Debunking Western Myths About Islam

The following is an article I wrote in response to Dr. Timothy R. Furnish's article"Seven Myths About Islam". Mr. Furnish is an assistant professor of history, Georgia Perimeter College, Dunwoody, and the author of Holiest Wars: Islamic Mahdis, their Jihads and Osama bin Laden (Praeger, 2005).

It is true that 9/11 terrorist attacks had renewed American, and Western, interest in Islam and the Middle East. And it is also true that there has been systematic misleading information, or it is better to say, disinformation in this regard. No one can deny the media is taking its toll on Islam and Muslims, wrongfully stereotyping them and always inciting the feelings in the Muslim world by reckless and disgraceful actions as it may be seen in the ceaseless stream of offensive cartoons made under the guise of freedom of expression, which miraculously ceases to apply when it comes to hotly-debated issues such as the holocaust or the Jewish history. It shows nothing but the Western hypocrisy, or, the politically-correct double standardism.

Your first myth, that it is not true that Islam is the world's fastest-growing religion, was followed by the very unrealistic myth of your own creation that Christianity is the world's most-rapidly growing faith. While having the biggest number of followers is nothing of importance to Islam and is not a reason to brag about, because there are many who are counted as Muslims while they are really not, it is still proved untrue that Christianity is the world's fastest growing faith as you claim in your essay.
I refer you to these statements made by your own people:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

And it is really interesting to know that Christianity is gaining ground outside the borders of Europe and especially in China and the Sub-Saran countries!
For Muslims, there are many constant reminders that Islam came into existence as a foreigner (among pagan and hostile nations). The early Muslim state was founded by handful number of men who set the examples in many situations, see Badr battle, that it was never how much men do you have, but how much of them practice what they believe in. But at any rate, you made an absolutely wrong statement and invented a new myth of which credit will goes to you, as no one even the most fundamentalist Christians ever said that Christianity is surpassing Islam in growth rates or is the world fastest-growing faith.

Second: Islam is not solely a religion of peace. You made your argument on verses you say outweigh the verses that call for toleration in the Qura'n. You mentioned the verse in Surat Al Anfal number 12" When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying:) I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger", and verse number 3(actually you mean 4) on the beheading of the unbelievers. I wonder how come you get your Ph.D. in Islamic history while ignoring, or may be intentionally disregarding, the fact that these two verses were said in the right of those who disbelieve(pagans at that time) because they were declaring a state of war against Islam at that time. You intentionally forget that this should not apply to Christians or Jews because whenever they are concerned in the Qura'n, Allah always use the honorific title" people of the scripture" to distinguish them from non-monotheists.

Beating wives in Islam is only permitted to the smallest scale possible that even you can't with such beating harm a little children let a lone an adult fully fledged woman. The Mother of the believers Aisha said that "the Prophet has never beaten any woman or a maid"(authentic account, mentioned in the Bukhari). And as Muslims, we all ordered to follow suit. Besides, even in the verse in question from Surat Al Nisa(Woman)- by the way there are no chapters or suras in the Qura'n named Men- which reads" Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allâh has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allâh and to their husbands), and guard in the husband's absence what Allâh orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband's property). As to those women on whose part you see ill¬conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allâh is Ever Most High, Most Great ".
You can see the sequence of events: first one has to admonish, then, if they continue to show ill conduct he can refuse to share beds with them as part of the remedy and the last thing is beating, lightly- a beating which must not be harming, as it was made clear in different hadiths.
It goes without saying that the last thing the Prophet Muhammad recommended Muslims to do is to take care of women and to show tenderness and be pious towards Allah when they deal with women.

Concerning the verse in Surat al-Ma’idah" O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliyâ’, they are but Auliyâ’ of each other", the word walay, or auliya, means more than a friend, as it means a protector, defender or sponsor, and sometimes also the word aulia, singular wali, is used to mean rulers. So it is not an order to stay away from the Jews or the Christians as you have implied, but rather, it is an injunction not to make them defenders or patrons or rulers above our fellow Muslims and this is quite fair and proved to be right all the time, and I can provide you with many evidences to substantiate the fact that the Christians have always sided with the Jews against Muslims.
While you surely have read Surat Al Ma'ida, of which you have extracted the verse you have mentioned, you intentionally forget to mention other verses which praise the Christians for their affinity, or the should-be affinity, with Muslims. I refer to the verses from 81 to 85 in the same Sura, i.e. Al Ma'ida: "Verily, you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers (Muslims) the Jews and those who are Al-Mushrikûn (see V.2:105), and you will find the nearest in love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: "We are Christians." That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud. (82) And when they (who call themselves Christians) listen to what has been sent down to the Messenger (Muhammad SAW), you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of the truth they have recognised. They say: "Our Lord! We believe; so write us down among the witnesses. (83) "And why should we not believe in Allâh and in that which has come to us of the truth (Islâmic Monotheism)? And we wish that our Lord will admit us (in Paradise on the Day of Resurrection) along with the righteous people (Prophet Muhammad SAW and his Companions radhiallahu'anhuã)." (84) So because of what they said, Allâh rewarded them Gardens under which rivers flow (in Paradise), they will abide therein forever. Such is the reward of Al-Muhsinûn (the good-doers).

I should also refer to another verse in the Qura'n which uses the word tauala, to which the word aulia is related: "Allâh does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion nor drove you out of your homes. Verily, Allâh loves those who deal with equity. (8) It is only as regards those who fought against you on account of religion, and have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out, that Allâh forbids you to befriend them. And whosoever will befriend them, then such are the Zâlimûn (wrong-doers those who disobey Allâh). (Sura 60. Al-Mumtahana))

The verse is clear enough and the Qura'n is an integral body which can't be divided or deemed to have conflicting orders. It may be wrongfully shown to have conflicting orders when this is part of a decontextualization process as the one you introduced in your essay. Any academic writer, not necessarily some one who has a Ph.D. in Islamic history or Islamic law, knows the blunders and misinformation that would result when you take a text out of its context, let a lone a holy text that must be related to circumstances that prompted a certain revelation to be understood well to base your judgments and final results.

Your third myth on the "misinformation parade is the allegation that jihad does not mean holy war", is a more deluding phrase and another example of twisting facts with personal understanding or misunderstanding. Jihad is a word derived from the verb jahada which means to strive for, make every effort; to fight, do one's best, and to endeavor among other meanings. You mentioned some of these meanings and said it is half-right. According to your account, jihad came to mean fighting against unbelievers in order to expand territory under Muslim rule in early Islamic history. This is also half-right. There are many hadiths- hadith or tradition of the Prophet is a source of legislation in Islam and is the highest authority with the Qura'n since we all believe all hadiths are words of God said by His Messenger- that relates jihad to other types of struggle. The Prophet was once asked by one of his companions" which jihad is better?", which means even the companions of the Prophet knew there are many types of jihad, and the Prophet replied by saying" it is a word of truth before a tyrannical sultan"(authentic hadith).
I don't know what made you make such a statement that jihad means Muslim piety mainly for Sufis whom are minority according to your statement. I am a Sunni and it is still true for Sunnis that jihad means fighting back enemies and also struggling against one's evil desires and saying truth whatever the cost may be. As for the Ottoman Empire, the reason they called it a Holy War against the French, the British and the Russians in WWI was merely to draw support of the Muslim nations under their control at then. And Islam is not, and should not be, responsible for what the Ottoman empire did.

Concerning your fourth myth that "the whopper that Islam spread peacefully from Arabia", it is one more manifestation of your off-the-peg misrepresentation. There is no compulsion in religion, and this is a well known Muslim rule.
How can a religion that forbids cruelty against animals and tells us that a woman has doomed herself to hell because she caged a cat and denied the cat access to water or to let the cat search for food, be cruel against a human being? Did not the Prophet whom you call supported harshness and spread his call by the sword said once that "Allah rewarded and praised" a man who has once seen a dog craving for water and then provided the dog with water?

Islam fully grants the freedom to a creed. Allah says" Say (O Muhammad (SAW) to these Mushrikûn and Kâfirûn): "O Al-Kâfirûn (disbelievers in Allâh, in His Oneness, in His Angels, in His Books, in His Messengers, in the Day of Resurrection, and in Al-Qadar)! (1) "I worship not that which you worship, (2) "Nor will you worship that which I worship. (3) "And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping. (4) "Nor will you worship that which I worship. (5) "To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islâmic Monotheism)." (6) ( Surat Al Kafiroun 109 verses from 1 to 6).

Again, the freedom to a creed is emphasized in this verse" And say: "The truth is from your Lord. Then whosoever wills, let him believe, and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve" (surat al Kahf 18-29).

The reasons to start a war on Islam-Yeas you can not start a war except for very limited reasons unlike the way things are run by any US administration- are demonstrated in the following verses from surat al Baqara:
" And fight in the Way of Allâh[] those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the transgressors. [This Verse is the first one that was revealed in connection with Jihâd, but it was supplemented by another (V.9:36)]. (190) And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah[] is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-Al-Harâm (the sanctuary at Makkah),[] unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. (191) But if they cease, then Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (192) And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers.) (193"

More to come:" So if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then Allâh has opened no way for you against them"(4-89).

The paramount rule concerning any act of war in Islam is clearly set forth in the this verse" But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and (put your) trust in Allâh. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower"( 8-61).

Remember the way the Prophet acted towards the dwellers of Mecca after the great victory over them, a bloodless conquest that was only made possible after Quraish broke its truce with the Prophet, and his(PBUH) immortal saying to them" you are free to go, you are surely at liberty".

Your fifth myth regarding the Crusades and how it is untrue that European Catholic Crusaders started the war with Islam is one more manifestation of your unscholarly approach. While the declared goal of the Crusades was to recapture Jerusalem and the sacred Holy Land under the banners of the Church, they had hidden agenda and economic and political aspirations. It is untrue that the Crusades were simply the first time that European Christians managed to take the fight to their enemy's territories.
The horrible crimes that were committed against the crusaders' co-religionists in the Fourth Crusade are but a reminder of how cruel and aggressive were the Crusades and not as you simply put it. The looting and plunders of a Greek Christian city, i.e. Constantinople, still shadow the relations among different Christian denominations. And I need not to talk about what the "defensive" crusaders did to the" offensive" Muslims at that time!
To juxtapose Usama ben Laden phraseology in your argument is a perfect marriage between unscholarly approach with self-defeating claims.

Your sixth myth" Another fairy tale about Islam is that poverty produces terrorists" and how it is naivety from the part of the Americans to take their paradigm about poverty and crime and how the former causes the latter and apply it on a context where it doesn't fit is nothing but a part of the broader decontextualization in your essay. While it is still unjustifiable and strictly forbidden to kill innocents and launch terrorist attacks, it is not only poverty that produces terrorism, rather, it is also the feeling of injustice and despair over the biased US policy in the Middle East, and actually everywhere else in a unipolar world. It the systematic genocides committed everywhere against Muslims- in Bosnia and Palestine to mention but a few.

The seventh myth, that it is not true to repeat that Islam has been hijacked by terrorists, has to do with the pervious myth and allegations. UBL, ayatollahs in Iran, Taliban, the Saudi Wahabism- all are twisting religion to fit their political agenda and they are not an authority on Islam. A good Muslim is by definition a peaceful one. There are absolutely no verses in the Qura'n or hadiths that allows the killing of innocent people, and I challenge you to bring me some that says otherwise.

It is Muslims, not Islam, who are in a critical and hard situation. Thanks to imperial aggressions and long-time colonization, most of the Arab and Muslim countries are having economic and social ills. However, this is by no means an absolution of our own failures to catch up with the advanced world and should never be an excuse to our rulers who saddled their peoples with intolerable inequities and ceaseless tyranny.

It is true that an interfaith dialogue and cross-cultural communication should be based on honesty and openness, but this will not happen through misinformation and misrepresentation of facts concerning a religion that is not responsible for, and is not conforming to, the deeds of some of those who attributed themselves thereto.