When we abandon the Qur'an, we create enemies the Qur'an did not create

There is an error that recurs in contemporary Arab and Islamic discourse, particularly when discussing Israel and the West.

Because of Western support for Israel, the positions of Western governments that support it, and the wars, colonial policies, and political interventions associated with this, some Arab intellectuals and thinkers place Jews, Christians, and the Christian West in a single front, as though they all represent a single position toward Muslims.

Here we must pause.

Not to defend Israel.

Nor to absolve Jews of crimes committed by those who bear responsibility for them.

Nor to justify occupation, killing, displacement, or settlement.

Nor to defend Western policies that support Israel.

But for one reason alone:

Because a Muslim is obliged to place the Qur'an above political anger, above historical narration (riwāya), above what has been inherited, and above the reality seen with one's own eyes.

If the Qur'an has said something, we may not replace it with what we want it to say.

The Verse That Must Not Be Bypassed

God Most High says:

﴿لَتَجِدَنَّ أَشَدَّ النَّاسِ عَدَاوَةً لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُوا ۖ وَلَتَجِدَنَّ أَقْرَبَهُم مَّوَدَّةً لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الَّذِينَ قَالُوا إِنَّا نَصَارَىٰ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّ مِنْهُمْ قِسِّيسِينَ وَرُهْبَانًا وَأَنَّهُمْ لَا يَسْتَكْبِرُونَ﴾ (You will surely find that the most hostile of people toward those who believe are the Jews and those who associate partners with God; and you will surely find that the nearest of them in affection toward those who believe are those who say, “We are Christians.” That is because among them are priests and monks, and because they are not arrogant.) [المائدة: ٨٢]

This is not a marginal verse.

It places before the believer a clear Qur'anic comparison:

The Jews and those who associate partners with God are on the side of greater hostility.

And those who say, “We are Christians,” are on the side of greater closeness in affection.

How, then, can a Muslim place Jews and Christians in a single category of hostility?

Where did this generalization come from?

And where has this verse figured in that Muslim's reckoning?

The Qur'an Did Not Say: Jews and Christians Are Alike

Notice the precision of the text.

It did not say:

﴿أَشَدَّ النَّاسِ عَدَاوَةً لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَىٰ﴾ (The most hostile of people toward those who believe are the Jews and the Christians).

Rather, it said:

﴿الْيَهُودَ وَالَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُوا﴾ (The Jews and those who associate partners with God).

Then he said:

﴿أَقْرَبَهُم مَّوَدَّةً لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الَّذِينَ قَالُوا إِنَّا نَصَارَىٰ﴾ (The nearest of them in affection toward those who believe are those who say, “We are Christians”).

Where, then, did the equivalence we see today in some discourses come from?

How did Jews and Christians become a single front in the Qur'an?

They did not become one.

This is not a reading of the Qur'an.

It is a political reading projected onto the Qur'an.

Politics Does Not Change God's Words

Someone may say:

But the world has changed.

Today there are Western states that support Israel.

Today there are Western governments that vote alongside it.

Today there are biased Western media.

Today there is a colonial history.

All of this can be examined.

Indeed, it must be examined.

But have God's words changed because politics has changed?

God says:

﴿لَا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِ اللَّهِ﴾ (There is none who can change God's words).

And it says:

﴿وَلَا تَبْدِيلَ لِكَلِمَاتِ اللَّهِ﴾ (And there is no changing God's words).

And it says:

﴿فَلَن تَجِدَ لِسُنَّتِ اللَّهِ تَبْدِيلًا ۖ وَلَن تَجِدَ لِسُنَّتِ اللَّهِ تَحْوِيلًا﴾ (You will never find any change in God's established way, nor will you ever find any deviation in God's established way).

If God, Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, has established for us a regularity and a measure, we have no right to annul that measure because we have seen a different political reality.

Reality is to be interpreted in the light of the Qur'an; it is not the Qur'an that is to be reshaped according to reality.

Israel Should Not Be the Criterion for Judging Christians

Here lies the greatest error.

Some intellectuals see certain Western governments supporting Israel and say:

Therefore, the Christian West is an enemy of Muslims.

Then: therefore, Christians and Jews hold a single position.

Then: therefore, Jews and Christians are enemies of Muslims.

The matter then turns into sweeping expressions such as:

May God curse the Jews and the Christians.

In doing so, the Muslim has personally foreclosed the Qur'anic verse.

For the Qur'an says:

﴿أَقْرَبَهُم مَّوَدَّةً﴾ (The nearest of them in affection).

How, then, do we turn it into:

The most hostile of them?

How do we place those whom the Qur'an has distinguished from one another in a single category?

Do Not Let Anger at Israel Annul the Qur'an

The Palestinian cause is a matter of injustice, occupation, killing, displacement, rights, land, and a people.

A Muslim can reject Israel and its policies in the strongest possible terms.

But that Muslim should not allow this anger to rewrite the Qur'an.

If an Israeli official has committed a crime, the responsibility rests with that official.

If an Israeli government has made a decision, the responsibility rests with the decision-makers and those who participated in it.

If an army has committed a crime, the responsibility rests with those who committed it, ordered it, and participated in it, according to the facts.

But to move from this to:

Jews, Christians, and the West are all enemies of the believers

is not a Qur'anic conclusion.

It is a generalization.

The Qur'an Explains the Reason for the Affection

The Qur'an did not leave the matter unexplained.

It said: ﴿ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّ مِنْهُمْ قِسِّيسِينَ وَرُهْبَانًا وَأَنَّهُمْ لَا يَسْتَكْبِرُونَ﴾ (That is because among them are priests and monks, and because they are not arrogant).

Then it says: ﴿وَإِذَا سَمِعُوا مَا أُنزِلَ إِلَى الرَّسُولِ تَرَىٰ أَعْيُنَهُمْ تَفِيضُ مِنَ الدَّمْعِ مِمَّا عَرَفُوا مِنَ الْحَقِّ﴾ (When they hear what has been sent down to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of the truth they have recognized).

Then: ﴿فَأَثَابَهُمُ اللَّهُ بِمَا قَالُوا جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِن تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ﴾ (So God rewarded them for what they said with gardens beneath which rivers flow).

Thus, the Qur'an does not merely say:

The nearest of them in affection.

Rather, it presents a portrait of a person who hears the truth, recognizes it, and is moved by it.

May we erase all of this for the sake of a contemporary political position?

The Qur'an Does Not Offer a Transient, Time-Bound Judgment

Here we reach a deeper point.

If God is Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, then what He tells us about the regularities of human conduct is not a journalistic report tied to circumstances that have passed.

God knows the human being.

He knows how a person thinks.

He knows how a person is enticed into error.

He knows how a person is led astray.

He knows how disagreements turn into conflicts.

And He knows how human vulnerabilities can be exploited.

For this reason, studying the Qur'an is not merely studying the past.

It is studying the regularities of human conduct.

From Iblis to al-Samiri

In our previous study of enticement into error and leading astray, an important model emerged.

Iblis declared:

﴿لَأَقْعُدَنَّ لَهُمْ صِرَاطَكَ الْمُسْتَقِيمَ﴾ (I will surely lie in wait for them on Your straight path).

Then he said:

﴿ثُمَّ لَآتِيَنَّهُم مِّن بَيْنِ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَمِنْ خَلْفِهِمْ وَعَنْ أَيْمَانِهِمْ وَعَن شَمَائِلِهِمْ﴾ (Then I will surely come upon them from before them and from behind them, from their right and from their left).

Then the Qur'an revealed that there are devils among humankind and jinn:

﴿شَيَاطِينَ الْإِنسِ وَالْجِنِّ يُوحِي بَعْضُهُمْ إِلَىٰ بَعْضٍ زُخْرُفَ الْقَوْلِ غُرُورًا﴾ (Devils among humankind and jinn, inspiring one another with embellished speech as a deception).

Then it presents al-Samiri to us as a clear model of collective misguidance:

﴿فَإِنَّا قَدْ فَتَنَّا قَوْمَكَ مِن بَعْدِكَ وَأَضَلَّهُمُ السَّامِرِيُّ﴾ (We have indeed put your people to the test after your departure, and the Samaritan has led them astray).

The Samaritan did not merely go astray himself.

He led a people astray.

This is an important point.

Leading astray can extend from the individual to the group.

From the idea to the group.

And from the group to conflict.

Is “divide and rule” one of the instruments of leading astray?

Here we must distinguish between the Qur'anic text and the hypothesis.

The Qur'an reveals to us that Iblis seeks to lead the human being astray, that the devils among humankind and jinn cooperate in embellishing speech, and that a human being can lead a group astray.

From this, a hypothesis can be proposed:

If a party wishes to weaken a large human force, must it confront that force directly?

Or can it work to dismantle it from within?

Can it make Muslims see Christians as natural enemies?

Then make Christians see Muslims as natural enemies?

Then fear increases.

Then hatred.

Then conflict.

Then billions of people become preoccupied with one another, while the party with the real vested interest disappears behind the conflict?

This is not a truth we proclaim without evidence.

It is a hypothesis that must be tested against the Qur'an, reality, and circumstantial evidence.

But it is a hypothesis worth investigating.

Billions of people can become adversaries

Muslims today number more than two billion people.

And Christians number more than two billion people.

If political or religious discourse succeeds in turning this immense body of people into permanent adversaries, the loser is not just one side.

Both sides lose.

Here the question becomes:

Who benefits from turning religious difference into an all-encompassing conflict?

Who benefits from persuading a Muslim that every Christian is his enemy?

Who benefits from persuading a Christian that every Muslim is his enemy?

Who benefits when the world becomes a set of warring religious camps?

Here the Muslim must reconsider his position

A Muslim is not entitled to say:

I am angry, and therefore I will abandon the Qur'an.

Nor is he entitled to say:

Political reality has changed, and therefore I will change the Qur'anic ruling.

Nor is he entitled to say:

Some Western governments have supported Israel, and therefore I will place all the billions of Christians in a single category.

Rather, he must return to the Qur'an.

Even if the result is uncomfortable.

Even if it contradicts what he has inherited.

Even if it contradicts what some sheikhs say.

Even if it contradicts the prevailing political discourse.

For the Qur'an is the arbiter.

The Qur'an may say what we do not want to hear

This is the most difficult moment in Tadbur.

To read the Qur'an prepared for it to correct you.

Not to read it while searching for a verse that supports you.

If the Qur'an says:

﴿أَقْرَبَهُم مَّوَدَّةً﴾ (the nearest of them in affection) []

Then you must pause.

And if it says:

﴿أَشَدَّ النَّاسِ عَدَاوَةً﴾ (the most intense of people in enmity) []

Then you must pause.

If it distinguishes between two groups, we must not merge them.

If it corrects our position, we must accept the correction.

The Qur'an is not merely a weapon we direct at others; the Qur'an is a balance placed before us as well.

What about the West?

We can criticize the West.

Indeed, we must criticize any Western government when it adopts an unjust position.

We can study colonialism.

We can study wars.

We can study support for Israel.

We can study lobbies, pressure groups, the media, funding, and political relations.

But we must always ask:

Who acted?

Who decided?

Who funded?

Who exerted pressure?

Who benefited?

Who voted?

Instead of saying:

The West did it.

For “the West” is not a single person.

This precision does not weaken our position.

Rather, it makes it stronger.

What about Arab refugees in the West?

Here a paradox emerges that should not be ignored.

There are Palestinians, Syrians, Arabs, and Muslims who have found refuge, safety, education, medical treatment, and an opportunity for a new life in Western countries, at a time when many Arab and Islamic countries have been unable to receive or protect them to the same standard.

This fact does not absolve the West of its policies.

Nor does it absolve Israel of its crimes.

Nor does it erase colonial history.

But it exposes the error in the statement:

The entire West is our enemy.

For the person who opened his home to a refugee is not necessarily the political decision-maker who supported the war.

The doctor who treated the refugee is not responsible for his government's decision.

The journalist who exposed the crime is not the government that concealed it.

The citizen who demonstrated against the war is not the official who supported it.

Why, then, do we treat everyone as a single entity?

Do not allow Israel to separate Muslims from the Qur'an

Here lies what may be the most sensitive point.

If the issue of Israel leads a Muslim to hate every Jew, then every Christian, then every Westerner, the scope of the conflict has expanded far beyond the issue from which it began.

If political discourse succeeds in persuading Muslims that:

Jews, Christians, and the West constitute a single bloc,

Then it has succeeded in nullifying the Qur'anic verse that says:

﴿أَقْرَبَهُم مَّوَدَّةً﴾ (the nearest of them in affection).

Here we must ask:

Has our anger at Israel become stronger than our commitment to the Qur'an?

If the answer is yes, then this is a problem within us.

We do not need a collective enemy

The Palestinian cause does not need collective hatred in order to be just.

Killing a Palestinian is a crime.

Displacing a Palestinian is a crime.

Confiscating land is an injustice.

Occupation is a political and ethical issue.

Policies that support this can be criticized and confronted.

All of this can be said without turning Jews and Christians into a single bloc.

Indeed, Qur'anic precision makes our argument stronger.

For we do not need to say:

All Jews are guilty.

Nor:

All Christians are guilty.

Rather, we say:

Whoever committed the crime bears responsibility for it.

Whoever supported it bears responsibility for it.

Whoever participated in it bears responsibility for it.

Whoever remained silent about it bears responsibility commensurate with his position.

Whoever resisted it deserves to have his position seen for what it is.

This is justice.

The most dangerous thing is to search for an enemy rather than search for the truth

If Iblis has declared that he will lie in wait for the human being on the straight path, then the most dangerous thing that can happen to us is to lose our ability to see the truth.

That he should make us hate those who are not our enemies.

That he should make us equate those whom the Qur'an has distinguished from one another.

That he should make us see peoples as homogeneous blocs.

That he should make us search for a collective enemy instead of searching for the actual actor.

And that we should become preoccupied with the Muslim, the Christian, the Jew, the Arab, and the Westerner, while the actual decision-maker disappears behind these classifications.

If this is one of the means of leading people astray, then the best resistance to it is:

Returning to the Qur'an.

Conclusion: Reassess Your Positions in Light of the Qur'an

The Muslim is called upon today to reassess his position.

He is not being asked to defend Israel.

Nor is he being asked to justify its crimes.

Nor is he being asked to remain silent about Western support for it.

Nor is he being asked to abandon the Palestinian cause.

Rather, he is being asked to preserve the Qur'anic compass as he confronts all of this.

God is the Knower of the unseen and the witnessed.

And it is He who says:

﴿لَا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِ اللَّهِ﴾ (There is none who can alter the words of God).

If the Qur'an says:

﴿لَتَجِدَنَّ أَشَدَّ النَّاسِ عَدَاوَةً لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُوا﴾ (You will surely find the most hostile of people toward those who believe to be the Jews and those who associate partners with God) []

Then He said:

﴿وَلَتَجِدَنَّ أَقْرَبَهُم مَّوَدَّةً لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الَّذِينَ قَالُوا إِنَّا نَصَارَىٰ﴾ (And you will surely find the closest of them in affection toward those who believe to be those who say, “We are Christians”) []

Then the Muslim must not erase this distinction.

Not because of politics.

Nor because of war.

Nor because of Israel.

Nor because of history.

Nor because of anger.

For God does not err in His words; it is we who may err in reading them.

And here the genuine reassessment begins:

Do we adhere to what the Qur'an has said?

Or to what we have inherited?

Do we read reality through the Qur'an?

Or do we reinterpret the Qur'an through reality?

Are we seeking the truth?

Or are we seeking an enemy?

If Satan seeks to lead the human being astray, if the Qur'an reveals the existence of devils among humankind and jinn, and if al-Samiri was able to lead a community astray, could dividing the major powers and igniting hostility among them be one of the instruments of leading people astray?

Muslims number more than two billion people.

And Christians number more than two billion people.

If these people become permanent enemies, who will benefit?

And if someone succeeds in convincing Muslims that all Christians are their enemies, and in convincing Christians that all Muslims are their enemies, will he not have succeeded in fragmenting an immense human force without firing a single bullet?

Here, perhaps, lies the more consequential question:

Are we confronting the project of leading people astray, or have we become some of its instruments?

The Muslim must therefore return to the Qur'an.

Not when the Qur'an accords with his anger.

But especially when the Qur'an says something he does not want to hear.

For the Qur'an is not a book for confirming our positions.

The Qur'an is what corrects our positions.

And if the truth that the Qur'an reveals does not accord with what we want, we must reassess ourselves, not reassess the Qur'an.

Herein lies genuine commitment:

Even if the Qur'an does not relate to us the truth we want, we adhere to what it has said, because we believe that the One who sent down the Qur'an knows what we do not know.

The human being sees a moment.

And God sees all the governing patterns.

The human being sees what is witnessed.

And God knows the unseen and the witnessed.

The human being may read history.

And God is the One who created the human being and knew how he is lured into error, how he is led astray, and how people become divided.

Thus, returning to the Qur'an is not political weakness.

Rather, it may be the strongest means of escaping deception.

Do not let Israel become a reason for you to abandon the Qur'an.

And do not let your anger at injustice become a reason to do injustice to the text.

And do not allow the method of “divide and rule” to turn billions of people into enemies while the true beneficiary remains out of your sight.

For the Qur'an has given us the compass.

And the question remains:

Will we adhere to it?