Freedom of speech in Islam

آحمد صبحي منصور Ýí 2006-08-07

Introduction Freedom of Opinion between Islam and Muslims This research paper deals with the issue of “Freedom of Opinion between Islam and Muslims”. Freedom of opinion refers to man’s total freedom of creed and thinking, as well as his freedom of declaring and expressing his point of view peacefully without using a weapon. This definition of the concept of freedom of opinion is taken from verses of the Quran that are concerned with confirming the total freedom of opinion, and the application of Muhammad (pbuh) of these verses in his time with people around him. The application of the prophet of the concept of freedom of opinion was mentioned by verses descended in Mecca and Madina. The total freedom of opinion is a principle that was assured by Islam since it emerged, and applied by Muhammad (pbuh) and some of his successors (caliphs). Yet this freedom has been forbidden by force of sword during the Umayyads Califate (state). Then the Abbassids came with a theocratic concept of governing the state. That concept was settled by religious texts opposed Quran, but was connected to Muhammad (pbuh) through hadith. The abbassids theocratic concept transferred into abiding reality, and settled more through the long time of abbassids sovereignty and recording the heritage of muslims’ thoughts and beliefs. That heritage is considered to be against Islam. It became the legislative framework of people who call for the application of abbassids religious and political system to establish a religious state, as those people for establishing a religious state. Those officials use current legal regulations to achieve their goal of dominating mass media, publishing facilities, and intellectual life in order to be able to suppress any thought on grounds it attacks Islam. However, they represent the biggest danger on Islam, and this will be proved by this paper. ncept was settled by religious texts opposed Quran, but was connected to Muhammad (pbuh) through hadith. The abbassids theocratic concept transferred into abiding reality, and settled more through the long time of abbassids sovereignty and recording the heritage of muslims’ thoughts and beliefs. That heritage is considered to be against Islam. It became the legislative framework of people who call for the application of abbassids religious and political system to establish a religious state, as those people for establishing a religious state. Those officials use current legal regulations to achieve their goal of dominating mass media, publishing facilities, and intellectual life in order to be able to suppress any thought on grounds it attacks Islam. However, they represent the biggest danger on Islam, and this paper will prove this. Those officials represent the biggest danger on the nation’s future. They pave the way for the establishment of a religious state that denies differences of opinion, considers having a different opinion to theirs a sin deserves death, and gives the religious leader the right to sentence one third of the nation to death - 20 million – in order to save the remaining two thirds, and make it easier for themselves to do whatever they want. If we care about the future of our nation and children, fight against these thoughts should start with, first: the call for getting rid of the laws that enable those officials to dominate religious thought, second: the turn back to the constitution that calls for freedom of creed and expressing it in all means. Freedom of Opinion in Quran The Roots of Freedom of Opinion in Islam Man’s freedom of opinion is the origin of his existence, God’s creation of the universe, and the idea of the hereafter. This is how far the roots of freedom of opinion in Islam go. And this puts an end to every pretext of people supporting suppression of opinion in the name of religion. Verses of Quran dealing with this issue in order: 1- God created the universe including planets, stars, galaxies, which are lamps for the sky as described in Quran, and the seven heavens that exist beyond the universe which we cannot imagine. God Almighty says: “Assuredly the creation of the heavens and the earth is a greater matter then the creation of men: yet most men understand not”. 40/57 2- God created the universe and the great heavens because of one aim, choosing a creature called man. God Almighty says: (He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six days- and his throne was over the waters- that he might try you, which of you is best in conduct. But if you were to say to them: ye shall indeed be raised up after death. The unbelievers would be sure to say: This is nothing but obvious sorcery!”. So God created heavens and earth to see which of us is best in conduct. 3- At the end of this examination, there will be the Hereafter, when God Almighty will be destroying the universe and the heavens to create a new earth and new heavens and reckon people according to their deeds. God Almighty says: “One day the earth will be changed to a different earth, and so will be the heavens, and men will be marshaled forth, before God, the One, the Irresistible”. 14/48 4- Thus, man is ordered to contemplate God’s aim of creating heavens and earth. God Almighty says: “And contemplate the wonders of creation in the heavens and the earth, with the thought, “our lord! Not for naught hast thou created all this! Glory to thee! Give us salvation from the penalty of the fire”. - thus God hasn’t created heavens and earth in vain. God Almighty says: “And We did not create the heaven and the earth and what is between them for sport.” 21/16 - God created heavens and earth for a true aim, and He made a specific time for them to end. God Almighty says: “We created not the heavens and the earth and all between them but for just ends, and for a term appointed: but those reject faith turn away from that whereof they are warned”. 46/3 - Every man goes through his own examination when existed on earth, lives his appointed age, then dies to turn back to earth. Man is required to know during his life that God created him to be examined. God Almighty says: “ He Who created death and life, that He may try which of you is best in deed: and He is the Exalted in Might, Oft- Forgiving”. 67/2 - Man fails in the exam and hell is appointed as his fate when he spends his lifetime negligent of the aim of his existence. God Almighty says reminding man of the aim of his existence: “Did ye then think that We had created you in jest, and that ye would not be brought back to Us (for account)?” 23/115 God says this to man in the Hereafter when everything is ended. 5- It is noticed that God Almighty made the factors of the examination balanced and fair. He created man with a pure instinct, which is his inner sensitive scales that can distinguish between good and evil and directs his faith to God only. Opposingly, God assigned the devil to mislead man, and sent prophets with divine books, but beautified life and its pride. However, and above all, He created man free, either to obey Him or not, or to believe in Him or not. Moreover, God created man capable of keeping all his secrets, desires, feelings, concerns and thoughts away from anybody in order to enjoy his independence. If man wants to be free, he will be, and if he wants to be a slave to another man or any thought, he will be too. What is important, man is able to choose, and through choice, man can use his freedom however he wants. However, man will choose to be a nonbeliever, and deny his inner instinct and God’s existence when others try to dominate him with their human laws and seize his right of being a nonbeliever. To this extent, God Almighty created man with free will. And man’s free thought can lead him to deny the existence of God, the Almighty. 6- In contrast to man’s freedom during lifetime, there’s no prospect of freedom or choice in the Hereafter. Individual freedom of thinking, working and behaving ends at the moment of death, and then man is appointed to take responsibility of his life deeds. This is why God speaks about the Hereafter in Quran in passive tense, for example God Almighty says: “And the earth will shine with glory of Lord: the record of deeds will be placed open; the prophets and witnesses will be brought forward; and a just decision pronounced between them; and they will not be wronged in the least. And to every soul will be paid in full(the fruit) of its deeds; and (God) knoweth best all that they do. The unbelievers will be led to Hell in crowd; until, when they arrive there its gates will be opened. And its keepers will say “did not apostles come to you from among yourselves, rehearsing to you the signs of your Lord, and warning you of the meeting of this day of yours?” the answer will be: “True, but the decree of punishment has been proved true against the unbelievers!”. To them will be said: “enter ye the gates of hell, to dwell therein, and evil is this abode of the arrogant!. And those who feared their Lord will be led to the Garden in crowds.”39/69-73 God doesn’t say: prophets and witnesses will come, but He says: prophets and witnesses will be brought forward. He doesn’t say :The unbelievers will go to hell, but He says: the unbelievers will be led to Hell in crowd, likewise he says: those who feared their Lord will be led to the Garden in crowds. So in the Hereafter everything will be driven. God Almighty says: “But each one of them all will be brought before Us (for judgment)”. 36/ 32. and “It will be no more than a single blast when lo! They will all be brought up before Us” 36/ 53. “will be brought” is in passive tense to assure that they will lack free will and ability to run away. So God Almighty gave us free will in life to set us for an examination. He descended a religion to follow. A religion accompanied with divine books, yet not accompanied with a sword or angels to order people to follow it. God didn’t create hell in life as He didn’t want nonbelievers to be thrown in it before the eyes of other people. If He did, there wouldn’t be any exam. God descended the religion free of this all. He blessed man with freedom and enabled him to choose either to be a believer or a disbeliever. Nevertheless, God postponed the examination until the Hereafter, and said that He would come in the Hereafter to judge among people. Man’s freedom will end forever, and he will face the results of his deeds when God comes in the hereafter, and earth shines with its God’s light. God did not authorize some people to punish, in His name, others just because they have different opinions or because they disbelieve in God. And those who proclaim their right to punish others spoil the case from its roots and play the role of God - as there is no god but Him. They dominate what God Almighty wanted to control as He created human mind free without restraints, able to think with no limits, and believe or disbelieve if it wants. They fake God’s religion and assault His powers that He saved for Himself to practice in the Hereafter, on grounds that there is no need for punishment and reckoning in the hereafter, as long as there is a compulsion in faith and religion. They form a bad, extreme, bloody, stubborn and fusty image of God’s religion, and contribute to get most people away from it. This bad image has nothing to do with God’s religion. It is their image and religion that is entirely opposing to God’s religion. Because they are the real enemies of God, He legislated militancy against them, not to force people to get into Islam, but to assure people’s right of faith or infidelity, as well as their right to get rid of the domination of insincere religious leaders. The insincere religious leaders (priesthood advocates) are those who pretend to be talking in the name of God, and controlling- in His name- people’s minds and thoughts. Islam fought them with the legislation of militancy. Yet the insincere religious leaders of abbassids and sheiks succeeded to reverse concepts and misrepresent Islam, and this will be explained in details later. 7- God suggested in the Holy Quran that He will judge people who embrace different religions in the Hereafter. And hypocrites used to debate with Muhammad (pbuh), so God ordered him not to listen to them and to declare that judgment will be postponed until the Hereafter. God Almighty says: “if they do wrangle with thee, say: God knows best what it is ye are doing. God will judge between you on the day of judgment concerning the matters in which ye differ” 22/ 68-69. God says about disbelievers: “those who reject faith will not cease to be in doubt concerning revelation until the hour of judgment comes suddenly upon them, or there comes to them the penalty of the day of disaster. On that day the dominion will be that of God”.22/55- 56 When the prophet moved to the city of Madina and became a ruler of a state and a leader of a nation, Quran didn’t allow him to force hypocrites to believe in God and obey Him, as they had total freedom of opinion. They made traps for the believers in times of wars, which is considered a great treason in human laws. Yet God has postponed punishment until the Hereafter when He will judge between believers and hypocrites. God Almighty says: “These are the ones who wait and watch about you, if they do gain a victory from God, they say: were we not with you? But if the unbelievers gain a success, they say to them: did we not gain an advantage over you, and did we not guard you the believers? But God will judge betwixt you on the day of judgment, and never will God grant to the unbelievers a way to triumph over the believers.” 4/141 Faith in God should prevail. God wanted to examine us, so He created heavens and earth, then created us free either to believe in Him or not. Moreover, He did not authorize prophets, the elite of people, to force anybody to believe in Him. The exam of each of us ends at the time of death, and each will face his fate then in the Hereafter. Freedom of opinion in Quran 1- Quran approves that God could make people, if he wanted, one nation with no differences, with no choice, and born on absolute piety like programmed machines. Yet God wanted to create people free and with different opinions. Some are believers and some are disbelievers, some are guided and some are misled, each according to his choice and desire. God Almighty says: “If it were God’s will He could gather them together unto true guidance”. 6/ 35 “If it had been His will, He could indeed have guided you all”. 6/ 149 . So God’s will doesn’t interfere to lead people to faith, or else all people would be faithful, as no one can stand in the way of God’s will. Yet people are different, and they own the freedom of choice between faith and infidelity. This proves that God’s will doesn’t interfere, and people will stay different because it is what God wants, and nothing can hamper God’s will. God Almighty says: “but they will not cease to dispute, except those on whom thy Lord hath bestowed his mercy. 11/ 118-119. There are different choices before people, and God descends books and sends prophets to enable people to distinguish between right and wrong, justice and injustice, then He leaves it free for them to choose between this and that. God Almighty says: “And unto God leads straight the way, but there are ways that turn aside, if God had willed, He could have guided all of you”. 16/9. 2- When people choose the wrong way, they try to find a religious support for their choice by faking the truth which is suggested in divine books. Yet, God’s will doesn’t interfere, and He allows forging the truth, so people can search for the truth and choose between real and fake. God Almighty says: “Likewise sis we made for every messenger an enemy- evil ones among men and jinns, inspiring each other with flowery discourses by way of deception. If thy Lord had so planned, they would not have done it: so leave them and their inventions alone”. So God wanted to make them free to lie to Him and His messenger, and He said to his messenger: “If thy Lord had so planned, they would not have done it, so leave them and their inventions alone” 6/ 112. God threatens to punish them in the day of Resurrection, He Knows their conspiracies of manipulating verses, yet though He gives them freedom, He will make them take the responsibof their deeds on the Day of Resurrection. God Almighty says: “And among His signs in this: thou seest the earth barren and desolate; but when we send down rain to it, it is stirred to life and yields increase. Truly, He Who gives life to men who are dead. For He has power over all things. Those who pervert the truth in our signs are not hidden from us, which is better? He that is cast into the fire, it he that comes safe through, on the Day of judgment? Do that ye will: verily He seeth clearly all that ye do”.41/40-41. He asked them to do what they wanted, and it is clear that He is addressing those who manipulate God’s religion. Insincere religious leaders are those who earn living by telling lies and attribute them to the Almighty God and His messenger. They own the will of fight against God, but will bear their mistake on the Day of Resurrection. And the practical evidence is clear before us as they practice their job until now. 3- As God Almighty calls people for truth and reminds them with it, He approves their freedom of choice and call it a “will” too, in order to raise the rank of freedom. God says in two Suras of Quran: “Verily this is an admonition: therefore, whoso will, let him take a straight path to his Lord” 73/ 19. So guidance is at the choice of everyone. People can choose either to be guided or misled. Eventually, the guided way is good for man, and the misled way is bad for him. God Almighty says: “A warning to mankind, to any of you that chooses to press forward or to follow behind, every soul will be held in pledge for its deeds”. 47/36- 38. The same meaning is repeated suggesting man’s will and his entire freedom of either to believe in God or not. God says: “Nay, this surely is an admonition: let any who will, keep it in remembrance”. 74/ 54- 55. “Verily this is no less than a message to all the worlds: with profit to whoever among you wills to go straight”. 81/28. And “By no means should it be so, for it is indeed a message of instruction: therefore let whoso will, keep it in remembrance”. 80/12. Are more evidences on man’s freedom to believe in God or not needed? Freedom of belief in God is the utmost of the opinion in Islam. As long as the Quran suggests that man is free to believe or disbelieve in God, man is free also to disbelieve in the leader or in any religious or civil authority. 4- From here the Islamic principle “let there be no compulsion in religion” emerges. This verse 2/ 256 was descended while the prophet was in Madina, when the state of Islam was powerful and strong. Yet this principle was descended before in Mecca when the prophet was exaggerating in urging people to believe in God. So God told him reminding him with His will: “if it had been thy lord’s will they would all have believed, all who are on earth! Wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will to believe”. 10/ 99. God ordered the prophet to leave alone those who insisted to disbelieve, as God sent him as a messenger with no power on them. God Almighty says: “therefore do thou give admonition, for thou art one to admonish, thou are not one to manage men’s affairs. But if any turn away and reject God, God will punish him with a mighty punishment for to us will be their return; then it will be for us to call them to account”. 88/ 21- 26 . God is the only One Who will reckon their deeds in the Hereafter. The same meaning is repeated in : “Turn aside from those who join god’s with God, if it had been God’s plan, they would not have taken false gods. But We made thee not one to watch over their doings nor art thou set over him to dispose of their affairs”.6/ 106- 107. and: “Verily We have sent thee in truth as a bearer of glad tidings and a warner: but it thee no question shall be asked of the companions of the blazing fire”. 2/119. The Holy Quran was descended with specific sayings that assured the freedom of opinion and creed. The prophet was ordered to say them, yet he had to respect his enemies’ right to worship other gods than God, as he has the right to devote to God only. God Almighty asks his prophet to say: “it is God I serve, with my sincere and exclusive devotion: serve ye what ye will besides Him”.39/ 14-15. God gave them will. A whole sura is saying: “say: o ye that reject faith! I worship not that which ye worship” and at the end it says: “to you be your way and to me mine”. God orders him to declare that he says the truth that he got from God, then they have a total will either to believe in God or disbelieve in Him. They would bear the responsibility if they disbelieved, as torture is waiting for them in the hereafter. God Almighty says: “Say, the truth is from your Lord , let him who will believe and let him who will reject it, for the wrong doers we have prepared a fire whose smoke and flames, like the walls and roof of a tent, will hem them in : if they implore relief they will be granted water like melted brass, tat will scald their faces. How dreadful the drink! How uncomfortable a couch to recline in!”18/ 28. and He says about Quran: “say: whether ye believe in it or not” 17/ 107. So they are free whether to believe in Quran or not. Dialogue is an Evidence on Free Will Imagine that there was a good leader, whose people demonstrated against him. Yet he chose to use dialogue and persuasion with them instead of force. this means that he followed the approach of justice in governing his land. In the meantime he didn’t compel his people to obey him and left them free. Imagine this sort of rulers. You would find yourself indulged in dreams and imaginations. When we read the Holy Quran we find that God the creator of the universe doesn’t want to force people to believe in Him, His books, and messengers. And because God created people with free will, he conducts a dialogue with them to believe if they want to believe, and not because of force and compulsion used with them. As insincere religious leaders reject to have a dialogue with people, and find it enough to issue decisions of condemning them - because they have opinions that are different with theirs - of being disbelievers and renegades, God conducts a dialogue with His worshippers, Adam’s sons, to convince them that He is the only God who has no companions. It would take a long time if I presented every means of dialogue in the Holy Quran, so I will go through quick hints: 1- God asks the human mind to judge by thinking, so that it would deny the mislead allegations. God says : (wrong number of verse). God Almighty honors human mind, the resource of free will, when He asks it to judge. At the same time, insincere religious leaders ask us to stop thinking and discussing their thoughts and creeds. God has descended rational proofs that He is the only God, saying: “wrong number of verse” . If there were other gods with God, the universe system would be corrupt. 2- The unity of creation in the universe proves that God is one with no companions, otherwise there would be a dispute. And because there is no dispute, God is only one. This is presented in God’s saying: “say: if there had been other gods with Him, -as they say, - behold, they would certainly have sought out a way to the lord of the throne! Glory to Him! He is high above all that they say! Exalted and great beyond measures!”. 17/ 42- 43. If there were many gods, each has his own creatures, there would be a competition and a split that would lead to another different universe, God Almighty says: “No son did God beget, nor is there any god along with him: if there were many gods, behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have lorded it over other! Glory to God! He is free from the sort of things they attribute to Him”. 23/ 91. God Almighty proves that He is the one God , with rational proofs, replying some people who think that there are may gods along with God. God granted people the freedom of thought and creed, otherwise He wouldn’t allow them to believe in these thoughts that offend the His glory. And save He gave them freedom in his religion, he wouldn’t have a dialogue with them or ask their minds to find out the corruption of these thoughts. 3- God didn nhesitate to degrade His Glorious Self to have a dialogue with human mind in order to make them understand and seek a proof. For example, some of the people of the book had some thoughts concerning Abraham, so God descended a reply saying: “Ye people of the book! Why dispute ye about Abraham, when the law and the gospel were not revealed till after him? Have ye no understanding? Ah! Ye are those who fell to disputing even in matters of which ye had some knowledge! But why dispute ye in matters of which ye have no knowledge? It is God Who knows, and ye who know not!” 3/ 65- 66. I think it is the best honor given to people’s freedom. God Almighty descended verses in order to answer some thoughts of his creatures and convince them, while He could destroy the earth and the heavens. Yet some creatures give themselves privileges beyond our imagination, and refuse to answer other people who have different opinions and find it enough to declare them renegades and disbelievers deserve death. The comparison is horrible, God answers the allegations of some of his creatures with rational proofs, and insincere religious leaders find themselves higher than any discussion with people just came, like them, from Adam who was created of mud. 5- God didn’t hesitate to record his enemies’ opinions despite its futility and though those opinions were mere swears and offenses. Jews said God’s hands are tied up. God says: “the jews say: God’s hand is tied up”. 5/ 67. jews said also that God was poor and they were rich. “God hath heard the taunt of those who say: truly God is indigent and we are rich”. 3/ 181. Pharaoh said he didn’t know any god but himself for Egyptians, “Pharaoh said: oh chiefs! No god do I know for you but myself” 28/ 38. He said also he was the highest God of Egyptians, “ I am your lord, most high”. 79/ 24. God could keep these sayings secret, yet some of these sayings were told ages before the decadence of Quran, and we knew about them through Quran. The favorite hobby of the insincere political and religious leaders is to seize books and writings. The world witnessed massacres- during middle ages and in our third world which lives its middle ages- of books, writings and authors. Yet God Almighty recorded all his enemies’ opinions even those which offended His sacred entity. And these sayings became verses of the holy Quran that we read, and through its recital we worship God. It was natural for God to answer with a proper reply, and said He Almighty created man from a tiny clot, then that man turned into an enemy of God. But God allowed this enemy to say freely what he want. God didn’t seize His enemy’s sayings, but recorded and answered them. We read Quran to recognize its approach of approving human freedom and responsibility - before God in the hereafter - on what man’s tongue uttered and his senses did. God Almighty says: “the jews say: God’s hands are tied up, be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the blasphemy they utter. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched, He giveth and spendeth of His bounty as He pleaseth”. 5/ 67. “ God hath heard the taunt of those who say: truly God is indigent and we are rich! We shall certainly record their word and their act of slaying the prophets in defiance of right, and we shall say: taste ye the penalty of the scorching fire”. 3/ 181. Pharaoh said he knew no god for his people but himself. “ then he collected his men and made a proclamation, saying: I am your lord most high”. 79/ 24. there are dozens of verses that tackle the same subject. After this statement of Quran, we have to inquire if seizing books and view agrees with Islam?! Decency of dialogue in Quran 1- During the darkness of middle ages, verses of Quran were descended with the best ways of dialogue with antagonists who had opposing opinions. When we think about these verses and look at ourselves, we feel sorry for what some of us, who bear the banner of Islam, do. They impose their own opinions suppress others’ rights to declare their opinions. Moreover, they offend and hurt them through deeds and words. And they proclaim them disbelievers who must be killed, thinking that to be, fighting for the cause of God. If they thought about verses of Quran, they would find out that they were repeating the deeds of the tribe of Quraish at the time of the prophet(pbuh). 2- The Quranic principle of dialogue is based on wisdom, good preaching and answering enemy’s offenses in the best way. God Almighty says: “invite all to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching, and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious, for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from his path, and who receives guidance”. 16/ 125. God ordered his messenger to invite people to embrace Islam through wisdom, beautiful preaching, and to debate with his enemies not in good ways, but in the best ways. That was an obligation on the high ranked prophet, thus, it would be more proper for muslims to bear others’ insults and answer them with the best ways. God Almighty expresses this in a lovable way saying: “who is better in speech than one who calls men to God, works righteousness, and says: I am of those who bow in Islam? Nor can goodness and evil be equal, repel evil with what is better, them will be between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate! And no one will be granted such goodness except those who exercise patience and self-restraint none but persons of the greatest good fortune”. God considers man of best words as who invites others to believe in God, represents a good example to others in good deeds, declares his surrender to God, and answers with the best ways of patience, forgiveness and beautiful words when people debate with him, or offend him during dialogues. Therefore the enemy would have to apologize and turns into a good friend. This degree of ethics highness in invitation for God can’t be reached but by who suffered patience for God’s sake. This person is considered to be having a great good fortune”. 3- These are the general principles of decent dialogue: Inviting people for God with wisdom, good preaching, and answering insults with the best of deeds and words. Quran could only say this, but for the importance of the issue in Islam, which is based on freedom of choice, verses of Quran dealt with detailed stories suggesting decent dialogues. God forbids insulting the enemy or mocking his beliefs and sacred properties in order not he insults back the Almighty God, God says: “Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides God, lest they out of spite revile God in their ignorance, thus have we made alluring to each people its own doings, in the end will they return to their Lord, and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did". 6/ 108. God clarifies the significance of this; that who misled, was not forced, but he chose and defended the way. God in turn beautified dark way for him, and eventually he would turn back to God in the Hereafter. Actually man starts with choosing the way he finds comfortable for him, whether true or false. Then God’s will come to indulge each one more in his chosen way. God says about mislead people: “wrong number” God says about guided people: “but to those who receive guidance, He increases the light of guidance, and bestows in them their piety and restraint from evil”. 47/ 17, God says about the companions of the cave: “we relate to thee their story in truth: they were youths who believed in their Lord and We advanced them in guidance”. And says: “And God doth advance in guidance those who seek guidance and the things that endure”. 19/ 76. So man starts with choosing his way, then God advance believers in guidance and disbelievers in darkness. In other words, God adorns for believers and disbelievers their chosen ways. God says about believers: “But God has endeared the faith to you and has made it beautiful in your hearts, and He has made hateful to you unbelief, wickedness, and rebellion”. 49/ 7. and says about disbelievers: “as to those who believe not in the hereafter, We have made their deeds pleading in their eyes; and so they wander in distraction”. 27/ 4. Approving religious freedom for enemies Quran forbids debating with misled people who reverse situations and see true as false and false as true. God Almighty says to his prophet Mohammad (pbuh): “Is he, them, to whom the evil of his conduct is made alluring, so that he looks upon it as good, equal to one who is rightly guided? For God leaves to stray whom He wills, and guides whom He wills. So let not thy soul go our in vainly sighing after them: for God know well all that they do!”. 35/ 8 Dialogue should be conducted through wisdom and rational means. Quran includes examples on the dialogue God had with his creature who practiced his right of refusing rational pretexts and logical proofs, and would be responsible before God on his choices in the Hereafter. And thus the one who invites people for truth should leave his enemies and abandon them politely. God says to his prophet as a constitution for him and to any other who invites for God: “ And have patience with what they say and leave them with noble dignity”. 73/ 10. And says: “Hold to forgiveness; command what is right; But turn away from the ignorant”. 7/ 199. Turning away from the enemy means to leave him to the way he chose and liked, and to leave him as well till the day of the judgment. God says to the prophet: “therefore shun those who turn away from Our message and desire nothing but the life of this world. That’s as far as knowledge will reach them”. 53/ 29. God’s orders to leave disbeliveers assure their religious freedom and their responsibility on this freedom before God in the Hereafter. God says: “say to those who don’t believe: do what ever you can, we shall do our part. And wait ye! We too shall wait”. 11/ 121- 122. and says: “say: o my people! Do whatever ye can: I will do my part, soon will ye know who it is whose end will be best in the hereafter, certain it is that the wrong doers will not prosper”. 6/ 135. and says: “say: O my people! Do what ever ye can, I will do my part, but soon will ye know, who it is whom comes a penalty of ignominy, and on whom descends a penalty that abides” 39/ 39- 40. leaving disbelievers away, which confirms their freedom of choice and their responsibility on it, bears signs of frightening that reflects a hope to guide them. If there wasn’t hope, focus would be on leaving disbelievers with best ways in dealing. God say: “and certain it is that either we or ye are on right guidance or in manifest error! Say: ye shall not be questioned as to our sins, nor shall we be questioned as to what ye do. Say: our Lord will gather us together and will in the end decide the matter between us and you in truth and justice, and He is the One to decide the One Who knows all”34/ 24- 25.when hope to guide is lost, and the enemy sticks to his situation, the answer should be “you are misled” not “you are infidel, go to hell”. It’s said to him “you are not responsible for our criminality and we are no responsible for your acts”. Similarly it would be said in Quran: “ you wouldn’t be reckoned for our crimes, and we wouldn’t be reckoned for your crimes”. However, the decent dialogue of the holy Quran refuses this behavior. Instead, it is said “God will gather us in the Hereafter and will judge between us” not “we are people of Heaven and you are people of Fire”. This decent behavior and saying of leaving enemies who have opposing opinions and creed is not considered duplicity or false method. However Quran ordered to be real emotion that comes from heart and bears grace and forgiveness. This emotion rises from the belief that the enemy has done wrong to himself and he will get severe torture in the Hereafter, because he failed in the exam and misused the freedom God granted him. Faithful man should forgive his enemy if he imagines the atrocity of torture in the Hereafter. This is not a rational deduction or a personal effort to explain or prove issues. Yet it is a thinking of meanings of the clear and overt verses of Quran. God says about the Hereafter: “And the Hour is surely coming, when this will be manifest, so overlook, any human faults, with gracious forgiveness” 15/ 85. God recommended not just forgiveness but gracious forgiveness. God says: “God has knowledge of the prophet’s cry: oh my Lord! Truly these are a people who will not believe! But turn away from them and say: peace! But soon shall they know!” 43/ 88- 89. So we should forgive people with different views and creed and say: “peace, you will know” when we lose hope to convince them. God says ordering faithful people: “tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not look forward to the days of God, it is for Him to recompense for good or ill each people according to what they have earned. If any one does a righteous deed, it endures to the benefit of his own soul, if he does evil, it works against his own soul, in the end will ye all be brought back to your Lord” 45/ 14- 15. Legislation of “Jihad” to Approve the Freedom of Opinion: In contrast to the common, Jihad (fight) in Islam is not legislated for compulsion in religion. Yet it is legislated for approving the freedom of opinion and creed, and the choice between faith and infidelity. So Jihad is directed against insincere religious leaders who oppress enemies who have different opinions, use force with people in matters related to religion, and impose their opinions on people and seize their rights of thought and choice. Invitation to Islamic truth is based on wisdom and beautiful preaching. And Islam orders leave and forgive who refuses that truth. The invitation to Islam which calls people to worship God and apply justice and equity, is rejected by insincere religious leaders who earn their living through religion and whose power is built on prevailed situations. They use their power to oppress the Islamic call as the tribe of Quraish did. Quran orders believers to be patient in facing this oppression. And recommends them conduct a decent dialogue and follow kind ways of invitation to Islam. God says: “invite all to the way of thy lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching, and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious, for thy lord knoweth best , who have strayed from his path, and who receive guidance”.16 / 125. and says: “and so thou be patient for thy patience is but from God, nor grieve over them, and distress not thyself because of their plots”. 16/ 127. Quran orders believers to be patient and to turn away from disbelievers and their harms. God says: “and have patience with what they say and leave them with noble dignity” 73/ 10. and says: “and when they hear vain talk, they turn away the from and say: to us our deeds, and to you yours. Peace be to you, we seek not the ignorant”. 28/ 55. The oppression elevates until it reaches a degree of expelling muslims and fighting them, so Jihad is legislated as a way to defend themselves. Jihad is an indisputable right approved by every divine or human legislation. And Quran sets certain attributes of (jihad), fight for the sake of God. God say: “fight in the cause of God those who fight you , but do not transgress limits, for God loveth not transgressor” 2/ 190. and says: “If then anyone transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear God and know that God is with those who restrain themselves” 2/ 194. God doesn’t say “God with you” but “God with those who restrain themselves”. However, Jihad is limited to answer transgression with the same ways used by enemies. Fight aims to prevent disbelievers to continue oppressing muslims, or as Quran says stop disbelievers from alluring believers to get astray and forget about their religion. The conflict between the two teams is a conflict between two principles. One based on compulsion in religion and oppressing foes, which is the principle of the insincere religious leaders, who follow the methods of Quraish, and another principle that is built on assuring freedom of creed and thinking, and assuring that God is the only One who can reckon people according to their religions in the Hereafter. It would be a victory of religious oppression if disbelievwon the conflict. God Almighty says: “tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter, nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you from your faith if they can”. 2/ 217. Nevertheless when muslims won, the victory was for the freedom of creed and thinking. God says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion, truth stands out clear from error” 2/ 256. Briefly, fight for the sake of God confirms religious freedom, or as Quran says, it is ceases tumult and oppression, and prevails faith in God. God says: “and fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God” 2/ 193. Thus fight should continue until tumult and oppression ceased and faith in God prevailed through persuasion, free call and forgiveness as mentioned before. Yet believers should fight transgressors. God Almighty says: “say to the unbelievers, if now they desist from unbelief, their past would be forgiven them, but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already a matter of warning for them. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God altogether and everywhere, but if they cease, verily God doth see all that they do” 8/ 38- 39. God calls disbelievers to repent and stop oppression. And muslims should fight them when they stay stubborn in order to cease tumult, prevail faith in God, and extinguish insincere religious leaders and people who earn their living by pretending to be religious. Legislation of Quran was practically applied during the time of Muhammad (pbuh) when he ruled the city of Madina. His religious and political opposition enjoyed freedom of creed and thinking, as well as freedom of action, beyond imagination of modern democratic opposition. The practical application of Muhammad’s approach of Madina is the real Sunna, and our resource is the holy Quran. God says: “and whose word can be truer than God’s?” 4/ 87. Second section Freedom of opinion in Muhammad’s Sunna Introduction Insincere religious leaders don’t feel good about God’s saying: “Let there be no compulsion in religion, truth stands out clear from error” 2/ 256. They misinterpret its meaning alleging that compulsion can’t be used to force people to embrace Islam, yet it should be used to force muslims to implement the laws that some of which wasn’t legislated by God. This misinterpretation means that God forgot to mention a word in the verse, “no compulsion if following certain religion”. Sarcastically, insincere religious leaders found out that God forgot to mention a word. And glory to God Who doesn’t forget anything, and thank God because He kept the Quran away from any violation, otherwise insincere religious leaders would change whatever they wanted. “No compulsion in religion” means clearly that there must not be any compulsion in forcing people to believe in God or not, or to perform rites. God wants people to worship Him out of their choice and conscience, and not to pray for Him out of fear. God wants people to give charity out of loving Him. And out of their desire to satisfy Him, not to satisfy superiors or to gain people’s love. Hypocrites gave charity not for God’s love. So God asked the prophet not to take their charity. God says: “the only reasons why their contributions are not accepted are: that they reject God and His apostle, that they come to prayer without earnestness, and that they offer contributions unwillingly. Let not their wealth not their sons dazzle thee, in reality God’s plan is to punish them with these things in this life, and that their souls may perish in their very denial of God” 9/ 54- 55. And God says about believers who have repented: “others have acknowledged their wrong doings, they have mixed an act that was good with another that was evil, perhaps God will turn unto them in mercy for God is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful . of their goods take alms. That so thou mightest purify and sanctify them, and pray on their behalf. Verily thy prayers are a source of security for them and God is One who heareth and knoweth” 9/ 102- 103. - Freedom in Quran is a responsible freedom. You are free in what you think and free to obey or disobey under condition of not harming others. Yet you should be punished when you harm others for the benefit of the entire community. From here, God approved punishment of crimes of killing, banditry, robbery, adultery, homosexuality, and accusing pious married women of having sexual relationship with a man other that her husband. However, Quran doesn’t suggest any punishment for renegades, wine drinkers or those who don’t perform prayers. These punishments were invented by Abbassids, and the third section of this book will show. - Insincere religious men find the value of “enjoining just and forbidding evil.” a way to dominate others, adding many forbidden matters that were created by them or their ancestors. Those forbidden matters were not known during the time of Muhammad (pbuh), however they the value of “enjoining just and forbidding evil” as a pretext for compulsion in religion. - I answer them by clarifying the meaning of “enjoining just and forbidding evil . It is a mere verbal order and a prohibition recommended for every Muslim and not limited to a certain group. God says: “By the token of time through the ages. Verily man is in loss. Except those as have faith and do righteous deeds, and join together in the mutual teaching of truth , and of patience and constancy” 103. This verbal order doesn’t authorize anybody to force others to do good deeds, and this is proved by God’s saying to Muhammad (pbuh): “ And admonish thy wing to the believers who follow thee. Then if they disobey thee, say: I am free of responsibility for what ye do” 26/ 214: 216. God orders him to be modest with believers, and to say that he is free of responsibility of their deeds when they disobey him, but not to hit them with chains. Likewise, God doesn’t order the prophet to say he is free of them. God says to the prophet: “say: I am free of responsibility for what ye do”. To be free of their deeds not to be free of them in person. These are the limits of “enjoining just and forbidding evil”. We can say we are free of someone’s misdeeds when he insists on them. This what the prophet used to do with his companions. Yet the problem is that some people grant themselves an authority higher than that of the prophet. How did the prophet(pbuh) act with his companions and hypocrites? And how far did hypocrites enjoy freedom during the first Islamic state in Madina? The answer to insincere religious leaders lies in the answers of these questions. Freedom of Opinion in Muhammad’s Government Muhammad (pbuh) wasn’t a normal ruler. He was a messenger and prophet who used to get a divine inspiration, that spread his religion within his state and out of it. Hypocrites represented opposition against Muhammad’s government. They opposed Islam and the prophet’s policies and authority. Yet their fear prevented them from raising an armed riot against the state. They were too weak to demonstrate. So they found it enough to conspire against he prophet, then to swear that they were innocent. However, they enjoyed great freedom of words and deeds - that Quran assured for them- against the state they lived within but worked against. Quran answered their cons and allegations, and disclosed their conspiracies, yet recommended the prophet and muslims to turn away from disbelievers and feel that the punishment waiting for them in the Hereafter is sufficient. Through Quran we know how far they enjoyed freedom of opinion: 1- Hypocrites insulted believers and described them as fools, Quran answered them saying: “when it is said to them: believe as the other believe, they say: shall we believe as the fools believe? Nay, of a surely they are the fools, but they don’t know” 2/ 13. 2- Hypocrites liked to make fun of believers especially at the times before wars. They described rich people who gave charity as hypocrites, and made fun of poor people who gave charity. While they hold their hands and refused to give charity. God says: “those who sivh of these believers as five themselves freely to deeds of charity, as well as such as cam find nothing to give except the fruits of their labor- and throw ridicule on them- God will throw back their ridicule on them, and they shall have a grievous penalty. Whether thou ask for their forgiveness, or not their sin is unforgivable , if thus ask seventy times for their forgiveness, God will not forgive them, because they have rejected God and His apostle. And God guideth not those who are perversely rebellious” 9/ 79-80. 3- Hypocrites expressed their opinions concerning Quran freely, and they made fun of it publicly in many ways. God says: “the hypocrites are afraid lest a sura should be sent down about them, showing them what is really passing in their hearts. Say: mock ye! But verily God will bring to light all that ye fear (should be revealed)” 9/ 64. - Hypocrites asked sarcastically whose faith increased when new verses descended. God says: “whenever there cometh down a sura, some of them say: which of you has had his faith increased by it?” 9/124. - Hypocrites listened to the prophet (pbuh) reciting Quran and went out underestimating what they listened to and asking people about it. God says to his prophet: “And among them are men who listen to thee, but in the end, when they go out from thee, they say to those who have received knowledge: what is it he said just then?” 47/16. - When hypocrites were asked why they made fun of Quran, they said, with no heed, that they were playing. Yet the prophet, the ruler of the state, didn’t take any action against them, because God would punish them in the Hereafter. God says: “if thou dost question them, they declare(with emphasis): we were only talking idly and in play. Say: was it at God , and His sings, and His apostle, that ye were mocking? Make ye no excuse, ye have rejected faith after ye had accepted it. If we pardon some of you, we will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin” 9/ 65-66. - Hypocrites summoned public councils to mock Quran. Some muslims attended these councils with good intentions, but Quran was descended warning them to attend them, some of them kept attending the councils. God says: “already has He sent you word in the Book, that when ye hear the signs of God held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme: if ye did, ye would be like them. For God will collect the Hypocrites and those who defy faith, all in hell” 4/ 140. 4- Hypocrites insulted the prophet (pbuh) despite he was the political leader and the messenger who possessed inspiration. The prophet was ordered to consult people around him, so he did, and included hypocrites- who were leaders of the city of Yathreb- in his discussions. And through their councils, hypocrites tried to make traps for the prophet. So God warned him. God says: “wrong number” . Then they accused prophet of giving his ear to everyone when they found the prophet listening to others but them, so God said: “among them are men who molest the prophet and say: he is all ear. Say: he listens to what is best for you , he believes in God, has faith in the believers and is a mercy to those of you who believer. But those who molest the apostle will have a grievous penalty” 9/ 61. God Almighty is the One who defended the prophet (pbuh) and described him as a mercy to believers. And pledged to punish those who harmed the prophet. Yet the prophet’s authority as a leader wasn’t given a role in that free community that allowed infidel opposition, covered with faith, to say what it wanted. God ordered his prophet to turn away from hypocrites’ harm and not to obey them. God says: “and obey not the behests of the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and heed not their annoyances, but put thy trust in God, for enough is God as a Disposer of affairs” 33/48. Hypocrites slandered the prophet (pbuh) when he deprived them from talking charity because they were rich. They rejected that decision and chased believers with their bad words. God says: “and among them are men who slander thee in the matter of the distribution of the alms, if they are given part thereof , they are pleased, but if not, Behold! They are indignant” 9/ 58. In long and short, Hypocrites enjoyed freedom of opinion during the time of Muhammad’s government. And through such freedom, they expressed their own views on Islam, Quran, and the prophet. Teaching of Quran assured this right for them, and the prophet forgave them and prayed for God to forgive them. The Extent of Opposition in Muhammad’s Government Hypocrites’ freedom of opinion wasn’t limited to public declaration, but extended to actions, plots and conspiracies. Legislation of Quran didn’t interfere until Hypocrites transpassed the red line, and their conspiracies harmed the state when it was surrounded by enemies. That was during the battle of (Ahzab). We can follow their conspiracy steps to declare their views through Quranic verses: 1- Hypocrites were free to corrupt communities. They were free to call for corruption without being questioned or punished. Yet when they were asked about their deeds, they answered freely that this was reformation from their own point of view. God says: “when it is said to them: make not mischief on the earth, they say: why, why only wanted to make peace! Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realize it not” 2/ 11- 12. While believers were enjoining what was just and forbidding what was evil, hypocrites were enjoining evil, and forbidding what was just and refusing to give Charity. They could declare their stance through an atmosphere of freedom that we can’t imagine to occur now. God says: “the hypocrites, men and women, have an understanding with each other. They enjoyed evil, and forbid what is just” 9/ 67. Believers were the opposite. God says: “the believers, men and women, are protectors, one of another: they enjoin what is just and forbid what is evil, they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity and obey God and His apostle. On them will God pour his mercy” 9/ 71. The concept of “enjoying what is just and forbidding what is evil” was limited within muslims community to verbal advice, without compulsion, harming or denying others. God says: “and lower your wing to the believers who follow you. Then if they disobey you, say: I am free of responsibility for what you do!” 26/ 215- 216 2- Hypocrites rejected the prophet’s judgment, though he was the official leader, in an attempt to express their opposition to his authority. However the prophet turned away from them. God says: “hast thou not turned thy vision to those who declare that they believe in the revelations that have come to thee and to those before thee? Their real wish is to resort together for judgment in their disputes to the evil one. Though they were ordered to reject him. But Satan’s wish is to lead them astray far away from the right. When it is said to them: come to what God has revealed, and to the apostle, thou seest the hypocrites avert their faces from thee in disgust” 4/ 60- 61. Even in the united states of America, the top of modern democracy, we can’t find a group rejecting to be brought before the official judge or the law. Actually Hypocrites were satisfied with Islamic judgment if it was for their benefit. God says: “when they are summoned to God and His apostle, in order that he may judge between them, behold, some of them decline to come. But if the right is on their side, they com to him with all submission” 24/ 48- 49. God suggests that obeying Quranic legislation is optional, yet He states that believers should hear and obey it. God says: “the answer of the believers , when summoned to God and His apostle, in order that he may judge between them, is no other than this: they say: we hear and we obey. It is such as these that will attain felicity”24/ 51. 3- Even at times of wars and emergency, hypocrites had total freedom of words and deeds against their state. In spite of the fact that modern democracies resort to human regulations and exceptional laws, Quranic legislation supportefreedom to an incomparable extent. During the battle of (Uhud), hypocrites were free not to fight with muslims. Then they hold the responsibility of defeat on muslims on grounds that muslims didn’t obey them and refused to stay in the city of Madina. God says: “and the hypocrites also. These were told: come fight in the way of God, or at least drive the foe from your city. They said: had we known how to fight, we should certainly have followed you. They were that day nearer to unbelief than to faith, saying with their lips what was not in their hearts. But God hath full knowledge of all they conceal” 3/ 167. and God gave the answer to the prophet: “say: avert death from your own selves if you speak the truth”. During the battle of Al-ahzab, disbelievers surrounded the city of Madina, and the hypocrites couldn’t get out. So hypocrites got panic and turned into spies for the disbelievers. Moreover, they mocked the prophet’s promise of victory, called muslims not to join the fight, and left their posts of safeguarding. Muslims faced hard times that God describes as: “ behold! They came on you from above you and from below you, and behold! The eyes became dim and the hearts groped up to the throats, and ye imagined various vain thoughts about God! In that situation were the believers tried: they were shaken as by a tremendous shaking. And behold! The hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a diseases even say: God and His apostle promised us nothing but delusion! Behold! A party among them said: ye men of yathrib! Ye can not stand the attack! Therefore go back! And a band of them ask for leave of the prophet, Saying, truly our houses are bare and exposed. Though they were not exposed, they intended nothing but to turn away” 33/ 10 :13. God says about hypocrites’ role in calling believers for not joining fight or defending themselves: “verily God knows those among you who keep back men and those who say to their brethren: come along to us. But not to the fight except for just a little while” 33/ 18. During those hard times, three groups of hypocrites emerged, each had a damaging role that deserved God to descend verses of threatening Hypocrites and defining a red line for them. God says: “ truly, if the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, we shall certainly stir thee up against them, then will they not be able to stay in or as thy neighbors for any length of time” 33/ 60. God warned Hypocrites to stop playing their dirty games and threatened to order the prophet to take an action against them. In the battle of (Zatel Assra) Hypocrites didn’t want to join fight on grounds it was too hot. So God deprived them of the honor of jihad in the future. God says: “those who were left behind ( in the Tabuk expedition) rejoiced in their inaction behind the back of the apostle of God, they hated to strive and fight with their goods and their personsm in the cause of God, they said: Go not forth in the heat. Say: the fire of hell is fiercer in heat. If only they could understand” 9/ 81. God deprived them of getting the honor of jihad as their life penalty. God says: “if then God bring thee back to any of them, and they ask thy permission to come out with thee, say; never shall ye come our with me, nor fight an enemy with me. For ye preferred to sit inactive on the first occasion, then sit ye now with those who lag behind” 9/ 83. the second penalty is that no one would pray for them when they die. God says: “nor do thou ever pray for any of them that dies, nor stand at his grave, for they rejected God and His apostle, and died in a state of perverse rebellion” 9/ 84. Through Quran, we realize that compulsory recruitment wasn’t included within Islamic military according to Quranic constitution that suggests that there is no compulsion in religion. From here, the principle of volunteering soul and money as the only way of mobilizing muslims army came. This volunteered army could invade countries, spread Islam and win the biggest two powers then, Persian and Roman. And through the same principle of “no compulsion in religion” hypocrites enjoyed their freedom of rejecting recruitment and fight whether to defend the city of Madina in the battle of (Ahzab) or to go out with muslims in their protective wars over the Arabian Peninsula. Yet punishing them was in negative ways, that were limited to turning away from them. God is the only One who knows what is hidden in people’s hearts. God says: “and God hath full knowledge about your faith, you are one from another” 4/ 25. God talked about renegades of hypocrites who rejected Islam and made their punishment in life and in the hereafter in His hand. God Almighty says: “they swear by God that they said nothing evil, but indeed they did it after accepting Islam. And they meditated a plot which they were unable to carry out. This revenge of theirs was their only return for the bounty with which God and His apostle had enriched them. But if they turn back to their evil ways, God will punish them with a grievous penalty in this life and in the hereafter” 9 / 74. 4- The opposition of hypocrites reached the level of conspiracy against the state, and this conspiracy took different forms: - hypocrites spread rumors at times of wars, and they conspired against muslims during the battle of ( Al Ahzab) when danger was threatening all. Gods says: “Truly, if the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, we shall certainly stir thee up against them, then will they not be able to stay in or as thy neighbors for any length of time” 33/ 60. Yet they kept spreading rumors at times of peace too. God says: “when there comes to them some matter touching public safety or fear, they divulge it. If they had only referred it to the apostle, or to those charged with authority among them, the proper investigators would have tested it from them(direct)” 4/ 83. which means, they disclosed secrets and spread rumors and speculations without going back to concerned authorities. - Because of their numerous rumors, Madina became into a beehive within which gossip and rumors were exchanged, as the community of that city was open and free both politically and religiously. Despite God prohibited the habit of holding secret counsels, yet hypocrites did not obey Him and insisted on holding their councils. They showed the prophet fake love. God says: “turnest thou not thy sight towards those who were forbidden secret counsels yet revert to that which they were forbidden to do? And they hold secret counsels among themselves for iniquity and hostility, and disobedience to the apostle. And when they come to thee they salute thee, not as God salutes thee, but in crooked ways, and they say to themselves: why does not God punish us for our words? Enough for them is hell. In it will they burn, and evil is that destination!” 58/ 8. The habit of holding secret counsels hit some Muslims in Madina. God says to them: “ye who believe! When ye hold secret counsel, do it not for iniquity and hostility, and disobedience to the prophet, but do it for righteousness and self-restraint. And fear God to Whom ye shall be brought back” 58/ 9. Then God explains the aim of hypocrites saying: “secret counsels are only inspired by the evil one, in order that he may cause grief to the believers, but he can not harm them in the least, except as God permits, and on God let the believers put their trust” 58/ 11. - Hypocrites conspired against the prophet and pretended to be obedience. Quran revealed their dishonesty saying: “they have obedience on their lips, but when they leave thee, assertion of them meditate all night on things very different from what thou tellest them, but God records their nightly plots, so keep clear of them, and put thy trust in God” 4/ 81. - Hypocrites conspiracy resulted in a split among muslims, so Quran considered it good for muslims when Hypocrites rejected to join their fight in the battle of (Zatel Assra). God says: “if they had come out with you, they would not have added to your strength, but only made for diso, hurrying to and fro in your midst. And sowing sedition among you, and there would have been some among you who would have listened to them, but God knoweth well those who do wrong. Indeed they had plotted sedition before, and upset matters for thee, until the truth arrived and the decree of God became manifest much to their disgust” 9/ 47- 48. - Conspiracy dedicated hypocrites to contact muslims enemies of jews and disbelievers to form confidential allies against Muhammad’s government. Quran revealed these allies between hypocrites and jews in many points. Nevertheless, in top modern democracies, contacting enemy governments at times of wars means a great treason. And Islamic legislation allowed this, but nullified it with believers’ faith. God says: “these are the ones who wait and watch about you, if ye do gain a victory from God, they say: were we not with you? But if the unbelievers gain a success, they say to them : did we not gain an advantage over you, and did we not guard you from the disbelievers?” 4/ 141. About hypocrites’ confidential alliance with jews God says: “those in whose hearts is a disease- thou seest how eagerly they run about amongst them, saying: we do fear lest a change of fortune bring is disaster. Ah! Perhaps God will give thee victory, or a decision according to His will. Then will they repent of the thoughts which they secretly harbored in their hearts” 5/ 55. God says about hypocrites alliance with the jews of (Bani Nudhair): “hast thou not observed the hypocrites say to their misbelieving brethren among the people of the Book? If are expelled, we too will go out with you, and we will never hearken to any one in your affair, and if ye are attacked in fight, we will help you. But God is witness that they are indeed liars” 59/ 11. God says about their penalty in the hereafter: “turnest thou not thy attention to those who turn in friendship to such as have the wrath of God upon them? They are neither of you nor of them, and they swear to falsehood knowingly. God has prepared for them a severe penalty; evil indeed are their deeds” 58/ 14- 15. - Hypocrites conspired to expel the prophets and muslims from Medina, and cease providing believers. God says: “unknown number of verse. Quran narrated some events of conspiracy like spying. God says: “whenever there cometh down a sura, they look at each other, saying: doth anyone see you? then they turn aside. And says: “when it is said to them; believe as the others believe, they say: shall we believe as the fools believe? Nay, of a surety they are the fools, but they do not know. When they meet those who believe, they say: we believe but when they are alone with their evil ones, they say: we are really with you. We were only jesting. God will throw back their mockery on them, and give them rope in their trespasses, so they will wander like blind ones (to and fro)” 2/ 14-15. This means that God gave them freedom to choose the wrong way and reach to its end. - Through their huge freedom, hypocrites could build a mosque to be a den used to conspire against muslims and harm them. They turned that mosque into a place for everyone conspired against Islam and the government of the prophet. God says: “and there are those who put up a mosque by way of mischief and infidelity to spite the believers, and in preparation for one who warred against God and His apostle aforetime, they will indeed swear that their intention is nothing, but good, but God doth declare that they are certainly liars” 9/ 107. Muslims were going to that mosque with good intentions, and it seems that the prophet used to go as well, unknowing what was going on in that mosque. God says: “never stand thou forth therein. There is a mosque whose foundation was laid from the first day on piety, it is more worthy of thy standing forth for prayer therein. In contrast to some narrations that suggest that the prophet burned that mosque, which is against quranic legislation, the following verse indicates that the prophet didn’t burn the mosque, God says: “the foundation of those who so build is never free from suspicion and shakiness in their hearts, until their hearts are cut to pieces. And God is All knowing, Wise” 9/ 110. - The prophet and believers found it was enough to boycott the den to obey God’s saying: “never stand thou forth therein”. that was the policy followed by the prophet to deal with his enemies in his state. He turned away form them, left them enjoying their freedom of declaring their opinions in words and actions, even if that reached the degree of conspiracy. - It may said that this policy is not proper in our current time and we have to take protective measures or legislate exceptional regulations in order to face conspiracy against freedom. However, Quran recommends the best way of protection against conspiracy: which is owning more freedom of putting trust in God Who created man free, and in the un-need for anyone to control man’s freedom or seize it because of the fear of potential matters that may be just doubts in the minds of leaders. Opening ways for exceptions and assaults on free will leads to covered oppression then overt one. God says: “they have obedience on their lips, but when they leave thee, a section of them meditate all night on things very different from what thou tellest them. But God records their nightly plots, so keep clear of them, and put thy trust in God, and enough us God as a disposer of affairs” 4/ 81. The protection is to turn away form Hypocrites and put our trust in God who is the supporter and the defender. - Hypocrites’ psychology is composed of fear, doubt, disloyalty and inability to trust others. This causes failure to their conspiracies at some point, and this stops them from continuing their plots. God says about the fear of hypocrites: “they swear by God that they are indeed of you, but they are not of you, yet they are afraid to appear in their true colors. If they could find a place to flee to, or caves, or a place of concealment, they would turn straightway thereto, with an obstinate rush” 9/ 56- 57. - Hypocrites allied with the jews of (bani Al nudair) in order to win the battle with muslims, saying that they would go out with them if muslims won. Quran revealed the confidential alliance and predicted that hypocrites would not help jews: “if they are expelled, never will they go out with them, and if they are attacked in fight, they will never help them and if they do help them they will turn their backs , so they will receive no help. Of a truth ye are stronger than they because of the terror in their hearts, sent by God” 59/ 12- 13. Believers were stronger because of their faith in God and their application of His law, with the concept of (no compulsion in religion). God can grant victory believers today if they understand the truth of Islam, before it get lost by their immature ancestors . Third Chapter Freedom of Opinion in the Age of Caliphs Introduction: The tribe of Quraish dominated the Arabian Peninsula due to its custody of Kaaba and its visitors. This domination represented the insincere religious leadership that made use of political, economic, and tribal situations. Meantime, the invitation of Islam was considered a threat against the interests of Quraish. Arabic tribes built their idols around Kaaba under the custody of Quraish whose commercial caravans used to move secured twice a year, in winter and in summer. Islam called on people to get rid of idols. This invitation of Islam offended Quraish harshly as it was leading Arabs and preceding them in idols worshipping. Nevertheless, Islam embarrassed Quraish before Arabs and threatened its commercial and economic interests. Quraish believed that Muhammad came with the truth and guidance, yet it refused to confess Muhammad’s message as it was concerned to lose its prestige and interests. God says: “they say: if we were to follow the guidance with thee, we should be snatched away from our land” 28/ 57. Quraish knew that Muhammad was right but it feared the Arabs gathering. Quraysh thought that its salvation would come through fighting the new invitation and accusingMuhammad of being a liar. God says: “and you have made it your livelihood that ye should declare it false?” 56/ 82. Quraish exaggerated in its fight against Muhammad and caused him a great grieve. God says: “wrong number of verse”. The prophet was sad because of the lies and rumors Quraish spread about him and Quran. Yet, God Almighty told Muhammad that Quraish believed him but rejected to confess its belief in order not to lose its leadership. Trading with religion to get benefited was the main goal of the insincere religious leadership. Quraish believed that Muhammad came with the truth. However, Muhammad’s message represented a potential danger, especially that Islam prohibited the trade of religion and banned the inviter to Islam to get rewarded from people. God says: “obey those who ask no reward of you for themselves, and who have themselves received guidance” 36/ 21. All prophets assured their people that they did not want to be rewarded for their invitations, and that God- only –was the one who would reward them. This was mentioned in some verses narrated stories of the prophets. God says ordering Muhammad to say to his people: “ say: no reward do I ask of you for this Quran, nor am I a pretender” 38/ 86. God says: “says: no reward do I ask of you, it is all in your interest, my reward is only due from God” 34/ 47. And says: “unknown number”. It is a call for the truth, free of rewards and based on rational convince and freedom guaranteed for every one. Weak people responded to the invitation, yet arrogant ones refused it and led the shortest way of religious suppression because they got power but lacked pretexts. And so did Quraish at the time of Caliphs. History asserts that Quraish dominated Arabs and non-Arabs in the wake of the establishment of the Islamic state. All successors descended from families of Quraish, either banu Hashim, banu Omaya, banu Tamim, or banu Adey. However, the concept of insincere religious leadership of Quraish, which opposed Islam and oppressed Muslims in Mecca, appeared again in Umayyad Caliphate and grew even stronger in Abbasids Caliphate. That concept started to defend what Quraish used to defend of prestige, leadership and wealth at the time of Muhammad. This is the main aim of insincere religious leadership everywhere. For this aim, leadership suppresses the freedom of thought, which threatens its existence. Quraish oppressed the invitation of Islam to protect its interests. Caliphs followed this method and veiled their fight against truth with a religious cover to hide their greed. The image of Islam was deformed during the age of Abbassids, the successors of Quraish- the current deformed image of Islam opposes the Holy Quran, which is the only resource that God kept away from forging. Unfortunately, This fake deformed image is being strengthened by the existence of extremists and religious establishments leaders who defend the Abbasid method with which they cover their inability to clarify the real image of Islam. In this chapter, we will consider some hints of the suppression of freedom of opinion at the age of Caliphs who followed the methods of Quraish. The Prophets School versus the School of Quraish During the time of Muhammad, a school of his companions, who absorbed the principles of Islam and involved into jihad with word then with sword to defend human freedom and right to prevent suppression, was established. This school suffered, along with the prophet in Mecca, from different types of torture with patience. Then in Madina, many other people joined the school of Muhammad. They raised their weapons to defend themselves against the religious leadership of Quraish, which insisted on tracing and forcing them to turn back from their faith and give up Islam. God says: “nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can” 2/ 217. The top figures of Quraish who oppressed Muhammad’s school were from the families of (bani Ommaya) and (bani Makhzoum) that commanded the commercial interests of Quraish, and regarded them as the real religion that must be defended and followed. However, people of Quraish embraced Islam- after a long time of suppressing Muslims- when they felt that their interest compels them to accept the new religion. Abu Sofian and the rest of Bani Ommaya and Bani Makhzoum embraced Islam and tried to reserve their prestige under the new conditions, which they accepted eventually. And because the main principle of the prophet’s school, which established the edifice of Islam, was serving Islam for the sake of God with no greed for any worldly rewards, it allowed Umayyads who embraced Islam recently to command Muslims to invade new countries and to fight apostasy. Omar Bin Al Khattab was a soldier in a military campaign prepared by the prophet before his death. The commander of the campaign was a young man called Usama Bin Zaid Bin Haretha. The prophet died before the campaign moved, yet Caliph Abou Bakr insisted on sending the campaign of Usama. Abou Bakr asked Usama to allow Omar Bin Al Khatab to stay in Madina to help him. Omar did not reject to be a soldier commanded by a young man, who was younger than his sons and incomparable to him in any way. Omar agreed to be commanded by Usama because he belonged to the prophet’s school, which wanted to fight for God’s sake under any condition and without seeking any worldly reward. Umayyads, who led the commercial caravans of summer and winter, commanded the military campaigns once they embraced Islam because of their warlike skills and familiarity with the new invaded areas. Umayyads were more experienced and qualified for military leadership to invade and rule Syria, especially that they had strong ties with the tribe of “Kalb” which dominated Syria, owned Damascus and other main Syrian cities, and controlled their main commercial roads. Through cement ties, Syrian gates were opened widely for Islam. Mouaweya ruled Syria as Amro ruled Egypt by the end of Omar’s rein. Ties between Umayyads and Kalb were strengthened by the marriage of Mouaweya and Maysoun Bint Bohdol Al Kalby, the daughter of the tribal leader of Kalb, and the marriage of Othman Bin Affan and Na’ela Bint Al Frafesa Al Kalbeya. The succession of Othman fulfilled the biggest dream of Umayyads to rule Muslims. Umayyads could entirely control Othman through his secretary, Marawan Bin Al Hakam, who lived with him in Madina, and Mouaweya and Abdullah Bin Abil Sarh in Syria and Egypt. Othman’s policy was different form that of Abou Bakr and Omar, as the utilizing policy of Umayyads appeared again at the time of Othman. Ummayads started to get money including one fifth of the loots gained from the invasion of African countries. They distributed the loot on Marwan Bin Al Hakam, Abullah Bin Abi Sarh, Mouaweya and Amro. Nevertheless, people revolted against their policy, especially those who belonged to the prophet’s school. Yet Umayyads-at the time of Othman, defended them selves by suppressing the freedom of thought, which prevailed in the governments of the prophet, Abou Bakr and Omar. Umayyads hit Ammar Bin Yasser until his guts were ruptured, hit Bin Masoud until his ribs were broken, exiled Abazerr when he defended the rights of poor people, and expelled Abou Darda from Syria when he objected to Mouaweya. It is shameful that Ammar and Bin Masoud were offended by Bani Umayya twice: when both embraced Islam in Mecca, and during the caliphate of Othman. In both occasions, Umayyads were defending their profits and social and economic prestige, while Ammr and Bin Massoud were practicing their freedom of thought and expression of viewpoints. Abou Bakr and Omar who were keen to please God and protect Muslims wealth headed the prophet’s schools after his death. They were eager not to suppress the individual’s right of declaring his opinion. It can’t be said that Abou Bakr’s wars against apostasy represented a suppression of opinion. Apostasy was an armed movement organized by the remaining insincere religious leaders whose vanguards reached Madina. And the A’rabs who surrounded the Madina were the most dangerous elements. It ’t then a matter of freedom of thought as it was a matter of a state’s unity that guaranteed freedom of creed for everybody and aimed at reaching with the new society to horizons of internationality. This was fulfilled following the collapse of apostasy movement and the recruitment of most of apostates in the conquering armies. Some apostates were the bravest. Talha bin Khouayled Al Assady who proclaimed prophet-hood during the apostasy movement was the bravest Muslim knight in the battle of Kadesseya, in the conquering of Madayen, and in extinguishing the remaining activists of Kesra. He turned back to Islam and kept repenting for his sin of apostasy with his courage and nobility. It is worth saying that Omar bin Al Khattab preferred to hold truces with apostates than to exchange fire with them, but Abou Bakr insisted on facing them while most of Muslims in Madina agreed as the arrival of apostates campaigns to the gates of Madina supported Muslims stance. Abou Bakr, Ali, Ammar, and Ibn Massoud headed the prophet’s school, which passed through a hard exam after the death of Abou Bakr and Omar. Muslims moved to the conquered countries and got closer to Kesra’s fortunes and the utilities of Egypt, Syria and Iraq. During his Caliphate, Omar counted rulers’ deeds and seized the wealth of those he thought dishonest. Moreover, he prevented top companions to move to the conquered states in order not to stir political parties to be formed and gathered around them. He also banned soldiers to interact with the people of conquered nations in order to keep their toughness. Nevertheless, Othman had new policy and soft character that Umayyads could take advantage of. Justice was lost. Companions moved to conquered countries and became wealthy. And that caused the spread of greed and fanaticism because most of those who led the conquering wars were not belonging to Quraish. Competition for money was common even among some of the prophet’s companions like Al Zoubair Bin Al Awam and Talha Bin Oubaid Ellah. Umayyads were the wealthiest and the most powerful. Due to its alliance with the tribe of Kalb and the Yemeni tribe of Kahtan, Umayads rested to a huge army. They had nothing to do but to wait. So they waited until people demonstrated against Othman. They left him die, then took his shirt to avenge for his death from Ali, the new caliph. And Ali tried to get Muslims back to the golden atmosphere of the time of the prophet (pbuh), Abou Bakr and Omar but he could not. He was killed and succeeded by Mouaweya. Hence, the Umayyads caliphate started along with injustice based on Tyranny and sword as the prophet’s school was almost ended. Even Ali’s advocates turned into Shiets with hearts filled with principles that would be denied by Ali, his sons Al Hassan and Al Hussein, and Mohammad. Yet others turned to be against Ali and called (Khawaij) The Extent of Freedom of Thought During Mouaweya’s Caliphate Mouaweya reached authority through the death of other companions like Othman, Ali, Al Zoubair, Talha, and ten thousands of Muslims in battles of Al Gamal, Sefeen, and Al Nahrawan. After his selection, Mouaweya was not thirsty for more blood, but he wouldn’t allow any threat to his new power. So he continued his fight against Khawarij who raised their weapons against him. He tried to win his foes by money and good words. Moreover he overlooked his their insults as long as they were not offending him, his power or policy. Mouaweya’s policy was a mixture of toughness and softness. Yet he kept policy of softness for himself and left intensity for his followers and allies to face people’s anger then he to interfere to reconcile between them with his softness, forgiveness and apology. Concerning freedom of thought, the policy of Mouaweya was represented in his saying: “I do not stand between people and their tongues as long as they do no stand between me and my throne ”. That was said when his companions exclaimed of his patience with a man insulted him in public. Mouaywea laughed and did not punish the man. Mouaewya had so many similar stances in which his patience appeared with people offended him by words. Yet he was swift in taking decisions of killing and slaughter when freedom of thought threatened his authority. People were surprised when Mouaweya he killed Hagar Bin Adey Al Kanady as they thought that he would be patient with him. However Hagar Bin Adey voted for Mouaweya like the other Shiets did, yet he -with some of his companions in Koufa- kept their hostility to Mouaweya. They assembled councils at their homes in which they praised Ali Bin Abi Taleb and his stances, yet cursed Mouaweya. Zeyad Bin Abeeh was the ruler of Koufa. He was Shiet like Hagar Bin Adey. He converted to support and work with Mouaweya when the later gave him his family name, as Zeyad was an illegitimate son whose father was unknown. And his name officially became Zeyad Bin Abi Soufyan and he was devoted to Mouaweya. He saw a potential danger in the councils held by Hagar and his companions. He threatened them, but they gave no heed to his threats. Zeyad ordered his men to arrest Hagar and his companions, but they failed. And then, Zeyad addressed people of Koufa, threatened them and asked them to take away their brothers and sons, who gathered around Hagar. Then he captured Hagar who denied his dissent from Mouaweya. Yet Zeyad didn’t believe him and detained him with his 12 companions. He brought witnesses, who were 70 men from Koufa, to testify that Hagar demonstrated against Mouaweya, declared his opposition and gathered people to launch a war. Zeyad sent Hagar and his companions to Damascus with the testimony that could sentence them to death in Mouaweya’s law. Mouaweya sentenced 6 of them to death without investigating the case, while people asked for mercy for the rest who denied their devotion to Ali. Hagar’s death by this unfair accusation raised furious reactions. And with the different narrations of to which extent Mouawya knew the truth, we see that the death of Hagar and his companions fits Mouaweya’s saying “I don’t stand between people and their tongues as long as they don’t stand between me and my throne”. Mouaweya considered Hagar’s gathering with his companions a danger threatening his throne and ambition to make his sons succeed him after his death. So he needed to define decisive limits to control and tim of freedom of opinion in Muslims history, his death raised anger among people. Even Aysha Om El Moumeneen regretted Hagar’s death and said that he was a good Muslim who performed the duty of pilgrimage. People were saying: “the first servility entered Koufa: the death of Al Hassan Bin Ali, the death of Hagar and the succession of Zeyad”. Al Hassan Al Basry said: “Mouaweya committed four sins: he offended this nation when he conducted violence until he started to take decisions without counseling Mohammad’s disciples and honorable men, he appointed his drunkard son who used to wear silk and play music, he gave his name to Zeyad and finally he killed Hagar and his companions”. Even Hend Bent Zaid Bin Makhramma Al Ansareya recited a poem to commiserate Hagar’s death. Suppression of Thought After Mouaweya: (A) was walking in the road, a thief stole (A)’s money. (A) tried to protest, so the thief raised a knife. The thief seized (A)’s money then suppressed (A)’s right to protest and express his opinion. The suppression of opinion always comes as a result of suppressing other things. That’s how Mouaweya suppressed the freedom of opinion and limited it to the expression of anger that was followed by a satisfaction with the fait accompli. Then seized people’s right of choosing their governor by his attempt to impose his son as an heir to the throne. He had to use force. He killed Hagar Bin Adey and terrified Sheits. Then he headed to Madina, the first stronghold of Islam and the home of the rest of Mohammad’s companions and their sons. Historians say that Mouaweya threatened to kill them in case they protested against him. Moreover, he declared in public that they voted for his son Yazeed to succeed the caliphate. The earlier example is repeated, Mouaweya, who was characterized by patience, resorted to violence and threatened Al Hussein, Ibn Al Zoubair and Ibn Omar, and declared that they agreed to vote for Yazeed to succeed him. People could not protest, as they were afraid of his threat. The crime of forcing people to pledge to be devoted Yazeed represented the suppression of opinion. No one of Abou Bakr, Omar, or Ali suppressed people’s opinion because no one of them seized people’s rights or committed a crime or a mistake that acquired defense with suppressing the opponent opinion. We can consider Omar Bin Abdel Aziz a bright example of Umayyads Caliphate. He took the rein from 99 to 101 hijri. He wasn’t known of suppressing opinions because he turned back people’s rights and gave up his property to the treasury. Moreover, he seized the wealth his family gathered by force from Ummayads and returned it to the treasury. He sent Caliph Omar Bin Abdel Aziz to Khawarij, who were always protesting against Ummayads, to discuss the matter with them freely. The leader of Khawarij, Bastam Bin Morra Al Yashkary, sent a message to Omar saying: “I knew you came angry for the sake of God and His prophet. You are not prior to me to do that. Let’s debate to see who is right, if we are right you will get involved in what we do, and if you are right we will see what to do”. In the debate, Omar won the first round. Yet they embarrassed him in the second round when they raised the issue of who was going to succeed him. The former caliph, Soliman Bin Abdel Malek, asked Omar to change the pledge so that to appoint his cousin Yazeed Bin Abdel Malek a caliph. Khawarij told Omar: “You will allow Yazeed to succeed you while you know he doesn’t reserve peoples rights?” He said: “some one else appointed him”. They replied: “do you think what he did is right?” Omar cried and said: “give me three days to think about it”. This debate scared Banu Umauya as they were afraid that Omar Bin Abdel Aziz would isolate the crown prince, Yazeed Bin Abdel Malek. And three days after the debate, Omar was killed by poison. We are concerned here with the just caliph who did not suppress the right of Khawarij of declaring their opinion. Yet he debated with them in an atmosphere of freedom. He feared nothing, as he was just, he did not steal or kill or deprive any one from his right. So he did not need to suppress people’s opinion, while Mouaweya and other unfair leaders needed to do. Opening the door for monarchy was the most dangerous thing committed by Mouaweya. Yazeed Bin Mouaweya was the first one to inherit his father’s throne in Muslim’s history. And this couldn’t pass easily despite Mouaweay’s attempt to pave the way for his son. The three years of Yazeed’s rein witnessed three catastrophes: the death of Hussein, invasion of Madina, plundering its facilities and killing its people, and the surrounding and attacking Kaaba with fireballs. The impact of these incidents is still hurting the Muslim conscious until now. And damn those worldly aims for which sacred boundaries are violated. Yet Umayyads reached the end of the way after the death of Al Hussein, the death of Al Ansar, the invasion of Madina and the violation of the sanctity of the sacred mosque. So there were no more boundaries to transgress and Mouaweya’s policy of truces and bets was ended and replaced by overt violence. These three catastrophes caused to transfer the rein from Mouaweya’s successors to Marawan’s successors. Mouaweya Bin Yazeed Bin Mouaweya gave up the throne so Bin Al Zoubair made use of Muslim’s anger about the mistakes committed by Umayyads and declared himself a caliph in Hijaz. He adjoined Iraq, Egypt and a big part of Syria including Damascus to his string, with the help of the tribe of Kayess Al Madareya which found it a good chance to avenge from the tribe of Kalb, the top allied of Umayyads. However, Umayyads reunited in the conference of Al Habeya and chose Marwan Bin Al Hakam to take the charge of the government. Bin Al Hakam headed to Marg Rahet where he defeated the tribe of Kayess and its leader, Al Dahak Bin Kayess Al Fehry, the top scholar of Bin Al Zobair. Marawan won back Syria then Iraq. He killed Mousab Bin Al Zobair and won back Egypt from Abdullah Bin Johdom Al Fahry, the scholar of Bin Al Zobair. Then he sent Hagag Bin Youssef to Mecca to defeat Bin Al Zobair and crucify him. As a result, everything turned back to Umayyads while Abdel Malek Bin Marawan took the charge of the government with no rival in the scene in (65- 86) Hijri. Abdel Malek expressed his point of view about the freedom of opinion freely and clearly. And he declared it in Medina where the prophet’s school lived, convened and allowed everyone to express his viewpoint. People said to Omar Bin Al Khattab: “fear God” and he replied: “you wouldn’t be good if you wouldn’t say this, and I wouldn’t be good if I didn’t fulfill it”. People also said to Omar: “if you were not straightforward we would straighten you”. Abdel Malek headed to Jijaz for pilgrimage in 75 hijri. He delivered a speech in Medina after the death of Ibn El Zobair. He said to the sons of Muhajereen and Anssar: “I am not the weak caliph Othman, nor the hypocrite Mouaweya, but I heal the wounds of this nation by sword until you seem straight for me, I swear by God that I will behead whoever asks me to fear God”. God says describing this type of people: “when it is said to him (fear God) he is led by arrogance to more crime. Enough for him is hell, an evil bed indeed to lie on”. 2/ 206. Some people liked to ask their caliph to “fear God” in order to remind him with truth and justice. The caliph’s answer used to refer to his real inner feeling. Either He would fear God or led by arrogance. It seems that Abdel Malek experienced this, so he threatened to kill anyone who asked him to fear God. Haggag Bin Youssef was the most prominent governor of Abdel Malek. He took the charge of Hijaz in the wake of the defeat of Al Zobair Bin AL Awam. He ruled Hijaz from 73 – 75 hijri. Yet he underestimated other companions and ordered some of them to pay taxes like the people of other religions who used to pay taxes for living with Muslims side by side. Gaber Bin Abdullah, Anass Bin Malek and Sahl Bin Sa’ad were among them. Haggag Bin Youssef, who died in 95 hijri by the end of the rein of Al Waleed Bin Abdel Malek, moved to Iraq and beheaded those who protested against him. He killed 120,000, while 50,000 men and 30,000 women died in prison. 33,000, who were found alive, neither committed a crime nor deserved death or crucifixion. Men and women were jailed together in bare cells. And death was a salvation for them from suffering in prison. Haggag’s blood thirst caused him to be granted a special rank in the Umayyad’s history. That was reflected on the actions of intellectuals who saw Haggag suppressing the prophet’s companions and underestimating them without pettiness. Fearing Haggag’s terrorism, opinions were kept in hearts. We can take what Bin Sa’ad said as an example. He said in Al Tabakat Al Koubra that the mullah of Koufa, Ibrahim Al Nakhey lived his life scared of Haggag until he died few months after the death of Haggag in 96 hijri. Haggag sent a policeman to arrest Ibrahim Al Nakhey when his companion Ibrahim Al Taimey was with him at his home. The policeman asked for Ibrahim. So Ibrahim Al Taimey pretended to be Ibrahim Al Nakhey and went with the policeman to Haggag who arrested him. Ibn Sa’ad said: “there was no ceiling to protect from the sun, nor a corner to hide in from cold. Each two were shackled by one chain”. Ibrahim’s feature changed so that when his mother went to him in prison, she couldn’t recognize him until he talked to her. And he stayed at prison until he died. This accident had a horrible impact on Ibrahim Al Nalkhey’s behavior. He was dominated by fear of Haggag. And he resorted to the home of his friend Abi Mashar fearing Haggag’s terrorism. In his secret meetings with his companions, Ibrahim Al Nakhey cursed Haggag believing that cursing him was lawful. And sometimes he felt courageous to insult Haggag. Yet he was careful before strangers thinking that they were agents of Haggag. His companion said to him: “you go to the mosque to find policemen sitting beside you”. Ibrahim replied saying: “sitting beside a policeman in mosque is better than being isolated from people and slandered”. He feared isolation. He was afraid also to declare his real opinions, so he criticized Mourjea in public. He said to some shiets: your words cause pain to our backs, so don’t sit with us if you sit with your words”. Ibrahim couldn’t get rid of Haggag’s phantom until his friend Hammad told him that Haggag died. Hammad said: “I told Ibrahim that Haggag died. Ibrahim kneeled and cried out of happiness. And I never saw a man crying out of happiness until I saw Ibrahim doing”. Nevertheless, Umayyads terrorism continued after the death of Haggag because it was a policy of a state rather than a policy of a blood thirsty governor. That was proved when Ibrahim’s companions had to bury his body at night because they were afraid, in spite of the fact that he died a few months after the death of Haggag. The first step of the tyranny is the pretend of being religious. Even if the high-handed is of the Ummayad type which leans to realism and commercial deals and gives no much attention to religion. Ummayads, except Omar Bin Abdel Aziz and Soliman Bin Abdel Malek, were known of delaying prayers and that showed that they were not committed to religious rites. Violating the Sacred House (ka’aba), and murdering the prophet’s companions and the posterity of Fatema, the prophet’s daughter, show that Ummayads’ real religion referred to their eagerness to keep the throne in any way. In spite of that, Ummayads had to pretend to be religious in order to justify their policy and its aftermath of catastrophes that shocked Muslims conscious. We can pinpoint two trends of the Umayyads religious insincerity: fatalism, and religious tales and hadith. First: Fatalism The oppressive governor finds a way out and a justification for his injustice by attributing incidents to God’s will and says that God dedicates him to do what he does. Qurayish said the same to justify its infidelity. God says: “the worshippers of false gods say: if God had so willed, we should not have worshipped aught but him- neither we nor our fathers- nor should we have prescribed prohibitions other than His. So did those who went before them, but what is the mission of apostles but to preach the clear message?’ 16/ 35. The luxurious powerful Ummayyads were those who relied on God’s will to justify their mistakes in order to keep their positions and prestige - which was threatened by Islam. God says: “Ah! They say: if it had been the will of God most gracious, we should dot have worshipped such deities! Of that they have no knowledge! They do nothing but lie. What! Have we given them a book before this, to which they are holding fast? Nay! They say: we found our fathers following a certain religion, and we do guide ourselves by their footsteps. Just in the same way, whenever we sent a warner before thee to any people, the wealthy ones among them said: we found our fathers following a certain religion and we will certainly follow in their footsteps.” 43/ 20 - 23. Throughout ages, luxurious people are those who fear new trends of reformation and call for the imitation and adherence to prevailed situations. They always justify the continuity of injustice and misdeeds with God’s will. That’s what Ummayyads did before embracing Islam, and after their friction with Islam and Muslims during their Caliphate. When Ummayads murdered Ali and his family, violated the sanctity of Madina and killed its people, and invaded Mecca and violated its sacred house, they had no choice but to go on in their way until they reached the bottom of the abyss. They needed a religious justification to face the Islamic world and their enemies of Sheits, Khawarij and Mawali. And it was easy to rely on God’s will as ever before. They said that God wanted Ali and his family to be killed in Karblaa, as He wanted Madina and the sacred house to be violated. They suggested that any objection to those incidents meant an objection to God’s will. They said also that nothing happened out of God’s will and fate, and claimed that who denied this fact would be considered to be a renegade who deserved death. The resistance of the religious insincerity of Umayyads started early. Yet we know little about this resistance and its results which affected Islamic and Ummayyads history. Resistance was represented in Amro Al Maqsous who was the teacher of Mouaweya Bin Yazid Bin Mouaweya and who had a great impact on him. He let him feel guilty for the death of Hussien and the violation of Madina and Ka’aba. The concept of free will was totally absorbed by Mouaywea when he succeeded his father, as he rejected the Umayyads concept of fatalism and the attribution of incidents to God’s will. The new caliph Mouaweya Bin Yazeed counseled his teacher about the caliphate. Amro Al Maqsous said: either to be fair or to resign. So Mouaweya delivered a speech in which he declared his responsibility of his ancestors’ deeds and his belief in individual freedom. He said: “we are cursed by you and you are cursed by us. I don’t want to meet God with sins. And you can select who you want to rule you.” Then he lived in a solitude life until he died 40 days after he took the charge. It was said that he was killed by poison. Banu Ummaya attacked Amro Al Maqsous. Yet before they buried him alive they said: “you are the one who corrupted and taught him”. That was the horrible end of Amro Al Maqsous who called for free will against the religious insincerity of Umayyads. This end affected another famous figure, Al Hassan Al Basry, who believed in free will but denied it when Umayyads forced him to do. Hassan Al Basry (22- 110 hijri) was the scholar of Basra. And he could recognize the moral corruption in Basra that was caused by the concept of fatalism and the attribution of incidents to God’s will. Lascivious people justified their deeds by God’s will and fatalism. Hassan Al Basry declared that man was responsible for his deeds and warned from attributing evil to God Almighty, God says: “if ye reject God, truly God hath no need of you, but He liketh not ingratitude from His servants, if ye are grateful, He is pleased with you” 39/ 7. While Hassan Al Basry was reluctant to resist the Umayyads concept of fatalism, Mabad Bin Khaled Al Ghehney raised declaring his rejection to the religious insincerity of Umayyads and said: “there is no fate, and Umayyads do everything by force”. Ummayads claimed that their sins and misdeeds were committed because of God’s will and destiny. So Mabad declared that fate didn’t interfere to force people to commit their sins and that Umayyads approached compulsion. He added that Umayyads seized Muslims’ rights and settled their matters against their will. Mabad moved to Basra and met Al Hassan Al Basry. He said to him: “Aba Said: those kings shed believers blood and take their money and say that these actions are taken because of God’s will”. Al Hassan Al Basry said: “the enemies of God lie”. To prove his belief in free will, Mabad took part in the demonstration against Umayyads. He rioted with Muhammad Al Ashath. Yet their demonstration was extinguished and Mabad was driven into the prison of Al Haggag. Mabad was taken shackled to Haggag who said -intending to tell Mabad that God’s will assigned him to be jailed: “How do you feel about God’s fate?” Mabad said that God’s will had nothing to do with his prison, and he wouldn’t put himself in jail if Haggag released him. Haggag said: “don’t you think thyou are here in prison because of destiny?” Mabad replied: “I am detained by no one but you. So release me”. Mabad insisted on his opinion before the cruelty of Haggag who ordered to torture him until he died in 80 hijri. Mabad’s influence reached other parts of Islamic ts and wealth to public treasury. It was said also that Ghaylan stood in the market of Damascus to sell Ummayyads’ belongings saying: “come to the stuff of the betrayals. Come to the stuff of the unjust. Come to the stuff of who succeeded the prophet in his charge but not in his methods”. Hesham Bin Abdel Mmalek went angry when he passed by the market, and swore to cut Ghaylan’s hands and legs when he takes the charge of the country. When Hesham took the rein, Ghaleyan and his companion, Saleh, fled to Arminya and called people to demonstrate against Hesham and his injustice. Umayyads aides arrested Ghaleyan and took him to Hesham who said: “you claimed that what we get in life is not destined by God”. At the end of discussion, Hashem sentenced him to prison. Yet Ghalyan was eloquent and had many allies. So he used his aids to deliver his messages from prison to people. Hesham conspired with a Syrian scholar to kill Ghalyan. And after a debate was run between Ghalyan and the scholar, an order was issued to torture and kill Ghaylan and his companion. Hesham ordered to get them out of prison and cut their legs and hands. Hesham asked Ghalyan intending to tell him that God’s will was responsible for what happened to him: “what do you think about what God did to you?” Ghalyan said: “God damns who did this to me”. He meant that Hashem was responsible. People sympathized with Ghalyan who advised them and attacked Ummayyads. It was said to Hesham: “you cut Ghalyan’s hands and legs. But his tongue stirred people’s tears and drove their attention to what they were mindless about”. He sent his allies to cut his tongue. And when they asked him to get his tongue out, he refused. Then he died when they broke his jaws and got out his tongue and cut it. Ghaylan’s doctrine concept of freedom, demonstration against ignorance, and suppression of fatalism prevailed and represented a danger that required authorities to launch a campaign against Ghalyan and his doctrine. Kadareya turned into a charge that equaled infidelity and insubordination. And those who were accused of Kadareya called unjust, coward and irreligious. These conditions continued until the ages of Abbassyd and Mamlouk as injustice prevailed and incidents were attributed to God’s will. In the fourth century, Al Malty criticized the doctrine of Kadareya and narrated myths indicated that Ghaylan changed his mind when defeated by the pretext of Omar Bin Abdel Aziz. It was said that the prophet’s companions like Ibn Masoud, Ibn Abbas and Omar denied the doctrine. Moreover, it was claimed that the prophet attacked Ghalyan and Kadareya in some of his Hadith. Some were narrated by Ibn Abbass saying: “two types of my people have no share of Islam: Morje’a and Kadareya. And said: “God and all prophets curse six: who exaggerates God’s Book, who disbelieves in fate, etc…”. Abou Hurairah narrated another hadith saying: “God damns the people of Kadar who deny a fate and disbelieve in another”. And another one narrated by Obada Bin Al Samet saying: “my nation will have two men, one given wisdom by God and another is Ghaylan whose bad influence on this nation is worse than the devil’s.” That was a weird hadith, which criticized Ghalyan and praised the Jewish, Wahb Bin Monbeh, who was the source of fake hadith and interpretation of Quran. This reflects the idea that had prevailed since the Umayyads age until the age of Abu Al Hussien Al Malty, who wrote (Al Tanbeeh Wal Radd) and died in 377 hijri. The very same idea dominated people’s minds until the age of Mamlouks because injustice was strengthened and there was more need for fatalism. Narrators worked on creating new hadith accusing their enemies and slandering Kadareya. Despite his modesty, Al Zahaby was influenced by that campaign which continued for centuries. He was the first to talk about Kadar (fate). Then Haggag killed him because he accompanied Ibn Al Ashath. Al Zahaby said about Ghaylan: “he was killed because of Kadar. He was poor and lost, and Yakoub Bin Otba talked about him. Ghaylan Bin Muslim was one of the most eloquent people”. Makhoul was the mullah of Damascus but he followed the doctrine of Ghalyan. Yet Al Zahaby who followed the doctrine of Bin Hanbal said that Makhoul was a forger and he was cursed by Kadar”. Al Zahaby died during the age of Mamlouk in 718 hijri. Stories narration at the time of the prophet’s successors had the meaning of preach, which was the same meaning of stories narration in Quran. God says: “O ye children of Adam! Whenever there come to you apostles from amongst you, rehearsing my signs unto you, those who are righteous and mend their lives on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve” 7/ 35. Recollection of incidents was one of the narrator’s tools. Ibn Sa’ad said that Aswad Bin Saree, the first narrator who rehearsed stories in mosques, used to remind people with incidents in the back area of the mosque. Al Aswad was a companion of the prophet as he took part in four battles with him. Obaid Bin Omair was the first to narrate stories in the time of Omar Bin Al Khattab. Aysha asked Obaid to soften his preach. As Bin Omar cried when he listened Obaid Bin Omair. In Basra, Al Hassan Al Basry continued narration as a means of preach. It was said that Ali Bin Abi Taleb dismissed the mosques narrator except Al Hassan Al Basry who was honest in his stories. However, during the caliphate of Ummayads, narration transferred into an official action to serve the government, propagate for it and attack its enemies. The position of narrator was parallel to the position of judge, and one man could perform both. It was said that Soliman Bin Etr Al Taheebty was the first one who narrated stories in Egypt. He performed narration and judgment in the ancient mosque in the city of Festat. During his rein, Abdelmalek Bin Marawan’s brother, Abdel Aziz, was the governor of Egypt who assigned Oqba Bin Muslim to both narration and judgment. In the age of Abbassyds, Alaa Bin Kasim and Hawlaty took the charge of narration in 182 hijri. When Ma’moun was a caliph, the salary of the narrator, Abo Rajab Al Alaa, was 10 Dinars. Abou Rajab Al Alaa led the prayer of Imam Shafey, one of the top scholars of Islam, when he went to Egypt, and that resembled how narration was regarded as an official religious rank since Mouaweya has created it. Narrators used to sit in the mosque surrounded by people whose minds were totally influenced by tales, stories and legends. Meanwhile, the narrator praised the ruler and his train and criticized his enemies. Because people were fascinated with weird stories, narration included many legends and fables. Wahb Bin Monbeh and Kaab Al Ahbar were the source of myths. They were Jews who converted to Islam and influenced many Muslim intellectuals. However, more suspense included in the story attracted more fans and more people to believe in what the narrator said and called for, moreover, it pleased and satisfied the ruler. Religious fables and political calls were tied together. The religious myths narrated during the Ummayads caliphate were spread specially that narrators were those who accompanied and followed the prophet but worked for the Umayyads state. The most prominent of them was Abu Huraira the most known narrator of the prophet’s hadith and the most notable ally of Ummayads. Thabet Bin Al Ahnaf was asked: “when did you listeto Abu Huraira?” “On Friday before prayer, Abu Huraira used to come to talk to people” he said. Soliman Abu Abdullah was one of Abu Huraira’s students in stories narration and hadith. Ibn Saad said: “Soliman was a narrator who narrated what Ibn Abbas Al Haidary and Abu Huraira said”. Abu Huraira accompanied Kaab Al Ahbar and transferred many of his fake tales which were investigated by Mahmoud Abou Raya in his (Adwaa Ala Al Sunna Al Mouhamadeya) and (Shaikh Al Madeera). And narration continued to spread legends in the age of Abassyds. Yet their impact was reduced as sometimes audience made fun of them. Ibn Al Jawzy said that a narrator said: “a man would be buried drunk and resurrected drunk if he died drunk”. So one of the audience said: “that is a fine wine!”. Ibn Al Jawzy said also that a narrator said: “there is an angel in the heavens says everyday get prepared to death and build to destroy” and one of the audience said: “that angel is Abou Al Atahey”. When he took the charge of the country in 279, Al Moutad, ordered to stop narrators and fortune tellers to sit in roads. That means that narrators used to sit in roads in addition to mosques. Mr. Ahmed Amin says that narration accessed many myths of other nations like Jewish and Christian to Islam. It also deformed hadith and spoiled history because of the many fake stories and incidents that exhausted critics and extinguished the truth. Narration spoiled history because it represented a media front of the Umayyad state. Narration had a great impact on the publicity of the state. Cursing Ali and his sons became a religious rite. And even after the downfall of the Umayyad state, the city of Haran stayed stuck to the curse of Ali Bin Abi Taleb for a year. It was said: “no prayer accepted without cursing Ali Bin Abi Taleb”. Umayyad narration let people of Syria believe that Ali Bin Abi Taleb seized Mouaweya’s right, and that Mouaweya was the prophet’s cousin and his son in law and the one who deserved to succeed him. That was why people devoted their service to Umayyads. And believed in the Abbassyd age and waited for the appearance of Al Soufyany as a sign of guidance and salvation. Some fellowmen, especially from Madina, rejected narration when it turned into a weapon used to promote for the Umayyad state. Salem Bin Abdullah Bin Omar Bin Al Khattab never listened to a narrator. Koufa was the center of opposition during the age of Umayyads. Abou Abdel Rahman Al Salmy was one of those who narrated what Ali and Abdullah Bin Masoud said. And he said to his companions: “don’t sit with a narrator”. Some of the protestors against Umayyads worked in narration like Ibrahim Al Taymy whose father dismissed him when he worked in narration. Some narrators like Ibn Al Kareya and Zar Bin Abullah Al Hamdany, who was the most eloquent narrator and one of the top Morje’a, joint the demonstration of Ibn Al Ashath against Umayyads. As suggested by Mr. Ahmed Amin, narration inserted many fake stories and fables into hadith, Quran’s interpretation, and history. Ibn Taymeya wrote (Ahadith Al Kassas) in which he criticized fake hadith. In spite of that, many fake hadith are still attributed to the prophet in the books of sacred hadith. And they are affecting youth’s minds until now. They take them back to barbarism and superstition especially that the scholars who should reveal the truth of Islam, defend these superstitions instead of criticizing them. This means that we pay the price of the religious insincerity of Umayyads who used narration for a political cause and used fake hadith that were attributed to the prophet. Abu Huraira was an agent of Umayyads in fields of narration and hadith. Abu Huraira still has a special rank in the hearts of Muslims, just as the fables created by Umayyad narrators and attributed to the prophet (pbuh) and became a sunna that must be defended by souls. We pinpoint the following realities that are derived from heritage books in order to discuss this sensitive case. The prophet (pbuh) said: “don’t write about me anything but what was mentioned in Quran and who did should erase what he wrote”. Narrated by Ahmed Muslim, Aldramy, Altermezy and Al Nesaey. In his memorandum Al Hefaz, Al Zahaby said that Abou Bakr forbiddened the narration of hadith attributed to the prophet (pbuh). He said to people: “you narrate hadith you dispute upon, and your successors will be more disputable. So don’t narrate his hadith, and tell those who asks you that God’s Book is the judge which clarifies the lawful and the unlawful”. Hafez Al Maghreb Bin Abdullah Abdeul Bar and Al Behieky said that Omar Bin Al Kattab said: “I wanted to register the prophet’s sunna, but I found people focus on them and forget God’s book. And God’s book shouldn’t be contaminated”. In his book (Jame’a Bayan Al Elm Wa Fadleh Fadlan Kamelan) under the tiltle of (Bab Zekr Karaheyat Al Elm Wa Takhleedah Fil Souhouf), Al Kortoby said that the prophet said: “don’t attribute anything to me but what was mentioned in Quran”. He added that Zaid Bin Thabet said to Mouaweya that the prophet (pbuh) ordered people not to write down any of hid hadith. Al Kortoby said also that there were various narration that asserted that Omar, Abi Saad Al Khadry, and Ibn Massoud rejected to write down the prophet’s hadith. Ibn Saad, the prophet’s closest companion, didn’t narrate any of the prophet’s hadith. It was said to Al Zoubair Bin Al Awam: “why don’t we hear you narrating the prophet’s hadith as others do?” he said: “I heard the prophet saying that who narrates a false hadith and attributes it to the prophet will be burnt in Hell”. In his way from Madina to Mecca, Saad Bin Abi Wakkass didn’t say any of the prophet’s hadith. When he turned back, people asked him a question but he didn’t answer and said: “I am afraid you would augment 100 words to mine”. Ibn Massoud was the prophet’s servant and companion. And Abou Moussa Al Ashary thought that Ibn Massoud was a relative of the prophet for his long stay with him. In spite of that, Ibn Massoud used to get confused and sweat when he narrated- in a very few occasions- a hadith of the prophet (pbuh). In (Ta’weel Mokhtalaf Al Hadith), Ibn Kotaibeya said that the prophet’s top companions like Abou Bakr, Al Zoubair, Abou Oubaida Bin Al Jarrah, and Al Abbass Bin Abdel Moteleb were the lesser people who narrated his hadith. Nevertheless, some of his companions, like Said Bin Zaid Bin Amro who was one of those who promised by heavens, never narrated any of the prophet’s hadith. Abou Hurairah was the lesser one who accompanied the prophet. He accompanied the prophet for 21months only. That was verified by Sheikh Abou Rayea in his book (Sheihk Al Modeera). Abou Hurairah narrated 5374 hadith, 446 of which were re-narrated by Bokhary. Top companions like Omar, Othman, Ali, Aysha and many others accused him of being a liar. Aysah said to Abou Hurairah: “you narrate a hadith you never heard form the prophet”. Yet he answered impolitely: “you were away from him busy with your mirror and hyacinth”. Abou Hurairah wouldn’t be that bold until he derived power from Umayyads. Abou Hurairah started to narrat the prophet’s hadith during the caliphate of Omar who threatened him saying: “quit narration or else I will exile you to your homeland”. Omar threatened also Ka’ab Al Ahbar, the Jewish who embraced Islam and accompanied Abou Hurairah, to stop narration or to move him to the land of monkeys, he meant Israel. It was said that Omar did hit Abou Hurairah. Some tales said that Abou Hurairah was asked: “were you narrating the prophet’s hadith at the time of Omar?” and he said: “he would hit me if I did”. it was said also that Abou Hurairah wouldn’t be able to narrate until Omar died. Omar used to ask people to work on Quran, God’s words. In Al Manar, Sheikh Rasheed Reda said: “those many hadith wouldn’t reach us if Abou Hurairah died before Omar”. Abou Hurairah lived a long life until he recognized the Umayyad Caliphate. He allied with Umayyads. Mouaweya appointed Asharban Atart’a to take that charge of Hijaz when Mouawya seized it from Ali. Ashaban in turn assigned Abou Hurairah as a governor of Hijaz. Duthe rein of Mouaweya, Marawan Bin Al Hakam was the governor of Madina and he was always accompanied and deputed by Abou Hurairah. Umayyads increased his wealth, built him a palace in Aquiq and got him married to Basra Bent Ghazwan, the sister of Prince Otba Bin Ghazwan. Abou Hurairah confessed in one of his hadith that narrated by Al Boukhary that he was her servant. In return, Abou Hurairah served Umayyads and spread hadith that slandered Ali’ advocates and praised Mouaweya. Those hadith were a promotional material of Umayyads and they dug their way to the books of the prophet’s hadith. Abou Hurairah died in 59 hijri in his palace in Aquiq. His body was carried to Madina and prayed upon by Al Walid Bin Ottba Bin Abi Sofian, who was then the prince of Madina. Walid wrote a letter of condolence to his uncle, Mouaweya who sent him back a letter saying: “pay to his inheritors 10 thousand Derhams and do well with them”. Umayyads created Abou Hurairah who resembled a heritage of the religious insincerity of Umayyads. However Umayyads power had gone with the wind, yet Abou Hurairah is still part of Muslims beliefs. The religious insincerity of Umayyads turned Abou Hurairah from an unknown companion who embraced Islam after the battle of Khaibar and accompanied the prophet to fill his stomach with food, as he himself confessed, into the most known companion and the best narrator. Abou Hurairah represented the horn that publicized Umayyad caliphate and spread hadith for their benefit. Those hadith kept moving verbally from one to another until the age of Abbassids, which was known of registration. Some of those hadith were registered despite that the Abbassids were keen to deform the Umayyads reputation after the fall of their state. Yet the enormous hadith narrated by Abou Hurairah about Umayyads graces were registered in some way during the Abbassid age. Yet what the censorship of Abbassid religious insincerity hidden was more than what it registered. Hints of Abou Hurairah’s hadith on Umayyads: Ibn Asaker, Ibn Adey And Al Khateeb Al Baghdady said the Abu Hurairah said: “I heard the prophet (pbuh) saying that God trusts three to deliver his inspiration to Muhammad: I, Jibril and Mouaweya”. In another narration he said: “the three trustees are: Jibril, Mouaweya and I.” Al Khate Mouaweya. When he saw that many people came to receive him, he kneeled down and hit his bold head many times and said: “people of Iraq! You claim that I lie to God and His prophet and burn my self with hell? I swear to God that I heard the prophet (pbuh) saying that every prophet has his own asylum. Medina is mine and the curse of God and angles is upon who ever innovate anything, and I swear that Ali did”. Mouaweya rewarded Abou Hurairah for this hadith and appointed him to take the charge of Madina. Umayyads relied on fatalism in order to justify their political crimes and punish protestors whom they accused of fidelity on grounds they rejected God’s will. Moreover, they used the weapon of publicity and promotion through narration of stories and hadith to dominate people of Syria and their allies until they believed that Mouaweay was the right owner and Ali was the rapper who deserved to be cursed in each prayer. This policy continued to be forming the beliefs of Syrians even after the fall of the Umayyad state. It appears that Umayyads used fatalism with their foes and stories and hadith with their supporters. Using religion to achieve political and worldly goals is the mere definition of religious insincerity. Nevertheless, there is no freedom of opinion as long as there is a religious insincerity. Abbassid Religious Insincerity Abbassids allied with Persians to overthrow the Umayyad state. Abou Mouslim Al Khorasany was the Persian commander who established the Abbassid Caliphate. Persians wanted to have a share of the state for the effort they exerted in establishing it. Yet Abbassids did not allow them to fulfill their dream of gaining power in their state. Abu Jaffar Al Manssour murdered Abu Muslim Al Kourasany in 137 hijri as Persians wanted to regain their old glory and religion through the Abbassid Caliphate. Muslim Al Khourasany’s followers were shocked when he died. And they demonstrated against Abbassids to avenge for him. Synaz led Muslim Al Khourasany’s followers and seized his treasury. Yet Abbassids defeated him and killed 60 thousands of his men. Al Tabary said that Synaz was a Magian. It is noticed that some Persians were being hasty in using the Abbassid caliphat to revive their religion of Muzdok even before the establishment of the state. This suggests the deep religious motives that pushed Persians to ally with Abbassids against Umayyads. Al Makdassy said that Ammar Bin Badil who was Magian cheated Bakeer Bin Mahan the top Abbassid mullah in Iraq. Bakeer Bin Mahan sent Ammar Bin Badil to Khorasan where he changed his name into Kasem Faresy and started a missionary inviting Persian Muslims to embrace Mozdokism. Al Makdasy said: “he faked the wrong to appear right and allowed men to share their fellows in their women”. Yet at the end, he was killed by Abbassids. After the loss of their hope and the establishment of the Abbassid state, Persians demonstrated against the Abbassid state with a Mazdokism inclination. During his life, Abou Muslim prevented his followers to show their Mazdokism. Yet after his death, they called themselves (Abou Muslemeya) and protested against the Abbassid state. Moreover they proclaimed the divinity of him and his daughter Fatema, and said that one of his successors would size the whole earth. Astades, a Mozdok Mugian who proclaimed his prophet-hood, led another revolution against Abbassids. Yet Al Mansour sent his troops, which defeated and killed him. Persian military campaigns and religious upheavals exhausted the Abbassid state. The most notable revolution was the one launched by Al Khorasany Al Mokana’a who proclaimed his divinity and allowed men to share other’s women and money. He exhausted the Abbassid state until he was killed. Persians raised other revolutions at the time of Harwoon Al Rashid and his sons. One of these revolutions was raised by Babek Al Kharmy who was on the verge of demolishing the Abbassid state. Persians were divided into two parts during their wars against the Abbassid State. One waged the war and declared its Madokism beliefs and owned all factors that enabled it to revolutionize. The other lived in Baghdad in caliphate palaces canting and conspiring against the government. While Abbassids fought the first part with military troops outside, they killed their enemies’ agents inside. And because Persians were accused of infidelity and looseness, Abbassid insincere religious leaders legislated novel punishments hem in Islamic Law despite its opposition to Quran. Their punishment embraced renegades and those who didn’t perform prayers. Those leaders expanded their punishments of slaughter to include whomever they considered a threat to the security of the state. While Abu Jaffar Al Mansour involved in his wars against Persian protestors, his son, Al Mahdy, was involved in his wars against protestors in Baghdad. His successors followed his approach and entitled themselves with religious names like (Al Mahdy, Al Hady, Al Rasheed, and Al Moutasem). Carrying fake religious slogans, they killed their foes due to new codes they added to Islamic Law and called the prophet’s Sunna. Al Makdassy said about Al Mahdy: “protestors appeared during his rein and he killed some of them”. And he said about Al Hady the son of Al Mahdy: “Al Hady traced protestors and killed them in savage wa”. Al Makdassy said about the calamity of (Al Barameka) that was caused by Al Rasheed: “they disputed about the real reason that led him to do that, some people said they wanted to reveal their disbelief and spoil the government”. Persians were accused of disbelief despite their high rank in the Abbassid State. However the Umayyad Caliph killed his foes and relied on fatalism to justify his misdeed, yet the Abbassid Caliph hold the banner of religion to kill his enemy. And when the abbassid caliph found nothing to support him in Quranm, he recruited scholars to narrate new hadith, included punishment of death against his enemies and attribute them to the prophet. The Abbassid Caliph used those hadith as a pretext to kill his enemies keeping his religious title of Mahdy, Hady or Rasheed without giving any one a chance to practice his freedom of opinion. The Abbassid religious insincerity wasn’t limited to the suppression of religious and political opinion. Yet it was extended to include scientific research and intellectual teachings. Many people sought to get closer to Abbassid Caliphs through the invention of new narrations, interpretations and laws and attributed them to Ibn Abbass the higher grandfather of Abbassid caliphs. Those innovations acquired a kind of sanctuary and its discussion was agitating caliphs’ anger. The suppression of intellectual and scientific opinion was highly focused when Al Mamoun tried to impose his own point of view concerning the issue of interpreting Quran. And despite his open-mindedness and patience, Al Mamoun couldn’t resist the Abbassid influence. He tortured Ibn Hanbal and killed Ahmad Bin Nasr Al Kozaey when they rejected his opinions. The story began in the month of Rabee Al Awal, 218 hijri, when Al Mamoun issued a publication in which he ordered Islamic lawyers to embrace a creed that said that Quran was created by God after He created the universe and threatened whoever rejected that. The flood of orders and threats caused some scholars like Ibn Saad, Abou Muslim, Yazeed Bin Harwoon, Yehia Ibn Maeen and Abou Khothayma to submit. When they were released, Al Mamoun ordered to arrest other scholars included Ibn Hanbal to force them to agree on that Quran was created after the Universe. They all agreed except Ibn Hanbal and another three. Two of them retreated while Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Nouh kept insisting on refusing the idea that Quran was created after the Universe. Before his death, Al Mamoun charged his successor with the investigation of the case. Ibn Hnbal was tortured for a long time. Then and died out of pain when he released. In 231 hijri, after a harsh debate on the issue of the creation of Quran, Caliph Al Watheq killed the Islamic lawyer, Ahmad Bin Hanbal Bin Nasr Al Khouzaey. The caliph carried his sword and said to people who were surrounding him: “I will kill this disbeliever in order to get closer to God”. Then he beheaded him and ordered his men to crucify him. Yet later, this foolish caliph changed his mind and Ahmad Bin Nasr was unfairly killed. Abbassid Caliphs were engaged with religious insincerity that developed into beliefs in the divinity of the caliph. Fake hadith multiplied in order to convince people and also caliphs with this idea. And Al Mamoun and his successors went angry when Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Nasr had different opinions. Elements of Abbassid religious insincerity 1- Fatalism: During Abbassid caliphate, political fatalism changed to attribute a kind of divinity to the caliph. Abu Jaffar Al Mansour delivered a speech in the day of Arafa. He said: “I am God’s sultan in His earth, I guide you with His bless and guard money and divide it according to His will. I would give you if He wanted, and would deprive you if He wanted. Ask God in this Holy Day to guide me and inspire me to give you and be good with you”. In his speech, Al Mansour took and behaved in behalf of God. Thus, Umayyad fatalism, that justified misdeeds with God’s will, changed into an Abbassid initiative that declared that the caliph is the shadow of God on earth and that all his deeds are due to the irresistible will of God. Abbassids claimed that the only way to avoid fatalism was to pray to God to guide the caliph to the right way and justice. To them God represented a mediator who would make the caliph good with his people. Al Mansour suggested in his speech that the caliph’s deeds were attributed to God and that the death of Abou Muslim Al Kourasany was attributed to God in spite of the fact that he was killed by Al Mansour. Al Mansour’s deeds were attributed to God Almighty when he hit and detained Abou Haneefa Al No’man. In their description of Abu Jaffar Al Mansour, historians said: “he was ugly, the most miser and lover of money, murderous, never fulfilled his promises, unmerciful, and unthankful”. He tortured his cousins (Alaweyeen) when two of them revolted against him in Hijaz and Persia. Al Mansour gathered Alaweyeen in a very small den under the earth that they couldn’t breath. They were urinating on each other until they all died. Then he attributed that action to God. Injustice was intensified by the end of Abbassid age, and free scholars like Ahmad Ibn Hanbal disappeared. Yet, a new type of scholars called Sufies started to get closer to unjust rulers in Abbassid emirates through hypocrisy. In 597 hijri, Ibn Al Jawzy said: “the retarded of them were relaxed eating drinking, listening to songs and watching dancers, asking for worldly rewards from every unjust rulers”. Fatalism became one of Sufism beliefs due to the alliance between Sufism and unjust rulers. Fatalism indicated that God was the actual doer of any human deed and He was the One who directed feelings. In (Ehyaa Oloum Al Din) Abou Hamid Al Ghazaly elaborated in the explanation of this belief, yet he dealt in his book (Meshkat El Anwar) with those beliefs. People’s deeds were attributed to God. The disobedient was regarded innocent while deficiency was ascribed to God Almighty. Al Hassan Al Basry saw it was the worst innovated belief. He said: “God didn’t legislate what he wasn’t pleased with. If disbelief was His fate, He would be satisfied with disbelievers”. Nevertheless, those political ideas of fatalism prevailed to prevent offended people to protest. During the Othman caliphate, the Egyptian Sufi Abdel Wahab Al Sharany said that it was good of the ancestors to be patient with the unjust rulers because they deserved a divine punishment. He said: “unjust people didn’t offend us, but we offended ourselves or offended others”. Al Sharany warned the offended one to ask God to punish the offender whom he considered the actual offended one who was punished for his sin. He added that rulers were mere tools of punishment. This represents how far religious insincerity of Sufism supported injustice in the tenth century of Hijra. 2- Hadith: Umayyds introduced Abou Hurairah who accompanied the prophet (pbuh) for a short time as the one who narrated most of the prophet’s hadith. And Abbassids did the same with their grandfather, Abullah Ibn Abbass. Imam Ibn El Qaueim Al Jawzeya said that Ibn Abbass heard less than 20 hadith from the prophet, which is a serious but right point. Ibn Abbass met the prophet during his childhood, which he spent in Mecca, while the prophet was in Madina. However, Abbassids wanted to honor Ibn Abbass and claimed that he was the most knowledgeable companion. Scholars competed to attribute sayings, interpretation of Quran and regulations to Ibn Abbass. Abou Hurairah was a tool of Umayyads to spread hadith and stories. The abbassid religious insincerity attributed to Ibn Abbass and others hadith that talked about their glory and that caliphate would be in their hands until the day of Resurrection. It, moreover, mentioned Abbassid caliphates in name and title. In (Tareekh Al Kholafaa), Al Saywooty said that Abou Hurairah said that the prophet (pbuh) said to Abbass: “you own the prophet-hood and the kingdom”. And said that Abou Hurairah said that the prophet (pbuh) said to Abbass: “God started with me, and with your successors it will be closed”. Jaber said that the prophet said: “ the successorsof Al Abbass will be the princes of my nation”. Ibn Abbas said that the prophet ordered his mother when she was pregnant of him to bring the baby to the prophet if it was a boy. Ibn Abbas was born in Mecca and the prophet wasn’t allowed to reach it. Yet, he added that his mother brought her son Abdullah to the prophet who blessed him and said that he would be the father of caliphs among whom there would be the murderer and the guide and the one who would lead Jesus in his prayer. That was a gospel that they would keep the throne until the day of Resurrection. Abou Jaffar Al Mansour said that his father said that his grandfather said that the prophet said to Abbass: “people of Khurasan will keep the throne until they hand it to Jesus”. Another hadith said: “my cousins will take the charge of the caliphate until they hand it to Jesus”. Another hadith said that the prophet prayed for the benefit of Abbass three times saying: may God bring Abbass and his successor the victory, may God bring Al Mahdy satisfaction. Another hadith said that someone called Saffah would go out to provide people with money. It seems that who wrote this hadith was keen to say that Al Saffah was generous in order to be rewarded. It was said that Ibn Abbass said that the prophet said: “we will have Al Saffah, Al Mansour and Al Mahdy”. Which means that the prophet was proud of those caliphs. There were many hadith about Al Mahdy. One said: “Al Mahdy is a successor of my uncle Abbass”. And: “Al Mahdy’s name is parallel to mine and his father’s name is parallel to my father’s”. They claimed that God selected caliphs and created them in a distinguished way. And any rejection to the selected caliph was considered a rejection to God’s will and decision. Hence political fatalism was tied to the fake hadith they attributed to the prophet. Abbassid Caliphs were eager to protect their hadith by terrorism and sanctuary in order not to be criticized or investigated. Abou Mouaweya Al Darir said that a man of Quraish rejected one of hadith. Al Rasheed orderd his men to kill him but people turned him away from his decision. Al sawly said that a man insulted Quraish was driven to Al Hady who said I heard my father Al Mahdy saying that Abdullah Bin Abbass ordered his men to kill the man. Umayyad and Abbassid caliphate extended to include Quraish. The Umayyad caliph Al Waleed bin Yazeed was known of looseness. He was mentioned before Al Mahdy and some attendants said: “God’s Caliphate is too glorious to be granted to a loose man”. He attributed caliphate to God who selected the caliph. Hence the caliphate was meant to acquire sanctuary. No one could offend the caliph who was high in rank. Al Mahdy wasn’t concerned with Al Waleed Bin Yazeed nor his rank nor his religious insincerity. People continued to believe that the throne of the successors of Ibn Abbass would stay until the Day of Resurrection. Holako and Mongols were influenced by legends that suggested that any one who offended the Abbassid caliphate would be destroyed. Al Hamathany said in (Tareekh Al Magoul) that Holako summoned a military council to discuss the matter. Eventually, the astronomical Nasr El Din Al Falaky encouraged Holako to attach Baghdad. And he ended the religious insincerity of Abbassids who got nothing from their fake hadith.
اجمالي القراءات 35130

للمزيد يمكنك قراءة : اساسيات اهل القران
أضف تعليق
لا بد من تسجيل الدخول اولا قبل التعليق
تاريخ الانضمام : 2006-07-05
مقالات منشورة : 4642
اجمالي القراءات : 46,120,992
تعليقات له : 4,819
تعليقات عليه : 13,796
بلد الميلاد : Egypt
بلد الاقامة : United State

مشروع نشر مؤلفات احمد صبحي منصور

محاضرات صوتية

قاعة البحث القراني

باب دراسات تاريخية

باب القاموس القرآنى

باب علوم القرآن

باب تصحيح كتب

باب مقالات بالفارسي