the case. The peaceful passages within the Quran are found in the early days of Muhammad’s recitations, during a time when he felt that his new religion would be a unifying factor among “People of the Book” (Jews, Christians and Muslims). When his doctrine was ultimately rejected by Jews and Christians he turned on them and “was given” new “revelations” of war and hate to replace the former ones of peace. The surahs, which teach jihad against Jews, Christians and unbelievers, are all found in the later time frame of the Quran. Passages of a later date include 2:190-193,216; 4:74,89,91,95,101-102; 5:33,51; 8:12,39,60,65,67,69; 9:5,29,30,73; 47:4; 59:2-4,5,14 and 61:4. While such passages are scattered throughout the Quran, they are all chronologically of later origin and have, according to the doctrine of abrogation, replaced the former teachings on peace.

Christians Under Siege in the Muslim World

Christians Under Siege: The Challenge of Religious Pluralism in the Muslim World

Conflicts and killings from Africa to Southeast Asia have brought into sharp relief the significant threat to religious minorities in some Muslim societies. While constitutionally entitled in many countries to equality of citizenship and religious freedom, religious minorities in the Muslim world increasingly fear the erosion of their rights — and with good reason. Interreligious and inter-communal tensions have flared up not only in Egypt and Malaysia but also in Sudan, Nigeria, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan. Conflicts have varied from acts of discrimination, to forms of violence escalating to murder, to the destruction of villages and mosques.

Majorities of Muslims and Christians embrace religious diversity. However, a significant minority of hard-line conservative, fundamentalist, and militant Muslims — like their counterparts in Christianity and Judaism — are not pluralistic, but rather strongly exclusivist in their attitudes toward other faiths and even fellow believers with whom they disagree. As recent events in Egypt and Pakistan illustrated, these myopic religious worldviews can turn ugly.

The Coptic Christian community in Egypt is an ancient faith group whose presence in Egypt predates the coming of Islam. Relations between Copts and Muslims in society had generally been good. However, in recent decades, extremists have targeted Copts and the government. While the government has addressed their status as a security issue, it has failed to respond to the desire of Egypt’s Christian Copts for full equality of citizenship: equal treatment with regard to building their churches; appointment into top positions, and non-discriminatory policies.

In the past year, extremists have again targeted Coptic Christians. In the town of Nag Hamadi in southern Egypt, seven people were killed when gunmen sprayed automatic fire into a crowd of churchgoers after a Coptic New Year’s eve midnight mass on Jan. 7, 2010. Officials believed the attack was in retaliation for the November rape of a Muslim girl by a Christian man. But in December 2010, Egyptians were shocked when Muslim militants slaughtered 25 and injured another 100 Coptic Christian worshipers in Alexandria on New Year’s Eve.

The magnitude of the atrocity triggered an unprecedented public outcry. Egyptian government officials, Muslim religious leaders, the media, and civil society moved quickly to condemn the attacks. Islamic leaders and groups from the Muslim Brotherhood to Dr. Ahmed Al-Tayeb, Sheik of al-Azhar (Egypt’s highest religious authority) and the Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, along with the Coptic Pope Shenouda III, all came out with strong condemnatory statements and calls for Egyptian unity. Across the country Egyptians rallied to the defense of the Coptic community, its freedoms and its security. Thousands of Muslims turned out at Coptic Christmas eve mass services on Jan 6, 2011 around the country for candle light vigils and to serve as human shields and protect Coptic churches as they celebrated their Christmas. In Pakistan the assassination of a major politician who opposed its blasphemy law and its aftermath signaled any even more critical and worrisome threat.

A Christian woman, Asia Bibi, a 45-year-old mother of four was sentenced to death on charges of insulting Islam, in a case stemming from a village dispute. This case is not an isolated incident; allegations of blasphemy against the Prophet or desecration of the Quran have often been used against Christians in local disputes.

Asia Bibi, believed to be the first woman sentenced to death under Pakistan’s blasphemy law, strongly denied the charges and requested a presidential pardon. In November 2010 the Lahore High Court in Pakistan barred President Asif Ali Zardari from issuing a pardon. The issue resurrected calls in Pakistan and internationally for the recall of the blasphemy law. The violent reactions of militant religious leaders and mosque preachers triggered the assassination of Salmaan Taseer — the governor of Punjab and an outspoken critic of the blasphemy law — by one of his bodyguards who shot him 27 times on 4 January 2011. The assassin, Mumtaz Qadri, admitted that he was influenced by the fiery sermons of militant preachers who had denounced Taseer. According to Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, an internationally recognized expert on Sout Asian politics:

Taseer’s death has unleashed the mad dogs of hell, inspiring the minority of fanatics to go to any lengths to destroy the democratic, secular and moderate Islamic Republic of Pakistan. We Pakistanis are at the edge of a precipice and as a consequence the stability of the entire region is at risk. Not a single registered mullah in the city of Lahore with its 13 million people was willing to read Taseer’s funeral prayers, because they were too scared to do so. Five hundred lawyers have signed up to defend Taseer’s killer Mumtaz Qadri, but Taseer’s wife cannot find a single criminal lawyer to prosecute him. It is hard to see which judge is even likely to pursue the case to its obvious conclusion.

Shockingly, the assassin has been greeted as a celebrity and hero. The extent of extremist influence, its power to turn out large street demonstrations and to intimidate liberal reformers could be seen in mass street rallies like that in Karachi where more than 40,000 people took to the streets in his support. At the same time, a notable number of more mainstream as well as militant religious leaders were quick to come out against repeal of the blasphemy law and the government has been quick to retreat, declaring it would never amend the law. The deafening silence of marginalized liberals and reformers, who fear to speak out, and political parties has been testimony of the extent to which extremists have been able to threaten and intimidate, target, issue death threats and kill. This is nothing new. Two of Pakistan’s prominent reformist Islamic scholars and popular television preachers, Dr. Tahir al-Qadri and Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, have been forced in recent years to flee the country and live in exile in Canada and Malaysia.

Muhammad Tahir al-Qadri authored a 600 page fatwa, an exhaustive study of what the Quran and Islamic sources have to say about the use of violence, terrorism, suicide bombing. Qadri categorically and unequivocally rejects all acts of illegitimate violence, terrorism and every act of suicide bombing against all human beings, whether Muslim or non-Muslim. He also distances himself from all, whether fellow prominent religious leaders or Muslim youth, who have the potential to be radicalized, who would seek to justify and excuse suicide bombing and terrorism for any reason.

Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, who fled to Malaysia last year after police foiled a plot to bomb his Lahore home has publicly opposed the blasphemy laws since the assassination of Salmaan Taseer. Like al-Qadri’s condemnation of terrorism and suicide bombings, Ghamidi attacks the blasphemy law on religious grounds, maintaining it has no foundation in either the Qur’an or the Hadith — the sayings of the prophet Muhammad.

Religious tolerance and equality of citizenship remain fragile both in secular Muslim countries and in self-styled Islamic states. Mainstream Muslim religious and political leaders and the media need to not only condemn religious extremism and terrorism, as many have done nationally and internationally, but also speak out against those mainstream religious leaders and others who continue to advocate religious exclusivist theologies or doctrines and their implementation in law and society.

Critical is the implementation of reforms in religious thought, in law, and in society to ensure equality of citizenship. Both Muslim and Christian religious leaders will need to work more closely on religious and curricula reforms for madrasas, seminaries, schools, and universities and utilize mass media, the internet, and other avenues of popular culture. Failure to do so will not only feeds the growth of religious extremism but also contributes to the mentality of sectors of mainstream society, the estimated 500 to 800 lawyers, who offered to represent the self-confessed killer, and the physicians, teachers, police and others who have also publicly supported him.

The plight of Christians and other minorities in some Muslim countries in the face of a significant and dangerous minority of religious extremists and the failures of political and religious leaders threatens both the safety and security of religious minorities and the very fabric of Muslim societies.

Note: This post was co-authored by Sheila B. Lalwani.

Prof. John L. Esposito, author of The Future of Islam, is University Professor of Religion & International Affairs at Georgetown University and founding director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. Sheila B. Lalwani is a Research Fellow at the Center.

ORIGINAL POST:

Comment to Islamophobia Site

I had planned to not comment because I have yet to decide if your site is part of the Islamic Apologists that seeks to deceive uneducated Muslims and non-Muslims or are sincere yet incorrect in your understanding of the true nature of Islam, an incorrect understanding that is true for the majority of Muslims.

But your comment above forced my response: “please do not spread falsehood about a religion without completely researching on it. Please read the Qura’an completely and then make an opinion about it.”

It is not just the Qu’ran that is the essence of Islam. The actions of Mohammad and sayings are equal, perhaps greater, that forms the ideology/theology of Islam. In addition, the interpretation of his teachings, Hadith, are the “official” guides to proper behavior. The best record for free can be found here: http://hadithsahihbukhari.com and is downloadable.

Sahih al-Bukhari (Arabic: صحيح البخاري‎), as it is commonly referred to, is one of the SIX canonical hadith collections of Islam. These prophetic traditions, or hadith, were collected by the Persian Muslim scholar Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari, after being transmitted orally for generations. Muslims view this as their most trusted collection of hadith and it is considered the most authentic book after the Qur’an.

Taken together, and with much study, a far different interpretation of Islam emerges than you present. There is no radical Islam. There is Islam and there is non-practicing or weak Islam that the majority practice.

I look forward to reviewing the rest of your entries, but hope you will allow correction of errors and perhaps a reform Islam will emerge that really does have as its essence much of what you write.

COMMENT POSTED IN RESPONSE TO THIS PAGE:

THE THIRD JIHAD

Terrorism – UN

Terrorism’s Silent Partner at the UN By: Joshua Muravchik
AEI.org | Friday, October 22, 2004

This month, the United Nations Security Council voted to condemn terrorism. The resolution was introduced by Russia, still grieving over the terrorist attack on a school in Beslan, and perhaps the unanimous vote will give it a measure of solace.

But the convoluted text and the dealings behind the scenes that were necessary to secure agreement on it offer cold comfort to anyone who cares about winning the war against terrorism. For what they reveal is that even after Beslan and after Madrid and after 9/11, the UN still cannot bring itself to oppose terrorism unequivocally.

The reason for this failure is that the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which comprises 56 of the UN’s 191 members, defends terrorism as a right.

After the Security Council vote, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John C. Danforth tried to put the best face on the resolution. He said it “states very simply that the deliberate massacre of innocents is never justifiable in any cause. Never.”

But in fact it does not state this. Nor has any UN resolution ever stated it. The U.S. delegation tried to get such language into the resolution, but it was rebuffed by Algeria and Pakistan, the two OIC members currently sitting on the Security Council. (They have no veto, but the resolution’s sponsors were willing to water down the text in return for a unanimous vote.)

True, the final resolution condemns “all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation.” This sounds clear, but in the Alice-in-Wonderland lexicon of the UN, the term “acts of terrorism” does not mean what it seems.

For eight years now, a UN committee has labored to draft a “comprehensive convention on international terrorism.” It has been stalled since Day 1 on the issue of “defining” terrorism. But what is the mystery? At bottom everyone understands what terrorism is: the deliberate targeting of civilians. The Islamic Conference, however, has insisted that terrorism must be defined not by the nature of the act but by its purpose. In this view, any act done in the cause of “national liberation,” no matter how bestial or how random or defenseless the victims, cannot be considered terrorism.

This boils down to saying that terrorism on behalf of bad causes is bad, but terrorism on behalf of good causes is good. Obviously, anyone who takes such a position is not against terrorism at all–but only against bad causes.

The U.S. is not alone in failing to get the Islamic states to reconsider their pro-terror stance. Following 9/11, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan pushed to break the deadlock on the terrorism convention. He endorsed compromise language proscribing terrorism unambiguously while reaffirming the right of self-determination. But the Islamic Conference would not budge.

Far from giving ground on terrorism, the Islamic states have often gotten their way on the issue, with others giving in to them. As early as 1970, for instance, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution “reaffirm[ing] . . . the legitimacy of the struggle of the colonial peoples and peoples under alien domination to exercise their right to self-determination and independence by all the necessary means at their disposal.”

Everyone understood that this final phrase was code for terrorism. Similar formulas have been adopted repeatedly in the years since. Originally, the Western European states joined the U.S. in voting against such motions. But in each of the last few years the UN Commission on Human Rights has adopted such a resolution with regard to the Palestinian struggle against Israel, with almost all the European members voting in favor.

Danforth may feel that the U.S. position was vindicated in the new Security Council resolution, but that is not what OIC representatives think. As Pakistan’s envoy to the UN, Munir Akram, put it: “We ought not, in our desire to confront terrorism, erode the principle of the legitimacy of national resistance that we have upheld for 50 years.” Accordingly, he expressed satisfaction with the resolution: “It doesn’t open any new doors.”

Who is right? Hours of parsing the resolution won’t resolve that question. But in the end it does not matter. As long as the Islamic states resist any blanket condemnation of terrorism, we will remain a long way from ridding the Earth of its scourge. And the UN, in which they account for nearly one-third of the votes, will be helpless to bring us any closer.