October 6, Robert Rosenkranz. My task in these evenings is to frame the debate. And in this particular case I want to start by quoting George W. It is doubtless true that the vast majority of Muslims around the world live peacefully, and do not condone violent acts. Their secular concerns are dominant—making a living, raising families, educating their children. Their religion provides spiritual comfort, and a source of meaning, even transcendence, to their lives.
In some respects, Islamism resembles the totalitarian movements of the first half of the twentieth century: the ruthless use of violence in pursuit of ideology and power by Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Just as most of their victims were their own people, most victims of Islamist terror have been Muslims.
History is replete with examples of violent minorities who have held sway over peace loving majorities. Perhaps the relevant question for this evening is what the majority of Muslims believe. But perhaps it is whether Islam, viewed as an ideological force, is in direct opposition to western interests and western values. Or might this be a false dichotomy? Can we honor our own traditions of pluralism and free exercise of religion, and accept that for the vast majority of Muslims it is indeed a religion of peace, without compromising our ability to defend ourselves and our values against the ruthless few that wish us harm?
Well, these are subtle and complex questions, and we've assembled an extraordinary panel of experts this evening to explore them. It's now my privilege to turn the evening over to our moderator, John Donvan, but before I do so I'd like to invite a round of applause to congratulate him on his third Emmy Award. There will be winners and losers, and you, our audience, will be acting as the judges. By the time this debate has ended you will have been asked to vote twice, once before and once again after the debate, on where you stand on this motion, and the team that has changed the most minds will be declared our winner.
If you are against the motion, press number two. If you are undecided, press number three. You can correct any mistake just by repressing, and ignore the other numbers. Welcome, Zeba. They had 1, entrants, and what place did you come in? Zeba Khan: They had 4, entrants, actually. John Donvan: 4, And you came in…? Zeba Khan: I came in second. John Donvan: Second. Well, look where you are now. Ladies and gentlemen, Zeba Khan. Zeba Khan: Thank you. I want to express my deepest gratitude to Mr. Rosenkranz and the Intelligence Squared forum for allowing me to speak tonight alongside such well-known and far more distinguished co-panelists.
What I have is my story. My sister, brother, and I were raised in a middle-class American home. We went to Mosque on Sundays, attended Sunday school classes, and prayed the community prayer with our community of Pakistanis, Lebanese, and Syrian Muslims. When I was in high school, our Mosque president was a woman, who did not wear a headscarf. And it may come as a surprise to some of you, but for the entirety of my life men and women have prayed side by side at our Mosque, and both can enter the prayer hall using the same door. My parents are both very religious people, but they express their faith in different ways.
My father emphasizes the devotional, and he tends to spend his time praying and reciting the Koran, whereas my mother emphasized the more constructive approach. She uses community service and volunteering to express hers. But what they both share is fundamental Islamic principles. First and foremost, seek knowledge.
They urged their children, all three of us, to question, to have critical minds, and to doubt. They wanted usto engage fully with our faith and to question everything. They always wanted us to learn about other faiths, and they always made sure that we knew the difference, though, between Islam and Judaism.
But they also made sure we also respected our Jewish sisters and brothers in faith. My story is just one of 1. The Muslim population is one of the most diverse and eclectic in the world. We are Sunnis, we are Shias, and even in the Shia tradition there are Zaidis, Ismailis, Ismasheries [spelled phonetically]. There are numerous madhhabs, or schools of thought, and Sufi mystic orders. Like Christians and Jews, Muslims can be observant, nonobservant, performist, humanist, secularist, extremist, mainstream, and there are even some Muslims who consider themselves culturally Muslims but are actually atheists.
Now, the motion before you tonight is asking you to determine whether Islam is a religion of peace. And at first blush, that might seem a bit tricky to decide. After all, the Koran and the Hadith have verses in them that point to peace and justice and love. But there are other verses that are violent, are about violence and about violence against specific people. So how then do we reconcile these seemingly contradictory verses? How then do we decide whether Islam is a religion of peace? The only way to answer that question is to take an honest look at the people who practice the faith and how they interpret it.
According to Gallup's ground breaking study on what a billion Muslims think, 93 percent of Muslims around the world are peaceful, mainstream Muslims. Seven percent are what Gallup determines as politically radicalized. And within that seven percent, there's a smaller percent that has succumbed to the use of violence. Any percent is too much. But we must remember that the violent minority of a minority are motivated by politics, not religion. As Gallup concluded, what distinguishes the politically radicalized Muslims from the mainstream Muslims is their politics, not their piety.
Robert Pape, a University of Chicago political scientist, further confirmed this in his book, Dying to Win, in which he came to the same conclusion, that the actions of terrorists are politically motivated, not through religion. The Tamil Tigers, for example, which are predominantly a Hindu group, used and pioneered the use of suicide bombing, did so far secessionist reasons, not for religious goals.
Our opponents would have you believe that there is a take all, no winner clash between Islam and the West, and that Muslims who try to balance their Western values and Islam arrive at a state of cognitive dissonance and are left either mute or crazy by this internal struggle. That distribution description doesn't resonate for me or for my family or for my friends or for my community, because those two aspects of our identity were never in conflict with each other and were never introduced to us as in conflict with each other.
Let me be clear. There are some horrifically violent criminals out there who twist our faith to justify their hate and their violence. But I am here to tell you they don't speak for Islam. Hassan Askari, a Brooklyn Muslim who stepped in on the subway and saved a complete stranger who was being physically attacked because he was Jewish, he speaks for Islam. Zainab Salbi, through her organization Women for Women International, has assisted forever a quarter of a million women across the world. She speaks for Islam. And the entire Muslim community of India, who, when the authorities asked them to take the militants who attacked Mumbai in , said resoundingly and collectively no.
We will not let the terrorists be buried with us. The media and those who profit from the narrative of Islam versus the West are never going to tell you my story or the stories of these Muslims who constitute the vast majority of Muslims around the world. But just because you may not hear us, it doesn't mean we're not speaking out. And just because you may not see us on TV, it doesn't mean we don't exist. If you vote against the motion, I would argue you're voting against the moderate voices of mainstream Islam and telling the terrorists that you agree with their version.
I urge to you vote for the motion. Thank you. John Donvan: Thank you, Zeba Khan. Now to speak first against the motion that Islam is a religion of peace, I'd like to introduce Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a very, very well-known dissident, born in Somalia, fled to the Netherlands, where she was a member of the parliament, the Dutch parliament.
Now she is in the United States, once again on a case of asylum because -- Ayaan? John Donvan: Ladies and gentlemen. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: In the 21st Century, in a free country. When I first heard it, it reminded me of the academic question, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? And I think, well, if you do the salsa or the cha cha, not many. Why are we not having a motion on is Christianity a religion of peace, is Judaism a religion of peace, et cetera? Because those would be academic motions.
I respect and admire Zeba Khan. And I want to acknowledge the fact that you indeed are a demonstration of the assimilation of a Muslim individual, a Muslim woman into Western society, into an American society. But you come from a middle class family that was very eclectic and respected pluralism. I respect that very much, and I admire you for it.
And I think you are an example to others. However, I disagree with you that you represent Islam or that you speak for Islam.
The problem that is inherent in Islam from the time of its foundation up to this moment is who speaks for Islam. Is it Zeba Khan or is it Faisal Shahzad? He was also a middle class man, went to business school, married an American woman, had two children, lived just like you, like many of you. And yet, he made a different choice based on a combination of piety and politics. And that's what Islam is. And before I go on, let me define the key terms of the motion. First, religion. The most common definition of religion you will find is the universal quest of humans in search -- in search of the sacred or the holy.
That search is expressed intellectually. It's expressed in practice. It is expressed in fellowship. And you look at the religion like Islam, on an intellectual level it was expressed by the founder of Islam as a demolition of all other gods. Polytheism had to end, and all humanity had to be united under one God. From those of you who are familiar with history, and I think a crowd like this is, you know that no monotheistic religion can be a religion of peace. No monotheistic religion is a religion of peace, and definitely not Islam. Monotheistic religions know periods, lengthy periods of peace, but they also know lengthy periods of war.
In times of practice, yes, in Islam, you practice charity, you go to Hajj, you pray, all of that. But in terms of practice, there is also the expression, there is the concept of jihad. And I find it a pity that Zeba Khan did not mention that concept, which is central to Islam's conquests and Islam's success. The founder of Islam, Mohammad, in his lifetime, conducted 65 campaigns of war that were all successful.
And that militaristic history of Islam is well documented. Just go Google it. And if you don't find it on Google, go to all those former empires that were conquered. The combination of a history of empire, of conquest, also leaves a legacy behind. And that legacy is the thrusting together of people of different ethnicities, languages, et cetera.
So even if that empire declines, the likelihood, the likelihood of conflict, of war, is probable. It's high, especially where there is a fault line. That's where Samuel Huntington had a point. That history of militarism, combined with the legacy of empire, those two points alone belie the motion tonight, that Islam is a religion of peace, but that's not all.
When empires decline, those who are defeated, and the Muslim Empire declined, those who are defeated sometimes themselves in a state of victimhood. That state of victimhood is exploited by the leadership or the self-appointed leaders of Islam. And what do you see? You see a number of people, and I concede it's a minority, who believe that Islam is under siege. A mentality of victimhood tells those who are conquered, who are vanquished, that the problem was caused by external powers, not by us, and that systematic denial within Islam after the 19th Century to blame only outsiders exempts Islam from blame, from the explanation what went wrong.
Yes, it was external, yes, Muslims were humiliated, yes, they were conquered, yes, they were colonized, but how much was also because of the flaws of Islam? And that takes me to the point of absolutism. When the West went into its scientific revolution, why wasn't it Muslims? Muslims were the first scientists, arithmetic, logic, et cetera.
They were great; why didn't they get into that scientific revolution? Why were they left behind? Was it only because of external factors or were there internal flaws? That combination of a status of victimhood and the absolutism -- the demand that you can never revise or reflect on the Koran, that you can never, never ever refute what Mohammad said, you can only follow his example -- that absolutism combined with that status of victimhood also enlarges the likelihood of conflict, and those two combined like the other two factors like -- John Donvan: All right, your time is up.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Thank you. That belies the motion. I'll keep my last two factors for the time I have remaining, thank you. John Donvan: Thank you. We are halfway through the opening round of this Intelligence Squared U. I'm John Donvan. We have four debaters, two teams of two, fighting it out over this motion, "Islam is a religion of peace. I'd like to introduce Maajid Nawaz, who is director of the Quilliam Foundation, and he has an amazing biography, and several years back, would have been America's nightmare.
He was a radical, he was imprisoned in Egypt while on a trip there, though he's born in the U. Maajid Nawaz: In one sentence. Maajid Nawaz: You're talking about four years now. John Donvan: Yeah. Well, I'll explain that and hopefully [unintelligible]. John Donvan: Fair enough. Ladies and gentlemen, Maajid Nawaz. Maajid Nawaz: Thank you. So, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for giving me this opportunity.
I want to begin by just stating what this debate is not about. This debate is not about making excuses for terrorism. Basically my career is to challenge extremism and terrorism in the West and also in Muslim majority countries. I've just flown right in from Pakistan where I've been building the foundations for the first nationwide social movement to challenge extremism and promote democratic values in Pakistan. And I'm proud to announce that just today we gained our 10,th member on Facebook.
So this debate -- [laughter] -- this debate is not about making excuses for suicide bombers even inside Israel. We make no apologies and no excuses on this panel for terrorism, for extremism, and for people who kill innocent civilians, including inside Israel. This debate acknowledges, we, on our panel, Zeba and myself, acknowledge that Muslims do need to speak out against extremism and to challenge it, and more Muslims need to do that more actively.
We acknowledge that Muslims bear responsibility in reclaiming their faith from those -- the minority who have hijacked Islam and who have captured the public imagination in their definition of Islam. We acknowledge that, and I am in my own person a manifestation of that effort, as is Zeba in the way she was raised.
So we acknowledge that as well. This debate, in fact, is an appeal. This is an appeal. This is not a debate for Islam at all. This is a debate for peace. So this is a debate for peace. Because there are people like me who spent 13 years of our lives working to create hatred. I used to believe that Islam is not a religion of peace. In fact, I used to believe that Islam mandates war. I used to believe and propagate across the world in more than three countries that Islam mandates war and mandates the creation of a state that will have at its heart of its foreign policy a policy to create conquest.
I called it jihad. I believed that Islam was not a religion of peace because I adopted an ideology at 16 years old and stuck with that until my imprisonment and after I was released from prison when I was 28 years old. By that time I had established this ideology in Pakistan and in Denmark and contributed to its growth in Egypt. But I learned in prison two things.
And by handing me that olive branch, I recognized that there was goodness in the world and there were people who, regardless of the provocation they find in the world today, are still willing to fight for peace and are still willing to redefine the debate. Because by redefining the debate, and by insisting that they would not allow my hatred to define for them the way in which they viewed me, they changed my heart.
And so I make an appeal to all of you tonight to help us redefine this debate. And what I learned was that I had been extremely arrogant. And these former jihadists, among them the assassins of Egypt's former president, Anwar Sadat, who was killed in , they had come to the same conclusions. And so I appeal to all of you as my time runs out -- there is much more to say -- to vote to help us all to redefine this motion, to redefine this world, because only by refusing to accept the paradigms that we find imposed upon us can we refute change.
And that's exactly how the civil rights movement in America tackled this issue when they were faced with such situations in the past. Thank you for your patience, and thank you for your time. He is a best selling author and founder and director of the Center for Social Cohesion, also a citizen of the United Kingdom, a member of the Church of England until recently. You said that your study of the Koran -- you said this in print -- made you an atheist.
Douglas Murray: That's right. I said Mohammad made me an atheist. The publisher said at the time that it's a pretty provocative headline. John Donvan: Douglas Murray, ladies and gentlemen. It's a great pleasure to be here tonight.
Religion of peace
I'm sorry to make this panel rather Brit-centric after my colleague Maajid. It isn't an attempt by us to have a British takeover of the old colony or anything like that. And I was reading the paper, as I'm sure all of you were doing all yesterday. Maajid finished his comments by talking about the importance of changing paradigms. I'm not sure it is about paradigms. I think it's about facts. Here are some facts.
In my newspaper earlier, the Times Square Bomber, of course, a man just up the road from here, who tried to kill thousands of people, only, by the way, didn't manage it because he set the hour timing device at a. If he had to have got that bit right, thousands of New Yorkers would have died earlier this year, again. I see further in the paper 12 suspects arrested in France in a network trying to recruit people to go in to fight American and other troops in Afghanistan.
I turn to another page of the newspaper, in the city I had just flown off from this morning, a Muslim London Underground worker who was -- had written to his wife who was off to - - tried to become a martyr for Allah, as he said. We should also, just quickly -- if I may refer something to the wording of tonight's debate, Ayaan's already mentioned it.
But let me put it this way. You're, I'm sure, a liberal minded New York audience. At least I hope you are. We will see. What about that? There was a nasty business. That's Christianity for you. Why don't you talk about that? And isn't that a direct [unintelligible], and so on. So let's not have a debate about Islam and whether or not Islam is a religion of peace without talking about the facts to do with Islam.
It's an absurd situation we're in, where nothing that anyone does whilst being Muslim is any responsibility of Islam. Yet anything anyone does whilst being a Christian or a Jew is the responsibility of all Christians, all Jews. Let's make this as straightforward as I can. Take the categorization that eminent scholars like Bernard Lewis and Ibn Warraq have made. Let's say Islam is a very, very complex thing.
And the best way I can do this in the very short time I have, is say you have three Islams, Islam one, two, and three. Islam one, the Koran and the life of Mohammad and the Hadith. Islam two, the tradition of the Sharia. Islam three, what Muslims do now. The first of those things, Islam, the Koran and so on, is bad. It is bad. There is a lot of violence in it. And what's worse, the peaceful verses are superseded by the violent verses. The violent verses also sadly are more numerous in number. Then you've got the life of Mohammad. Again, a bad man, a very bad man.
It happens to be that not a great role model if you look at it. Takes child brides, abuses a small girl, multiple wives, himself a warrior, himself a war criminal, himself beheads Jews. This, I would have thought, would be a signal of not great peacefulness. Then you've got the tradition of the Sharia, again, not great peacefulness, still no schools of Sharia that people in this hall would want to submit to. And thirdly, what Muslims do now. Thankfully, there is some hope in that one, because most Muslims, thank goodness -- I almost said thank God, but -- old habits die-hard.
Most Muslims don't do what those texts say because they exercise their judgment as moral beings without having to refer to defunct holy books. Now, look, I wish that Zeba and Maajid were the spokespeople of Islam. It would be lovely. Although in Maajid's case, it would have taken rather too long if everyone had to go 14 years of preaching the downfall of America and then said no, not so much.
Anyhow, I wish they spoke for Islam.
- Is Islam a Religion of Peace? | RELEVANT Magazine.
- Religion of peace - Wikipedia?
- Islam on Peace and Violence.
- questions to ask when writing an academic essay.
- Islam is Not a Religion of Terror | Review of Religions;
- The True, Peaceful Face Of Islam - TIME.
It would be great. But the fact is that tonight, the organizers of this debate asked a number of clerics, none of them which showed, specifically they wouldn't show and debate against Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Myself, I don't think they cared. But no, it's very interesting. They will not debate. Time and again, Muslims -- the actual leaders of your religion will not debate this. And you are left with people -- now here, the reasons why of course is the leaders of the religion show such terrible -- terrible lessons.
It is not a small thing. It's not as if it were a detail. It's not like a wacky Florida pastor. But you've got the largest Sunni state of Saudi Arabia, the most important Sunni state in the world, the most extraordinary closed prison of a society. It's not a detail. It's not a one-off nut job. The Shiite republic of Iran is what it is, led by the people it's led by.
Islam: A Religion of Peace - Words | Bartleby
That is not an accident. The thing that worries me is that although tonight we hear from the panelists here about how Islam is a religion of peace, the fact is that the people who are making the decisionsin the religion, the people who are preaching the religion, the heads of that religion, people like Sheikh Qaradawi who broadcasts anti-Semitic -- the most appalling filth every week on the main network, that is the faith that is speaking for you guys. I wish that Zeba, you were on every week on Al Jazeera, but you are not.
Qaradawi is. The problem is that Islam is an unstable component, as a religion, an unstable component. A thousand years ago, the Mustabalites [spelled phonetically] tried to reform the religion. They were wiped out. The fact is that Islam is many things, many, many things. But to say it's a religion of peace is nonsense. It's to ignore reality. It's to ignore very difficult but necessary facts, not paradigms, but facts.
To say that Islam is a religion of peace is to say something based entirely on hope. It's to elevate a hope into truth. And I hope, as you will note, history teaches us that's a very bad thing to do. And that concludes round one of this Intelligence Squared U. We have heard opening statements. We're going to move into round two. Remember how you voted in the beginning. We're going to move into round two, in which the debaters address one another directly.
They will be taking questions from me and then questions from you in the audience. So, I just want to state where we are. This is an Intelligence Squared U. Take away the extremists, and you have a religion of peace. It's inherent. It's inherent in the tradition. It's inherent in the scripture, and it's inherent in the history. And so the question of the notion, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, of this not just being about extremists, you can see that there are extremists, but that's, you say, not the problem, what about your opponents, what about your parents, what about Muslims you know who do not adhere to a violent form of religion, are they -- if there's something about the faith themselves, are they embracing spiritually something that is morally an illusion?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Well, my parents and people like my respectful opponents here are ignoring the basic tenets of their religion. When Mohammad, the founder of the religion, called out to all Muslims -- and that's how he won most of his wars, by saying, "I have been ordered and all believing men have been ordered to attack and kill and maim anyone unless they testify, unless all men testify to the fact that Allah is the one and only, Mohammad is his messenger, my father disobeys that. Well, Maajid Nawaz tried to obey that first and then stopped obeying it.
But the fact that that scripture is there and that history of militarism is there belies the motion that Islam is a religion of peace. The point I want to make is Islam is a religion, when you take the scripture, that can be employed to wage war, and Islam as a civilization has known periods of peace, but you cannot -- if you pay attention to that history, pay attention to the evidence -- continue to say that Islam is a religion of peace. No monotheistic religion is a religion of peace. No monotheistic religion is only a religion of war. It is both. But in Islam, and that's why we are debating it in the 21st Century, there are more occurrences of violence and war and strife and subjection of women then there are in other religions.
He enlightens you, that you may take heed. Historical evidences favoring the peace-loving attitude Of Muslims: The peace-loving attitude and behavior of Muslims is not a myth. It is an absolute historical truth that is very evident from their deeds when they were in command of different areas of the world where multiple religions were practiced: Muslims ruled Spain for about eight centuries. No significance evidence is found that suggests Muslims used force or unnecessary means to oppress non-Muslims living there. India is another place that was once ruled by Muslims for a period of over 1, years.
If Muslims had used force to convert people from other religions, the stats would have been quite different. Arabia had been under Muslim influence for 1, years. Yet there are about 14 million Coptic Christians found in that region. Had Islam used the sword for its propagation, the situation would have been very different. Islam believes in nothing but the sword of intellect: As mentioned earlier, the best way to find the truth about teachings of Islam with regard to its propagation can be seen easily from the content of the Qur'an.
All you need to do is search the Qur'an online and see countless verses verifying this claim. Sponsored link. After translating, click on the "show original" button at the top of this page to restore the page to English. About this site. About us. Our beliefs. Is this your first visit? Contact us. External links. Visitors' essays.
Our forum. New essays. Other features. Buy a CD of this site. Islam teaches that all dealings should always be based on justice. O ye who believe! Be always just, that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah. Surely Allah is aware of what you do. This makes it abundantly clear that Islam enjoins its true followers that, even with their enemies, they should always behave justly. Is there any possibility that such a religion which promotes this beautiful teaching of harmony and cooperation, can ever promote violence or hatred against other people?
At this point, let me mention a very important piece of advice given by the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as of Qadian, the Promised Messiah and Mahdi. He has explained this fundamental Islamic principle because the very purpose of his coming was to revive the teachings of Islam and to project the real import of the teachings of Islam for the whole world. Explaining the true spirit of cooperation and help for other people, He said:.
It is our principle to have sympathy for the whole of mankind. If a person sees that fire has broken out in the house of a Hindu neighbour, and he does not get up to help put it out, I tell you truly that he is not of me. If one of my followers sees a Christian being killed and he does not go to rescue him, I tell you truly that he is not of us…. I say it on oath and in truth that I have no enmity with any people…. If anyone abuses me, I refer my plaint to God and not to any other court. Despite all this, it is our obligation to have sympathy with the whole of mankind.
Let us take another important question which is generally raised by many people. They say that while Islam does not promote violence, war or hatred against other people and does not approve of any aggression to be done against other people, if other people take the initiative and start the aggression against the believers, then what should be done?
'Religion of peace' is not a harmless platitude
And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not the transgressors Ch. The permission to fight back is the basic human right. It was given to the Muslims when actually they were attacked. When the prophet of Islam was forced to migrate from Makkah to Madinah, the people of Makkah did not leave him and his followers in peace. Rather they attacked him time and again; and almost all the battles took place in the vicinity of Madinah.
This clearly indicates as to who the aggressor was. It should be noted that even this permission to fight back in self-defence was granted to the Muslims, for the first time in the history of Islam, when actually they were under attack. They were permitted to defend and protect their honour, property, life and religion. Permission to fight back is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged — and Allah indeed has power to help them. Even in case of this permission, look at the humane and magnanimous teachings of Islam: that this permission should never be misused to cross all limits.
Whoso transgresses against you, punish him for his transgression to the extent to which he has transgressed against you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him. Islam, being the greatest champion of peace, has made sure that even the reaction and response to the aggression does not go beyond justified limits. Although Muslim are permitted to fight back the aggression, it instructs them that as soon as the aggressors stop their hostilities and wish to go for a cease-fire, Muslims, whether they are winning or losing, are required to agree to discontinue their defensive action.
But if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors. This establishes clearly that Islam has nowhere mentioned any teachings promoting terrorism or war against other people. One point must be added here to clarify a misunderstanding. Some people nowadays commit various acts of terrorism, unfortunately, in the name of Islam. I would say that these are only a few handfuls of people who are betraying their own religion through their actions which are diametrically opposed to Islam.
As such, they are the defaulters who are doing a great disservice to their own faith. Those who commit these atro-cities and acts of terrorism against other people in the name of Islam, should never be allowed to hijack the beautiful name of Islam nor taken as ambassadors of Islam. They are the violators and deserve to be strongly condemned and severely punished for the acts of aggression and tarnishing the beautiful image of Islam. As a matter of fact, the definition of a true Muslim, according to a saying of the Holy Prophet of Islam saw is that a Muslim is he from whose hands and tongue, other people do not fear any sort of harm or danger.