Shah Abdul Halim*

There exists a wide gap of understanding between the Muslim Ummah and the West; and this needs to be addressed afresh from an academic point of view to erase misgivings of the West towards Muslim world. For establishing a peaceful world, removing the mistrusts between Muslims and the Judeo-Christian West cannot be overemphasised.

Before going to the actual discussion, it is important to present some blunt facts of double standards by the West when it deals with the Muslims. While many Western regimes consider people of Timor who fight for separation from Indonesia as freedom fighters, they consider the Palestinian or Kashmiri or Chechen or Moro fighters for freedom and independence as terrorists. In many areas of past and present day politics and international relations such Western double-standards are obvious. Such double-standard was at work when Britain helped in designing and establishing the illegitimate state of Israel and is still at work as US has continued helping Israel in its policy of dispossession, usurpation and expulsion of Palestinian people.

There is no getting away from the fact that many Western scholars especially the orientalists frequently quote from the Qur'an, the prophetic traditions and other Islamic sources out of context, in most cases, to satisfy their belligerent attitude towards Islam and the Muslims. It is, however, also true that earlier Muslim scholars sometimes interpreted revealed texts taking the prevailing situation of their time as ultimate truth. They did not foresee newer conditions that would arise and would need to be addressed by interpreting the Qur'an and sayings and practices of Prophet (pbuh). They took rigid stand on many flexible and elastic matters (as Shariah rulings are) at a time when Muslims were ruling power hence the consequences of that rigidity was not obvious to them. Now the orientalists read those rulings of rigidity and thus form mistaken impressions about Islam and Muslims in their mind. A result of such misreading of Islamic texts is that the orientalists as well as some Western media sometimes appear to venture upon joint propagandas to show a divergence between Islam and pluralism on the one hand, and between Muslims and tolerance on the other. Such mistaken concepts restrain a peaceful coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims.

As the tenets of Islam always preserve room for ijtihad (research and investigation) according to evolving circumstances, Muslims comply with newer situations within the periphery of Islam. So they are expected to be accommodative while new decisions are made with careful and meticulous use of reasoning.

In past, Muslim scholars had divided the world into dar al Islam (land of peace) and dar al harb (land of hostility). The contemporary Muslim scholars and jurists have however divided the world into two denominations: dar al ijabah (land of acceptance, whose people have accepted Islam and where Islamic values are practiced) and dar al dawah, the land of invitation whose people are invited to Islamic values and practices. (Fakhr al Din Al Razi quoted in Alwani; 'Globalization: Centralization not Globalism', vii) Taha Jabir al Alwani in an interview with the 'Islamic Horizons' points out that an 'example of misguided rulings is the fatwa that countries like the United States are dar al kufr and dar al harb, where Muslims have the right to circumvent their laws and regulations' ('Muslims in the West need contemporary fatwa'). He adds, 'We are living in North America as a small minority among non-Muslims in a pluralistic, multicultural and multi-ethnic society. Muslims have the facility of opting to live their lives as Muslims according to the Islamic Shariah and Fiqh. We need a lot of understanding from our Fuquha and Ulama in the North American environment, and if they issue Fatwa without studying this environment, they will be doing a great disservice to the North American Muslim community. Indeed their rulings, or rather their misinterpretations, will have a serious effect on the future of Islam in this continent' ('Muslims in the West need contemporary fatwa'). He further points out that 'in the past, scholars were unanimous in their view that the entire earth was the land of Allah and did not divide it into such spheres. Instead, some scholars like Imam al Razi considered the earth to consist of dar al ijaba, which replaces the term dar al Islam, and dar ad dawah, which replaces the term dar al harb. Dar ad dawah means a land for dialogue and inter-faith communication, a land where people are not classified, but all human beings are considered one family. This family has two parts. One is identified as ummat al ijaba, instead of ummat al Muslim, and other as ummat ad dawah, instead of kuffar or harbiyun. This part of our heritage and legacy represents Islam more correctly than the other part, because the whole earth has been created by Allah as humanity's home. The Prophet (pbuh) told us that the entire earth is a masjid and pure. The only difference is that in dar al ijaba, the message of Islam has been established, and in dar ad dawah the message has to be spread. We all know what the nuances of performing dawah are, and certainly that misguided dar al harb / dar al kufr ruling is not among the instruments of dawah' ('Muslims in the West need contemporary fatwa').

Alwani adds, 'The famous 5th Hijra century Imam al Mawardy, in fact said that even if we have one Muslim family living in a non-Muslim state, their home will be the home of Islam. The reality is that wherever Muslims find the freedom to practice Islam, that place will be dar al Islam for them, and there is no need for them to migrate to some other dar al Islam for this purpose' ('Muslims in the West need contemporary fatwa').

Azizah al Hibri, a professor of law at an American university, while addressing a selected gathering in Dhaka preferred to divide the world into land and people where dawah, the message of Islam has been presented on the one hand and where dawah, the call and guidance of Islam has not been presented or yet to be presented on the other, rather than dar al Islam (the land of peace) and dar al harb (the land of war). Yet other scholars group lands and people dar al sulh (the land of peaceful coexistence or on contractual peace). There can be further classification of states in the light of the spirit of the Qur'an and the Sunnah, the Traditions of Prophet (pbuh).

Another misunderstanding, with which the West seems to be obsessed, is the opinion of some past Muslim scholars that non-Muslims living in Muslim countries have to pay jiziah (tax imposed on non-Muslims living in an Islamic state) even though contemporary jurists have ruled that paying jiziah is not compulsory or binding. In fact, the second rightly guided caliph Omar bin Khattab (ra) reviewed the jiziah policy and abrogated the jiziah imposed on old people, children, orphans and unsupported women (Alkim 87).

Omar (ra) even ordered to pay monthly allowance to a Jew when he (ra) saw him begging door to door. As long as non-Muslims pay some taxes as a mark of their obedience to the state, there is no need for a special tax only to be paid by the non-Muslims. The renowned Islamic jurist Yusuf Al Qaradawi is his book Fiqh-uz-Zakat mentions that Caliph Omar bin Khattab (ra) dropped jiziah on the Christian of Banu Taglib tribe on their request and imposed another tax. Qaradawi opines that it is not necessary that non-Muslims have to pay jiziah. It would suffice if they pay a tax equal to what Muslims pay as zakat (Fiqh-uz-Zakat, 144-152). Eminent Arab economist Monzer Kahf currently working with Islamic Development Bank (IDB) thinks that jiziah can be charged only from the subjects of the conquered lands (quoted in Hannan). Syed Abul Ala Maududi also holds the same view. Maududi argues that Pakistan not being a conquered land, the question of imposing jiziah on the non-Muslims citizens of Pakistan does not arise (158). Most of the modern states have been liberated from colonial shackle and have been established by the joint struggles of both Muslims and non-Muslims. The imposition of jiziah has therefore become irrelevant and impractical in this case. In fact Islam makes no difference between Muslims and non-Muslims as far as the basic necessities are concerned (Qur'an 2:126).

The question of apostasy is another area of western misgiving regarding Islam and the Muslims. On the basis of rulings of some old Muslims jurists, the West sometimes accuses Islam and Muslims saying that if a Muslim who abandons their religion or is converted to some other religion, according to Islamic law, is subject to be beheaded for their being murtad (apostate). Eminent contemporary Islamic scholars hold different view on the basis of renewed ijtihad, research and investigation. The West, however, does not seem to be familiar with contemporary Muslim opinions and hence continues to conceive that Islam is against the freedom of conscience and Muslims do not believe in liberty, free will and free choice. In fact, there is not a single instance showing that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did treat apostasy as a prescribed offence under hudud (capital punishment) only for leaving Islam. No one was sentenced to death solely for renunciation of faith unless accompanied by hostility and treason or was linked to an act of political betrayal of the community. Apostasy itself does not qualify for temporal punishment. The Supreme Court of Malaysia rules that conversion to Christianity by a Muslim is not a punishable offence (Kamali 87-107).

Mohammad Hashim Kamali puts forward verse 137 of Chapter 4 of the Qur'an as conclusive proof of the argument against death penalty for apostasy. The verse reads 'Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve and then increase in their disbelief - God will never forgive them nor guide them to the path.' Commenting on the verse Kamali points out, "The implication is unmistakable. The text would hardly entertain the prospect of repeated belief and disbelief if death were to be the prescribed punishment for the initial act. It is also interesting to note that the initial reference to disbelief is followed by further confirmation of disbelief and then 'increase in disbelief'. One might be inclined to think that if the first instance of apostasy did not qualify for capital punishment, the repeated apostasy might have provoked it - had such a punishment ever been intended in the Quran" [emphasis added] (97-98].

Kamali refers to the hadith, the Saying of the Prophet (pbuh), which 'makes it clear that the apostate must also boycott the community (mufariq lil-jamaah) and challenge its legitimate leadership, in order to be subjected to death penalty' (96). The Prophet says, 'The blood of a Muslim who professes that there is no god but Allah and that I am His Messenger, is sacrosanct except in three cases: a married adulterer; a person who has killed another human being; and a person who has abandoned his religion, while splitting himself off from the community (muifariq lil-jamaah)' (quoted in Kamali 96).

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, explaining the aforementioned hadith of the Prophet (pbuh), infers that 'the crime referred in the hadith under discussion is that of high treason (hirabah) and not apostasy (riddah) as such' (Quoted in Kamali 96).

S. A. Rahman, former Chief Justice of Pakistan, while discussing in his monograph The Punishment of Apostasy in Islam looked 'into the evidence in the Qur'an and the Sunnah in detail, and draws attention to the fact that the Qur'an is silent on the question of death as the punishment for apostasy, despite this subject occurring no less then twenty times in the Holy Book' (Kamali 93). Rahman examines the hadith 'kill whoever changes his religion' (man baddala dinahu faqtuluhu) and finds 'weakness in the transmission (isnad)' (93). Rahman's conclusion is also supported by other evidences, such as the fact that neither Prophet (pbuh) himself, nor any of his Companions (ra) ever compelled anyone to embrace Islam, nor did they sentence anyone to death solely for renunciation of faith (Kamali 93). His view is also endorsed by such eminent earlier scholars like Ibrahim al Nakhai and Sufyan al Thawri (both held the view that 'apostate should be re-invited to Islam but should never be condemned to death'), the renowned Hanafi jurist Shams al Din al Sarakhsi ('apostasy does not qualify for temporal punishment'), Malaki jurist al Baji ('apostasy is a sin which carries no prescribed penalty, hadd') and modern scholars as Abd al Hakim al Ili and Ismail al Badawi (apostasy to be punishable by death has to be 'political in character and aimed at the inveterate enemies of Islam'), Mahmud Shaltut ('apostasy carries no temporal penalty'), Mahmassani ('death penalty was meant to apply, not to simple act of apostasy from Islam, but when apostasy was linked to an act of political betrayal of the community'). Selim el Awa raises a very rational argument that if the hadith 'whoever renounces his religion shall be killed' is literally applied it would be applicable also 'to Christians, who convert to Judaism and vice versa' which 'manifestly fall outside the intention' of the hadith (Kamali 93-95).

The great Iranian scholar Ayatollah Mutahhari highlights the incompatibility of the coercion with the sprit of Islam, and the basic redundancy of punitive measures in the propagation of its message. He writes that it is impossible to force anyone to acquire the kind of faith that is required by Islam, just as 'it is not possible to spank a child into solving an arithmetical problem. His mind and thought must be left free in order that he may solve it. The Islamic faith is something of this kind' (quoted in Kamali 95).

Hassan Turabi, the ideologue of the Sudanese Islamic movement, raises a very pertinent rational argument on the validity of the opinion of those scholars who hold that apostasy in Islam is punishable by death. He points out: 'How can it be imagined by a rational person that Allah, Who has compelled none to believe, allows us the right to compel others and force them to believe?' (Turabi)

"If Almighty Allah has granted us the merit of freedom, he who wants to believe is allowed that right and so too the one who wants to disbelieve. If He has chosen to distinguish us from other creatures through His gift of freedom, instead of creating us believers by necessity like stones, mountains, and the earth, which all fear the responsibility of freedom shouldered by Man, the ignorant, the unjust; if that is so, then the exercise of that freedom will become a matter of course - a self-evident truth confirmed by the Quran as in, 'No one is to be compelled to believe' ".

'At the time of the Prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, the Qur'an tells us of those who believed and then disbelieved again and so forth. The opinion of the people of those days changed so easily and freely - between belief and disbelief - that it appeared to swing like a pendulum.'

'The Prophet's saying about apostasy is a short statement pronounced within the context of war conditions. Muslims were greatly affected to see one of their companions desert his faith and join the ranks of disbelievers. They were not sure if they should kill him or spare his life because he was a Muslim once. The Prophet, peace be upon him, explained that one who abandons his religion and deserts his fellows should be killed. Regrettably, people of the subsequent generations have taken the Prophet's saying out of its historical context and generalised it. In so doing they deny one of the basic truths of Islam: the freedom of faith.'

'The saying is related to the case of the Muslim who deserts his fellows and joins the enemies of Islam [during war]. Such a person will either be killed or kill someone else.' (Turabi)

It is therefore clear that the Prophet's saying about the apostate is restricted to the times of war, when a Muslim deserter joins the ranks of the enemies to wage war against Islam, rather than seeing this hadith as a measure for controlling the faith of those who do not bear arms.

If anybody however takes a very penetrating look into the revealed text of the Qur'an, the verses related to the creation, the very pluralistic approach of Allah will be crystal clear. 'Allah is All Powerful' (Qur'an 57:1-2) and He created everything to worship Him alone (Qur'an 51:56). He even then tolerated the rebellion of the Satan and allowed Satan the opportunity to misguide men and women from the worship of Allah (Qur'an 7:11-18). Whereas Allah tolerates Satan, how Muslims can be intolerant to some people or powers who do not subscribe their view and way of life? The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was sent as a mercy upon humankind and not to force people to accept his religion against their will (Qur'an 3:164, 21:107 and 50:45). The very principle of Islam is persuasion, not coercion. There is no compulsion in religion (Qur'an 2:256). How then Muslims can be intolerant and deny other religious communities the opportunity to live with them peacefully?

Prophet (pbuh) was considerate and sympathetic in his attitude and behaviour towards the non-Muslims. Some Jewish families lived in the neighbourhood of the Prophet's quarters in Madinah. If some of their children fell sick, Prophet used to visit the sick children. If funeral passed through the streets of Madinah, Prophet was always around; he stood up as a mark of respect for the deceased (Momin 134).
The scheme of Allah is basically and essentially plural. He has created humankind into many tribes, races and nations. Humankind speaks many languages and is of many colours (Qur'an 49:13 and 30:22). Every race is different from others in their physical appearance which is a reflection of His beauty. Had Allah willed He could make humankind into one nation (Qur'an 5:48 and 11:118). But instead He creates unity in diversity.

The Shariah is very flexible and gives only the outline and leave the matters of details to humankind to decide. We, therefore, find that the clothing of Nigerian Muslims is different from the Arab Muslims' or Indonesian Muslims'. Muslims men everywhere use cap, but the cap of one Muslim country is different from that of many other countries. The cap used in Central Asia is different from what is used in neighbouring Pakistan. The Nigerian cap is different from the Malaysian one. The Muslim women do hijab, but the hijab used by the women in Indonesia-Malaysia is different from Iranian chadder or Saudi abaya, the cloak.

The fundamental teaching of Islam is tawheed, unity of godhead. Allah is alone and there is no partner of Him (Qur'an 17:111). Still then Allah has ordained Muslims not to criticise even the idols (Qur'an 6:108). This precept of Islam has direct bearing on the life and activities of Muslims. The Qur'an played and continues to play a major role in forming and maintaining values in Muslim conscience and social system. The Qur'an shapes Muslim outlook, which should, therefore, be by and large tolerant.

The plural nature of Islam can be understood from the fact that Muslims are permitted, in some cases, to eat the food of Jews and Christians. Muslims can eat the flesh of otherwise lawful animals Jews and Christians have slaughtered or hunted (Qaradawi, The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam 59). A Muslim bridegroom can marry a Christian or Jew bride. Islam has made the marriage of Jewish or Christian women lawful for Muslim men for their being People of the Book, ahl al kitab (183).

According to Imam Abu Hanifa, non-Muslims are not subjected to Muslim legal punishment (hudud) for committing adultery and theft (AbuSulayman 10). Islamic state in past guaranteed not only the safety of the lives and honour of the non-Muslims and the protection of their religious beliefs and rituals, but also the protection and maintenance of their personal laws, institutions and endowments (Khadduri, quoted in Faruqi, R and L Fariqu 199). In some cases, the expenses for the maintenance and repair of the places of worship of the non-Muslims were met from the public treasury (bayt ul mal) of Islamic state. Similarly the salaries of rabbis and priests were often paid from the state treasury (Momin 135).

Jews or Christians have never been pressurised to accept Islam; Muslims have continued to uphold the old religious pluralism of the Middle East and learned to coexist with the members of other religions. Karen Armstrong rightly observes: 'In the Islamic empire, Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians enjoyed religious freedom. This reflected the teaching of the Qur'an which is a pluralistic scripture, affirmative of other traditions. Muslims are commanded by God to respect the People of the Book, and reminded that they share the same belief and the same God' (Armstrong).

It has never been a problem for Muslims to coexist with people of other religions. The Islamic caliphate was able to pay host to Christians and Jews for centuries; but some western societies have found it next to impossible to tolerate Muslims as aptly demonstrated in Bosnia and more recently in Chechnya. John Major, the then British Prime Minister, is on record to have said that Britain is not ready to have an independent and sovereign Muslim state on the soil of Europe.

If we go back to history we find that Arab Muslims-Christians-Jews were living together peacefully during the Muslim rule in Jerusalem. The conquest of Jerusalem (637 AD) 'put an end to the centuries of instability, religious persecution and colonial rule once by the Egyptians, another by the Greeks, a third by the Persians and a fourth by the Romans. … To the natives of Palestine, the Muslims were a new breed of humans, different from all those who invaded their country before. … For both Jewish and Christian inhabitants of the conquered lands, Islamic rule signaled the start of the golden age. The territories under Muslim rule became the safe havens to which many Jews and Christians fled to escape persecution in their own homelands. It was in Muslim metropolis that many Christians and Jews found the opportunity to acquire learning and to excel in various fields of knowledge and expertise. Many of them had become historic figures who benefited from as well as contributed greatly to the Arab Muslim civilization' (Tamimi).

Prof. T. W. Arnold in his book The Preaching of Islam writes, "When the Muslim army reached the valley of the Jordan and Abu Ubaidah pitched his camp at Fhil, the Christian inhabitants of the country wrote to the Arabs saying: 'O Muslims, we prefer you to the Byzantines, though they are of our own faith, because you keep better faith with us, and your rule over us is better than theirs, for they have robbed us of our goods and hour homes'. The people of Amessa closed the gates of their city against the army of Heracles and told the Muslims that they preferred their government and justice to the injustice and oppression of the Greeks" (quoted in Ahmad 44).

Commenting on the visit of Omar bin Khattab (ra) to Jerusalem, Prof. T. W. Arnold writes: 'In company with the Patriarch, Omar visited the holy places, and it is said while they were in the Church of the Resurrection, as it was the appointed hour of prayer, the Patriarch bade the Caliph offer his prayers there, but he thoughtfully refused, saying that if he were to do so, his followers might afterwards claim it as a place of Muslim worship' (quoted in Ahmad 52). This was the attitude of the Muslims and noble example of Muslim's tolerance towards non-Muslims.

History is the testimony that Christians and Jews in Andalusia and in Spain under Muslim rule lived very peacefully and therefore non-Muslims could survive in Spain even after 700 years (from around 800 to the late 15th century) of Muslim rule. It was however when the Muslim caliphate became weak and the Muslim rule ended that Muslims were systematically killed and massacred. 'King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella drove the Moor Muslims out of Spain, forced everybody to embrace Catholic Christianity or be killed, and promoted the exquisite Christian tortures of the Inquisitions. Under Muslim rule, Christian and Jewish communities generally flourished from Spain to Iraq. On the other hand, until recent times, Christian intolerance prevailed throughout Europe' (Leupp). How then can Muslims be described as intolerant?

'To be a foreigner in the Abbasid court was not really a drawback since the culture encouraged diversity and rewarded people for speaking many languages and bringing the richness of their backgrounds. In fact during that time scholars, artists, poets and litterateurs came from a variety of ethnic backgrounds (speaking Aramaic, Arabic, Persian and Turkish), colours (white, black and mulatto), and creeds (Muslim, Christian, Jew, Sabian and Magian). It was this cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism of Baghdad that made for its enduring strength as a great centre of culture' (Mernissi 124). It is therefore evident that today's multiculturalism and pluralism has its roots in the 7th and 8th century Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates.

The Muslims ruled India for nearly 800 years; even then Hindus always remained the majority in the old quarters of Delhi, the seat of Mogul dynasty, all through history. Hindus held prominent position in Mogul courts, from Emperor Babur to Awrangzib and thrived in all fields of knowledge, from music to military craft. Awrangzib punished the grandson of his Prime Minister Azad Khan, Mirza Tafakhur who outraged the modesty of a non-Muslim woman. Awrangzib wrote: 'It is my duty to prevent oppression on the people who are a trust from the Creator' (Sarker, quoted in Ahmed 43).

However, history testifies that Muslims in India were and are subjected to intolerant behaviour from the Hindus. The recent happening in Gujarat is a glaring example of intolerant attitude of the Hindus towards their Muslims neighbours who are living in India side by side with them for thousand years. As a result of the brutal communal violence, with the complicity of Indian government, in Gujarat, some reports say, 19,000 Muslims were killed and 12,000 Muslim women were gang raped.

During his life time, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) conducted many treaties with Jews and Christians and the community of the believers lived peacefully with the Christians and the Jews as long as the other parties remained faithful to the terms of the treaties. Thus Prophet (pbuh) set example of plural nature of Islam and its potentials to create a society where Muslims and other communities can live peacefully. Some misunderstandings have however arisen encircling verses 3-16 of Chapter 9 of the Qur'an which are 'entirely devoted to treaty-breakers' (Haddad). Part of verse 9:5 reads, '… slay those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God wherever you may come upon them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place. Yet if they repent, and take to prayer, and render the purifying dues, let them go their way: for, behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.'

Muhammad Asad observes, "Every verse of the Qur'an must be read and interpreted against the background of the Qur'an as a whole. The above verse, which speaks of a possible conversion to Islam on the part of 'those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God' with whom the believers are at war, must, therefore, be considered in conjunction with several fundamental Qur'anic ordinances. One of them, 'There shall be no coercion in the matter of faith' (Qur'an 2:256) lays down categorically that any attempt at forcible conversion of unbelievers is prohibited - which precludes the possibility of the Muslims' demanding or expecting that a defeated enemy should embrace Islam at the price of immunity. Secondly, the Qur'an ordains, 'Fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you; but do not commit aggression, for, verily, God does not love aggressors' (Qur'an 2:190); and, 'if they do not let you be, and do not offer you peace, and do not stay their hands, seize them and slay them whenever you come upon them: and it is against these that We have clearly empowered you (to make war)' (4:91). Thus, war is permissible only in self defence, with further stipulation that 'if they desist - behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace' (2:192), and 'if they desist, then all hostility shall cease' (2:193). Now the enemy's conversion to Islam - expressed in the words, 'if they repent, and take to prayer (lit., establish prayer) and render the purifying dues (zakat)' - is no more than one, and by no means the only, way of their 'desisting from hostility'; and the reference to it in verses 5 and 11 of this surah (chapter) certainly does not imply an alternative of 'conversion or death', as some unfriendly critics of Islam choose to assume. Verses 4 and 6 give a further elucidation of the attitude which the believers are enjoined to adopt towards such of the unbelievers as are not hostile to them. In this connection see also 60:8-9 (Asad 255-256).

Eminent Egyptian scholar Sayyid Qutb commenting on the verse 'Fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you; but do not commit aggression, for, verily, God does not love aggressors' (2:190) points out: 'War should not be pursued for glory or dominance, nor for material aggrandizement, nor to gain new markets or control raw materials. It should not be pursued to give one class, race or nation of people dominance over another' (209). In Islam war is considered a means to prevent injustice not to proliferate it.

Islam is always accommodative for a pluralistic society. In the context of the present world, co-existence of peoples of different faith community is more indispensable than ever before. To realise this, the western world needs to come forward. One important potential of religious co-existence is that the Muslim world and the West share a common tradition, as the root of Islam, Christianity and Judaism goes back to Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham). From the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), Muslims have recognised this, but the West still seems to be blinded by the sick mentality of the crusaders.

Ahmad, Khurshid; Fanaticism, Intolerance and Islam, Lahore: Islamic Publications
Ltd. 1960

Alkim, Hassan Al; 'Islam & Democracy: Mutually Reinforcing OR Incompatible' in
Tamimi, Azzam (ed.) Power-Sharing Islam', UK: Liberty for Muslim World Publications, 1993
Alwani, Taha Jabir al; 'Globalization: Centralization not Globalism' in The American
Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, Washington, US, Vol. 15, No. 3. Fall 1998

~ 'Muslims in the West need contemporary fatwa', URL: http://members.fortunecity.co.uk/waseem/fatwa.htm

Armstrong, Karen; 'The Curse of the Infidel', The Guardian, 20 June 2002

Asad, Muhammad; The Message of The Quran, Gibralter: Dar Al Andalus, 1980

Faruqi, Ismail Raji al and Lois Lamya al Faruqi; The Cultural Atlas of Islam, New
York, USA: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1986

Haddad, G. F.; 'Standard Missionary Islamphobia', URL: http://www.abc.se/~m9783/n/stmi_e.html

Hannan, Shah Abdul; Zakat and the Tax System (Unpublished)

Kamali, Mohammad Hashim; Freedom of Expression in Islam, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia: Ilmiah Publishers. Kuala Lumpur, 1998

Kutb, Sayyid; Fi Zilal al Quran (In the Shade of the Quran), Salahi, Adil (tr.), Vol. I,
UK: The Islamic Foundation, 1999
Leupp, Gary; 'Challenging ignorance on Islam: A ten-point primer for Americans', URL: http://www.nzmuslim.net/article172.html

Maududi, Syed Abul Ala; Rasail Wa Masail (Bengali Edition), Dhaka, Bangladesh,
Vol. IV, 1999

Mernissi, Fatima; Scheherezade Goes West: Different Cultures-Different Harems,
USA: Washington Square Press. 2001

Momin, Abdur Rahman; 'Pluralism and Multiculturalism: An Islamic Perspective'in
The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, Washington, USA, Vol. 18, No. 2, Spring 2001

Qaradawi, Yusuf Al; Fiqh-uz-Zakat (Bengali Edition), Vol. I, Dhaka, Bangladesh,
1982
~ The Lawful And The Prohibited In Islam, USA: American Trust Publications.

Tamimi, Azzam; 'Jerusalem During Muslim Rule' in Al Aqsa Journal, Vol.1, No. 2,
April 1999

Turabi, Hasan; Al Mustakillah, Issue No. 96, 11 March 1996 (English version by The
Diplomat, UK)

*The writer is the Chairman of Islamic Information Bureau, Bangladesh.
Article prepared on: 1st October 2002.