For Muslims, Makkah, where the Ka’ba is located, is the epicenter of their faith and Madinah, home of the Prophet’s mosque, their sanctuary for spiritual bliss. These two cities happen to be in Saudi Arabia, which is once again in the news for the most chilling of reasons, presenting Muslims with a difficult decision to make.

Last week, we learned that the country likely killed one of its own citizens, in cold blood, inside its own consulate, in a foreign land. While we do not have incontrovertible proof, we know enough to be worried and concerned. How the great powers on the global stage respond is beyond our control. But what we choose to do as ordinary Muslims is not.

It is time to boycott Saudi Arabia. Stop visiting the country for umrah (optional pilgrimage) and hajj (obligatory pilgrimage). Such a call is indeed draconian and may even sound like contravening fundamental religious obligations. But the Quranic ideal of justice commands Muslims to take a stand, even at great discomfort to self-interest.

O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do. (Quran 4:135).

How can we continue to provide tacit support to the House of Saud as the custodians of the two holy mosques when they cannot be trusted as custodians of human life itself?

I am not advocating indiscriminate Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), which can hurt reformist voices inside Saudi Arabia, by making an already brutal regime even more hardline. But a significant reduction in pilgrims will send a powerful message to the House of Saud, who derive prestige from their self-anointed status as the guardians of Islam.

Saudi Arabia officially estimates that it earns nearly $8.5 billion annually from hajj alone, according to figures from 2014. About 70 percent of that expenditure comes from overseas visitors. Nearly nine times as many people perform umrah (19 million) than hajj (2.4 million). By 2022 experts estimate Saudi Arabia’s revenues from hajj and umrah will exceed $150 billion. The gruesome killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi ought to be the impetus that puts an economic dent on the Kingdom’s facade.

Saudi Arabia bears culpability in destabilizing a region, imprisoning dissidents, mercilessly extinguishing the lives of innocents and continuing to export an intolerant and perverted version of Islam. But its Yemen entanglement is significantly more insidious. While the crisis is well documented, it is not well publicized and certainly not adequately addressed. The European Union has described Yemen as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today. In total, nearly 50,000 people have been killed, according to unofficial estimates from ACLED, a group that studies global conflicts. The United Nation estimates that 22.2 million people in Yemen need assistance, 8.4 million people suffer from severe food insecurity, and a further 10 million could fall under the same category by the end of the year, if action is not urgently taken. Millions are on the brink of starvation.

Make no mistake that this is a man-made crisis created by the very people claiming to be custodians of holiness and funded in part by the U.S.

The likely murder of Khashoggi is justifiably drawing a lot of attention. But, for the past two years the plight of Yemenis has, for the most part, escaped our collective consciousness. This gives credence to Stalin’s quote, “The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic.” But in this instance, we have a chance to take the tragedy of one death to cast a light on the tragedies faced by millions.

While official American actions, in the form of cancellation of arms sale and imposition of the Magnitsky Act sanctions against the Saudi elite, may have to wait a change of regime in Washington (Trump seems to be looking the other way), Muslims need not wait to fulfill their personal fidelity to justice by taking a stand – silent no more.

Moral clarity requires that those championing BDS against Israel also advocate for a boycott of Saudi Arabia too. Under any objective standard, the behavior of the Saudi regime is comparable to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the other Holy Land.

When they were young, my children used to watch a video about a person who gave up the money he saved for hajj to feed his hungry neighbor. The story illustrated that the purpose of pilgrimage is not a mere physical journey to the heart of Islam, but more importantly a striving that is aimed at provoking a spiritual awakening. The goal is to link thoughts and actions to the will of the Divine by engendering compassion for humanity.

What good is our pilgrimage if the host regime uses our money and the legitimacy that our visit provides to not only engage in perpetrating the greatest humanitarian crisis of our time but also to commit cold blooded murder of journalists, for the ostensible purpose of squelching any dissent?

Egyptian writer Mona Eltahawy in a New York Times article recounted her 2005 encounter with Mohammed Akef, the then spiritual leader of Muslim Brotherhood. When she suggested to Akef that the verses in the Quran regarding women’s dress have several interpretations, Akef replied, “…There are no different interpretations. There is just one interpretation.” A 2012 Pew survey indicated that nearly 6 out of 10 Muslims believe that, “there is only one true way to interpret the teachings,” of Islam, ranging from a high of 78 percent in Egypt to a low of 34 percent in Morocco. Do such attitudes reflect the core values of the Quran and the historical diversity among Muslims?

The 2012 Pew survey (“The World’s Muslims: Unity and Diversity”), which was conducted in 39 countries covering nearly 67 percent of the world’s Muslim population, showed strong consensus among Muslims regarding devotional practices.

Nearly 9 out of 10 fast during Ramadan, 7 in 10 give zakat (charity), and 6 in 10 pray five times each day. Almost 100 percent declare their faith in God and believe that Muhammad (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) is God’s Prophet and Messenger. Nearly 9 in 10 believe in heaven/hell, fate (qadr) and angels; 8 in 10 believe the Quran to be the word of God. However, beyond such basic agreements, there is divergence in thought and actions, particularly as it relates to the religious pluralism.

Attitude of Muslims towards intra-faith pluralism is varied and often elusive.

Nearly 1 in 5 Muslims, do not consider Sufis to be Muslims, with a high mark of 44 percent in Egypt. Such opinions overlook the role played by Sufi orders in the spread of Islam. Equally concerning, nearly 1 in 4 Muslims do not consider Shias as Muslims. Egypt, the most populous Arab nation, tops the charts with 52 percent. However, in three countries where Shias constitute the majority of the population (Azerbaijan, Iraq and Lebanon), on average less than 6 percent of the respondents disregard Shias as Muslims.

The picture for inter-faith pluralism is also gloomy. A 2006 Pew report (“The Great Divide: How Westerners and Muslims View Each Other”) showed Muslims viewed Westerners as selfish, arrogant and violent, while Westerners viewed Muslims as fanatical, violent and arrogant. Examining the fallout from the publication of cartoons about Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper, the report noted,

“By wide margins, Westerners who had heard of the controversy believe that Muslim intolerance is principally to blame for the controversy, while Muslims, by even more lopsided majorities, see Western disrespect for the Islamic religion as the root of the problem. The clashing points of view are seen clearly in Nigeria, where 81% of Muslims blame the controversy on Western disrespect and 63% of Christians say Muslim intolerance is to blame.”

Not taking the time to understand each other creates the environment for toxic flashpoints.

WHO INHERITS HEAVEN?

Theological doctrines on salvation is an important issue in all religions. How such doctrines are put into practice may dictate attitudes towards interfaith relations. A2013 Pew survey titled, “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society” show that

on average (median) only 18 percent of Muslims believe that people of other faiths may inherit heaven. In Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq, and Malaysia 9 in 10 Muslims believe that “Islam is the one true faith leading to eternal life in heaven.” However, in Bosnia, Kazakhstan, Cameroon, Chad, and Mozambique, nearly 4 out of 10 Muslims responded that, “many religions can lead to eternal life in heaven.” Among American Muslims (“U.S. Muslims – Views on Religion and Society in a Global Context”), 56 percent believe that many religions can lead to eternal life.

On arguably one of the most important questions that consume people of all faiths there is impressive diversity of opinions. However, the parochial views in major Muslim-majority countries ought to elicit concerns.

Although hardline conservatives often deny the salvific value of other faiths, Muslim scholars Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim noted that while heaven is eternal, hell is not. Al-Ghazali and Ibn Arabi inferred that the mercy of God cannot be held in such low estimation as to conceive that salvation is only attainable by Muslims. Mohammed Hassan Khalil, in his University of Michigan doctoral dissertation, “Muslim Scholarly Discussions on Salvation and the Fate of ‘Others’,” concludes that given the wide variety of opinions about the salvific fate of people of other faiths, Muslims should avoid one-dimensional answers to questions regarding salvation. Verses such as, “If God had so willed, He would have made you one community,…(5:48)” and “Each community has its own direction to which it turns… (2:148),” suggests that pluralism is an integral part of Quranic values. Abdulaziz Sachedina, professor of Islamic Studies at George Mason University, in his book the “ The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism,” cites chapter 2 verse 213 to argue about the pluralistic vision of Islam, “Mankind was a single community, then God sent prophets to bring good news and warning, and with them He sent the Scripture with the Truth, to judge between people in their disagreements.”

In addition, Kurdish theologian Said Nursi (1877-1960) and author of the Quranic commentary “Risale-i-Nur,” asserts that if followers of other faiths perform a genuine worship of God, then “the manifestations of the unseen and the epiphanies of the sprit, revelation and inspiration,” are not exclusive to Islam and can be found in other divinely guided faith traditions. Contemporary Turkish scholar, Fethullah Gulen stressed in a Fountain magazine article titled, “The Necessity of Interfaith Dialogue,” that Muslims cannot remain prisoners of their history and act out of “political partisanship” while cloaking it in the “garb” of Islam. He noted that Islam made history’s greatest ecumenical call by stating in the Quran, “Say, ‘People of the Book, let us arrive at a statement that is common to us all…(3:64).” In his view, this verse provides a big tent under which, “followers of revealed religions could end their separation.”

WHAT IS PLURALISM?

Merely accepting diversity is not enough, asserts Harvard Pluralism Project’s Diana Eck. In a multi-cultural, multi-religious world, it is necessary to “celebrate diversity,” which requires knowledge of the “other.” This does not imply relativism, often associated with watering down of one’s beliefs. Eck notes, “Pluralism is the process of creating a society through critical and self-critical encounter with one another, acknowledging, rather than hiding, our deepest differences” and a commitment to nurture constructive dialogues. Practicing pluralism holds out hope for a deeper human shared dignity.

For many Muslims, religious pluralism evokes deep-seated fears about Western-inspired secular relativism, given the absence of exact Quranic or Hadith terms about pluralism. In his 2009 paper, “Diversity and Pluralism, A Quranic Perspective” (Islam and Civilizational Renewal, Vol. 1 No. 1, p. 29), Mohammed Hasan Kamali, former professor of law at the International Islamic University of Malaysia, advocates using al-ta῾ad-dudiyyah as the Arabic cognate for pluralism. Labeling every heterodox practice as “un-Islamic” erodes the fabric of the ummah and is the genesis of the takfiri attitude (calling Muslims as kafir or infidel), most violently manifested in terrorist groups. Decrying that Islam is the most misunderstood religion in the West, and yet succumbing to easy stereotyping of people of other faiths, leaves Muslims vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy. The Quran condemns such attitudes, “Do you order righteousness of the people and forget yourselves while you recite the Scripture? Then will you not reason? (2:44)”

INCLUSIVISM IN THE QURAN

The Quran states La ikraha fi-din, (There is no compulsion in religion…(2:256), where the use of “la” to start the verse indicates that the negation is inclusive of the past, present and future. This is akin to the use of La-ilaha (there is no god), in the Shahada (Declaration of Faith), which ends with the emphatic il-lal-lah (but God). Following la is the word ikraha, often translated as compulsion. The triliteral root for the word ikraha is kaf ra ha, the same root that produces the verb kariha, meaning dislike or hate. The word makruh, which not only literally means dislike, but is also used as a legal standard to denote actions that are displeasing to God, also comes from the same root. In other words, compulsion (ikraha) is forbidden because it is an action that is disliked or hated by God. “There is no compulsion in religion,” cannot then be viewed as merely a philosophical statement but rather a foundational value and an obligatory practice. Similar to 2:256, another Madinan verse also informs Prophet Muhammad (SA) that, “…, your only duty is to convey the message (3:20)” not compel people to convert. Thus, ideas about pluralism is not alien to Islam. Curtailing the freedom of conscience for any individual or group will be in defiance of the will of God.

The Quran also acknowledges cultural pluralism, “Another of His signs is the creation of the heavens and earth, and the diversity of your languages and colors (30:22).” In addition, the Quran notes that all Prophets and Messengers were sent to their people to preach in the tongue of the local population (14:4). The cultural, political, religious and economic pluralism, which we observe in all aspects of human civilization, is a purposeful divine action – “If God had so willed, He would have made you one community…(5:48).”

A contemporary scholar, Reza Shah-Kazemi noted in his paper “Tolerance” (in Amyn B. Sajoo, ed, A Companion to Muslim Ethics, London: I.B. Tauris, 2010),

“For Muslims, tolerance of the other is integral to the practice of Islam. It is not an optional extra, a cultural luxury. The Quran sets forth an expansive vision of diversity and difference, plurality and indeed of universality. This is all the more ironic since the practice of contemporary Muslim states, not to mention extra-state groups and actors, falls lamentably short of those expectations as well as of current standards of tolerance set by the secular West.”

Kazemi proposes developing pluralistic attitudes in Muslim societies as a, “principle at the very heart of the vision of Islam itself: a vision in which the plurality of religious paths to the One is perceived as a reflection of the spiritual infinity of the One.” InRisale-i Nur, commenting on the oft-cited Quranic verse of diversity (“People, We created you all from a single man and a single woman, and made you into races and tribes so that you should recognize one another,” 49:13) Nursi said, “Being divided into groups and tribes should lead to mutual acquaintance and mutual assistance, not to antipathy and mutual hostility.”

Mutual assistance is possible when there is mutual respect, which is fostered by an unequivocal commitment to engage with diversity, not just merely tolerating it.

IS THE QURAN ALSO EXCLUSIVIST?

Muslims who ignore the message of universality in the Quran often cite 3:19 and 3:85 as evidence that salvation belongs exclusively to Muslims. In 3:19, the Quran states, “True religion in God’s eye is islam.” Later in the same chapter, verse 85 reads, “If anyone seeks a religion other than (islam) complete devotion to God, it will not be accepted from him: he will be one of the losers in the hereafter.” Several translations (such as M.A.S. Abdel Haleem’s. “The Qur’an – A New Translation,” Oxford, 2004) used the lowercase “i” suggesting that islam is being used as a verb, which means submission or devotion to God. It is not being viewed only as the exclusive name given to the religion of Islam as it is practiced today. Even if literal exegesis is given preference, they still do not deny the truth contained in other religions. Several verses in the Quran present the act of freely submitting to God as a universal religion. In 10:72, Noah is commanded to submit (muslimin) and in 2:131, Abraham is asked to submit (aslim). Abraham and Jacob advise their sons to not die except in willing submission to God (muslimun) in 2:132. Japanese scholar, Toshiko Izutsu in “God and Man in the Koran” (Islamic Book Trust, p. 199. 2000) asserted that if islam is meant as submission and not a distinctive religious identity, then it closes the door of exclusivism and provides material for, “a very eloquent understanding of religious pluralism, one wherein all revelations throughout history are seen as different ways of giving to God that which is most difficult to give – our very selves.”

LI-TAA-RAFU (GETTING TO KNOW ONE ANOTHER)

The Quran in 2:113 and 2:120 condemns those Christians and Jews who assert that only their followers will be offered salvation by God. Why would the same Quran then endorse such exclusivist attitude by Muslims? Pluralism, as it is understood today, is certainly not a major theme in the Quran. And yet when placed in the context of state of human knowledge in the seventh century, the message of the Quran unequivocally celebrates diversity and encourages engagement (li-taa-rafu in 49:13). Persian poet Saadi Shirazi best surmises the Quranic ethos of pluralism in his celebrated poem Bani Adam,

“All men and women are to each other
the limbs of a single body, each of us drawn/from life’s shimmering essence, God’s perfect pearl;
and when this life we share wounds one of us, all share the hurt as if it were our own.
You, who will not feel another’s pain, you forfeit the right to be called human.”

(Gulistan, translated by Richard Jeffrey Newman (Global Scholarly Publications 2004).

Muslim scholars, political leaders and civic society must emphasize the pluralistic message of the Quran and urgently address the pervasive exclusivist attitude among many Muslims. Neglecting the pluralistic message of the Quran has allowed fringe groups to use anachronistic stereotypes about fellow Muslims, people of other faiths and entire nation-states, to unleash a form of violence rooted in extreme interpretations of Islamic eschatology (the study of end-of-time). From divisive identity politics to deranged messianic violence, all have their genesis in willful disregard of pluralism as a core Quranic value. It is not coincidental that societies that have embraced pluralism also tend to be more successful and peaceful.

Islamists, defined by AP as those who favor, “reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam,” view their interpretation of Islam as Islamic, often to the exclusion of other point of views. In the West, an amalgam of ideologues, from the far-right conservatives to the libertarian atheists, also insist that any and all bad action by Muslims are derived from Islam and thus Islamic. Several years ago, I wrote an article questioning the authenticity of using the label “Islamic” to characterize otherwise secular functions such as politics, art or finance. Labels such as, Islamic Republic, Islamic Finance, or Islamic State, are an exercise in hubris arrogantly suggesting that whatever takes place under such banners is sanctioned by Islam. Islamic Finance, for example, may reflect certain values of Islam, but in practice it often violates the spirit of Islam, if not its letter.

The Arabic for “Islamic” is “Islamiyyah,” a word that is not found in the Quran. When opining on the permissibility or the impermissibility of any action, classical scholars of Islam eschewed using “Islamic” or “un-Islamic” as a label. They often opted for legalistic terms such as “valid”, “accepted”, and “allowable” to determine Islamicity. This legal paradigm allowed for nuances and contextualization. For example, drinking alcohol is impermissible in Islam but if life depended on its consumption then an impermissible action becomes obligatory, as saving life takes precedence. Thus, the binary worldview of “Islamic” versus “un-Islamic,” does not find support in the sacred texts of Islam. Ironically, the proliferation of the label “Islamic” is traceable to the Islamist identity movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood or Jamaat-e-Islam, which sprang up in the post-colonial Muslim world.

In not labeling ISIS or ISIL as an “Islamic” group, President Obama was refusing to play into the narrative of the extremists, who are desperately trying to cloak their heinous actions with the legitimacy of Islam. To President Obama’s detractors, this was not viewed as either smart or strategic, but rather capitulation. If you cannot label the terrorists properly, how can you defeat them, so they howled? This argument over labels has distracted us from the real debate over ISIS – not what to call it but how to defeat it.

In a controversial article Atlantic’s Graeme Wood asserts that “The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic.” In the same article, Wood goes on to state that “nearly all” Muslims reject ISIS. How can something be “Islamic” if “nearly all” Muslims reject it? Wood’s main source to determine the religious authenticity of ISIS is Bernard Haykel, a Princeton scholar of Islam. The fact that Wood did not interview Muslim scholars of Islam to determine the authenticity of the “Islamic” credentials of ISIS, is a major omission. In addition, the only Muslims interviewed by Wood are fringe characters, such as the notorious British extremist Anjem Choudary, who despite claims that he motivated many British youth to join the Syrian war, remains free to give lengthy interviews to British newspapers and casually chat with American journalists in coffee shops. The Muslims interviewed by Wood who purportedly were providing the Islamic rationale behind ISIS, do not command any pulpit or lead any congregation. How can someone with no pulpit and no congregation become representatives of a religious faith practiced by 1.6 billion people?

Haykel notes that ISIS is reviving medieval interpretations of Islam. The fact that ISIS has to rely on anachronistic traditions of Islam certainly places them on the fringe of a modern-day Muslim, a fact that Wood does not adequately weigh when insisting that ISIS is Islamic. Thus ISIS is certainly not universally Islamic although it may rely on using words and images that suggests some tangential connection to Islam. ISIS is as much Islamic as the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda is Christian.

Despite glaring weaknesses in his article, Wood perceptively points out important differences between ISIS and its parent al-Qaeda. While al-Qaeda remains focused on hitting distant targets, such as the U.S., ISIS is mostly aiming to teach a lesson to “deviant” Muslims in the region and cleanse the land they control from any un-Islamic influence. In other words, ISIS is more of an existential threat to Muslims and Arabs in the region than they are to Western Europe and America. Moreover, ISIS unlike al-Qaeda espouses a brand of eschatology that favors an apocalyptic end-of-time clash between Islam and non-believers. Understanding this ideological underpinning is crucial, as Wood rightfully asserts. Thus, by avoiding characterizing ISIS as “Islamic,” President Obama is denying terrorists the comfort of thinking that the rest of the civilized world will indulge them in furthering their messianic visions. Any armed conflict with ISIS will have to be evaluated on the basis of security for the homeland and stability for the region, not on any messianic vision.

What ISIS wants is less important. They are a violent group that craves and revels in violence. No surprises. Defeating ISIS will depend more on understanding the factors that gave rise to them and less on how to label them. Without the US invasion of Iraq, there will be no ISIS. Without the disastrous post-war polices of de-Baathification, the Sunni minority would not have felt marginalized and gravitated towards their own Sunni devils (al-Qaeda) shunning the Shia devils, who as part of the government in Iraq, were just as brutal. Thus, the primary factor behind the rise of ISIS is a foreign occupation, a lesson that seems to be lost in the hullabaloo over how to label ISIS.

The second factor favoring the rise of ISIS is the repeated failures in governance. Without the failure of the Assad regime in Syria, there will be no space for ISIS to incubate. Not just Assad, but the dictators that have ruled across Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have by-and-large failed to provide their citizens with good life. The UN Arab Development Report makes it clear that most of the nation-states in the region failed to make a smooth transition towards the new world order, which required both strong national identities and adherence to international charters. The lack of clear national identities is the result of forced repression of “cultural, linguistic and religious heterogeneity” that was a fact of life in the region. Pluralism remains an idea too foreign across much of the MENA region. As successive iterations in socialism, capitalism, democracy, and authoritarianism failed (sometimes due to internal follies and sometimes due to undue interventions by America and its Western allies), a “medieval” and thus out-of-context interpretation of Islam began to gain currency among the dispossessed. Islam is the solution, sounded plausible. Lack of human development (economic, social and political) is the root cause of terrorism, a narrative too often ignored in discussions about terrorism in the name of Islam.

But can Islam itself be absolved? Islam like other ancient faith traditions is replete with multiple and even contradictory interpretations, particularly in the realm of social contracts. Taking stock of Islam’s history of development and progress, one can easily detect interpretations that range from accommodationist (accepting of differences) to separationist (positing Muslim exceptionalism and apartheid). The fact that a small band of thugs and criminals are banding towards a separationist camp, is hardly a revelation. However, the fact that thugs now control vast swaths of land and have the capacity to inflict so much violence cannot be trivialized either. Thus, Muslim scholars, leaders and activist should challenge ISIS on their core ideology and discredit their interpretations as invalid and out-of-context. So far, this has not been done at a sufficiently large scale to make any difference.

The Organization of Islamic Conference, a transnational body made up of 57 Muslim majority countries had instituted an observatory for Islamophobia but none to study and debunk extremism in the name of Islam. Muslim groups in the West routinely publish reports on Islamophobia, which is an important problem to be addressed, but so far have not researched and debunked the twisted ideology that undergirds the deranged violence of those who perpetrate violence in the name of Islam. While ISIS is producing slick magazines and engaging in impressive social media campaigns (one report suggested 45,000 Twitter accounts by ISIS supporters), the Muslim apex bodies either governmental such as the OIC or non-governmental civic advocacy groups such as CAIR in the US or MCB in UK have not developed any comparable campaign to discredit and marginalize the fallacious ideology that ISIS and their ilk propagate. Neither condemnations by Muslim groups nor dropping bombs by Western and Arab governments is sufficient to defeat ISIS. Security operations and statements of condemnations have to go hand in glove with exposing and discrediting the corrosive ideology being propagated by ISIS.

The debate over labels is thus a red-herring. The call for more condemnations by Muslims often masks ugly stereotyping presuming that Muslims have a monopoly on religious violence. Furthermore, increased militarization as solution is being tone deaf to the lessons from history. The real solution remains the same today as it was after 9/11 – reversing the downward spiral of human development across MENA. President Obama has asked Muslims to do more and certainly more can be done to debunk the ideology of ISIS. But President Obama has fallen short of laying out how he and his Western allies will nudge governments across MENA to speed up reforms that are necessary to give people in the region hope thus giving them less reason to buy into the messianic apocalyptic vision of ISIS.

The lack of a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often used as a pretext for anti-Jewish backlash. In the same vein, violence in the name of Islam is often used as a justification for the anti-Muslim backlash. Just as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is nuanced, with Jews expressing a variety opinions spanning from the far left to the far right, violence in the name of Islam is also caused by a multiplicity of factors; religion could be one of many but is certainly not an exclusive factor. A study by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point suggests that terrorism in the name of Islam kills more Muslims than non-Muslims. This alone ought to suggest that terrorism has little to do with Islam. The terrorist narrative that they are some vanguard protecting Muslims against Western aggression holds no credence. Victims of terrorism in the name of Islam are 38 times more likely to be non-Westerners and eight times more likely to be Muslims.

Often lost in all the attention-grabbing headlines about violence and hatred are the many quiet acts of heroism. One of the policemen killed during the attack on Charlie Hebdo was Muslim, Ahmed Merabet. The hashtag #JeSuisAhmed was trending on Twitter because Ahmed died defending the right of others to express their opinion, no matter how abhorrent those opinions were to him. Ahmed’s brother Malek spoke out, saying, “I address myself now to all the racists, Islamophobes and anti-Semites. One must not confuse extremists with Muslims. Mad people have neither color or religion. … [D]on’t tar everybody with the same brush, don’t burn mosques or synagogues. You are attacking people. It won’t bring our dead back and it won’t appease the families.” The hostage taking at the josher shop, which prompted the Grand Synagogue in Paris to close, also had a Muslim hero. Lassana Bathily, described in media reports as a practicing Muslim, was credited for saving the lives of seven Jewish shoppers by hiding them in a freezer, switching it off along with the lights, before risking his life by exiting the shop to alert policemen about the location of the hostages.

Ahmed Merabet and Lassana Bathily are not isolated names. Preceding them in France are other Muslim heroes who have also shown uncommon courage to reject the forces of evil. One name that comes to mind, now more than ever, is Noor-un-Nisa Inayat Khan. She was the daughter of an Indian Sufi master and his American wife. Noor was recruited by the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) in 1942 to serve as radio operator in France. She was the first female wireless operator sent to Nazi-occupied France during World War II. She resisted numerous opportunities to escape to safety and has been credited with saving numerous lives while bravely sacrificing her own. Just before being gunned down by a German firing squad, she cried out, “Liberté.” She acted out of her deep aversion to fascism and her deep attachment to her faith. Noor was posthumously awarded the George Cross in Britain and the Croix de Guerre in France. During troubled times like ours, we should remember Ahmed, Noor and Lassana. Their heroism should give us hope and inspire us to work towards overcoming hatred and bigotry.

In America we have a strong tradition of interfaith dialogue that helps us transcend our religious differences when radicals threaten to drive a wedge between faith groups to usher in their messianic vision of apocalyptic end of times. And yet it is not easy, because the propensity to stereotype is ingrained in our human character. It takes courage to understand and dialogue with those we view as the “other.” Through dialogue and discussions, Germany overcame its anti-Semitism. It can do the same with its Islamophobia. France’s prime minister rightfully feels that a flight of Jews will be a great loss to the French Republic. To translate this concern into action, France must reengineer social policies that will help address the rising anti-Semitism, particularly among its poorer immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa. Muslim leaders and imams, while speaking out loudly against Islamophobia, must also unequivocally denounce anti-Semitism. “Je suis humain” should be the battle cry against those who want to divide us on the basis of our nationality, race or religion.

I admire Charlie Hebdo for standing up against threats to free speech, but I am saddened to see them pay such a heavy price for their beliefs. Cartoons and satire, even the most provocative ones, remain vital for a healthy civil society. Only the deranged are threatened by them. Charlie Hebdo wanted to spread a little laughter, albeit in ways that are were often distasteful and provocative.

The killers in Paris did not nothing to defend Islam’s Prophet. They made the faith of 1.6 billion look like a murderous cult that views beheadings, bombings, kidnappings, and mass killings as religiously sanctioned response to grievances. They forget that the pen is mightier than the sword. The very Prophet whose name they are purportedly defending said, “The ink of the scholar is holier than the blood of the martyr.”

It is indeed heartening to witness Muslim leaders condemn the barbarism in Paris that killed the editor of Charlie Hebdo and several of its cartoonists. The killers also gunned down two policemen, one of whom happened to be Muslim. However, beyond the condemnations lurks a murky question: Why is some of the most egregious violence being repeatedly carried out in the name of Islam? Charlie Hebdo had offended Jews, Christians and a myriad of political leaders. Why did only Muslims lash out in such a violent manner? Certainly Muslims have no monopoly on deranged individuals.

Imams and Muslim leaders have usually responded by asserting that such killers do not represent “real” Islam. While a modicum of truth is indeed inherent in this argument, it does not illuminate the situation. While many acts of violence are being perpetrated in the name of other faiths, by actors ranging from Christian militias in Africa to Buddhist monks in Burma, the acts of violence in the name of Islam shock the conscience like no other. The gunning down of cartoonists, the beheading of journalists, the bombing of schools — all are headlines from just the last two months!

The rage sweeping through certain parts of the Muslim world and the Muslim diaspora is indeed rooted in the pervasive feeling of helplessness and hopelessness. This culture is exasperated by a sense of perpetual victimhood that undergirds the narrative of most Islamist groups. (Islamists are defined as those who use Islam as a fundamental pillar of their politics.) Psychologists define victimhood as a mentality that makes one feel powerless to affect their own circumstances, so for every wrong suffered, they blame and lash out at others. While many Islamists are engaged in peaceful political struggles, their fanning of victimhood often triggers violence, particularly among the marginalized victims.

The grievances of the Islamists and their militant counterparts overlap. Both groups dream about the establishment of a utopian society with Islam and Muslims at the top of the totem pole. However, the peaceful Islamists and the militants differ in their means of achieving this goal. Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami want to transform society into voluntarily accepting Shariah as the law of the land. Militants such as the Taliban, al-Qaeda and ISIS want to implement Shariah by brute force and feel no moral outrage at the idea of killing others to achieve their goals.

Even moderate Islamists such as the AKP in Turkey seem threatened by free speech. In recent months the Turkish government has jailed journalists, cartoonists and even children who allegedly mocked the president. In Saudi Arabia a blogger was publicly flogged for allegedly insulting Islam. In Pakistan blasphemy laws are used as tool of political oppression. Such intolerance often gives way to the violence of extremists as the distinction between peaceful advocacy and deranged violence is too easily blurred because not enough commitment has been made to the principles of nonviolence, neither by the state nor by the Islamists. Even amongst the Muslim diaspora in the West, free speech and freedom of religion struggle to find unequivocal acceptance.

It is ironic that the very week that this heinous political violence erupts in Paris also marks the release of the epic film Selma, which chronicles the transformative power of nonviolence in the face of state violence. The Prophet Muhammad urged his followers to never be afraid of learning something useful and beneficial, even from those who do not share their faith.

Therefore it is time to look beyond condemnation. It is time for Islamists to unequivocally embrace nonviolence and distance themselves from all forms of militancy in the name of Islam. It is time for repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia to open up their societies to free speech and free exercise of religion. It is time for Muslim democracies such as Turkey to end their paranoid attacks on freedom of the press. It is time for Islamic republics like Pakistan to repeal their blasphemy laws. It is time for Muslim imams to lead their flocks in recognizing free speech and free exercise of religion as integral part of Islam. It is time for Western societies to stop asking Muslims what they feel every time radicals perpetrate yet another spectacular act of violence. Only then will “Je suis Charlie” find real meaning.

Islam is more legalistic than Christianity but less so than Judaism. In many instances, Islam straddles the middle ground between Christianity and Judaism. Thus Islam is both like and unlike Christianity and Judaism. Islam has common elements to both Christianity and Judaism and yet there remain subtle and sometimes not-so subtle distinctions.

One saying of Prophet Muhammad is very similar to Christ’s teaching. Muhammad said, “Whoever wants to be drawn away from the Fire and admitted to Paradise, let him die while believing in God and the Last Day (of Judgment), and do for the people what he likes them to do for him.”

Other quotes from Prophet Muhammad that express similar sentiments are:

“No man is a true believer unless he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.”

“You will not enter paradise until you have faith. And you will not complete your faith until you love one another.”

“Verily, God is compassionate and is fond of compassion, and He gives to the compassionate what He does not give to the harsh.”

“The best richness is the richness of the soul.”

The last sermon of Prophet Muhammad was delivered on the Ninth Day of Dhul-Hijjah, 10 A.H. (632 CE) in the ‘Uranah valley of Mount Arafat in Makkah. After praising, and thanking God the Prophet began with the words:

“O People! lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefore, listen carefully to what I am saying and take these words to those who could not be present here today.

“O People! just as you regard this month, this day, this city as Sacred, so regard the life and property of every Muslim as a sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your Lord, and that He will indeed reckon your deeds.

“God has forbidden you to take riba (usury), therefore all usurious obligations shall henceforth be waived. Your capital is yours to keep. You will neither inflict nor suffer any inequity. God has judged that there shall be no riba and that all the riba due to Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib (Prophet’s uncle) is to be waived.

“Every right arising out of homicide in pre-Islamic days is henceforth waived and the first such right that I waive is that arising from the murder of Rabiah ibn al-Harithiah.

“O people! the polytheists indulge in tampering with the calendar in order to make permissible that which God forbade, and to prohibit which God has made permissible. With God the months are twelve in number. Four of them are holy, three of these are successive and one occurs singly between the months of Jumada and Shaban.

“Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all hope of that he will be able to lead you astray in big things, so beware of following him in small things.

“O People! it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under God’s trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with anyone of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste.

“O People! listen to me in earnest, worship God, say your five daily prayers, fast during month of Ramadan, and give your wealth in Zakat (obligatory charity). Perform Hajj if you can afford to.

“All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor does a black have any superiority over white except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly.

“Do not therefore do injustice to yourselves. Remember one day you will meet God and answer your deeds. So beware, do not astray from the path of righteousness after I am gone.

“O People! No Prophet or Apostle Will Come after Me and No New Faith Will Be Born. Reason well, therefore, O People! and understand words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the Quran and my Sunnah (i.e., my sayings, deeds, and approvals) and if you follow these you will never go astray.

“All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly.

“Be my witness O God, that I have conveyed your message to your people.”

As part of this sermon, the Prophet recited the final Revelation from God which he had just received and which completed the Qur’an, for it was the last passage to be revealed:

“This day have I perfected for you your religion and fulfilled My favor unto you, and it hath been My good pleasure to choose Islam for you as your religion (Chapter 5, Verse 3).”

Toward the end of his sermon, the Prophet asked “O people, have I faithfully delivered unto you my message?” A powerful murmur of assent “O God, yes!” arose from thousands that heard this sermon. The Prophet raised his forefinger and said: “Be my witness O God, that I have conveyed your message to your people.”

Judaism, Christianity and Islam claim a common father figure – Abraham. I am attaching file that shows the lineage of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad and how they all trace to a common father – Abraham. Muslims sees Judaism and Christianity as earlier versions of Islam. Muslims view Islam as the final revelation of the Abrahamic traditions.

The Islamic tradition recognizes many of the Jewish and Christian prophets, including Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (although he is not considered to be the son of God). For Muslims, the Quran has the same reverence as Jesus does to Christians. Muhammad himself is not divine, but a prophet chosen by God to deliver his message and an example of good character to emulate.

Jews and Christians are specifically mentioned in the Quran as “People of the Book,” reinforcing their spiritual connection to Islam. The Islamic legal tradition has upheld the rights of Jews and Christians to maintain their beliefs and practices within their communities in Islamic lands, and this policy of tolerance has generally been upheld.

CLICK HERE to see a brief table that compares side-by-side some of the issues of belief and practices among the Abrahamic faiths.

CLICK HERE to see a chart showing lineage of major prophets and messengers.