The worst thing about cancer they don’t tell you?

The aftermath. The shock waves.

It’s surviving the quick earthquake, only to find yourself dodging falling objects and electrical lines for the next few days.

What they failed to mention was that fighting cancer was the easy part.

The real battle was learning to live again.

I got the news of my cancer diagnosis as a young mother, and after we had moved to a new city with no close friends or family. The kids were 3, 6, 11, and 13. Summer break had just begun, and to make things worse, I could not drive. We were in the wilderness and were fighting for our lives.

We went into “survival mode,” literally and figuratively, and assigned each older child to a smaller child with the plan and knowledge that we could survive if each of the “bigs” both did a load of laundry and dishes a day. At one point, I had a goal to drop off the kids at school, so I could get three uninterrupted hours of sleep after my chemo treatment. I had finally dropped off the children at their three different schools, and my head had barely hit the pillow, when I received a phone call from the school.

“Mrs. Estes? You need to come pick up your children. They all have lice!”

Trials, temptations, disease, and now pestilence were hitting our household simultaneously. I remember thinking, “At least I can’t get it since my hair is gone,” and then laughed at the absurdity that we were so low that my “silver lining statement” included the phrase “Praise the Lord I’m bald.”

But that was not the hardest part. Not by a long shot.

The hardest part was after the storm, when the casseroles stopped coming and prayers had grown weary. The hardest part of fighting a deadly battle comes afterwards when the dust has settled and the gunsmoke has cleared and you find yourself standing in total rubble and destruction.

I shouldn’t say total. We had our health and were still married. Most do not escape with that, I learned. But we both were battered and bloodied. I had a visual representation come to mind of an old battleship slowly pulling into port – disfigured and worn, riddled with bullet holes and laden with shrapnel. We were afloat, but barely.

I awoke from my six-month drunken chemo state to find my life in ruins. While the “bigs” had done a wonderful job helping with the “littles,” there were still unmet needs and unspoken questions that the youngest mind’s lips couldn’t form, which resulted in one regressing into wetting his pants again in first grade and the other becoming a hair’s breath away from becoming non-verbal, screaming “Aaaaaa!” fifty times a day. All of this in addition to the “regular” stresses of having four children about to enter high school, middle school, kindergarten and first grade – and not to mention the emotional withdrawal that naturally comes in a marriage during crisis times and having a son with extreme learning disabilities.

At one point, I was finally able to lift my leg again, and I was able to climb the stairs to our second story – after a year. When I entered the playroom, the scene rivaled the ruins of a never-ending frat party, with beer bottles exchanged for sippy cups and ankle-deep trash covering the floor. It was a sign of what the kids had silently felt during our ordeal, and it served as a visual symbol of my life: ruined and messy.

In World War II, my grandfather was part of the company that liberated prisoner of war camps. At one point, he asked one of the prisoners what the difference was between those that made it out and those that did not.

“The ones that made it found something to look forward to – they had a goal,” he replied.

I took that advice and decided that when all the chemo and radiation was over, I would celebrate with the other cancer fighters I’d met while walking through the fire.

None of them made it. It was heartbreaking.

I “made do” by celebrating with all the friends and family who had prayed and supported us through the journey, but the weight was still felt. In addition to feeling thankful, I also shouldered the burden of false guilt from having survived when my other comrades had fought just as hard, sometimes harder. Soldier syndrome had come home to roost.

So, what do you do when you get through the war only to (symbolically) return to your home to find the farm overrun with thorns and that your wife has run off?

You start from scratch. And you begin with baby steps.

God was gracious, providing me with advice from an “older brother” in the church just when I needed it. He himself had come out of a near death, eight-day coma experience. He emerged paralyzed on one side, but no one would ever guess it today. The first thing he advised when I called him in tears was, “small goals, baby steps, little sister!”

When coming through tragedy, we want our life to be like it was “before,” but the “after” contains components the “before” never had. It is an “apples to oranges” comparison and is unfair to expect them to be the same. Life “after cancer” contains side effects such as “less energy” and “Chemo Brain” that affect what and how much can be done for a while. Just as I couldn’t expect to instantly run three miles again, nor should I have expected to jump instantly back into life, either. The girl who used to pay all the bills, pop dinner into the oven, and get all four kids ready for school before breakfast was now merely able to pay the bills by the end of the day. But that was okay, because that was enough.

Second piece of advice: good enough is good enough. Lower your expectations. Gone were the days of thinking “everything has a place, and everything should be in its place.” Life was still, even now, about survival. Gone were the days of a pristine home ready for entertainment at a moment’s notice; the day of “push aside the mess and have a seat” had come. And that is okay. Because, again, you are now living in a different reality. The good news? There is no fairy that is going to come grade you on how tidy or organized your home is. Your home is there to serve you, not the other way around. Feel free to live as such.

In addition, it is imperative to “accept the new reality” and “don’t look back.” At one point in the recovery process, I placed blinder goggles and a bottle of salt beside my bed to remind myself, “Don’t look back, lest you turn to a pillar of salt!” (like Lot’s wife). I was amazed at how many Bible verses there actually were with the theme of “pressing on” and “not looking back.” The message was clear: the past is the past, and the present is the present. Make sure to live in the right one. Thinking back to how things used to be and trying to make your world look now like it did back then is a guaranteed, instant trip to Insanity Land. Accept that now will not look like then, nor is it supposed to. Celebrate every “new” baby step and make recovery a big ol’ party!

One of the hardest pieces of advice to follow is: try to humble yourself. As a natural giver, this concept was the most difficult for me until a friend helped me realize that life is not all about me, and if I do not ask for help, then I am literally robbing givers of the chance to use their spiritual gift to give. Ecclesiastes makes it clear that life is divided into seasons, and this is perhaps your season to be a receiver. Accept it as you would a blessing for it will bless others as they minister to you.

A final word of advice on the journey of learning to live again: have a creative outlet and take time to feed your soul. Anything from songwriting, to painting, to simply coloring will help balm your weary mind as you learn to do things anew again. For me, I finally completed my novel, began songwriting, and never missed a sunset at our local park for three months straight. Learning to live again is like learning to walk again – hard and tiring. You must make the time to restore and renew your mind, spirit, and soul.

Of course, this all goes with the understanding that we are constantly praying and praising God for every single blessing He brings our way. It can be big things, like climbing stairs again – or small things, like hearing the song of a robin or seeing a butterfly. Whatever the size of the blessing that comes your way that day, praise God for it! And remember: like the butterfly in the cocoon, this season, too, is temporary and will pass.

She stood at the edge of the abyss, the blinding darkness engulfing her, enticing her. It would be easy to let go, to wither away and join him. Her arms felt numb, and her powerful legs were weak. Violent tremors traveled up and down her body. A small compelling hand, wet with tears, tugged on her arm. “What will we do now?” a quavering voice whispered. She opened her eyes. The sky was a cerulean blue, and the blazing sun was beating on her torn straw hat, casting a slender shadow on the spring green rice fields. Her rapid heart was calmed by a wind that caressed her cheek. To her dead husband, to her children, to Vietnam, she dropped the condolence letter, and with her feet firmly planted on the ground, said, “We will live.”

To say it was easy is an understatement. Raising five kids as a single mother, in a country where women are expected to be docile, seemed infeasible. “I was taught at a young age that men were the head of the household, they were the heroes of the family,” Diep Ngo, aged 80, recalls sadly, her eyes distant. “I felt helpless. My brothers were charting new paths, while I was still, unable to move.” With a suppressed sob, Ngo recounts that at the twilight hour, she would drown with dark thoughts, but every morning when the sun rose, they would be vanquished. The roosters were the reveille that awakened her slumber, her empty stomach was the battle cry, and the last words of hope from her departed beloved, the mantra that carried her on. 

The war took its toll on the civilians of Vietnam; it was a disease that plagued families with deaths and injuries. Young girls were jailbirds, kept busy looking after their younger siblings, torn rags their striped attire and restrictions the bars of their prison. Dreams were locked away, replaced by the basic needs crucial to survival. Even so, when asked if she would take part in the war that claimed her husband, Ngo, her mouth in a straight line and her eyes ablaze, adamantly nodded. Raising both arms until her fists were level with her head, she mustered a grimace. Her nose crinkled and teeth bared, but her eyes sparkled with humor. “Do you think anyone would’ve thought twice about taking me on?”

Scraping bits and pieces of broken memories from her childhood, Ngo recalls that the only freedom she truly had was that from the pressures of education. “I never did well in school. Women were not expected to accomplish anything, so it was highly unusual for a women to achieve higher education.” Now, it seems clear that this supposed freedom transformed itself into another burden upon her shoulders, for she had to take on menial tasks when drafted into the position of “man.” For the first time in her life, she left the cage built by the patriarchal society and refused wealthy suitors. “They were bloated with pride… I would never submit to any man like that.” Ngo was ridiculed by her neighbors as a result, but she felt a strange sensation, absent from her life ever since the fateful, disappointed sigh that accompanied the doctor declaring her gender 80 years ago: the jewel of independence.

“As their father was gone, I had to step into the role of the provider. Oh, what a burden it was, but the power and purpose it gave me fueled the sleepless nights.”

Before the age of 30, her long, black hair turned a platinum gray, and impending wrinkles scarred her face as the war robbed her of youth. A moment to weep or reconcile with memories of loved ones was lost in the present.

“Losing my husband was truly hard, but myself, and other women of Vietnam, had to choke back grief and look to the future,” she remarked. Leaving the house militarily before the sun rose and coming back well after the crescent moon silently loomed in the sky, the only thing Ngo regrets is not spending as much time with her children. But, what she had to do was necessary, as every day was a battle. Even so, how could she explain to them the rough calluses on her hands, which toiled tirelessly, tending the infested wounds left after the hungry bullets pierced the heart of Vietnam? How could she explain yet another outline of a large palm on her red cheek, this time from an angry customer, unsatisfied by the knee-length trousers she had spent all night mending?

Through it all, she remained an eternal warrior, whose struggles rivaled those of men fighting raging wars. Diep Ngo battled gender inequality and injustice, all while leading her family through desperate times. An old poem by Xuân Diệu filled her thoughts as America, the land of rebirth and opportunities, slowly emerged on the horizon: “Your feet have hardly tread round this way… Open your arms to clasp the spring, then from your hand let there be light” (translated by Thomas D. Le). And for the first time since her husband’s death, she welcomed the moist tears, for the valiant soldier’s burden had been lifted. Her dauntless mission was complete. 

I’m forever grateful for her valiant decision to bypass social stereotypes and become a sort-of soldier, leading her family to survival, to new opportunities, to an education, to happiness, to America. It’s a natural, humane feeling that is respectful of the wisdom, the strength, and the sacrifices of the old. Every evening, after the tiring cycle of school, I retreat back into my place of comfort: my grandmother’s arms, and for the past 17 years, her past life was but a false, beautiful painting, rid of pain and hardships and suffering. That one night, under a blanket of softly twinkling stars, I retraced her hands, touching them, caressing them, tracing her old, calloused, scarred fingers and her bulging veins, to finally realize the truth: that there was so much I didn’t know about my hero.

We begin in the Lead Article with a discussion about how to avoid inner decay, a phenomenon that can cause people to drift away from what it means to be human by becoming lost in despair. This anguish spreads through the heart and body like a disease and subsequently causes everything to look bleak, taste bland, and feel pointless. It is contrasted heavily by the light of belief, which has the opposite effect and lifts the soul up into tranquility.

Our narrative by Lawrence Brazier that delves into the wonderful world of pottery and his thought process behind trying to make the best pieces. His discussion with his friend reveals how he believes, in his opinion, that attaining inner peace produces the best kind of art. His perspective is that art should calm and soothe as opposed to provoke and agitate, therefore encouraging a peaceful state of mind in order to achieve the desired result.

Celine Dan Tam Nguyen’s memoir explores how her grandmother, whose husband was killed in a war, had to strengthen her resolve every day in order to provide for herself and her five children. Her survival depended upon defiantly standing up to a patriarchal society that encouraged her to simply sit down and accept defeat. It is a harrowing story of the toll that war takes on innocent families, and how they must find peace within in order to persist during such trying times.

Irfan Yilmaz writes a beautiful article on the intricacies and immense qualities of the hummingbird, the world’s smallest bird. It is renowned for its speed, precision, and rapid heart-rate despite being such a tiny creature. We may also achieve inner peace by temporarily removing ourselves from the noise of our society and by ruminating on the beauty of the natural world around us in creations such as the hummingbird.

Question: What are the lessons today’s believers should draw from the following Divine message: “Believers should not go forth to war all together. But why should not a party from every community of them mobilize to acquire profound, correct knowledge and understanding of the Religion, and warn their people when they return to them so that they may beware (of wrongful attitudes)” (at-Tawbah 9:122). 

Answer: In this verse, God Almighty first reveals that it is not correct for all believers to simultaneously go on a military campaign and take part in war. Then He states that a party should stay behind to gain insight into the spirit of religion and that when their people come back from different fronts, these learned ones should guide them with fair exhortation, feed them with religious knowledge, and teach them what they should know; this is because those people who engaged with the enemy during warfare may have failed to receive the religious education they need.

Why did they have to fight?

In the early period of Islam, since believers told people the truth, and represented and expressed justice, they faced attacks by the antagonists of religion. In such a situation, believers could not say to the enemies coming to exterminate them, “Come on, let us sit in the mosque and discuss first.” Even if they did, those enemies, who were fixed on grudge and destruction, would have tried to demolish that mosque and bury the believers therein. In order to stand against such demolition, they fought to protect their chastity, honor, religion, home, and flag.

After the demise of the noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and during the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, may God be pleased with them, similar problems emerged and Muslims had to engage with enemies in different places. During the time of Caliph Abu Bakr they had to fight on eight different fronts in order to repress the cases of apostasy in different tribes. Besides, the Sassanid and Roman empires, which were the super powers of the time, also had their eyes on Muslims. Since they accosted Muslims at every opportunity, Muslims had to fight defensive wars against them in different parts of the world.

In such a situation, had everyone attended war without any exception, there would have been a serious gap in terms of religious education. In the verse mentioned above, God Almighty commands that a group of people should stay behind for scholarly purposes in order to compensate for the lack of knowledge in those who return from war. Thus He pointed out that Muslims must definitely retain their learned state and attain the horizons necessitated by the conditions of their era. If believers fail to attain such a state and horizons, it is not possible to stand against attacks on different fronts anyway.

Cultural envoys

As for the conditions of our era, when knowledge and power of discourse came to the fore, continuing to exist as ourselves will be possible by means of the power of knowledge, pen, and discourse. With the approach of Bediuzzaman, victory over the civilized can be through persuasion. Therefore, the devoted souls who are the cultural envoys in our time should take their values to different parts of the world—not with weapons and brutal force, but with knowledge, wisdom, love, tolerance, and goodness. The way of peace and love opens the way that leads to hearts, whereas brutal force causes grudge and hatred to rise from the dead. For this reason, unless you remain under invasion and have no any other way but to fight, no solution should be sought through force. As for the issue of using force, it should be evaluated within a perspective of defense or eliminating an inescapable danger.

It is for this reason that the most important duty to be fulfilled with respect to Islam and humanity is going to the four corners of the world, to exchange cultural values there. It is also important in the meantime to benefit from different patterns and colors wherever we are, as far as they do not contradict one’s essential teachings. By coming into contact with different people in the places they go, the devoted souls will both serve as honorary representatives of their cultural values, and they will receive the beautiful sides of those cultures and present them to their own people. However, as they will be predominantly busy with their pursuits of peaceful action, they may not be sufficiently nourished in terms of knowledge and spirituality. Then, it is necessary to edify individuals well-versed in the values of spiritual heritage, who know essential sources better, and thus who will help those in the field of peaceful action be nourished as is necessary. Those who undertake the responsibility to deepen in correct and profound knowledge and comprehension of Islam should constantly flow like a pure freshwater spring, nourishing the altruistic souls running in the field, who should in return take what they will from that source and complete their scholarly equipment.

Scholarly Ones Open to Both Physical and Spiritual Disciplines

By referring to acquiring “profound, correct knowledge and understanding of the Religion,” the verse points to the fact that those who stay behind need to be equipped with knowledge pertaining to faith, Islam, and to ihsan, or perfect goodness. Together with that, the sound functioning of these values, their easily being welcome by a society (perhaps of a very different cultural background), and their being liked and valued, depends on correct discernment of non-religious realities and rules as well. Therefore, besides religion, it bears much importance to master the natural sciences, which constitute the basis for most modern sciences. It is important to carry out research in this respect, and behold appreciatively the creation displayed in nature.

As Bediüzzaman put it, while learning religious disciplines on the one hand, modern sciences should not be neglected either. He pointed out that a student’s endeavor would soar only when these two are found together. Excluding one of these two will mean leaving the other devoid of wings. One should neither make concessions from learning religious disciplines, which are the light of the heart, nor ignore modern sciences, which are the light of the mind, reason, and judgment.

In addition, this verse emphasizes the importance of love of knowledge and research. Therefore, one must make very serious efforts in order to master both the religious and modern sciences, and remain like a “student” until the end of their life. The Arabic word for student (talib) means “seeker” of knowledge. No matter whether a person studies religious disciplines or modern sciences, if that person is utilizing the essences distilled from those studies for the sake of knowing God and maintaining a sound balance, then that person will be treated as a true student or seeker of knowledge. So what does such a treatment mean? As the Messenger of God stated, God Almighty makes the way to Paradise easier to one who sets forth demanding to acquire knowledge. [1]

Seeking knowledge is very important and the benefits a scholar can bring to society are great. Thus, one’s society is responsible for supporting seekers of knowledge and doing what they can for them. It is very difficult for someone dedicated to knowledge to devote time for anything else. Accordingly, some Islamic scholars stated that even if they wear expensive clothes and the threshold of their door is made of gold, it is still possible to give alms to seekers of knowledge, because the vitality of a nation depends on such mastering of knowledge. If this cannot be done, the nation will collapse and disintegrate. Due to this stagnancy, some cracks emerged in the Islamic world in the fifth century after the holy migration (11th century CE). With the recession in the 13th and 14th centuries, a complete breakdown and disintegration happened. Muslim societies have not been able to straighten up since.

Dignified Contentment and Remaining Under Obligation

In response to people’s support and care, seekers of knowledge must do their best in terms of being worthy of such kindness and must not waste a second of their time. Through very serious planning, division of labor, and a discipline of mutual helping, these seekers must be completely focused on this task. They must devote all of their energy to the task so as to be deserving of the people’s regard for them—even if that means sleeping only four hours if necessary and devoting twenty hours of the day to studying. Who knows? When they study with such seriousness, maybe God Almighty will grant them in two years what another person can attain in ten years.

Incidentally, let me share how I feel about one issue: I feel heartbroken for those who pursue PhD degrees, but cannot finish that in even ten years. Time is the greatest capital for a human. If a person has taken such a path once, they should persevere, exert their brains, make use of all arguments they can make use of, benefit from all sources they can, and if possible, they should even finish their PhD before the time determined for them.

I wish to underline one more point concerning scholarly ones: Dignified contentment is a very important principle for those dedicated to scholarly pursuits, with respect to the honor of both knowledge and learned ones. Actually, the path of the Prophets is also based on this essential. In many verses of the Qur’an, it is stated that they said, “I ask of you no wage for that (for conveying God’s Message); my wage is only due from the Lord of the worlds” (ash-Shuara 26:127). In this respect, scholarly ones should not be obliged to anyone if possible, in any phase of their lives—neither while they are students, nor when they become teachers, or teacher of teachers…

May God forbid, if one does not have this feeling of dignified contentment, and if that person carries out certain tasks for the sake of some returns, such as becoming a manager, director general, MP, minister, or prime minister, then such a person cannot be saved from being obliged to other people. Unfortunately, the concessions they make on account of being obliged will not only cost them dearly, but cost their nation as well. In this respect, those who engage in scholarly pursuits must arrange their lives in accordance with the principle of dignified contentment. They must use the means of their fathers if they can, or they must make a modest living with their own means, if they can. They should live frugally, never becoming obliged to anyone and never having to make concessions.

Note

1. Sahih, Muslim, Dhikr, 38.

The message of the Holy Qur’an is believed to be relevant for all Muslims, including those who lived when it was first revealed (between 610 and 632) and those who will come until the end of time. Based on the incidents faced by Muslims over 23 years during the time of revelation and the stories of former nations, the Qur’an provides guidelines in the form of commandments, prohibitions, and good advice, which are simultaneously incident-specific and universally relevant, dynamically forced and firmly static.

The first collocutors of this Divine Address were fortunate to be able to perceive the Divine Intention without any synthetic interpretation and commentary; and whenever they needed any further explanation, they were guided by Prophet Muhammad himself, peace be upon him. Subsequent generations could engage in that endeavor only by accurately settling the association between facts and norms. The Prophet is the Final Messenger and the Holy Qur’an is the Final Divine Message and Scripture; thus Divine Messages that are believed to be “universal,” “comprehensive,” and “meta-historical” could by no other means be discovered and implemented. Intellectual rigor was required.

The Companions, the successors of the Companions, and their immediate successors engaged in an intensive intellectual endeavor, right after the Prophet passed away. While usul sciences set the methodology for their work, disciplines like Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), Islamic theology (kalam), Islamic tradition (hadith), and Islamic exegesis (tafsir) reveal the outcomes of these methodical studies. Studies on the biography of the Prophet (seerah), military chronicles (maghazi), and the history of Islam (tarikh) also provided authentic or inauthentic resources to these disciplines.

These activities lost verve with time. Seeking Divine purpose by preserving the constants as they initially were and developing theoretical interpretations and practical transformations according to the ever-changing and evolving social, political, economic, moral, legal, military, etc. circumstances, have not always been possible. Social changes require dynamism, for dynamism – not inertia – is the nature of things and life. For many Muslim societies, a social life that remained frozen as exactly as it was in the time of the Prophet was one of the problems. Another problem was considering the surface meanings of the Qur’anic verses and the Hadith enough as solutions for real social problems.

This frozen social structure that sustained during the codification (tadwin) period affected Muslim viewpoints of the Qur’an and the Hadith, as well as their methodology of knowledge. Principles such as “the universality of the Qur’an,” or tenets like “Acting on the text is better than abandoning it,” “The particular cause of any Qur’anic revelation (asbab al-nuzul) does not mean its judgment does not have any universal validity,” and “Independent reasoning (ijtihad) cannot be exercised when there is explicit statement,” formed the keystones of knowledge production across many centuries. I believe this is a very important matter that needs to be covered in a separate article.

The verses of the Holy Qur’an are not detached from the social realities experienced between 610 and 632 in Mecca and Medina. In the words of Nasr Hamid, a creative and prolific dialogue existed between the Divine Intention and the first addressees of the Qur’an. Severing this correlative link between God and the community of revelation is the foremost reason for triggering what may be called the alienation from the Qur’an.

The first condition for accurately understanding the Divine Intention is knowing what the first addressees of the Qur’an had understood of and practiced from those verses during the course of revelation. Attempting to understand “what the Qur’an tries to tell” without knowing “what the Qur’an tells” does not lead to accurate results. On the contrary, such an attempt may turn out to be the first step taken toward disastrous results such as making God speak for one’s own pleasure and making the Qur’an say whatever one wants it to say.

Browsing the Qur’an from the perspective of “creative and prolific dialogue,” there are pages of narrations about events of the time. Among these events were, but not limited to, the battles of Badr, Uhud, and Khandaq, the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, the conquest of Mecca, the Tabuk and Mu’tah campaigns, the codes of conduct toward prisoners of war, how the daily prayers are to be performed in the event of war, etc. There are verses that cover the dispute between Khawla bint Tha’labah and her husband Aws ibn Samit and how God adjudicated that dispute conclusively. Other narrations in the Qur’an include Zayd ibn Harithah’s divorcing his wife Zainab and her subsequent marriage to the Prophet, the impending fate of Abu Lahab and his wife Umm Jamil due to their persecution of the Prophet, the funeral prayer of Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul, and tens or hundreds of events such as these. All of these point at the correlative relationship between God and society. Consequently, it may be said that it is impossible to think about the Holy Qur’an as detached from the social incidents experienced during the course of its revelation.

Jihad

The same applies to the Qur’anic verses about concepts like jihad (endeavor), qatl (killing), and qital (warfare) – generally, the verses about military jihad. Each of these verses was revealed independently as related to particular incidents and expressed, in a crystal-clear style, how Muslims should react to incidents; in other words, the Qur’an produced tangible solutions to tangible problems. For instance, when looked at from the perspective which we attempt to illustrate, it is seen that the verses “(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”; and “(But if they persist in causing disorder, continue to) fight against them until there is no longer disorder rooted in rebellion against God, and the religion (the right for worship and the authority to order the way of life is recognized) for God.” (2/191 and 193) are from the roadmap detailed by God for Muslims to solve their problems with the polytheists of Mecca. However, many adopt a universal, atomic, or overgeneralizing approach, and these verses are discriminatorily interpreted as proof that Islam is “a religion of violence.”

These verses, from Surah al-Baqarah, were not revealed separately and at different times, but within a bundle of six verses revealed before the “Compensatory Minor Pilgrimage,” meant to be performed a year after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. The cause of revelation was to teach Muslims how to respond should the polytheists of Mecca – who a year earlier had violated the prohibitions for the forbidden months – violate the Treaty once again and wage war against the Muslims. Therefore, an accurate interpretation of these verses is possible by understanding “what God says” before “what God means to say” and handling this bundle of verses while considering the cause of revelation as a whole.

Scholars must jointly deliberate on the cause of revelation, analyze the links within the verse and with other verses, take into consideration the holism of the Qur’an, and social, economic, military, cultural, and religious conditions at the time. All of this is necessary contextual information. When taking these factors into account, it is clear that Islam is not a religion of violence or war, as claimed by some orientalists. This approach would also falsify the argument that considers the warfare as essential and peace as secondary in Islam, as some so-called Muslim scholars purport. These are deeply troubled arguments that are seriously radicalized and ethically flawed.

Yet, it is upsetting that there were and are groups that define themselves as Muslims and reach such conclusions. ISIL, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda, etc. are violent groups that have adopted methods exploiting the Holy Qur’an, severing the Qur’anic verses from their contexts and cherry-picking concepts to legitimize their defective approaches. Having been engaged in such violent exploits, they generated a theology, and later laws, from their political ideology. Unfortunately, while they perpetrate heinous crimes, they forget the Qur’anic verses which expound that enmity is to be shown to oppressors only, not to others (2:193); belief is a personal choice and what falls on Muslims is only advice (18:29; 49:14); that there is no coercion in religion (2:256); and that hatred and anger harbored against non-combatant unbelievers should not prevent believers from doing good to them (60:8; 5:2). They disregard the practices of the Prophet and accepted them as overruled, such as the Charter of Medina, the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, the general amnesty during the Conquest of Mecca, and the prohibition on the killing of women, children, the old and the men of religion even on the battlefield.

When trying to understand the true meaning of Qur’anic verses, it is important to delineate the line between the fact and the norm, between realpolitik and idealism. While facts or realpolitik is the context for which the Qur’anic verses bring tangible solutions to the incidents experienced during the course of revelation, idealistic perspective refers to the values and principles that need to be obtained from a holistic look toward the Qur’an, including the jihad verses. “Kill them wherever you find them,” in Baqara 191, (“them” referring to the aggressive polytheists of Mecca) indicates realpolitik circumstances of revelation. “Disorder (i.e. oppressing and torturing people because of their faith) is worse than killing,” indicates idealism and stipulates freedom of belief and conscience.

Concepts introduced by the Qur’an

During its course of revelation, the Qur’an did not only use the established concepts of the contemporary society, but introduced its own concepts as well. The concept of jihad is in the second category. Other concepts such as zihar, nikah, and talaq (concepts about marriage and divorce), which are mentioned in the Qur’an, were already in the lexicon of the society. However, the concept of jihad has gone through sharp semantic shifts and variations over the fifteen centuries since the time of revelation, and especially after the freedom movements in Muslim countries during the nineteenth century for independence from colonialism. This shift moved further from the Qur’anic foundations due to the works of orientalists; media outlets thriving on an anti-Islamic furor; and persecution of Muslim minorities. The weakness of Muslim states, authoritarian regimes, distribution of oil revenue, economic crises, and a large youthful population that cannot be easily brought under control given current circumstances are other major reasons that have led to the misuse of the concept of jihad. The idea has also been exploited by numerous radical-minded Muslim individuals, groups, and organizations. Concepts are like living organisms. The meanings encompassed by them contract, expand, change, and transform according to experienced realities. Nowadays, it is incumbent on Muslims to revert this concept to its original state by placing it back on the Qur’anic foundations in theory and practice.

Consequently, I think neither the battle cry “Islam is a religion of war” nor the slogan – yes, I term it a slogan – “Islam is a religion of peace” are accurate. Indeed, I think such a reductionist and cliché discourse form a massive intellectual block, preventing a complete understanding of Islam as a religion. The jihad verses in the Qur’an seems to have received their share from this minimalism. A literalist approach to the Qur’anic verses addressing realpolitik conditions is an indication of adopting the Qur’an solely as a book of law or policy. Individuals having this viewpoint may exploit the Qur’an to have it speak to their desire. It is compulsory to make a distinction among the Ideal Islam experienced during the lifetime of the Prophet, the Scholarly Islam expressed theoretically in the course of the academic activities of scholars in subsequent years, and the Historical Islam that has been experienced by Muslims in various locations worldwide for the last fifteen centuries. The minimum condition to achieve this distinction is studying the Qur’anic verses vis-à-vis the circumstances and context behind their revelation and understanding what the Qur’anic verses really “say,” before going deeper into analyzing what they “mean to say.” Intra-textuality, inter-textuality, reason for revelation, holistic approach to the Qur’an, and contextual knowledge are key terms for reference in this regard.

In the early years of Islam, the faith was taught with a focus on common sense with spiritual counsels, arguments in the belief of God’s existence, and the Afterlife. When some Muslims who faced insults and persecution tended to react against adversaries, the Prophet calmed them down and asked them to show patience. When pressures increased, the Prophet recommended a group of Muslims immigrate to Abyssinia to evade persecution, but the Meccan chieftains made the issue into an international scandal and sent envoys so the Muslim refugees could be handed over to them.

Unable to prevent the spread of Islam, they increased their violence. The leaders of the Quraysh tribe, except for the Hashimi clan which the Prophet belonged to, decided to implement a severe embargo. They forced Muslims to live in a field known as Shib al-Abu Talib and cut off all relations with them. Even selling something to them was banned. This embargo meant a wholesale condemnation to famine, meaning even women, children, and the elderly suffered. One memory from Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas can give us an idea about how horrible their situation was: one night, after he relieved himself in a remote corner, he found a piece of animal skin on the ground. He first cleaned it, then held it out to fire, and then tried to appease his feeling of hunger by gnawing at it.

Meanwhile, a growing number of people in Medina were accepting Islam. In the end, 73 people who came to pledge allegiance to the Prophet invited the Muslims to Medina. The Prophet encouraged Muslims to immigrate there in small numbers. When the Prophet was one of the few Muslims who remained in Mecca, the chieftains assembled and decided to assassinate him, but he set forth in the night and the would-be killers returned empty handed.

Although some Muslims were inclined to retaliate against the Meccan enmity, the Prophet did not seek revenge but set about putting things right in Medina. The noble Prophet was a mild person with a distinguished compassion and a magnanimous character. Many different verses of the Qur’an refer to this quality of his, such as the following two:

“There has come to you (O people) a Messenger from among yourselves; extremely grievous to him is your suffering, full of concern for you is he, and for the believers full of pity and compassion” (Tawbah 9:128); and, “Had you been harsh and hard-hearted, they would surely have scattered away from about you. Then pardon them, pray for their forgiveness, and take counsel with them in the affairs (of public concern)…” (Al Imran 3:159).

We know that the Meccan chieftains were not indifferent to this migration; they threatened the Medinans and prepared to take vengeance.¹ On the other hand, although almost all Muslims had left, the previously sowed seeds of faith began to germinate and people kept embracing Islam in Mecca. The following verse refers to those new believers and those who remained oppressed:

“Why, then, should you not fight in the cause of God and of the oppressed, helpless men, women, and children, who cry out: ‘O Lord! Bring us out of this land whose people are oppressors, and appoint for us from Your Presence a protector, and appoint for us from Your Presence a helper!'” (Nisa 4:75).

The Muslims who emigrated from Mecca had left behind their homes, businesses, trade, relatives, and everything else. Since the polytheists usurped their properties, it was perfectly lawful for the Muslims who emigrated from Mecca to reclaim their rights from them. After a long period of patience that lasted some fifteen years, God gave them permission to fight back:

“The believers against whom war is waged are given permission to fight in response, for they have been wronged. Surely God has full power to help them to victory – those who have been driven from their homeland against all rights, for no other reason than that they say, ‘Our Lord is God'” (Hajj 22:39-40).

The prevalent opinion in the West is that, Muslims have the right to use weapons to make others accept their religion or to destroy those who do not accept it – and are even obliged to do so. Accordingly, this notion is known as the “Holy War,” and some have tried to present the word “jihad” as the Qur’anic term for it. In reality, this word – which literally means “striving” – does not mean fighting, and there is no concept of “Holy War” in the Qur’an.² “Guerre sainte” or “holy war” belongs to European terminology.

The concept of jihad is very extensive. Certain Qur’anic verses state that jihad can sometimes be in the form of war, such as the following example:

“Those who were left behind in opposition to God’s Messenger rejoiced at staying at home, and abhorred striving with their wealth and persons in God’s cause. And they said: ‘Do not go forth to war in this heat'” (Tawbah 81).³

According to a classification by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziya,⁴ the levels of jihad can be categorized as follows:

1) Jihad against the carnal soul:

1. Through learning about Islam.
2. Conveying the Divine message to others.
3. Putting up with troubles while conveying the message.

2) Jihad against Satan:

1. Eliminating the doubts he casts.
2. Resisting his temptations.

3) Jihad against adversaries of Islam:

1. In the heart – having an aversion to their attacks, if you cannot do anything else.
2. Through the tongue – speak up against their attacks.
3. By spending from one’s wealth
4. By physical struggle (when no other option is left for defense).

4) Jihad against hypocrites:

1. In the heart.
2. Through the tongue.
3. By persuasion.

The Qur’anic chapters revealed in Mecca either use the word jihad in the sense of making efforts to be of guidance to others or bringing reasonable arguments for belief from the Qur’an, but in a peaceful fashion:

“(So pay no heed to (the desires of) the unbelievers, but engage in a mighty striving against them by means of it [the Qur’an]” Furqan 25:52).

It also means making a personal spiritual struggle:

“Those (on the other hand) who strive hard for Our sake, We will most certainly guide them to Our ways (that We have established to lead them to salvation). Most assuredly, God is with those devoted to doing good, aware that God is seeing them” (Ankabut 29:69).⁵

When referring to war, the Qur’an uses the word “qital” in multiple different verses. The following verses establish under which conditions it is to be done:

“Fight in God’s cause (in order to exalt His Name) against those who fight against you, but do not exceed the bounds (set by God), for surely God loves not those who exceed the bounds” (Baqarah 2:190).

“Then if they desist (from fighting), surely God is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate” (Baqarah 2:192).

“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” (Nisa 4:90).

Another verse makes the same distinction:

“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. 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” (Mumtahanah 60:8-9).

Even in chapter Tawbah, which begins with a severe ultimatum against unbelievers, hypocrites, and believers who elude fighting, and which informs Muslims that all relations with polytheists are to be cut, the Qur’an holds the polytheists who do not break their treaties with Muslims as exceptions. The following is stated in the 4th verse of this chapter:

“Excepting those among the people who associate partners with God with whom you made a treaty, and who have not thereafter failed to fulfill their obligations towards you (required by the treaty), nor have backed anyone against you. Observe, then, your treaty with them until the end of the term (that you agreed with them). Surely God loves the God-revering, pious (who keep their duties to Him).”

No text in the Qur’an justifies practicing undue violence. The issue can be summarized as resisting the enemy in a proper fashion and acting justly. The Qur’an even commands granting asylum to polytheists who have no treaty with Muslims but make such a demand:

“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” (Tawbah 9:6).

In another verse of the same chapter, the purpose of the war the believers are asking for is stated as follows:

“Will you not fight against the people who have broken their pledges and have done all they could to drive the Messenger (from where he chooses to dwell), and initiated hostilities against you?” (Tawbah 9:13).

From these verses, we understand that those who first initiate hostilities will be responsible for the war. And only those who personally fight are to be punished. Within this frame, people like women, children, the elderly and disabled, workers in their fields, and especially people of religion in their places of worship, will be safe from any kind of violence. The last group mentioned is particularly noteworthy: had Islam endorsed religious bigotry, it would command practicing violence to people of religion first.

The noble Prophet, who practiced the command of forgiving those enemies that give up fighting, even banned chasing any escaping enemies. The purpose of this regulation is eliminating danger. War is not made for the sake of coercing people to accept Islam, but for preventing coercion and torments about people’s religious preferences. War in Islam is made for the sake of letting people be free in choosing their faith. Eliminating any obstacles to religious freedom has been the sole motive for those who properly fought in the cause of Islam.⁶

A remaining question is what the word fitnah means, as in the following verse:

“And (if they still persist in unbelief and hostilities), fight against them until there is no fitnah, and the whole of religion for God exclusively…” (Anfal 8:39).

Here, fitnah is mostly interpreted as “associating partners with God.” On the other hand, scholars⁷ of Qur’anic exegesis explain “fitnah” in the 191th verse of chapter Baqarah as “torture with the aim of making one forsake his or her faith.” It is stated that while explaining “fitnah” in this verse, and its similar use in Baqarah 193, scholars of Qur’anic exegesis⁸ relate in their books that prominent scholars⁹ of the early period understood the word fitnah in Baqarah 193 to mean torments, and namely persecution. By also taking into consideration the comments in more recent works by M. Abduh, Qasimi, Muhammad Draz, and Maraghi for this verse, we can say that this sense of fitnah refers to pressure and torture in the hopes of making somebody forsake their faith. On this front, the Qur’an explicitly states that there is no place for coercion in religion:

“There is no compulsion in the Religion. The right way stands there clearly distinguished from the false. Hence, he who rejects the false deities and believes in God has indeed taken hold of the firm, unbreakable handle; and God is All-Hearing, All-Knowing” (Baqarah 2:256).

“If your Lord had so willed (and, denying them free will, compelled mankind to believe), all who are on the earth would surely have believed, all of them. Would you, then, force people until they become believers?” (Yunus 10:99).

Like these verses state, different beliefs will exist since God allows it:

“If your Lord had so willed (and withheld from humankind free will), He would have made all humankind one single community (with the same faith, worldview, and life-pattern). But (having free choice) they never cease to differ (and follow diverse paths, diverging from the Straight Path), save those on whom your Lord has mercy (and guides to the Straight Path because of the merits they have)” (Hud 11:118-119).

Such a question may arise in one’s mind at this point: “Does the Qur’an not assign Muslims with the duty of conveying the truth they believe to other people? Is it not the point of Islam to bless people with happiness in both worlds? Is it not necessary to convey this message to those unaware of this guidance?” The answer is surely yes, and many verses of the Qur’an make it clear.¹⁰ Muslims are supposed to convey the message to those who are uninformed about it. The Qur’an clearly expresses that this should be done with wisdom and fairness:

“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and argue with them in the best way possible. Your Lord surely knows best who has gone astray from His way, and He knows best who are the rightly guided” (Nahl 16:125).

This verse reveals the essential method of conveying the message. From a perspective of Qur’anic exegesis, it is understood that the verse alludes to three general groups of addressees: the first group is those who have a good sense of reasoning and the message is to be conveyed to them with erudite proofs and wisdom. The second group is the wider mass who will not quite understand erudite explanations but need to be addressed with “fair exhortation” – namely, by giving them sound advice in more easily understandable formats. It is necessary to elucidate for them what they will gain by following good guidance or the loss they will suffer otherwise. As for the unbelievers with an adversarial stance who are not likely to be addressed in these two ways, it is necessary to argue them in the best way possible.

Here, the person addressed and invited to religion is completely free at accepting the Islamic message or not. However, as the Islamic teaching gives people freedom to accept the message or not, it requires the same freedom to convey the message. Every human, including Muslims, has the birthright of practicing and instructing their faith, and when this right is forsaken, they should claim it by pursuing legitimate means of struggle to ensure freedom of conscience for everyone.

Notes

1 Muhammed Hamidullah, Islam’a Giris (introduction to Islam), translated into Turkish by Cemal Aydin, Ankara: 2005, p.19

2 Muhammad Draz, Toward Understanding the Qur’an, p. 60.

3 Likewise, the 41th and 86th verses of the same chapter also use the word jihad in this sense.

4 Zadu’l-Mead, Beyrut, 1985, 3/9-11, Terc. 3/1011-1012, Cantas yayinlari

5 For example, see Baqarah 190, 192, 193, 216; Nisa 75, 90; Anfal 39; Tawbah 29; Hajj 39; Saf 4; Muzzammil 20.

6 Muhammad Draz, Toward Understanding the Qur’an, p. 64.

7 Zamakhshari, Ibn Atiyya, Fakhruddin Razi, Baydawi, Ibn Juzay, Sealibi, Hatib Shirbini, Abu’s Suud, Shawkani, Qasimi, M. Rashid Rida, and Maraghi are among them.

8 Ibn Atiyya, Razi, Hazin, Shirbini, M.S. Hasan Han

9 e.g. Ibn Ishaq, Urwah ibn Zubayr, Ibn Abbas (according to one report), Ar-Rabi, and Hasan Basri.

10 For particular examples, see: Al Imran 3:110; Asr 103:1-4; Zukhruf 43:5; Nahl 16:125.

Written and illustrated by Karen Gray Ruelle and Deborah Durland Desaix, The Grand Mosque of Paris is published by Holiday House Books for $17.95. Bouquets should be presented to the authors for the research they’ve done to bring such a beautiful historical moment to life. This book is living proof that Muslims and Jews lived as brothers in the past.

At forty pages long, and with illuminating illustrations on nearly every page, this is a fascinating read. It is set in 1939, when the Nazis invaded Poland, initiating World War II. Jews, the Nazis’ main victims, were in grave danger; they were being hunted down all over Europe. Many of them fled to France in the hopes of safety, but in 1940, the Nazis conquered France. A new French government of collaborators was set up, and as per the order of the Nazis, many anti-Jewish laws were passed. The new government rounded up Jews of all ages, mercilessly tortured them, and sent them to concentration camps, where millions died. Those Jews who were not captured began to seek shelter and refuge wherever they could. A large number of them found help in an extraordinary place: it was the Grand Mosque, the center of the Islamic Community in Paris, “… an oasis hidden behind high walls right in the middle of the city.”

The authors have projected the Mosque as both a place of great beauty and as a place of refuge and sanctuary, glorifying the Islamic principle of helping people in distress:

“The Grand Mosque shimmered like a mirage, the white dome and the glittering mosaics of the minaret in shark contrast to the mutated colors of Paris. When the mosque was built in 1926, the North African countries of Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia were under French rule, and many Muslims had come to Paris from those countries. The land for the mosque was given by the French government in exchange for a symbolic payment of one franc, to thank the half million Muslim soldiers who had fought for France during the First World War.”

The mosque, with its graceful columns and arches, spacious courtyards, blooming gardens, and cascading fountains had a library full of rare manuscripts and books, steam baths, a clinic, and a restaurant. Everything that happened in the Muslim community – like births, marriages, and deaths – was duly recorded at the mosque.

This short book pays tribute to some notable persons who played dynamic roles in France and unflinchingly helped Jews – women and children young and old. There was Si Kaddour Benghabrit, the writer and diplomat who was in charge of the mosque. He kept the gates of the mosque open for Jews, housed and fed them, and kept them safe from persecution. In some cases, he even issued fake birth certificates to them to prove that they were Muslims. In one example, a young Jew from Algeria, Salim Halali, had a great desire to be a singer. In France, he was given protection in the mosque. Benghabrit secretly asked a stone carver to inscribe the family name on an unmarked tombstone in the Muslim cemetery, to convince the Nazis that Salim was a Muslim.

Another notable figure was Dr. Ahmed Somia, who cared for and protected the young children who were sick.

Besides these notable people, many unnamed Muslims in the French Resistance helped Jews to escape from Nazi-occupied Paris. Various means were adopted to disguise Jews. They were supplied with the Fez (a traditional tasseled wool felt hat) so that they could pass as Muslims. The Resistance also operated a secret network that smuggled Jews out of Paris to safety, sometimes through hidden tunnels under the basement of the mosque. These passageways twisted and turned beneath the streets for miles and miles until they reached the bank of River Seine, where Jews could then be transported to safe havens.

The authors, Ruelle and DeSaix, lament the fact that most important documents and manuscripts were either destroyed or lost during the Nazi invasion. After a long and laborious search, they could obtain only a few documents that threw light on the historical facts chronicled in the book. One letter, as the authors say, “… was recently found among the old papers of a Paris cafe owned by a Tunisian. The cafe owner said that it dated from World War II. It read:

Yesterday at dawn, the Jews of Paris were arrested. The elderly, the women, and the children. In exile like ourselves, workers like ourselves. They are our brothers. Their children are like our children. Anyone who encounters one of his children must give that child shelter and protection for as long as misfortune – or sorrow – lasts. Oh man of my country, your heart is generous.

Was this letter read out in the cafe? Did it circulate among the Kaybele workers of Paris, making its way through the crowded boardinghouses where these men lived? It certainly seems to be a call to action. Without a doubt, it is a recognition of the strong bond between North African Muslims and Jews.”

When World War II ended, Si Benghabrit kept on serving in the mosque as its rector until his death in 1954. He was buried by the mosque. Jewish singer Salim Halali lived a long, successful life, and is revered as the father of modern North African song. Dr. Ahmed Somia continued his selfless devotion to the sick until his death.

The Grand Mosque of Paris, written in simple English, is a book that must be cherished. One cannot help but feel it could have been better if descriptions of the incidents and the works of the people mentioned in the book were in greater detail. Yet, it is a book designed for children, so the authors wanted to keep the level good enough for the aimed age group.

Yet fear of imminent calamities, unspeakable catastrophes, is rarely absent; the horrors of individual and collective destruction are never remote. (Brombert 2010)

One of the important details that many scholars focus on in Woolf’s “Mrs. Dalloway” is that she has many secrets awaiting to be revealed through her real life experiences (Gay 2002). This is similar to Nursi’s real time experiences, and indicates that both can be continually studied by evolving modern and postmodern ideologies (Hardy 2011).

Socio-economic background

Both Nursi and Woolf worked in a time, post World War I, of deep socio-economic uncertainty. Faced with the ruins of one war, and the threat of another, society was wracked by spiritual, moral, and psychology turmoil. The Great War for civilizations was turning into “disenchantment” (Panichas 2004). In England, the male population had been damaged by the war. The war veteran, Septimus Warren Smith, who commits suicide and symbolizes the pessimistic side of Woolf in “Mrs. Dalloway” is reflected as the duplicate of Clarissa Dalloway and represents the lower class of English society of that time:

More British soldiers died in World War I than in any other British conflict. Under the best of circumstances, this burden would have been difficult to bear, but other factors increased the psychological and emotional damage. (Bethea 2010)

As such, women were starting to go to work in traditionally male fields and were mobilizing for equal rights. Woolf, herself a feminist writer, advocated for women’s equality and suffrage.

While Woolf was firmly entrenched in the English middle class, Said Nursi, on the other hand, lived a mobile life in rural Anatolia and Istanbul. He had been exiled for writing the “Risale-i Nur,” through which he struggled against ignorance and obstacles to socio-economic and spiritual welfare. Freedom of conscience was under assault in Turkey at the time (Yavuz 1999). Nursi devoted his life to answering the questions of western science and philosophy with revelations from the Qur’an, and reconciling them with more spiritual thought.

Psychological background

Psychology serves as a science, not only for corporal healing, but also to help people reach happiness, an inner-state of tranquility. However, psychology, as a positive subjective experience of science, has been restricted and described as a devotee of prevention from pathological illnesses, especially when confronted with despair or pessimism about the meaningfulness of life. Authors like Mongarin, Csikszentmihalyi, and Hershbenger eagerly clung on the idea of reorientation of psychology, as a science, to its two main missions of evaluating normal people and actualizing the high human potential (Mongrain 2012, Csikszentmihalyi 2009, and Hershbenger 2005). The dominance of pathology resulted in a model of the human being that is lacking positive concepts like hope, wisdom, creativity, courage, spirituality, responsibility, and perseverance, which are essential for one’s well-being. Such values were ignored or defined as mere transformations of authentic negative impulses (Seligman et al 2000).

Septimus, who suffers from a very serious mental problem caused by the shock of war, in which he lost his closest friend and many others, loses his belief in the doctor that diagnosed him with “lack of proportion.” Due to these traumas and lack of faith, he commits suicide at the end of the novel. Woolf, through Clarissa, also has negative feelings about doctors, thus showing sympathy for Septimus Warren Smith:

She felt somehow very like him-the young man who had killed himself. She felt glad that he had done it; thrown it away. The clock was striking. The leaden circles dissolved in the air. He made her feel the beauty; made her feel the fun. But she must go back. She must assemble. (Woolf 1925)

Themes, symbols, and motifs

Optimism vs. pessimism

Clarissa starts the day with fresh thoughts of livelihood as she heads to the florist:

For Heaven only knows why one loves it so, how one sees it so, making it up, building it round one, tumbling it, creating it every moment afresh; but the veriest frumps, the most dejected of miseries sitting on doorsteps (drink their downfall) do the same; can’t be dealt with, she felt positive, by Acts of Parliament for that very reason: they love life. (Woolf 1925)

These lines reflect how joyful her thoughts are, as depicted by Woolf in Dalloway’s stream of consciousness. However, the same person gets very depressed as she later finds it difficult to bear life one more day:

She had a perpetual sense, as she watched the taxi cabs, of being out, out, far out to sea and alone; she always had the feeling that it was very, very dangerous to live even one day. (Woolf 1925)

Nursi also uses natural elements to infer implications of depression and pessimism if one was to see the landscape we live in with limited visions, as he narrated the story of the prophet Jonah, who was believed to be swallowed by a big fish and had to endure darkness and loneliness. This was redemption for leaving his people, who had strayed from God.

Our night is the future. When we look upon our future with heedlessness towards our religious responsibilities, it is a hundred times darker and more fearful than his (Jonah’s) night. Our seas is this moving, unstable earth. Each wave of this sea bears on its thousands of dead bodies, and so is a thousand times more frightening than his sea. Our fish consists of the lusts and caprices of our evil-commanding soul, which strive to destroy our eternal life. Such a fish is a thousand times more harmful than his. For his fish could have destroyed a hundred-year lifespan, whereas ours seeks to destroy a life that will last hundreds of millions of years. (Nursi 2008, 5)

As inferred through the lines mentioned above, “Mrs. Dalloway” brings up calamities in society through ordinary characters by delving into their consciousness as to justify reasons for despair; it uses myriads of minor characters, together with major characters, to reflect a larger social corruption, oftentimes leading to questions of higher meaning.

She often questions life’s true meaning, wondering whether happiness is truly possible. She feels both a great joy and a great dread about her life, both of which manifest in her struggles to strike a balance between her desire for privacy and her need to communicate with others. (SparkNotes Editors 2004)

Nursi, like Woolf, gives a detailed depiction of calamities in our lives, but unlike her, he forces the reader to see behind the curtain which veils eternal blessings; with a little effort, one may overcome the life-spanned limitations and achieve hundreds of millions of years of peace by submitting to the true Sustainer:

By demonstrating that He acts in whichever way He wills; by showing that (humankind and jinn have been equipped with free will and are responsible for their decisions and acts); by reminding that whatever takes place in the universe and whatever proceeds from, or is done, by any creature, is through His permission; by making it clear that universal laws are also always subject to His Will, and that an All-Compassionate Lord hears the individuals who cry out under the pressure of these laws and that He comes to their aid with His favors… (Nursi 2004, 33-34)

Time

Time, in both perspectives, is handled as a key element that indicates the circular recurring of events and the cessation of life.

Clarissa, Septimus, Peter, and other characters are in the grip of time, and as they age they evaluate how they have spent their lives. Clarissa, in particular, senses the passage of time, and the appearance of Sally and Peter, friends from the past, emphasizes how much time has gone by since Clarissa was young. (SparkNotes Editors 2004)

In “Mrs. Dalloway,” time is always present, as Big Ben always reminds the characters and readers of the time by chiming: “leaden circles dissolved in the air” (Woolf 1925). This expression is seen in many parts of the novel, as there is always time to do something, like not waiting anymore for another day to live the same things.

Time is so important to the themes, structure, and characters of this novel that Woolf almost named her book The Hours. (SparkNotes Editors 2004)

Said Nursi’s approach to time as a concept has quite an eminent value, as it is handled with regards to the past, present, and future of each individual.

Such is reality. Past hours of misfortune and their pain have disappeared, while the future days of imagined distress have not yet come. Pain does not come from nothing or from that which does not exist. Therefore, it is pure lunacy to eat and drink continually today out of fear that we will probably be hungry and thirsty in the future. Similarly, it is foolish to think at this present moment of past and future pains – pains which do not exist – and, as a result, to grow impatient, to ignore one’s faulty soul, and to act as though one is complaining about God. (Nursi 2010, 341-342)

Death vs. immortality

Death in “Mrs. Dalloway” stalks characters throughout the novel. Thoughts of death lurk beneath the surface of everyday life, especially for Clarissa, Septimus, and Peter, and this awareness makes even mundane events and interactions meaningful, sometimes even threatening (SparkNotes Editors 2004). Woolf delved into flux of consciousness through fear of death, as it is a door to mortality. The lines she reads on a book from a bookshop’s window from Shakespeare, are an epiphany about mortality:

Fear no more the heat o’ the sun / Nor the furious winter’s rages. (Shakespeare 2006)

Her desire for immortality shows itself through a movie star, as she will be remembered even after her death, and through, Richard as he would be given an award for his writing and also be remembered. Art in general is shown as a way of not being forgotten. Thus, Dalloway’s desire for immortality is quite obvious.

Nursi, just like Woolf shows the implications of desire for immortality as a basic need for human beings, a sense that should be fulfilled by eternal blessings of the hereafter. In his belief, just like a sense of hunger is fulfilled by eating, or thirst by drinking, the desire for immortality is a humane need that can find its needed answer through a power beyond human strength, a divine power that is free from the limits of mortality. When Nursi perceives the death of nature he shows great remorse and sadness:

The scenes of death and decay which appeared in this continuous flurry of activity were so pitiable that they moved me to tears. The more I witnessed the death of those lovely creatures, the more my heart ached. Sighing with pity and regret, I found my spirit in deep turmoil, for life that came to such an end seemed to me to be a torment worse than death.

The living beings of the plant and animal kingdoms, most beautiful and full of precious art, were opening their eyes to gaze on this exhibition of the universe for a moment and were then disappearing. The more I watched, the more pain I felt. I was moved to complain by shedding tears, while my heart asked profound questions such as: “Why do they come and then go away without ceasing? (Nursi 2010, 13-14)

These lines indicate parallelism with Woolf’s pessimism in “Mrs. Dalloway.” One might find suicide quite inevitable if there were only such despair. Yet Nursi finds peace from his pessimism through verses of Qur’an and puts meaning to the aforementioned seemingly meaningless deaths:

As I started complaining bitterly about fate because of the painful way the events of these beings’ life are governed, indicated by the light of the Qur’an and the mystery of belief, Divine Unity came to my aid as a pure favor of the All-Merciful. (Nursi 2010, 14)

… each living creature-this ornate flower, for example, or that sweet-producing bee, is such a meaningful Divine ode that innumerable conscious beings study it with great delight. It is such a precious miracle of Power and so great a proclamation of Wisdom that it exhibits the Art of the Maker to countless appreciative observers in a most attractive manner. Another exceedingly elevated result of its creation is that it presents itself to, or is favored with, the gaze of the All-Majestic Originator, Who wills to observe His Art Himself, to look on the grace and beauty of His creation, and view the beauties of the manifestations of His Names in the countless mirrors that are His creatures. (Nursi 2010, 14)

Unlike Nursi, Dalloway’s inner struggle against insanity that is caused by the same sorrows doesn’t give her the chance of a fruitful outcome, as she finds it an impossible fight to win. She has grown to believe that living even one day is dangerous. Death is very naturally in her thoughts, and the line from Cymbeline, along with Septimus’s suicidal embrace of death, ultimately helps her to be at peace with her own mortality (SparkNotes Editors 2004).

Conclusion

In this article, the two contemporary writers are compared and contrasted through their writings and comprehensions of life. It is quite obvious that there is much more to write to fully convey their viewpoints. Nevertheless, this article could be a first step for further studies on both scholars. One may think that they have quite different approaches, but when delved into their philosophical and psychological inner worlds, many superficial differences are in fact similarities hidden behind misconceptions.

On the other hand, it is quite obvious that they have significant differences about their outcomes that can be revealed from their works, as they have different sources of inspirations. Further research is obviously required on their approaches to natural elements. Their psychological perspectives could be given a more detailed study and other philosophers and psychologists could be referred to in comprehending their perceptions. Other works written by the two writers could be explored, too. The function of science is also an important element in understanding the “Risale-i Nur” (Mermer 1999, Alam 2009). More importantly, Said Nursi, as an eastern scholar, should be given his deserved place among the western world of literature.

References

• Abuhamdeh, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2009. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivational Orientations in the Competitive Context: An Examination of Person-Situation Interactions.” Journal of Personality.
• Alam, D. 2009. “Spiritual Dimensions of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi’s Risale-i Nur.” Middle East Journal.
• Bethea, A. F. 2010. “Septimus Smith, the War-Shattered Christ Substitute in Mrs. Dalloway.” Explicator.
• Boykin Hardy, S. 2011. “The Unanchored Self in The Hours after Dalloway.” Critique.
• Brombert, V. 2010. Virginia Woolf-“Death Is the Enemy”. Hudson Review.
• Gay, P. 2002. “On not Psychoanalyzing Virginia Woolf.” American Scholar.
• Hershberger, P. J. 2005. “Prescribing Happiness: Positive Psychology and Family Medicine.” PMID. Vol. 37, No. 9.
• Ibrahim, M. 2011. Said Nursi. Contemporary Islam.
• Mermer, Y. B. 1999. “The hermeneutical dimension of science: a critical analysis based on Said Nursi’s Risale-i Nur.” Muslim World, 89 (3-4), 270-296.
• Mongrain, M., & Anselmo-Matthews, T. 2012. “Do Positive Psychology Exercises Work? A Replication of Seligman et al.” Journal of Clinical Psychology.
• Nursi, Bediuzzaman S. 2008. The Gleams, NJ: Tughra Books.
• Nursi, Bediuzzaman S. 2010. The Rays, NJ: Tughra Books.
• Panichas, G. A. 2004. Virginia Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway: “A Well of Tears.” Modern Age.
• Seligman, M. E. P. & Csikszentmihalyi M. 2000. American Psychologist: Positive Psychology, an Introduction.
• Shakespeare, W. 2006. Pericles/Cymbeline/The Two Noble Kinsmen (Signet Classics), Release date: November 7, 2006. Series: Signet Classics. (Author), Sylvan Barnet (Editor).
• SparkNotes Editors. 2004. “SparkNote on Mrs. Dalloway.” Retrieved May 20, 2013, from http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/dalloway
• Woolf, V. 2010. eBooks@Adelaide 2010 this web edition published by eBooks@Adelaide
• Rendered into HTML by Steve Thomas. Last updated Tue Aug 24 14:54:11 2010. The University of Adelaide Library, South Australia.
• Yavuz, M. (1999). “The assassination of collective memory: the case of Turkey.” Muslim World.

Undoubtedly, throughout history these states engaged in war with other states. A crucial point to understand is that war has always been a form of engagement between states caused by political, economic, or militaristic reasons. Therefore, in a hostile relationship where long-term dominance and its benefits play a major role, it would be wrong to call such conflicts religious wars solely because the opponents have differing religious identities. Such conflicts are embarked not for religious dominance but for political dominance. Additionally, it is possible for Muslims to be attacked solely for religious differences (this still happens today). In this case, it is natural to react to the attack by defending oneself and one’s religion, for, in fact, it actually becomes an obligation for Muslims to defend their religious freedom (22:39-41), themselves (2:190), and those being oppressed (Haleem 65).

Jihad, a crucially controversial concept in Islam, is often misunderstood by many Westerners, and even some Muslims. Whenever the word comes up, what comes to mind is an armed struggle by Muslims against non-Muslims, such as fights, clashes, and holy war. Jihad is a very comprehensive and dynamic term that can take on different forms, depending on historical circumstances and the needs of Muslims (Heck 95).

The word jihad comes from the Arabic root “j-h-d” and its dictionary meaning denotes doing one’s best, struggling against every kind of difficulty. In a religious context, it refers to the struggles one faces for the sake of God. In the words of Gülen “Jihad is … the inner struggle of a believer against all that stands between the believer and God” (Gülen 191). As Campanini clarifies through al-Ghazali’s teachings, there are two meanings for jihad. “The ‘great’ jihad is the struggle for self-purification, in order to conquer the evil inclinations of character and behavior, while the ‘small’ jihad corresponds to war” (Campanini 54). Delving deeper into the former category for purposes of clarification, the great jihad refers to a person’s struggle to overcome destructive obstacles within the carnal self such as feelings of resentment, hatred, envy, arrogance, and haughtiness – feelings that Islam orders followers not to harbor.

The following explanation for why jihad is confused with terrorism can be made: for the Muslim world, the 20^th century was one that was full of oppression and colonialism. Dating back further, to the 19^th century, a majority of Muslim lands were struggling for independence. In these battles and wars, Islam was conceived as a means to unite and mobilize people. During these wars, jihad was naturally the most frequently used concept. The war was against these invaders and colonizers, and the people were fighting to protect their country, their people, and their religion. Religious concepts – Qur’anic verses and the sayings and practices of the Prophet – were the main motivational factors driving Muslims during their hard struggle. Muslims called these wars, which were carried out in legitimate self-defense, jihad; however, there is a barrier between war and jihad in Islam that needs to be clarified.

The primary source of information in Islam must be the Qur’an; thus, I will refer to the Qur’an and its usage of the word jihad. Jihad is used in three verses in the Qur’an in the imperative form, as “jahid” and “jahidu,” to mean fighting against non-Muslims.

The other verses that contain jihad refer to its greater meaning, the personal struggle against feelings raised by the carnal self. Actually, the Qur’anic verses concerning war are mostly expressed by the word qital (fighting) rather than jihad (Haleem 64). In terms of the etymological meaning of qital, the relative context of the verses in which it is used and the events on which these were revealed support the fact that this word was mostly used in expressing war in the Qur’an. To give a few examples[1]:

Fight in God’s cause against those who fight against you, but do not exceed the bounds (set by God), for surely God loves not those who exceed the bounds (Baqara 2:190). But if they break their pledges after their treaty (with you) and assail your religion, then fight with those leaders of unbelief – surely they have no trustworthy pledges – so that they may desist (from aggression) (Tawba 9:12-13).

Reading these verses raises an important question: would it be wrong to identify jihad with war, or to give an emphasis to the aspect of war? The simple answer is no, for almost all of the verses related to jihad and qital were revealed in a situation of warfare. Furthermore, it would not be possible to interpret other verses in the Qur’an referring to the great jihad, such as striving with wealth (4:95, 8:72), without these terms’ relation to the aspect of war. This is the very point where the concepts of jihad and qital intersect.

When people devoid of the necessary knowledge of history and Qur’anic commentary methods interpret Qur’anic verses concerning war, they often take it out of context, ignoring the previous verse and subsequent ones, thereby presenting Islam as a religion that gives no value to non-Muslims. This is absolutely wrong. I shall support my argument with a few Qur’anic verses that are commonly misinterpreted:

… kill them wherever you come upon them, and drive them out from where they drove you out. 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. (Baqara 2:191)

To understand a Qur’anic verse correctly, two essential things need to be kept in mind. First, the verse needs to be considered both independently and within its context. Second, the event for which the verse was revealed needs to be considered. If we consider the above verse with its previous and subsequent verses, we understand that there is an armed group that does not want to let the Muslims live. Thus, God allows the Muslims to put up a legitimate defense, and particularly commands them not be on the side that starts the fight. Furthermore, God reminds them that they should accept any possible offers of peace from the other side, no matter the stage of war.

This verse refers to the idolaters of Mecca, who tortured every Muslim they could, declared a boycott on all relations with Muslims, sent them into exile, drove them out of their homes, tried to force them back to paganism, and when Muslims began to gain power after settling in Medina, the idolaters constantly violated their peace treaties. When the verse is considered in this light, one may even ask the question: why did the Muslims even wait for a revelation to defend themselves – isn’t it common sense to strive to survive?

Let’s take a look at another commonly misinterpreted verse: “…seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and do not take to yourselves any of them as confident, nor as helper” (Nisa 4:88). This verse is often known to be quoted separately to detach it from its context. When one reads this verse as I have presented it, one sees the image of a ruthless and aggressive Muslim, sword in hand, ready to fight. However, as we experienced with the previous verse, reading the context (Nisa 4:88-91) alone will suffice in giving us a better idea behind this verse. After reading the context of the verse, we see that the people mentioned here are the hypocrites of Mecca and Medina. They pretended to be on the sides of the Muslims, but they were not sincere in their faith. Moreover, these hypocrites took every opportunity to act against the Muslims. An additional point to emphasize with this passage is not the command to kill, but the command by God to accept peace if it is offered. Thus, Muslims are not to be on the side that starts a war, but if they are attacked by an enemy, they are allowed to defend themselves.

These were just two examples of verses that are often misinterpreted when stripped from their contexts. These misinterpretations lead to the misinterpretation of Islam and obfuscate the true meaning of jihad. We can also give examples that clarify the meaning of jihad from secondary sources, such as the Prophet’s sayings, or hadiths. God’s Messenger was the conveyor of the Qur’an; therefore it is impossible for his words or practices to contradict the Qur’an in any way. When we look at the Prophet’s sayings on the topic of jihad, we see the same truth behind it.

One example that often comes up when jihad is mentioned is as follows: on returning to Medina after a battle, God’s Messenger told his companions: “We are returning from the lesser jihad to the greater one.” After having fought a battle in which many Muslims had lost their lives, the Companions were surprised to hear this statement from God’s Messenger. When they asked what the greater jihad was, he explained that it was fighting the carnal self (Ajluni, Kashf al-Khafa, 1:424).

An additional example is what the Prophet told a Companion who asked for permission if he could join a military campaign. The Prophet asked the man whether his parents were alive, upon which the man replied affirmatively. The Prophet said in return: “You perform jihad by serving them” (Bukhari, Jihad, 138). God’s Messenger had a plethora of other cases in which he used the word jihad in a wider non-militaristic sense. Two more of these sayings are: “The most virtuous jihad is speaking up for truth in the face of injustice,” (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, 13) and, “The most virtuous jihad is speaking up for the truth before an unjust and cruel ruler” Abu Dawud, Malahim, 17). More importantly, the gravity of this form of jihad is strengthened when looking at one of the statements of the Prophet: “Whoever dies trying to protect his property from a usurper dies a martyr” (Abou El Fadl, 123).

Hitherto, we have looked at jihad in a theoretical sense, using definitions interpreted from the Qur’an and the Prophet’s sayings to reveal its true nature. It is not unreasonable for the reader to wonder how the Prophet acted in times of warfare to further dispel notions of jihad being considered a “holy war”; after all, there were wars and battles in which the Prophet was present. To give a brief account of the Prophet’s example in this light, let’s consider the Battle of Badr. The enemies of the Muslims in the Battle of Badr were the Meccan pagans, who were afraid that the Prophet was amassing enough supporters to pose a strong threat to the Meccans. Consequently, the Meccans sent a letter of ultimatum to their allies in Medina, appealing for the exile and the execution of the Prophet and his followers.[2] These harsh letters caused great upheaval in Medina; however, the actions that the Prophet took quickly eliminated the anxiety of the people of Medina.

The first of the Prophet’s actions was to sign a pact of truce with nearby tribes. The essential elements that he signed with the neighboring tribes were aimed at preventing the neighbors from assisting the Meccans against the Muslims. The Meccans proved to be determined, and despite all of the Prophet’s actions aimed at holding peace, the Meccans wanted to fight. When everyone knew that the battle was inevitable, the Prophet made a last attempt by sending Umar with an offer of peace[3], which was refused and provided the spark for the Battle of Badr. Similarly, when looking at accounts of the other battles of the Prophet – Uhud, Khandaq, and Khaybar – one sees that God’s Messenger always strived to maintain peace and worked to avoid engaging in the Western, ill-defined “jihad” – the spread of Islam, the taking of lives of non-Muslims, and the acquisition of new lands.

Now that the true definition of jihad has been clarified using the Qur’an and accurate interpretations as a primary source and the Prophet’s sayings and actions during warfare as a second source, we have to consider some broader questions. When is jihad complete? How can we accept one interpretation as the proper one? Why is jihad so misunderstood by some Muslims? Does it play to their advantage to intentionally misrepresent it? Lastly, does violent jihad justify terrorism?

Jihad, as mentioned earlier, has two meanings: the “great” jihad – corresponding to self-purification in the path of God, comparable to the Christians’ miles Christi (Peters 206) – and the “small” jihad – corresponding to war. The former type of jihad is essentially never complete; it is everlasting throughout one’s life, for situations that necessitate “great” jihad emerge everyday in a Muslim’s life. In example, if we look at the citizens of Syria today who are opposed to the ruthless oppression of their dictatorial leader, we see that they experience jihad everyday, for the Prophet has stated that, “The most virtuous jihad is speaking up for the truth before an unjust and cruel ruler.”[4] And the tens of thousands of Syrians who have already lost their lives in the face of injustice in Syria’s conflict have died martyrs, for the Prophet has stated that “whoever dies trying to protect his property from a usurper dies a martyr” (Abou El Fadl, 123). If we consider the “small” jihad in this question, we can say that it is intermittent, experienced by Muslims whenever they need to engage in warfare for self-defense to protect their country and their religious freedom.

When faced with the question of the accuracy of interpretations, one cannot bluntly state that one interpretation is more accurate than the other. When presented with a similar question, John Esposito, a Professor of Religion at Georgetown, pointed to a Surah from the Qur’an, which recalls how “God made humankind into nations and tribes for you to get to know one another not that you may despise one another.”[5] These words support a language of religious plurality, a concept that is contrary to religious extremism. Esposito further argued that there is no central authority in Islam or Christianity who can speak for all Muslims or for all Christians. Although the Pope is the central authority for Roman Catholicism, he does not speak for the Orthodoxy or for Protestantism. Every denomination has its own individual religious authority. Islam, similarly, supports the idea of ijtihad, the individual interpretation of the Qur’an. The important point in this question behind interpretations is the broadening of the base of religious authorities. Esposito argues that although this diversification may lead to more chaotic situations, it also serves as a check for religious authorities who legitimize illegitimate wars. Therefore, this system of checking can prove beneficial in stopping wars, though it may pose more problems in other aspects of interpretation.

Earlier in the paper, I gave an example as to why Westerners might misunderstand jihad; this poses the inevitable question: why is it misunderstood by Muslims? More specifically, does it play to their advantage to intentionally misunderstand it? Rahman describes the true meaning behind the propaganda slogan “Islam was spread by the sword” in his book Major Themes of the Qur’an. He writes: “What was spread by the sword was not the religion of Islam, but the political domain of Islam, so that Islam could work to produce the order on the earth that the Qur’an seeks” (Rahman 63). However, Rahman also points out that armed jihad was often used by later Muslims whose primary aim was territorial expansion and not the worldview they were asked to establish by God. This, unfortunately, answers the question posed above with a yes; it does play to some Muslims’ advantage to intentionally misinterpret jihad for selfish reasons: territorial expansion, political power, and economic benefits, all under the pretext of “religious duty.” These kinds of interpretations of Qur’anic verses and hadiths outside of their more important contexts render the practice of religion astray, allowing selfish extremists to justify their illegal behaviors. However, it is important to note that their justifications behind their actions are largely unaccepted by the greater Muslim community around the world, those who know the distinction between the two jihads and how to apply them in their lives.[6] This brings us to the final question: does violent jihad justify terrorism?

In the Muslim world, there is and always have been radical thoughts and political ideologies; the same is true in Christianity, Judaism, and other religions. However, it is wrong to identify the thoughts and the beliefs of radical groups with religion. One of the focuses of this paper was to emphasize the importance of using the Qur’an and the statements of the Prophet to seek answers in Islam, and the aforementioned radical thoughts are not found in either. Nonetheless, there are still those who commit terrorist acts “for God” or “in the name of religion.” These terrorists also believe in Islam. This leads to a paradox: on one hand, we have Muslims who commit terrorist acts, and on the other hand, we have a religion that forbids these acts. If we view this paradox from the lens of Muslims, we do not see a paradox at all; it is merely a situation that is generated by a wrong perspective. If we take a look at all perspectives – the political, economic, historic, cultural, moral, and humanistic – we see that there is a perceptible dichotomy between religion and terrorism, and are able to consequently establish that terrorism does not stem from religion, but that it has other political, economic, and cultural roots. Therefore, jihad does not justify terrorism; nothing in Islam does, for terrorism is essentially forbidden in Islam.

In conclusion, jihad is a crucial concept in Islam due to the wide misunderstanding it causes amongst people around the world and the concept’s import in Islam on a global scale. While the term Islamic Terrorism – an oxymoron within itself – is inaccurate in all aspects, its existence is not the issue; its degradingly common usage, especially in the media, advertises a negative Muslim image to non-Muslims, imbuing a subconscious belief that all Muslims are terrorists. The reverse of this scenario often happens in the Muslim world as well, especially after the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan. These wrongful representations of both sides do nothing but aggravate tensions between the two sides, which leads to further conflict and a discordant world. Instead, if books or news reports that clarify the true meaning of jihad and other misunderstood concepts of various religions and their applications were broadcasted for the world to hear, we would not witness as much religious conflict around the world as we witness today. What a beauty that sight would be: a harmonious society of people living with a plurality of religious beliefs.

References

• Abdel Haleem, Muhammad. 2011. Understanding the Qur’an: Themes and Style. I.B. Tauris.
• Abou El Fadl, Khaled. 2001. Rebellion and Violence in Islamic Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Campanini, Massimo. 2011. The Qur’an: Modern Muslim Interpretations. London: Routledge.
• Gülen. M. Fethullah. 2012. Toward a Global Civilization of Love and Tolerance, NJ: Tughra Books, p. 191.
• Hamidullah, Muhammed. 2011. Islam Peygamberi. Beyan Yayinlari.
• Heck, Paul L. 2013. “Jihad Revisited.” The Journal of Religious Ethics 32.1 (2004): 95-128. JSTOR. Web. 22 February.
• Peters, F. E. 2003. Islam: A Guide for Jews and Christians. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Rahman, Fazlur. 2009. Major Themes of the Qurʼan. University of Chicago Press.
• Ünal, Ali. 2006. The Qur’an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English. NJ: Tughra Books.

[1] The reader may also refer to (Tawba 9:36) and (Tawba 9:5) for additional examples on the usage of qital that were omitted due to their length.

[2] Hamidullah, Muhammad, Islam Peygamberi, I, p. 217.

[3] Hamidullah, Hz. Peygamber’in Savaslari (Wars of the Prophet), p. 55–92.

[4] Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi 13.

[5] “Who Speaks for Islam and for Christianity?” Voice of America News, 2008.

[6] This is also true in other non-religious cases. When Timothy McVeigh caused the Oklahoma City Bombing and resulted in the death of 168 people, he thought he had legitimate reasons to do so; however, a majority of the people did not accept his thoughts as sound justification behind his actions.

Christians

In Acts 10:38 we read the following: “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.” And in Matthew 9:36 we read: “At the sight of the crowds [who seemed lost], his heart was moved with pity [with compassion] for them.” In brief, this explains what was responsible for the life and actions of Jesus of Nazareth and how it is that he did no harm, but rather only good: He was moved with pity, with compassion for others. And what is compassion?

The Greek word for compassion is “splanchnizomai” or “spankhnomai.” It means to be moved as to one’s bowels moved with love and pity or sorrow. It means to suffer with someone, to feel and identify with someone’s pain. To have compassion is to have mercy, to recognize and have sorrow for someone’s suffering. It is to have love, care, kindness and tenderness for someone, especially for those in need.

Clearly, those who are planting bombs or blowing themselves up or who are plotting similar schemes in Nigeria (and people of similar minds who are perpetuating violence in other parts of the world) no longer have compassion for others and for themselves. And yet, they claim, for the most part, that they are doing this in God’s name. The real question is: In the name of whose God? Is there a God without compassion? It is certainly not in the name of the God of Jesus of Nazareth, nor is it really in the name of Allah of Islam. And it is definitely not in the name of YHWH (God) of the Jews either.

In John 14:9-11, Jesus said to Philip who asked him to show them the Father, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. … I am in the Father and the Father is in me. … The Father … dwells in me.” Unequivocally, one can say that what we see and love in Jesus of Nazareth, namely, his compassion for the poor and for everyone in need, his gentleness, his unconditional and faithful love, to name only a few, is equally true of the God that he has revealed to us. And Saint Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11:1, saying, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.”

Muslims

What do we know about the God of Islam? Asghar Ali Engineer remarks that the very first chapter of the Qur’an has the second verse as follows: Al-Rahman al-Rahim (i.e., The Compassionate, the Merciful). In fact, every chapter of the Qur’an (there are one hundred and fourteen of them), from surat al-fatiha to surat al-nas, begins with Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim (i.e., “in the name of Allah the Compassionate and the Merciful”) (with the exception of the chapter Tawbah in which this phrase is not in the beginning but comes later). Thus, among Allah’s own 99 names are al-Rahman and al-Rahim (i.e., The Compassionate and The Merciful), and Allah has sent his Prophet Muhammad into the world as the Mercy of the world, as rahmatu lil’alamin (i.e., as “mercy of the worlds”) and as al-risalat al-alamiyyah (i.e., as one who represents universal mercy). And a Muslim, according to Asghar Ali Engineer, begins everything by reciting, “Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim” (that is, “begin [every step] in the name of Allah Who is Compassionate and Merciful”). One can infer from this that the predominance of mercy and compassion in the life of Muslims is indisputable. Thus, even when one may engage in a “rescue mission” – that is, plot or participate in a war against the oppressor in order to liberate the oppressed, who cries for justice – even then the Qur’an (in chapter 4, verse 75) does not expect the violence to be reckless. In other words, Muslims may never fight a war “without compassion”; they may never fight a war except on compassionate grounds (and only with compassion). Not even in the name of the most oppressed of peoples may they fight a godless war, an unholy war. A war that is considered holy is that which is fought fi sabili Allah (i.e., in the way of Allah). The way of Allah is of justice and of protecting the rights of the poor and exploited. For more on this matter, one may consult the commentary of Maulana Muhammad Ali’s The Holy Qur’an (Lahore, 1973). Meanwhile, it is most certainly unjust and ungodly to kill the innocent. Is it not?

Now we have seen that like the God of Jesus of Nazareth, Allah of Islam is compassionate and merciful. Among Allah’s 99 names none is used as frequently as al-Rahman al-Rahmin. And Allah demands that Muslims be compassionate and merciful to others even in circumstances where they are morally compelled to liberate the poor and exploited from the callousness, godlessness and decadence of the oppressor. Otherwise, those that they seek to help may in fact end up being worst off, and even destroyed by their actions.

Additionally, in the ninth century the servant of God Umar, the second successor of the holy and most venerable Prophet Muhammad, decrees as follows in respect of Christians: “Their churches shall neither be used as dwellings nor destroyed. They shall not suffer any impairment nor shall their dependencies, their crosses, nor any of their property. No constraint shall be exercised against their religion (Q. 2:256) nor shall any harm be done to any among them” (cited in J. M. Gaudeul’s Encounters & Clashes: Islam and Christianity in History, Rome, 2000, p. 47). All in all, the soul of Islam is mercy and compassion.

The Jews

Finally, what do we know of the God of the Jews? According to Richard H. Schwartz, YHWH (God) is referred to in synagogue services as Ha-rachman, that is, as “The Compassionate One” and as Av harachamin, that is, as “Father of Compassion.” And the Talmud (i.e., a collection of books, which is considered as one of the holiest of Judaism’s books and taken to be very authoritative in Judaism) also teaches that Jews are to be rachmanim b’nei rachmanim, that is, “compassionate children of compassionate ancestors.” Thus, one who fails to be compassionate cannot be a true descendant of Abraham (Bezah 32b). And the Talmud says categorically that heaven will grant compassion exclusively to those who have shown compassion to others (Shabbat 151b). This insistence on and importance of compassion in Judaism is taken further by the Baruch Sheh’amar prayer which is recited daily in the morning (Shacharit) services. Here is the prayer: “Blessed is the One (God) Who has compassion on the earth; blessed is the One Who has compassion on the creatures [animals and people].”

In Judaism, compassion is not only an attribute of God, it is imperative for all Jews to show compassion. Rabbi Dovid Sears states, “Compassion for all creatures, including animals, is not only God’s business; it is a virtue that we too must emulate. Moreover, compassion must not be viewed as an isolated phenomenon, one of a number of religious duties in the Judaic conception of the Divine service. It is central to our entire approach to life.” Why is compassion at the core of Judaism? As Richard H. Schwartz reminds us affirmatively of Isaiah 11:9, the answer is: so that “no one shall hurt nor destroy in all of God’s holy mountain”; so that no one may hurt or be hurt; so that no one may destroy or be destroyed in all of God’s creation.

We may now conclude by saying that if and when all men and women of Nigeria realize that those who have shown no mercy and compassion on earth to their fellow men and women and children will not be shown mercy and compassion in heaven by God, then they will most certainly, consciously and actively cultivate compassion, and the current reckless violence and killings in Nigeria will begin to die a natural death.

Rev. Dr. Pachomius Okogie
University of Saint Anselm,
Rome, Italy