Editorial

When the tribes of Makkah decided to rebuild the Ka`bah, they worked
together well until it was time to return the Black Stone to its corner. Each
clan wanted the honor of this task, and tensions ran high for four or five
days due to the stalemate over who would have the honor of lifting the
Black Stone so that it could be returned to its proper place. With battle
preparations underway, one man decided to try and avert a fight by sug-
gesting a rather unorthodox idea: The first man to walk into the area would
be appointed to arbitrate the dispute. Everyone agreed and began to wait.
And so it was that Muhammad ibn Abdullah was the first to enter. Seeing
this, the men reached a spontaneous agreement that he was indeed the best
one to resolve this crisis, for he was known to all of them as a person of
truth. Muhammad analyzed the situation and then asked for a cloak.
Telling them to spread it out on the ground, he asked each clan to take hold
of a corner. After placing the Black Stone in the middle, he asked them to
raise the cloak so that he could place the Black Stone back in its proper
place.

This was Muhammad ibn Abdullah, a man of truth, integrity, and peace;
a man who, according to Muslim belief, later became the last Prophet of
God. Muhammad ibn Abdullah: about whom Muslims say “salla Allahu
`alayhi wasallam” (May the peace and blessings of God be upon him) each
time his name is mentioned; about whom they ask God to bless, just as He
had blessed Abraham his family, at each of the five daily prayers; about
whom it is said that God say ten prayers on anyone who says one prayer on
him. In contrast with the 1,400 year old Muslim tradition of reverence
toward Muhammad ibn Abdullah (pbuh), (indeed toward all of the
prophets), a European tradition gradually sprung up dedicated to depicting
Muhammad ibn Abdullah as an evil “magician” out to destroy Christendom.
Pope Innocent III (1161-1216) even called him the Anti-Christ. During the
medieval era, the bogey used to frighten naughty children into obedience
was “Mahomet.” 

This negative image of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) remains deeply
ingrained in the European psyche (and, by extension, the colonized New
World, now known as “the West”). Indeed, it is so deeply ingrained that



western culture took it up after the rise of secularism. People these days
may care less about the Anti-Christ from a religious point of view, but the
taint of being evil has stuck in the western memory of Prophet Muhammad
(pbuh). The secular academic study of religion and the rise of multicultur-
alism in the West have opened up new, more empathetic vistas over the last
ten years. Karen Armstrong’s sensitively drawn biography of the Prophet
(pbuh), Muhammad: A Western Attempt To Understand Islam, is a good
example. But clearly the negative imagery retains a strong hold on the west-
ern imagination.

It is very disappointing, to say the least, to see the traditional negative
European images of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) being resurrected in the
European press, this time under the (dis)guise of the cartoon genre and as an
example of “freedom of expression.” While much can be said about Islam
and its relationship (or non-relationship) to supposedly hallmark values of
tolerance in western civilization, I want to focus my remarks here on the more
general way in which the cartoon incident becomes another “event” in the
tragic and ongoing miscommunication between Muslims and the West.

While I was outraged at the cartoons, I was equally upset by the vio-
lent response on the part of some Muslims. Such violence, as numerous
Muslim scholars and leaders have stated, is totally un-Islamic. Our Prophet
(pbuh) was a man who used to let a woman throw garbage on him when he
passed by her house, only to go and inquire after her health when she did
not do so for a few days. However, to have to talk about it in a way designed
to point out what Islam says about freedom of expression, or violence, or
whatever value the West holds dear, is to miss the point. Moreover, it is to
misread the political and historical context that allows the publication of a
cartoon to become an “event” in a series of events.

Typically, rioting Muslims are portrayed as religiously inspired fanat-
ics who adhere to a religion that is intolerant, against freedom, and unable
to take a joke. A colleague e-mailed me to find out if Muslims were really
offended, because someone on his discussion list had argued that the
Muslim response was simply political manipulation. To dismiss Muslim
claims to offence so easily and blithely is yet another variation on the
European historical memory of Muhammad (pbuh) and everything for
which he stood. Since the Muslims’ image of reverence, awe, and humility
toward the Prophet (pbuh) is missing in the European psyche, offence at
his characterization as a warmonger cannot be comprehended. Thus, the
Muslims’ response must be due to their tendency toward heated irrational
passion that is easily whipped up by radical leaders. 

ii The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 23:1



The other character in the play is never drawn or explored. But con-
sider this: In response to the cartoons, anti-Muslim sentiment in the West
is on the rise. The latest poll in the United States to gauge American views
of Islam and Muslims shows a rise in the number of Americans who have
held negative perceptions of Islam since the 9/11 attacks. “According to
the poll, the proportion of Americans who believe that Islam helps to
stoke violence against non-Muslims has more than doubled since the
attacks, from 14 percent in January 2002 to 33 percent today.”1 Doubled
since 9/11.

And negative sentiment leads directly to physical attacks. Hate crimes
against Muslims, Arabs, or anyone even resembling them are on the rise.
And yet this irony is never explored – “Your religion preaches hate and
intolerance. I can’t believe people would riot over a cartoon. Don’t you
guys know anything about freedom of expression? About tolerance? You
just don’t belong in the civilized world. I hate you. Here, take what is com-
ing to you (punch).” If this seems far-fetched, consider the latest attacks on
Muslims at the University of Toronto. In March 2006, a fourth-year Muslim
woman student wearing hijab was followed into the bathroom by two
women. One woman shoved a flyer at her, pushing her back and telling her:
“You need this. You’re a Muslim.” The flyer was advertising a rally in sup-
port of the Danish media’s publication of the cartoons. When the young
woman threw the flyer away, her assailant asked her why and began yelling
at her: “Go back to [your] f***** country and bomb it.” In addition, she
kept yelling: ‘F****** Muslim terrorists.” That same week, some other
young hijab-wearing women had eggs thrown at them. Support for the war
on terror comes out of this hatred toward Muslims. 

This western intolerance and hatred of Islam and Muslims is never type-
cast in the West as springing from “westernness,” from western identity.
Rather, it is considered an aberration. Or, more precisely an individualized
or compartmentalized incident – the so-and-so who committed this hate
crime – which is then juxtaposed to the de-individualized rioting mobs of
Muslims. 

Some have argued the problem is that secular people cannot under-
stand the meaning of sacredness. But this is not true. Secularists have
sacredness, bit it is invested in different symbols. Just try to burn an
American flag in the United States and see what happens! (Indeed in June
2005, the House of Representatives passed an amendment to the
Constitution that, if passed by the Senate, will make burning the flag an
act of desecration.) If an Iraqi youth burns an American flag, both the

Editorial iii



burner and the “burnee” know that a symbol of American political power
is being attacked and that such an act is offensive. The Iraqi youth chooses
to burn the flag, and not the Bible, because he is aware, even if subcon-
sciously, that this is the right symbol to pick if he wants to stir up the
American public’s emotions. The Danish newspaper that originally pub-
lished the cartoons, along with the European and other newspapers that
republished them, were fully aware of the offensive nature of this act.
Some newspaper editors “are on record stating that they published the car-
toons as an act of defiance against ‘radical Islam.’” (Rachard Itani,
“Cartoons and Hypocrisy: Danes Finally Apologize to Muslims [But for
the Wrong Reasons],” www.counterpunch.org.)

While most westerners may not be aware of their anti-Prophet literary
heritage (for example, how many know that in Dante’s Inferno Mohammed
[pbuh] is placed in the ninth circle of Hell?), most Muslims are. And so what
we have are wounded feelings being re-hurt time and time again. Muslim
reactions to these insults are cast into the pre-existent stereotype of the
“intolerant and violent Muslim,” but the riots caused by this cartoon must be
read in a politicized way, taking into account local contexts (e.g., Syrians
feeling the heat of a possible American invasion, Pakistanis dismayed at
American military violence in the war on terror on their soil, and so on).
Westerners attack Muslims out of their proclaimed disgust with Islamic
“values” – and the cycle continues. 

The role of revenge in this ongoing conflict is seriously understudied.
And so the chasm between Muslims and the West is continually reaching
new lows. One sometimes wonders how much lower these relations can go.
As a result, those of us in the middle who are seeking to build bridges and
contribute to a world of peaceful exchange and mutual respect constantly
find the ground being cut out under their feet ... by both sides.

The (re)/constant depiction of Muslims as uncivilized is easily dispelled
by even a cursory glance at Islamic history. Two articles in this issue speak
tangentially to this: M. Abdul-Huk’s “The Humanistic Note in Iqbal” and
Yasien Mohamed’s “The Islamic Philosophy of Labor and Crafts: The View
of the Ikhwan al-Safa’, Isfahani, and Ibn Khaldun.” Allama Iqbal, known as
Pakistan’s poet-philosopher, reflected in his beautiful poetry a soul shaped
by many influences, including Islam. As a result, his poetry demonstrates a
sensitivity that one does not expect to find in the stereotypical “intolerant
Muslim.” (This is a reprint of a booklet published by the author for limited
circulation among his family and close friends.) Huk argues that Iqbal was
able to reconcile humanism and religious faith. This would be quite a feat,

iv The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 23:1



especially if Islam were meant to be a religion that is as backward as is
claimed via the cartoon incident.

Yasein’s examination of the Ikhwan al-Safa’, Isfahani, and Ibn
Khaldun on the meaning of labor and crafts is also instructive in this regard.
Their philosophical discussions of labor are very sophisticated and, in
many ways, prefigure the views of Adam Smith, Marx, and other western
theorists who have addressed the issue. Labor is praised for its industrious-
ness and antidote to sloth (Queen Victoria would have been pleased). Crafts
are defined in relation to existing lifestyles: simple vs. complex. Therefore
Isfahani, a tenth-century Persian philosopher, categorized agriculture,
weaving, building, and ruling as essential crafts, and baking, embroidery,
decoration, and law as aesthetic crafts. Truly, such philosophical investiga-
tions are not possible in the barren and violence-prone religion claimed via
the cartoon incident.

Aliaa Ibrahim Dakroury’s “Toward a Philosophical Approach of the
Hermeneutics of the Qur’an,” is in the same vein. She presents a careful
argument considering how one can carry out a hermeneutical study of the
Qur’an by drawing on the theories of Habermas, Heidegger, and Gadamer.
Dakroury argues that even non-Muslims, provided that they fulfill such
prerequisites as sincerity and having a fore-knowledge of Muslim cultures,
will find their interpretations of the Qur’an accepted by the Muslim com-
munity. S. Sayyid’s “Rituals, Ideals, and Reading the Qur’an,” while
exploring similar issues of the Qur’an and its interpretation, comes to a dif-
ferent conclusion: Any interpretation coming from those who do not follow
Islam must be resisted, for those who engage in such an activity must
regard what is considered sacred as sacred. Sayyid makes this point as part
of his larger argument that interpreting the Qur’an must be depoliticized.
For him, the Qur’an’s meaning must always be contained as part of a
“promise” – part of the human yearning to reach the Divine, and thus never
“fixed” or settled.

While reaching different conclusions with respect to non-Muslims who
try to interpret the Qur’an, both Dakroury and Sayyid are, from another per-
spective, also making similar points about its “meaning.” Thus,
Islamophobes who claim that Islam is evil must be rejected both because
their interpretation fails to meet the preconditions suggested by Dakroury,
and because of their lack of identity with the faith, as recommended by
Sayyid.

One area in which Islam is receiving a lot of attention, though without
a trickle-down effect to the general public, is Islamic finance. In recent

Editorial v



years, western capitalist banks have begun to offer Shari`ah-compliant
banking for their Muslim customers. This is good business for them, since
Muslims seeking to avoid interest-based banking represent a huge poten-
tial market of mostly untapped wealth. Islamic financial theory has much
to offer the world, as evidenced by “The Time Value of Money Concept in
Islamic Finance,” a joint article by Abu Umar Faruq Ahmad and M. Kabir
Hassan.

With Third World debt crippling many developing countries’
economies, it is easy to see the injustices inherent in a capitalist economy
based on the time value of money as a commodity. Islamic financial theory
proposes that money is not a commodity that can be bought and sold, for
the lender must share proportionally in the resulting profit or loss. Under
capitalism, however, an interest-bearing loan always ensures that the
lender makes a profit, even when the borrower faces total financial ruin.
In such a cause, the investor will lose neither the initial loan nor the guar-
anteed interest-based income. As Ahmad and Hassan rightfully conclude,
such an outcome is a “glaring injustice.” Again, the humane financial sys-
tem that Islam offers to the world is a far cry from its horrible image as
portrayed by those who mock the cartoon episode.

This issue’s forum section features a piece by Louay Safi, the previ-
ous editor of AJISS. While the cartoon commotion is the issue of the
hour, another controversy always seems to be lurking nearby, ready to
break out yet again: the “fate” of Muslim women. The latest outbreak in
this area is the question of whether a woman can serve as the imam of a
mixed-gender Friday congregational prayer, as Amina Wudud did
recently. Safi’s essay recognizes the unjust exclusion that many Muslim
women face due to one particular unfortunate development afflicting the
North American Muslim scene: The desire of many immigrant Muslims
who come from strongly patriarchal cultures to try to reproduce these
defective and harmful structures in North America. He argues that the
Qur’an and Sunnah demand that women be fully involved in their local
mosques, just as they were during the Prophet’s (pbuh) time. However,
he asserts, the solution is not to be found in the more revolutionary acts
of women leading mixed-gender public congregational Friday prayers,
but rather in the middle ground between the conservative and liberal
extremes.

I would like to announce here that this year’s special issue will deal with
Islam and Muslims in Central and Southeast Asia. The Board of Directors of
IIIT and AMSS, realizing that both regions have not received their due atten-

vi The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 23:1



tion, as even a cursory reading of the western media will show, would like
to at least start rectifying the deficit of knowledge, even among Muslims,
when it comes to understanding and dealing with these large Muslim popu-
lations. Please see the “Call for Papers” right across from the beginning of
the editorial and send us your research. 

Katherine Bullock

Endnotes

1. Claudia Deane and Darryl Fears, “Negative Perception Of Islam Increasing:
Poll Numbers in U.S. Higher Than in 2001,” Washington Post, 9 March 2006,
p. A01. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/08/AR-
2006030802221.html 

Editorial vii