If on occasion we are able to block out the horror of September 11, those who travel by air are brought back to the reality of it whenever we go through the intensive and intrusive airport security screening now required at every airport in this country, and for that matter throughout the world.

Immediately following 9/11, questions and uninformed, insufficient answers were too often offered in hate-filled newspaper articles and on radio and television stations. Too often, the conversations were by their very nature laced with Islamophobia. The content too often demonstrated our collective ignorance as a people and nation about Islam, the Holy Qur’an, imams, mosques, and what really was the definition of Jihad?

As a counterweight, and spurred primarily by religious leaders in the three Abrahamic faiths, interfaith dialogues and summits began to appear first in America and then throughout the world. As a result, Islam, which had pretty much been a foreign word in America’s religious vocabulary, was now on the lips of everyone.

But in truth, ignorance about Islam continues to drive our reactive behavior toward one of the three great Abrahamic faiths. It is hard to believe, but in a recent poll conducted by the Pew Foundation, 40 percent of Americans still believe that President Barack Obama is a Muslim, because of his name. There continue to be concerns expressed in this country by American Muslims about their place in American culture and society. Where do they belong, and can they ever really belong, without being under a microscope all the time? My friend Eboo Patel, founder of the Inter Faith Youth Core in Chicago, has said, “I am more afraid now than I was after 9/11.”

And yet, within this capsule of ignorance and fear of the “other,” I believe that as a nation there is another reason why we as Americans have had such a hard time dealing with the horrors of September 11. As a nation, we have never had the opportunity to grieve over the horrible loss of life, the indelible visual experience of all that was attached to that fateful September morning ten years ago.

Ten years ago as a nation we were embraced quite frankly by almost every nation in the global community, offering help, prayers, and whatever support was needed at this time of national crisis. And yet, our immediate response as a nation was to seek retribution and frontier justice. Wanted “dead or alive” was a regrettable pronouncement offered by some. And the taunt to those who were religious terrorists was “bring ’em on.” As the nation gathered in prayer at Washington National cathedral, President Bush unfortunately misspoke and used the word “crusade” in his speech to the nation-a word that was frightening, and historically painful and confrontational to millions in the Muslim world.

Because of the reflexive need to immediately “strike back” at the perpetrators and planners of the 9/11 attacks, we never really had the opportunity to grieve as a nation. When we do not grieve over a great loss, we tend to have overly emotional, often unhelpful knee-jerk responses. Anger and aggression can be the first response to significant loss in one’s family, or in the larger human family. And without time to grieve, think and process, responses can be illogical and result in bad decisions.

For much of the last decade, we have not found the time to grieve over the horrors of September 11, 2001. Yet the hard work of interfaith conversation and interaction emanating from religious scholars, denominational leaders, and theologians of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have led the way to places where people of faith have had wonderful opportunities. Through the discipline of prayer, the blessings of shared compassion, and the core teachings of their religious traditions, they have had a significant impact on moving not only America, but many other nations, from retribution to reconciliation, from theological illiteracy to literacy, from xenophobia to respect, tolerance, and acceptance of the “other.”

9/11 scarred the psyche of America, but also the public image of Islam. And yet the Jesus of Christianity reminds his followers that at the very center of their belief system is the word reconciliation—embraced by unconditional love and the quest for a peace that passes all understanding.

And it is no accident that Islam has as its radius the word salam (peace). The teachings of both Jesus and Muhammad have much in common regarding care for the “other.” Peace and divine love is at the heart of both Christianity and Islam. And it is that quest that now leads us to continue the healing process that must move forward between the brothers and sisters of Abraham. For it is the promise of the one God that true holiness can be found within the unity of our diversity.

It is now time, ten years later, to embrace the moment and make whole that which has been broken by the ignorance, fear, and illiteracy that too often define our understandings of religion. Much of that work has been undertaken in Washington D.C. through the creative efforts of the Rumi Forum, Washington National Cathedral’s Center for Global Justice and Reconciliation, Georgetown University, and the Brookings Institution through the U.S. Islamic World Forum.

Many efforts have begun in other parts of the world to engage in work that promises to positively impact the present opportunity—to seek the path of wholeness and reconciliation rather than division and violence. This is a journey begun by both Jesus and the Prophet Muhammad that now defines a new decade, a decade not solely focused on the 9/11 tragedy, but one that must become part of the global community. It is a journey made sacred by all those who lost their lives in New York City, Pennsylvania, and Washington and by the efforts of interfaith leaders throughout the world.

It is a new time, a new decade, where life promises to overcome the sting of death, where hate is trumped by the power of God’s love, and where people of faith have the courage to speak out against those who use religion for their own selfish desires for control and power, rather than as a means through which all can experience the reconciling love of God.

As a country, and as people of faith, we cannot make this journey alone. We will need partners and colleagues of other faith traditions that believe that this is the moment when we stand together, shoulder to shoulder, and proclaim that no one has the right to take another person’s life in the name of God.

Original Article: Kim, D-H et al., Science 333, 838 (2011).

We often see patients in hospitals with many cables attached to their bodies. Now there is hope to replace these mobility-limiting settings with something very portable. Engineers have developed an ultrathin, stretchy, and flexible synthetic skin that consists of electronic components such as sensors, antennae, and light-emitting diodes (LEDs). Embedded solar cells or wireless power transfer can be employed to power the patch. The device is thin enough to stick to skin using only the short-range van der Waals forces without the addition of any adhesives, and it can be applied and removed like a temporary tattoo. As a result, electronic skin is much more comfortable than traditional electrodes and gives the user complete freedom of movement. These devices have many potential applications in medical diagnostics, including EEG and EMG sensors to monitor nerve and muscle activity. Gathering patient data during normal activity is especially beneficial for continuous monitoring of health and wellness. During the tests, the patches collected data accurately for up to six hours, and showed no signs of degradation or irritation to the arm, neck, forehead, cheek, or chin after 24 hours. In addition, the researchers used electronic skin to control a video game by collecting electrical activity of muscles from the user’s throat, demonstrating the potential for human-computer interfacing. In the near future, patients with muscular or neurological disorders could use this technology to communicate with computers. There is one major obstacle for long-term use. The patch falls off after a few days due to the continual shedding of skin cells. Researchers are looking for ways around this so they can be worn for months at a time.

2- Searching memory engines

Original Article: Sparrow, B. et al., Science 333, 776 (2011).

What is the capital of Liberia? Which year did Edison invent the light bulb? Are your fingers itching to “Google” the answers? Evidently, the answer is yes. Researchers led by Betsy Sparrow of Columbia University cleverly designed four experiments to investigate how we process information in our memory. In one experiment, participants were presented with trivia-like statements, e.g. “An ostrich’s eye is bigger than its brain,” to which they immediately thought about computers or accessing the Internet. In another experiment, participants were asked to type answers to trivia questions. The computer would either save or erase their answers. When participants thought their answers were saved, they remembered information less as opposed to the erased-from-the-computer-condition. In the other experiments, participants were given statements along with the names of the folders where one can reach that information (e.g. DATA, INFO, ITEMS). They remembered where to find the information (i.e. folders) more accurately than the information itself. To sum up, this research showed that we come to utilize computers or Google as external or transactive memory. In the 1980s, Daniel Wegner of Harvard University first coined the term “transactive memory.” Dr. Wegner, co-author of this article, suggested that people relied on others such as spouses or friends to remember various things. However, it seems like the duty is all on Google now.

3- Lasers come to life

Original Article: Gather, M.C. & Yun, S.H., Nature Photonics 5, 406 (2011).

Since its invention in 1960, the laser became an invaluable device that found uses in numerous applications in many segments of today’s world, including science, medicine, industry, electronics, and entertainment. Laser, an acryonym for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, works through a process where light amplifies by bouncing back and forth between two mirrors. Sandwiched between these mirrors, lasers utilize a gain medium made of non-biological materials such as dyes or crystal. Two physicists at Harvard Medical School, Seok Hyun Yun and Malte Gather, were able to replace gain medium with a living cell. The cells used in this study produce green fluorescent protein (GFP) the material that makes jellyfish fluoresce. When illuminated with relatively weak blue light, GFP amplified the light and the cell produced a visible green laser. Even though their biolaser is currently in the development stage, the researchers predict that it will be very useful in science and medicine in the future. For example, they suggest that biolasing may be used for unraveling the structure of living cells. Yun and Gather are now trying to integrate a nanoscale cavity inside the cell rather than using external mirrors. Such self-lasing cells may allow medical applications where cells can be specifically targeted for disease treatment.

4- The smallest farmers of the world

Original Articles: Brock, D. A. et al., Nature 469, 393 (2011).

A social amoeba, Dictyostellum discoideum, lives independently and feeds on bacteria, but when the food becomes scarce, many amoebas bond and form a slug-like organism that can move around to find more resources to feed on. It was thought the amoeba exhausts all its resources by eating all nearby bacteria before forming the slug structure. Surprisingly, scientists from Rice University found that these single-cell organisms use a very simple form of agriculture in the form of bacterial husbandry. Agriculture in the general sense includes the scattering of food seeds, farming of crops, and harvesting. Humans have used agriculture for thousand of years and it was one of the transforming forces behind our switch from nomadic to settled lifestyles. Researchers showed that a group of amoeba, called farmers, eat less and engulf bacteria into their migratory systems instead of consuming all food they encounter. The slugs of the farmer amoeba travel slowly because of packed food, and one-third of Dicty found in nature turns out to be farmers. Apparently, being a farmer is a genetic trait but it comes with a cost: farmers produce less spores during feasts, but more during famine, which explains why there are both farmers and non-farmers still present. There are still many mysteries, yet this article shows the principles of frugality even in the single-cell realm.

It is indeed a tremendous challenge to come to terms with the perplexity of religion and politics in our time. As acts of terrorism are wreaking havoc in many parts of the world, people turn to religion both to find the cause and the healing. Questions abound. Can religion be a source for tolerance and reconciliation in the 21st century, or is it a breeding ground for hatred and violence? Is religion being hijacked from inside by misguided believers and by cynic political extremists? Grand theories of conspiracy against specific religions or political systems instill anxiety among ordinary people.

As the 9/11 tragedy in the USA is indelibly inscribed as a watershed in world history, so will 22.7.2011 for ever be remembered as a massacre that changed Norway. The first was a heinous act of people who misrepresented Islam to punish and humiliate a world power seen to be responsible for the suffering of millions of Muslims around the world. The other was directed against the State itself and the political leadership of Norway, by a person who used Christian imagery to express his hatred of Muslims. The perpetrator sees Norway’s multiculturalism and open society as submission to a dangerous and foreign religion. He saw himself as true crusader for a Christian Europe. I believe it is fair to say that none of the perpetrators of these tragic events genuinely represent the religion they profess. Their unspeakable acts of violence against fellow human beings constitute a crime not only against humanity, but against God under whatever name.

These watershed events are reminders that to unravel the perverse mindset of extremists one has to go beyond personal faith and beliefs and look to other constitutive factors of psychological, social, cultural and political nature. Such factors do not provide an excuse for the horrendous acts of terror, but they indicate the complexity that needs to be addressed in curing this cancer in the body of humanity. But also collective and individual perceptions of oppression, marginalization and disrespect, feed a legitimate sense of loss and betrayal that offers a breeding ground for fanaticism and revenge. No single historic religion is without a history of inbred violence, be it Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or others.

While the reaction in the USA and some European countries after 9/11 was crusader language and large-scale cancellation of fundamental civil and political rights, the reaction in Norway, eloquently and consistently expressed by the Prime Minister and other political leaders, and hailed by the vast majority of the population, has been to call for an even more inclusive democracy, and more respect of human dignity and human rights for all. The message was clear; the way forward is not revenge, nor curtailing of fundamental freedoms, but increased openness to a more multicultural and multi-religious society. Religious leaders and communities have reacted in unison against the exploitation of their faith and spirituality using hatred and fear. They join the call for tolerance and mutual respect. In all honesty, it has to be added that some pockets of conservative Christians have expressed sympathy for the opinions of the terrorist, although not for his criminal acts. The same goes for some politicians on the far right of the political spectrum.

It is my humble opinion that the reaction of official Norway sets a standard for others to follow in countries where far-right ideologies and fundamentalist religious movements and individuals threaten to destabilize society. A model of reconciled diversity is the only way to the future in our globalized world. This is the message of our youth, those who lost their lives and those who barely escaped. They are the victors. Terrorists will always be the losers. This is the spirit of Norway. The political battle to sustain this legacy will show the strength of our nation.

Dr. Gunnar Stalsett, Bishop emeritus of Oslo
Former Vice Chair of the Nobel Peace Prize committee
Moderator of the European Council of Religious Leaders, Religions for Peace

New Jersey-based Helping Hands Relief Foundation (HHRF) is one of those relief organizations that have quickly responded to the call for help from the Horn of Africa. Many volunteers of HHRF have already taken off to Somalia to deliver donations and food to the victims.

The world is undergoing several major tests. The problems caused by economic crises one after another, terrorism, global warming, and others have to be tackled with immediately. But the emergency of the current famine has no comparison, and we have to act now. It is time to delay our own needs today and rush for help to the victims of the famine. This is the greatest test we as the human family have to be pass.

•conquered and occupied two large Muslim countries (Afghanistan and Iraq)

•compelled a huge Muslim army to root out a terrorist sanctuary (Pakistan)

•deployed thousands of special forces to numerous Muslim countries (Yemen, Somalia, Sudan etc.)

•imprisoned hundreds of Muslims without recourse

•waged a massive war of ideas involving Muslim clerics to denounce violence and new institutions to bring Western norms to Muslim countries

•killed Osama bin Laden, the inspirational leader of Al Qaeda who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Have these actions – which some have called, “World War IV” – made America safe?

In a narrow sense, America is safer and justice has been served. There has not been another attack on the scale of 9/11. Our defenses regarding immigration controls, airport security, and the disruption of potentially devastating domestic plots have all improved. This is the positive side of the ledger.

In a broader sense, however, America is not safe enough. Anti-American suicide terrorism rose rapidly around the world in the decade since September 11, 2001. In 2003, then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld famously asked, “Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrasas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?” As even a casual glance at the facts shows, the answer is a disappointing no. The negative side of the balance sheet is daunting.

September 11, 2001 was so devastating largely because it was a suicide attack in which 19 hijackers killed themselves in the course of killing 3,000 innocent people. So the key to tracking the threat is to focus on suicide terrorism, especially those inspired against Americans.

Look at the numbers. In 2000 – the year before 9/11 – there were 20 suicide attacks around the world and one – against the US Cole in Yemen – was anti-American inspired. By contrast, in 2010, there were well over 200 suicide attacks and about 90 percent were anti-American inspired – against US troops or those working with America – a ten-fold increase over the past decade.

Each month, there are more suicide terrorists trying to kill Americans and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Muslim countries than in all the years before 2001 combined. Yes, these attacks are mostly (although not exclusively) focused on military and diplomatic targets. However, so too were the anti-American suicide attacks before 2001. It is important to remember that the 1995 and 1996 bombings of US troops in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and (as mentioned) bombing of the US Cole in Yemen in 2000 were the crucial dots that showed the threat was rising prior to 9/11. Today, such dots are occurring by the dozens every month.

American military policies have not stopped the rising wave of extremism in the Muslim world. The reason has not been lack of effort, lack of will among the American people, lack of bipartisan support for aggressive military policies, lack of funding, or lack of genuine patriotism.

No. American military policies are not failing for the standard excuses. Something else is creating the mismatch between America’s effort and the results.

What went wrong

America has been waging a long war against terrorism, but without much serious public debate about what is truly motivating terrorists to kill us. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack, this was perfectly understandable. If toppling the Taliban was necessary to take out Al Qaeda’s sanctuary in Afghanistan, so be it.

But, in an instant, there was also a great need to know, or perhaps better to say, to “understand” the events of that terrible day. A simple narrative was readily available and a powerful conventional wisdom began to exert its grip. Since the 9/11 hijackers were all Muslims, it was easy to presume that Islamic fundamentalism was the central motivating force driving the 19 hijackers to kill themselves in order to kill us. Within weeks after the attack, surveys of American attitudes show that this presumption was fast congealing into a hard reality in the public mind. Americans immediately wondered, “Why do they hate us?” and almost as immediately came to the conclusion that it was because of who we are, not what we do.

The narrative of Islamic fundamentalism did more than explain why America was attacked. It also pointed toward a simple, grand solution – one whose ambition only made it seem all the more worthy in light of the trauma of that terrible day. If Islamic fundamentalism was driving the threat and if its roots grew from the culture of the Arab world, then America had a clear mission: to transform Arab societies – with Western political institutions and social norms as the ultimate antidote to the virus of Islamic extremism.

The only problem: Islamic fundamentalism is not the main driver of suicide terrorism. What drives this phenomenon more than any other single factor is foreign military presence – which inspires wave after wave of individuals to join terrorist groups in order to carry out suicide attacks in the hope that these would end the foreign presence in their lands.

On September 11, 2001, the United States had deployed over 12,000 combat forces to countries on the Persian Gulf (5,000 in Saudi Arabia and 7,000 in other countries along the rim). We now know that these troops were the principle rallying cry of Osama bin Laden in his efforts to mobilize volunteers for suicide attacks against the United States and that the martyr videos of the 9/11 hijackers – their last video will testimonials – prominently justify their actions as in response to Western military control of the governments on the Arabian peninsula. Further, escalation of American combat forces in the region for the Iraq war directly fueled still further anti-American suicide terrorism.

Hence, the grand solution became the grand catalyst for more anti-American inspired suicide terrorism than ever before.

What we know

Vast new research on suicide terrorism has produced important new knowledge. Here is a summary of what we know:

•Occupation causes suicide terrorism

Over 95% of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation

•The more occupation, the more suicide terrorism

As America has occupied two large Muslim countries, Afghanistan and Iraq with a total population of about 60 million, total suicide attacks worldwide have risen dramatically – from about 300 from 1980 to 2003 to 2000+ from 2004 to 2010. Further, 90% of all suicide attacks are now anti-American.

•Indirect occupation is the equivalent of direct occupation

The US compelled Pakistan to deploy 100,000 troops against the Taliban in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Pakistani suicide attacks escalated dramatically.

•Ending occupation can end suicide terrorism even without transforming Muslim countries

Since Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack. Since Israel withdrew from Gaza and large parts of the West Bank, Palestinian suicide attacks are down over 90%. Since America and its allies began withdrawing from Iraq, suicide attacks are also falling fast.

•Empowering local groups can reduce suicide terrorism

In Iraq, the surge’s apparent success was not the result of increased US military control of Anbar Province, but rather quite the reverse – the empowerment of Sunni tribal leaders for their own security, commonly called the Anbar Awakening.

•Taking power away from local groups can escalate suicide terrorism

In Afghanistan the ISAF’s expansion strategy, designed to exert more central government control over the Pashtun tribes in the Western and Southern provinces, caused a resurgence in the Taliban and an increase in the number of suicide attacks.

The tide is turning

The oxygen for America’s strategy is, fundamentally, how we understand the root cause of the terrorist threat we face. In recent years, the intellectual climate has begun to change. In January 2010, a Zogby poll found that 27% of Americans now believe that the “most important factor” motivating terrorists to attack the United States is that they “resent Western power and influence” compared to 33% who still think the main motive is “make Islam the world’s dominant religion.”

American military policies are also changing. The United States started to draw down military forces from Iraq in 2008, has already removed 100,000 troops, and is on schedule to end its commitment of heavy combat forces there next year. Since their peak in 2007, suicide attacks in the country have fallen by over 80 percent and the country is more stable today than at any point since America conquered the country in 2003.

In Afghanistan, President Obama announced in July his plan to remove about a third of US forces from the country over the next year and to continue drawing down thereafter. If so, there is good reason to expect that suicide attacks will soon begin to decline significantly there as well.

Fortunately the US does not need to station large ground forces in either Iraq or Afghanistan to keep them from being a significant safe haven for Al Qaeda or any other anti-American terrorists. This can be achieved by a strategy called “Off-Shore Balancing” that relies on over-the-horizon air and naval forces and rapidly deployable ground forces, combined with empowering local groups to oppose the terrorist groups. No matter what happens in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US will maintain a significant air and naval presence in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean for many years, and those forces are well-suited to striking terrorist leaders and camps in conjunction with local militias – just as they did so successfully against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in 2001.

Above all, to truly move beyond the war on terror, it is important for scholars, policy intellectuals, government leaders, and the public at large to continue to educate themselves about the factors that lead to suicide attacks like 9/11. The more we know, the fewer mistakes and the better our policies – and the more we can all live our lives in peace.

Robert A. Pape is Professor and Director of the University of Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism and author of Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It (2010).

It is springtime, and soon I will expand and open up to see the bright face of the sun. Sunlight is a source of my food and the service I do. The more sunrays that hit my surface, the faster I grow, and will generate a great need of life on Earth: oxygen. To the unappreciative eye, I am just a leaf, but the complexity of my reactions are still a great puzzle to scientists who work in large institutions trying to understand the processes going on inside me. It takes them many years to fully comprehend a single step in the process of oxygen generation that takes place within me.

Although I am very simple, thin, and fragile, I have been charged with a great service. During the entire summer, I endure the heat of the sun without drying up or wilting. This is because I am constantly fed with a flow of water and minerals from my branch, which was soaked up from the tree’s roots embedded deep in the Earth. This constant flow of water enables me to keep upright, sturdy, and open. Most of the water is evaporated through my thin surface, but a small part of it is broken up to provide you with the oxygen that you need to survive. Although this sounds very simple, it requires a great deal of energy. This energy is provided to me through the sun and the sugars that are made in me during this process.

When no water falls from the clouds, I suffer. I cannot keep upright to provide you with the oxygen that you need. When it is too hot and there is no rain, I suffer again. Were it not for the babies, the old, and the weak among you, I would dry out completely. When human beings oppress each other, I suffer, because under these conditions water does not fall to Earth despite the clouds in the sky. These clouds also block the sunshine that I need to serve you with oxygen.

Right now it is autumn in many places and although I did not dry up in the hot months of the summer, I am now ordered to wither and fall. My color changes from green to yellow, orange, red, and finally brown. As I drop to the ground, people step on me. I get crushed and grinded to pieces as I return back to Earth. The matter used to create me mixes with the soil, until next spring, when I will be high up on the branch looking at you one more time, reminding you of a new beginning after death.

The following day journalists, writers, columnists, newscasters, academics, members of think-tanks, and politicians announced that this day had been a milestone. The term “milestone” marks the beginning of new things; what was about to begin now? As time passed we understood what they meant. Nothing in America was the same as before. On September 10, 2001 it had been the land of liberty; on September 12 the situation totally changed. Due to the religious identity of the members of Al Qaeda, who were declared to be the perpetrators, the USA, indeed almost the entire world, had become uninhabitable for anyone with the same religious identity. Liberty had been replaced by constraints and accusations. Not only the USA, but indeed the entire world had shrunk for Muslim people.

It is possible to understand the anger of Americans who lost their loved ones in this tragic incident, one in which almost 3,000 people died. It is also possible to understand people insulting Muslim women wearing headscarves and Muslim men in their beards and turbans. Attacks on mosques during this time could even be considered tolerable. However, what is difficult to understand is the long-lasting discrimination against Muslims and the perception of each and every Muslim as a potential terrorist. For the USA, a country with multicultural politics it cannot be reasonable to formalize changing attitudes with legislation. Something was happening to this country, one which had been advocating peace not war, one that had been known as the land of freedom and diversity. However, all this has happened because America was undergoing a period in which wisdom had been abandoned, something noted by many people.

I want to tell you about two of my memories. One of them occurred in 1999. I and several friends were going to the southern region of New Jersey. When we landed at JFK, we had another 2 hours to drive to our destination, if the traffic was light. Because it was time to pray and we would not be able to get to our destination before the time to pray, we decided to pray on the way. We performed ablution in a rest area. We laid our prayer rugs on the ground and we prayed in public, on the grass. We did not notice anyone glaring at us. We did not encounter any quizzical expressions nor were we treated in any disparaging manner. People in the USA would ask Muslims to mention them in their prayers when they came into contact with God. They also used to show us places to pray. But today? Although some claim that attitudes have not changed, Muslims cannot pray without worrying about somebody calling 911. This is not just an empty claim or remote possibility. There have been many examples of this kind of situation.

Another memory is from the USA of 2002. I was at an airport, getting ready to fly to another state. Although I passed through a number of security checkpoints along with other passengers, the security officer pulled me over. This had happened many times after 9/11, but this time I could not resist asking, “Why?” I had become exasperated with such acts of discrimination. I was fed up with being treated like a terrorist and a man to pity under scornful eyes. Angrily I asked “Why me?” I suppose he had undergone training in psychology. He held my arm, smiling, which made me feel comfortable. He showed me my boarding pass and the 3 S on it. He explained that it means extra security check. He said that the computers put these letters there because I have a Muslim name. He also told me that I should not take it personally because the computer program adds this to all names entered into the system. I realized that my name, which I have always been proud of, was now a reason for discrimination. I am sure that this was only because of 9/11 and Al Qaeda.

Are such precautions appropriate? Many authorities, in particular, politicians at that time agreed they were necessary. There were some people who did not agree, but their number was less and they could not speak up. 10 years after this horrific incident many people now say that all such actions were inappropriate.

The past stays in the past. It is ridiculous to try to carry yesterday’s issues to today. However should we not learn from the past? I Religion, language, ethnicity, creed, and profession are our secondary identities, coming after being human. These were differences that gave us a sense of belonging. In the same way that capital has no religion, terrorism cannot have any religion. If there is a list of words that cannot go together, “religion and terrorism” takes first place. We can neither relate to religion nor explain by religion what the Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh or the Norwegian terrorist Behring Breivik did. In the same way that we cannot relate what they did to their religious identity as Christian terrorism, we cannot do the same with the events on 9/11 as Islamic terrorism. However, sadly this has not been the case.

All rational Muslims have exclaimed that it is in no way justified to identify Islam and Muslims with terrorism. Many authorities, scholars, politicians, academics, and opinion leaders have also said that this was a grave mistake. Even though a terrorist may have a Muslim identity, you cannot generalize and scrutinize such behavior from an Islamic perspective. On that day the newspapers published full-page condolence messages. Muslim scholars and academics also penned letters that condemned terrorism. This period, as it was one in which wisdom did not exist, prevented people from seeing all this, perhaps because it was Islam being accused and they didn’t really care about it, or because they did not want to change their foreign policy which they based on these attacks, or because they were prejudiced, or because they wanted to ease public opinion. What did happen was that common sense was ignored and people behaved as they wanted to.

Thank God, this lack of wisdom did not last long. As the 10th anniversary of 9/11 approaches, the mood has changed. Not all Muslims are considered to be potential terrorists anymore. People who have Muslim names do not get extra security checks at airports. The terrible slaughter in Norway has made the authorities start to reconsider their policies. Religious and cultural diversity projects and models for living together with peace are being reviewed. Projects that cover all areas of life, such as world brotherhood, coexistence while preserving differences, making the world a place for togetherness, preventing the otherization of other people have all started to take place despite the existence of some people who still see “others” as the enemy. We sincerely hope that those who are for peaceful coexistence will dominate over the second and the world will never experience a new 9/11, Oklahoma, Madrid, London, or Oslo attacks again.

In the past few decades many studies and articles on the subject of religion, spirituality and health, from both Western and Muslim perspectives, have been published. In this book, Salih Yucel’s quantitative and qualitative studies support previous research findings which suggest that religion and health are not mutually exclusive and that there is clearly a positive correlation between prayer and wellbeing.

This book comprises a research study taken from the author’s doctoral thesis, The Effects of Prayer on Muslim Patients’ Well-being. Also included in this book is a qualitative study which contains examples of many case histories and anecdotal evidence from Muslims who have benefited from the healing power of prayer, which includes salat (Islamic ritual prayers), dua (formal and informal supplication to God), and dhikr (remembrance of God, based on the Sufi concept of connectedness to the universe. Also included are Bediuzzaman Said Nursi’s “twenty-five remedies” for the sick which explains the concept of illness and how Muslims should view it in the light of belief.

The aim of this research has been to investigate the physical and spiritual effects of prayer on Muslim patients. Sixty adult Muslim in-patients, consisting of equal numbers of women and men from different educational backgrounds and nationalities, were recruited from the patient population at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, a Harvard Medical School-affiliated institution in Boston, Massachusetts. The research included a pre-test questionnaire in order to assess the spiritual level of the patients and a post-test questionnaire after prayers were completed. The surveys were based on Islamic sources, with the second survey split into two sessions: the first contained readings from the Qur’an while the second consisted of texts from a non-religious source, serving as a control in order to determine the effect of prayers on the patients.

Unlike previous studies, this research has provided guidelines for prayer which is based on the Qur’an, the Prophetic Traditions and the works of a number of Muslim scholars. The guidelines are a reminder that prayers should if possible be carried out under certain conditions, which include both physical and spiritual preparation prior and after prayer. Examples include taking ablution and ensuring clothes are clean prior to prayer and so on. Also some of the spiritual advice is extremely helpful, such as the understanding that prayer will always be answered but not necessarily in the way that individuals may expect it, thus reducing the disappointment patients may feel if they do not get exactly what they have asked for after prayer. However, other conditions, such as offering prayer “sincerely,” may not be so easy to ensure.

The findings of the preliminary survey were used to determine the level of religiosity/spirituality of patients from an Islamic perspective. These findings were consistent with previous studies, showing a strong correlation between religiosity/spirituality and hopefulness/confidence. The post-test survey based on self-report measures of religiosity and wellbeing following the prayer session also showed higher scores in comparison to the control group. With regard to vital signs and the positive physical effects of prayer on health, however, the data was not considered to be clinically significant. The author admits to some of the limitations of the study such as the hospital environment itself which is not conducive to prayer conditions. One of the main limitations has been the omission of compulsory prayers (salat) from the survey, as many bed-ridden patients were unable to take part in this activity. A longitudinal study with a larger participant group and a more convenient environment might possibly have produced better results.

However, the qualitative study included in this book, which consists of many case studies of people who have benefitted from the healing power of prayer, provides further support for the importance of including prayer as part of treatment. The main strength of the book lies in its approach, which is based mainly on Said Nursi’s ideas of remedies for the sick. These remedies enable patients to move away from reliance on the realm of causality and are able potentially to empower them to try to understand their condition in a much broader context that includes the concept of the Hereafter.

Katharine, “Kadriye,” Branning was one of the passengers on a Turkish Airlines flight to New York on September 9, 2011, a flight which could not reach its destination that inauspicious day. Taken from her book Yes, I Would Love another Glass of Tea: An American Woman’s Letters to Turkey, the following is one of her imaginary letters to Lady Mary Montagu who lived in Turkey three centuries ago.

Unbelievably, about an hour out, the Kaptan came back on the intercom and stated in Turkish that we needed to return to Istanbul yet again. The entire cabin groaned and grumbled, and I began to doubt that I would ever get home that day. Only this time, his voice sounded odd, and he said, very vaguely, that we needed to return because “All American airspace has been closed.” I was immediately seized with panic, for I knew that something very, very terrible must have happened, for American airspace has never been closed in our entire history.

You certainly survived some dangerous scrapes on your travels, both on route to Turkey and on the return trip home to London. In one of your early letters, you relate a hair-raising crossing of the Alps, where your carriage almost plummeted over the precipice into the Elbe. The hazards of snow and Tartars awaited you at every turn on the road after that, and your boat almost capsized during your Channel crossing on your return home. I would like to relate to you the story of a difficult travel experience I had, one of an eventful return to my homeland after a stay in Turkey.

This trip started out on a warm and crisp late summer morning in Istanbul. It was the last day of a glorious voyage to eastern Turkey, where I saw some of the wildest beauty known to man: from the white snowy peak of Noah’s Mount Ararat to the deep cobalt blue of Lake Van and to the intense dark emerald green of the Kaçkar Mountains. It was a day when I felt particularly blessed because I had been lucky enough to witness such stunning examples of nature, God’s most loving gift to man. It was a day with a crystal clear sapphire sky and bright sun. It was the morning of September 11, 2001.

The return trip home announced itself like so many others before it. I traveled the familiar road to the airport filled with an infinite sadness to be leaving Turkey at the end of an intense time of learning, joyful play and living history, mixed with anticipation of the happiness of being reunited with loved ones at home. Candy, halvah, bonjuk blue bead trinkets, lokum, and Turkish coffee were purchased in the duty-free shop; and the last copies of the newspaper Hürriyet were tucked into my carry-on bag. As I passed through the first, second, and third security checkpoints, I commented to myself how thorough these Turks were when it came to ensuring security in this often volatile point of the world. I felt safe.

There was a delay of almost 2 hours before we could leave, due to the proverbial and mysterious “engine problems.” Finally we took off, but after only one hour out in flight, the pilot (“Kaptan”) came on the intercom to tell us that we needed to head back to Istanbul because the pesky problem was apparently still not cleared up. The stewardesses stored away the food service carts, seatbelts were fastened, and we returned, deplaned, and waited another two hours in the same embarkment area. A Turkish Airlines (THY) employee finally announced that a new plane had been found and that we would be heading out shortly. Once again, off we took, convinced that surely this time, all problems were behind us.

Unbelievably, about an hour out, the Kaptan came back on the intercom and stated in Turkish that we needed to return to Istanbul yet again. The entire cabin groaned and grumbled, and I began to doubt that I would ever get home that day. Only this time, his voice sounded odd, and he said, very vaguely, that we needed to return because “All American airspace has been closed.” I was immediately seized with panic, for I knew that something very, very terrible must have happened, for American airspace has never been closed in our entire history.

About a half an hour later, the Kaptan came back on, still in Turkish, and said that it looked like the problem was that a “big building in New York City has suffered some kind of attack.” And then I knew in the pit of my stomach what that “big building” had to be: it could be none other than the one I see day and night from my window of my apartment, standing like a sentinel for the whole world to see: the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. And I knew somehow that the assault was not a mere accident, but had to have been a terrorist attack.

At last the plane landed back in Istanbul. The cabin hostess made an intercom message requesting that everyone remain in their seats. The Kaptan came on and gave a message in Turkish, and then made another one in English so that the few Americans on the plane would be able to finally understand what was going on. He spoke very clearly and slowly, not because his command of English was weak, but because he was searching for the right words to communicate his message as gently and carefully as possible. In a voice obviously trembling with emotion, he said: “Dear Ladies and Gentlemen. I must inform you of some very sad news. There has been a terrorist attack on the big building in New York City, the World Trade Center. It is very, very bad, and many people have been hurt. To all the American people on this plane, I want to say I am so so sorry for you and your country today.” And then we heard him sob. To hear that sob made me realize how intense it must have been for him, an ever-gracious Turkish host, to announce that news to us, his “guests” in his aircraft home. The Kaptan must have felt devastated that a plane, object of his livelihood, had been used as an instrument of destruction. He was surely heartbroken, too, because he already knew the terrorists were fellow Muslims. His soft sob made the imagined bang of the crash in my ears all the more loud, and the whole incident became very real for me, although at the time, I had no idea that the Towers were to fall and that the terrorists were allegedly Muslims.

Because of those engine problems, we had been saved the fate of so many others who were flying home to America that day. Instead of being stranded, the few Americans on that Turkish Airlines flight that day had the great fortune, in the midst of all the ensuing chaos, to be returned to a country that would open its arms and take care of them.

When we stepped off the plane and came into the airport terminal, there stood in front of us a platoon of people of all kinds, lined up in total silence. The entire airport staff had gathered there to wait for us: some were officers dressed in suits and ties, some wore THY service uniforms and ties, some were baggage handlers in their grey tunics; there were the char women in their pink aprons standing attention next to their cleaning carts, police officers with their thick black leather belts, food service attendants in their white paper hats, security clerks in their black blazers, and so many others in a blur of colors and clothes. It seemed as if the full airport had come forth to form this very human wall to surround us with their protection. After that point everything became a slow motion blur, as if I were about to faint or as if I were underwater, with people moving towards us but no sounds coming from their mouths. But I do remember clearly all the hands coming forth – those famous magic Turkish hands that appear whenever there is a need – taking us by the elbow and guiding us to the baggage claim area. I do not recall what was said to me at this point; all I remember were their eyes – and it was the sadness that I saw in those eyes that made me realize the gravity of the situation. I distinctly remember, however, a grey-haired, handsome man in a charcoal suit with a walkie-talkie in his hand, who came up to me. In perfect English he said, “Please do not worry, you are being taken care of. We will be taking you by a van to a nearby hotel to stay. It is very beautiful and nice, do not worry. You will stay there for the time it takes for things to normalize and for you to go home again. Do not worry. We will take care of you. But know that when you go into your room and turn on the television, you will see images of a brutality never before seen, and that you will be very upset. There will be someone at a table in the lobby, a health worker, who will be there for you to speak with if it all becomes too much for you. Good luck and God bless you.” And to this day I can still see the sharp dark features of the unshaven face of the skinny man in a ragged black suit coat who stuck out his hand to whisk away my suitcase and to load it in the van for me.

When the few Americans on that flight arrived at the hotel, we were ushered to our rooms with the hushed consideration usually reserved for funeral services. After I entered that room, in that indeed very beautiful hotel, sat down on the edge of the bed and saw those images on the television screen, I knew that the grey-haired man had not exaggerated. I learned of the story of the “attack on the big building in New York.” I learned that it was done in the name of Allah, the most Merciful and the most Compassionate.

I stayed there for a week, unable to get personal news of the tragedy, with only the droning reports of CNN and those never-ending images of the impact of the crash played over and over as if one time was not enough to gouge it in your memory forever. Was my husband safe? Was my assistant, who crossed under the Towers every morning on her commute in from New Jersey, lying flattened under the tonnage? How was everyone in my downtown neighborhood, now closed off from the world, coping with the tragedy? Over and over again as I saw those images of that hole ripped in the sky, I felt as if a hole had been ripped in my heart. When I saw those crushed beams, I felt as if my own bones had been crushed. I clearly remember the next morning when I went out of the hotel to get some air, there fluttering in front of me on a giant flagpole was the Turkish flag – its red color symbolizing the blood of its own fallen – at half mast. It was then that I understood that this tragedy was not one that had just struck my city, but it was affecting the entire world as well.

One night that week when I couldn’t sleep I got up to write a letter. I did not know exactly to whom I should address it, but I just felt that writing a letter would help me in that moment of stress, for putting emotions to paper seemed the only possible outlet for my grief, as the shock of it all had pushed my tears way down deep inside of me. At least for that moment in time, I could control something in the world: the flow of words onto paper in my own proper universe.

One morning about eight days later, the hotel staff called to say that we were to be ready to leave in an hour: the US airspace had opened and that we were being sent home. We were to be picked up at the hotel by a special THY van and taken to the airport.

Before leaving, I went to the front desk of the hotel to ask what I owed them for all the expenses I had incurred staying there: the luxurious room, the breakfasts, the vain phone calls, and faxes home. I did not know the protocol of such a situation, but I wanted to make sure I had taken care of everything. The young woman at the front desk just looked at me, bowed her head, and whispered, “You owe us nothing.” I could not bear to look at her, overwhelmed by the hotel’s charity, the intensity of this tragic event and my incapacity to thank her for the role she played in my well-being. I could not speak but handed to her the envelope with the letter I had written on that night I was unable to sleep. She looked at the addressee, visibly moved, and then back at me, and quietly said “Thank you.” And it was only then that my tears started to fall, as if all the immeasurable solace and tender consideration provided over the past week made the horror of the event suddenly too much to keep inside.

We piled in the busses and arrived at a still-hushed airport and boarded the flight to New York City, mirroring the same steps of a week prior. No one talked much on that 11-hour flight home: everyone was either too frightened to be in the cursed skies, in one of these apparatus now associated with an instrument of mass destruction, or quite simply because we were all apprehensive about what we would find once at home. The city I found when I arrived that night was as quiet as the plane. The former glorious view onto the World Trade Center from my Greenwich Village apartment was now filled with a billowing, yellow-grey cloud, glowing in the day from the sun reflecting off all its dust and in the evening from the giant high-intensity lights set up at the site. The furnishings of my home were covered, that day and for many months to come, with the pulverized dust of those fallen Twin Towers and the ashes of its 3,000 victims. Each day as I cleaned it away, day after day for months, I ceremoniously repeated prayers and recited Scripture for all of those innocent souls reduced to the dust I was wiping away.

New York City healed, the United States healed, and I healed. We are still living the consequences of that ignominious event up to this day, some small, some large, some local, some international. In many ways, I wonder if the recovery from that day was for me harder than most Americans. Although I personally suffered no loss of life in the crash, I still felt a tremendous loss to my city and in my faith in my fellow man. I felt betrayed by Islam, this faith that had earned a special respect in my heart; I felt betrayed that several fanatics of this religion I considered so pure and so noble had tarnished it beyond apparent forgiveness. I could not believe that the Islam I knew, through my studies, through my life shared with Muslims, through the many Muslims I had met in Turkey, those who believed in a God, the most merciful, the most compassionate – could be anything like those who had done this act. When I saw the dangerous turn my grief was taking – veering towards doubt, bitterness, and deception – I knew it had to stop. It was then that I made a vow. I perhaps could not control the outcome of all the events in the world, I reasoned, but I could control my immediate sphere, the orbit around me that I influence. It is said that perhaps everything in life happens in order to help us live. And so from the horror of that day, I told myself that I needed to recommit my efforts to support understanding between people and religions and that I needed to continue more than ever my dedication to fostering cross-cultural relations. It made me realize that if a person like me, who had such respect for Islam, was feeling such negative emotions against Muslims, what must the average American be thinking? I needed now to be a bridge-builder more than ever.

The Turkish part of my 9/11 story has one last chapter. About five months after the incident, I returned to work after my lunch break one day, and the front desk receptionist handed me a very large wooden box. A THY envelope with my name on it taped to it. The letter was from the New York director of Turkish Airlines, extending his wishes for my well-being and telling me that he desired to offer this token of appreciation on behalf of the THY staff for my letter, the one I had addressed “to Turkish Airlines and the People of the Republic of Turkey” and left at that hotel desk months before and which had finally come into his hands. It was inconceivable to believe that after all that had already been done emotionally and materially for me, that the warm arms of the Turks were continuing to surround me with compassion and goodness.

Inside of that giant box, encased beautifully in an elegant walnut and glass frame, was a large, oval plaque in silver. On this plaque, inscribed in fine cursive calligraphy, was the iconic message “Maþallah” which translates as “how beautifully God created” and is used by Turks to mean “may God protect you from all evil.”

Yes, Turkey – this magnificent and most generous of nations – has shown me that I must never doubt the infinite goodness of my fellow man.

Sincerely,

Like law in the United States, historically Islamic jurisprudence is based on precedence. Each ruling or reform was based on the decisions and interpretations of previous jurists and scholars. But many movements that emerged in the last century disregarded this practice, and invented brand-new interpretations and rulings that were at odds with centuries of accumulated knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence and theology. Moreover, they refute all other interpretations. The most controversial among these questionable views concerns the meaning of jihad. The soundest method of discerning the meaning of this much-debated word is to refer back to the original text that is the source of all Islamic jurisprudence and theology.

What is jihad, according to the Qur’an? What does the Qur’an say about war? According to the consensus of classical and contemporary exegetes, the following Qur’anic verses indicate that there is no “holy war” but there is only “just war” or “unjust war” in Islam. The verses also clarify that jihad does not mean war or fighting; rather it means “to strive hard in the righteous cause.”

Some Qur’anic principles

The science of hermeneutics requires that the interpretation of any text should take into account the writer, the intent of the writer, the addressee, and the context. This is the method to understand the message of the Qur’an. Taking a single verse out of context, and interpreting it without taking into consideration the entire text, would inevitably distort the meaning of the verse. The following are some general Qur’anic principles that should underlie the interpretation of individual verses.

“There shall be no coercion faith.” (2:256)

“And had your Lord so willed, all those who live on earth would surely have attained to faith, all of them: do you then think that you could compel people to believe…” (10:99)

“And say: ‘The truth [has now come] from your Lord: Then, whoever wills (to believe), let him believe; and whoever wills (to disbelieve), let him disbelieve. …” (18:29)

“Goodness and evil can never be equal. Repel evil with what is better (or best). Then see: the one between whom and you there was enmity has become a bosom friend.” (41:34)

“…and [they who] repel the evil with good. Such are those for whom there is the ultimate (everlasting) abode.” (13:22)

“…for peace is best…” (4:128)

“… He who kills a soul unless it be (in legal punishment) for murder or for causing disorder and corruption on the earth will be as if he had killed all humankind; and he who saves a life will be as if he had saved the lives of all humankind.” (5:32)

“Do not kill any soul, which God has made sacred, except in just cause. If anyone has been killed wrongfully and intentionally, We have given his heir the authority (to claim retaliation or damages or to forgive outright). But let him (the heir) not exceed the legitimate bounds in (retaliatory) killing. Indeed he has been helped (already and sufficiently by the provisions and procedures of the Law).” (17:33)

“Just War” in the Qur’an

Here are some verses dealing with fighting (qital) on the battlefield. All these verses should be read and understood only when there is a Just War already in progress.

“And 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)

This verse makes war permissible only in self-defense and even then, aggression is not permitted during the fight.

“Permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged and, verily, God has indeed the power to succor them.” (22:39)

Again, fighting is declared permissible against a wrongfully waged war.

“God does not forbid you, as regards those who do not make war against you on account of your Religion, nor drive you away from your homes, to be kindly to them, and act towards them with equity. God surely loves the scrupulously equitable.” (60:8)

Believers are asked here to be kind to any people who do not fight against them regardless of their faith.

“God only forbids you, as regards those who make war against you on account of your Religion and drive you away from your homes, or support others to drive you away, to take them for friends and guardians. Whoever takes them for friends and guardians, those are the wrongdoers.” (60:9)

As clearly listed in the verse, fighting is permitted only when a) a war is waged against the believers because of their faith, b) the believers are driven away from their homelands, c) aid is given to those who drive the believers away from their homelands.

“Fight (therefore, O Messenger) in God’s cause—for (in the same way that every individual is responsible for himself) you are (first of all) responsible for none except yourself. (Even left by yourself alone, fulfill your responsibility)—and urge on the believers (to take their responsibility). It may be that God will (thereby) restrain the force of those who disbelieve. Indeed God is strongest in might, and strongest in repressing and punishing.” (4:84)

Urging on the believers to take their responsibility is valid only during a war already in progress to deter the oppressors, not as an incitement to war.

“When (whether traveling or at home, or in war or at peace) you are greeted with a greeting (of peace and goodwill), answer with one better, or (at least) with the same. Surely God keeps account of all things.” (4:86)

The aim of war must be to prevent the oppression, not to be triumphant. When peace is offered, it is to be accepted with no reserve.

“Except those who seek refuge in a people between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace or alliance), or (those who) come to you with hearts shrinking from fighting against you, as well as fighting against their own people. Had God willed, He would certainly have given them power over you and they would have fought against you. If they withdraw from you and do not fight against you, and offer you peace, then God allows you no way (to war) against them.” (4:90)

Fighting is allowed only when a war is waged against the believers. Otherwise, there is no permission to declare a war unilaterally.

“…You will find others who wish to be secure from you (by signing a treaty with you) and to be secure from their people (by breaking their treaty with you and joining them): every time they are called back to conspiracy and hostility against you, they plunge into it headlong. Hence, if they do not withdraw from you, nor offer you peace, nor restrain their hands (from hurting you), then seize them and kill them wherever you come upon them. It is against such that We have given you a clear sanction.” (4:91)

During a war already in progress, if the aggressors do not stop attacking the believers and do not offer them peace, then the believers are given permission to seize and slay those who insist upon attacking them.

“If you meet them in war, deal with them in such a manner as to deter those behind them (who follow them, and those who will come after them), so that they may reflect and be mindful.” (8:57)

The aim is again not to be triumphant in war, but to prevent the continuation of war.

“(Believers:) make ready against them whatever you can of force and horses assigned (for war), that thereby you may dismay the enemies of God and your enemies and others besides them, of whom (and the nature of whose enmity) you may be unaware. God is aware of them (and of the nature of their enmity). Whatever you spend in God’s cause will be repaid to you in full, and you will not be wronged” (8:60)

The purpose of these preparations is to avoid potential future wars.

“And if they (the enemies) incline to peace, incline to it also, and put your trust in God. Surely He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing. And if they seek (thereby only) to deceive you (O Messenger), surely God is sufficient for you. He it is Who has strengthened you with His help and with the believers” (8:61–62)

According to the well-known Qur’anic exegete Fahruddin Razi (1149–1209), this means that even if they offer you peace to deceive you, this offer of peace must be accepted, because all judgment of their intentions must be based on outward evidence alone. In other words, mere suspicion cannot be an excuse for rejecting an offer of peace.

(While at war) kill them wherever you come upon them, and drive them out from where they drove you out (thus recovering your lands from their usurpation). (Though killing is something you feel aversion to,) disorder (rooted in rebellion against God and recognizing no laws) is worse than killing. Do not fight against them in the vicinities of the Sacred Mosque unless they fight against you there; but if they fight against you (there), kill them—such is the recompense of the (rebellious) unbelievers. (2:191)

The prerequisite for the permission to slay the oppressors is their persistence to fight against the believers and not incline toward peace. Fahruddin Razi states that the injunction in this verse is valid only within the context of hostilities already in progress, not when there is no physical hostility between the believers and the non-believers. A more recent commentator, Said Nursi (1877–1960), interprets such verses that give permission to “drive them away from wherever they drove you away” as crushing the idea of the denial of God or materialism in the field where it originated by bringing the evidences for the existence of its Creator from the matter itself.

“But if they desist—behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.” (Qur’an 2:192)

“Hence, fight against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to God alone; but if they desist, then all hostility shall cease, save against those who [willfully] do wrong.” (2:193)

Fighting is allowed again until God can be worshipped without fear of persecution and no one is compelled to bow down in awe before another human being. If persecution stops then all hostility shall cease.

“…Those who have been driven from their homeland against all right, for no other reason than that they say, “Our Lord is God. ” Were it not for God’s repelling some people by means of others, monasteries and churches and synagogues and mosques, where God is regularly worshipped and His Name is much mentioned, would surely have been pulled down (with the result that God is no longer worshipped and the earth becomes uninhabitable). God most certainly helps whoever helps His cause. Surely, God is All-Strong, All-Glorious with irresistible might.” (22:40)

Fighting against oppression is not confined to defending the mosques only, all the places where God’s name is extolled—monasteries, churches, synagogues—are to be protected.

“And if any of those who associate partners with God seeks asylum of you (O Messenger), grant him asylum, so that he may hear the Word of God, and then convey him to his place of security. That (is how you should act) because they are a people who have no knowledge. (9:6)

This verse emphasizes granting protection to mushrikun (those associating partners with God)—not only the People of Book—when they seek protection from the believers. They can be accepted as “neighbors” of the believing community. Should they want to leave the community of the believers, it is the responsibility of the believers to convey them to a place where they can feel secure.

In conclusion

The contextual analysis of the above Qur’anic verses elucidates that the utmost priority in all circumstances is achieving permanent peace. Believers are enjoined to accept peace, even when doing so would harm their interests, and must consent to all peace offers. It is not permissible to wage war against any people unilaterally. Fighting is not desirable and should be avoided whenever possible. Permission to fight is given only in self-defense. When a believer has been attacked and is fighting in self-defense, his aim must be to stop the oppression, not to be triumphant. Fighting is permitted only against people who have:

a) waged war against the community of believers because of their faith,

b) driven the community of believers out of their homelands,

c) aided others in driving the community of believers out of their homelands,

d) threatened the security of the community of believers. This judgment about the “threat” must be based on outward evidence alone, not on suspicion, which is subjective.

Fighting is permitted in the Qur’an only for the sake of defending the truth and its followers (including defending the monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques where God’s name is extolled). The believers can only engage in war against oppressors who are clearly marked and designated as a military force. This military force must not be mixed in with a civilian population. A prohibited method of fighting is the use of weapons of mass destruction which indiscriminately kill civilians along with the intended target. Even then, fighting can only be declared by a leader (caliph), who is elected by the community of believers from among themselves, not self-appointed kings, rulers, or authorities. Individuals cannot declare war or try to bring about justice by their own means. This is vigilantism, which is prohibited by Islamic law. Only the state has the authority in such issues.