Dr. Murtada Al-Mahturi (*)

I set about writing a paper which lays down my understandings of terrorism, violence, and the peaceful rotation of power, and these come from my own experiences and sufferings. I have become acquainted with violence close at hand, and been burnt by the fire of ideological and actual terrorism, and it is no great effort for me to unearth memories of terrorism, violence and despotism.

The bloody sequence began with what I saw with my own eyes, at the age of 13 or a little more, whilst sheltering in the mountains to the east of my village for fear of the air strikes on the areas to the north of Yemen. This was in the days of the war of ‘Abd al-Nasser, when the Saudis were in Yemen. It was a rural community populated by farmers and their animals who had no relationship with military activities; moreover, we were among the ranks of the republicans, but even so we were not spared the attacks and the terrorisation.

One scene that I cannot forget was when a plane passed over during noon prayers, and bombed a mosque in the town of al-Muhabisha which was crowded with worshipers. The aircraft almost brushed the roof of the mosque, and as there were no anti-aircraft defences, it blew up the people inside. There were 75 people, and only one emerged.

A second incident: One day we were at the ‘Al-Qurana’ mosque, taking refuge in study, when early in the morning a black plane approached.  From the east it released a whole strip of bombs extending from the tranquil town of al-Muhabisha as far as the foot of the mountain. I threw myself to the ground to avoid the shrapnel, as we had been taught to do. I had grown used to terrorism of this type, and hell’s fires raining down from the sky had come to represent a terrifying game... but I did not run away. Instead I went to see the remnants left by the air-strike. I saw a poor old frail man lying dead next to a stove for roasting some kind of grains from which he had been scraping out some stark living for himself and his family.

I also saw a six year old child smashed to the ground outside. His leg had been severed above the knee, leaving it dangling. He was moaning and bleeding to death, and there was an old woman standing by him who was crying and didn’t know what to do for him.  I stood aghast, feeling stupid and desolate and distressed. I did not offer this child any help – what could I do?! There were no emergency services, no modes of communication, not even basic... there was nothing. We are still as we were in the days of Noah, may peace be upon him.

What was most painful was to hear the base republicans extolling those murderous terrorists from the Pacific to the Gulf – ‘We’ll vouch for you ‘Abdul Qaher’....., or ‘by God we’ll come to your aid, Fundum.’

The violence and cruelty and terrorism that are practised in this world take many forms, some more vile than others, but although we suffer from lack of blood, we still squeeze out what is left in our veins after the slaughter to cheer for the butcherers, and to safeguard the murderers.

The seeds of this type of culture were sewn in the days of the al-Mulk al-Adud (dynastic kingship), when oppression, tyranny and despotism were established in the proximity of ‘the scholars of power’ – who came bearing justifications, and fabricating apologies for the violence of the ruler. The assignation of the establishment of the kingship to independent legal judgement after the rule of the Rightly Guided Caliphs sparked off a battle in which 70 thousand men fell, and the sequence of violence and killing continued under this name, all in vain. Then it came to pass that the Muslim Caliphate became hereditary, so that the earth and all objects, animals and people that were in it were incorporated into a kingdom pertaining to the Wali.

In these times when Islamic rule was comparable to the Byzantine or Persian regimes, violent Islamic movements arose. The most prominent of these was led by the children of the Imam Ali. The revolts in opposition to the despot’s tyranny were almost confined to the family of the Prophet, but with the exception of the revolt of the people of the city of ‘Ala Yazid, and the revolution of Ibn al-Asha’af against ‘Abdul Malik Bin Marwan and his agent al-Hajjaj, even though his movement originated, albeit spiritually, from the Imam Hassan Bin al-Hassan Bin ‘Ali([1]) .... As for the other violent movements, the Kharajites were their knights.

I will clarify by summarising the main characteristics of the violence, the causative factors and the distinguishing features of each movement:

The First Movement: Under the Leadership of Al Al-Bayt
Imam al-Hussein  refused to make the Baya (pledge of allegience): The Umma were driven like sheep to pledge allegiance to Yazid Bin Mu’awwiyah. Al-Hussein himself felt this ignominy, together with ‘Abdullah Bin al-Zubayr and ‘Abdullah Bin ‘Amr. When Mu’awwiyah called on them to pledge their allegiance to Yazid as successor to the throne, they resisted. He said to them: ‘Tomorrow I will make a speech and whosoever amongst you says a word in reply will lose his head.’ Mu’awwiyah spoke to the crowd about the capabilities of his son and his suitability to command; he was only pushing for him to be made successor to the throne out of fear that the Umma would lose control.  Then he spoke, and after the rest of the Umma had sworn allegiance, he pointed out al-Hussein and his colleagues, and had two feet put on each of their heads to crush the skull of whoever opposed([2]). When Mu’awwiyah died, al-Hussein was required to pledge allegiance voluntarily or by force.([3])  Here we must stop to consider whether it was al-Hussein or Yazid who succeeded. I believe that the name alone of al-Hussein has become a symbol of all that is good and noble in a human being and worthy of a descendent of the Prophet. If this is so, then the name Yazid by comparison is a symbol to mankind of evil in every sense of the word.

And al-Hussein? – Learned, Pious, God-fearing, Ascetic, Known by God, Noble, Modest, Brave,  Most Highly Educated – in comparison to a brutal man who commanded the Umma – ignorant, obscene, useless.

The armed revolts of the Al al-Bayt began with al-Hussein, then Zaid bin ‘Ali and his son Yahia, and then Muhammad Bin ‘Abdullah al-Nafs al-Zakia and his brother Ibrahim and al-Hussein al-Fakhi and Muhammad Bin Ibrahim Tabataba and others.

 They were approved of and respected by the Umma and their Ulama even though many could not participate in those revolts for fear of the ruthlessness which lays waste to the civilisation of mankind.

In spite of that, the Imam Abu Hanifa, peace be upon him, decided by legal opinion to fight with Imam Zaid, and sent him money([4]), and the Imam Malik, peace be upon him, decided not to legitimize the pledge of allegiance to Abu al-Duwaniq, the second of the Abbasid Kings([5]), and made it incumbent to fight with the two Imams, al-Nafs al-Zakia and his brother Ibrahim.

The Imam al-Shafi’i, peace be upon him, as part of a cell supervised by Sheikh Ibrahim Ibn Muhammad Bin Abu Yahia, took charge of the call for the pledge of allegiance to Imam Yahia Bin Abdullah Bin Al-Hassan, brother of Muhammad Bin Abdullah al-Nafs al-Zakiya against Harun al-Rashid.([6])

This demonstrates the integrity of revolts against oppression, and the confidence in their leaders on account of their loftiness, their religious positions, their attainment of great knowledge which attracted admiration and qualified them to sit on the tribune of the senior religious authority, in addition to their religious positions and their closeness to the Prophet of God.

Nonetheless, the despotic rulers and oppressive kings, in spite of their shameful and ugly ways in ruling over the people and over wealth, did not make light of the danger posed by sons of ‘Ali and fought them zealously. The people saw this as a war between this world and the next. 

We know that people follow the religion of their leaders, and they are inclined towards this world, with the exception of those who fear God.

       I saw people gathering                        to the one who has Gold

       I saw people streaming                        to the one who has Silver

       I saw people administrating                  to the one who has Money

The Second Movement - under the Leadership of the Kharajites
The Kharajites were a prominent example of blind violence, Tafkiri thought and terrifying extremism. Thus their evil originated in the behaviour of Hurqus Bin Zuhair as-Sa’adi([7]) - ‘Dhul Khawisara’ and ‘Dhul Thadia’ who was killed in Nahrawan. I imagine him to have had a shaven head, a thick beard and a thin shirt, and bulging veins, reeling with ignorance, self-deception, and light-headedness([8]).

He approached the Prophet of God as he was dividing the spoils of the Hawazin from the Conquest of Hunain and said: ‘Oh Muhammad act justly, where you did not act justly…!’ Thus he addressed the Prophet with crudeness, vulgarity and impudence. The Prophet was infuriated and the features of his face altered, since he sensed in this Bedouin the forerunner of great misfortune, and the harbinger of a people to come. He said: ‘Woe unto you, for who would be just if I were not?!’

Then the Prophet added: ‘Verily, a time will come when a people from this man's progeny will emerge. They will mix our prayers with theirs fervently, and they will recite the Quran, but its spirit will not go beyond their throats.  They will renounce the true faith as swiftly as an arrow flies from the marksman.’([9])

They appeared in the days of the Caliphate of Imam Ali, fulfilling the prophesy of the Prophet of God, and they were as al-Bukhari described them:

‘They kill the peoples of Islam, but they will not disturb the idolatrous peoples. If I am still alive in their time, I shall kill them as the people of ‘Ad were killed.’([10])

In truth, they came with blind violence and terrorism both intellectual and actual, and no group was able to overcome them except by possessing lethal weapons.

The Kharajites, before they became the Kharajites, were the worshipers and readers of Iraq, and they belonged to ‘Ali’s army in his war against Mu’awiyyah in Siffin. They chose immoderate violence and severe extremism because of their stupidity and the superficiality of their thought, and the fundamental venality of their intellects.

Mu’awiyyah realised that he was on the point of defeat, and he consulted ‘Amr Ibn al-Aas, who signalled to him to bring five hundred volumes of the Quran, including the volume of the Great Holy House, to be raised on the tips of spears, and to shout as they were carried: ‘This is the book of God, which is the arbitrator between us and you, oh people of Iraq’, and if their opponents accepted it then they would disagree, and if they rejected it then they would disagree. It was as anticipated by Ibn al-Aas; when almost 20 thousand of Ali’s soldiers approached, they prostrated themselves on the ground, laying down their swords, and saying to the Imam ‘Ali: ‘the people have deferred to the arbitration of God’s Book.’ And ‘Ali, realising the crux of the trick, said to them: ‘There is a word of truth in what they say, but their ends are devious([11]). They are not the trustees of religion, nor of the Qu’ran. I fought them when they disbelieved the Qu’ran, and today I fight them when they are infatuated. Lend me your strength for but one hour and there will be nothing left of them but the lick of a dog’; but they grew in nothing but foolhardiness and stupidity, and they insisted on accepting arbitration.

‘Ali yielded after they threatened to hand him over to al-Mu’awwiyah if he did not comply. Mu’awwiyah appointed ‘Amr as judge, and ‘Ali appointed Ibn ‘Abbas, but his men opposed him, choosing Abu Musa al-Asha’ari instead. The farce ended with bitter betrayal and resounding scandal. For Abu Musa went up and disowned ‘Ali gladly, and then ‘Amr came up behind him and said: ‘he has deposed his master, and I agree with him, and I have affirmed my master Mu’awiyyah. He is the avenger of the blood of ‘Uthman, more deserving to command than ‘Ali.’ And so the Kharajites left, repeating their words: ‘There is no arbitrator but God’, and they judged themselves and society to be blasphemous, and they repented. Then they committed themselves anew [to God], and they demanded ‘Ali to confess to blasphemy and to repent it. He said: ‘I counselled you and warned you and you defied me, and if there is an offence then it does not make the offender a disbeliever, so repent and return that we may fight Mu’awiyyah’. But they persisted in their position of declaiming ‘Ali as a Kafir and in repeating their phrase: ‘there is no arbitrator except God.’([12])

‘Ali once again recited his famous judgement: ‘There is truth in what they say but their ends are devious’. The people must stop the hand of the oppressor, obtain justice for the oppressed, and undertake the interest of the people. The Quran called for arbitration in the case of a disagreement between a married couple, so what do you think would be the case in disagreement between two sects? But their attitude was like that described by the poet:

Had you called a living man I would have heard

But there is no life in the one you are calling

If you blew into fire it would burn brightly

But you are blowing into ashes

Imam ‘Ali continued to treat them like all other people, and did not transgress against them in word or deed, desiring to bring them back to dialogue and persuasion. He almost succeeded, but there were some of al-Mu’awiyyah’s men in ‘Ali’s ranks such as al-Asha'ath Bin Qais, who spoiled everything.

And they went out, became bandits, intimidating innocents, and killing those who did not share their opinion.

An example of their bizarre conduct: ‘Abdullah Bin Khabab al-Sahabi Bin al-Sahabi passed by them, bearing the Quran, with his woman who was pregnant. They asked him his opinion of ‘Ali, and he replied that he was a rightly guided Imam, more knowledgeable of God then they, more strict in his observance of religion, and more clear sighted. They said: you follow a whim, and you judge men on the basis of their names, not their actions. By Allah, we will kill you in a way no one has been killed before. They took him and bound him. Then they approached him and his wife who was heavily pregnant and brought them under the date trees. The Kharijites pulled down some ripe dates and one of them picked one up and they prevented him from eating it, saying he had no right without paying for it. He spat it out of his mouth. Then he took his sword and made his oath. A pig belonging to the Ahl al-Dhimma passed by and he struck it with his sword. They told him that this was wrong, and when the owner of the pig came he compensated him. When Bin Khabab saw this he protested that they should also treat him well since was a Muslim and they had guaranteed him safe passage and said – ‘Do not fear’…. They approached, stretched him out and slaughtered him, and his blood ran into the water. Then they approached his wife, and she said: ‘I am but a woman; have you no fear of God?!’ They ripped open her side, and also killed three women of the Bani Ta’ia, and killed Umm Sanan al-Saidawiya.([13])

Another example of their bizarre behaviour was when a caravan of travellers including Wasil Bin ‘Ata'a, head of the Mu’atazila, fell into the hands of the Kharajites. Wasil convinced the convoy to let him talk to them alone. He asked them ‘What do you want from us?’ They said ‘who are you?’, and he replied: ‘we are a polytheistic people, asking for your protection, and seeking to learn more of the words of God and we are afraid’. They said: ‘pass in peace’. He said: ‘It is not you, but your Quran, that says so.

(‘And if any of the polytheists seeks your protection, grant him protection so that he may hear the word of Allah, then conduct him to a place that is safe. This is how they are to be treated, for they are a people who have no knowledge [of Islam].’) [al-Taubah: 6].

When they heard this they went together to escort the caravan to conduct them until they reached their homes.([14])

‘Ali advanced to contain them. He did not want to attack them and even called on them to engage in dialogue, and to cease the doubt that had brought them into confrontation with him, when they said: ‘you lost your status as Commander of the Faithful when you wrote the deed of arbitration, when Ibn al-Aas refrained from accepting the deed of ‘Ali, Commander of the Faithful, saying: ‘If I had recognised him as Commander of the Faithful then I would not have fought him’. And he said ‘something like this happened to the Prophet of God (Peace be Upon Him) in al-Hudaybiya, and I was writing the deed, and I wrote – this is what reconciles Muhammad the Prophet of God and Suhail Bin ‘Amru. Suhail objected and said: ‘If I knew that you were the Prophet of God then I would not have been warring against you, so write your name and your father’s name’. The Prophet of God instructed me to erase it and I did not apply myself, and the Prophet of God (Peace be Upon Him) said ‘show me the place’, and he erased it with his noble hand. Before this, Suhail Bin ‘Amru had objected to ‘In the name of God the Compassionate and the Merciful’, and said: ‘write your own name.’([15])

After this, two thousands of their associates joined him, and the others blocked their ears. They said: Do not listen to him, for he is one of the people about whom God said: ‘they are a contentious people’ [al-Zukhruf: 59]. When he was aware of the trick, he fought them, and they fought him, and only eight of them survived.

Though the only vessel be made of spears

Still, what choice does the compelled man have but to get onto it?

The behaviour of the Kharijites against the devout and fair Imam who respected people’s rights, and respected their duties, was, by the consensus of the Muslims and all mankind, violence and terrorism and extremism.

Have you ever heard of a chief or a king who commends violent enemies such as the Kharajites – who were the cause of his difficulties and failure in the issue of Mu’awwiyah’s rebellion, the destruction of his army and wearing down of his power? But ‘Ali said: ‘do not fight the Kharajites after me. Those who fight for the truth but are mislead along the way are not as bad as those who fight for falsehood and achieve their ends’. By the latter he referred to Mu’awwiyah.([16])

Personally, while I detest their behaviour towards ‘Ali because of my conviction in ‘Ali’s justice, I hold Mu’awwiyah fully responsible. It was he who caused them to lose their way, and I feel that their manliness was belittled and their religion shaken as a result of that humiliating deception – that used the copy of the Holy Quran as a ploy! How could the Quran, that ‘Ali’s brigade carried, and for the sake of which the Muslims fought from the first day alongside the Prophet of God, become the cause of ‘Ali’s defeat and the fall of his army?!

Are we not entitled to refer the cause of extremist movements back to the ploys of politicians?!

I hope you will lend me your attention so that I may recount to you what I have witnessed and how I have been burnt by the fire of what I have seen:

The First Scene: Over four centuries ago, a people whose beards were ample, whose turbans white, whose intellects slight and whose blood thick, and they sowed dissent and civil disorder amongst us, and cultivated hatred. They fought over matters of transmission and inclusion and the inspiration of righteous action, Shiism, God’s vision and His seat on a throne and descent in the last third to the lowest level of heaven, the creation of the Quran, its revelation and God’s writing of it, and whether it could be touched by the menstruating woman and the man in the state of major impurity, the sprinkling of water on shoes, the exit from Hell, the infidelity of Abi Taleb, the glorification of Abi Safyan and his grandchildren, and so forth. Their invocation was: O God, kill the Shi’a and the Communist’.

This is bearing in mind that Al-Zaydi Shiism in Yemen does not prevent ‘Ali from being given preference above all of the Companions, with all of their authority and charity. The flawlessness of the Five ‘Ahl al-Kisa’ (People of the Cloak) is not the same as the flawlessness that is particular to the Prophet (Peace be Upon Him). Rather it is like the purification mentioned in the verse:

‘Verily, God wants to rid you of all uncleanliness and to purify you completely.’ [al-Ahzab: 33]

Flawlessness meant that ‘Ali and Fatima and Hassan and Hussein did not commit offences. That is all that is meant.

Since I, like others, sanctify those pure individuals, and hold them in the highest esteem, and I have my own opinion on this flawlessness, I am nevertheless not disturbed by al-Zaydi flawlessness, and I know that it is synonymous with purification and devoutness.

We have faced torment and ideological and actual terrorism, and violence reaching our very mosques, homes and markets, our councils, schools and universities.

We feel, God forbid, the weight of their hatred and their will to detonate bombs in our faces, may God spare us.

I never heard them talking about Zionism and its dangers, rather their chief concern are the Shi’a, and more precisely the Zaydis. When we say to them: Leave us till last and start with Israel, they say: No, for you are more dangerous to Muslims then the Jews and the Christians.

How many farcical booklets could I list which are nothing more than a formula for self-destruction, and the unfortunate Arab Muslim citizen has been occupied with these sorts of platitudes:

1)      God’s Punishment for the offence of eating with a spoon, Abu Qatada

2)      Lightening thunderstorms in blaspheming of the Zaydi Shi’a, Abu ‘Abdul Rahman

3)      Instructing the fool in the duties of destroying the dome of the Prophet, Abu Hafas

4)      Informing the reader on the Appearance of the Creator, Abu Haijana

I heard an instigator in the vicinity of the Prophet’s grave (Peace be Upon Him) talking about the heresy of the Qubba (dome), and I hoped that some evil genie would come and strangle him and throw him into the Dead Sea! O those people! Once we have finished butchering vigilance to the al-Aqsa mosque will we devote ourselves to the Prophet’s Qubba!!

The Second Scene: I observed a peerless zealot sending young men to Afghanistan to engage in Jihad against the Russian apostate occupiers, and the mosques were busy telling of the virtue of Jihad and of sacrificing one’s life and one’s money in the name of God.

The green light was switched on from a window of the White House, and Arab leaders were asked to revive the exploits of Islamic Jihad, and the Eastern beacon of the ancient days, and they swore obedience and faithfulness to the White House at the Black Stone.

Legions of young Mujahidin flooded in – most were snatched without the knowledge of their families, and some left while their mothers and fathers cried.

Our merchants of Jihad made obscene profits from this trade, and they enriched themselves from the open coffers of the donors, devouring the support for the Afghani Jihad. These coffers were spread all over the mosques, attached to pillars by an iron chain which the Khutaba (preachers) of the mosques – i.e. the trustees – opened three times per day amidst cheers and praise for the great victory (I mean the big catch). Even the bathrooms of the mosques were not spared the coffers, let alone other facilities.

I was very wary from the mosque’s Minbar in the Friday sermon about this Jihad, blessed as it was by America, and supported by Arab states with money and men.  Why did no one acclaim the Jihad against the Zionists occupying Palestine?

God knows how I strained my voice, perceiving the obstacles and unhealthiness after the American mission had been achieved. I was saying: One Afghani amounts to five Yemenis in strength and honour, and they are stout fighters who have no need of bringing in innocents whose intention is Jihad and the passion to bear witness, and who know nothing of conspiracies.

But what occurred was a disaster, far worse than what Russia had established. The Communist union crumbled, and the international and Arab and Islamic secret intelligence forces were sent out by every side according to their own plans, abandoning the Mujahidin to their black fate.

They changed from honourable Mujahidin to terrorist Mujahidin, they were called the Arab-Afghanis, and they were pronounced a danger to their people and to the whole world, and they were educated in fanaticism and inertia and hatred of the Other.

Some of them were assimilated by certain organisations in order to obliterate their adversaries and to carry out dangerous missions, but the magic turned on the magician, time ran out, and the genie escaped from Suleyman’s bottle.

How it pained me to see students kidnapped from right before me, students who had been sustained by the honour of their learning and the principles of their tolerant and equitable religion. Amongst them was the shy polite ‘Yassin’ who used to coyly smile like the gentle breeze. How great my shock when I saw him after his return. If only he had not returned! He was leering, pent up with vile hatred, and he talked about me insolently and crudely. I do not know what caused all of this except for what I know about the convulsions of the Kharijites. ‘Yassin’ hopes that if he were to detonate a bomb in my face then his soul would fly to paradise, and my soul would be transferred without delay to hell, thinking in the same way as those who have blown up bombs and themselves in Iraqi mosques and streets and in the midst of wedding ceremonies in hotels in Jordan.

What went on – what has happened to you? He replies unwillingly, full of rage, ‘you should be annihilated, and we will destroy you when we are ordered to do so…’ My God! Who are ‘You’, and who are ‘We’?!

God save us from polytheism, O revengeful Mujahid, and compensate us for our loss in you and your kind. God will not spare those who planted thorns in your heart, and transformed you from a gentle breeze to a typhoon, from sweetness to bitter poison!

This type of person is like a bomb ready to explode in accordance with the wishes of those who programme it. Sometimes it is inside the organisation’s ammunition factory, sometimes on purpose, sometimes not, sometimes it is in the American’s bunker, or in the Shi’a mosque, or at weddings or funerals, or in popular markets.

The image is blurred, and personalisation difficult for Islamic movements of troubled combinations, affected by political, religious and economic factors.

The clearest example may be seen in the movement of Muhammad Bin ‘Abdul Wahab in Saudi, and the way in which Ibn Saud benefited from its violence and fanaticism, and from directing its ferocity towards eliminating the united polytheists, who were paying the price of political guidance to eliminate the enemy, and to extend the status of the Sultan.

When King ‘Abdul ‘Aziz (God have Mercy on Him) concluded consultations with them, he sensed the need to curb their caprice, and the structure of the civic state came in for a major shock. It was tamed and pacified, and this was facilitated by the culture of the duty of obedience to the Walis and hence there was no departure from what had been established by prayer.

The Wahabis had an effective role in spreading the culture of their society in many of God’s countries, partly because of the vast wealth involved in intensifying political influence.

One of the most heavily affected countries was Yemen, due to its proximity and poverty and ignorance. The Yemeni Wahabi movement dominated over the (Muslim) Brotherhood Organisation, or else the Brotherhood found Saudi to be more substantial and the brightness of the Brotherhood was dimmed.

The project of this Islamic activity is represented in the following observations:

1)      The expulsion of the Shi’a and the Communists. By Shi’a it is meant the Zaydis, and by Communist it is meant the people of South Yemen.

2)      The Sufis – meaning the Sha’afiya.

3)      The project of the Makarema –they were the Isma’ailis.

Summary:
Their discourse entered Yemeni society in the midst of the fighting and civil disorder and in spite of all this, their project made sweeping progress for a number of reasons:

First Reason: The authorities of North of Yemen completely supported them, because they provided assistance in the war against the ‘Left’, and more importantly, in grinding down the Zaydi doctrine and crushing it into the dust, because it was a doctrine for departing from oppression, and this was a vexing principle even to the Zaydi kings themselves. Similarly they assisted in crushing the Hashemites, of whom there were still many in Yemen.

Second Reason: The Saudis supported them boundlessly, both officially and popularly.

Third Reason: The people were attached to religion, and they were good at singing the praises of the Quran in voices that pleased their listeners, and at attracting attention and in committing to Islamic clothes – the shirt, the ample beard, and the sewak (small stick) that never left the mouth except at times of eating.

They were also successful in delivering oratorical speeches, in such a way as to harmonise facial expressions with hand movements and dribbling saliva. Even more dangerous than that was their ability to cry in moans and sobs and even braying sounds sometimes.

In return, the Shafa’ayin and Zaydis woke up and entered into the fray, and the conflict became ‘Islamic’, according to what directors and producers designated as Islamic. All sides forgot the principles of morality and the ethics of Islam. They forgot completely the significance of human life.

With this wretched image we started to represent the donkey’s role: because we accepted this humiliation. The Zaydi sect struggles for the sake of drawing people to ‘come to charitable action’, and the right of succession, and restricting it to the Batinain (internalists). The Sufis defend the virtues of the Ahl al-Turq [People of the Way]. The Wahabis are these days concerned with the virtues of the Companions, and especially Mu’awiyyah, in guiding the people to the evils of the Shi’a, and in abandoning their (the Shi’a’s) sanctity and right to life.

Each group split into more groups, and each fragment into more fragments, and the Salafis – as the extremist wing – banned the elections, calling for the duty of total obedience to the Wali ruler.

This heartbreaking situation made the Muslim peoples, yearning for the smiling face of Islam, flee to powers of Satan, crushed under the pressure of the oppressors. If there appeared a glimpse of success here or a flash there for an Islamic movement, then it was for one of two reasons. Either it was because that rational movement recognised the door to the hearts of society by means of delivering urgent services, and perceiving problems and pains, and it was characterised by integrity, virtuous behaviour and huge sacrifices, such as the Hamas movement, or it was characterised by the ugliness of the extremist regime, such as other movements.

I suggest to Islamic movements a programme of action which would make them more welcome:

First: Deal with societies just as the Prophet of God (Peace be Upon Him) did the day he came to Medina, and he accepted all non-Muslim groups as the Ra’ya (people) of the Islamic State. Are you just concerned with the people of one religion? You must accept the Other, and respect diverging views.

Second:  Shut the door to Takfir (pronouncing others infidels), and Tafsiq (pronouncing others to be sinful) and Tabdi’a (accusing others of heresy), and to deprecations, denouncements and defamations.

Third: Put a stop to the isolation that Islamic movements have put themselves in, and exit from the cordon that has surrounded them as a result of oppression and prohibition. Anchor in the minds of members of the movements the fact that Islam is common to all of them, and that the religious brotherhood does not violate the community.

Fourth: Open the door to Ijtihad (independent judgement), and to addressing the new occurrences of our age, and do not insist on dealing with the texts suggesting that the Prophet (Peace be Upon Him) said that the Islamic calling meant Jihad and extremism and violence.

The calling that I consider really worth respecting is Muhammad’s call to

‘(Prophet!) Call the people to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly and kind exhortation, and argue with them in the most pleasant and best manner.’ [al-Nahl: 125]

Let us return to the beginnings of the prophesy, the day when al-Mustafa (Peace be Upon Him) climbed the al-Safa mountain and called to the Quraish, and when they gathered around him they asked ‘What is the matter?’. He said, ‘If I were to tell you that there were knights in the valley on the other side about to attack you, would you believe me?’ They said: ‘Yes, we know you to be truthful’, and he said, ‘then I warn you of Allah’s terrible punishment [if you do not embrace Islam]’([17])

Have you ever heard sweeter words than this? Have you come across a more gentle course of action? Even the audacity of Abu Lahab, or the discourtesy of Abu Jahel, or the deception of Abu Safyan did not cause the Prophet to lose his dignity. When Abu Lahab said: ‘May you perish! Is that why you brought us together!?’ he did not reply until God himself replied.([18])  [Perish the hands of Abu Lahab, doomed is he (1); His wealth and his gains shall not avail him (2); He shall be plunged in a flaming fire (3); and his wife the carrier of firewood, shall have a rope of palm fibre around her neck (4)]. The Beloved extended his calling to God with gentleness and patience, thus reaching the hearts of many. The believers smelled its sweet aroma, and how could a person listen to his sweet words without making his submission [to God]; unless they put their fingers in their ears, then they all submitted.

Through God’s compassion the hardness of their disdain was softened.

Pure compassion, resolution and determination, dignity, infallibility and modesty.

He was exposed to all types of injury and he bore them in anticipation of God’s reward, and the Believers were tortured and subjected to temptations and they took refuge in God and stuck to their religion with their Prophet as firmly as mountains, although the Prophet (Peace be Upon Him) did not abandon his followers as prey to the ruthless, and he sought out a safe place for them. He found it beyond the sea with al-Najashi, the King of Abyssinia, and he ordered them to take refuge there and they did so, and they were the messengers of peace in the two worlds.

King al-Najashi (God have Mercy on Him) perceived angels in human form, and he recognised Islam close at hand and he submitted. If the black continent had been blessed with someone like Ja’affar Bin Abi Taleb and his brothers and sisters who immigrated there to take refuge then they would have all made their submission.

If Europe had someone like Mus’ab Bin ‘Amir, people would have entered into Allah’s religion in shoals, with his sedate discourse and preponderant logic and graceful behaviour. Asa’ad Bin Zarara went with Mus’ab to the home of the Bani ‘Abd al-Ashal, and Sa’ad Bin Mu’adh and Usaid Bin Hadir were the two masters of their tribes. Both of them were polytheists, and when they heard about Mus’ab, Sa’ad said to Usaid – ‘Go to those two who have come to fool the weak-minded among our people and drive them away. Were it not for the fact that Asa’ad is my cousin then I would have ordered them myself.’ Usaid took up his spear and approached the two. When they saw him, Asa’ad said to Mus’ab: ‘This is the master of their tribe. Show him the truth of Allah’. Mus’ab said: ‘If he sits down, I will speak to him’.  But Usaid remained standing above them, casting insults angrily and saying: ‘What has brought you here? Have you come to mislead the weak-minded? Leave us if you value your lives.’ Mus’ab said to him: ‘Just sit down and listen, and if you like what you hear then accept it, and if you hate it, that will be an end to the matter’. Usaid said: ‘You have spoken well’, and he left his lance and sat by them. Mus’ab spoke to him about Islam and recited to him the Quran, and Usaid then said: ‘How beautiful and wonderful these words; I make my submission’. Then he said to them: ‘Behind me there is another man. If he were to follow you, not one of his tribe would fail to do the same. I will send him to you now. His name is Sa’ad Bin Mu’adh.’ Then he took his lance and went to Sa’ad and his tribe who were sitting in their assembly. When Sa’ad saw him he said: ‘I swear by God that Usaid has come unto you with a different countenance to that with which he departed’. When he stopped, Sa’ad said to him: ‘What have you done?’ He replied: ‘I conversed with the two men, and I have seen no evil in them. I told them they must not stay and they said, ‘Do what you will.’ The Bani Haritha have gone out to Asa’ad Bin Zarara in order to kill him, since they knew that he was your cousin, so guard yourself’. Sa’ad jumped up angrily, fearing what he had been told about the Bani Haritha, and he snatched the lance from Usaid's hand saying, 'By Allah! I think you have done nothing useful.” Then he went out to them, but when he saw them sitting tranquilly-, he realised that Usaid had merely enticed him there to hear what they had to say, so he stopped short and began to insult them. He said to Asa’ad Bin Zarara: ‘O Abu Imama, if we were not kinsmen, you would not have dared to insult us in our own homes.’ Asa’ad Bin Zarara said to Mus’ab Bin ‘Amir: ‘By God, the master behind him from their tribe has come to you. If he follows you not one of their people will fail to do the same’. Mus’ab said to him: ‘Just sit down and listen, and if you like what you hear then accept it, and if it displeases you we will dismiss what you hate.’ Sa’ad replied: ‘You have spoken well’. Then he laid down the lance and sat down. Islam was presented to him, and the Quran recited to him, and he made his submission. Then he took his lance, and returned to his tribe. Welcoming him, they said: ‘By God we swear that Sa’ad has returned with a different countenance from that with which he left’. When he stopped by them he said: ‘O Bani ‘Abd al-Ashhal, what is my position among you?’ and they replied, 'You are our most beloved prince, the most wise, and the most beneficent among us!’ He continued, ‘it will now be an offence for me to talk to any of your men or women until you believe in God and his Prophet’. But that evening there did not remain in the Bani al-Ashal a man or woman who had not become a Muslim’.

I hope that anyone who is inclined to God’s calling will read the story about Mus’ab and Asa’ad thoroughly, to see how Mus’ab was able to entice the masters of both of their tribes into one council because of his good manners and gentleness. ‘Just sit down and listen. If you like what you hear, then accept it, and if you do not, that will be an end to the matter.’ Any reasonable man listens in this way and he cannot but listen.

Islamic discourse, be it local, regional or international, springs from one specific tenet:

‘Go to Pharaoh, both of you, for he has transgressed all limits. But speak to him a gentle speech, and perhaps he will pay heed and fear (the consequences)’ [Taha: 43-44]

And -

‘(Believers!) Observe all the propriety when you argue with the people of the Scripture’ [al-Ankabut: 46]

And -

‘Say, ‘O people of the Scripture! Let us agree to a proposition common to us both that we worship none but Allah and that we associate no partner with Him and some of us shall not hold others as lords besides Allah. But if they turn away (refusing) say: ‘Bear witness that we are the only submitting ones (to one God)’ [Al-i-‘Imran: 64].

And -

‘Say, ‘This is my path. I call to Allah. I am on sure knowledge verifiable by reason and (so are) those who follow me. (I believe that) Holy is Allah. I am not of the polytheists’ [Yusuf: 108]

The Prophet’s Letters to the Kings
How far we still have to go to reach the arrogant Takfiri discourse that inflicted weakness and ennui in Islam and made Takfir and Tafsik [declaring someone to be sinful] part of Islam.

With regard to our discourse today towards Jews and Christians, it goes like this: May God Destroy the Jew and the Christian, burn their farms, sink their ships, shoot down their planes, make orphans of their children. In spite of this drought, this alienation and this stagnation of thought and stupor of Takfir, Islam is still the most broadly disseminated religion in the West.

When the Prophet (Peace be Upon Him) arrived at a blocked road the fierce polytheists plotted to kill him. He fled to a house that he had prepared beforehand, and his Companions fled to it as well. The matter became complicated. It is not feasible to treat the sick person with ointment and tranquilizers when he needs an operation to remove the part of his body that has gone rotten, because if the rot remains it will spread to the entire body.

‘Permission (to fight in self-defence) is given to those (Muslims) against whom war is waged (for no reason), because they have been done injustice to, and Allah has indeed the power and the might to help them. Those who have been driven out of their homes without any just cause. Their only fault was that they said, Our Lord is Allah’. If Allah had not repelled some peoples by means of others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques wherein the name of Allah is mentioned very frequently, would have been razed to the ground in large numbers. And Allah will surely help one who helps His cause. Allah is indeed All-Powerful, All-Mighty. [al-Haj: 39-40] 

The Jihad against the polytheists, in spite of their ferocity, was no different during the whole history of the Prophet’s Jihad, except for a few hundred cases. Muhammad’s prophecy shook the corners of the earth, and were it not for the great sanctity of souls in Muhammad’s religion, then millions would have been killed, but he (Peace be Upon Him) effected the release of prisoners from the Battle of Badr in exchange for monetary donations, and this was the first opportunity to punish the Quraish since God reproved him-

‘It does not behove a Prophet to keep captives unless he has triumphed after a regular bloody fighting in the land. (If you take captives without warfare) you desire the temporary and frail goods of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, all-Wise.’ [al-Anfal: 67]

However, Jihad is opposed to persecution, and Islam requires Muslims to undertake Jihad if they are persecuted by the Dhimmis or the Bhuddists or they spread corruption in the earth, with the goal of achieving servitude to God whilst abandoning the freedom of His servants.

Although the polytheists left Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) to talk freely, they asked him to leave whosoever did not want Islam in return for his freedom of movement on the basis of peaceful persuasion. He dealt with them with the sword and not the lance, because he knew that polytheism would dissolve like salt in water, and they knew that too, and therefore they stood in his way and oppressed him. It is not permissible for polytheism of this form to remain, for it is a human perversion.

If Jihad became famously associated with fighting infidels in jurisprudential convention, it nonetheless has many facets.

The etymology indicates that Jihad means to expend efforts, and discomfort and exertion within the exigencies of the vital elements of Jihad.

·         The Jihad of Self or Financial Sacrifice – these are the most prominent in meaning of Jihad, although there is a Jihad of self sacrifice that the Prophet (Peace be Upon Him) called the Greater Jihad.

·         Verbal Jihad – this is the Jihad of appealing by means of counsel and guidance, learning and instruction, and Jihad in the fields of health, agriculture, industry, and all that is related to raising the standard of life of Islamic Umma or of the human race.

Violence
Violence is the highest level of offence. It is accorded degrees, and it may be legitimized or non-legitimized. Jihad with weapons is considered to be legitimate, whereas terrorism is considered to be illegitimate.

The true Islam detests violence absolutely, and there are conditions to commanding right and forbidding wrong: ‘he does not use harshness if softness is enough’, meaning that harsh treatment is not permissible if soft speaking is enough, or simple punishment by whipping, or in the way that is said the Prophet disciplined – with a small stick.

This controlled punishment and gentle behaviour in respecting life and vitality has been lost in the world of the Muslims in particular – as individuals and as societies and states. No sooner has a schism broken out then the two opposing sides are using all types of weapons – daggers, pistols, bombs, bazookas, etc…. Are Arab states accumulating weapons against a common enemy? No – they buy them for use against their neighbours and their brothers in religion and language.  

In conclusion we would appeal for these sorts of meetings to be optimised, and for us not to lose the opportunity for serious cooperation, and for us to complement one another in our efforts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
(*) Member of the Yemeni Scholars Association, Professor at Faculty of Law and Legislation, Sanaa University, Yemen.

[1]- See the highlighted section on Abi al-Abbas al-Hassani, p382, and the rose gardens, p236/1

[2]-‘The Political Imamate’, p144-155.

[3]- See its significations in al-Tabari 303/5.

[4]- See Muqatil al-Talibeen, p40. Equally he supported the revolt of Ibrahim Bin ‘Abdullah. See Muqatil al- Talibeen p364.

[5]- See Al-Tabari p560/7, and Muqatil al- Talibeen p283. 

[6]- See the al-Had’iq al-Wardia, p329/1.

[7]- The Affliction: 319/1

[8]- This image is stipulated by Hadith recorded by al-Bukhari, no. 3166, and no. 4094. It was engraved in my mind before I had read al-Bukhari because we have seen many of this man’s type over the last four centuries.

[9]- Al-Bukhari, number 3414, and Muslim, 740/2, number 1063, see the story of Ibn Hisham, 104/4.

[10]- Al-Bukhari 1219/3, no. 3166.

[11]- Wa’qat Sifin, p489, and The Path of Rhetoric, p163, no. 40, p723.

[12]- See Tahkim [Arbitration]: Al-Tabri 70/5, and Waq’at Sifin p500.

[13]- See al-Tabari, 5/82.

[14]- Al-Kamel al-Mubarad 3/1078, and Sharah al-Nahaj, 1/251.

[15]- See the Prophetic Guidance, al-Bihqi, 4/147, and al-Kamel, 2/138.

[16]- Nahaj al-Balagha, p181, no. 59.

[17]- Al-Bukhari, 1787/4, no. 4492, and Muslim, 194/1.

[18]- Al-Bukhari, 1784/4, no. 4492.