The Five Higher Goals of Shariah Law

THE PURPOSES OF ISLAMIC LAW

The purpose of the Islamic Law is for humans to achieve happiness in this world and the hereafter, by following the law of adopting the good and neglecting the bad.

The Islamic Law does not command anything that is not good for people, and it does not forbid anything that is not bad for them.

ويسألونك عن المحيض قل هو أذى فاعتزلوا النساء في المحيض
ولا تقربوهن حتى يطهرن فإذا تطهرن فأتوهن من حيث أمركم الله
إن الله يحب التوابين ويحب المتطهرين

“They ask thee concerning women’s courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean. But when they have purified themselves, ye may approach them in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by God. For God loves those who turn to Him constantly and He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean.” (Holy Quran 2: 222).

Islamic Law was made to protect five things (religion, self, mind, offspring, and property), which are the main rights of human in this life.

PROTECTION OF RELIGION

Because religion is the main reformer in every aspect of human life, it was normal for laws to protect it, considering it one of human rights and the most important right, by making laws that help to protect it from everything might affect it.

The Quran has mentioned worships that establish faith and protect it in the believer’s hearts. Some are mentally such as thinking and meditating of Allah’s (S.W) creation to realize His greatness (S.W), and some are physically mentally such as prayers, or physically such as fasting, or financially like almsgiving or charity, or mentally financially such as performing pilgrimage.

To protect faith and religion, Allah (S.W) forbade believing in someone else except him, either by belief or by action. He (S.W) forbade everything leads to that such as exaggeration of obeying the prophets and the righteous, to believe they are agents between Allah (S.W) and his creation, and to believe that good or bad is in anyone else’s hand except Allah (S.W).

Allah (S.W) obligated the community and the government to protect religion, to ease the means of practicing it. Thus, it must defend it; prevent every thing that leads to disobedience and disbelieving, by stopping the guilty and performing the punishments according to the law.

PROTECTION OF HUMAN LIFE

Life is Allah’s (S.W) gift to human, and no one has the right to trespass it, even the person himself; Allah (S.W) creates humans and honors them to perform His (S.W) tasks on earth, and to test their capabilities of performing of worshipping Him (S.W).

Islam protected humanity by its laws. It obligates the community to look after the poor and give them the basic needs, shelter, food, drink, clothing and other needs of life. It obligates charity and almsgiving, which come under the law of cooperation and helping one another among individuals and organizations to achieve social solidity in the society.

Islam guarantees a good and noble life for humanity; thus forbidding humiliation, annoyance, and harm.
والذين يؤذون المؤمنين والمؤمنات بغير ما اكتسبوا فقد احتملوا بهتاناً وإثماً مبيناً
“And those who annoy believing men and women undeservedly, bear (on themselves) a calumny and a glaring sin.” (Holy Quran 33:58).

Islam considers aggression or assault upon human life as a great crime and one of the seven serious crimes in life, which destroys both religion and life. Prophet Mohammad, warning Muslims, said,
اجتنبوا السبع الموبقات
“Avoid the seven great sins.” His companions asked, “What are they?” He (s) replied,
الشرك بالله، والسحر، وقتل النفس التي حرم الله إلا بالحق،
وأكل الربا، وأكل مال اليتيم، والتولي يوم الزحف،
وقذف المحصنات المؤمنات الغافلات
“Joining others with Allah (S.W) – in worship or other issues – , magic, killing a person, except by right and fair judgment, earning money by interest, misuse and benefiting from an orphan’s money, running away from the battle, and defamation the faithful pure women, who did nothing wrong.”

Allah (S.W) considers the aggression or assault upon one soul as equal to the aggression or assault upon the entire human race.

من أجل ذلك كتبنا على بني إسرائيل أنه من قتل نفساً بغير نفسٍ أو فسادٍ في الأرض فكأنما قتل الناس جميعاً ومن أحياها فكأنما أحيا الناس جميعاً ولقد جاءتهم رسلنا بالبينات ثم إن كثيراً منهم بعد ذلك في الأرض لمسرفون

“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.” (Holy Quran 5:32).

The Holy Quran describes Muslims, who avoid slaying innocent people (which the Holy Quran calls them ‘the souls that Allah (S.W) has made sacred’) as true Muslim believers. The Holy Quran says,

والذين لا يدعون مع الله إلهاً آخر ولا يقتلون النفس التي حرم الله إلا بالحق
ولا يزنون ومن يفعل ذلك يلق أثاماً

“Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as Allah has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; and any that does this (not only) meets punishment.” (Holy Quran 25:68).

The Quranic verses continue to warn of attempts on the life of innocent people, and give the wronged person the right to ask for fair and just punishment for his/her opponent.

ولا تقتلوا النفس التي حرم الله إلا بالحق ومن قتل مظلوماً فقد جعلنا لوليه سلطاناً فلا يسرف في القتل إنه كان منصوراً

“Nor take life – which Allah has made sacred – except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him nor exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law).” (Holy Quran 17:33).

The Islamic Law of Equality is one important warranty that prevents the spreading of crime. The person, who knows that killing another person will definitely lead to his/her own death, will avoid committing such crime; consequently, people will feel safe, live in peace, and enjoy the right of living.

The Holy Quran says,

ولكم في القصاص حياةٌ يا أولي الألباب لعلكم تتقون

“In the Law of Equality there is (saving of) Life to you, o ye men of understanding; that ye may restrain yourselves.” (Holy Quran 2:179).

To preserve and keep this great principle (protecting the lives of people), the Holy Quran legislates Jihad for the sake of protecting the weak from prosecution and death.

وما لكم لا تقاتلون في سبيل الله والمستضعفين من الرجال والنساء
والولدان الذين يقولون ربنا أخرجنا من هذه القرية الظالم أهلها
واجعل لنا من لدنك ولياً واجعل لنا من لدنك نصيراً 
الذين آمنوا يقاتلون في سبيل الله والذين كفروا يقاتلون في سبيل الطاغوت
فقاتلوا أولياء الشيطان إن كيد الشيطان كان ضعيفاً

“And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? Men, women, and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help! Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.” (Holy Quran 4:75 – 76).

I need to mention here, that the first life that Allah (S.W) forbids aggression upon is the person’s own life. The person who commits suicide or harms him/her self will be subject to grave and harsh penalties and punishment. Prophet Mohammad said,

من تردى من جبل فقتل نفسه فهو في نار جهنم يتردى فيه خالداً مخلداً فيها أبداً، ومن تحسَّى سُمَّاً فقَتل نفسه؛ فسُمُّه في يده يتحساه في نار جهنم خالداً مخلداً فيها أبداً، ومن قتل نفسه بحديدة فحديدته في يديه يجأ بها في بطنه في نار جهنم خالداً مخلداً فيها أبدا

“Whosoever jump from a mountain, drinks poison (with the intention of killing him/her self) will be in the Hellfire forever. Whosoever kills him/herself with a piece of iron, he will continuously do the same to him/herself in the hereafter, while he/she in the Hellfire and remain forever.”


PROTECTION OF THE MIND

The mind, the ability to reason, and the ability to understand are properties of humanity, which Allah (S.W) gives to us and honors us above the other creations.

ولقد كرمنا بني آدم وحملناهم في البر والبحر ورزقناهم من الطيبات
وفضلناهم على كثيرٍ ممن خلقنا تفضيلاً

“We have honored the sons of Adam; provided them with transport on land and sea; given them for sustenance things good and pure; and conferred on them special favors, above a great part of our creation.” (Holy Quran 17: 70).

Islam considers the mind entrusted and responsible for religious and secular responsibilities. The mind is the means that leads and guides a person to know the great facts, which Allah (S.W) asks us to discover using sound reasoning, and not just blind faith.

أم اتخذوا من دونه آلهة قل هاتوا برهانكم إن كنتم صادقين

“Or have they taken for worship (other) gods besides him? Say, “Bring your convincing proof.” (Holy Quran 21: 24).

The mind leads anyone, who thinks deeply and reasonably of this universe, to the existence of Allah (S.W) and His characteristics.

إن في خلق السماوات والأرض واختلاف الليل والنهار لآيات لأولي الألباب

“Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day, there are indeed Signs for men of understanding.” (Holy Quran 3: 190).

Islam forbids neglecting the mind doing its duties of showing and leading a person to the truth, welfare, and the goodness of his/her life on earth and in the hereafter. Therefore, Allah (S.W) forbids magic, sorcery, and any other deeds that affect our mind and prevent it from performing its duties.

Furthermore, Islam forbids alcohol in all its forms and considers it a satanic abomination and deceiving to humans, in which Satan wants to destroy the relationship between the person and his/her Lord (Allah (S.W)) by making him/her imbibe alcohol and keep him/her away from prayer and other worship. In addition, Satan, in this way, intends to destroy the social relationships between people.

Allah (S.W) says,

يا أيها الذين آمنوا إنما الخمر والميسر والأنصاب والأزلام رجسٌ من عمل الشيطان فاجتنبوه لعلكم تفلحون  إنما يريد الشيطان أن يوقع بينكم العداوة والبغضاء في الخمر والميسر ويصدكم عن ذكر الله وعن الصلاة فهل أنتم منتهون

“O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan’s handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. Satan’s plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain?” (Holy Quran 5: 90 -91).


PROTECTION OF PROGENY

Sexual reproduction is the means that keeps human species in existence, and for that reason, Allah (S.W) creates the sexual impulse in both sexes. Allah (S.W) calls humans to keep their progeny by forming families through marriage, which Islam considers is the only lawful way of having children and maintaining our species.

Islam encourages marriage and states its rules, restraints, and duties in a perfect social system, which organizes the relationships between the husband and wife and among the family in general. Islam also imposes a number of duties on the parents towards their children, among these are to raise and educate them well, to care for them, to meet their needs, and many other things, which are the requirements of ideal parent-hood.

In addition, Islam forbids aggression on the child by burying him/her alive or by intentional abortion, and considers it a great sin.

ولا تقتلوا أولادكم خشية إملاقٍ نحن نرزقهم وإياكم إن قتلهم كان خِطئاً كبيراً

“Kill not your children for fear of want: We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin.” (Holy Quran 17: 31).

In order to protect the family, Islam forbids adultery, any other shameful deeds, and whatever leads to these deeds; such as the mixing of men and women.

ولا تقربوا الزنى إنه كان فاحشةً وساء سبيلاً

“Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils).” (Holy Quran 17: 32)

In addition, Islam imposes the wearing of a veil for women in front of strange men to avoid seduction and sexual desire, for in Islam; women are precious jewels protected from being trifled with, misuse, and abuse. Allah (S.W) says,

يا أيها النبي قل لأزواجك وبناتك ونساء المؤمنين يدنين عليهن من جلابيبهن
ذلك أدنى أن يعرفن فلا يؤذين وكان الله غفوراً رحيماً

“O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Holy Quran 17: 59).

PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Property is the mainstay of life, and Islam considers it as Allah’s (S.W), which He (S.W) makes man a guardian over it, and allows him/her to earn them in lawful ways and use them moderately.

Islam encourages work, production, and earning money and other property by lawful means.

هو الذي جعل لكم الأرض ذلولاً فامشوا في مناكبها وكلوا من رزقه وإليه النشور

“It is He Who has made the earth manageable for you, so traverse ye through its tracts and enjoy of the Sustenance which He furnishes: but unto Him is the Resurrection.” (Holy Quran 67: 15)

In this regard, the Prophet Mohammad awakens the Muslims’ desire to work, and considers work as worship that brings the person closer to Allah (S.W). He (s) said,

ما كسب الرجل كسباً أطيب من عمل يده،
وما أنفق الرجل على نفسه وأهله وولده وخادمه فهو صدقة

“No earning is better that what the person earns from his own work, and whatsoever the man spends (in lawful matters) on himself, his wife, his children, his family and his servant is charity.”

Once, the Prophet’s (s) companions noticed the activeness and the hard working of a man, they asked the Prophet saying, “We wish that his hard work was for the cause of Allah (S.W).” Prophet Mohammad replied,

إن كان خرج يسعى على ولده صغاراً فهو في سبيل الله،
وإن كان خرج يسعى على أبوين شيخين كبيرين فهو في سبيل الله،
وإن كان يسعى على نفسه يعفُّها فهو في سبيل الله،
وإن كان خرج رياء ومفاخرة فهو في سبيل الشيطان

“If he did so to care for his children, his old parents, or for himself (In lawful deeds), it is for Allah’s (S.W) cause, and if he did so for pride and hypocrisy, then it is for Satan’s cause.”

There are two types of earnings, one is pleasant, and the other is noxious. The pleasant earning is the substance that one earns in lawful ways, such as trading, manufacturing, agriculture, and public and private employment.

يا أيها الذين آمنوا كلوا من طيبات ما رزقناكم واشكروا لله إن كنتم إياه تعبدون

“O ye who believe, Eat of the good things that We have provided for you, and be grateful to Allah, if it is Him ye worship.” (Holy Quran 2: 172).

The noxious earning is the property that one earns in exploitive ways, such as lending money with interest, bribes, tricks, and trading in goods that are harmful to humanity.
ولا تأكلوا أموالكم بينكم بالباطل وتدلوا بها إلى الحكام لتأكلوا فريقاً من أموال الناس بالإثم وأنتم تعلمون
“And do not eat up your property among yourselves for vanities, nor use it as bait for the judges, with intent that ye may eat up wrongfully and knowingly a little of (other) people’s property.” (Holy Quran 2: 188).

In this regard, Islam has a comprehensive principle. Allah (S.W) says,

ويحل لهم الطيبات ويحرم عليهم الخبائث

“He allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure).” (Holy Quran 7: 157) Thus, any earning that does not harm the person who earns it or others is a lawful and pleasant, and the remainder of the earnings are noxious and forbidden.

Islam also guides how to spend money correctly. It does not allow one to spend as he/she wishes. Squandering and spending without control and Neglecting paying the rights of the poor, are satanic deeds. Allah (S.W) says,

وآت ذا القربى حقه والمسكين وابن السبيل ولا تبذر تبذيراً 
إن المبذرين كانوا إخوان الشياطين وكان الشيطان لربه كفوراً

“And render to the kindred their due rights, as (also) to those in want, and to the wayfarer: But squander not (your wealth) in the manner of a spendthrift. Verily spendthrifts are brothers of the Evil Ones; and the Evil One is to his Lord (himself) ungrateful.” (Holy Quran 17: 26 – 27).

These properties are Allah’s (S.W) giving and means that He (S.W) made us as heirs and guardians to use them for lawful purposes, and the greatest deed among these lawful deeds is to spend and give charity to the poor and the needy. Allah (S.W) says,

وآتوهم من مال الله الذي آتاكم

“Give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you.”(Holy Quran 24: 33).

وأنفقوا مما جعلكم مستخلفين فيه فالذين آمنوا منكم وأنفقوا لهم أجرٌ كبيرٌ

“And spend (in charity) out of the (substance) whereof He has made you heirs. For, those of you who believe and spend (in charity),- for them is a great Reward.” (Holy Quran 57: 7).

Islamic Laws and instructions protect these five essentials, which are important human rights. Whomsoever considers and practices them, Allah (S.W) will reward him/her with happiness in this life and the hereafter. Whomsoever ignores and turns away from them; will face misery and punishment on the Day of Judgment.

فمن اتبع هداي فلا يضل ولا يشقى 
ومن أعرض عن ذكري فإن له معيشةً ضنكاً ونحشره يوم القيامة أعمى 
قال رب لم حشرتني أعمى وقد كنت بصيراً 
قال كذلك أتتك آياتنا فنسيتها وكذلك اليوم تنسى

“Whosoever follows My Guidance, will not lose his way, nor fall into misery. But whosoever turns away from My Message, verily for him is a life narrowed down, and We shall raise him up blind on the Day of Judgment. He will say: “O my Lord! why hast Thou raised me up blind, while I had sight (before)? (Allah will say): “Thus didst Thou, when Our Signs came unto thee, disregard them: so wilt thou, this day, be disregarded.” (Holy Quran 20: 123 – 126).

Advertisements

Sheikh Ibn Baaz on Revolting against Muslim Rulers

Sheikh Ibn Baaz (RH) was asked:
There are those who hold that the perpetration of major sins by the rulers obligates revolting against them, and endeavoring to remove them, even if this causes some harm to the Muslims in the country. And recent occurrences like this have started to happen in places within our Islamic world, so what is your opinion – O noble Shaykh – concerning this?

Whosoever sees something from his leader of sin, then let him hate whatever occurs from sin. And let him not remove his hand from obedience, since whoever removes his hand from disobedience and splits off from the Jamaa’ah (united body), then he dies the death of Jaahiliyyah (pre-Islaamic times of ignorance).’’ 1

And the Prophet said: ‘‘The person must obey in whatever he loves, and in whatever he hates, in ease and in hardship, in willingness and un-willingness; except if he is commanded to disobey Allaah. So if he is commanded to disobey Allaah, then he should not listen, not should he obey.’’2

And the Companions asked him: O Messenger of Allaah! When you mentioned that there will be rulers, ‘you will approve of some things from them, and disapprove of others things.’ They said: So what do you command us to do? He said: ‘‘Give them their right, and invoke Allaah, since He is with you.’’ ’Ubaadah (r ) said: ‘‘We gave the oath of allegiance to the Messenger of Allaah that we would not oppose the command, not its people.’’ He said: ‘‘Except if you were to see clear disbelief (kurfan bawaahan) about which you have a proof from Allaah.’’ 3

Rather, it is obligatory to avert the evil by removing it. As for averting the evil with a greater evil, then that is not permissible by consensus of the Muslims. So if this group which wishes to remove the ruler who has committed clear disbelief, has the power to remove him, and to replace him with a good righteous leader, without bringing about that which is a greater evil and corruption upon the Muslims, and a greater evil than this ruler, then there is no problem. And for if this revolting will bring about a greater corruption, and betraying the trust, and oppression upon the people, and murdering those who do not deserve it, and great evils other than this, then it is not permissible.4

1.Related by al-Bukhaaree (13/5) and Muslim (no. 1849)
2.Related by al-Bukhaaree (4/203)
3.Related by Muslim (6/17)
4.Imaam Aboo Bark al-Aajurree (d.360H) – rahimahullaah – said: ‘‘It is not permissible for the one who sees the uprising of a khaarijee who has revolted against the leader, whether he is just or oppressive – so this person has revolted and gathered a group behind him, has pulled out his sword and has made lawful the killing of Muslims – it is not fitting for the one who sees this, that he becomes deceived by this person’s recitation of the Qur‘aan, the length of his standing in Prayer, nor his constant fasting, nor his good and excellent words in knowledge when it is clear to him that this person’s way and methodology is that of the Khawaarij.” Refer to the book ash-Sharee’ah (p. 28)

Deconstructing the EDL Mission Statement Part 1

EDL state:

“…we believe that they reflect other forms of religiously-inspired intolerance and barbarity that are thriving amongst certain sections of the Muslim population in Britain: including, but not limited to, the denigration and oppression of women, the molestation of young children, the committing of so-called honor killings, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and continued support for those responsible for terrorist atrocities…”

I reply:

Firstly, it is not ethical or correct in any way to say that molestation of young children, honor killings, support for terrorist atrocities, oppression of women are religiously inspired. What the EDL are suggesting in this part of their mission statement is that Islam teaches and practices them.

This is an insult to the religion of Islam and Muslims who practise it. Here are some pointers for you to think about regarding these accusations. I have put together my immediate thoughts but will place links below each refutation for a more detailed and further reading.

Molestation of young children:
Before Islam came, marrying young girls was the practice of people and tribes of that era. During the period when the Prophet (s) was sent this was the continuous general practice and culture of the people. The reason they practised marrying young was because girls would mature at around 7-10 years old. They would have periods, mature attitudes, and were ready for having children at that age. They were able to take care of the household, work and communicate like an 18 year old today. You will find this in any good history book.

Secondly, no one during that era made this claim which you are making, that the Prophet ‘molested young girls’. If it was a crime or unethical at that time, the non-Muslims in that period would have vilified the Prophet Mohammed for that action in particular, but they did not. Only many years later, when it was considered socially taboo and the social dynamics had changed, did society begin to criticise this.

Thirdly, it was only something recommended, not something obligatory from our religion. Hence, no Muslims practise it now; girls this day and age are not mature and ready for marriage at that age.

Fourthly, look at how homosexuality was viewed in the 70’s and 80’s – slogans like ‘kill the homos’ were common and homosexuality was not tolerated at all, but now it’s considered intolerant not to tolerate it. With time, social dynamics change, so people change and, likewise, behavior changes also.

In the 1880s, the age of consent in some countries was 7 and in others it was 10. In the 1920s, the age of consent in Scotland and Spain was 12. In 2007, in Spain and Argentina, the age of consent was 13 see (1). So be careful not to throw stones whilst you live in a glass house.

Honor killings:
This is prohibited in Islam. Allah says in the Quran: “whoever takes the life of one soul has taken the life of the whole of mankind” (Chapter 5). He also says “and do not take the life of anyone which Allah has made sacred”. So how did you attribute the cultural practices of some Muslims to the religion Islam?

To say honor killings are religiously inspired is a gross misinterpretation of Islam. Furthermore, what about the honor killing that goes on here in the UK amongst non-Muslims i.e., Raoul Mout (2)? We do not claim this is inspired by Christianity. Women are being killed by their partners for changing their status on facebook to ‘single’ (3), or by adding their photos on facebook (4). In this country, two women are killed every week through domestic violence (5) – honor killing in the culture of Great Britain. So, again, don’t throw stones when you live in a glass house.

Support for terrorist activities:
You will never find Islam calling or supporting such activitities. The Quran explicitly prohibits this. So to say this is religiously inspired is a gross misinterpretation of Islam. Just take a look at the work this Islamic organisation is actively doing to speak out against terrorism (6, 7). This is just one Islamic organisation; there are many all over UK refuting and condemning terrorism. Furthermore, when terrorism inspired by western democracy or communism or Zionism appears, why is it you simply turn a blind eye (8, 9,10).

Oppression of women:
I take it you mean by this the covering up of her body and face, i.e. burka, or hijab. This is not oppression; it is freedom! Ask any Muslim woman if she wants to wear this attire or if she feels oppressed wearing it. Here in the UK, Muslim women have more freedom than in some countries, so if you see a woman in a burka here in the UK it’s almost guaranteed that she is doing this of her own free will. Your problem with the burka is here in the UK. So it’s not oppression, it’s that women are expressing their right to wear what they choose! It’s their democratic liberal right to dress and look how they like. To force them to take off the burka or face veil is oppressing them. So it seems your intolerance is the real oppression of Muslim women and not Islam.

Barbarity of the 7th century understanding of Islam:
To say that is to say that Islam is a barbaric religion, period. This then means that, by default, all Muslims are barbaric without exception, because Islam was revealed in the 7th Century, and it has never been more pure in its teachings at any one time more than that time.

These days, Muslims have added practices to the religion that were not from it; we reject all additions and subtractions, for that matter. Muslims take offence to this claim that Islam is barbaric. The main aims and goals of the shariah are five – to protect life, property, honor, religion, and intellect. Some scholars add freedoms of speech and actions – how can this be barbaric! Anyone with common sense will agree these are moral values that all religions and ways of life with decency will protect.

As for the penal law of taking a life for a life – is it not better to be severe in taking one person’s life in order to save many lives than put hundreds of others’ lives at risk? Just look at the fear that spread around the UK during the time of the Yorkshire ripper in the past and the recent Raoul Mout rampage, just to mention a few.

Exposing the Western Barbaric way of life 2011

EDL further claim:

“… the 7th century interpretation of Islam are antithesis of western democracy…” they also say: “ it (Islam)runs counter to all that we hold dear within our British liberal democracy…”

I say:

Let’s take a glimpse at our dear, western democratic values. The political values of liberalism have caused the very social decay being witnessed today. In February 2009, the Children’s Society (11) launched the report ‘A Good Childhood: Searching for Values in a Competitive Age’ (12), which presented evidence stating that “Britain and the U.S. have more broken families than other countries, and our families are less cohesive in the way they live and eat together. British children are rougher with each other and live more riskily in terms of alcohol, drugs and teenage pregnancy, and they are less inclined to stay in education. This comes against a background of much greater income inequality: many more children live in relative poverty in Britain and the U.S.” [11] The report also supports this article’s conclusions that social breakdown and decay is due to the premise of liberalism – individualism.[ (13)]

Child Abuse
The atomistic trends in modern liberal societies have affected the treatment towards the most vulnerable. The seventeen months of torture and agony inflicted on ‘Baby P’ is probably one of the worst stories of child abuse in the UK. The baby was found dead after months of torture with broken ribs and a broken back (14). In the UK, according to NSPCC research, 7% of children experienced serious physical abuse at the hands of their parents or carers during childhood (15). In the US, an estimated 3.6 million children were accepted by state and local child protection services as alleged victims of child maltreatment for investigation or assessment.

Treatment of Women
Liberalism’s political values have affected the way British society treats women. According to Amnesty International (UK) (16), 167 women are raped everyday in the UK. Domestic violence accounts for nearly a quarter of all recorded violent crime in England and Wales – one in four women will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime and one incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute. The UK is not alone in its maltreatment of women; in the US, a woman is raped every 6 minutes and battered every 15 seconds (16).

So let the EDL take a good look at their mission statement and realise they live in a glass house, so they should not throw stones.

I could not transfer the links (i.e. numbers in the brackets) from my word document. If anyone wants the word version of the above text, please let me know.

Evidence for the Principle: Taking the Lesser of the Two Harms

 

From the greater objectives of the shariah is to increase good, to establish it, and reduce evil in order to remove it. However, life does not always bring to us pure good and pure evil such that we can abandon the evil and act upon the good. Sometimes in our lives we are faced with situations where we have to choose between two goods or two evils. Sometimes, situations may have some good and some bad in them, but we have to choose between them. So what does a Muslim do in such circumstances?  In some cases, a Muslim will find himself in a situation where whatever good he chooses, evil will result! Common sense will tell him to choose the lesser of the two evils because, if his objective is to do good, then choosing the lesser of the evils is the closest to the good.

 

If a person says: ‘I will never act on any evil, period’ then he is forgetting that there may be times when he does something that is generally good but the circumstances around that good dictate it to have an evil outcome. This person would have been actually doing evil but without realising, or he could be doing that which is further away from good and closer to evil.

 

The existence of this principle – ‘choosing the lesser of the two harms’ – is proof of the perfection of this religion and proof that it is suitable for every time and place.

 

So where did this principle come from?

 

1. In Surah Hud, verse 77 – Allah most high told us about a situation where the Prophet Lot had to choose between two evils, and he chose the lesser of the two.

 

“…and his people came rushing towards him, and they had been long in the habit of practising abominations. He said: “O my people! Here are my daughters: they are purer for you (if ye marry)! Now fear Allah, and cover me not with shame about my guests! Is there not among you a single right-minded man?”

 

So he offered his daughter to protect his guests whilst he knew it was evil. The tribe was evil, him marrying his daughter to them was evil but he chose that rather than them raping his guests (as he thought would happen), so he took the lesser of the two evils in his view. (Abdul Hameed al Balaali in his book fiq of dawah fi inkar al munkar p143-144)

 

2. In surah Nisaa verse 25, Allah most high instructed the believers to marry their believing slave girls if they feared zina. This was not allowed before this verse was revealed.

 

“…If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess. And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another. Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers according to what is reasonable. They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours. When they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

 

So marrying a believing slave girl is better than zina.Here, Allah teaches us to take the lesser of the two evils. Marring a slave was considered bad, and zina is considered bad. However, zina was the worse of the two evils.

 

3. In Surah Nahal verse 106, Allah most high allowed us to utter words of disbelief when faced with life threatening situations.

 

“…Anyone who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith..

 

So it is also clear here that Allah allowed the believers to utter words of kufr in circumstances where his life is threatened or even in situations less than that but that would cause him great difficulty. So the Muslim here would choose the lesser of the evils. The first evil is the threat of death, torture, or extreme hardship and the second evil is uttering kufr whilst your heart is full of faith.

 

4. Salautil Khowf (the prayer of fear): dhohr prayer is generally four rakat; when the Muslims are in the situation of war, they do not have to pray in one jamat – they can make two jamats, whereby one guards the other whilst they pray and then the two groups swap. In addition to that, the four rakats are reduced to two. So here you can see when the circumstances change, the hokum (ruling) changes also.

 

The enemy attacking is one evil and the second is shortening the prayer from four to two. Allah allowed us to take the second of shortening the prayer, which would not be allowed otherwise.

5. In Surah al Baqara verse 73 – Allah most high explains we are allowed to eat dead meat if we are forced by necessity:

“He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits, then he is guiltless. For Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”

 

And in Surah al Anaam verse 119:

 

“Why should ye not eat of (meats) on which Allah’s name hath been pronounced when He hath explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you – except under compulsion of necessity?”

 

So one evil is eating dead meat and the second is the compulsion. So the lesser of the to evils is eating the dead meat.

 

 

Allah says in Surah al Hajj verse 78,

 

“…He has chosen you, and has imposed no difficulties on you in religion…”

6. Ibn Nuaas mentioned in page 100 of his book ‘Tanbee al Gaafileen..

 

“If you saw a man waiting to rape a women but he found some wine and became busy  drinking it and you knew if you were to prevent him from the wine he would stop drinking but would then catch the woman and you knew you would be unable to stop that, then you would not stop him from drinking wine in order to prevent a greater harm.”

 

Here you can see the great scholar Ibn Nuaas putting the principle in practice.

 

7. Ibn Taymiah mentioned in his fatwa

 

…that once he and his students went out to forbid the evil as they conducted this regularly. When they were out one day, they came across some tatar (enemies of Muslims who would rampage, pillage and kill Muslims). They were all sleeping and drunk. Ibn Taymiah’s students said let us take them now, kill them all; they are all asleep, we could take them by surprise. Ibn Taymiah said no, let us head back to our city quickly without them awakening. When they got back, they asked him why he had ordered that and he said because fighting and killing them was an obligation but what they would do to the nearby village afterwards would be far worse than what we would have done to them.

 

So this principle of taking the lesser of the two evils is an important principle to be used in all fields especially in regards to politics, jihad and society. However, the benefits and harms must be weighed up in the light of the shariah

 

Taking the lesser of the two evils is an established principle from the principles of usool of fiqh, and there are conditions which must be fulfilled before it is exercised from them:

 

  1. One should not deliberately place oneself in such a situation where one has to use such a principle, as it is disliked for one to embark upon any prohibited matter.
  2. The principle is only to be used when there is no way of avoiding one of two prohibitions.
  3. Then the least evil one is chosen as the one which is least harmful and least in opposition to the shariah.
  4. When the circumstances which dictate this principle to be used disappears, then the acting upon it must be stopped immediately according to another principle: “what is permitted in necessity is rendered nullified with the disappearance of the neccessity”
  5. The benefit from acting upon the lesser of the two evils must be greater than the evil which is trying to be avoided.
  6. There must be no other way to prevent the evil before acting upon the lesser of it.
  7. One must use the minimum of the evil in order to fulfill the necessity

 

Indeed, I could cite many more evidences to prove the validity of this principle, however, time does not allow me to, but this should suffice any intelligent person.

 

And Allah knows best.

EDL Claim the Quran Teaches Terrorism

Smite at their Necks

The non Muslim hate preachers out there who often claim the Quran is a book of terror, that it orders the death and destruction of all non-believers, one of the most common verses they use to prove their argument is verse 4 of Surah Muhammad which is the 47th Surah in the Noble Quran.

The verse reads:

Therefore, when you meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are you commanded): but if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.”

The non-Muslims hate preachers quote this and claim this is the verse of terrorism and murder. But is that the case? Or is it the same case as always, that the non-Muslim hate preachers are simply being dis-honest with themselves, and their fellow people, deliberately twisting the true meaning of these verses. Seeking to show some verses and hide others. We shall expose their sly and unjust claims.

Let us analyse this verse to see if it does truly preach terrorism or not. The part that the non-Muslims hate preacher uses the most with this verse is when it reads:

Therefore, when you meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks…”

The verse is referring to battle, and war, that in a battle, when we meet the unbelieving army that we should aim for the neck. Is that terrorism, is that barbaric? Off course not, this is very logical, and this is the harsh reality of wars and battles, people get killed, and people go into a battle and war with the intention of killing their enemy. If an army gives you instructions on how to attack your enemy during combat, would that be classified as terrorism? Of course it wouldn’t, so why is it classed as terrorism or barbarity when the Quran gives Muslims instructions on how they should fight during a battle with an enemy?

So therefore there is nothing wrong with this part of the verse, it does not preach terrorism, or barbarity, not even close…try another one!!

The second part of the verse that the non-Muslim hate preacher has a problem with is when it reads:

“…bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom…”

What exactly is wrong with this command? Logically after a battle there is a winner and a loser, and obviously after a battle several enemy combatants will come into the hands of the opposition, and logically they will be taken in as prisoners and held for ransom. Is this cruel? Is this barbarity? Not even close, this is the simply the harsh reality of war, in war and battle you risk death, and you risk capture, this is the reality of such events.

Furthermore, why do they not notice that the verse even says the prisoners can be released out of generosity or ransom! A ransom is not the only means of freedom, a Muslim has two options, either let the person go out of your own generosity, or if you want, you can get a ransom out of the prisoner.

So in conclusion this verse preaches no terrorism, it preaches no barbarity, all it gives are commands for the Muslims on how they should fight their enemy during battle, and what they should do with any prisoners they have.

The Islamic Terrorist Threat

The Islamic Threat

In recent years, a great deal of attention in the media has been given to the threat of “Islamic Fundamentalism”. Unfortunately, due to a twisted mixture of biased reporting in the Western media and the actions of some ignorant Muslims, the word “Islam” has become almost synonymous with “terrorism”.

However, when one analyses the situation, the question that should come to mind is: do the teachings of Islam encourage terrorism?

The answer: certainly not! Islam totally forbids the terrorist acts that are carried out by some misguided people. It should be remembered that all religions have cults and misguided followers, so it is their teachings that should be looked at, not the actions of a few individuals.

Unfortunately, in the media, whenever a Muslim commits a heinous act, he is labelled a “Muslim terrorist”. However, when Serbs murder and rape innocent women in Bosnia, they are not called “Christian terrorists”, nor are the activities in Northern Ireland labelled “Christian terrorism”. Also, when right-wing Christians in the U. S. bomb abortion clinics, they are not called “Christian terrorists”.

Reflecting on these facts, one could certainly conclude that there is a double-standard in the media! Although religious feelings play a significant role in the previously mentioned “Christian” conflicts, the media does not apply religious labels because they assume that such barbarous acts have nothing to do with the teachings of Christianity. However, when something happens involving a Muslim, they often try to put the blame on Islam itself — and not the misguided individual.

Certainly, Islamic Law allows war – any religion or civilization that did not would never survive – but it certainly does not condone attacks against innocent people, women or children. The Arabic word “jihad”, which is often translated as “Holy War”, simply means “to struggle”. The word for “war” in Arabic is “harb”, not “jihad”.

“Struggling”, i.e. “making jihad”, to defend Islam, Muslims or to liberate a land where Muslims are oppressed is certainly allowed (and even encouraged) in Islam. However, any such activities must be done according to the teachings of Islam. Islam also clearly forbids “taking the law into your own hands”, which means that individual Muslims cannot go around deciding who they want to kill, punish or torture. Trial and punishment must be carried out by a lawful authority and a knowledgeable judge.

Also, when looking at events in the Muslim World, it should be kept in mind that a long period of colonialism ended fairly recently in most Muslim countries. During this time, the peoples in these countries were culturally, materially and religiously exploited – mostly by the so-called “Christian” nations of the West. This painful period has not really come to an end in many Muslim countries. The majority of Muslim countries are still controlled by the non-Muslims through agencies such as the World Bank, the IMF and the UN. These agencies, in effect, control the economies of many Muslim countries. The weapon of sanctions is used when a Muslim country steps out of line, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths through starvation. Failing this, they resort to carpet bombing of entire Muslim cities to impose their ‘new world order’.

Also, through the media, people in the West are made to believe that tyrants like Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Moamar Qaddafi in Libya are “Islamic” leaders — when just the opposite is true. Neither of these rulers even professed Islam as an ideology, but only used Islamic slogans to manipulate their powerless populations. They had about as much to do with Islam as Hitler had to do with Christianity!

In reality, many Middle Eastern regimes which people think of as being “Islamic” oppress the practice of Islam in their countries.

So suffice to say that “terrorism” and killing innocent people directly contradicts the teachings of Islam, yet Muslims are the biggest victim of terrorism or, to be more precise, state terrorism. The 650,000 deaths in Iraq since the US led invasion is testimony to that.

Taking Aid and Help from USA and Permitting them to Build Bases in KSA

A question put to me by a brother…

Allowing the American troops on Arabian soil, why and what was the reasoning ? Jazakhallah khair.

My Answer:

” Oh you who believe do not bring yourselves in front of Allah and his messenger…” (surah Hujarat v2) – your opinion has no weight after Allah and his Messenger (s) have spoken.

” and warn all those who oppose his order (s) that a trial will befall them or a dreadful punishment.”

Regarding the fatwa give by Ibn Baaz allowing the American troop on Arabian soil this is the background and the proofs that their scholars brought to allowed it.

During the first gulf war when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Iraqi troops massed on the border of Kuwait and kSA. The Saudi intelligence had informed the KSA government that an attack was iminant from the Kuwaiti, Saudi border. Now the Saudi army in comparison to the Iraqi army was far much smaller and less equipped and less trained. Remember USA armed Iraq to the teeth during the war between Iran and Iraq. They also trained Sadaam after that and his army and sold him much weapons and planes etc. as for Saudi they have a small army, no match for Iraq. KSA own intelligence found that Iraq was massing its troops on the border, so KSA believed they had no choice and that Sadaam may very well attack them next. So they decided to create a deterrent ‘using’ the Americans help. And I reiterate the word ‘using’.

On another note the Kuwaitis and Saudis have enjoyed a long relationship of co-operation and love between them. Many Saudis have relatives in Kuwait and vice versa. The tribal system is spread from Suadi to Kuwait for example the most biggest tribe in Kuwait is the al Utaibi tribe and this is also the largest tribe in KSA. The two governments have a pact to aid each other for many years. Even in the time of Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahab there was some faint links there between the two areas. So the fact Saudi came to the help of Kuwait when it was oppressed is to no surprise.

The messenger (s) said: “aid your brother the oppressed and the oppressor. The companions said we understand how to aid the oppressed but how do we aid the oppressor. He (s) replied: “by preventing him from his oppression”

So the hadeeth above is a general hadeeth  which covers the proof for Saudi to intervene in the matter and aid the oppressed and prevent the oppressor. The matter remaining is why did they use the Americans and allow them to build bases.

This following narration was explained to me by one of the students of sheikh ibn baaz about 3 years ago when I attended a course in Ryaad. He told us that sheikh ibn baaz was amongst the committee of major scholars when they were all summoned by the king Fahd. The king explained to the committee of major scholars the situation exactly as he was briefed by the Saudi intelligence. He further explained the dangers and possible consequences if Iraq was to attack Saudi. He further explained their own abilities and inabilities and why they needed the aid of USA. He finished his explanation by saying: “I do not want to be responsible on the day of judgment for this decision, so I refer the matter to you all (my scholars and learned people) I urge you to fear Allah and tell me if it is permissible for me to use the Americans as a deterrent to help defend the Kingdom and aid the oppressed Kuwaitis.”

The ulema finally gave the verdict of ‘necessity’ for the king to seek aid from the USA and use them to defend their lands and fight Iraq to aid the Kuwaiti people.

Here is the evidence some of the scholars produced to justify seeking the aid of USA and the permissibility of their presence in the KSA.

Before I begin it is worth mentioning here that there is established difference of opinions amongst the scholars over the permissibility of seeking aid from the disbeliever’s in fighting where there is a necessity. So those who say it is impermissible have their evidences and scholars behind them and those who say it is permissible in necessary situations also have their evidences and scholars behind them. So this issue is not one of clear-cut prohibition as the jhadist and takfiri and HT and other than them claim. So there should not be a wala and bara over this matter there should be tolerance.

Here are the evidences from the scholars who see it permissible to take aid from non-Muslims in fighting at times of necessity.

  1. The hadeeth of Dhee Mukhbir who said I heard the messenger of Allah say:” you will have a peace treaty of safety with Rome and you will both fight together an enemy behind you” (Ahmed and Abu Dawood)
  2. That which shafi in his musnad wrote from Ibn Abass that the Prophet (s) took aid and help from people of the Jews in his battles and gave them a share (of booty). (Tirmidhi in 4/128 said  this hadeeth is hasan ghareeb)
  3. The hadeeth that the Messenger (s) took help and aid from Safwan Ibn Umayah in the battle of Hunain by his shields. Safwan said to him (s): “ are you taking this by force Mohammad?” He (s) replied: ” No rather to pay back”  it was also narrated in some narrations that the shields were between 30 and 40 in number in other narrations it states they were 100. (Ahmed, Abu Dawood, Nisaai and al Hakim)
  4. That which was narrated by Abu Dawood that Safwan Ibn Umayah took part in the battle of Hunain with the Prophet (s) and he was at that time a mushrik and the Quraish said to him you fight with Mohammed yet you are not upon his religion? He replied “ working for the Quraish is better than working for Howzaan (another tribe)  and the Prophet gave him a share in the booty from the amount kept for softening the hearts of disbelievers.
  5. That which is found in the books of seera where the Prophet (s) wrote an agreement between the Muslims and the Jews.. he took an oath from them and allowed them to practice their religion and keep their wealth and placed conditions on them. From those conditions was: “and between us is to aid and help one another against any one who attacks the people of this agreement… “ it also stated that they would aid and help one another against anyone who attacks Madeenah.”(seera Ibn Hisham 2/119)
  6. That which has come in the hadeeth when the Prophet (s) was in Dhil Hulaifah during the year in which the battle of al Hudaibiyah took place he sent a spy from Khazaa’ah to bring him information about the Quraish and this spy was a mushrik. (Zaad al Ma’aad 3/288 and Jaami al Usool 8/297)
  7. That which has been narrated about the tribe Khazaa’ah they went out with the Prophet (s) to conquer Mekka the Muslims from them and the disbelievers from them. (Neel al Awtaar 8/45 and Rawdah al Nadiyah 2/483)
  8. That which was narrated by Bukhari where the Prophet hired the experience of Abdullah bin Ureekath al thaily during his hijrah from mekka to madeenah he was experienced in routes and maps and was a disbeliever upon the religion of the Quraish. (Fathul Bari, 7/232)
  9. The generality of the saying of the Prophet (s) “ verily Allah will aid this religion by a corrupt person” (Bukhari)
  10. That which was reported by Ibn Hazam in his Muhala with his narration from Sad ibn Abi Waqas that he fought in battle with some Jewish tribes and he obeyed their instructions.
  11. That which is established in Bukhari and Muslim and other sunnan that the Prophet (s) sought aid and help from the munafiqeen and they went out with him on jihad in many battles. San’ani and Shaowkani relate from Sahibul Bahr that there is Ijmaa on seeking help and aid from the hypocrites in fighting. (Subul al Salam 4/104 and Neel al Awtaar 8/44)
  12. Taking aid and help from the disbelievers at times of necessity is in line with the well known principle of fique              “necessities permit the prohibited’

Sayings of the scholars who said it is allowed at times of necessity:

Imam an Nawawi said in his explanation of the hadeeth: “ I will not seek help from a mushrik”.. “there is also a hadeeth showing that the Prophet (s) sought help from Safwan bin Umayah before he became a Muslim. So some scholars took the first hadeeth as final. However, Imam Shafi and others said: “if he is a disbeliever with a good opinion about the Muslims and there is a need for the help and aid then it is sought from him otherwise it is disliked and the two ahadeeth are harmonized in this way.” (Sharhu saheeh Muslim 2/198)

Imam Ibn Hajr al Askalani in Fathu Bari in his explanation of the hadeeth :”verily Allah will aid this religion by a corrupt person” said: “al Muhalab and other than him said: this hadeeth does not contradict the hadith of the Prophet (s) “ I will not seek the help of a mushrik” because it was either

  • specific for that time or
  • the meaning from the hadith is a corrupt person who is not a mushrik.

Imam Shafi answered this by affirming the first opinion brought as proof  that it was abrogated by Safwan ibn Umayah aiding the Prophet (s) in Hunain whilst he was a mushrik.(Fathul Baari 6/179)

There are many other scholars who permitted aid and help from the non Muslims in war but this short essay will become a long one if I continue so I will suffice with this.

Lastly I want to mention that there is also a number of ahadeeth to prove it not permissible to take them as aid and helpers in such a situation. So the matter is not decisive and clear cut so toleration of each others views must be accepted. As for those jhadists and takfiris who use the fatwa of Ibn Baaz to hurl abuse at the scholars, and take them out of the fold of Islam then they are not but misguided individuals with pure hatred for dawah as salafiyah, may Allah fix their affairs open their hearts and guide them aright.

Terrorism in the Quran or Self Defence?

The often misquoted verse of Jihad in its correct context

Many times when non-Muslims argue against the Quran, claiming it preaches violence and terrorism, they go on to quote Surah Al Baqarah verse 191, the verse reads as follows:

“And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for trial and oppression are worse than killing; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.”

The non-Muslim hate preachers and orientalists quote this verse and argue that the verse teaches terrorism, and that the verse commands Muslims to slay the unbelievers wherever we catch them. Does the passage actually preach terrorism? Or is that the non-Muslim hate preacher quoting this passage out of its proper context? Well the answer is that the verse is being quoted out of context, which is very sad because it is blatant mis-interpretation and blatant lying because it is not difficult to quote this passage in context, here is the context of this passage:

The verse before it reads:
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors.

Then the verse in debate says:
“And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for trial and oppression are worse than killing; but fight them not at the sacred mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.”

But read on to the verse after the verse in debate for a clearer picture:
But if they cease, Allah is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful

Now carry on to the subsequent verse:
And fight them on until there is no more trial or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who continue oppression.

So here is the passage being quoted in context, and as you can see when the verse is quoted in context one will notice there is no terrorism or genocide being preached or advocated! The context is if MUSLIMS GET ATTACKED then Muslims have the right to attack back, and the context is very clear in that. The theme comes into play on verse 190, not verse 191 which non-Muslims hate preachers quote alone. The non-Muslim should quote from verse 190 onwards, if they did that they would see that this is a defensive war, not an offensive one, if people attack the Muslims then the Muslims have the right to attack back, and that is exactly what these verses are saying.

The verses even say that if the people who started the fight begin to stop and make peace than we too must also stop and make peace as well, far from terrorism!!

So it is that simple, verse 191 does not advocate terrorism or genocide, it advocates self-defense as can be seen from it in context starting from verse 190.