Actually, the paper of Prof Hans
Kippenberg is unfair to Islam. By any stretch of imagination; it cannot be
said to be an academic paper. He has directly blamed the violence of 9/11
in the United States on the conduct of the Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (SM)
and on the Quranic teachings.
In the first para he said, “The document (claimed by the FBI to have been
found in three locations) shows that violence is justified by emulating
meticulously the moment in early Islamic history, when Mohammad cancelled
all contracts with non-Muslims in order to establish in Medina Islam as a
Prof Kippenberg, in fact, the FBI document (alleged to have been found
from the cells of the perpetrators of September 11) shows that those who
committed the violence emulated the Prophet, followed the Prophet who
cancelled all contracts with Non-Muslims in order to establish Islamic
state in Medina.
In fact, the state of Medina was established by peaceful agreement with
the people of Medina, the Jews and the Muslims. It is about eight years or
nine years after the establishment of Medina that Prophet cancelled some
contracts (not all contracts) with the Beduin, Mushriks or idolaters
because they repeatedly were violating the contracts. So this is not true
that Prophet established the state of Medina after canceling all
He also said in his first paragraph that “The Manual explicity prescribes
recitations, prayers and rituals, by which member of the four cells
prepares of the ghazwa (war or battle), purifies his intention and
anticipates in his mind the stages of the struggle to come.” That means by
implication he had said in the whole paper that because they made
intention, they had mentioned about Quranic verses and because they spoke
about the sahadah or martyrdom, so this must be Islamic.
Just by niya, zikr, prayer things do not become Islamic. He forgot the
phrase “devil quoting the scripture.”
In this paper he accepts the truth of the FBI document. He clearly said,
“Only recently a scholarly edition, translation and analysis of the Arabic
text have been published in Germany. And the few serious studies of the
documents contradict the assumption of forgery.”
Many people have said the document is a forgery. It cannot be the basis of
any study. But he strongly says that this is not forged. He has taken the
position of FBI and he has neglected the other views.
He has quoted some verses from the Quran’s Sura Tauba. He mentions that
Prophet abrogated the agreement with the Musrikun and then said the
Prophet has asked to kill the Musrikun whenever you find them.
He did not take into account the international policy of the Prophet, or
the policy towards the Murikun or the Maccan people or Jews, Persians,
Romans. All these depend on the context of the situation. Prophet’s policy
was not static, it was a dynamic policy. In the battle of Badr, he forgave
the persons and he released them. In Hudaybiah he entered into contract
with a very unjust opponent. After victory of Macca, he forgave all of
them. So, the policy of the Prophet was dynamic and contextual.
If you read through Sura Tauba you will find that he did not cancel all
agreements. He only cancelled agreements with those Musrikun, who were
repeatedly violating the contract, who were treacherous, who were trying
to disturb the state.
So Prophet cancelled their agreements. The Islamic Jurists agree that this
is only for Arab Musrikun of that time. The Quran did not say this is
applicable to Ahlal-Kitab, that is Christians and the Jews. It was not
applied on the Hindus or Buddhists by later jurists because they were
civilised and had religious books. But Prof Hans applied this against all.
He did not know that this is not applicable to Ahle Kitab. The Americans
are basically Ahle Kitab and it is not applicable to them.
I am quoting the book, “Towards an Islamic Theory of Internaional
Relations” by Abdul Hamid A. Abu Sulaiman, (P-110) about this matter. He
said, “The issue of all-out war against the pagan Arab tribes unless they
turned to Islam cannot be understood as ideological oppression. This
decision came after the establishment of the Muslims state at Medina and
after the Muslim had undergone about twenty-two years of persecution and
war.” (IIIT Publication, Virginia, USA).
So, Prof Hans Kippenberg was very unfair to Prophet (SM). He did not
understand the Islamic International Theory.
In this seminar I was present. I explained there that the FBI document
cannot be basis of any academic studies. At the least it is doubtful, at
the worst it is to be rejected. Any doubtful material cannot be basis of
any investigation, research and any academic work. It shows the German
Professor willingly or unwillingly only served the interest of the enemy
There, I also said he should not forget that all Islamic scholars are
agreed, and this is recorded in all books of Islamic law, that innocents,
civilians, women, children cannot be killed, temple cannot be destroyed in
war according to the Islamic law.
That is the reason, all the Islamic scholars have said attack on Twin
Towers by whosoever (we do not know) is unlawful in the eye of Islam.
Islam is against the killing of civilian and women (there was 30% women
So, how can it be justified in the name of Islam? Islam also does not
allow any individual to declare war, only the state can do it.
Now, I would conclude that I think whatever had happened only the paper
writer is responsible, nobody else BIISS. BIISS is not responsible in any
way. In fact, BIISS gave us an opportunity to explain the Islamic
position. I would also say that the seminar had good papers also.
For example, the paper of Prof Dr Shamsher Ali. He clarified that religion
is for peace and the militancy is more political. Justice Mostafa Kamal
also explained that the West need not advise us. Their own record is very
bad in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and many other places.
However, such incidents are not uncommon in scholarly discourses. We
should take it in an academic spirit.