are muslims and jews concerned about whether evolution is true or not or is it just christians?

Answer 1

I'm Muslim. But I think evoulution is real. To me, God made the big bang and then let things go on their own.

Answer 2

As far as Islam is concerned, there is no worry from the Muslims because science has confirmed what was written in the Quran, especially in the field of Biology.

Professor Keith Moore, who is at the head of Embryology at the University of Toronto, who has several books published on the developing human which are required reading for University Bio Techs, has done an extensive study into what Islam has said about the developing human and he comes to the following conclusions:
1. the Quran is accurate on a ll aspects of the developing human
2. that the knowledge found in the Quran was not known at the time it was inspired.
3. The details in the QUran about the embryo are so detailed and accurate that they must have divine origin.

Subsequently enough after his study Keith Moore embraced Islam and is now a Muslim, based on what he discovered when he done this study

read for yourself and be the judge
http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2005/16-31Jan05-Print-Edition/163101200569.htm

Answer 3

I don't know about Jews but as a Muslim believe that evolution is true. God created human who go through evolution. The source of this understanding ofcourse is Qur'an.

Answer 4

Well you have your answer, readkoran's answer show Muslims are concerned about it but due to their naive understanding of evolution presumably the concern isn't that great

Answer 5

None of the other religions are as hung up about the creation myth as the Christians, and no Christians are as hung up about it as the American ones.

Maybe it's because in America, people are allowed to question the 'state sponsored' religion without being thrown in prison.

Answer 6

Muslims and Jews are too busy killing each other to worry about important things like evolution and watching porn.

And, readkoran, you are an idiot.

Answer 7

Free,
WAIT an MINUTE!

I'm a Christian. I don't care about Evolution. It has NOTHIING to do with my faith.

Just for the record.

"
Thank you, thank you very much." -- Elvis Presley

Answer 8

I agree with camilo!

Answer 9

Do You Believe That Evolution Is True?

If so, then provide an answer to the following questions. "Evolution" in this
context is the idea that natural, undirected processes are sufficient to account for the existence of all natural things.

1. Something from nothing?

The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of
subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing? And even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode? We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?

2. Physical laws an accident?

We know the universe is governed by several fundamental physical laws, such as electromagnetic forces, gravity, conservation of mass and energy, etc. The activities of our universe depend upon these principles just like a computer program depends upon the existence of computer hardware with an instruction set. How reasonable is it to say that these great controlling principles developed by accident?

3. Order from disorder?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science. It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. Evolutionists say that the opposite has taken place - that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be?

ASIDE: Evolutionists commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law.

We should also point out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly, the application of a blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.

4. Information from Randomness?

Information theory states that "information" never arises out of randomness or chance events. Our human experience verifies this every day. How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened. Random typing might
produce the string "dog", but it only means something to an intelligent
observer who has applied a definition to this sequence of letters. The
generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.

5. Life from dead chemicals?

Evolutionists claim that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals), so-called "abiogenesis", even though it is a biological law ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?

6. Complex DNA and RNA by chance?

The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the "plan") and RNA (the "copy mechanism"), both of which are tremendously complex. How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?

7. Life is complex

We know and appreciate the tremendous amount of intelligent design and
planning that went into landing a man on the moon. Yet the complexity of this task pales in comparison to the complexity of even the simplest life form. How reasonable is it to believe that purely natural processes, with no designer, no intelligence, and no plan, produced a human being.

8. Where are the transitional fossils?

If evolution has taken place our museums should be overflowing with the
skeletons of countless transitional forms. Yet after over one hundred years of intense searching only a small number of transitional candidates are touted as proof of evolution. If evolution has really taken place, where are the transitional forms? And why does the fossil record actually show all species first appearing fully formed, with most nearly identical to current instances of the species?

ASIDE: Most of the examples touted by evolutionists concentrate on just one feature of the anatomy, like a particular bone or the skull. A true
transitional fossil should be intermediate in many if not all aspects. The next time someone shows you how this bone changed over time, ask them about the rest of the creature too! Many evolutionists still like to believe in the "scarcity" of the fossil record. Yet simple statistics will show that given you have found a number of fossil instances of a creature, the chances that you have missed every one of its imagined predecessors is very small. Consider the trilobites for example. These fossils are so common you can buy one for under $20, yet no fossils of a predecessor have been found!

9. Could an intermediate even survive?

Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don't forget that "natural selection" is supposed to retain those individuals which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited toeither its old environment or its new environment? Can you even imagine a possible sequence of small changes which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not only alive, but improved?

ASIDE: Certainly a "light-sensitive spot" is better than no vision at all. But
why would such a spot even develop? (evolutionists like to take this for
granted). And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye strains all common sense and experience.

10. Reproduction without reproduction?

A main tenet of evolution is the idea that things develop by an (unguided)
series of small changes, caused by mutations, which are "selected" for,
keeping the "better" changes" over a very long period of time. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce? Can you even imagine a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen? And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? A sexual reproduction would seem to be more likely and efficient!

ASIDE: To relegate the question of reproduction to "abiogenesis" does NOT address the problem. To assume existing, reproducing life for the principles of evolution to work on is a HUGE assumption which is seldom focused on in popular discussions.

11. Plants without photosynthesis?

The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?

12. How do you explain symbiotic relationships?

There are many examples of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic"
relationship (they need each other to survive). How can evolution explain
this?

13.It's no good unless it's complete

We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether it be a car, a cake, or a computer program. Why would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was completed?

ASIDE: Note that even a "light-sensitive spot" or the simplest version of any feature is far from a "one-jump" change that is trivial to produce.

14. Explain metamorphosis!

How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the
caterpillar evolves into the "mass of jelly" (out of which the butterfly
comes), wouldn't it appear to be "stuck"?

15. It should be easy to show evolution

If evolution is the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple gas, surely this mechanism must be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and still have only produced ... more (deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable is it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it?

ASIDE: The artificial creation of a new species is far too small of a change
to prove that true "macro-evolution" is possible. Developing a new species changes the existing information, but does not add new information, such as would be needed for a new organ, for example.

16. Complex things require intelligent design, folks!

People are intelligent. If a team of engineers were to, one day, design a robot which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, could make more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at this achievement. All of our life's experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all of the parts were available laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, not matter how long we left it there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would never result in such a robot being produced. But we already have such a "robot" - it is called an "ant", and we squash them because they are "nothing" compared to people. And God made them, and he made us. Can there be any other explanation?

Answer 10

Some of the biggest misconceptions that many non-Muslims have about Islam have to do with the word "Allah". For various reasons, many people have come to believe that Muslims worship a different God than Christians and Jews. This is totally false, since "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for "God" - and there is only One God. Let there be no doubt - Muslims worship the God of Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus - peace be upon them all. However, it is certainly true that Jews, Christians and Muslims all have different concepts of Almighty God. For example, Muslims - like Jews - reject the Christian beliefs of the Trinity and the Divine Incarnation. This, however, doesn't mean that each of these three religions worships a different God - because, as we have already said, there is only One True God. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all claim to be "Abrahamic Faiths", and all of them are also classified as "monotheistic". However, Islam teaches that other religions have, in one way or another, distorted and nullified a pure and proper belief in Almighty God by neglecting His true teachings and mixing them with man-made ideas.

First of all, it is important to note that "Allah" is the same word that Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews use for God. If you pick up an Arabic Bible, you will see the word "Allah" being used where "God" is used in English. (Click here to see some examples of the word "Allah" in the Arabic Bible.) This is because "Allah" is the only word in the Arabic language equivalent to the English word "God" with a capital "G". Additionally, the word "Allah" cannot be made plural or given gender (i.e. masculine or feminine), which goes hand-in-hand with the Islamic concept of God. Because of this, and also because the Qur'an, which is the holy scripture of Muslims, was revealed in the Arabic language, some Muslims use the word "Allah" for "God", even when they are speaking other languages. This is not unique to the word "Allah", since many Muslims tend to use Arabic words when discussing Islamic issues, regardless of the language which they speak. This is because the universal teachings of Islam - even though they have been translated in every major language - have been preserved in the Arabic language.

It is interesting to note that the Aramaic word "El", which is the word for God in the language that Jesus spoke, is certainly more similar in sound to the word "Allah" than the English word "God". This also holds true for the various Hebrew words for God, which are "El" and "Elah", and the plural form "Elohim". The reason for these similarities is that Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic are all Semitic languages with common origins. It should also be noted that in translating the Bible into English, the Hebrew word "El" is translated variously as "God", "god" and "angel"! This imprecise language allows different translators, based on their preconceived notions, to translate the word to fit their own views. The Arabic word "Allah" presents no such difficulty or ambiguity, since it is only used for Almighty God alone. Additionally, in English, the only difference between "god", meaning a false god, and "God", meaning the One True God, is the capital "G". In the Arabic alphabet, since it does not have capital letters, the word for God (i.e. Allah) is formed by adding the equivalent to the English word "the" (Al-) to the Arabic word for "god/God" (ilah). So the Arabic word "Allah" literally it means "The God" - the "Al-" in Arabic basically serving the same function as the capital "G" in English. Due to the above mentioned facts, a more accurate translation of the word "Allah" into English might be "The One -and-Only God" or "The One True God".

More importantly, it should also be noted that the Arabic word "Allah" contains a deep religious message due to its root meaning and origin. This is because it stems from the Arabic verb ta'allaha (or alaha), which means "to be worshipped". Thus in Arabic, the word "Allah" means "The One who deserves all worship". This, in a nutshell, is the Pure Monotheistic message of Islam. You see, according to Islam, "monotheism" is much more than simply believing in the existence of "only One God" - as seemingly opposed to two, three or more. If one understands the root meaning of the word "Allah", this point should become clear. One should understand that Islam's criticism of the other religions that claim to be "monotheistic" is not because they are "polytheistic" in the classic sense, but because they direct various forms of worship to other than Almighty God. We will discuss the meaning of worship in Islam below, however, before moving on it should be noted that many non-Muslims are unaware of the distinction between simply believing in the existence of only One God and reserving all worship for Him alone. Many Christians are painfully unaware of this point, and thus you often find them asking how Muslims can accuse the followers of Jesus, peace be upon him, of being "polytheists" when they were all "monotheistic Jews". First of all, it should be clarified that the word "polytheist" doesn't really sound right in this context, since to many it implies simply believing in the existence of more than one God. So in an Islamic context, "associators", "man-worshippers" or "creature worshippers" might be more accurate and appropriate terms - especially since Christians believe Jesus to be both "100% God and 100% man", while still paying lip-service to God's "Oneness". However, as we're previously touched upon, what is really at the root of this problem is the fact that Christians - as well as the members of other religions - don't really know what "monotheism" means - especially in the Islamic sense. All of the books, articles and papers that I've read which were written by Christians invariably limit "monotheism" to believing in the existence of "One Sovereign and Creator God". Islam, however, teaches much more than this.

Suffice it to say that just because someone claims to be a "monotheistic" Jew, Christian or Muslim, that doesn't keep them from falling into corrupt beliefs and idolatrous practices. Many people, including some Muslims, claim belief in "One God" even though they've fallen into acts of idolatry. Certainly, many Protestants accuse Roman Catholics of idolatrous practices in regards to the saints and the Virgin Mary. Likewise, the Greek Orthodox Church is considered "idolatrous" by many other Christians because in much of their worship they use icons. However, if you ask a Roman Catholic or a Greek Orthodox person if God is "One", they will invariably answer: "Yes!". This lip-service, however, does not stop them from being "creature worshipping" idolaters. The same goes for Hindus, who just consider their gods to be "manifestations" or "incarnations" of the One Supreme God.

Everyone should be aware of the fact that throughout the long history of the "Abrahamic Faiths", there have people who, while believing in "One God", have adopted beliefs and practices that completely nullify their claim to "monotheism". This is the Muslim view of Christians. We're well aware of the fact that they claim belief in "One God" with their lips, but this doesn't mean that they don't nullify their claim in other ways. This is because many people simply haven't been taught everything that Pure Monotheism entails. From an Islamic point of view, "monotheism" can be nullified in many ways. For example, simply believing that it is permissible to rule by Western "liberal" and "democratic" laws in lieu of the Divinely Revealed Law of Almighty God makes one a "polytheist". Certainly, a person who does such a thing, whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim, doesn't ever believe that there is another Almighty Creator and Sovereign Lord. However, for all practical purposes, such a person has take another "god", whether they choose to admit it or not. In this way they are associating partners with Almighty God (Arabic: shirk), and thus become a "polytheist" in a practical sense, regardless of their lip-service to "monotheism". This holds true even if the person doesn't believe what they are doing is "worship". For example, Roman Catholics who pray to the Virgin Mary will staunchly deny that they are "worshipping" her. They instead call it "adoration" or some other watered-down term. However, from an Islamic point of view, what is worship if not this? Islam teaches that prayer and supplication are the marrow of worship, so if one directs their prayers to an intermediary (even if the pray is "ultimately" meant for God), then what is left of worship? Additionally, how can someone who believes in Almighty God follow man-made laws instead of God's Law, without admitting that they've begun worshipping other than God? Do they know better than God?

Additionally, the Old Testament makes it perfectly clear that making a "graven image" of any created thing (not to mention ones which are supposed to "represent" Almighty God) is prohibited. Please see Exodus 20:4-6, Leviticus 26:1 and Deuteronomy 4:16, 23, 25, 5:8 and Nehemiah 9:6 for some statements in regards to this point. Without addressing the issue that Christians commonly violate the unambiguous commandment not to even "make" representations of anything that is in the "heavens above or on the earth beneath", these verses not only teach that worshipping idols is prohibited, but also that Almighty God is eternally distinct from His creation and thus nothing in His creation can represent Him. To believe otherwise is to be a de facto idol worshipper - even if one claims belief in one, and only one, "True God". In Exodus 20:4-6 and Deuteronomy 4:16, Almighty God - who is a "Jealous God" - makes it perfectly clear that He is distinct from His creation.

By giving such clear and merciful guidance to human beings, God is establishing a universal and eternal Truth for the benefit of mankind. This eternal Truth is the bedrock of religious guidance, since once people begin to believe that Almighty God mixes with or can be represented by His creation, they can be duped into believing almost anything. Once someone accepts that God has become "incarnate" in His creation, or that someone or something is a "manifestation" - and thus representation - of Him, the floodgates are open and "Truth" becomes a matter of subjective guesswork. Once the first and most basic concept is violated - regardless of how complicated and sophisticated the rationale for it might be - it is very easy to fall further and further away from the Eternal Truth of Pure Monotheism. In the final analysis, it is not a question of whether God is capable of becoming a man, but rather a question of whether one bases their beliefs about God on clear, unambiguous and authentic guidance. Once it is left up to the human mind to decide what Almighty God can and cannot do, the stage is set for misguidance to take root. Human speculation about God only ends up leading to misguidance and despair, since no clear conclusions can ever be reached. For example, is God capable of creating an object so heavy that He is incapable of moving it? If not, does that mean that He is incapable? It is because of misguided questions like this that Islam clearly teaches that mankind should only say about God what He has said about Himself. This means all of our ideas about God must be based on Revelation - not human speculation. In short, the final prophet of Islam - Muhammad - was sent by Almighty God to preach the same Pure Monotheism that was practiced by Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus - peace be upon them all. This Pure Monotheism means not only believing that there is only One God in existence, but realizing that He is transcedent above His creation and that all worship is due to Him alone.

Before concluding, we should probably address the practice of those Muslims who insist on using the Arabic word "Allah" even when speaking English. Even though this practice certainly is not to be condemned when it is done around those who understand the meaning of the Arabic word "Allah", it is my experience - both during my years as a non-Muslim and my years as a Muslim - that such a practice can (and usually does) breed misunderstanding. It seems that often times, many of the Muslims who use the word "Allah" in lieu of the word "God", even when trying to attract people to Islam, are unaware of the severe misunderstandings that many non-Muslims have about Islam (and the distorted way which Islam has been portrayed in the West). Insisting on using the word "Allah" only fuels the flames of misunderstanding - so there's no good reason to do it. I've often wondered what value some Muslims think that using the word "Allah" adds to the Pure Message that they are trying to convey. ( . . . and I'm still waiting for an answer!) Unfortunately, those Muslims who insist on using the word "Allah" even when addressing non-Muslims who are unfamiliar with Islam and the Arabic language, do both a disservice to themselves and their religion. Unfortunately, this practice is usually based on the false assumption - by a non-native speaker of English - that the word "God" in English is incapable of expressing a pure and proper belief in Almighty God. This is certainly false. If someone says that the English word "God" cannot be used to express the Pure Islamic Belief in Tawhid, they are wrong not because they don't understand Tawhid, but simply because they don't understand the English language. Many people who insist on using the Arabic word "Allah" usually don't realize this, because in reality, they are not so much affirming the word "Allah" as they are rejecting the word "God" as unsuitable - based on incorrect assumptions. For someone to assume that the word "God" presupposes a certain theological point-of-view (such as the Trinity) is simply Wrong - and that's Wrong with a capital "W". To say the word "God" should be rejected because it can be changed into "god", "gods" or "goddess" is illogical because each of these words has a distinctive meaning and a distinctive spelling - at least to someone who knows how to speak English correctly. Using the same logic, I can demonstrate that the root letters "ktb" can be used to form the Arabic words "kitab" (book), "maktabah" (library), "maktab" (office) and "kaatib" (writer), but does that mean that these words have the same meaning? Do Arabic-speaking people go through life confusing libraries with writers and offices with books (both in conversation and in reality)? I think not! This is not to mention the fact that if the Arabic "Al-" was put in front of these words in order to make them definite, confusion would be even less likely! So the logic in both cases is the same, and this is because even though the same letters are used in "God" and "god", these two words have two different meanings in the English language. The capital "G" implies something different than the small "g" - and anyone who denies this simply doesn't know how to speak the English language.

In concluding this point, it should be mentioned that Arabic-speaking Muslims who believe in Pure Tawhid, Arabic-speaking Christians, the idol worshippers of Mecca and (so-called) Muslims who believe in "Wahdat al-Wujud" all use the word "Allah". However, does this guarantee all of them proper belief in "Allah"? Certainly not, because if they have a corrupt concept of "Allah" it doesn't matter what word they use!

This brings us to a more important point: It should be clearly understood that what Islam is primarily concerned with is correcting mankind's concept of Almighty God. What we are ultimately going to be held accountable at the end of our life is not whether we prefer the word "Allah" over the word "God", but what our concept of God is. Language is only a side issue. A person can have an incorrect concept of God while using the word "Allah", and likewise a person can have a correct concept of God while using the word "God". This is because both of these words are equally capable of being misused and being improperly defined. As we've already mentioned, using the word "Allah" no more insinuates belief in the Unity of God than the use of the word "God" insinuates belief in the Trinity - or any other theological opinion. Naturally, when God sends a revelation to mankind through a prophet, He is going to send it in a language that the people who receive it can understand and relate to. Almighty God makes this clear in the Qur'an, when He states:

"Never did We send a Messenger except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people in order to make (things) clear to them."
(Qur'an, Chapter 14 - "Abraham", Verse 4)
As Muslims, we think that it is unfortunate that we have to go into details on such seemingly minor issues, but so many falsehoods have been heaped upon our religion, that we feel that it is our duty to try to break down the barriers of falsehood. This isn't always easy, since there is a lot of anti-Islamic literature in existence which tries to make Islam look like something strange and foreign to Westerners. There are some people out there, who are obviously not on the side of truth, that want to get people to believe that "Allah" is just some Arabian "god", and that Islam is completely "other" - meaning that it has no common roots with the other Abrahamic religions (i.e. Christianity and Judaism). To say that Muslims worship a different "God" because they say "Allah" is just as illogical as saying that French people worship another God because they use the word "Dieu", that Spanish-speaking people worship a different God because they say "Dios" or that the Hebrews worshipped a different God because they sometimes call Him "Yahweh". Certainly, reasoning like this is quite ridiculous! It should also be mentioned, that claiming that any one language uses the only the correct word for God is tantamount to denying the universality of God's message to mankind, which was to all nations, tribes and people through various prophets who spoke different languages.

Before closing, we would like everyone to be aware of the fact that some Christian missionary organizations print English literature intended to teach Christians about Islam which say such things as: "Allah is the god of the Muslims" and that "Muhammad came to get people to believe in the god Allah" - implying that "Allah" is some sort of false "god". However, when these same organizations print literature in the Arabic language, hoping to lead Arabic-speaking Muslims "to Christ", they use the word "Allah" for God. It seems that if they were on the side of truth, they would not have to resort to such inconsistencies. And on an even more ridiculous note . . . there are also missionary organizations that exceed this in ignorance (or deceit) by writing books that call on Muslims to give up their belief in "Allah", and instead worship the "Lord" Jesus, "the Son of God". Besides making it abundantly clear that they are outside the community of Pure Monotheism, the people who write such material don't even realize that if they wrote such a pamphlet in Arabic, it would be self-contradictory. This is because in an Arabic Bible Jesus is the "Son of Allah"! If an Arabic-speaking person gave up the worship of "Allah", they would have no God to worship, since "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for God!

Before we conclude, however, we would like to ask our readers to ask themselves what they think the reasons are behind all of these lies? If Islam was just some false religion that didn't make any sense, would so many people, from Western scholars to Christian missionaries, have to tell so many lies about it? The reason is that the Ultimate Truth of Islam stands on solid ground and its unshakable belief in the Unity of God is above reproach. Due to this, Christians can't criticize its doctrines directly, but instead make up things about Islam that aren't true so that people lose the desire to learn more. If Muslims were able to present Islam in the proper way to people in the West, it surely might make many people reconsider and re-evaluate their own beliefs. It is quite likely that Christians, when they find out that there is a universal religion in the world that teaches people to worship and love God, while also practicing Pure Monotheism, would at least feel that they should re-examine the basis for their own beliefs and doctrines
IT IS NATURAL that one should make a distinction, and even discrimination, between the near and the distant and between the relative and the stranger. With intellectual and moral evolution there is a tendency in human society to facilitate the assimilation of the foreigner. If a society were to group itself solely on the basis of blood relationships, naturalization would be out of the question for ever. The same is true if the basis were the colour of skin, which cannot be concealed. Language as a factor of social unity requires long years for a veritable assimilation. Place of birth is even less perceptible in a stranger, and ever since man had crossed the horizon of city-states, not much importance has been attached to this last factor. However, one would remark that in all these various conceptions of social unity, the basis is a mere accident of nature, and belongs more to the animal instinct than to the rationality of man. It is common knowledge that Islam has rejected all these notions of nationality and selected only the identity of ideas - a thing which depends on the choice of man and not the accidents and hazards of birth - as the basic tie of society and the factor of union. Naturalization and assimilation in such a society is not only easy and accessible to all human races in their entirety, but it is also closer to reason and more practical, showing how to live one's life in peace and tranquillity.

407. If a believer in God or a capitalist is considered as a stranger in communist countries, a black-skinned in such white countries as practice social segregation, or a non-Italian in Italy, it should not be surprising if a non-Muslim should be considered as a stranger in the land of Islam. Conceptions, or rather angles of view, differ, yet everybody makes some distinction or other between those who belong to his own group and those who do not.

408. As in other political or social systems, Islam also makes a distinction between its "relatives" and "strangers," but there are two characteristics peculiar to it:(1) the facility to cross this barrier by subscribing to its ideology, and (2) but little inequality between the two categories regarding the affairs of this world. We shall try to throw some light on this last aspect of the question.

Divine Origin of Duties

409. One should not forget the great practical importance attached to the fact that Muslims obey their system of law as something of Divine origin, and not merely the will of the majority of the leaders of the country. In this latter case, the minority enters on a struggle so that its own conceptions may prevail. In the democracies of our time, not only do the majorities often change from election to election but are also constituted or disintegrated by all sorts of commutations and combinations, and the party in power tries to upset the policy pursued by its predecessors, causing, among other changes, the modification of laws. Without entering here into the question of the adaptability of Islamic laws to the exigencies of social evolution, one might deem it as an incontestable truth that there is greater stability in the Muslim law - due to the Divine origin - than in any other secular legislation of the world with the following result :

410. The Islamic law ordains justice to, and observation of certain rules regarding the non-Muslims. These therefore feel no apprehension in the face of political quarrels and parliamentary elections of the country of their residence, with regard to the Islamic laws in force. The ruler or parliament cannot modify them.

Basic Notions

411. The believers and nonbeliever's cannot be equals, the former will go to Paradise, and the latter to hell, but all this concerns the Hereafter. As to the life in this world, Muslim jurists like ad-Dabusi and others have at all times revealed the greatest equality compatible with their system between "relatives" and"strangers," as we shall presently see.

412. There is the question of religious tolerance. The Qur'an (2:256) prescribes that there should be no compulsion in religion. The residing subjects as well as the temporary sojourners have an assurance regarding their safety and the liberty of their conscience.

413. There is the question of hospitality and asylum, regarding which the theoretical position is strengthened by the practice of more than a thousand years. There is the well-known verse of the Qur'an (9:6): "And if anyone of the pagans seeketh thy asylum (O Muhammad), then give him asylum . . . and afterwards convey him to his place of safety . . ." The victims of racial, religious, political and other persecutions have always found refuge and shelter in the land of Islam.

[What a touching and even stupefying teaching is the command that a Muslim should collaborate even with the enemy in the state of war! Says the Holy Qur'an (5:2) " . . . and let not the hatred of a people who have stopped your going to the Inviolable Mosque (of the Ka'bah) incite you to transgress; but help ye one another unto charity and piety. Help not one another unto sin and transgression. Lo! God is severe in punishment." Mutual help is not to be restricted among Muslims alone, but with entire humanity without restriction of religion and race!--Editor]
Practice of the Prophet
414. When the Prophet Mohammed settled down in Medina, he found there complete anarchy, the region having never known before either a State or a king to unite the tribes torn by internecine feuds. In just a few weeks, he succeeded in rallying all the inhabitants of the region into order. He constituted a city state, in which Muslims, Jews, pagan Arabs and also probably a small number of Christians, all entered into a statal organism by means of a social contract.

415. The constitutional law of this first 'Muslim' State - which was the confederacy as a sequence of the multiplicity of the population groups - has come down to us in toto, and we read therein not only in clause 25: "to Muslims their religion, and to Jews their religion," or, "that there would be benevolence and justice," but even the unexpected passage in the same clause 25: "the Jews . . . are a community (in alliance) with - according Ibn Hisham and in the version of Abu-'Ubaid, a community (forming part) of - the believers (i.e., Muslims)."

416. The very fact that, at the time of the constitution of this city-state, the autonomous Jewish villages acceded of their free will to the confederal State, and recognized Muhammad as their supreme political head, implies in our opinion that the non-Muslim subjects possessed the right of votes in the election of the head of the Muslim State, at least in so far as the political life of the country was concerned.

417. Military defence was, according to the document in question, the duty of all elements of the population, including the Jews. This implies their participation in the consultation, and in the execution of the plans adopted. In fact section 37 laid down: "the jews would bear their expenses and the Muslims theirs, and there will be mutual succour between them in case an aggressor attacks the parties to this Document." Further section 45 says that war and peace will be indivisible for the parties to the Document.

418. Some months after the establishment of this City-State, we see the Prophet Muhammad concluding treaties of defensive alliance and mutual aid with the pagan Arabs of the neighbourhood of Medina. Some of them embraced Islam about ten years afterwards. During all those long years, mutual confidence was most complete, as the following incidents will show.

419. In the year 2 AH, the pagans of Mecca sent a diplomatic mission to Abyssinia, in order to demand of the Negus the "extradition" of Meccan Muslims who had taken refuge in his country. To counteract their machinations, the Prophet also sent, in his turn, an ambassador for interceding with the Negus in favour of the Muslims who had sought asylum in his country due to religious persecution by their co-citizens. This ambassador of Islam was 'Amr ibn Umaiyah ad-Damri, "who had not yet embraced Islam." In fact, he belonged to one of the Allied tribes of the neighbourhood of Medina just referred to.

420. At a time when there were constant wars on extensive frontiers of the Islamic territory, military service was very far from being an easy means of earning a livelihood, the risks to life and to the economic situation of the combatants were very real. Even if the exemption of the non-Muslim subjects from this service was motivated by the suspicions in regard to their trustworthiness, all non-Muslims who had accepted Muslim domination and did not seek its overthrow in collusion with foreigners welcomed this exemption from military service. They could thus pursue in tranquillity their avocations and prosper, while the Muslims would be engaged in military duties with all the attendant risks. So, the non-Muslims paid little supplementary tax, the jizyah - of which the women, children and the poor from among them were exempt - which was neither heavy nor unjust. In the time of the Prophet, the jizyah amounted to ten dirhams annually, which represented the expenses of an average family for ten days. Moreover, if a non-Muslim subject participated in military service during some expedition in a year, he was exempted from the jizyah for the year in question. Some typical cases will show the real character of this tax.

421. In the beginning of Islam, this tax did not exist in the Muslim State, in either Medina or elsewhere. It was towards the year 9 AH that the Qur'an ordained it. That it was a question of expediency, and not a matter of dogmatic duty in Islam, is sufficiently shown by the following incidents. It is reported (by Ibn Sa'd on the authority of Zuhri) that at the moment of the death of his son, Ibrahim, the Prophet Mohammed declared: "Had he survived, I would have exempted all the Copts from the jizyah, as a mark of esteem for Ibrahim's mother. (Who was a Coptic girl). Or again, (cf. Suyuti Husn al-Mahadarah, ch. Khalij Amir al-Mu'minin), when a non-Muslim Egyptian laid before the Muslim government the project of re-digging the ancient canal from Fustat (Cairo) down to the Red Sea, thus facilitating the maritime transport of Egyptian food stuffs to Medina - the famous Nahr Amir al-Mu'minin - the caliph ''Umar rewarded him by exempting him from jizyah during his entire life. There are jurists who opine that one should also take into consideration the international repercussions affecting Muslim interests, in view of the fact that Islam has penetrated countries which are under non-Muslim domination; and the jizyah territory would inevitably produce a reaction on Muslims in Christian and other countries.

422. There is another saying of the Prophet which was pronounced on his death bed and which directs the transfer of the Jewish and Christian populations of the Hijaz to other regions; its context has not been mentioned in the traditions, but it is evident that it concerned certain populations of this region on account of their political behaviour, and that it was not a general prohibition against the members of these two communities. It may be noticed that, in the time of the caliphs, there were non-Muslim slaves, male and female, belonging to Muslims and living along with their masters, at Mecca, Medina, etc. A celebrated case of free non-Muslims is that of the Christian doctor, whose consultation rooms were just below the minaret of the mosque of the Ka'bah (Mecca). He lived there in the time of ''Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz or soon after him (cf. Ibn Sa'd, V. 365 - Da'wud ibn 'Abdur Rahman. In fact Da'wud was a pious Muslim, yet his physician father remained a Christian). Ibn Sa'd (III/i, p.258) also records the case of a Christian, Jufainah, who taught reading and writing to school children in Medina.

423. We may also recall the direction of the Prophet on his death bed: "Observe scrupulously the protection accorded by me to non-Muslim subjects. Another saying of the Prophet reported by Abu Da'wud is: "whoever oppresses non-Muslim subjects, shall find me to be their advocate on the day of Resurrection (against the oppressing Muslims)."

424. The directions as well as the practice of the Prophet constitute the highest law for Muslims. As to the assimilation of these laws into the life of Muslims and practice of later times, a study of history could profitability be pursued. We shall referr to a few facts here.

Later Practice

425. A governor of the Caliph 'Umar selected a non-Muslim secretary. Learning the news, the Caliph issued an order to have him replaced by a Muslim. This refers to a time when the province in question had not yet been purified, and a war was still in progress. This is understandable in view of the importance of the post and the natural mistrust of the inhabitants of the newly conquered country. Moreover this governor was an illiterate person. In order to better comprehend the attitude of 'Umar, let us recall another incident of the same great caliph (reported by al-Baladhuri, Ansab): "One day he wrote to his governor of Syria: Send us a Greek, who could put in order the accounts of our revenues." He put a Christian at the head of this administration, in Medina.

426. The same Caliph often consulted non-Muslims on military, economical and administrative questions.

427. One would not reproach Muslims for preserving the post of the imam (the leader of the prayer-service in the mosque) exclusively for their co-religionists. Islam has desired the coordination of all aspects of life, spiritual as well as temporal. Hence, the fact that the leading of the prayer-service in the mosque is a duty and privilege of the head of state who is also head of the religion. If one takes into consideration this state of things, one will understand easily why a non-Muslim subject cannot be elected head of a Muslim State.

428. But this exception does on no account imply the exclusion of non-Muslim subjects from the political and administrative life of the country. Ever since the time of the caliphs, non-Muslims have been seen holding the rank of ministers in Muslim States. A parallel practice has not been witnessed in the more important secular democracies of the world, where Muslim subjects are not lacking. That this practice of the caliphs is not contrary to the teaching of Islam, is borne witness to by classical authors, and Shafi'ite jurists (like al-Mawardi) and Hanbalite one's (like Abu Ya'la al-Farra') have not hesitated to support the view that the caliph may lawfully nominate non-Muslim subjects as ministers and members of executive councils. We have already spoken of a non-Muslim ambassador sent by the Prophet himself to Abyssinia.

Social Autonomy

429. Perhaps the most characteristic feature of Islam, in its attitude regarding the non-Muslims, is the award of social and judicial autonomy. In a long passage of the Qur'an, we read:


"If then they have recourse unto thee (O Muhammad), Judge between them or disclaim jurisdiction; if thou disclaimest jurisdiction, then they cannot harm thee at all; but if thou judgest, Judge between them with equity; lo! God loveth the equitable. How can they come unto thee for judgment when they have the Torah, wherein is contained the judgment of God? Yet even after that they turn away; such folk are not believers. Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light, by which the prophets who surrendered (unto God) judged the Jews, and the rabbis and the priests judged by such of God's Scripture as they were bidden to observe, and thereunto they were witnesses; so fear not mankind, but fear Me, and barter not My revelations for a little gain; whoso judgeth not by that which God hath revealed: such are disbelievers. And We prescribed for them therein the life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the notes, and the ear for the ear, and the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation; but whoso forgoeth it (by way of charity) it shall be expiation for him; whoso judgeth not by that which God hath revealed: such are wrong doers. And we caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was revealed before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who are God-fearing. Let the people of the Gospel judge by that which God hath revealed therein; whoso judgeth not by that which God hath revealed; such are evil-livers. And unto thee (O Muhammad) have We revealed the Scripture with the Truth, confirming whatever Scripture was sent before it, and a watcher over it: so judge between them by that which God hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee: for each We have appointed a Divine law (Shari'ah) and a traced-out way; had God willed, He could have made you one community, but He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as you are); so vie one with the other in Good works; unto God ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ." [Qur'an 5:42-48]

430. It is on the basis of this amendment, that the Prophet and his successors in Islam have conceded to every non-Muslim community, from among subjects of the Islamic state, a judicial autonomy, not only for personal status, but also for all the affairs of life - civil, penal, and others. In the time of the Orthodox Caliphs, for instance, we find evidence of contemporary Christians (for text cf. infra 497) attesting to the fact that the Muslim government had delegated in favour of Christian priests, many temporal judicial powers. In the time of the 'Abbasid caliphs, we find the Christian patriarch and the Jewish hakham, among the highest dignitaries of state, connected directly with the Caliph.

431. In the time of the Prophet, the Jews of Medina had their Bait al-Midras (both a synagogue and educational institute). In the treaty with the Christians of Najaran (Yaman), the Prophet gave the guarantee not only for the security of the person and property of the inhabitants, but had also expressly left the nomination of bishops and priests to the Christian community itself.

432. There is a tendency among a large number of people to imitate and ape their governors and chiefs in the outer conduct of life such as dress, coiffure, etiquette, etc. The result is a superficial assimilation, which brings no advantage to the ruling community, but which causes a moral damage to the classes which imitate in a servile manner. In an Islamic State, non-Muslims constitute a protected community (dhimmi). Therefore it is the duty of the government to protect the legitimate interests of these "strangers." Hence that we see, during the 'Abbasid caliphate that, far from seeking the assimilation of "strangers" by force, the government discouraged all imitation of one by the other: Muslims, Christians, Jews, Magians and others conserved by their own modes of dress, their social manners and their distinctive individualities. Only a total assimilation, for religious conversion, was sought, and not a confusion of communities. This is proof enough that the measure had nothing to do with the religious exigencies of Islam - and in the time of the Prophet there was absolutely no trace of it - but a condition of life, suiting the social conceptions of the epoch: and its essential purpose was to recognize, at the very first sight, the religious community of each and every individual. The intention was to protect in this way the culture of everyone, so that its intrinsic values and defects should come more into relief. In passing, it may be repeated that the conception of nationality in Islam is based neither on an ethnic source nor on the place of birth, but on the identity of ideology, i.e., of religion.

433. The person, property and honour of every individual, whether indigenous or heterogenous, are fully protected in the Islamic territory. The Sharh al-Hidayah, which is a legal manual of current use, employs, for instance, the characteristic expression: "Defamation is prohibited, be it concerning the Muslim or a Protected (non-Muslim)." Another jurist of great authority, the author of al-Bahr ar-Rai'iq says: "even the bones of the dead among the Protected (non-Muslims) have the right to be respected, even as the bones of Muslims. It is not allowed to profane them, because if the ill treatment of a Protected (non-Muslim) is forbidden in his life-time, on account of the protection which he enjoys, the protection of his bones against every profanation is equally obligatory after his death." The jurists are unanimous in declaring that, if a Muslim violates a non-Muslim woman, he will receive the same punishment as is prescribed against the violation of Muslim women.

434. In the time of the caliph 'Umar, certain Muslims had usurped a piece of land belonging to a Jew, and had constructed a mosque on the site. Learning the news, the caliph ordered the demolition of the mosque and the restoration of the land to the Jews. Prof. Cardahi (a Christian of Lebanon, in a series of lectures on Private International Law of Islam, delivered at The Hague, 1933) writes, "this house of the to Bait al-Yahudi, still exists and is well-known." Another classical example, cited by Ibn Kathir and others is that of the Grand Mosque of Damascus. An Umaiyad caliph had occupied the church to enlarge the Mosque. Later when the complaint was brought before caliph 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, he ordered that part of the mosque to be built on the usurped piece of ground be demolished and the church restored there. But the Christians themselves preferred a monetary compensation and the matter was thus amicably be settled.

435. Let us cite the circular of the caliph '''Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, (preserved by Ibn Sa'd, V. 280), which is eloquent testimony:

"With the name of God, the Most Merciful, the All Merciful. From the Servant of God, Commander of the Faithful, 'Umar (ibn 'abd al-'Aziz) to (the governor) 'Adi ibn Artat and to the believing Muslims in his company: Peace be with you. Whereafter I send you praise of God, beside Whom there is no God. Thereafter: Pay attention to the condition of the Protected (non-Muslims), treat them tenderly. If any of them reaches old age and has no resources, it is you who should spend on him. If he has contractual brethren, demand these latter to spend on him. Apply retaliation if anybody commits tort against him. This is as if you have a slave, who reaches old age, you should spend on him tell his death or liberate him. I have learned that you accept tithe on the import of wine and make it enter the Treasury belonging to God. I warn you never to let it enter the Treasury belonging to God, however small the amount maybe, unless it be a legally pure property. Peace be with you."
436. Another letter of the same caliph (cf. Ibn Sa'd, V. 253) says :
" Purify the registers from the charge of obligation (i.e., taxes levied unjustly); and study old files (also). If any injustice has been committed regarding a Muslim or a non-Muslim, restore him his right. If any such person should have died, remit his rights to his heirs."
437. It is common knowledge that the Muslim jurists recognize the right of preemption in regard to neighbours. If anybody sells his immovable property, the neighbour has the prior right over a stranger. This right is recognized in favour of non-Muslims as well.
438. The safeguard of the rights of non-Muslims, in the Islamic territory, goes even to the extent of giving them the liberty of practising customs entirely opposed to those of Islam. For instance the consumption of alcoholic drinks is forbidden to Muslims, yet the non-Muslim inhabitants of the country have full liberty not only of consumption, but also of manufacture, importation and sale of the same. The same is true for games of chance, marriage with close relatives, the contract entailing interest, etc. In olden times, this did not affect Muslims, and abuses with their repercussions were rare. Modern jurists have restricted the liberty insofar as international commerce is concerned. As attempts to restrict alcoholic consumption will be ineffectual if they should not be applicable to the whole population, the consent of the representatives of non-Muslims has facilitated the task for jurists, who in principle would not intervene in the practices of different communities differing in points of religion.

439. The Islamic law makes a certain distinction among different non-Muslim communities, insofar as their relations with individual Muslims are concerned. It divides non-Muslims into what we might call "developed" and "primitive," or those who believe in the One God and follow Divine laws revealed to the founder of their religions, and those who do not do that (such idolators, atheists, pagans, animists, etc.). All are tolerated as subjects and enjoy protection with regard to the liberty of conscience and life, yet a Muslim in his private life treats them differently: a Muslim has the right to marry a "developed" non-Muslim woman, but not a " primitive" one. So is it too that a Muslim may not only marry a Christian or a Jewish girl, but also give her the liberty to conserve her religion. She may go to church or to synagogue, she may drink wine, etc. It is forbidden for a Muslim to marry a woman who does not believe in God or an idolatress or a polytheist. A Muslim woman cannot be the wife of non-Muslim to whatever category he may belong (Q. 60:10). Again, a Muslim cannot eat the flesh of animals slaughtered by members of the "primitive" communities.

Conversion

440. The Islamic law expressly recognizes for non-Muslims the liberty to preserve their beliefs; and while it forbids categorically all recourse to compulsion for converting others to Islam, it maintains rigorous discipline among its own adherents. The basis of the Islamic "nationality" is religious and not ethnic, linguistic nor regional. Hence apostasy has naturally been considered political treason. It is true that this crime is punished by penalties, but the necessity scarcely as history has proved. Not only at the time when the Muslims reigned supreme from the Pacific to the Atlantic Oceans, but even in our own age of political as well as material and intellectual weakness among Muslims, apostasy of Muslims is surprisingly non-existent. This is true not only of regions where there is the semblance of a Muslim State, but even elsewhere, under the colonial powers who have made all humanly possible efforts to convert Muslims to other religions. Islam is gaining ground today, even among Western peoples, from Finland to Norway to Italy, from Canada to Argentina. And all this in spite of the absence of any organized missionary activity.

Holy War

441. Let us conclude this brief expose with some words on a question which is most misunderstood in non-Muslim circles. It refers to the notion commonly held of the holy war. The entire life of a Muslim, be it concerning spiritual affairs or temporal ones, is a discipline regulated by Divine law. If a Muslim celebrates even his service of prayer without conviction (for ostentation, for instance), it is not a spiritual act of devotion, but a crime against God, a worship of the self punishable in the Hereafter. On the contrary, if a Muslim takes his meals for the purpose of having the needed strength to perform his obligations regarding God, even if he cohabits with his wife, as an act of obedience to the Divine law which orders him that, these acts of need and pleasure constitute saintly acts, acts of devotion, meriting all the Divine rewards promised for piety, as a saying of the Prophet indicates.

442. Such being the concept of life, a just struggle cannot be anything except a holy act. All war is forbidden in Islam, if it is not waged for a just cause, ordained by the Divine law. The life of the Prophet provides reference to only three kinds of wars: defensive, punitive and preventive. In a celebrated correspondence with the Emperor Heraclius of Byzantium, in connection with the assassination of a Muslim ambassador in the Byzantine territory, the Prophet proposed three alternatives: "Embrace Islam - if not, then pay the jizyah tribute. . . if not, then do not interfere between thy subjects and Islam if these former desire to embrace Islam or pay the jizyah" (cf. Abu 'Ubaid, Kitab al-Amwal, s. 5 5). To establish liberty of conscience in the world was the aim and object of the struggle of the Prophet Muhammad, and who may have a greater authority in Islam than he? This is the "holy war" of the Muslims, the one which is undertaken not for the purposes of exploitation, but in a spirit of sacrifice, its sole object being to make the Word of God prevail. All else is illegal. There is absolutely no question of waging war for compelling people to embrace Islam - that would be an unholy war.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We highly recommend the book "Muslim Conduct of State" by Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah for in depth study and authoritative coverage of this aspect of International law