It is important to note that Islamic religious texts [i.e. Qur’an and Prophetic narrations] do not lend any direct support for holding celebrations commemorating the Prophet’s birth, but at the same time we have to admit that we find little problem with it, in the sense that it gives an opportunity to share, especially with the youth and with those unacquainted with Islam, the Prophet’s legacy and teachings. [Ft-1 and 2]
As such, we have taken advantage of Mawlud to correct some misconceptions about the Noble Messenger of Allah, upon whom we ask God’s peace and blessings. It is also worth noting that some misconceptions and outright lies are generally propagated either by Christian missionaries of various sects or by Orientalist writers, whose agendas are obvious. Below, we present thoughts on some of those wrong ideas.
[1] Muhammad was obsessed with women
As such, we have taken advantage of Mawlud to correct some misconceptions about the Noble Messenger of Allah, upon whom we ask God’s peace and blessings. It is also worth noting that some misconceptions and outright lies are generally propagated either by Christian missionaries of various sects or by Orientalist writers, whose agendas are obvious. Below, we present thoughts on some of those wrong ideas.
[1] Muhammad was obsessed with women
Arguably the leading accusation, this idea is presented as an alleged contrast with Christian ‘moralists’ who uphold the celibacy of Jesus Christ versus the polygamy practiced by the Messenger. What seems to get ignored when this charge is brought up is that the institute of polygamy was [and arguably still is in parts of today’s world] a means to seal political and family alliances, as a way to unite peoples and heal hostilities. In addition to this, in times of war when men would fall on the battlefield, polygamy was a means of social welfare for widows and children. The Prophet’s marriages, taking place after the death of his beloved Khadijah, must be viewed in this light. [ft.3]
[2] Blood thirsty killer
[2] Blood thirsty killer
This is very far from the truth. His congenial nature was well known even before the Qur’anic revelation. When the revelation did come, he and his growing number of followers suffered persecution, and the enemy did not stop when the Prophet migrated to Madinah. Rather, they continued their plotting and their attacks. It was only in response to these that fighting for survival was finally ordered [Q 2:190]. In this regards, we must also understand that the Qur’an says “and if they [the enemy] sue for peace- then you [O Muslims] must also sue for peace, and place your trust in God, He is the Hearer, the Knower.” {Q 8:61]
[3] Relations between Muhammad and the Jewish tribes
[3] Relations between Muhammad and the Jewish tribes
In Madinah, when the Prophet moved there, he made treaties with the Jewish tribes there, as well as in other places, Yet, as the history books tell us, these groups, motivated by ethnic prejudices and jealousy, not only broke their treaties, they even were involved in plots to kill the Prophet! The details are beyond the scope of our article, but we refer the reader to “The life of Muhammad” by Muhammad Husayn Haykal, pp 271-283.
How should Muhammad be viewed?
How should Muhammad be viewed?
His son in law and the eventual fourth Khalifah of the Muslim community after his [i.e. the Prophet’s] death, ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib, is reported to have observed:
“He treated the [material] world disdainfully and regarded it low. He held it contemptible and hated it. He conveyed from Allah the pleas [against committing sin], counseled his people as a warner, called towards paradise as a conveyer of good tidings.” [Nahjal Balaaghah, page 71]
His wife ‘A’ishaa bint Abi Bakr says “His character was the Qur’an.” [ Saheeh Al-Bukhari ]
His student and relative Ibn ‘Abbas says “Allah’s messenger, Sall Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, was the most generous of people in charity…” [Saheeh Muslim]
“And We [Allah] have sent you [O Muhammad] to be nothing more except as a mercy to all nations.” [Qur’an 21:107]
Final advice
Allah Almighty preserved the Qur’an, and has said therein that the Prophet was a model “for any who hopes in Allah, the final day, and remember Allah often.” [Q 33:21]. The Qur’an has preserved just about all of the details we, as lay people, would need about the Prophet. His struggles with faith and family, marriages and leadership, even his internal thoughts are often found therein. So, for us lay people who do not have the time, patience or ability to shift through materials determining what is authentic and what is not, we need only look at the Qur’an. Look at the ‘say verses’. Look at the earliest Soorahs, which are mostly found in the last sections of the text, and you will find a man who was quite normal, who is sufficient for believers as a practical guide.
Footnotes
[1] In Al Maulud Fil Islaam: Innovation and true belief according to Qur’an and Sunna and the scholars of Islam, the author, Shaikh Hisham Kabbani, attempts to extract religious texts to justify the traditional observances of the Prophet’s birthday, yet at the beginning of his treatise he does admit “ ..other celebrations, like Mawlid, the Prophet’s birthday-peace be upon him-are neither obligatory nor forbidden.” [pg 1, Haqqani Islamic foundation, Fenton, Michigan, 1994 edition]
[2] We have attempted to be fair with regards to the issue of celebrating the Prophet’s birthday. After all, it has become a part of Muslim culture, and as long as there is no danger of idolatry, it can be a good opportunity to pass along Islamic knowledge. There are some extremes among Muslims on issues like this. Saudi Arabia is probably the only Muslim nation that does not have the Prophet’s birthday as a national holiday, and scholars from the Salafi Manhaj regularly preach against it. The opposite side of that coin is that of many Muslims who not only celebrate his birthday, but who have rather odd supernatural beliefs about him, such as his actually not being human, but having been created out of light [the Noor –e Muhammad as expressed in Urdu], that he actually joins certain groups when they pray. This personality cult and exaggerated status of a man is just the sort of thing that Islam stands against, and it is under these circumstances that we understand full well the reluctance of some authorities to allow such celebrations. It is also worth sharing that there are some among the Muslim ranks who reject ‘traditional Islam’ including the ‘Eids, and obviously Mawlud, yet the same people, in our experience at least, have no qualms issuing greetings for Christmas, St. Valentine day, and even Halloween!
[3] For the Islamic teaching on polygamy, see our “Polygamy and societal norms” at shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com.
[2] We have attempted to be fair with regards to the issue of celebrating the Prophet’s birthday. After all, it has become a part of Muslim culture, and as long as there is no danger of idolatry, it can be a good opportunity to pass along Islamic knowledge. There are some extremes among Muslims on issues like this. Saudi Arabia is probably the only Muslim nation that does not have the Prophet’s birthday as a national holiday, and scholars from the Salafi Manhaj regularly preach against it. The opposite side of that coin is that of many Muslims who not only celebrate his birthday, but who have rather odd supernatural beliefs about him, such as his actually not being human, but having been created out of light [the Noor –e Muhammad as expressed in Urdu], that he actually joins certain groups when they pray. This personality cult and exaggerated status of a man is just the sort of thing that Islam stands against, and it is under these circumstances that we understand full well the reluctance of some authorities to allow such celebrations. It is also worth sharing that there are some among the Muslim ranks who reject ‘traditional Islam’ including the ‘Eids, and obviously Mawlud, yet the same people, in our experience at least, have no qualms issuing greetings for Christmas, St. Valentine day, and even Halloween!
[3] For the Islamic teaching on polygamy, see our “Polygamy and societal norms” at shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com.
24 comments:
jazak allah khair for a great post! people get so obsessed over NOT celebrating the prophet's birthday and then it turns into celebrating anything at all that it often borders on disrepect toward the wonderful person that he was! i love real facts and history over bitter senseless argument anytime!
Jazakallah Khair for this informative post.
Hello Waheed. I will comment on both this article and the comments that you made in http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2020/10/are-muslims-allowed-to-pray-for-non.html
But first I would like to say something general:
If there is anything I've learned during the past 4 years it is how fragile the truth is. I have watched as people who hold positions of trust have blatantly lied. Millions of trusting people have accepted these lies as truth. A couple of weeks ago, over 70 million people, about half of the electorate, voted for one of the most outrageous liars we have ever seen. The vast majority of these believers are not bad people; when they repeat these lies, they do so in good faith believing their words to be truthful.
This has taught me:
1. Just because millions of people believe something, that doesn't make it true.
2. People who want to believe something will believe it even when there is strong evidence that it should not be believed.
3. Even careful thinkers can be fooled and we have to constantly ask ourselves "why do we think what we believe is true and what others think is not?"
Let's talk a little about intellectual honesty. You accuse me of seeking out any negative thing and creating a negative reading where one does not exist. You say in a derogatory way that citing evidence is "mining". In this thread, you claim that Orientalist writers "whose agendas are obvious" have propagated misconceptions and outright lies.
Really? I didn't fabricate the stories in the Sirah and I didn't "seek out" the stories that I am criticising. In this very article, you ask us to read “The Life of Muhammad”, pp 271-283, (I don't have page numbers, so I don't know exactly where that points) and having read Haykal's accounts of the treatment of the Madinan Jews, it is only natural to confirm what he writes by reading the accounts in his sources (ibn Ishaq or al-Tabari are the two I have translations for). There is no "agenda" involved in wanting to understand the true motivation for expulsions of entire communities from their homes and then the slaughter of another. There are no "misconceptions" about what took place.
You say that some scholars say that "some of the details are false", but that falls far short of "sanitising" these stories for modern "Orientalist" consumption. The description of Muhammad's rule in Madinah, as told in the Sirah, in Haykal, in Maududi, and in any other source I've looked at is gruesome; a gut-wrenching horror story full of atrocities. If there were just one incident, perhaps it would be possible to dismiss it by saying that it was fabricated or exaggerated, but it isn't one incident, rather, it is the exact opposite. It is a continuous program of violence against his opponents.
I can't think what sort of "agenda" you imagine me to have that would motivate me to twist these stories.
As I often do, I appeal to you to agree with that which is indisputable: Muhammad's rule in Madinah was a period of nearly continual conflict in which hundreds of innocent people were oppressed, killed, forced to marry, forced to change their religion, expelled from their homes, and so on.
No agenda; just trying to establish a common basis of fact.
Let me also say a little about "knowledge". Very rarely is our knowledge "certain". When we disagree, it is because our knowledge is uncertain; if either of us was certain, there wouldn't be a possibility for disagreement. Conservatives tend to discount knowledge when there is uncertainty and conspiracy theorists thrive on in.
Since you didn't understand what I was getting at when I mentioned the notion that "the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence", let me elaborate:
While Rumsfeld was technically correct that an absence of evidence did not "prove" that there was absence, that isn't how we operate at a practical level. We routinely make decisions based on the limited information that we have according to what we think is "most likely". Whether or not an absence of evidence suggests that something is actually absent depends on how hard we have looked for evidence and how apparent evidence ought to be given the circumstances. It also depends on what we have experienced and on what we understand to be plausible based on that experience. It comes down to individual judgement. In the case of "knowing", in the final analysis, it is only an opinion whether or not something is "probably correct".
You say that you "know" the Qur'an and the Prophet better than I do, however, I would argue that a lot of what you say you know is based on very limited evidence or on no evidence at all. Much of what you believe is based on what you have been told to believe by teachers that you trust. Reading what you write here and watching your videos, there is much that you write and say which I believe you have been taught incorrectly. You say that you have "corrected me", yet in most cases you have merely stated a difference in opinion based on what you have been taught. You are spreading misinformation to your community and are now passing it down to the next generation.
You need to challenge your own understandings and you should accept the challenges of others, especially of non-Muslims. When I find some more time, I'll point out to you specific assertions you've made in this thread and in the other thread which are not based on solid evidence and which are easily disputed. There is much that you say you "know", but you do not know.
Hello N-B,
Time constraints prevent me from a detailed reply, and will do so later on God willing, but for the moment I just wanted to say that whereas for you this maybe, at most, some intellectual exercise, but for us it is deeper than that.
Because of that difference, Muslims, in particular those working in teaching, spend a great deal of time looking at these things. In my case, I have studied and continue to study. I have studied most of the literature out there regarding the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
Therefore, I am confident in my assessment, which is summarized in the above article. The Prophet's message had a positive impact, and continues to do so. His message impacted the world. You accuse me of spreading misinformation in my community and passing it down to the next generations, that view treats Muslims as babies, needing a "civilized" personality to rescue us, to "enlighten us". That reeks of arrogance, and the "white man's burden" - as the expression goes.
In terms of the details of your post, I will have to deal with that later.
Regards
S Waheed
Hello N-B.
Thanks for your comments. I asked you to move the comment here because (1) It is related to the subject of this thread, not the other. (2) I wanted to direct your attention to the contents of this article.
In terms of your allusion to the US elections, I will only share what the Qur'an itself says, because it is relevant. It says that when information is brought to us by those who have proven to break the normal rules of trust/behaviour, we are to investigate it-before acting upon it ( Q 49:6). Perhaps it is better stated that what has happened-in the example you cite, is that confirmation bias has kicked in.
In terms of your second paragraph, you used the term "mining". That term alerted me to your methodology, even if you do it on a unconscious level. That is my observation, that you look for texts/reports that can have a negative construction (when viewed uncritically or without context), run with that, and then you assert indignation when I don't agree with your conclusions.
Some of the reports in particular can be looked at in gruesome ways, but in general I dismiss them as either exaggerations or outright fabrications, because they tend to contradict well-known facts, they tend to contradict the Qur'an and Sunnah.
This sort of method of attempting to understand and apply texts is not new. It has been around from the very beginning. It has been understood that false reports and quotes have been attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, upon whom be peace. It has been well known that some of the accounts in the Ghazwa reports are simply untrue.
Thus, it is unnecessary that we have to become dependent upon western arguments or academia to understand properly these texts. WE can benefit from them to certain extent, indeed, knowledge itself is always a gift, regardless of the source (so long as it is authentic and useful), but there is already systems in place, within Islam (as an intellectual and even faith tradition), meant to help us filter out truth from falsehood.
If I need to challenge my understandings, I would ask you to do the same. In addition to this, consider asking yourself the reasons you deal with Islam in such a way.
Finally, you make a variety of assertions about Madinah in the time of the Prophet. That he forced people to convert, killed and expelled people. If he was such a tyrant, how could people come to him-in his face- and threaten him, ridicule him, freely? If he was forcing people to convert, on pain of death, how could elements among the Jews forge a plan with the intention of presenting Islam as unworthy (by pretending to convert, then abandon it in public)?
So I would ask you to challenge your own assumptions as well.
Waheed, this is certainly not some "intellectual exercise" on my part. Islamophobes allege that the political framework of Islam is incompatible with modern Western society. I am attempting to examine that allegation by understanding what the truth is with respect to how Muslims view Western institutions and our norms of inclusion and tolerance. To do this, it is necessary to separate the politics from the religion. It has been pretty clear that most Muslims are very much challenged when trying to make this distinction. This problem begins with the Qur'an, itself, in which Muhammad blames his political problems on his opponents' "disbelief". It is clear that prior to Muhammad, monotheists and polytheists were able to live side-by-side without engaging in perpetual religious conflicts.
You can attempt to distract me with your cynicism but the reality is that you have been unable to defend Muhammad's aggression. Actually, your repeated excuses are laughable; in order to sustain these excuses you would have to assume that Muhammad's opponents were demonic subhumans not worthy of any consideration. I make no such assumptions. I assume that his opponents were real people with real families and they had real emotions and real motivations. You can't simply label them with out any evidence and then justify their destruction.
Since totalitarianism is a form of civilization, proponents of totalitarianism are "civilized". I hope that you are proud to be so civilized because that is exactly what you have been describing. You accuse me of arrogance but it is the facts which you have a problem with.
You state as "fact" that Muhammad's marriages to enslaved women were some sort of political solution. You clearly have no ability to see an issue like this from the opposite point of view. You must have some idea that some of the marriages were wrong or you wouldn't repeat such a foolish excuse.
You state as "fact" that the Madinans were "enemies" who continued their plotting and their attacks after the Migration. No. That isn't true, and you KNOW that that isn't true. You have previously admitted that it was the Muslims who attacked the Madinans, and you have claimed that it was justified according to a "principle" that if anyone from a community has ever caused you harm, you may rob and kill members of their community. It was the Muslims who continued the enmity and descended on the Meccans when the could.
You state as "fact" that the Jews of Medina were "motivated by ethnic prejudices and jealousy, not only broke their treaties, they even were involved in plots to kill the Prophet!" The Qur'an itself declares that it was Muhammad who broke the treaty with the Jews. The Qur'an itself shows how the Muslims were motivated by prejudices and jealousy. And only under a totalitarian regime is the allegation of a plot sufficient justification for the harsh punishments handed down to the ENTIRE populations. As usual, you quote a verse (Q 8:61) and ignore the context of the preceding and following verses.
Your "final advice" is to focus on the earliest Soorahs. Yes, you have noticed that too! You have noticed Muhammad's transformation after gaining power. You always go back to the man before the power: "his congenial nature was well known even before the Qur’anic revelation." There was NOTHING congenial about his nature after he rose to power. I would have nothing to write about if Muhammad had been killed before the Migration or at Badr.
... and I don't "deal with Islam in such a way." Very little of what I write is about religion. Mostly, I write about totalitarianism and injustice.
And please don't waste time with your argument that Muhammad could've been worse; there were others he could've killed. We can look at individual cases and find strategic reasons for his choices. Why kill an enemy warrior if you can recruit him into your army? Why kill an enemy leader who has behaved honourably when you can form an alliance with him?
As for your "Jewish conspiracy"... what is so hard to understand? Can you imagine if someone like me was confront by armed Muslims and given the choice to convert or be killed, what would I choose? Would I suddenly think Muhammad to be a worthy leader? You can't compel people to change their thinking. Is it so surprising that Muhammad had so many problems with "Hypocrites"? These were the forced converts.
Sorry, I see that I've misspoken in a way that might be confusing. Where I wrote "You state as "fact" that the Madinans were "enemies" who continued their plotting and their attacks after the Migration.", I meant to say "the Meccans".
Hello N.B.
You write that you are attempting to ascertain how and if Islam/Muslims are compatible with Modern Western society. To do that, you display a pattern of argumentation and stubbornness that is unbecoming.
What I share in terms of the Prophetic biography, and some aspects of the Qur'an and Sunnah, is firmly rooted. Your views are simply prejudicial in nature, atleast those you have expressed so far in this thread.
The sources mention the Makkans persecution of the Muslims included pulling a human being apart with horses, placing boulders on another in an attempt to get him to renounce Islam, assassination attempts against the Prophet, pursing Muslim refugees into Abyssinia, wars, slander campaigns, and so forth.
Yet, even with that said, once the Prophet (upon whom be peace) did eventually overcome his foes, he granted a general amnesty. No one disagrees about that.
Certainly, the Prophet preached Islam, but that isn't the same thing as an "armed Muslim army forcing conversions". If he was doing that, how could anyone conceive a plot to make Islam look unattractive by feigning conversion (mentioned in the Qur'an), or by asking provocative questions to the Prophet himself, ridiculing him, even in front of his wife (as referenced in another post)?
You are simply incorrect in most of your assertions. I can't sign onto your false assumptions, especially since I am better acquainted with the subject matter.
Well, Waheed, I think you need to think about what you write. It is obvious that you do not understand what "prejudice" is. And you may be "better acquainted" with the subject matter, but you haven't shown me that you have any depth of understanding of this history. You were factually incorrect about the context of Surah At Taubah, believing it to be threatening the Makkans even though scholars seem unanimous that that Surah was delivered after the Conquest of Makkah and when the Makkans were already converts to Islam.
I have no idea where this story about a human being pulled apart with horses comes from, or what its context is. You talk about my "false assumptions", but aren't you assuming a lot? Such brutal punishment has been practised in some places, even in Britain, for the most serious of crimes. Why should we assume that this man was treated this way simply because he was a Muslim? And even if that was the case, do you continue to use incidents like this to justify the murder of people who had nothing to do with it?
What makes this example worse, is that the Qur'an actually prescribes brutal punishments: "[5:33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
load"
Now, you might say that such was never carried out, but we also have from Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261:
"Narrated Anas bin Malik:
A group of eight men from the tribe of 'Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, "O Allah's Apostle! Provide us with some milk." Allah's Apostle said, "I recommend that you should join the herd of camels." So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died (Abu Qilaba, a sub-narrator said, "They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land.")"
You now include "slander campaigns" as a reason to murder innocent people.
You see, Waheed, you would not want us to apply your "logic" and your standard of "justice" against you, so you should be smart enough not to advocate such horrible policies.
As for the pursuit into Abyssinia, how deeply have you thought about this? Does the story make sense? Being "acquainted with the subject matter" doesn't make you knowledgeable. Who were these people who would bother to pursue the refugees? What was their motivation? What are your assumptions?
You are the one with prejudicial thinking. You have shown that you are incapable of seeing the non-Muslims of those times as anything but evil people. You are incapable of understanding what their grievances against the Muslims were and what motivated them to act the way they did. You are incapable of showing them any understanding. You cannot see that they were not treated with the dignity owed to every human being, especially by a "prophet of Allah".
Doesn't this reflect on how Muslims think about non-Muslims today?
Perhaps I should be clear about an example of your utter misunderstanding. You said "Certainly, the Prophet preached Islam, but that isn't the same thing as an "armed Muslim army forcing conversions". If he was doing that, how could anyone conceive a plot to make Islam look unattractive by feigning conversion (mentioned in the Qur'an), or by asking provocative questions to the Prophet himself, ridiculing him, even in front of his wife (as referenced in another post)?"
First of all, it is important not to conflate incidents that happened at different times. The situation around Muhammad changed very significantly during the period of his "mission". Any incident needs to be discussed in the context of Muhammad's position at the time. In particular, did the incident happen before he had power or after?
You don't seem at all to understand the perspective of the Madinan Jews. Before Muhammad had power, the Muslims were no threat to them. There was no reason for them to "plot" against him nor to feign conversions or to "make Islam look unattractive". They could have said about Muhammad what you have said about me: "We can't sign onto your false assumptions, especially since we are better acquainted with the subject matter." If it isn't rude or provocative for you to say that about me, then it wouldn't be so for the Madinan Jews to say that about Muhammad. The Jews might have heard Muhammad's strange tellings of Bible stories, which they would have found ridiculous. They may have heard his theological theories which they would have deemed to be uninformed and foolish. But simply living near a man with bizarre ideas about the Bible and God would not have been threatening to them. There was no reason for them to make Islam look unattractive because it wasn't all that attractive as it was. Muhammad had attracted only a small number of followers through his preaching and it is pretty clear that very few Jews were taken in by what they would have seen as a cult.
On the other hand, did Muhammad see the Jews as a threat? Were the questions that the Jews asked him and the criticisms that they raised about his theology a threat to his claim to be a "prophet"? Did his standing depend on this claim?
If you think about it (deeply and without prejudice), it is clear that during this early stage in Madinah, it was Muhammad who felt threatened by the Jews and not the other way around. It was Muhammad who felt fear and we know that it is out of fear that sometimes people choose the path of violence. The Jews had no such reason to raise their arms against the Muslims. The Qur'an is clear that Muhammad felt threatened by the Jews and the Sirah is clear that it was Muhammad who, feeling threatened, was the first to mount an attack.
So you should understand that you are defending the principle that if a ruler feels that his authority is being challenged, he has the right to destroy those who challenge that authority. Think about that in the context of what has been going on in your country these past four years.
Hello N-B.
It's been a while, but now I have a bit of time to share some thoughts on the comments you have posted above.
I have already addressed the issues you raised regarding Soorah At Taubah, in the thread regarding praying for Non -Muslims.
You seem to defend pulling a human being apart by citing "well, the British did it", as if the British empire was the moral paradigm that deserves to be emulated. That is something we could really get into talking about, unpacking and revealing a bit of a prejudice there, however that would be a real distraction from the subject.
I'm a bit confused about what you are saying about that. Are you saying such a punishment would be justifiable if it was done for a reason other than religious persecution?
As for the narration you cite, I simply do not believe that to be an actual event. If the report is accurate, the report you cite said that they were guilty of murder and theft. In any case, I do not believe that happened, and my teachers have rejected such reports on various grounds. God knows best !
Your assumptions about my thinking are interesting, to say the least. My understanding of that age, which had the Makkan leadership oppose the Prophet's message, was that the former had cultural, religious and financial, not to mention even moral, authority under threat by the message. That was something they could not handle. They saw it as a threat.
You want to justify their opposition? You want to justify assassination attempts? Assaults on Muslims? Murders on Muslims? Wars on Muslims?
You mention in an early comment that had "Muhammad been murdered, you would not have a reason to speak critically". Should a person accept death, just so they aren't criticized on the internet countless generations later?
What I am trying to say in the above comment is that it appears you are simply nitpicking, rather than seeing it, at a minimum, from the side of the Muslims of that age.
P.S. I recently did a presentation on the Prophet, which has some comments on books. You may want to have a look. It's two parts.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUReg-6BOyI
Hello N.B.
You write: "First of all, it is important not to conflate incidents that happened at different times. The situation around Muhammad changed very significantly during the period of his "mission". Any incident needs to be discussed in the context of Muhammad's position at the time. In particular, did the incident happen before he had power or after?"
Actually these are good questions. The incident with his wife happened in Madinah, wherein he had a certain amount of authority. The plan involving fake conversions likewise was conceived there as well.
As for Jewish relation to Muslims, there were, in the Prophet's time (peace be upon him), Jews who accepted Islam. Moreover, largely throughout history relations between the two groups were very good, and has only had tension in recent times due to the issue of Israel and the Palestinians.
Hi Waheed. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.
I'm not trying to "justify" pulling a human body apart with horses. I'm trying to establish the credibility of the story. If the executioners could justify this punishment, then the story would be more credible. It turns out that executing a person this way is not unheard of ... so it could be true that a Muslim was killed this way. However, for a number of reasons which I've already explained, I still don't believe that this happened.
However, my interest doesn't end there. When a story is fabricated, that raises further questions: who fabricated the story, when and why? Why was this story written down and preserved? Why do people like you need to depend on such dubious stories to support your position?
However, the story of the amputations is supported by the Qur'an itself. While the details may have been embellished, there can be little doubt that the Muslims treated criminals brutally and that torture was not prohibited. It will take a lot more than just your teachers rejecting such reports to revise Islam and separate it from its brutal past. Remember that it was the Muslims who preserved these reports. Why did they preserve them and now you want to reject them? What has changed?
"They saw it as a threat", you keep saying. What is this based on? The Qur'an is pretty clear about both how the Makkans persecuted the Muslims and why. Does it mention assassination attempts or assaults or murders or wars? It repeatedly accuses the Makkans of not allowing the Muslims to practise their religion... that's it! And the Qur'an is pretty clear that the Makkans' objection was the presence of the Muslims at the Ka'bah and on the economic impact of Muhammad's interference with the pilgrimages. Remember that the great "criminal" that the Qur'an calls out by name was Abu Lahab whose "crime" was telling people to pay no attention to his nephew. Where's the violent persecution?
You don't think the Makkans would have destroyed the Muslims if the Makkans were as belligerent and the Muslims as great a threat as you claim? That's the huge contradiction of your narrative. The Makkans treated their "enemy" far less harshly than the Muslims treated their "enemies".
I agree with you that it is important to view this relationship from the side of the Muslims of that age, but also from the perspective of the families of these Muslims. It's not like monotheism was unknown in Arabia and that monotheism was suddenly a new element in Makkah. There doesn't seem to have been religious conflicts between the polytheists and the monotheists and there are even reports that there was a Christian icon in the Ka'bah when it was taken over during the Conquest of Makkah.
No, I think it was personal, not religious. I think that they found Muhammad's manner highly offensive and provocative; family members would not have wanted to see their kin associating with a man like him. They would've striven to bring them back into their fold. This was further exacerbated by Muhammad's call for his followers to separate themselves from their families. This was the other "threat" that the Makkans would have felt. Muhammad broke up families. Frankly, I think that is the greater crime.
Hello N.B.
One account which comes to mind, which, if memory serves, we have discussed on the blog comments in the past, was about 'Ammar b. Yaasir. His parents converted to Islam because of him (after much back and forth arguments, the details of which are found in the literature), and- when attacked by the Makkans, the latter killed the parents (his mother Sumayyah firstly) when they refused to renounce Islam.
'Ammar was spared because he did in fact make a verbal recant. When he came to the Prophet, he was very concerned about doing that ( which, in fact, saved his life). The Prophet (peace be on him) consoled him, and a Quranic verse (16:106) addressed it as well.
The point in citing the above is that it was not simply verbal arguments the Makkans had against the Muslims.
What was so threatening about the Islamic message? This is actually a very good question. The short answer is that the Islamic program would have completely uprooted the social inequities that existed there. In a comment above, I posted a link to a recent video, in which I cited a quotation that explains just that.
The Muslims did a number of things to the Muslims, in Makkah itself, including a boycott, killing of Muslims from non connected backrounds, sending a team to attempt to kill the Prophet, these things were happening so much, that this is what led to the migration to both Abyssinia and Madinah. The literature is full of details explaining all of this, I am truly amazed that you either have not seen this (despite your assertion of spending hundreds of hours in study) or summarily dismiss it.
In terms of why I reject the narration you cited, I do so in light of other facts. The hadeeth literature was never seen as error free, and it has been a known principal from almost the beginning, that such reports are untrustworthy as it is. In other words, it is not a modern attempt to reinterpret the religion. It is being rejected in light of the traditional scholarship itself.
I suspect that the report is simply a back-projection justification created in order to justify the actions of rulers.
While in general I don't have problems accepting that penalties would happen, I don't believe that the Prophet of mercy, the one who issued amnesties, the one who himself never struck or abused anyone, the one who said that the strongest person is one who restrains himself, rather than wrestling a person, I don't believe such a person would do a punishment as described in the report. Moreover, as previously stated, in my academic studies of the hadeeth sources, my teachers tended to reject this report.
Also worth mentioning is that you are correct, monotheism was there in Arabia, but the Islamic message places "monotheism" as the equivalent of justice. Thus, it had a much more broader application than simply a theoretical dispute.
Hi Waheed. Thank you, again, for responding.
Something we agree on is that we shouldn't believe all of the narrations. However, we have different methodologies for trying to separate the truth from the fiction. Primarily, I look for corroboration in the Qur'an itself. I also expect significant events to appear in ibn Ishaq, though I don't consider that source to be fully trustworthy.
Finally, I rely on what I know about human behaviour. I ask "how would people I know act in this situation?" or "have we ever seen this sort of behaviour anywhere or at anytime in history?" and similar questions. Does the incident "make sense".
I have said that my view is that no Muslims were killed by Meccans prior to Badr. This is in light of the fact that Muhammad makes no mention of any such deaths. I would expect that in the event of such deaths, he would have re-assured his followers that the Martyrs were already being rewarded by Allah and that the perpetrators faced a terrible torment in the Hereafter.
You connect the incident of 'Ammar with Q 16:106, which gives his followers permission to lie about their belief. However, wouldn't he, at the same time, praise 'Ammar's parents for their sacrifice? A few verses later, he promises that the emigrants will be rewarded for their fortitude. Again, no mention of Martyrs. Previously, I have relied on Q 2:217 which refers to persecution but does not mention Martyrs. Only after Badr does he mention those who have died in Allah's cause.
If I am mistaken and there is Qur'anic evidence that Muslims were killed for their beliefs before Badr, then please show me. In my opinion, it is inconceivable that Muhammad would concern himself with those who were forced to deny their beliefs and those who chose to leave so they could practice their religion in Abyssinia but would say nothing about those who died because of their beliefs.
On the other hand, your denial of amputations as punishment is directly contradicted by Qur'an 5:33. Why would Muhammad describe such a brutal punishment if he was the merciful man you say and if there was never an intention to carry it out. No, that makes no sense at all. You are explicitly stating that your rejection is based on your belief about Muhammad's character, i.e., it is confirmation bias and not based on an understanding of human behaviour.
The monotheisms that the Arabs would been encountered were Judaism and Christianity, two well-established systems of justice. If there was a need for the Meccans to reform their system of justice, these were available to them. However, I haven't seen any evidence that their pre-Islamic society was any less just than Jewish or Christian societies, nor the Islamic society that replaced it. No society has managed to eliminate all criminal behaviour, but a society that doesn't prosecute its criminals would not be stable and would decline over a short time. We know that the Meccans prosecuted criminals because that is precisely what the march to Badr was about.
Waheed, I would like to make one further point about persecution.
It is important to distinguish individual actions from broader cultural attitudes. This week, in Canada, a case of homicide was tried. The court found that an individual had thrown a heavy object from a moving car and struck a pedestrian. The pedestrian did not recover from her injuries and died a few weeks later. It has been reported that in this particular Canadian city it is not unknown for White teen aged boys, usually drunk, to throw things from cars at Native women. Obviously, this is a despicable practice and just as obviously it is racist and misogynistic. The boy could spend the rest of his life in prison.
However, it would be unfair to generalise and say that everyone in this city hated Natives or that the entire population was guilty of assaulting Natives. The number of people committing these crimes is a tiny proportion of the population and the vast majority of the people in this city find such assaults to be abhorrent. As a society, such behaviour is not tolerated in that city or anywhere else in Canada and our justice system succeeded in bringing the perpetrator to justice.
I see the abuse of some individuals in Mecca in the same way. Bilal, a slave, was abused by his owner, and maybe the stories aren't all that exaggerated. Maybe Bilal's conversion was a factor that motivated his owner to abuse him, or, perhaps, this slave owner was simply an abusive person who abused anyone who annoyed him in any way. There is much abuse in the world that has nothing to do with religion. Maybe the abuse came first and then Bilal sought protection from Muhammad. We don't really know. However, I think that it would be wrong to generalise examples like this and to accuse the entire Meccan population of hating and abusing Muslims.
What you don't see from the Meccans was an organised campaign to destroy Islam, not before the Migration and not after.
What you do see from the Muslims was an organised campaign to rid Arabia of pagans and Jews.
The nature of this hostility was very different and it would be a mistake to think of them as equivalent.
Hello NB,
With regards to what you have shared above, please try to remember that the death of 'Ammar's parents, not to mention others, as well as the sanctions/expulsion, forcing the Muslims, including the Prophet himself, to tie a stone around their stomachs as a means to deal with hunger, all happened in the Makkan period, i.e. long BEFORE BADR.
The Qur'an makes numerous references to people being killed due to their faith in the Islamic message, 2:153-157 is a good example. There is also an aspect of "human behaviour", as you mentioned, that is worth mentioning. You seem to think that there were no deaths before Badr (contradicted by established history), but we must ask: why would the Muslims leave Makkah, flee to Abyssinia, and Madinah, if not for the Makkan actions ?
Soorah Al Burooj ( in particular Q 85:7-11) uses an incident predating the Muhammadan discourse (so, still the Makkan period) to give strength to believers in what they were experiencing there.
As for 5:33, I am unaware of any claim that the Prophet had-in fact-carried out the punishment mentioned therein. It is there as an option available, in light of certain crimes. That does not mean it has to be carried out. There is a difference between obligations and options. There are other examples of this. I am getting a bit technical, but I am sharing what has been stated within the traditional jurisprudence approaches to the text.
I would dispute your characterization of Judaism and Christianity as "two-well established systems of justice", but I think the point was lost. The message of Islam, of the Prophet (peace be upon him), had social and religious implications. We have discussed Tauheed in the past, on this blog, in an article which explains all of this. Here's the link, if you want to review that again. http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2008/10/only-one-god-forgotten-aspects-of.html
Hello Waheed.
Of the actions you mention, the only one that is attributable to Meccan leadership is the boycott. Yes, there is plenty of evidence of enmity between the groups that occasionally led to assaults, however, the Muslims were at least as guilty of assaults as the Meccans were. A boycott is a non-violent response in a political dispute. I'm not aware of Muhammad, once in power, of ever offering a non-violent resolution to a dispute other than expulsion or conversion.
As for your question, it is easy to answer: The Muslims were despised by the Meccans and had no means to overcome the Meccans. No one likes to live where they are despised so they went elsewhere. So we must ask: why were the Muslims so despised by the Meccans? ... and by the Medinan Jews and by so many other groups throughout history? This is a serious question that deserves a serious answer, not simplistic responses like "they were jealous or they felt threatened".
It is a serious question because the issue is as important today as it was in those days. Only when Muslims truly understand the answer to this question will there be a path forward to an end to this continual enmity.
I most sincerely would like to help you to understand this but that would be possible only if you genuinely wanted such help. I would think that you would be as eager as I am to put an end to antagonism like this.
Hello N-B,
You seem to want to give the Makkan leadership a pass on everything that they did to the Muslims, and minimize, if not totally reject, the actions of the Prophet and the Muslims, including the amnesty.
There were Makkans, even among the disbelievers, who had sympathies with the Muslims, either out of humanitarian grounds or grounds of tribe/family affiliations.
Prophet Muhammad himself, peace be upon him, was known as a trustworthy person before the Islamic message. Those who were closest to him were amongst the first to accept his message.
Yet, what he preached went against what the Arabians were used to. It had economic, social, and religious implications.
The boycott was not precisely "Non-violent". This is, at best, a modern reading of the word. I would invite you to look up what that entailed.
In any case, as to your larger question (where you mention "The issue is as important today as in those days"), religious differences don't have to be the natural cause of enmity, not at all.
Even when one looks at Muslim history, one finds that Jews and Christians lived very well generally, especially in comparison with Europe.
You write: "religious differences don't have to be the natural cause of enmity, not at all."
That is precisely my point. It seems that the religious differences that existed in Mecca and in Medina prior to Muhammad were not a source of conflict. In both place, monotheists and polytheists were able to live side-by-side. There are numerous reference in the Sirah and traditions of leading Meccans, senior members of Muhammad's tribe, his family members, his uncles, and so on trying to reason with Muhammad and to try to find an arrangement which they could all live with, but in every one of these stories, Muhammad is uncompromising.
Given Muhammad's attitude towards the Meccans, what do YOU think they should have done? Can you not see that they tried everything that they could to resolve the conflict in a peaceful way? It is easy to say that what they did was wrong, but what should they have done instead?
Post a Comment