Dette essayet har eg henta på sidene til "The Muslim Council of Britain".
Eg trur det kan vera ei god innføring i korleis velartikulerte muslimar
ser på desse spørsmåla
http://www.mcb.org.uk/anti-semitism.html
Islam, Muslims and anti-Semitism
An Essay by Lamaan Ball
Introduction
The Jewish people have long suffered various forms of hostility,
particularly in Europe for many centuries. The Twentieth Century has seen
this reach infamous heights with the treatment they received at the hands of
the Nazis. Recent comments by leading Jewish figures have alleged that
although European-led anti-Semitism is on the decline, a new form of
anti-Semitism is on the rise with its strongest voices found in the Muslim
world.
In the last few months attempts have been made to define this new form of
anti-Semitism. The term "anti-Semitism" is generally understood to mean
racism against Jews, but is now being redefined by a number of prominent
Jewish personalities to identify "a new anti-Semitism" as being found in
those opposing Israel and her policies. Any criticism of the state of Israel
is attacked with the repugnant label of 'anti-Semitism '. Labelling Muslims
and Islam implicitly and explicitly as racist and bigoted can and has had
the effect of stoking the ignorant fires of Islamophobia. In dealing with
this issue, we first need to understand what type of criticism of Israel can
be seen as a new form of anti-Semitism and why. The recent United Nations
World Conference Against Racism (Durban, August 31 - September 7, 2001)
indicated wide-spread sympathy with the view that Zionism was a racist
movement. Are people around the world today, particularly Muslims, being
"anti-Semitic" or just anti-Zionist?
The New anti-Semitism?
Hostility towards Jews in Europe has had numerous forms over history. The
holocaust is etched powerfully in our memories. Prior to this, pogroms in
Russia and elsewhere were a common tyranny, and going back further we find
the inquisition in Spain and the expulsion of Jews from European countries
including England in the 13th century. Until the arrival of secularist
culture, the Jews as a whole were despised by Christians on religious
grounds and were blamed for murdering Christ. After the French Revolution
and the foundation of the United States of America, this religious
persecution was limited and could no longer gain state sponsorship. Yet, it
resurfaced again as race-based discrimination with the Nazis. After this
ghost seemed to be put to rest, we now find Jews again being blamed, this
time for their support of Israel and the injustices that are being done in
the name of "the Jewish state".
In his recent remarks to the Parliamentary Committee Against anti-Semitism,
Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi in the United Kingdom, noted that "...we are
wrong to see all criticism of the State of Israel as anti-Zionism let alone
as anti-Semitism"
This point has to be kept in mind. Yet it begs the question, if not all
criticism of the state of Israel can be construed as anti-Semitism then
surely some can be seen as such. What kind of criticism of the state of
Israel is anti-Semitic? By leaving this question unresolved, the Chief Rabbi
is saying almost nothing in his remark. Any person who raises the voice of
criticism of Israel, therefore is open to the allegation of being
anti-Semitic.
Professor Irwin Cotler, an MP in the Canadian House of Commons and the
director of McGill University's human-rights programme, made his position
clearer. He explained that "traditional anti-Semitism," directed against the
rights of individual Jews, was "very much on the decline, but that "the new
anti-Semitism" represented "the discrimination against and the denial of the
rights of the Jewish people to live as equal members of the family of
nations." Or to interpret his point, the new anti-Semitism is denying Jews
the right to exist as a distinct sovereign nation state. This raises many
questions. Where is the Christian sovereign nation state, or the Buddhist
one, or the Islamic one? Does the existence of a state for the Jews allow
them to expel hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish inhabitants and prevent
their return?
In Israel, there are two recognised nationalities, Jewish and Arab. The
implication is that these are two distinct races since there are Arab
Christians and Arab Muslims within the 'Arab' nationality. Within this
small-scale family of nations, these two are certainly not equal members.
The Arab nation and the Jewish nation have quite different and unequal
rights - and that doesn't even address the majority of Palestinians who have
been forced off their land or had their land brutally occupied.
Which kind of nation is Professor Irwin Colter talking about here? The state
of Israel, army and all, or perhaps the Jewish nation within a more complex,
not particularly Jewish, state? If the latter, then we have the possibility
that someone saying that the state of Israel has no right to exist is not
denying that the Jews have the right to exist as a distinct nation state. It
is just that the Jewish nation would be one one without an army.
Another attempt at drawing a distinction between legitimate criticism of
Israel and anti-Semitic criticism has been given by Rabbi Michael Melchior,
the Israeli Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: "Criticism of Israel has its
place. Israel is not perfect nor does it claim to be. But all fair-minded
people must be vigilant in drawing the line between legitimate criticism and
the manifestations of anti-Semitism now parading as such. The State of
Israel is a central component of Jewish identity. When Israel is attacked in
intentionally inflammatory terms, no one should kid themselves who the real
target is. When Israeli occupation is likened to the wholesale Nazi
extermination of Jews, this is not legitimate criticism; it is
anti-Semitism. "
The difficulty this definition poses is just what is "intentionally
inflammatory". It is fact that in recent years, the Israelis had a policy of
breaking the bones of Palestinians, that use of torture was sanctioned by
the Israeli courts and that according to a recent report in Ha'aretz
newspaper, the IDF (Israeli Defence Force) has developed their techniques of
controlling the Palestinian occupied territories though studying the way the
Nazis controlled the ghettos in Warsaw . Is someone who raises these points
being intentionally inflammatory? It really depends how it is done, and even
who does it. But even if it is intentionally inflammatory, does that amount
to anti-Semitism?
The Chief Rabbi's opening remarks gave a number of impressive anecdotes and
a few statistics indicating a rise in hostility towards Jews (albeit the
statistics only refer to France and it may be that issues about
classification of attacks overshadow what appears to be an increase). He
highlights the case of Daniel Pearl as someone kidnapped and killed by some
Pakistani Muslims 'for being a Jew' and refers to the remarks of a
London-based Muslim teacher apparently calling for a war against the Jews.
In both cases there is, perhaps unavoidably, at the core, the issue of
identifying Israel as the enemy state, opposing it and opposing the power
behind it represented primarily by the Jews. You have to ask, if Israel was
not stealing land from Palestinians and murdering and oppressing others,
would these Muslims identify Jews as a whole as the enemy? Would Daniel
Pearl be alive today? Yes, he probably would be. This, of course doesn't
justify his killing simply on the grounds of being Jewish.
Is the hostility of some Muslims towards Jews in general motivated by
opposition to the injustice they have brought to Palestine, which the Jews
themselves could bring to a halt to by stopping the oppression or, is it
racism founded in Islamic teachings which the Jews cannot bring a halt to
and can therefore only be opposed? To answer this question, we need to look
into the teachings of Islam and the history of non-Muslim minorities in the
Muslim world.
Islamic teachings on unjust discrimination
In Islam we are instructed to judge with equity, not discriminating on any
grounds other than the wrongful actions of the case. If the accuser and the
defender changed place and the offence was the same, then the judgement
should be the same:
O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as
against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be
(against) rich or poor: for God can best protect both. Follow not the lusts
(of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to
do justice, verily God is well-acquainted with all that ye do.
(Qur'an 4:135)
This verse makes it clear that bias towards people on grounds of their
wealth, closeness of family relationship, which implicitly includes race or
even bias towards oneself amounts to injustice. Racism is however singled
out specifically as unjustified:
O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and
made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other not that ye
may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of
God is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and
is well acquainted (with all things).
(Qur'an 49:13)
These verses make clear that God judges people, not on their race or tribe
but on the grounds of their religious beliefs and moral practice. However,
we must not assume that we can simply pass judgement on other people on
these grounds. In Islam, there is a clear distinction between the justice of
mankind and the justice of God. In our implementation of Justice on Earth we
have to judge according to the limited knowledge we have. God on the other
hand knows everything. Although God may know one person as being better than
another that does not automatically translate into our ability to show bias
towards people on the basis of apparent righteousness. Apparent
righteousness is not the same as actual righteousness. This is a vitally
important teaching in Islam and is one of the first things students of Islam
learn. According to Islam, all deeds are judged according to their
intentions. Someone can be apparently a more pious person in every way, but
their intentions are not pure and so their actions will not be accepted by
God. With this in mind, when a Muslim feels the inclination to be
judgemental towards others, he restrains himself with the knowledge that the
true status of that person's righteousness is only known to God.
When it comes to legal matters where we must form our judgements of others,
we must first recognise that Islam has an entire legal system which
determines the treatment of people, Muslim and otherwise. The fact of
implementing Islamic law, in itself, represents an assertion of one religion
over others. However, this does not mean that the law favours Muslims over
non-Muslims. Muslims are warned of such an approach in the following verse:
Among the People of the Book are some who, if entrusted with a hoard of
gold, will (readily) pay it back; others, who, if entrusted with a single
silver coin, will not repay it unless thou constantly stoodest demanding,
because, they say, "there is no call on us (to keep faith) with these
ignorant (Pagans)." but they tell a lie against God, and (well) they know
it.
(Qur'an 3:75)
Islamic law may be split into two categories. Some laws which concern basic
human rights such as right to property, life, honour must not take the
professed religion of the person into account for the sake of justice. We
might call these 'the secular Islamic laws'. Other laws such as inheritance,
marriage and divorce explicitly vary according to the professed religion of
the parties concerned. Each recognised religious community has its own
courts and laws. These sets of laws are part of each religious group's right
to live according to their own religion. They in fact represent a much more
profound level of freedom of religion than does the secularisation of all
law where for example, people may be forced to accept a particular form of
personal rights and responsibilities counter to their religious beliefs.
Freedom of religion is one of the basic essential ingredients in the Islamic
system, this is demonstrated in the Qur'an in numerous places but also
throughout the history of Islamic civilisation. Here are a few of the key
verses on the freedom of religion.
Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error:
whoever rejects evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy
hand-hold, that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things.
(Qur'an 2:256)
...To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so
willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test
you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The
goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the
matters in which ye dispute;
(Qur'an 5:48)
Say, "The truth is from your Lord": Let him who will believe, and let him
who will, reject (it)...
(Qur'an 18:29)
Freedom of religion is one of a number of essential universal human rights
established by Islamic law. The very fact that Islamic law has always
applied such rights and principles universally regardless of religion and
regardless of race shows that any accusation that Islam could be a racist
religion or a religion which others are forced to adopt is a lie. It is not
only refuted by the quotations from the Qur'an above but it is also refuted
by the history and development of Islamic civilisation. Muslims around the
world can now be found in the millions from every race, whites, blacks,
Semites, Orientals etc. Any claim that Islam has a doctrine of racism is a
nonsense. To claim that Islam could be anti-Semitic on racist grounds is
doubly a nonsense because the Arabs and the Jews are the same race - they
are both Semites. Religious communities of Christians, Jews, Buddhists,
Hindus and many more can be found throughout the Muslim world that have
pre-existed the arrival of Islamic rule. These communities have always lived
alongside Muslims. The same cannot be said about either the history of
Judaism or Christianity. For example the Jewish community in Spain had what
is widely recognised as the Golden Age of Judaism under Muslim rule. For
example, in his book "Judaism, the way of Holiness" Professor Solomon
Nigosian states :
"The Muslim invasion of Spain in AD 711 was welcomed by the Jews, and for
the next seven centuries Spanish Jews were to become the leaders of
worldwide Judaism. They entered the fields of government, science, medicine,
philosophy, literature and architecture, making outstanding contributions.
Little wonder that scholars identify this flowering of Jewish intellect in
Muslim Spain as the Golden Age of Judaism.
The Spanish Jews (Sephardim) migrated to the centre of Muslim power in
Turkey and to North Africa when they were kicked out of Spain for being
Jewish by the resurgent Catholic church in the 15th century.
The very idea of universal rights only came into Western culture after
interactions with the Muslim world. The earliest reference to the
codification that Encyclopaedia Britannica can find, of course studiously
ignoring Islamic sources, is a treaty made between a new Christian ruler in
the Iberian peninsula in 1188 and the nobles. The nobles demanded and got
from the king a guarantee to rights for protection of life and limb,
property and honour and a regular trial. It is interesting that this
happened in the area of Europe with most experience of Muslim rule at the
time. These rights match all but the last two rights that Muslims and
non-Muslims had under Muslim rule in that area and that Muslims have have
been taught as part of beginner courses in Islamic law for many centuries.
Specifically under Islamic law Muslim rulers must guarantee the following
rights to all people: the right to life and limb, the right to property, the
right to honour, the right to think (freedom of conscience) and the right to
practice your religion. These rights are part of the overall aim identified
for Islamic law as the general welfare of the people.
Truly universal rights which applied for both nobles and for the common man
were not adopted by Western civilisation until well after these Iberian
pacts.
Even though Islamic law does not represent unjust discrimination in favour
of Muslims over non-Muslims, the very fact that the law is coming from Islam
rather than some kind of secular lawmaking processes is to some people
unjust discrimination in favour of Muslims by implementing "their laws".
This argument however, is beyond the subject of this essay and is discussed
elsewhere.
Perpetrators or Victims?
"As data collected by the Stephen Roth Institute at Tel Aviv University, and
other research, makes clear, the rise in anti-Semitism in Europe coincided
with the beginning of al-Aqsa intifada - and Israel's heavy-handed
response - with most of these attacks limited to acts of vandalism on
synagogues and cemeteries. As the institute also makes clear, the
perpetrators of these attacks, like those who attacked rabbi Gigi, were
largely disaffected Islamic youths, a group itself that is the victim of
some of the worst race hate and discrimination in Europe. "
When injustice is allowed to stand, the inevitable consequence is that the
victim will start to take matters into their own hands. Limited in
resources, the danger of vigilantism is that in a keenness to punish the
perpetrator, the wrong persons are targeted and punished thus producing more
injustice. This process fuels a fire of escalating injustice. This is what
we see happening in occupied Palestine today and in many other places. It is
the process behind the rise in anti-Semitism seen in the statistics referred
to by Peter Beaumont. The key to breaking this cycle is found in
forgiveness:
The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if
a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from God: for
(God) loveth not those who do wrong.
(Qur'an 42:40)
Nor can goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: Then
will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and
intimate!
(Qur'an 41:34)
The general principle of ethics in Islam is to behave towards others the way
you want God to behave towards you. Specifically, as is in the first of the
two quotes above: forgive others for what they have done to you so that God
forgives you what you have done wrong. Or as in the prayer taught by Jesus
(peace be upon him) "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who
trespass against us". In today's world there is still a great deal of racism
and other forms of unjust discrimination, but although there is agreement
that it is bad, controversies swirl around how people should be compensated
for it. The UN conference on racism was a good example of the problems
associated with the blame and compensation culture which is so dominant
today. The Jewish race was recompensed for their suffering at the hands of
the Nazis by being given a state in Palestine. But how should the
Palestinians be recompensed for their losses? Give them back Palestine?
Black people wanted recompense for the generations of slavery they have
suffered at the hands of Europeans. In the end the conference achieved no
new substantive deal to recompense anyone. The fact of the matter is in
almost all of these controversies that the guilty people have died and their
children cannot be blamed for the sins of their parents. This kind of
blaming is precisely the misidentification of the perpetrators that fuels
the cycles of injustice. For peace and harmony to come about people need to
move on - forgive and forget.
Forgiving and forgetting does not mean however, blinding ourselves to what
is happening around the world. Naivety is not a virtue. It is essential that
we reveal the injustices that are happening, not merely in an attempt to
justify our own actions, but so that we can learn to avoid doing them
ourselves. We are only responsible for what we have the authority to do and
we must make sure that we ourselves do no injustice. If we can by our
actions prevent injustice then we should also do so. This may involve
fighting against an oppressor, but this shouldn't be due to wanting revenge.
It should be purely in the interests of establishing justice. Where we can
only speak out we must also make sure that we do so and that our speech does
no injustice to anyone.
Racist attacks of all descriptions are to be condemned for their injustice.
Identifying which group is suffering worst from such attacks cannot justify
ignoring any of them. To say that there are twice as many attacks against
Muslims as against Jews doesn't in any way justify failing to deal with the
injustice done against the Jews. If the number of attacks were equal does
that make everything fine? No, of course not. Two wrongs do not make a
right. A Muslim attacking an innocent Jew does not justify a Jew attacking
an innocent Muslim nor visa versa. Each attack must be treated as a separate
injustice that needs our effort to rectify.
Since September 11, a concerted effort has been underway in some quarters to
bring about a 'clash of civilisations" between Islam and the West. Part of
this is through inflammatory articles and speeches some of which can be
clearly and justly labelled as anti-Semitic or islamophobic, (though little
of which could be characterised as racist against Westerners). On the other
side of the spectrum are efforts to bring about a dialogue of civilisations.
In bringing about such dialogue we cannot start by pointing fingers and
casting blame. Instead, we must recognise the areas of agreement and build
on them.
Conclusion
Islam is about establishing justice between people, and through justice,
peace. Islam stands clearly against all forms of racism. Islam protects the
universal, God-given rights of humankind, while recognising that people have
differing paths in religion which they are free to follow and which confer
differing social and economic rights among people such as in marriage,
divorce and inheritance. This freedom is at the heart of the tolerance of
Islam.
In this world there are many injustices, among these are the rise of
anti-Semitism especially that manifested in unjust attacks on innocent Jews,
the islamophobia and the attacks on innocent Muslims and the numerous other
cases where human rights are violated across the world. In seeking to heal
the world of these problems, we need to understand how victims become
perpetrators and in our sympathy for the victims we must avoid becoming
perpetrators ourselves. Key to this process is providing sincere and fair
criticism, criticism that is clearly intended not to inflame but to help.
Sometimes it may be harsh but it must always be factual and fair. To make
our helpful intention clear we need to identify the good actions of those
being criticised ,as well as identifying their bad actions, and we need to
avoid intending retribution by our criticism by forgiving those who have
injured us or at least clearly being prepared to do so, should they ask for
it. If it is done right, this will help to create, not inflamed argument,
but sincere dialogue.
We need a dialogue of civilisations, not a monologue and not a clash of
civilisations.
Bibligraphy and further reading suggestions:
The Yusuf Ali Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an (Amana Trust
publications USA)
Al Tawhid: Its implications for thought and life - Ismail Raji al Faruqi
(International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) ISBN 0-912463-80-5 (PB))
The Principles of State and Government in Islam - Muhammad Asad (Dar
Al-Andalus - printed by Redwood Press Limited in the UK)
Judaism, The way of Holiness - Soloman Nigosian (Crucible - ISBN
0-85030-429-6)
Numerous articles are available on the internet including:
The transcript of the speech to the IPCAA by the Chief Rabbi
http://www.chiefrabbi.org
Muslim perspectives on current news stories:
http://www.iviews.com
http://www.cair-net.org
http://www.salaam.co.uk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 13-07-02 MEST