I mentioned in part 1 of this article that a group of researchers on Islamic ideology had established an Arab Center for the Study of Islamic Movements in 2004. The aim of this center was to support tolerance and peaceful coexistence for followers of all religions. The center presented a collection of booklets in response to a proposal from an U.S.-sponsored center. These booklets aimed at introducing Islam to America and the West. The first booklet dealt with ‘Islam and freedom of opinion and expression' and was published in Arabic. It was duly translated to English to be distributed in the U.S. and Western Europe. The core idea of the booklet was to highlight the truth of Islamic Religion which strongly advocates freedom of faith. The surprise came through the U.S. center's notes on the original copy of the booklet. These remarks actually served to expose the truth of the American vision, a vision that aims not at revealing the truth about Islam, but rather at propagating a negative, repulsive and erroneous image of the religion. The center returned the booklet with an attachment, pointing out to the necessity of adhering to the corrections and make changes accordingly in order to ‘allow' publishing. The booklet proves that combat against infidels, in all Quran verses, is conditioned by their aggression against Muslims, and not based on their religious belief. This proof has taken laborious and enlightened efforts to be completed by renowned scholars led by Al Azhar Mosque's Grand Imam of, Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltout, as taken from his book "Islam a Belief and a Law". But the editor of the U.S.-sponsored center refuted what the Azhar Sheikh had written, claiming that the conclusions only expressed the writer's opinion and could not be considered as an argument for Islam. The prevailing tendency nowadays is to listen to convulsing extremists spouting their opinions on Islam. Petty apprentices' opinions on what they think is ‘true Islam' are respected and received without discussion while Sheikh Shaltout's words are much less considered in comparison. In reality those petty apprentices insult Islam. The booklet also tackles the guarantee of freedom of faith in Islam in accordance to the Holy Quran's doctrines. A verse of the Holy Quran gives a very direct order that there is no compulsion in religion. Yet the U.S.-sponsored editor does not seem to like this, he provides a different interpretation of the verse. In his own handwriting, he jots out that there is no compulsion in religion, but that other believers will be despised, according to him. He adds that other believers would not be dealt with equally, and that they would be deprived from their rights unlike Muslims. No comment: the intention here is quite clear, it is to deprive Islam of anything good and only describe it in terms of coercion and suppression of freedoms. The booklet also sought the explanation of revered scholar Sheikh Mohamed Al Khodary on the same twenty verses which offers assurance that the verse prohibiting compulsion in religion was transcribed. The editor made the following comment: "why should we consider Al Khodary instead of Al Suyuti?" We are asked to accept what accords with the American goals which are far from presenting the tolerant Islam. So what science is that? What methodology? What purpose can there be in translating books that insult and emphasize an exceedingly negative image of Islam that already exists in America and the West? The editor rejects the booklet's conclusion confirming that combat in Islam is only a means of self-defense. He contradicts it, asserting that combat was a means for spreading Islam although the Holy verse is quite clear. Its meaning is that you need to fight for God (jihad) and combat aggressors, but never become an aggressor. Nevertheless, the ‘scientific' editor did not see what the others saw. There is another very clear Holy verse about extending a hand of peace to those who call for it, yet the editor has got nothing to say but: "That is impossible!" It's the editor's notes that are really inconceivable! He insists on iterating many of the Holy verses and Holy Prophetic Hadiths that seem to contradict Human Rights! He does not bother to specify the delineation of these Holy verses or Hadiths. It is clear that his abhorrence is unsubstantiated, and he's eager to insult unjustifiably, which is quite evident in his incessant opposition to the booklet's content. In reality, Islam is theoretically ideal for freedom of expression and opinion, although the editor writes, "it is not ideal at all". On another occasion, the editor remarks, in quote, "A lot of the Prophetic Hadiths contradict Human Rights, so why do you handpick those supporting Human Rights only?" He says ‘a lot' contradict Human Rights, but does not bother to give references to any. Why is that? The reason is that the center he represents has a specific goal; they think that Arab and Egyptian researchers must ‘listen, obey and comply with their instructions.' The booklet also addressed the "Hijra", migration of the Prophet. The Prophet (PBUH) migrated and accepted to live peacefully with Jews and non-Muslims in Medina. Insolence reached its peak, when the editor said, "Really? Did he have any other choice being the person migrating to their land?" The word he actually used was very sarcastic: "Ya Salam". It is extremely impertinent to use "Ya Salam" when discussing anything, and especially so when dealing with a so-called scientific discourse. Moreover, the Prophet did not migrate to Jew and non-Muslim land, but responded to Al Ansar's invitation who had heart-felt love for him. Nevertheless, ignorance and intolerance were supplanted by tactless humor. The word insolence does not do justice to his remarks. The booklet addressed the types of questions that the Jews posed to the Prophet about ‘The Hour' ‘The Spirit' and ‘Zulkarnain'. The Prophet (PBUH) openly answered all queries leading by example and demonstrating boundless respect for freedom of opinion and expression. Yet again, the editor overstepped his boundaries by saying, "How did you come to this conclusion? These are plausible questions to be asked to whoever claims prophecy." This is how they see our Prophet and this is how they want us to write and address the West. The booklet's third chapter tackled ‘freedom of opinion, expression and thought in Islamic history'. The editor unleashes an avalanche of comments that lack objectivity, a scientific approach or even etiquette. To summarize, let's take his comments on the Jurisprudence of Caliph Omar ibn Al Khattab - may Allah be pleased with him - and his rule. The editor wrote: "he has not been fair to all Muslims, but rather unjust and slanderous to all nations that he conquered." What can be gained by addressing the U.S. and Europe in this manner? What kind of image are we giving of Islam by calling Omar ibn Al Khattab, the greatest symbol of justice in Islamic history, unjust and slanderous? As for ‘Akd Al Themma' (The Dhimma Contract) that Omar concluded with non-Muslim citizens, it was deemed ‘very oppressive and humiliating' by the American thinker. The Arab Center for Study of Islamic Movements was able to meet these challenges head-on. It has refused to pander for these fabricated trends of insulting Islam, condemning its principles, detesting its values, abhorring its ideas and defaming its respected symbols. The Center has also declined to cooperate with this suspicious center after this painful experience. But, how many other research centers have dealt with this institute and accorded with its views that insult Islam, create strife and present a flawed, ignorant, extremist discourse? Freedom of thought is an indisputable right but ‘thought' must be supported by abundant knowledge and objectivity. These are the characteristics that govern ‘thought'. Thought presented by the American thinker's remarks can hardly fit in such a category.
