Freedom of opinion and expression in Islam (Part 1): How do the West and the Americans see us?

An American reviewer refused to translate my book to correct the image of Islam in the West. The Western and American vision seeks to perpetuate the false negative face of the Islamic religion. The Prophet allowed the Jews the freedom to express their beliefs and only punished them for their national betrayal. The booklet proves that all the fighting verses in the Quran make it clear that it was prescribed to defend oneself, honor and money.

In April 2004, the Ibn Khaldun Center offered to publish a set of booklets to introduce the West to Islam, the first of which would be on “Islam and the Freedom of Opinion and Expression” to be issued in Arabic, translated into English, and distributed in the United States and Western Europe. My acceptance of the offer came on the grounds that the goal of the series of booklets would be the objective knowledgeable presentation of the true Islamic discourse, and a response to the prevailing negative stereotype in which Islam and Muslims are associated with extremism, violence and terrorism, where confusion and ignorance of true Islamic values are common. In this context, an agreement was reached between me and the Ibn Khaldun Center, with Dr. Saad Eddin Ibrahim similarly in the contract, to issue the first book in a maximum period of three months, with the center paying ten thousand Egyptian pounds, three thousand of which were received upon signing the contract. The book was prepared and includes three chapters: the first on the freedom of opinion and expression in the Quran, the second on the freedom of opinion and expression in the Prophet’s biography, and the third on the freedom of opinion and expression in Islamic history.

The core idea of the brief study was to shed light on the truth of Islam's true belief in ideological pluralism and its call for the freedom of the other who is religiously different to maintain his opposing belief, as well as to elevate it from the ideological conflict, far from humiliation and underestimation. There is no compulsion in religion, nor aggression against the peaceful other, nor subjugation or coercion. If the behavior of Muslims seems different in some historical periods, then such behavior does not enjoin Islam itself with what is not in it.

The surprise was in the notes made by the American reviewer who was supervising the project with the Ibn Khaldun Center when he returned the book to me after the review. These notes reveal the truth of the Western and American vision that they do not want to prevail over Islam, or to which extremists contributed to its sovereignty, by perpetuating the negative, alienating, false face of the Islamic religion in the West.

The Ibn Khaldun Center returned the manuscript of the book to me and attached notes to it that it considers needed to be “guided” by so that the book could be published and translated.

The American reviewer began his remarks by saying, “The freedom of opinion and expression includes the right of Christians and Jews to adhere to their religions without detracting from their positions, and accordingly, verses that contradict this principle must be interpreted and should not be neglected as if they do not exist... verses that warn Muslims of “non-taking” the Christians and Jews as friends, and the verses that forbid the “waliyyah” of a non-Muslim over a Muslim.”

The man's remarks came in poor language, full of spelling and grammatical errors. What is the meaning of “non-taking” the Christians and Jews as friends? How can a modern intellectual and reviewer of an important book that includes ideas that will be translated into other languages for the West write the word “wilayah” (guardianship) in such a ridiculous way: “waliyyah”?! In addition to this flagrant and grave formal defect, the written note is “pre-prepared”, because the booklet analyzes the phenomenon of misunderstanding Islam, proves the religious rights of non-Muslims, and confirms that Islam calls for tolerance and coexistence among followers of different religions, but the reviewer (a representative of Uncle Sam) sees that there are verses that deny all of this and demand of the Muslim the “non-taking” of the Christians and Jews as friends! Yet he does not mention even one of the verses as an example. The booklet presented an objective and documented view of the relationship of the Messenger (God bless him and grant him peace) with the Jews of Medina and demonstrated that he (peace be upon him) was just and fair in his dealings with them, even when he punished them with expulsion from Medina. The punishment that befell them was a logical consequence of them betraying the covenant and committing the crime of high treason by conspiring with the enemies of their nation, and not because of their religious belief. However, the reviewer recorded his notes and necessarily focused on the strong Zionist influence in the United States, calling for the deletion of this objective treatment, and adding, “Writing history from this Islamic perspective is undoubtedly counterbalanced by a completely different Jewish perspective.” Then he calls for “focusing only” on what directly serves “the goal of the book”!

While the book affirms that the Prophet (God bless him and grant him peace) did not punish the Jews for religious reasons and that he allowed them the freedom to express their beliefs and practice their rituals but stopped at their national betrayal of the homeland in which they lived, the reviewer did not see - from an American perspective - that these ideas or that vision served the “goals” he wanted, because he desired to go to the West with what he wants, not what needs to be known, and he sought to avoid angering Zionism, which has a powerful influence, and to that end, he does not shy away from questioning Islamic history and sympathizing with the history that they write. The reviewer was governed by a dominant idea that Islam is against freedom of opinion and expression and is based on oppression and coercion, and that the Holy Quran, the Prophetic Sunnah and the actions of the Companions prove his unfair and unknowledgeable point of view. What is he saying about the Quran, the Sunnah and the Companions?! The booklet cites the verses of the Quran in which God Almighty challenged the angels with his new creation Adam, which demonstrates the depth of the idea of honoring man in the Holy Quran in preparation for granting him complete freedom of choice, and He responds to the angels when they ask about the secret of Adam’s vicegerency, saying {I know what you know not}. The likable and deeply educated reviewer comments, “Is this a satisfactory answer to the angels’ question?!” And because he is ignorant of the language of the Quran and does not understand its meanings and goals, his observations amount to such an enormous amount of cynicism and superficiality! Whereas the booklet tries to prove that all the verses of fighting in the Quran make it clear that it was prescribed for defense of self, honor and money, and not prescribed to attack others, and that Muslims’ fighting against the polytheists was not related to the disbelief of the polytheists, but rather because they started to fight the Muslims; {Would you not fight against a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But God has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers} [Surah Al-Tawbah: verse 13].

The previous proof relies on the luminous and enlightened jurisprudence of eminent scholars, led by the Grand Imam Mahmoud Shaltut in his important book “Islam: Creed and Sharia”. However, the American reviewer, who does not like the result, rejects the words of the Sheikh of Al-Azhar and asserts that this speech represents only its author and is not reliable as one of the arguments of Islam! The whole whim is what the convulsive extremists say; their words are Islam. As for Sheikh Shaltut, he records these boys who insult Islam and gain respect, and Islam is taken from their mouths without notes!

The booklet states that the freedom of belief is guaranteed in Islam according to the teachings of the Noble Quran and that “there is no compulsion in religion”, but his analysis did not appeal to the reviewer, who points to the existence of opposing verses – which in not true – and offers a strange interpretation of the verse {There is no compulsion in religion}. In his handwritten notes, he says, “It may be said {There is no compulsion in religion}, but you will be treated with contempt and lose your rights in dealing like the faithful Muslim.” The matter does not need to be commented on, as the intention is to rob Islam of all good and can only be described by coercion, oppression and the suppression of freedoms!

The booklet uses Sheikh Muhammad al-Khudari’s interpretation of the twenty verses cited by Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti as abrogated in an attempt to confirm that the verse {There is no compulsion in religion} was not abrogated. The reviewer comments in his notes, “Why do we take al-Khudari’s words instead of al-Suyuti’s?” Of course, it is required that we take that which agrees with the goals that Uncle Sam wants, and it is not required that we present Islam as a tolerant and civilized religion! 

What knowledge is this? And what methodology? And what is the reality of the goals achieved by translating books that harm Islam and reinforce the negative stereotype about it in the United States and the West? 

The reviewer rejects the saying that the goal of fighting in Islam is self-defense, for the goal - according to him - is to spread Islam! The verse is clear, {Fight in the way of God those who fight against you, but do not transgress}, but the abundant knowledge of the reviewer and his “knowledgeable” observations deny this.

The reviewer insists that many verses and hadiths are incompatible with human rights! He does not bother to identify the correct verses and hadiths, because he represents a hostility that does not rest on foundations and is keen on trolling and prejudiced abuse, which is manifested in his objection to what was stated in the booklet that Islam provides an ideal theoretical framework for dealing with the issue of freedom of opinion and expression. He writes in his own handwriting, “Not representative at all,” and then returns in another place to say in the text, “Many of the hadiths of the Prophet contradict human rights, so why do you choose from them only those that encourage respect for human rights?” That “many” of them go against human rights? Yet he doesn’t voluntarily mention even one correct example of these hadiths that he claims exist! They want something specific, and they think that researchers must “hear, obey, and carry out instructions and commands.”

Insolence reaches its climax - and this is the lightest possible expression - when the booklet talks about the migration of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to Medina, his acceptance of peaceful coexistence with the Jews and non-Muslims in Medina, and his conclusion of a document considered by the modernists to be one of the most important constitutions that establish a civil state in that era, as the genius reviewer comments, “Good Lord! And did he possess anything else but that while he was the one who migrated to them?” Infinite rudeness! What is the relationship of the phrase “Good Lord” to the academic method? The Messenger did not migrate to the Jews and non-Muslims, but rather he answered the call of the Ansar, and he filled their hearts. But this was ignorance, fanaticism and delusion of misplaced nicety! The word insolence is not enough when touching upon another of the reviewer’s notes. When the booklet talks about the type of questions that the Jews asked the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) about “the Hour”, “the soul” and “Dhul Qarnayn”, and how the Messenger presented the most wonderful example in providing the opportunity for unlimited freedom of opinion and expression, the reviewer, transgressing all boundaries and lines, commented, “Why this conclusion? Substantial questions should be directed to those who claim to be a prophet.” This is how the authorized reviewer from the Ibn Khaldun Center and the Americans speak, and this is how they want books directed to the West.

In its third chapter, the booklet touches upon “Freedom of Opinion and Expression throughout Islamic History”, and the reviewer assails with comments that are far from knowledge and objectivity and depart from the etiquettes of dialogue. In order to avoid prolongation, we can touch upon one example of the American reviewer’s comments on the jurisprudence of the just Caliph Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (God be pleased with him) and his style of justice, saying, “He sought justice among Muslims, but he was unjust and slanderous against all the peoples whose countries he conquered.” The goal, then, is for us to go to the United States and the West and present the positive discourse of Islam while we say that the greatest symbol of justice in Islamic history, Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, was unjust and a slanderer!

These were some of the American reviewer’s notes on my book at the time, which he set as a prerequisite for translating the book and publishing it in the United States and the West. I wanted to present them to you before I proceed to publish some parts of the book, so that you may know that the battle is great and ongoing, and that opening the door of ijtihad (juristic reasoning) to rid Islamic thought of the impurities that have been attached to it is a necessity of the moment, which if we do not do it, there will be sedition on earth and great corruption.

It is God who is behind the intent and it is He who guides on the path.