Below is link to presentation during the month of Ramadan on the needed elements for a healthy Islamic community. Q and A follows.
31 comments:
Non Believer
said...
Hi Waheed. At around the 6:00 mark you make some claims about the demographics of the earliest followers of Muhammad. I haven't been able to find any sort of reliable data on the makeup of the Emigrants. My impression from the accounts is: 1. The number was very small relative to the total population of Mecca. 2. The makeup was mainly marginalised young men plus a handful of close friends and relatives of Muhammad. 3. There is no evidence of women who emigrated who were not connected with emigrant men.
This is the typical makeup of such radical groups and not dissimilar to what we see with modern day radical Muslim groups.
The numbers of the early Muslims and their identities is actually pretty well known, and easily found in the sources, some of which have been mentioned in previous discussions.
In the particular talk, it was mentioned that the first one killed by elements opposed to Islam was in fact a woman, by the name of Sumayyah.
I'm not sure exactly what "claims" I made that are in dispute. Please advise.
You state that Muhammad's message was attractive to the downtrodden, youth and women. Isn't this a trait of a "cult"?
Isn't it clear that there were very few who became believers before Muhammad developed a military force? It is reported that the Muslim force at Badr was only about 300. This was all who followed Muhammad after about 15 years of his prophethood. Don't you understand how this cult was spread only through the use of force? You mentioned Gandhi in another thread, pointing out his observation that the Islamic message ought to have been spread without the use of force. Do you really think that Gandhi was speaking positively about how Islam was spread?
Why are violence and misrepresentations of Islamic history necessary for the continued spread of Islam? If the message is so self-evident, then why are Muslims untruthful about the obvious fact there was a double standard in Muhammad's time? Those who did not accept Muhammad did not benefit from Muhammad's visions but were "enemies of Islam" and were ruthlessly murdered.
How do Muslims continue to deny that this contradiction continues to affect how Islam is perceived in the world today? Isn't it time for Muslims to "own" this violence as the failure of Muhammad as Gandhi implies that it is and to acknowledge that Muhammad was not the man without sin that you claim? Only then can Islam develop into the religion of peace that you hope for it.
Prophets tend to attract the victims of the unjust social order, whereas, even in the modern era, cults attract the educated and often elite types. Take a look at the book Terror in the Mind of God, which cited examples such as the Shinrikyo cult in Japan, which launched Sarin attacks in Japan years ago.
Your reading of the Prophet's history, and even arguably afterwards, is a serious over-generalization, to say the least.
In terms of Badr and the developments afterwards, I would say that Islam's spread was not by sword or by force, but rather Islam spread regardless of the force and sword of it's foes. You mention Badr, in which Muslims were victorious (despite being outnumbered) but after that was Uhud, which saw the Muslims in reversal, but even in that, the religion still spread and had appeal.
It would be good to look at the spread of Islam in Far Asia, such as Indonesia, Malaysia region. No Muslim armies ever arrived there, yet these places are majority Muslim.
Anyways, I have to get off the computer now. Hopefully I will reply more later.
I have no idea what you think is my "serious over-generalization". I mentioned Badr only because the history that Muslims created for themselves tells us how many Muslims there were at that battle. We know that not all the Muslims of that day were at this battle, but still it shows just how few Arabs found Muhammad's message compelling.
Now you mention Malaysia, and perhaps what the Muslim immigrants brought there over the course of several centuries was a form of Islam that had a greater appeal than the fundamental message of Muhammad. There have been many sultanates where various sects of Islam have thrived. These may have had strong secular or syncretic influences. Obviously, we can't generalize, but don't you think Muslims would be wise to study the Islamic societies that have succeeded and to identify what made such societies successful?
All that I've argued so far is why I believe that fundamentalist sects fail, namely, because Muhammad was a seriously flawed person who should not be copied in the way that fundamentalist "reformers" are attempting to do. I know from reading about some "golden ages of Islam" that many were very strongly influenced by non-Islamic thought and that most resisted fundamentalism.
By over generalization, I mean that your reading of Muslim history, beginning with the time of the Prophet, tends to drift towards interpreting everything in terms of violence and hatred. If the Prophet and his message was truly like that, it would have not attracted the millions which follow it today.
In terms of "fundamentalists" ( a term which is- in itself- disingenuous), such tend to fail because they are-in fact- more akin to fascists and dictatorships than they are to the core values of the Qur'an and Prophetic model.
It is interesting to me that you believe the strength and success of Islam in Far East Asia (Indonesia is the largest Muslim population in the world) is due to non Islamic influences. This is what I mean by generalization. You think the more violent something is, the more authentically Islamic it must be. Yet this is truly not the case.
The Qur'an calls the Prophet a mercy to all nations. It says to invite to your Lord's path using wisdom and preaching. It says not to ridicule the idols of idolaters, this is given to the Prophet Muhammad's followers. The Qur'an even says that while you should not follow your parents into wrong religion, nonetheless you should still keep good ties with them.
These are all examples of a healthy spiritual message.
"your reading of Muslim history ... tends to drift towards interpreting everything in terms of violence and hatred" Sadly, this is what I see as the main distinguishing feature of Islam when compared to other religions. What do you see that makes Islam different from the rest?
"If the Prophet and his message was truly like that, it would have not attracted the millions which follow it today." I've refuted this argument so many times already, but let's try again.... by this argument, communism is the most attractive ideology in the world and Joseph Stalin was a great prophet.
Look up "fundamentalist" in the dictionary. You have often insisted on your fundamentalist beliefs. Don't shy away from the label... own it!
"It is interesting to me that you believe the strength and success of Islam in Far East Asia (Indonesia is the largest Muslim population in the world) is due to non Islamic influences. This is what I mean by generalization." No, I suggested that this MIGHT BE the case and that I couldn't generalize. What I found out in my short scan of articles is that there isn't that much known about the islamification in the Far East. It seems that the process took place over many centuries which implies that there was the opportunity for syncretism. I don't know what it's like there. You tell me!
I've also asked elsewhere when/where do you think Islam was great? I see periods like Baghdad in the early 9th Century and Al-Andalus in the late 12th Century as notable periods; periods when Muslims were open to non-Muslim ideas.
You seem to be the one generalizing. If you don't want me dwelling on the periods of violence, be specific and tell me when and where there was a lasting peace with the non-Muslim world?
[1] No one follows Communism and Stalin today. Communism has collapsed, and today only a few nations make that claim, but it's in name only. Whereas, 14 centuries after the death of Prophet Muhammad, peace be on him, millions still study, emulate and are inspired by what is recorded of his history.
[2]"Fundamentalist" or "fundamentalism" as a term, is popularly used to describe violent extremists. I wish it was the "fundamentals" that such people are truly turning towards, however, it is not. It is more Fascism than anything else.
[3] If you go to two museums in Malaysia ( I can tell you which ones if you really are curious) where you could get a better picture of Islam's spread there. Islam is very strong in that region.
[4] As a civilization, the Muslims had their successes and their failures.
[1] I mentioned Stalin for two reasons: First, in the Soorah Al-Faatihah discussion, you praised a man who admired Stalin. Perhaps you'd like to re-read my remarks.
The main point is that we cannot estimate the number of adherents of an ideology by the population that is ruled over by the ideologues. By no means would we assume that all of the people of the USSR in Stalin's day were Stalinists. And certainly, the populations of Poland, Hungary and the rest of the Eastern European countries did not suddenly embrace communism when the Soviet army overran these countries at the end of WW II. Nor did the Parisians embrace Nazism and admire Hitler once the German army occupied Paris in 1940.
In the same way, it would be foolish to presume that communities which were overrun by Muslim armies spontaneously embraced Islam. As you have point out, most of these lands have remained under Islam for centuries. However, I have also argued that a person cannot be said to have chosen an ideology if they were indoctrinated into that ideology from the very earliest age, have never had the option to learn about alternatives and have been told that punishment awaits them both in this life and for all eternity should they reject the premises of the ideology.
Information about Islam is readily available in the West, yet there is no surge in conversions to Islam. Very, very few people who truly have a choice choose Islam.
[2] If you don't like the word "fundamentalist", then offer me an alternative. It describes how I view you and doesn't imply that you are a violent extremist. It does, however, imply that you are able to justify violence in situations when the application of modern standards would condemn the violence.
[3] Yes, please go on... it is undoubtedly true that, over the centuries, there have been flashes of brilliance within the Muslim world. However, show me a specific time when a specific Islamic society provided a model for the world.
Waheed: "[4] As a civilization, the Muslims had their successes and their failures."
Me: "[3] Yes, please go on... it is undoubtedly true that, over the centuries, there have been flashes of brilliance within the Muslim world. However, show me a specific time when a specific Islamic society provided a model for the world."
This question surprises me, in that I believed that you were more well-read historically.
There are many times and places where Islamic societies provided models. Let's begin with Baghdad itself, which was the center of much of the Islamic civilization. Scholars would have to travel there for education, learn Arabic, and study there. Also let us not forget Islamic Spain, which ruled for 900 years, if memory serves.
The same situation was there, a flourishing of knowledge and civilization, which contrasts to the Europeans at the time, peoples who believed bathing to be Unchristian. Indeed, among the first things that happened upon the defeat of the Muslims in Spain (1492) was that bathing was seen as a "Muslim practice", and people caught bathing could even be killed.
Also worth mentioning, but never really talked about, is the Islamic civilization of West Africa, which had thousands of manuscripts on a variety of subjects, in the Timbuktu (Mali) library. It's ruler, Mansa Musa, was so wealthy that his trip to the Hajj pilgrimage saw him giving away so much gold as charity it actually affected the economy for years to come.
"This question surprises me, in that I believed that you were more well-read historically." You seem to miss the point. There have been hundreds of Muslim rulers. I'm interested in studying one or two who demonstrated that Muslims and non-Muslims could live side-by-side. Even in Baghdad and Al-Andalus, there were rulers who were intolerant and persecuted non-Muslims. Please narrow this down.
It's also noteworthy to me that you don't name the Rashidun Caliphate as a "golden age". This was the period when the Muslims were led by those who had known Muhammad directly and should, you'd expect, exemplify what Islam should be.
I also thought you might mention the Mughal Empire, 3 centuries, 150 million population, and considered by some to be India's "golden age".
Thanks for pointing out the Mali Empire. I'll do some reading.
I'm surprised you misunderstand the prohibition on ritual bathing. It wasn't enough to shut down the religious institutions of the Muslims and Jews. To fully suppress these religions, they also had to prevent the private practice of these religions. Anyone performing a religious ritual would be seen to be practising the religion.
I am looking at the broader civilization models. Yes there were Abbasid and Umayyad rulers who persecuted Non Muslims, just as they did with Muslims too who were deemed a threat to their power and authority of certain rulers, but from a historical perspective, none can accurately downplay the civilization that was centered, in those days, at Baghdad. Similarly, none can accurately dismiss what the Muslims did in Spain.
When Muslims talk about The Khulafaa Ar-Rashidoon, they speak with reverence about them because they were close to the Prophet. Just because I cite other civilizational examples, that does not mean I disrespect or dismiss the initial Caliphate after the Prophet. I have my own thoughts on that early history, and I would suggest a couple of books, if you have time to read them. However, before making any recommendations like that, I would suggest study further of the Prophet himself. A very detailed work is the one by Muhammad Husayn Haykal. Please get this one and study it carefully, before we can move on to other historical figures in the early Muslim community.
OK, let's look at the Baghdad period from 754 until 847. Some say that this Golden Age continued all the way until the Mongol invasion in 1258, but that is too long to view as a single period.
Here's an outline of some views I have on this period. There is much to study and I'm still searching for good resources. 1. During this time, there was considerable interest in extra-Muslim knowledge. Scholars travelled widely, gathering books from every civilization and translating them into Arabic to be housed in a "House of Wisdom" in Baghdad. (Paper was introduced in 751 and became a major industry in Baghdad) 2. Under the later Caliphs of this period, rationalist schools of Islam flourished and traditionalists were persecuted. 3. At the end of this period, the traditionalists again arose to prominence; Sahih al-Bukhari was completed around 846 and subsequently only the Qur'an and hadith were accepted as the foundations of orthodox belief.
Admittedly, this is a very simplistic view of a century of history.
What I find interesting about these simple facts is, first of all, that the Muslims were interested in gathering philosophical knowledge from Greek, Christian, Persian, Indian, Chinese, and other sources. I believe that it demonstrates that the Muslims of this period were not satisfied that the Qur'an was self-sufficient. After all, most Muslims from this time onward agree that a Qur'an-only Islam is incomplete. Also, they called this library the "House of Wisdom", proving that they understood these sources to be sources of "wisdom".
Secondly, with a return to traditionalism, it would have been impossible for these scholars to now reject the wisdom that they had gathered. Modern Muslims would not describe this period as a "Golden Age" if nothing was retained for future generations.
It is clear to me that the scholars of this period integrated this wisdom into Islam. They created new ahadith to Islamize these thinkers. They gave Muhammad the combined wisdom of men like Moses, Aristotle, Plato, Jesus, Confucius, and Buddha, the leadership qualities of men like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Marcus Aurelius together with the poetics of men like Homer and Virgil. Is it any wonder that you hold him in such high esteem? Doesn't this explain why my view of Muhammad, derived from the Qur'an and Sirah but not from hadith is so different from yours?
I don't see anything wrong with building a religion by synthesizing a hero based on the best examples from all of humanity. Such a religion would clearly be the best religion possible, without flaws.
The flaw of Islam, though, is the retention of the real qualities of Muhammad. The actual Muhammad was a flawed person and not like this idealized man. Modern day Muslims need to be honest and separate their model of the ideal man from the 7th Century Arab who had the same name. If Muslims would do this, true outreach would be possible, since all religions and secular philosophies have similar ideals. Muhammad is an obstacle since the real Muhammad does not fit the ideals of any culture, not even Islam.
I appreciate that you are reading some of these historical periods. It's not easy to go through it all, and to be able to summarize things. It's a journey.
In terms of some of your assertions within the post, I think there are a few things worth mentioning.
[1] The first two sentences you write are correct in general,however I think there is a misconception or two. The Mu'tazilites , while described as "rationalists", were in fact committed Muslims, who actually argued a deeper and more authentic connection to the Islamic primary sources were necessary. They proposed some controversial doctrines,( such as "The created Qur'an"), but their overall interest was religious in nature. This is important to mention because it is often believed that the Mutazilites wanted to overthrow the religion itself and replace it with Greek thought, and that is simply not the case. They were more of an academic trend than they were a sect, which did persecute those who would not sign on to their idea about the nature of the Qur'an (famous example being Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal).
[2] Qur'an and hadeeth were always seen, by all the sects and trends, as foundational. For the Mu'tazilites, they had more strict conditions in terms of acceptance of hadeeth when it comes to issues of doctrine. Thus, I think it is a oversimplification to say that once they lost power, the Qur'an and hadeeth once again become foundational, leading to some fanatical downfall of the Muslim civilization.
[3] More importantly, you seem to think that Prophet Muhammad is a character created on a combination of different historical figures. I have no doubts that there are misrepresentations, exaggerations and outright lies associated with the Prophet, and that these things enter the books. However, those realities have been recognized from the very beginning of the Muslim intellectual tradition, and continue to likewise be scrutinized by the Muslim scholars. In any case, in terms of a broad knowledge of the Prophet's life, we have this. We have knowledge of his birth, marriages, battles, habits of worship and we have his tomb. WE have the emergence of the Caliphate after his death. All of these prove that Muhammad not only existed, but that his character was very persuasive, impacting his generation and generations to come afterwards. Moreover, we believe that the most reliable source of information on the Prophet comes from the Qur'an itself, when it comes to understanding what the Prophet was really about. Here is a post which may interest you. http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2012/09/defending-prophet-methodology-of-quran.html
Actually, I agree with just about everything you say in your last post. I do not doubt that Muhammad existed. That's not my point.
My question is: "What value was there in gathering so much of the world's knowledge in one place if Islam already contained everything it needed?" Surely you must admit that these scholars discovered new wisdom in this collection of books. Yet, today, Muslims seem adamant in denying that there is any need for anything outside of Islam, saying that Islam is "the only complete religion". How do you reconcile this?
The gathering of knowledge is seen as a religious obligation. Indeed, the first word of Quranic revelation was "Read". The Qur'an repeatedly tells us to engage in contemplation, and even gives us particular fields worth paying attention to.
In other words, the gathering of knowledge never was seen as conflicting with the Islamic religion, and thus, there is no contradiction between seeing Islam as the deen completed with Qur'an & The Prophet and collecting new wisdom.
Hi Waheed. I hope that we can give this thread a little more focus.
My point is that gathering knowledge is a pointless exercise unless the knowledge is incorporated into the culture. I don't think that the scholars of this period would waste their time translating extra-Muslim philosophy if they didn't find wisdom in those works and a way to incorporate that wisdom into Islam.
The gathering of knowledge is NOT a pointless exercise. There is wisdom in Extra Muslim or Non Muslim sources. None has ever denied this.
There is a hadeeth of the Prophet, peace be on him, which says "Knowledge is the lost property of a believer". Another statement attributed to him (the meaning is sound Islamically, even if the narration is not sourced from the Prophet) says "Seek knowledge, even into China". Another hadeeth says "Seeking knowledge is obligatory on every Muslim man and woman". At the Badr battle, prisoners were set free if they could teach Muslims how to read.
To re-emphasis this point, take a look at the "Study Notes" on this blog. You will find Quranic commands for seeking knowledge, and thoughts on which fields knowledge is to be sought in.
Hi Waheed. Thank you, again, for taking time to respond to me.
First, a couple of small points: 1. I couldn't find the "Study Notes" you mention. I am interested to know which fields of knowledge you mention there. 2. My first sentence has the word "unless" in it and you quote me without it, changing my meaning. I could have instead quoted Al-Tirmidhi – Hadith 280 Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: The knowledge from which no benefit is derived is like a treasure out of which nothing is spent in the cause of Allah.
So to the main point: you cite two hadiths which I will label H.1 "Seek knowledge, even into China" and H.2 "Seeking knowledge is obligatory on every Muslim man and woman". As I'm sure you are aware there is some controversy among scholars about them. I believe that the main controversy centers on the scope of "knowledge". (Is it the same Arabic word in both of these hadiths?)
One source that I found (Salafi) limits the scope in both to knowledge of Sharia. Viewed this way, H.1 is to be rejected and H.2 simply demands that Muslims learn about Islam. This Sheikh would not agree with your assessment that H.1 is "sound Islamically".
My question is whether or not Muslims are able to extend the scope of H.1 to include all knowledge, including Islamic knowledge. Secular thinkers have no difficulty accepting wisdom of all types from any source. We don't care about the "authenticity" of the source, only about the soundness of the thought.
A couple of examples: 1. You recently quote a text, Ja'far B Abi Taalib's speech to the ruler of Ethiopia. My personal view is that it is unlikely that such a speech would have been captured for posterity in its entirety, that is, I doubt it's "authenticity". However, that doesn't matter to me: the meaning is sound, not just Islamically, but broadly. Very few words would have to be changed to use this same speech in a different setting. In short, it is a fine speech, regardless of what we believe about its origin.
2. The most recent Hadith of the Day on whyislam is "Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to wrong them if they commit evil." Do I think this hadith to be the "authentic" words of Muhammad? No, not at all. There are so many incidents where others did wrong and he did wrong. However, once again, the meaning is sound in a very broad sense, regardless of what we believe about its origin. I would say the same thing about many of the hadith on that page.
The point I'm driving at is that there is much wisdom to be found in the hadith collections, whether the texts are "authentic" or not. These texts need to be judged by their soundness, not by their isnad. There is also much wisdom to be found outside of the hadith collections which should not be rejected simply because they can't be traced back to Muhammad.
The other point is that many of the hadiths appear to have origins outside of Islam. I believe that these hadiths were "fabricated" and included in the hadith collections to broaden the wisdom within Islam. I think that you will bristle at this supposition, but why would you? Why should it bother you to think that these collectors added wisdom from non-Islamic sources to their collections? Would you rather they had "spent nothing out of this treasure in the cause of Allah"?
[1] There are three or four articles that are the "study Notes", summaries of Quranic studies, groups of verses. You can search in the search engine on the top left for them all, but the relevant one is this link. https://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2017/09/study-notes-soorah-al-hijr-15-70-80.html .
[2] The hadeeths I mentioned, the one regarding China is suspect (a point which I mentioned in the previous comment) but the one "Seeking of knowledge is an obligation on every Muslim man and woman" is not viewed with suspicion. Even if we dismiss or limit the impact of these narrations (after all, not everyone can master everything, nor should they), the Qur'anic revelation places great emphasis on reading, on acquiring knowledge of the universe.
(3) I am confused as to what quote I omitted or changed a word. Please clarify what You are referencing.
(4) Returning to the issue of authenticity vis a vis Prophetic narrations, from the Muslim perspective Muhammad was the Seal of the Prophets, the Messenger conveyed to all humanity, thus, it is imperative that we know what he did say and what he did not say. This is also import from an academic standpoint. In addition to looking at the content, Muslim traditional approaches has been to evaluate the credibility and historical veracity of the narrators, from each person in the chain of narrators. The chain is called "Isnaad" and the study of the narrators is called 'Ilm Ar-Rijaal. It's very complicated, but the point is that the general approach on the Prophetic narrations has NOT been that of blind faith! We try our best to know what the Prophet (Sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said and didn't say. Moreover, we know that there were fabrications falsely attributed to the Prophet, which is why the entire science exists in the first place.
{5} On the broader question of adding wisdom that has origins outside of Islam (regardless of the questions on the hadeeth genre), I argue that Islam itself teaches us to be willing to accept knowledge regardless of the source. I study the religion of Islam, but I also study other subjects with great interest, and just about every Muslim speaker/scholar/teacher I know does the same thing. In other words, we are not these people who only read one book.
1. You write: the Qur'anic revelation places great emphasis on reading, on acquiring knowledge of the universe.
Which verses are you referring to?
2. You write: it is imperative that we know what he did say and what he did not say.
But you must know that this is impossible. According to tradition, the Qur'an, the most reliable record of what Muhammad said, was collected after his death using multiple differing sources. The scholars had a daunting task, collecting these texts and then choosing the texts they considered to be most authentic and rejecting texts that were not considered authentic. Once the Quranic texts were canonized, the rejected texts were destroyed so that there could be not disputes. Also, the contexts of the texts were not preserved alongside the texts, and we well know that context matters when trying to understand these texts.
The hadith collections suffer from even greater doubts. Surely you must admit that an Isnaad can be forged along with the text. You, yourself, say: "We try our best to know ..." and "we know that there were fabrications ...". Exactly right! It's the best you can do: imperfect knowledge. Knowledge is imperfect by its very nature. That's life, dealing with its uncertainties!
Isn't it time to admit the reality that it is NOT imperative to know what any man said or did not say? Judge the words, not the speaker. Isn't that common sense? Why are you so resistant to this simple, obvious, rational principle?
Frankly, I'm really saddened that we keep running up against this obstacle. I would much rather discuss what Classical Islam is, understanding its place in the broader context of universal knowledge, understanding how it was influenced by what came before and how it influenced what came after. It's a step along one road of many roads; maybe a big step, maybe not a step at all.
The Qur'an is full of texts which speak on the importance of acquiring knowledge of the universe, it actually recommends particular subjects. I thought we discussed this elsewhere on the blog. Some verses of importance include, but are not limited to Q 3:190, 58:11, 41:53. The pattern is usually like this "And among His signs" or "Verily in these are evidences for a contemplative people" .
" But you must know that this is impossible. According to tradition, the Qur'an, the most reliable record of what Muhammad said, was collected after his death using multiple differing sources. The scholars had a daunting task, collecting these texts and then choosing the texts they considered to be most authentic and rejecting texts that were not considered authentic. Once the Quranic texts were canonized, the rejected texts were destroyed so that there could be not disputes. Also, the contexts of the texts were not preserved alongside the texts, and we well know that context matters when trying to understand these texts."
The above is not precisely correct (the manner in which you described the Quranic preservation) however I don't want to get distracted by addressing that right now. The Muslims started very early in terms of attempting to ascertain what was authentically and what has been wrongly associated with the Prophet. It's not an impossible task, and there can ( and has been recognized) things, actions, statements wrongly attributed to the Prophet -peace be upon him, but the simple fact is is that the same can be said of any personality of historical importance. There are wrong ideas or statements associated with that person, but even with that said, that does not negate knowing the broad outline of that person's actions, thinking and historical contributions.
" Isn't it time to admit the reality that it is NOT imperative to know what any man said or did not say? Judge the words, not the speaker. Isn't that common sense? Why are you so resistant to this simple, obvious, rational principle?"
I'm not sure what you are aiming at with this above statement. The words are certainly evaluated, not only among Muslims when it comes to the Prophet (Sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) but in secular academia as well. To use an example, the Bible has the famous "If you are without sin, cast the first stone", said to be Jesus' (peace be upon him) reply to the request to stone a woman who did adultery.
This statement, although it sounds nice and has influenced religious and cultural thought, is now said by Biblical scholars to have NOT been said by Jesus at all!
I don't understand your criticism of Muslim attempts to be honest with what is attributed to Prophet Muhammad, whom we view as God's messenger, when, in fact, the same thing is done with all other important historical figures.
" Frankly, I'm really saddened that we keep running up against this obstacle. I would much rather discuss what Classical Islam is, understanding its place in the broader context of universal knowledge, understanding how it was influenced by what came before and how it influenced what came after. It's a step along one road of many roads; maybe a big step, maybe not a step at all."
We can discuss those things, and have- to a certain extent- discussed things of that nature. You seem to think we are some ignorant people who have not studied Islam at all, that we are ignorant of other subjects. I wish you could get rid of that sort of thinking.
In terms of how the Qur'an places emphasis on knowledge, I would suggest looking at the study notes on the blog. There are atleast two (if not three) "Study Notes" where it has more details on this issue.
There is also a lecture posted on the blog, Making Faith Make Sense, which is found http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2019/01/making-faith-make-sense-presentation.html that also has some more observations, mostly based on the Qur'an, with regards to questions of this nature.
Waheed, I was specifically asking about the "great emphasis on reading". What did 7th Century Muslims read? What did Muhammad himself read? Did Muhammad establish a library in Medina? Did any of his followers travel away from Medina to study with distant scholars?
You point to an example from the Bible, a book that most people are honest about when it comes to its origins. What about an example from the Qur'an? Which verses have there been suggestions that they are not from Muhammad? I have encountered some which I'm nearly certain could not have been spoken by Muhammad. What about you? Are there verses in the Qur'an whose authorship you question? Are there sects of Muslims who differ on the authenticity of specific verses of the Qur'an?
We discussed this previously. The first word given in the Quranic revelation was "Read". The Prophet himself is reported to have, after the battle of Badr, offered POWs release if they were to teach ten Muslims how to read.
In terms of a library, I think you know that libraries in those days, especially with the limited resources ( I mean in terms of material) were very scant, however Muslims went on to built Civilizations, which of course included libraries.
The "reading" is more than "reading" a book. It is contemplation, study, of existence itself. There are a few posts here on this blog in which this sort of topic is explored.
As for the Qur'an, None of the Qur'an is "the words of Muhammad". Rather, it is the words of God. Of course, this is the perspective of a believer, and the Qur'an sometimes has criticisms of the Prophet (Sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam). Would an author include self critical remarks in his book, however benign?
Are there sects of Muslims who differ on the authenticity of specific Quranic verses? The only "sect" that would fit that answer is one trend that is so small that it is hardly worth mentioning, that trend argues that the last two verses of a particular Soorah are later insertions. Their argument is based on a supposition that the Qur'an is constructed upon a particular mathematical code. That's the only "sect", but it's hardly worth mentioning, because that argument has been widely addressed.
So you cite one verse commanding Muhammad to read. This raises the obvious questions: Did Muhammad learn to read? Which of these POWs who were released taught Muhammad? What did these Muslims read?
You say that Muslims "built" civilizations, but you seem to ignore the fact that the centers of Muslim civilizations were great centers prior to being conquered by the Muslims. These places already had libraries and schools and, in some cases, even medical centers.
"Contemplation" was nothing new in the 7th Century and was a central focus in many schools in the ancient world. However, unlike the 7th Century Arabs, many of these schools recorded their findings in order to preserve and share them.
No, I think it is safe to assert that the Qur'an does not place an emphasis on reading and that 7th Century Muslims were not driven to seek out these sources of knowledge that prior civilizations had set out in their libraries.
We know that there were civilizations before the emergence of the Muslims, even the Qur'an mentions study of ancient civilizations.
In terms of the battle of Badr and its aftermath ( i.e. teaching ten how to read), it was just one of the many ways the prisoners were able to obtain their freedom, and there are reports that some were simply released as an act of mercy, being as they could not afford the required payment.
Contemplation and the existence of civilization was not new, however it can't be denied ( and you don't seem to deny it either) that these things were given new life by the teachings and impact of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
Hi Waheed. Once again, you seem to have missed my point.
The Sasanian Empire was a fully developed civilization before it was invaded by the Muslims. It had centers of education not far from Arabia, including a medical center at Gundeshapur. These institutions and the Sasanian administrative structures continued even after the Muslim invasion. It is simply incorrect to assert that the Muslims "went on to build" this civilization. Their invasion was a military occupation of an empire whose society continued to function much as it did before the invasion.
If your tradition said that Sasanian POWs. rather than Meccan, were freed on the condition of teaching Muslims to read, that would be a credible story.
Even after the invasion, the Islamization took many centuries. The populations of Zoroastrians, Nestorians and Jews lived as dhimmi and were the majority for a very long time.
You ask what I think the impact of Muhammad was. Now that I understand how Islam came to life during the Abbasid Caliphate and that the most influential Islamic scholars during that period were Persians rooted in a civilization that had centuries of scholarship, Zoroastrian, Nestorian and Jewish (the Talmud was compiled only a short distance from Baghdad!), I understand that what is known as "Islam" can properly be thought of as a Persian religion. It is now clear how so much that could not have come from Muhammad found its way into Islam; it was indigenous to this region when the region was invaded by the Arabs!
The Rashidun Arabs excelled in Imperialism not scholarship. Military occupation of a territory does not give the occupier "ownership" of the cultural products of the occupied people. In my opinion, the religion that developed in Iraq owes very little to these Arabs. I wonder if Muhammad would even recognize it as the same religion that he founded.
If you simply Google search "Islamic contributions to..." a number of options would come up. It seems you want to downplay or outright deny what Muslims were able to do.
You wrote " Now that I understand how Islam came to life during the Abbasid Caliphate and that the most influential Islamic scholars during that period were Persians rooted in a civilization that had centuries of scholarship, Zoroastrian, Nestorian and Jewish (the Talmud was compiled only a short distance from Baghdad!), I understand that what is known as "Islam" can properly be thought of as a Persian religion. It is now clear how so much that could not have come from Muhammad found its way into Islam; it was indigenous to this region when the region was invaded by the Arabs!"
This is an extremely over-simplistic comment to make. There is no doubt that Persian scholarship had profound impact on Muslim religious and secular sciences, however this has nothing to do with the Prophet's biography.
Waheed, where am I "denying what Muslims were able to do"? I'm simply pointing out that much of the strength of Islamic scholarship came from the Persians, and, yes, they were Muslims.
Nowadays, when people are acclaimed, they are identified by the country where they are from, not by the religion that they practice. In the case of most of the great contributors of this period that you are thinking of, they were Persians from a long tradition of Persian scholarship. For the astronomers and mathematicians and inventors and so on, do we really know if they were pious Muslims or not? Do we care? Does it matter?
It's my opinion that without the Persians' experience in administering an empire and without their institutions, especially their legal system, the Islamic Empire might have been short lived.
It seems like you are the one who wants to downplay or outright deny what Persians were able to do.
31 comments:
Hi Waheed. At around the 6:00 mark you make some claims about the demographics of the earliest followers of Muhammad. I haven't been able to find any sort of reliable data on the makeup of the Emigrants. My impression from the accounts is:
1. The number was very small relative to the total population of Mecca.
2. The makeup was mainly marginalised young men plus a handful of close friends and relatives of Muhammad.
3. There is no evidence of women who emigrated who were not connected with emigrant men.
This is the typical makeup of such radical groups and not dissimilar to what we see with modern day radical Muslim groups.
On what do you base your claims?
Hi N.B.
Hopefully all is well.
The numbers of the early Muslims and their identities is actually pretty well known, and easily found in the sources, some of which have been mentioned in previous discussions.
In the particular talk, it was mentioned that the first one killed by elements opposed to Islam was in fact a woman, by the name of Sumayyah.
I'm not sure exactly what "claims" I made that are in dispute. Please advise.
Thanks
You state that Muhammad's message was attractive to the downtrodden, youth and women. Isn't this a trait of a "cult"?
Isn't it clear that there were very few who became believers before Muhammad developed a military force? It is reported that the Muslim force at Badr was only about 300. This was all who followed Muhammad after about 15 years of his prophethood. Don't you understand how this cult was spread only through the use of force? You mentioned Gandhi in another thread, pointing out his observation that the Islamic message ought to have been spread without the use of force. Do you really think that Gandhi was speaking positively about how Islam was spread?
Why are violence and misrepresentations of Islamic history necessary for the continued spread of Islam? If the message is so self-evident, then why are Muslims untruthful about the obvious fact there was a double standard in Muhammad's time? Those who did not accept Muhammad did not benefit from Muhammad's visions but were "enemies of Islam" and were ruthlessly murdered.
How do Muslims continue to deny that this contradiction continues to affect how Islam is perceived in the world today? Isn't it time for Muslims to "own" this violence as the failure of Muhammad as Gandhi implies that it is and to acknowledge that Muhammad was not the man without sin that you claim? Only then can Islam develop into the religion of peace that you hope for it.
Prophets tend to attract the victims of the unjust social order, whereas, even in the modern era, cults attract the educated and often elite types. Take a look at the book Terror in the Mind of God, which cited examples such as the Shinrikyo cult in Japan, which launched Sarin attacks in Japan years ago.
Your reading of the Prophet's history, and even arguably afterwards, is a serious over-generalization, to say the least.
In terms of Badr and the developments afterwards, I would say that Islam's spread was not by sword or by force, but rather Islam spread regardless of the force and sword of it's foes. You mention Badr, in which Muslims were victorious (despite being outnumbered) but after that was Uhud, which saw the Muslims in reversal, but even in that, the religion still spread and had appeal.
It would be good to look at the spread of Islam in Far Asia, such as Indonesia, Malaysia region. No Muslim armies ever arrived there, yet these places are majority Muslim.
Anyways, I have to get off the computer now. Hopefully I will reply more later.
Regards
S Waheed
I have no idea what you think is my "serious over-generalization". I mentioned Badr only because the history that Muslims created for themselves tells us how many Muslims there were at that battle. We know that not all the Muslims of that day were at this battle, but still it shows just how few Arabs found Muhammad's message compelling.
Now you mention Malaysia, and perhaps what the Muslim immigrants brought there over the course of several centuries was a form of Islam that had a greater appeal than the fundamental message of Muhammad. There have been many sultanates where various sects of Islam have thrived. These may have had strong secular or syncretic influences. Obviously, we can't generalize, but don't you think Muslims would be wise to study the Islamic societies that have succeeded and to identify what made such societies successful?
All that I've argued so far is why I believe that fundamentalist sects fail, namely, because Muhammad was a seriously flawed person who should not be copied in the way that fundamentalist "reformers" are attempting to do. I know from reading about some "golden ages of Islam" that many were very strongly influenced by non-Islamic thought and that most resisted fundamentalism.
Hi NB,
By over generalization, I mean that your reading of Muslim history, beginning with the time of the Prophet, tends to drift towards interpreting everything in terms of violence and hatred. If the Prophet and his message was truly like that, it would have not attracted the millions which follow it today.
In terms of "fundamentalists" ( a term which is- in itself- disingenuous), such tend to fail because they are-in fact- more akin to fascists and dictatorships than they are to the core values of the Qur'an and Prophetic model.
It is interesting to me that you believe the strength and success of Islam in Far East Asia (Indonesia is the largest Muslim population in the world) is due to non Islamic influences. This is what I mean by generalization. You think the more violent something is, the more authentically Islamic it must be. Yet this is truly not the case.
The Qur'an calls the Prophet a mercy to all nations. It says to invite to your Lord's path using wisdom and preaching. It says not to ridicule the idols of idolaters, this is given to the Prophet Muhammad's followers. The Qur'an even says that while you should not follow your parents into wrong religion, nonetheless you should still keep good ties with them.
These are all examples of a healthy spiritual message.
"your reading of Muslim history ... tends to drift towards interpreting everything in terms of violence and hatred" Sadly, this is what I see as the main distinguishing feature of Islam when compared to other religions. What do you see that makes Islam different from the rest?
"If the Prophet and his message was truly like that, it would have not attracted the millions which follow it today." I've refuted this argument so many times already, but let's try again.... by this argument, communism is the most attractive ideology in the world and Joseph Stalin was a great prophet.
Look up "fundamentalist" in the dictionary. You have often insisted on your fundamentalist beliefs. Don't shy away from the label... own it!
"It is interesting to me that you believe the strength and success of Islam in Far East Asia (Indonesia is the largest Muslim population in the world) is due to non Islamic influences. This is what I mean by generalization." No, I suggested that this MIGHT BE the case and that I couldn't generalize. What I found out in my short scan of articles is that there isn't that much known about the islamification in the Far East. It seems that the process took place over many centuries which implies that there was the opportunity for syncretism. I don't know what it's like there. You tell me!
I've also asked elsewhere when/where do you think Islam was great? I see periods like Baghdad in the early 9th Century and Al-Andalus in the late 12th Century as notable periods; periods when Muslims were open to non-Muslim ideas.
You seem to be the one generalizing. If you don't want me dwelling on the periods of violence, be specific and tell me when and where there was a lasting peace with the non-Muslim world?
Hello NB
[1] No one follows Communism and Stalin today. Communism has collapsed, and today only a few nations make that claim, but it's in name only. Whereas, 14 centuries after the death of Prophet Muhammad, peace be on him, millions still study, emulate and are inspired by what is recorded of his history.
[2]"Fundamentalist" or "fundamentalism" as a term, is popularly used to describe violent extremists. I wish it was the "fundamentals" that such people are truly turning towards, however, it is not. It is more Fascism than anything else.
[3] If you go to two museums in Malaysia ( I can tell you which ones if you really are curious) where you could get a better picture of Islam's spread there. Islam is very strong in that region.
[4] As a civilization, the Muslims had their successes and their failures.
I must go now..more later.
[1] I mentioned Stalin for two reasons: First, in the Soorah Al-Faatihah discussion, you praised a man who admired Stalin. Perhaps you'd like to re-read my remarks.
The main point is that we cannot estimate the number of adherents of an ideology by the population that is ruled over by the ideologues. By no means would we assume that all of the people of the USSR in Stalin's day were Stalinists. And certainly, the populations of Poland, Hungary and the rest of the Eastern European countries did not suddenly embrace communism when the Soviet army overran these countries at the end of WW II. Nor did the Parisians embrace Nazism and admire Hitler once the German army occupied Paris in 1940.
In the same way, it would be foolish to presume that communities which were overrun by Muslim armies spontaneously embraced Islam. As you have point out, most of these lands have remained under Islam for centuries. However, I have also argued that a person cannot be said to have chosen an ideology if they were indoctrinated into that ideology from the very earliest age, have never had the option to learn about alternatives and have been told that punishment awaits them both in this life and for all eternity should they reject the premises of the ideology.
Information about Islam is readily available in the West, yet there is no surge in conversions to Islam. Very, very few people who truly have a choice choose Islam.
[2] If you don't like the word "fundamentalist", then offer me an alternative. It describes how I view you and doesn't imply that you are a violent extremist. It does, however, imply that you are able to justify violence in situations when the application of modern standards would condemn the violence.
[3] Yes, please go on... it is undoubtedly true that, over the centuries, there have been flashes of brilliance within the Muslim world. However, show me a specific time when a specific Islamic society provided a model for the world.
Waheed: "[4] As a civilization, the Muslims had their successes and their failures."
Me: "[3] Yes, please go on... it is undoubtedly true that, over the centuries, there have been flashes of brilliance within the Muslim world. However, show me a specific time when a specific Islamic society provided a model for the world."
You: ???
Hello NB,
This question surprises me, in that I believed that you were more well-read historically.
There are many times and places where Islamic societies provided models. Let's begin with Baghdad itself, which was the center of much of the Islamic civilization. Scholars would have to travel there for education, learn Arabic, and study there. Also let us not forget Islamic Spain, which ruled for 900 years, if memory serves.
The same situation was there, a flourishing of knowledge and civilization, which contrasts to the Europeans at the time, peoples who believed bathing to be Unchristian. Indeed, among the first things that happened upon the defeat of the Muslims in Spain (1492) was that bathing was seen as a "Muslim practice", and people caught bathing could even be killed.
Also worth mentioning, but never really talked about, is the Islamic civilization of West Africa, which had thousands of manuscripts on a variety of subjects, in the Timbuktu (Mali) library. It's ruler, Mansa Musa, was so wealthy that his trip to the Hajj pilgrimage saw him giving away so much gold as charity it actually affected the economy for years to come.
"This question surprises me, in that I believed that you were more well-read historically."
You seem to miss the point. There have been hundreds of Muslim rulers. I'm interested in studying one or two who demonstrated that Muslims and non-Muslims could live side-by-side. Even in Baghdad and Al-Andalus, there were rulers who were intolerant and persecuted non-Muslims. Please narrow this down.
It's also noteworthy to me that you don't name the Rashidun Caliphate as a "golden age". This was the period when the Muslims were led by those who had known Muhammad directly and should, you'd expect, exemplify what Islam should be.
I also thought you might mention the Mughal Empire, 3 centuries, 150 million population, and considered by some to be India's "golden age".
Thanks for pointing out the Mali Empire. I'll do some reading.
I'm surprised you misunderstand the prohibition on ritual bathing. It wasn't enough to shut down the religious institutions of the Muslims and Jews. To fully suppress these religions, they also had to prevent the private practice of these religions. Anyone performing a religious ritual would be seen to be practising the religion.
I am looking at the broader civilization models. Yes there were Abbasid and Umayyad rulers who persecuted Non Muslims, just as they did with Muslims too who were deemed a threat to their power and authority of certain rulers, but from a historical perspective, none can accurately downplay the civilization that was centered, in those days, at Baghdad. Similarly, none can accurately dismiss what the Muslims did in Spain.
When Muslims talk about The Khulafaa Ar-Rashidoon, they speak with reverence about them because they were close to the Prophet. Just because I cite other civilizational examples, that does not mean I disrespect or dismiss the initial Caliphate after the Prophet. I have my own thoughts on that early history, and I would suggest a couple of books, if you have time to read them. However, before making any recommendations like that, I would suggest study further of the Prophet himself. A very detailed work is the one by Muhammad Husayn Haykal. Please get this one and study it carefully, before we can move on to other historical figures in the early Muslim community.
OK, let's look at the Baghdad period from 754 until 847. Some say that this Golden Age continued all the way until the Mongol invasion in 1258, but that is too long to view as a single period.
Here's an outline of some views I have on this period. There is much to study and I'm still searching for good resources.
1. During this time, there was considerable interest in extra-Muslim knowledge. Scholars travelled widely, gathering books from every civilization and translating them into Arabic to be housed in a "House of Wisdom" in Baghdad. (Paper was introduced in 751 and became a major industry in Baghdad)
2. Under the later Caliphs of this period, rationalist schools of Islam flourished and traditionalists were persecuted.
3. At the end of this period, the traditionalists again arose to prominence; Sahih al-Bukhari was completed around 846 and subsequently only the Qur'an and hadith were accepted as the foundations of orthodox belief.
Admittedly, this is a very simplistic view of a century of history.
What I find interesting about these simple facts is, first of all, that the Muslims were interested in gathering philosophical knowledge from Greek, Christian, Persian, Indian, Chinese, and other sources. I believe that it demonstrates that the Muslims of this period were not satisfied that the Qur'an was self-sufficient. After all, most Muslims from this time onward agree that a Qur'an-only Islam is incomplete. Also, they called this library the "House of Wisdom", proving that they understood these sources to be sources of "wisdom".
Secondly, with a return to traditionalism, it would have been impossible for these scholars to now reject the wisdom that they had gathered. Modern Muslims would not describe this period as a "Golden Age" if nothing was retained for future generations.
It is clear to me that the scholars of this period integrated this wisdom into Islam. They created new ahadith to Islamize these thinkers. They gave Muhammad the combined wisdom of men like Moses, Aristotle, Plato, Jesus, Confucius, and Buddha, the leadership qualities of men like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Marcus Aurelius together with the poetics of men like Homer and Virgil. Is it any wonder that you hold him in such high esteem? Doesn't this explain why my view of Muhammad, derived from the Qur'an and Sirah but not from hadith is so different from yours?
I don't see anything wrong with building a religion by synthesizing a hero based on the best examples from all of humanity. Such a religion would clearly be the best religion possible, without flaws.
The flaw of Islam, though, is the retention of the real qualities of Muhammad. The actual Muhammad was a flawed person and not like this idealized man. Modern day Muslims need to be honest and separate their model of the ideal man from the 7th Century Arab who had the same name. If Muslims would do this, true outreach would be possible, since all religions and secular philosophies have similar ideals. Muhammad is an obstacle since the real Muhammad does not fit the ideals of any culture, not even Islam.
Hello N.B.
Thanks for the reply.
I appreciate that you are reading some of these historical periods. It's not easy to go through it all, and to be able to summarize things. It's a journey.
In terms of some of your assertions within the post, I think there are a few things worth mentioning.
[1] The first two sentences you write are correct in general,however I think there is a misconception or two. The Mu'tazilites , while described as "rationalists", were in fact committed Muslims, who actually argued a deeper and more authentic connection to the Islamic primary sources were necessary. They proposed some controversial doctrines,( such as "The created Qur'an"), but their overall interest was religious in nature. This is important to mention because it is often believed that the Mutazilites wanted to overthrow the religion itself and replace it with Greek thought, and that is simply not the case. They were more of an academic trend than they were a sect, which did persecute those who would not sign on to their idea about the nature of the Qur'an (famous example being Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal).
[2] Qur'an and hadeeth were always seen, by all the sects and trends, as foundational. For the Mu'tazilites, they had more strict conditions in terms of acceptance of hadeeth when it comes to issues of doctrine. Thus, I think it is a oversimplification to say that once they lost power, the Qur'an and hadeeth once again become foundational, leading to some fanatical downfall of the Muslim civilization.
[3] More importantly, you seem to think that Prophet Muhammad is a character created on a combination of different historical figures. I have no doubts that there are misrepresentations, exaggerations and outright lies associated with the Prophet, and that these things enter the books. However, those realities have been recognized from the very beginning of the Muslim intellectual tradition, and continue to likewise be scrutinized by the Muslim scholars. In any case, in terms of a broad knowledge of the Prophet's life, we have this. We have knowledge of his birth, marriages, battles, habits of worship and we have his tomb. WE have the emergence of the Caliphate after his death. All of these prove that Muhammad not only existed, but that his character was very persuasive, impacting his generation and generations to come afterwards. Moreover, we believe that the most reliable source of information on the Prophet comes from the Qur'an itself, when it comes to understanding what the Prophet was really about. Here is a post which may interest you. http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2012/09/defending-prophet-methodology-of-quran.html
Hi Waheed.
Actually, I agree with just about everything you say in your last post. I do not doubt that Muhammad existed. That's not my point.
My question is: "What value was there in gathering so much of the world's knowledge in one place if Islam already contained everything it needed?" Surely you must admit that these scholars discovered new wisdom in this collection of books. Yet, today, Muslims seem adamant in denying that there is any need for anything outside of Islam, saying that Islam is "the only complete religion". How do you reconcile this?
Hello N.B.
The gathering of knowledge is seen as a religious obligation. Indeed, the first word of Quranic revelation was "Read". The Qur'an repeatedly tells us to engage in contemplation, and even gives us particular fields worth paying attention to.
In other words, the gathering of knowledge never was seen as conflicting with the Islamic religion, and thus, there is no contradiction between seeing Islam as the deen completed with Qur'an & The Prophet and collecting new wisdom.
Hi Waheed. I hope that we can give this thread a little more focus.
My point is that gathering knowledge is a pointless exercise unless the knowledge is incorporated into the culture. I don't think that the scholars of this period would waste their time translating extra-Muslim philosophy if they didn't find wisdom in those works and a way to incorporate that wisdom into Islam.
How did they do this?
Hello N.B.
The gathering of knowledge is NOT a pointless exercise. There is wisdom in Extra Muslim or Non Muslim sources. None has ever denied this.
There is a hadeeth of the Prophet, peace be on him, which says "Knowledge is the lost property of a believer". Another statement attributed to him (the meaning is sound Islamically, even if the narration is not sourced from the Prophet) says "Seek knowledge, even into China". Another hadeeth says "Seeking knowledge is obligatory on every Muslim man and woman". At the Badr battle, prisoners were set free if they could teach Muslims how to read.
To re-emphasis this point, take a look at the "Study Notes" on this blog. You will find Quranic commands for seeking knowledge, and thoughts on which fields knowledge is to be sought in.
Hi Waheed. Thank you, again, for taking time to respond to me.
First, a couple of small points:
1. I couldn't find the "Study Notes" you mention. I am interested to know which fields of knowledge you mention there.
2. My first sentence has the word "unless" in it and you quote me without it, changing my meaning. I could have instead quoted Al-Tirmidhi – Hadith 280 Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: The knowledge from which no benefit is derived is like a treasure out of which nothing is spent in the cause of Allah.
So to the main point: you cite two hadiths which I will label H.1 "Seek knowledge, even into China" and H.2 "Seeking knowledge is obligatory on every Muslim man and woman". As I'm sure you are aware there is some controversy among scholars about them. I believe that the main controversy centers on the scope of "knowledge". (Is it the same Arabic word in both of these hadiths?)
One source that I found (Salafi) limits the scope in both to knowledge of Sharia. Viewed this way, H.1 is to be rejected and H.2 simply demands that Muslims learn about Islam. This Sheikh would not agree with your assessment that H.1 is "sound Islamically".
My question is whether or not Muslims are able to extend the scope of H.1 to include all knowledge, including Islamic knowledge. Secular thinkers have no difficulty accepting wisdom of all types from any source. We don't care about the "authenticity" of the source, only about the soundness of the thought.
A couple of examples:
1. You recently quote a text, Ja'far B Abi Taalib's speech to the ruler of Ethiopia. My personal view is that it is unlikely that such a speech would have been captured for posterity in its entirety, that is, I doubt it's "authenticity". However, that doesn't matter to me: the meaning is sound, not just Islamically, but broadly. Very few words would have to be changed to use this same speech in a different setting. In short, it is a fine speech, regardless of what we believe about its origin.
2. The most recent Hadith of the Day on whyislam is "Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to wrong them if they commit evil." Do I think this hadith to be the "authentic" words of Muhammad? No, not at all. There are so many incidents where others did wrong and he did wrong. However, once again, the meaning is sound in a very broad sense, regardless of what we believe about its origin. I would say the same thing about many of the hadith on that page.
The point I'm driving at is that there is much wisdom to be found in the hadith collections, whether the texts are "authentic" or not. These texts need to be judged by their soundness, not by their isnad. There is also much wisdom to be found outside of the hadith collections which should not be rejected simply because they can't be traced back to Muhammad.
The other point is that many of the hadiths appear to have origins outside of Islam. I believe that these hadiths were "fabricated" and included in the hadith collections to broaden the wisdom within Islam. I think that you will bristle at this supposition, but why would you? Why should it bother you to think that these collectors added wisdom from non-Islamic sources to their collections? Would you rather they had "spent nothing out of this treasure in the cause of Allah"?
Hello NB,
[1] There are three or four articles that are the "study Notes", summaries of Quranic studies, groups of verses. You can search in the search engine on the top left for them all, but the relevant one is this link. https://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2017/09/study-notes-soorah-al-hijr-15-70-80.html .
[2] The hadeeths I mentioned, the one regarding China is suspect (a point which I mentioned in the previous comment) but the one "Seeking of knowledge is an obligation on every Muslim man and woman" is not viewed with suspicion. Even if we dismiss or limit the impact of these narrations (after all, not everyone can master everything, nor should they), the Qur'anic revelation places great emphasis on reading, on acquiring knowledge of the universe.
(3) I am confused as to what quote I omitted or changed a word. Please clarify what You are referencing.
(4) Returning to the issue of authenticity vis a vis Prophetic narrations, from the Muslim perspective Muhammad was the Seal of the Prophets, the Messenger conveyed to all humanity, thus, it is imperative that we know what he did say and what he did not say. This is also import from an academic standpoint. In addition to looking at the content, Muslim traditional approaches has been to evaluate the credibility and historical veracity of the narrators, from each person in the chain of narrators. The chain is called "Isnaad" and the study of the narrators is called 'Ilm Ar-Rijaal. It's very complicated, but the point is that the general approach on the Prophetic narrations has NOT been that of blind faith! We try our best to know what the Prophet (Sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said and didn't say. Moreover, we know that there were fabrications falsely attributed to the Prophet, which is why the entire science exists in the first place.
{5} On the broader question of adding wisdom that has origins outside of Islam (regardless of the questions on the hadeeth genre), I argue that Islam itself teaches us to be willing to accept knowledge regardless of the source. I study the religion of Islam, but I also study other subjects with great interest, and just about every Muslim speaker/scholar/teacher I know does the same thing. In other words, we are not these people who only read one book.
Hi Waheed.
1. You write: the Qur'anic revelation places great emphasis on reading, on acquiring knowledge of the universe.
Which verses are you referring to?
2. You write: it is imperative that we know what he did say and what he did not say.
But you must know that this is impossible. According to tradition, the Qur'an, the most reliable record of what Muhammad said, was collected after his death using multiple differing sources. The scholars had a daunting task, collecting these texts and then choosing the texts they considered to be most authentic and rejecting texts that were not considered authentic. Once the Quranic texts were canonized, the rejected texts were destroyed so that there could be not disputes. Also, the contexts of the texts were not preserved alongside the texts, and we well know that context matters when trying to understand these texts.
The hadith collections suffer from even greater doubts. Surely you must admit that an Isnaad can be forged along with the text. You, yourself, say: "We try our best to know ..." and "we know that there were fabrications ...". Exactly right! It's the best you can do: imperfect knowledge. Knowledge is imperfect by its very nature. That's life, dealing with its uncertainties!
Isn't it time to admit the reality that it is NOT imperative to know what any man said or did not say? Judge the words, not the speaker. Isn't that common sense? Why are you so resistant to this simple, obvious, rational principle?
Frankly, I'm really saddened that we keep running up against this obstacle. I would much rather discuss what Classical Islam is, understanding its place in the broader context of universal knowledge, understanding how it was influenced by what came before and how it influenced what came after. It's a step along one road of many roads; maybe a big step, maybe not a step at all.
Hello NB,
The Qur'an is full of texts which speak on the importance of acquiring knowledge of the universe, it actually recommends particular subjects. I thought we discussed this elsewhere on the blog. Some verses of importance include, but are not limited to Q 3:190, 58:11, 41:53. The pattern is usually like this "And among His signs" or "Verily in these are evidences for a contemplative people" .
" But you must know that this is impossible. According to tradition, the Qur'an, the most reliable record of what Muhammad said, was collected after his death using multiple differing sources. The scholars had a daunting task, collecting these texts and then choosing the texts they considered to be most authentic and rejecting texts that were not considered authentic. Once the Quranic texts were canonized, the rejected texts were destroyed so that there could be not disputes. Also, the contexts of the texts were not preserved alongside the texts, and we well know that context matters when trying to understand these texts."
The above is not precisely correct (the manner in which you described the Quranic preservation) however I don't want to get distracted by addressing that right now. The Muslims started very early in terms of attempting to ascertain what was authentically and what has been wrongly associated with the Prophet. It's not an impossible task, and there can ( and has been recognized) things, actions, statements wrongly attributed to the Prophet -peace be upon him, but the simple fact is is that the same can be said of any personality of historical importance. There are wrong ideas or statements associated with that person, but even with that said, that does not negate knowing the broad outline of that person's actions, thinking and historical contributions.
" Isn't it time to admit the reality that it is NOT imperative to know what any man said or did not say? Judge the words, not the speaker. Isn't that common sense? Why are you so resistant to this simple, obvious, rational principle?"
I'm not sure what you are aiming at with this above statement. The words are certainly evaluated, not only among Muslims when it comes to the Prophet (Sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) but in secular academia as well. To use an example, the Bible has the famous "If you are without sin, cast the first stone", said to be Jesus' (peace be upon him) reply to the request to stone a woman who did adultery.
This statement, although it sounds nice and has influenced religious and cultural thought, is now said by Biblical scholars to have NOT been said by Jesus at all!
I don't understand your criticism of Muslim attempts to be honest with what is attributed to Prophet Muhammad, whom we view as God's messenger, when, in fact, the same thing is done with all other important historical figures.
" Frankly, I'm really saddened that we keep running up against this obstacle. I would much rather discuss what Classical Islam is, understanding its place in the broader context of universal knowledge, understanding how it was influenced by what came before and how it influenced what came after. It's a step along one road of many roads; maybe a big step, maybe not a step at all."
We can discuss those things, and have- to a certain extent- discussed things of that nature. You seem to think we are some ignorant people who have not studied Islam at all, that we are ignorant of other subjects. I wish you could get rid of that sort of thinking.
In terms of how the Qur'an places emphasis on knowledge, I would suggest looking at the study notes on the blog. There are atleast two (if not three) "Study Notes" where it has more details on this issue.
There is also a lecture posted on the blog, Making Faith Make Sense, which is found http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2019/01/making-faith-make-sense-presentation.html that also has some more observations, mostly based on the Qur'an, with regards to questions of this nature.
Waheed, I was specifically asking about the "great emphasis on reading". What did 7th Century Muslims read? What did Muhammad himself read? Did Muhammad establish a library in Medina? Did any of his followers travel away from Medina to study with distant scholars?
You point to an example from the Bible, a book that most people are honest about when it comes to its origins. What about an example from the Qur'an? Which verses have there been suggestions that they are not from Muhammad? I have encountered some which I'm nearly certain could not have been spoken by Muhammad. What about you? Are there verses in the Qur'an whose authorship you question? Are there sects of Muslims who differ on the authenticity of specific verses of the Qur'an?
We discussed this previously. The first word given in the Quranic revelation was "Read". The Prophet himself is reported to have, after the battle of Badr, offered POWs release if they were to teach ten Muslims how to read.
In terms of a library, I think you know that libraries in those days, especially with the limited resources ( I mean in terms of material) were very scant, however Muslims went on to built Civilizations, which of course included libraries.
The "reading" is more than "reading" a book. It is contemplation, study, of existence itself. There are a few posts here on this blog in which this sort of topic is explored.
As for the Qur'an, None of the Qur'an is "the words of Muhammad". Rather, it is the words of God. Of course, this is the perspective of a believer, and the Qur'an sometimes has criticisms of the Prophet (Sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam). Would an author include self critical remarks in his book, however benign?
Are there sects of Muslims who differ on the authenticity of specific Quranic verses? The only "sect" that would fit that answer is one trend that is so small that it is hardly worth mentioning, that trend argues that the last two verses of a particular Soorah are later insertions. Their argument is based on a supposition that the Qur'an is constructed upon a particular mathematical code. That's the only "sect", but it's hardly worth mentioning, because that argument has been widely addressed.
Hello Waheed,
So you cite one verse commanding Muhammad to read. This raises the obvious questions: Did Muhammad learn to read? Which of these POWs who were released taught Muhammad? What did these Muslims read?
You say that Muslims "built" civilizations, but you seem to ignore the fact that the centers of Muslim civilizations were great centers prior to being conquered by the Muslims. These places already had libraries and schools and, in some cases, even medical centers.
"Contemplation" was nothing new in the 7th Century and was a central focus in many schools in the ancient world. However, unlike the 7th Century Arabs, many of these schools recorded their findings in order to preserve and share them.
No, I think it is safe to assert that the Qur'an does not place an emphasis on reading and that 7th Century Muslims were not driven to seek out these sources of knowledge that prior civilizations had set out in their libraries.
We know that there were civilizations before the emergence of the Muslims, even the Qur'an mentions study of ancient civilizations.
In terms of the battle of Badr and its aftermath ( i.e. teaching ten how to read), it was just one of the many ways the prisoners were able to obtain their freedom, and there are reports that some were simply released as an act of mercy, being as they could not afford the required payment.
Contemplation and the existence of civilization was not new, however it can't be denied ( and you don't seem to deny it either) that these things were given new life by the teachings and impact of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
Hi Waheed. Once again, you seem to have missed my point.
The Sasanian Empire was a fully developed civilization before it was invaded by the Muslims. It had centers of education not far from Arabia, including a medical center at Gundeshapur. These institutions and the Sasanian administrative structures continued even after the Muslim invasion. It is simply incorrect to assert that the Muslims "went on to build" this civilization. Their invasion was a military occupation of an empire whose society continued to function much as it did before the invasion.
If your tradition said that Sasanian POWs. rather than Meccan, were freed on the condition of teaching Muslims to read, that would be a credible story.
Even after the invasion, the Islamization took many centuries. The populations of Zoroastrians, Nestorians and Jews lived as dhimmi and were the majority for a very long time.
You ask what I think the impact of Muhammad was. Now that I understand how Islam came to life during the Abbasid Caliphate and that the most influential Islamic scholars during that period were Persians rooted in a civilization that had centuries of scholarship, Zoroastrian, Nestorian and Jewish (the Talmud was compiled only a short distance from Baghdad!), I understand that what is known as "Islam" can properly be thought of as a Persian religion. It is now clear how so much that could not have come from Muhammad found its way into Islam; it was indigenous to this region when the region was invaded by the Arabs!
The Rashidun Arabs excelled in Imperialism not scholarship. Military occupation of a territory does not give the occupier "ownership" of the cultural products of the occupied people. In my opinion, the religion that developed in Iraq owes very little to these Arabs. I wonder if Muhammad would even recognize it as the same religion that he founded.
Hello NB,
If you simply Google search "Islamic contributions to..." a number of options would come up. It seems you want to downplay or outright deny what Muslims were able to do.
You wrote " Now that I understand how Islam came to life during the Abbasid Caliphate and that the most influential Islamic scholars during that period were Persians rooted in a civilization that had centuries of scholarship, Zoroastrian, Nestorian and Jewish (the Talmud was compiled only a short distance from Baghdad!), I understand that what is known as "Islam" can properly be thought of as a Persian religion. It is now clear how so much that could not have come from Muhammad found its way into Islam; it was indigenous to this region when the region was invaded by the Arabs!"
This is an extremely over-simplistic comment to make. There is no doubt that Persian scholarship had profound impact on Muslim religious and secular sciences, however this has nothing to do with the Prophet's biography.
Anyways I must go now.
Regards
Waheed, where am I "denying what Muslims were able to do"? I'm simply pointing out that much of the strength of Islamic scholarship came from the Persians, and, yes, they were Muslims.
Nowadays, when people are acclaimed, they are identified by the country where they are from, not by the religion that they practice. In the case of most of the great contributors of this period that you are thinking of, they were Persians from a long tradition of Persian scholarship. For the astronomers and mathematicians and inventors and so on, do we really know if they were pious Muslims or not? Do we care? Does it matter?
It's my opinion that without the Persians' experience in administering an empire and without their institutions, especially their legal system, the Islamic Empire might have been short lived.
It seems like you are the one who wants to downplay or outright deny what Persians were able to do.
Post a Comment