posted August 19, 2006 01:00 PM              

By Abid Uallah Jan

Al-Jazeerah, February 27, 2006

An editor from Wikipedia sent a kind explanation[1] of the state of affairs in response to an earlier article on Wikipedia.[2] Keeping the good intentions behind Wikipedia project and sincerity of its editors in mind, it is necessary to clarify some of the basic misconceptions so that one could see how these good intentions are being manipulated and could pave the way for horrible consequences. However, for a clear understanding, this discussion will be kept limited to the definition and explanation of a few Islam-related articles on Wikipedia.

We are told that Deen is covered as “Din” in Wikipedia. Compared to the extensive explanation, references and discussion on Islamophobes promoted terms, such as Islamism, description of “Din” is limited to the following 13 words: “Din (Arabic term) is an Arabic term meaning religion or way of life.” This should be a basic clue to show who is dominating discourse about Islam on Wikipedia and why.

Wikipedia is right in its argument that in the content debates on articles about Islam one cannot just ban the other user or even protect the page without an outside administrator intervening. Nevertheless, understanding Islam must not be a problem because it is not rocket science. Understanding the ABC of Islam will help Wikipedia’s editors to see users putting content on Islam, in the name of Islam, as Muslims, but still all that has nothing to do with Islam.

The basic requirements for being a Muslim and coming to the fold of Islam are belief in Allah, all His Prophets including Mohammad (pbuh) as the last Prophet, all divine books including Qur’an as the last Book, His angels, the life after death and the Day of Judgment. Besides this one has to submit oneself to living by the Will of Allah with Islam as his Deen—the way of life.

Understanding these basic requirements are good enough to separate truth from falsehood. Of course, Ahmadis, Alhabashis and Islamelis etc, claim themselves to be Muslims. There is nothing wrong with putting descriptions on what these groups believe. It will help other clearly see that their basic beliefs are in total contradiction to the basic requirements for being Muslims. However, the problem begins when they promote their ideas as the ideas of Islam, thus leading to a chain reaction of confusion and distortions.

Irshad Manji, for example is an Islmaeli. Ismaelis virtually worship Agha Khan like a God. They way they practice religion has absolutely no place in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Manji herself is promoting homosexuality as Islamic. She justify here practicing lesbianism with some totally irrelevant and out of context quotations from the Qur’an. Yet Islamophobes never get tired of promoting her as a Muslims. Promoting views of Manji or Salman Rushdie (who cannot even respect Prophet Mohammad pbuh, let alone living a life on the pattern of his life) as “moderate” or “liberal” Islam and using Wikipedia as a medium for promoting these view doesn’t make any sense. It would not harm Islam as much as it would hurt credibility of Wikipedia as a source of knowledge.

There is no doubt that Encyclopedias report scholarship--they do not report "the truth." This is because the truth of some issues is highly contested. Nevertheless, Encyclopedia can provide opportunity to its readers to reach the truth with total coverage of facts. The argument of “highly contested issues” doesn’t apply to definition and explanation of the Islam-related terms coined by Islamophobes in the last 7-10 years in total contradiction to what Islam actually is. Searching literature from the past can lead one to realize that terms such as Islamism and Islamists are very recent, which are defined in Wikipedia exactly the way Islamphobes are promoting these.

Wikipedia may claim that Islamism “is a term used by political scientists and by liberal Muslims who try to separate their beliefs from politics.” This is the case of a few individuals using these terms. Even if the whole world agrees with them, still it would not alter the teachings of the Qur’an. That should be the standard for Islam related material, not what Islamophobes may coin and promote for their nefarious designs. For the sake of impartiality, neutrality and guidance of those who refer to Wikipedia for knowledge, it is necessary for the Encyclopedias to show who actually use this terminology and what are the opposing views because the following discussion easily proves it from the basic source of Islam—the Qur’an—that there is no place for separating beliefs for worldly and spiritual life in Islam.

If giving detailed description under any specific article is not possible, a cross reference can help researchers separate truth from falsehood themselves. For example, Wikipedia defines Islamism as: “Islamism refers to a set of political ideologies derived from various religious views of Muslim fundamentalists, which hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that should govern the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state.” As a researcher, one would like to find out if the aforementioned is Islamism, what is then Islam? For that one would go to the article on Islam, and there we must have reference to Deen, because the Qur’an repeatedly refers to Islam as a Deen. It exhorts Muslim to establish the Deen of Islam. As a researcher, one would again be tempted to see details on Deen and try to find out if it is not exactly what the Islamophobes describe as Islamism.

Unfortunately, due to dominance of those who are using Wikipedia for promoting their views and terminologies, that substance is missing which can clear up the mist of misunderstandings. Although the 13-word definition of Deen under “Din” in Wikipedia in itself is good enough to defeat whatever has been discussed under Islamism at length, still there is a need to understand the concept of Deen from the basic source of Islam: the Qur’an to disprove definitions and explanations about Islamism and Islamists. The reason the 13-word definition of Deen can defeats the many pages on Islamism is simple: If Islam is a way of life, how can we say that those who want to live by its principles in legal, social, political, economic, and political spheres of life are not Muslims, but Islamists and believe in Islamism, not Islam.

The literal meanings of Deen are to: obey, become obedient, become abased and submissive and serve. All this, however, is impossible without the presence of some authority to be obeyed. There are other meanings of Deen as well, such as “a particular law”, “a statute” “an ordinance”, “requital”, “recompense”, “judgment”, “reckoning”, etc. So, the primary significance of the term Deen can be reduced to four: a) indebtedness b) submissiveness c) judicious power d) natural inclination or tendency. But when the preposition “la”, i.e. Arabic letter “laam” is used with Deen, it means particularly, “obedience.”

For example, lahu al-Deen (Qur’an: 10:22, 16:52, 29:6531:32, 39:2, 39:11, 40:14, 40:65, and 98:5) specifically means that obedience—Al-Deen—is only to Allah, not to any worldly authority or law. Obedience to worldly authority is allowed only when that authority is responsible for ensuring obedience to Allah (Qur’an: 4:59, 4:83).

The Qur'an clearly says: "And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth...We appoint a law and a way" (05:48). The secular assertions in this regard ignore the message of the Qur'an which is so explicitly mentioned in 03:03; 33:36; 5:33, 38; 24:2; 24:4, 2:178; and 17:33. There is no question of literal or other kind of interpretation of these verses. What we actually see is that promoters and users of the terms Islamists and Islamism never resort to explaining these clear verses.

It is important to note in the light of Verse 12:76 that the Qur'an does not differentiate between Deenil malik (law of the king) and the law of Allah. Muslims are not supposed to live by Deen il malik that negates the principles and way of life prescribed by the Qur’an. Instead, whosoever seek as Deen other than the Deen of Allah (Wamaen yabtaghi ghayra al-islami Deenan), "it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter" (Qur’an: 3:85). This will remain Islam, no matter how we may like to label it as “radical” “orthodox” or “extremist.” These are the clear commands with no other kind of interpretation possible than what we clearly see.

The circuitous liberal or secular arguments cannot absolve Muslim from the clearly stated responsibility of establishing the Deen in the Qur’an (3:85, 5:3, 2:208, 42:13) and the struggle to make it prevail (48:28, 9:33 and 61:9).

To see how Muslims cannot escape living one or another Deen in any part of the world, and that the word Deen is linked to living a way of life and the overall set up of a society, we need to understand the verb dana which derives from Deen and conveys the meaning of being indebted. In the state in which one finds oneself in debt to a Dain (creditor), it follows that one subjects oneself to obeying to laws and ordinances governing debts, and also, in a way, to the creditor, designated as a Dain.

One in debt is always under obligation, or dayn. Being under obligation naturally involves judgment (daynunah) and conviction (idana) as the case may be. All these significations, including their contraries inherent in dana, are practicable only in organized societies involved in commercial life in towns and cities, denoted by mudun or madain. A town or city (madinah) has a judge, ruler, or governor (dayyan), certain power structure and systems. Submission to this set up and feeling indebted and bound to obey the relevant laws, etc. makes one live according to the specific Deen of that city or state.

According to the Qur’an, man cannot escape being in the state of living a Deen. Hence the term Deen is also used to denote to ways of life other than Islam. However, what makes Islam different is that the submission according to Islam is sincere and total submission to Allah’s will and this is enacted willingly as absolute obedience to the law revealed by Him. “Do they seek other than the Deen of Allah? while all creatures in the heaven and on the earth have, willing or unwilling, submitted to His Will, and to Him shall they all be returned. “ (Qur’an: 3:83)

Muslims are not only obliged to live by Islam in all walks of life. It is obligatory upon them to establish living by it in a society. The words aqeemoo alddeena (Qur’an: 42:13) clearly indicate Iqaamat-e-Deen, i.e. the setting up or establishment of a way of life which is impossible without the formal power structure and legal, political, economic and military systems. Islamophobes have given it the title of Islamism.

If we ask the same defenders of Western civilization as to what they actually mean by defending their "way of life" or "life style." Whatever their instant answer may be will actually be the Western politico-socio-economic system. That is what the Qur'an means when it commands for establishing Islam as a way of life. The Islamophobes then turn around and say, those who want to live by Islam in all walks of life are Islamists and their philosophy is Islamism.

When asked what is Islamism, Islamophobes define is as “a set of political ideologies derived from various religious views of Muslim fundamentalists, which hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that should govern the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state.” When looked from the Qur’anic perspective this is actually Islam, not Islamism. Islam can never be limited to just personal ethics or spirituality.

In the Qur'anic sense, Islam is Al-Deen, a way of life, not of the self-proclaimed “moderate” Muslims or their Islamophobic sponsores, but the Deen of Allah. (Qur’an: 10:22, 16:52, 29:6531:32, 39:2, 39:11, 40:14, 40:65, 98:5). The command is for establishing the Deen, which means “establishing obedience of Allah” and living according to the prescribed way of life.

Establishing the Deen—a way of life—is actually establishing a society, an order that guarantees living a life under a complete politico-socio-economic order. Verse 3:19 says that Al-Deen as approved by Allah is Islam. The crux is that the Al-Hukm [the command] is for none other than Allah. "Verily Al-Hukm belong to none but Allah and He has commanded that you should serve none except Him; this is Al-Deen-e-Qayyam [the right Deen]" (12:40). The word Hakoomat (government, governance) is derived from the word Al-Hukm in the Qur'an, used in the context of Deen.

To go further, one has to consider Qur’anic verses 1:4 and 82:18-19, where Al-Deen is used with the word “Maalik” and “Tamlik.” The root of these words is dominion, sovereignty, authority, kingship, rule and ownership. The Qur'an stresses that sovereignty belongs to Allah alone (Qur’an: 40:12, 82:19-19). Yaum-ul-Deen is the time, day, era, age, and zamaana when none have the sovereignty, authority or dominion except Allah.

A holistic approach to the words Deen, Islam, Iqaamat-e-Deen, Al-Hukm, Mulk and their meanings lead us to the conclusion that Islam is not a religion. It is a Deen—a way of life—as repeatedly mentioned in the Qur’an. Deen is not just about some rituals but it is about obedience of Allah, submission to the Laws of Allah, and establishment of the sovereignty, kingship and the rule of Allah. These references cannot be overruled by mere statements of the Islamophobes and some opportunist among Muslims who are labeling whatever is so clearly described in the Qur’an as Islamism. What they call Islamism is actually Islam. What they call “moderate” Islam has no reference in the Qur’an and the Sunnah because a Muslim has to be moderate and act moderate. If a Muslim goes to extremes, he is already violating the basic requirement for being a Muslim. This is similar to calling a Muslim who exercise patience as patient Muslims, because they have to be patient anyway.

The bottom line is all these Islamophobic phrases and terms have been introduced in the last few years to divide Muslims and restrict them from living by Islam as a way of life, which is one of the basic requirements for being a Muslim. Wikipedia and other sources of information falling into this trap is disastrous for the future of humanity because all these concepts are geared towards demonizing a people and finally making them evil. That’s why I titled my article on Wikipedia as: Wikipedia expediting a war of religions. We need to look at the long term consequences of our words and deeds which might look benign and irrelevant today.

In the light of the above discussion, it is up to the editors and owner of Wikipedia to see how they may like to deal with the content and contributors to Wikipedia.

posted August 19, 2006 01:19 PM              

By abid ullah jan

Published: February 22, 2006

quote:

---

There is only one way to expedite the clash of religions and that is to incite hatred and promote misconceptions about other people and their faith. Those who are determined to make this clash happen have adopted two approaches. One is open hostility: the in-your-face insults and wars of aggression, such as the Jyllands-Posten’s 12 insulting cartoons and Bush’s two wars of aggression. The other approach is more subtle and malicious. It starts with spreading falsehood, demonizing a people and ends with undermining their faith. Wikipedia has become a medium for this approach.

If there is any tool that will play a longer and effective role in the hands of the promoters of the clash of religions, it is Wikipedia and other similar projects on small scale. One can avoid reading the visible and known hate-mongers such as Thomas Friedman, Steven Emerson, Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes. It is, however, impossible to see the thousands of Friedmans and Pipes filling up the pages of Wikipedia for poisoning public mind on both sides of the divide.....

---

...continues on....

posted August 19, 2006 01:30 PM              

from the so-who's-at-fault-here? dept
Let's get a few things right out in the open: anyone can edit a Wikipedia entry, it's never going to be 100% accurate, during breaking news there may be many factual errors posted before the entry is accurate, and considering all this it shouldn't be relied upon as the sole source when doing research. We had to clear that up because apparently some people didn't realize this. Writing for News.com, intern Soumya Srinagesh tells a cautionary tale of writing a "massive second-semester AP English research final project" in 45 minutes using Wikipedia as her only source. One can assume that any serious essay written in such a short time would be pretty poor, particularly if it only used one source. But that's not the point she tries to make. Instead she turns it around, blaming Wikipedia's decentralized editing system and the lack of filters it has in place. Ominously (for the future of America), she says her fellow students generally accept Wikipedia's word as gospel. But again, instead of calling out these students for being lazy (and arguably for being cheaters), it's Wikipedia's fault.

Srinagesh and other critics of Wikipedia entirely miss the point about the site. They set up straw men by questioning whether it's 100% accurate, or whether it's always trustworthy. But even if we accept the premise that, say, the Encyclopedia Brittanica is more accurate (albeit less extensive), it would still be wholly unworthy as the sole source for serious research or a term paper. Most papers that students write require some sort of bibliography, and professors always emphasize using multiple sources. That's because the point is to get practice doing real research, not just rewording what was read elsewhere. If a student wants to take a shortcut and skip the point of the assignment, that doesn't seem like Wikipedia's fault.
http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20060811/1156230&threaded=true&threaded=false

----------------

posted August 19, 2006 01:36 PM              

quote:

---

Ominously (for the future of America), she says her fellow students generally accept Wikipedia's word as gospel. But again, instead of calling out these students for being lazy (and arguably for being cheaters), it's Wikipedia's fault.

---

This is frightening.

quote:

---

That's because the point is to get practice doing real research, not just rewording what was read elsewhere.

---