A lot has happened recently on the ‘terrorism’ front that brings to the front burner the issue of Islam and terrorism, more especially with some erstwhile Moslems and ‘friends’ of Islam beginning to ask the question: Why Islam? Misperception and confusion are starting to set in and many have begun to ruminate over the possibilities of a real connection between the tenets of the religion and terrorism.

Here in Nigeria, it has become increasingly clear that terrorism is no more the exclusive preserve of the Fulani herdsmen, Boko Haram and their derivatives, rather it has become a full-blown lucrative proposition for all comers. Kidnapping, terrorism and their variants have assumed industrial scale pursuits; and is no more limited to regions or provinces. 

Recent provocative messages from Mike Arnold, a former US mayor and missionary and spokesman on the perceived Christian persecution, radical Islam and humanitarian crises in Nigeria, has made this sermon very germane.  He is also the US ally of Nnamdi Kanu, the misguided Biafra irredentist: And most of all a self-styled modern-day crusader for the liberation of Nigeria from the clutches of remnants of Dan Fodio’s Jihad and the emergence of the ‘Promised Messiah’.

From the onset, let us disabuse our minds of any connection, encouragement, aiding or abetting of terror by mainstream Islam. There is no point repeating the assertion that Islam is a religion of peace.

It must also be said that the media is today enamoured with incidents of terrorism as it gives them good copy and the now proverbial’ Breaking News’ syndrome. The result of these odious presses, the activities of fringe terrorists is causing the faith what many now perceive that: “Violence is inherent in Islam. It’s a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimizes murder.”  

We can say with certainty that the violence and conflict racking much of the Muslim world does not happen because its inhabitants are Muslims. Because in recent decades alone we have seen every one of these types of violence replicated in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Rwanda, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Cambodia, in conflicts where next to no Muslims were involved.

Contrary to the oft-stated view that religion causes much of the world’s violence, the past century has shown the immense potential for violence of the centralizing nation-state. Some people will be quick to say that none of the countries have generated global terrorism; which is correct. The fact is that they do not make sensational headlines as religion would.

A better explanation is that none of these post-colonial nations was deemed of crucial strategic importance to the West, and so none found itself garrisoned by Western troops; whereas the countries where large numbers of Muslims live happen to lie across the Suez Canal, the Strait of Hormuz and a vast reservoir of fossil fuels, as well as the birthplace of the West’s major religion. All those things made the West a participant in the Muslim world’s conflicts and then – eventually, after many decades – a target for them.

But that is geopolitics and cannot explain the recent emergence of home-based terrorists in England, France, Germany, Belgium and the United States. However, we might ponder, why the same type of terrorism is absent in South America, even Mexico.

The reason is not far-fetched. These nations have never had exploitative relationships with the so-called axis of Islamic militarism. That is, simply the Oil kingdoms of the East.

If anything, Europe is suffering from the collateral damage of years of its injustice to the people of the ‘Fertile Crescent’. The situation is however, not being helped by the intemperate language of ‘Islam haters’ in the West.  A commentator on CBS 60 Minutes did not stop at the violent acts of militant Muslims: No, he declared on the program that ‘Muhammad (SAW) is a “terrorist” who set an example opposite to that of Jesus and Moses’.

The most detestable of them all is the book by J.K Sheindlin: THE PEOPLE VS MUHAMMAD: A PSYCHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS, dubbed; ‘The trial which challenges the founder of Islam’s authority over all mankind’.  In this book (worse than Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses), the author called the Prophet (SAW) all sorts of unprintable epithets, most unbecoming of a sane human being. No wonder the book was eventually censored and banned on the Internet.

We have written about this before, namely, that the sins of Muslims should not be confused with the tenets or doctrines of Islam. We absolutely agree that some Muslims use Quranic verses (out of context) to justify their murder of innocent people. But the Bible has also been used to justify murder (http://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/murder-in-the-bible/), the enslavement of Africans, or racial discrimination in the United States. You can also reference ‘The Slave Bible’.

Scores of Orthodox Christian Serb soldiers systematically raped tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslim women in the aftermath of the breakup of Yugoslavia. The members of the Klu Klux Klan are Christians. Can one justifiably conclude that Christianity is a racist and “evil” religion? Islam is not accorded this same treatment, and it is wrong.

On the one hand some Christian fundamentalists say how barbaric Islam is when it decrees cutting off the hand of the thief; however, when we read the Old Testament, much of the punishment prescribed there is the same as in the Qur’an. Even the evangelicals’ relentless assault on the dress of the Muslim women is contentious.   Ask them about the dress of Mary, the mother of Jesus and the pious women during the time of Jesus: In the New Testament the verses read, ‘it is a shame for a woman to pray with her head uncovered. (1 Cor. 11:2-16); also, in the book of Ephesians, there are verses that read, wives obey your husbands and be silent in the church, if you have a question, wait until you get home and ask your husband. Women are to learn in silence and subjection (Ephesians 5:21-32). The Evangelical are silent on these and countless other verses that support racism against people of colour; the verse reads “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.”  (Colossians 3:22).

Allah says in the holy book: O ye who believe! stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you, make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do (Quran 5:8)

It is very easy to forget that the evangelicals and the neo-conservatives use the Bible to justify Israeli occupation of Palestine. They fund and support illegal settlement activity. They are also against peace and all “road maps” to peace. They support directly or indirectly the violence and terrorism against Palestinians fighting for their just cause against occupation. They also supported the illegal war against Iran for the “security” of Israel.

The US, Israel, India, Russia, etc. have all the WMDs and other powerful weapons which they use frequently – these nations have terrorized and killed so many and continue to do so in the name of self-defence or in the defence of their economic interest – even at the cost of so many innocent lives? It is therefore an insult upon injury when the legitimate struggle of the oppressed is termed terrorism.

We need to educate people in the fact that terrorism is not Islam; and that terrorists, regardless of religion or political ideology, are all demented fools who use their religion or ideology as a mechanism to justify their sick and twisted acts. No religion condones terrorism.

We need to educate the people that being a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Atheist, a member of the political left or political right does not equate you to being a terrorist, but rather that those who are terrorist are trying to equate themselves with members of these faiths or ideologies and are causing catastrophic damage when they hijack these faiths and ideologies for their own sick and twisted actions.

Groups such as Al-Qaeda, the IRA, The Japanese Red Army, ISIS, Boko Haram and many other groups do not represent the whole of the community they claim to represent, instead they are the exact opposite of what they claim to represent.

It is rather unfortunate that the terrorists, kidnappers and extremists that operate in our country fall under the above nomenclature. Kidnapping, terrorism and extremism have become a growth industry and are in no way religious in nature. The Fulani herdsman is not fighting for Islam. His cows destroy the farmland of both Muslim and Christian farmers.

Does the Quran or Muhammad (SAW) promote violence? Some issues in peace and violence are what we will look at in our next discourse.

Barka Juma’at and a happy weekend

Isaac and Ishmael were both sons of Abraham but had different mothers. Ishmael was born to Hagar, Sarah’s Egyptian maidservant, as a result of Sarah’s attempt to provide an heir due to her initial barrenness (Genesis 16:15). Isaac, however, was born to Sarah herself as the fulfillment of God’s covenant promise, making him the ‘child of promise’ (Genesis 21:3). This distinction created a natural divergence in their destinies, with Isaac designated as the heir of God’s covenant and Ishmael destined to become the progenitor of a separate nation (Genesis 21:12-13).

The story told in the Quran and Islamic exegesis naturally creates doubts about Judeo-Christian renditions, yet the Torah or Taurat predates the Quran by over 3,000 years. We should therefore be cautious in treating historical facts which we are not in a position to corroborate or dismiss. No doubt in the narrations of both Judaism and the Quran, supernatural claims were involved. One supernatural claim cannot be dismissed offhand by the other. There is no doubt God made a promised to both Abraham and his wife. He also came to the aid of Ishmael and his mother during their sojourn in the wilderness.

The story of Abraham and his two sons has a bearing on the just concluded Hajj which is an essential pillar of Islam.

Ishmael, as the firstborn son of Abraham, holds a significant position in the family. Yet, his birth is not the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham and Sarah. The narrative takes a pivotal turn in Genesis 17, when God reiterates His covenant with Abraham and promises that Sarah will bear a son, Isaac, through whom the covenant will be established. In Genesis 17:19, God explicitly states, “Your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.”

Theologically, the story of Ishmael and Isaac raises important questions about God’s promises and human agency. Moreover, the relationship between Ishmael and Isaac has been interpreted allegorically by later biblical writers. In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul uses the story of Hagar and Sarah to illustrate the difference between living under the law and living under the promise (Galatians 4:21-31).

In Islamic tradition, Ishmael is considered an important prophet and an ancestor of Muhammad (SAW), which further complicates the historical and theological relationship between Ishmael and Isaac’s descendants. This adds layers of significance to their story, as it touches on issues of identity, heritage, and faith across different religious traditions.

The relationship between Ishmael and Isaac as depicted in Genesis is a rich tapestry of familial bonds, divine promise, and human action. It challenges us to consider the dynamics of God’s covenantal relationships and the ways in which God works through and despite human frailty.

While Ishmael and Isaac’s paths diverge, both are integral to the unfolding story of God’s interaction with humanity, reminding us of the breadth and depth of God’s promises and the diverse ways in which they manifest in the world.

In retrospect, Isaac and Ishmael themselves were not depicted as lifelong enemies. Biblical accounts show moments of tension and divine prophecy that have been interpreted symbolically or historically as foreshadowing conflict among their descendants, but the narrative emphasizes God’s care and promises for both sons. The perception of enmity largely arises from later historical, religious, and cultural interpretations rather than direct biblical evidence. They were both alleged to have come together to bury their father, Abraham.

What do Isaac and Ishmael have to do with the conflict in the Middle East? The conflict in the Middle East has to do with eschatology, or end-time Bible prophecy?

In Islam, the story of Isaac and Ishmael emphasizes themes of faith, sacrifice, and divine mercy, with both figures revered as prophets and significant in the lineage of the Abrahamic faiths.

Ishmael (Isma’il) is considered the father of the Arabs and an ancestor of Prophet Muhammad (SAW), while Isaac (Ishaq) is recognized as a prophet and the father of Jacob (Yaqub), establishing a lineage of prophets in both traditions. Over time, some interpretations have linked this lineage to historical and modern conflicts between Jews and Arabs. However, these interpretations are retrospective and not explicitly stated in the biblical text.

Both sons are seen as continuing the spiritual legacy of their father, Abraham (Ibrahim), and are respected figures in Islam.

The story illustrates profound themes of faith and divine mercy. Ishmael’s survival and the miraculous provision of water (the Zamzam well) in the desert symbolize God’s mercy and care for those who trust in Him.

Isaac’s birth is viewed as a reward for Abraham’s unwavering faith, representing hope and the fulfillment of God’s promises.

The narratives surrounding Isaac and Ishmael are not just historical accounts but are imbued with moral and spiritual lessons that resonate with Muslims today. They emphasize the importance of faith, obedience, and the belief in God’s mercy and providence.

The differing interpretations of the sacrifice story reflect broader theological discussions within Islam regarding lineage, prophecy, and the nature of divine tests.

Both figures are integral to the Islamic understanding of the Abrahamic tradition, illustrating the deep connections between these foundational stories across different faiths.

A central story in Islamic tradition is Abraham’s test of faith, where God commanded him to offer one of his sons in sacrifice. The Quran does not explicitly name the son, but many Islamic traditions identify Ishmael as the intended sacrifice. In this account, Ishmael willingly submitted to God’s command, demonstrating profound faith and obedience. At the last moment, God provided a ram to be sacrificed instead, commemorated annually during Eid al-Adha.

Some early Islamic sources and scholars, however, mention Isaac as the son in this test, reflecting a diversity of interpretations.

Ishmael is associated with Mecca; he and Abraham are credited with constructing the Kaaba, the holiest site in Islam. His descendants became the Arab peoples, and he is honored as a prophet who exemplified patience and submission to God.

Isaac is recognized as a prophet and righteous man, whose lineage produced many Israelite prophets, including Jacob (Yaqub) and Joseph (Yusuf). He represents the continuation of divine guidance through his descendants. It needs to be borne in mind that all prophets in Islam are Judaic prophets except Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

The stories of Ishmael and Isaac emphasize faith, obedience, and divine wisdom. They illustrate the importance of submission to God’s will, the blessings of righteous offspring, and the interconnectedness of Abrahamic lineages. The narrative of the sacrifice teaches Muslims about trust in God and the spiritual value of obedience, forming a foundational element of Islamic belief and practice.

In summary, Ishmael and Isaac are both central figures in Islam, each with distinct roles: Ishmael as the forefather of the Arabs and participant in the Kaaba’s construction, and Isaac as the forefather of the Israelites and a prophet of righteousness. Their stories highlight the shared heritage and moral lessons of the Abrahamic faiths.

Islam’s conception of Ishmael is similar to that of Judaism and Christianity. Sources for this narrative include the Quran and tafsir (i.e., Quranic exegesis); Muhammad’s (SAW) Hadith; historiographic collections by al-Tabari and other Muslim scholars; and Israʼiliyyat, which collectively refers to information and religious literature sourced primarily from the Jews for details about early prophets and messengers.

There are many versions of the construction of the Ka’aba that differ in fairly significant ways, although all have Abraham build or cleanse the Ka’aba and then immediately after, or at an unknown time, God called Abraham to establish the Hajj, or pilgrimage. The starting of the Hajj has many versions, and some scholars believe this reflects the late association of Abraham with the Hajj after Islam had developed to help remove its connection to early pagan rituals.

In other verses, such as 21:85 and 38:48, Ishmael is praised for being patient, good, and righteous. A particular example which describes Ishmael individually is Quran 19:54-55 – “And call to mind, through this divine writ, Ishmael. Behold, he was always true to his promise, and was an apostle [of God], a prophet, who used to enjoin upon his people prayer and charity, and found favor in his Sustainer’s sight.” As a descendant of Ishmael, Muhammad (SAW) is the Prophet and continues the line of prophets from ancient times.

“All the best compliments, prayers, and good deeds are for Allah. Peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you, O Prophet! Peace be upon us and upon all the righteous servants of Allah. I testify that there is no god but Allah, and I testify that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger”. Attahiyat or Tashahhud.

Barka Juma’at and happy weekend