Saturday, August 24, 2019

Towards creating a balanced personality: brief reflections on the role of Prophet Muhammad)

( Note: the following is an article that is based on reflections shared in our Friday Khutbah 8/23/19. Both that khutbah and this article  should be viewed as a follow up on our Khutbah entitled " The Islamic Formula for Happiness: A Quranic perspective", which can be found part 1 as well as Part 2 . We recommend, in the interest of viewing the whole context, that  the above referenced Khutbah be viewed.)



Why Prophet Muhammad?

لَقَدۡ کَانَ لَکُمۡ فِیۡ رَسُوۡلِ اللّٰہِ اُسۡوَۃٌ حَسَنَۃٌ لِّمَنۡ کَانَ یَرۡجُوا اللّٰہَ وَ الۡیَوۡمَ الۡاٰخِرَ وَ ذَکَرَ اللّٰہَ کَثِیۡرًا

" Indeed, you have in the Messenger of Allah, a goodly model, for any who has hope in Allah, the final day, and who recall Allah abundantly." ( Q 33:21)

While the above quotation is often viewed superficially(ft.1), this Quranic verse tells us to look at the Prophet as an example of real success. He functions as an example for those who have hope in the future, hope in God's designs and plan.

While the Qur'an does tell us ( Q 9:129) that the core characteristics of the Prophet was that of kindness and compassion, there is another side that is present.

Another characteristic of the Prophet

"Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those with him display strength(ashidda) with those who reject, yet display mercy with each other. You see them, in rukoo' (bowing), in sajdah (prostration), seeking bounty from Allah and His pleasure, in their faces ( i.e. the core of their being) are the traces of that submission ( min atharis sujood)" ( Q 48:29).
 
 مُحَمَّدٌ رَّسُوۡلُ اللّٰہِ ؕ وَ الَّذِیۡنَ مَعَہٗۤ اَشِدَّآءُ عَلَی الۡکُفَّارِ رُحَمَآءُ بَیۡنَہُمۡ تَرٰٮہُمۡ رُکَّعًا سُجَّدًا یَّبۡتَغُوۡنَ فَضۡلًا مِّنَ اللّٰہِ وَ رِضۡوَانًا ۫ سِیۡمَاہُمۡ فِیۡ وُجُوۡہِہِمۡ مِّنۡ اَثَرِ السُّجُوۡدِ ؕ
The above verse highlights the characteristics of strength and resolve. That requires working hard to accomplish necessary goals. The Prophet was not so "merciful" as to be passive!

The idea of passivity, of surrendering to tyranny (of whatever form) in the name of "surrender to God's will" exists within every religious community in some form or another, but what we learn from the Prophet Muhammad is that he had to face those who sought to destroy him, his followers and his community, and he faced those challenges by being proactive.

Both texts (33:21 and 48:29) have connecting to God in common. In Soorah 9:128-129 we see not only that the Prophet was kindly and compassionate, we  read therein a formula that he was to recite, to seek out God's presence and protection.

Some people believe that a passive, weak personality, is necessary for a healthy spirituality and even assert that such have moral superiority over Prophet Muhammad. Christian apologists cite Jesus's supposed passivity in the face of opposition as an example of his moral superiority over Muhammad.(ft.2).

When a personality is both spiritual and displaying strength, it can breed jealousy, opposition as well as slander. Worldly motivations are projected unto the Prophet, as well as the creation of stories of atrocities.

This happens to Prophets as well as Non Prophets. Good people, who want to see good within themselves and their societies, become targets by those opponents with jealousy within their hearts, or by those who themselves derive some power or benefit from an evil status quo.  It can be disheartening to those trying to do good.

When feeling like this, the Qur'an says to look to the Prophet Muhammad, upon whom be peace.  The Qur'an says, in essence, to the modern reader, "Look at what the Prophet was able to accomplish."

Arabian society had so much serious baggage in those days, well known social and religious ills, and the Prophet was largely successful in removing those bad elements, turning rough people into brave, yet contemplative, personalities, such as 'Umar b.Al-Khattab. His followers became people who looked inward, who worked hard on themselves. They did so by following the Prophet's example, by prayers, contemplation upon Allah (ft.3), discipline, and cultivation of the self.

Thus, the Prophet Muhammad is a model of success, not simply in the religious realm, but in the worldly life as well. The teaching that he conveyed-from Allah-has within it things which we could all use to create happiness and security in life. It is true that not all that he conveyed ("allowed" is perhaps a better term) is always to our pleasing, being as we all come with our own personal and cultural baggage, nonetheless those options are there.

More importantly, the personality of the Prophet is that of a balanced human being. He can be strong when fighting is necessary, but he can likewise be calm, kind and compassionate at those other times when strive is not present.

There are exaggerations and outright slanders against him. These things are brought up as attempts to indicate that the Prophet was a vicious and petty criminal. If such accusations were valid, Islam would have never went anywhere! It would have died out or become of marginal affect.

Yet, the contrast is the reality. Islam is here to stay. It is here to benefit all humanity. It is not here to be imposed by force, but it functions as a blessing.


 Image result for quran 33:56

Footnotes

(1)  It is to our dismay that Muslims tend to quote this verse as evidence of a superficial following of the Prophet, taking only things such as dress and eating style from him. Muslim scholarship has wisely stated that there are things we follow of the Prophet when it has religious impact, but that there are things of the Prophet that exist only due to his place and time, such as the dressing style and other things common to all Arabs.  A superficial reading of the Quranic verse does a disservice to the Prophet.

(2) Other assertions made by Christian critics assert that the Prophet's married life was governed by sensual concerns, whereas Jesus was a higher moral code due to being celibate. These type of accusations have been addressed elsewhere by this writer See Here .

(3) The Hadeeth literature is full of examples of individuals coming to the Prophet, seeking out advice on making themselves better. There are even accounts of a self-accusatory nature, wherein people would even embarrass themselves in public by sharing their shortcomings, yet the Prophet would generally find ways to make them feel better about themselves. One example is found in both Al-Bukhari and Muslim, summarized thusly: A man wanted to confess to an indiscretion, the Prophet kept pretending not to hear him. After prayers, the man repeated the confession, the Prophet asked him if he had just prayed with him, the man replies in the affirmative. The Prophet replies that God had already forgiven him (i.e. the questioner).


15 comments:

NB said...

Hello Waheed, and welcome back to your blog ;)

So you wish to convince your congregants that Muhammad is "a goodly model", and then you choose Q 48:29 to support this position... "and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves."

I expect that you will once again try to restrict the range of "kufar" to refer only to criminals, however, it is clear in the context of this Surah that Muhammad is referring to all of the pagan Makkans.

You continue to insist, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that the Qur'an does not divide, and that Muhammad's "kindness and compassion" extended beyond his followers.

You say "not so 'merciful' as to be passive", but you well know that the recurring theme in the monotheistic religions is mercy and JUSTICE". Christianity is definitely not a religion of submission to a tyrannical God, but a religion that believes in a loving and kind God. There is nothing passive or weak in this belief, as you suggest.

Once again, you badly misrepresent what Christianity teaches when you write "Christian apologists cite Jesus's supposed passivity in the face of opposition as an example of his moral superiority." What is in clear language in Matthew 5 does not require apologetics and does not teach passivity and no Christian would ever find a need to defend the Son's moral superiority. Do not confuse a non-violent response with no response. Many great teachers, in nearly every culture, have preached non-violence.

You say that Muhammad had to face those who sought to destroy him, but there is little evidence that any of his opponents sought anything more than to protect what they had or to regain what was taken from them. The Makkans sent an army against Madinah only after the Muslims began to kill their traders. The Banu Nadir returned to Madinah with a force of allies to reclaim what was rightfully theirs.

Furthermore, at the time of the revelation of Surah Al-Fath, Muhammad believed himself to have Divine protection, and that Allah would send armies of angels to help him. In fact, it says so in this same Surah: And if those [Makkans] who disbelieve had fought you, they would have turned their backs [in flight]. Then they would not find a protector or a helper. [Q 48:22] Why would anyone with this kind of help need to bring violence against his opponents proactively?

continued ...

NB said...

You say that stories of atrocities are projected onto the Prophet, but these stories were collected by Muslims. There is no intention to slander Muhammad in these stories. You, yourself, cited the story of Mu'adh b. Jabal's appointment to Yemen and his brutal killing of a Jew there "in accordance with the decree of Allah and His Apostle (may peace be upon him)". Is this the "kindly and compassionate" man you are speaking of? I ask: why are such stories still told? Regardless of whether the story is true or not, the story is still being used to teach what Allah and His Apostle have decreed.

You cynically accuse opponents of Islam of "jealousy", seeking power for themselves and other such slanders. Is this how you see people like me?

You say the answer is "prayers, contemplation upon Allah (ft.3), discipline, and cultivation of the self.", but what happens when these are misdirected? Islamic extremist follow this example, too, you know. Is that what you want? You can "cultivate" a field and then sow weeds and harmful plants.

The argument, that because Islam is still here it must be beneficial, is absurd. Just look at all those things that Islam condemns which are also still here. Would you say that because people still commit adultery it is here to benefit all humanity?

Why do you need a law against apostasy? Why was there continuous rebellion after the death of Muhammad?

It is not here to be imposed by force, you say? But it was, over and over again, and now in the present by those who follow Muhammad's example.

Why does the word "love" appear in the labels below this article and only in the labels?

Shamsuddin Waheed said...

HI NB,

I will share replies to some of your assertions below. I hope you will read them with an open mind.

" You continue to insist, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that the Qur'an does not divide, and that Muhammad's "kindness and compassion" extended beyond his followers"

I "insist" because that is the reality. Indeed, the Qur'an refers to Muhammad as a mercy to all nations (21:107). Moreover, the reports of his mercy as found in the literature, including giving amnesty to those Makkans, people who had been responsible for so many crimes against the Muslims, when he (the Prophet, peace be on him) reentered Makkah in triumph.

" You say "not so 'merciful' as to be passive", but you well know that the recurring theme in the monotheistic religions is mercy and JUSTICE". Christianity is definitely not a religion of submission to a tyrannical God, but a religion that believes in a loving and kind God. There is nothing passive or weak in this belief, as you suggest."

You seem to have seriously misunderstood or perhaps have misrepresented what I meant in the article. We are not calling God ( by whatever religion one wishes to understand him) tyrannical. Rather, we are speaking about trends, which exist in every religious community, of passivity. The notion that one has to be unconcerned with the world, not just the political world, but life itself, as a means to attain an authentic spiritual status. This, we argue, is a serious misconception.


The personality of a person who is sincere in seeking to obey and be connected to God should be compassionate and kind, but also have within it strength. A projection of strength that does not allow it to- for example- be bullied. In other examples, some view male/female relations as antithetical to spirituality, while others view wealth with the same lenses. Islam has no problem with these things, it only seeks to regulate them so as they don't become one's primary focus.


" Once again, you badly misrepresent what Christianity teaches when you write "Christian apologists cite Jesus's supposed passivity in the face of opposition as an example of his moral superiority." What is in clear language in Matthew 5 does not require apologetics and does not teach passivity and no Christian would ever find a need to defend the Son's moral superiority. Do not confuse a non-violent response with no response. Many great teachers, in nearly every culture, have preached non-violence"

And once again, you have misrepresented my words and intent. All one needs to do is read Christian apologetic websites, when they compare the Prophet Muhammad to Jesus, peace be on them both. Even your own posts reflect this thread of critical remarks. They say Jesus was peaceful, Jesus was moral, whereas Muhammad was violent, and was only concerned with sensual concerns. Jesus was unmarried, whereas Muhammad had many wives, and so forth.

You seem to have joined the chorus of the Christian missionaries in these regards. That is what I was referencing.

Non violence CAN be a powerful weapon. That is something I have never denied. What I attempted to convey is that this supposed passivity of Jesus has been used to attack Islam and the Propjet, and that such attacks are unfounded.

Shamsuddin Waheed said...

" You say that Muhammad had to face those who sought to destroy him, but there is little evidence that any of his opponents sought anything more than to protect what they had or to regain what was taken from them. The Makkans sent an army against Madinah only after the Muslims began to kill their traders. The Banu Nadir returned to Madinah with a force of allies to reclaim what was rightfully theirs."

We have discussed this in the past in other articles, lectures and threads here on the blog. I have given you -in the past- examples of death, torture, as well as attacks, boycotts, blockades, assassination attempts, and so forth, launched against the Prophet and the Muslims. In the past you have basically denied those things ever happened, despite the evidence to the contrary.


" Furthermore, at the time of the revelation of Surah Al-Fath, Muhammad believed himself to have Divine protection, and that Allah would send armies of angels to help him. In fact, it says so in this same Surah: And if those [Makkans] who disbelieve had fought you, they would have turned their backs [in flight]. Then they would not find a protector or a helper. [Q 48:22] Why would anyone with this kind of help need to bring violence against his opponents proactively?"

I don't understand your question. The verse you cite is basically telling us the Makkans would not have either Divine Help (in contrast to the Muslims) nor the overall stamina to- in the big picture- maintain a campaign to destroy the Muslims.

Shamsuddin Waheed said...

" You say that stories of atrocities are projected onto the Prophet, but these stories were collected by Muslims. There is no intention to slander Muhammad in these stories. You, yourself, cited the story of Mu'adh b. Jabal's appointment to Yemen and his brutal killing of a Jew there "in accordance with the decree of Allah and His Apostle (may peace be upon him)". Is this the "kindly and compassionate" man you are speaking of? I ask: why are such stories still told? Regardless of whether the story is true or not, the story is still being used to teach what Allah and His Apostle have decreed."

This is actually a very good question. There is a history behind all of this. Sometimes false stories, stories which would have either been fabricated by opponents of the Prophet, or commissioned by corrupted "Muslim" rulers to justify their own brutality, or accounts in which there are severe weaknesses, accounts in which the overall context is not present, these things have entered the literature.

Now, that does not mean that we reject the hadeeth literature all together (an approach which some have adopted in recent times), but we do keep in mind the Muslim scholars view, in which they state that the most unreliable reports out there, one of them are reports which have to do with war and conflict.

I could answer this in a longer way, but the above summarizes my understanding of the query.


" You cynically accuse opponents of Islam of "jealousy", seeking power for themselves and other such slanders. Is this how you see people like me?'

While you are the one who posts comments the most, not every article is posted with you in mind. Moreover, if you read the article again, you should see that a bigger meaning is intended there.

" You say the answer is "prayers, contemplation upon Allah (ft.3), discipline, and cultivation of the self.", but what happens when these are misdirected? Islamic extremist follow this example, too, you know. Is that what you want? You can "cultivate" a field and then sow weeds and harmful plants. "

Religion can be misused, no doubt about that. However so can medicine, vehicles, knives, tools, you name it. That does not mean we discard those things as well.

" The argument, that because Islam is still here it must be beneficial, is absurd. Just look at all those things that Islam condemns which are also still here. Would you say that because people still commit adultery it is here to benefit all humanity?"

Religion cannot be compared to an act between two parties. From a secular viewpoint, Islam has been here 1400 years, people still seek to follow and benefit from it, however there is none trying to benefit from adultery a thousand years ago. It's a poor analogy.

" Why do you need a law against apostasy? Why was there continuous rebellion after the death of Muhammad?"

I don't believe there is such a law according to the Qur'an. This has been my view which has been consistent. Here's a link to an old post explaining this.

http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2010/11/questions-on-islamic-law-apostasy-in.html

As for the civil strive after the Prophet's death, there were a number of factors for this, it's too long of a subject to get into right now, but basically it had to do with tribalism, some religious opposition, disagreements as to who and what should govern the state, and so forth.

Shamsuddin Waheed said...

" Why does the word "love" appear in the labels below this article and only in the labels?"

Inserted by mistake. But also try to remember that this post has very little to do with some defense of the Prophet, as much as it has to do with the subject of having strength projected, that such strength is not problematic for those seeking out authentic spirituality, just as having happiness in life is not problematic for those seeking out paradise in the life to come. Do have a listen to the two videos that are linked in the beginning of the article. Perhaps it would help you understand context.

NB said...

Hi Waheed. Thank you for your long and thorough response.

I would like to re-iterate some things that I've said before. When I began learning about Islam I had no preconceptions about it at all. I had heard some of the Islamophobic tropes, of course, but I fully expected to find them to be without basis. Like most Canadians, I assumed that Islam was like Christianity, but with some differences. I knew that there was a prophet named Muhammad and that the sacred text was the Qur'an, but I knew nothing of the prophet's biography and nothing about the contents of the Qur'an. I never knew that there were ahadith, let alone what their significance was. As much as possible, I've focused my readings on these Islamic texts themselves and supported by commentaries that were recommended to me by Muslims. I approached these sources with an open mind and with the hope and expectation of finding inspiration in them.

I'm not a Christian, so I'm not trying to prove anything about it. Even though I don't believe what Christians believe and I reject most of their theology, that doesn't prevent me from appreciating the wisdom that can be found in their teachings. I was expecting the same with Islam, namely, that I would not accept the theological premises of Islam but I would discover that the founding prophet was a man of wisdom.

Now it is my turn to hope that you will read my comments with an open mind... I've said much of this before, but maybe this time you will try hard to understand what I'm saying.

Reading these sources has been a gut-wrenching experience for me, quite literally, I was sick to the stomach. I did not expect this and I surprised how visceral my reaction was. I discovered that I had emotions that I had never felt before, and I don't mean this in a positive way! Much of this study has turned into a study of myself and trying to understand why Islam upsets me first and foremost on an emotional level. What is it about my core beliefs that are so much in conflict with Islam?

I have raised many of the problems that I have found but have rarely been even slightly satisfied by the responses. What began as a strong emotional reaction has developed into a full-blown intellectual outrage. How can you not respond more sympathetically to my complaint about an outrageous lie in aboutislam? How can you ignore my outrage concerning the Mu'adh story and the cold-blooded murder of the Jew whose crime was apostasy? And so on...

Please re-read your responses to me and try to think about it from my perspective. Do you really think that your responses address my concerns?

As for the word "love": I was going to comment on the absence of the word in your article and did a search of the text to confirm that I was correct. If I believed in such things, I would say the label was not "inserted by mistake" but was Allah trying to guide you. The proper response to my comment should have been "missing from the article by mistake".

NB said...

So to respond to your comments:

I don't know how you are able to dismiss my "assertions" so readily. There are so many verses in the Qur'an which "divide"; it is a major theme in the Qur'an. One in this article was Q 48:29, which exhorts Muslims to treat non-Muslims differently from how they treat each other. I have personally witnessed this both in the whyislam forum and in this blog.

Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying about passivity. I personally can't think of anyone like what you are describing.

I do not need to read Christian apologetic websites to compare Muhammad and Jesus, only the stories that their followers have preserved. We don't know what these men were actually like, only how those who came after them chose to remember them and the teachings which their followers continue to pass on. I can simply compare verses from the Gospels, like Matthew 5:43-48, to Qur'anic verses like the ones that you reference in this article, and draw my own conclusions.

In your talk, you say that we should move away from harmful influences (narcissistic personalities), but Matthew 5:44 says to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Which is the passive approach and which is the approach of strength? Should we meet a challenge head on or should we run away from it?

My comment about Q 48:22 is as follows: Muslims claim two things which are in contradiction: First, that the fledgling Islamic community faced an existential threat which necessitated preemptive violence against its neighbours, and, secondly, that this same community enjoyed the protection and support of Allah, and that no force could ever defeat Islam. I would add that Muhammad himself claimed that if he were to die, the religion would survive.

As you can probably tell, I am a passionate believer in non-violence. It is incomprehensible to me that people who have the sort of faith in God that Muslims claim to have would ever choose violence. (This is the same point that I made when discussing what Gandhi said about Islam). For example, at Badr, reading the accounts that are as biased towards the Muslim side as they are, they seem to indicate a reluctance on the part of the Makkans to engage in battle. In every instance that I've looked at, there were opportunities to avoid violence but the Muslims always chose otherwise.

You also mention the conquest of Makkah. This conquest is quite unique in history and I'm trying to think of another example where the leaders of the conquering army were originally from the place that they are conquering, and from only a short time before (about 8 years, if I'm not mistaken). This very much changes the dynamics of the conflict. There remained strong familial and tribal connections between the opposing parties and you would expect both sides would want to avoid any sort of massacre.

You say that Makkans were granted amnesty, but specifically who were these criminals and what were their crimes? As I have pointed out, I believe that the claims of persecution were greatly exaggerated, so now when justice was possible, there was no one to punish? Doesn't that support my view?

As for the leaders like Abu Sufyan, Muhammad needed the support of the Makkans in his continuing campaign. It was better for him to gain their allegiance than to sow division by slaying these men. The Qur'anic verse I began with says "merciful among themselves" and indeed Muhammad was merciful with those who swore allegiance, and only with those who did.

NB said...

Hi Waheed. I've now posted a comment in http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2010/11/questions-on-islamic-law-apostasy-in.html

Shamsuddin Waheed said...

" Reading these sources has been a gut-wrenching experience for me, quite literally, I was sick to the stomach. I did not expect this and I surprised how visceral my reaction was. I discovered that I had emotions that I had never felt before, and I don't mean this in a positive way! Much of this study has turned into a study of myself and trying to understand why Islam upsets me first and foremost on an emotional level. What is it about my core beliefs that are so much in conflict with Islam?"

You have used the terms "visceral" and "emotional". Perhaps you have not looked at the faith in an intellectual or an open minded fashion. You had emotional reactions to things, and I think that what you reacted to was in general to things which Muslims themselves openly question vis a vis in terms of textual or historical accuracy.

In other words, you have zoomed in on things that are themselves not all that mainstream for Muslim scholarship.


" I have raised many of the problems that I have found but have rarely been even slightly satisfied by the responses. What began as a strong emotional reaction has developed into a full-blown intellectual outrage. How can you not respond more sympathetically to my complaint about an outrageous lie in aboutislam? How can you ignore my outrage concerning the Mu'adh story and the cold-blooded murder of the Jew whose crime was apostasy? And so on.."

I don't control the AboutIslam website, in fact, until our discussion I had never even heard of it. How can I be outraged over something on someone else's website, which I don't even recall what was controversial? The Mu'adh story, I simply do not believe it in the way it has been presented.

I see you replied on the Apostasy article, and will share a thought there when time permits, but for now let me remind you that many of these issues are issues which I have been studying for a long time, and thus I am confident in how I understand these things. The issue of Apostasy is among them.

Shamsuddin Waheed said...

" I don't know how you are able to dismiss my "assertions" so readily. There are so many verses in the Qur'an which "divide"; it is a major theme in the Qur'an. One in this article was Q 48:29, which exhorts Muslims to treat non-Muslims differently from how they treat each other. I have personally witnessed this both in the whyislam forum and in this blog."

It seems it bothers you when the other party does not cosign on your views. Perhaps all of us are like that in some form or another, however it is something we have to get over.

The verse 48:29 is addressing a military context, and the entire point (which I think you started to understand) was regarding personality types, that spirituality does not require a passive approach to life, there are times when strength has to be projected, especially in confrontation with bullies.

As for seeing discrimination on WI and on this blog, I personally don't see it like that. These forums require some basic respect, and if those rules are violated, especially after complaints from the public, being unable to post there is a natural consequence.

In terms of this blog, may I remind you that you have insulted me many many times, and it is only my patience and tolerance that has prevented me from replying like that, because, I think, ultimately you are not a bad guy, you are simply confused about some areas of Islam, areas of confusion which are shared by many others as well. You got into discussions with Shenango, seemingly became upset because I didn't "take your side". This is an example of what I mentioned earlier, you become upset when we don't automatically agree with whatever you are saying. Indeed, I think in one of the article comments recently you made a comment accusing me of taking part in some conspiracy to benefit from misrepresenting Islam.

Under such a context, you can't expect every Muslim reader you encounter to be happy about what you say and post.

" In your talk, you say that we should move away from harmful influences , but Matthew 5:44 says to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Which is the passive approach and which is the approach of strength? Should we meet a challenge head on or should we run away from it?"

These things have their own context. I see what you are driving at, however it does not really work. Even taking Matthew 5:44 at face value, it does not mean one should stay in hostile territory, to just accept abuse of whatever nature. You can pray for those who persecute you, or pray for family members who are narcissists, but that does not necessitate being their victims. A healthy distance from such personality types is a good thing, and I think this is universally recognized.

Sometimes greatest, strongest step one can do is to remove one's self from harm. There is a saying of Mario Pozo- writer of "The Godfather" that says "success is the best revenge". Success may require moving on, moving to continue one's work.

The Qur'an makes it clear that the Prophet and the Muslims were in general reluctant for any conflict. A reading of most religious histories would show that just about all of them had to fight in some form or another, fight in order to not be killed off. That does not mean that they don't believe in God. One thing about Badr that is usually overlooked is that the Makkans had seized the goods of the Makkan Muslims, their wealth, properties and the like. These items were being transported, the wealth from these items as well, and it is this transportation which led to that situation. In other words, it's not an issue of Muslims being bloody fanatics attacking the Makkans. There is an issue of justice and recovery of one's stolen property that is also taking place.


Shamsuddin Waheed said...

I have encountered formatting problems, forcing me to erase much of what I had previously written, but to summarize : READ about what happened before the conquest of Makkah, the treaty of Hudaybiyah, a treaty which heavily favored the Makkans, and how they violated that which acts of violence.

That is what preceded the conquest of Makkah. The Prophet was clever enough to project strength, by lighting camp fires which indicated big numbers, those fires influenced the Makkans to surrender, and the Prophet Muhammad was gracious enough to issue pardon. We look at this as an action of the Messenger of God, may peace be on him, whereas you look at it as an act of realpolitik. Either way, mission accomplished.

NB said...

Hello Waheed.

First of all, let me assure you that it is never my intention to insult you.

After observing that Muslims, including and especially Muhammad, do not display sensitivity when attacking what other people believe, I decided that I, too, would be direct in my criticism. Why should there be a double standard? I try my best to direct my criticism at historical figures and how their beliefs influenced their lives and continue to influence societies. You should not take my criticisms personally.

If you have a wish to understand why non-Muslims have such a negative view of Islam, and I think that you do have such a wish, then you need to listen to what non-Muslims have to say. If you have doubts about what I'm saying, then please go ahead and ask other non-Muslims about my points.

As chance would have it, after watching your video, a video with a Catholic speaker autoplayed. There was much in his video that I didn't really agree with, but something he said was that having travelled widely in the Arab world he had learned to avoid talking about Islam there and that Muslims would lie to his face. Now... there is a deep issue here about the trustworthiness of Muslims when discussing religion. There is a pattern here. A trend. Non-Muslim posters on WI have commented on it. I have noticed it in many different areas. This is an issue that should not be ignored. You say to me that you think "ultimately you are not a bad guy" and I can say that I think the same about you. However, to be blunt, you have lost my trust. You should think about why that is the case.

You say that you don't know about aboutislam.net. That's fine. That only means that you don't look at the links others are posting on whyislam.org. However, the issue that I was raising wasn't about that site, per se, but about the deception being used to mislead its readers. You allege that I am "simply confused", however, given all the deliberate misinformation coming from Muslims themselves, how is it possible for anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, to gain a coherent understanding of what Islam truly is? For a start, Muslims need to be aggressive in tearing down this misinformation. At least, you should be willing to look at the content and agree that it is wrong and shouldn't be "out there", otherwise, I will just continue in my "confusion" and my distrust.

I don't get angry because you won't agree with me. I get angry because you won't stand up to bigotry. This won't make you some sort of "conspirator"; it will make you a bigot. The only way for Muslims to shed their image as bigots, individually and collectively, is to refrain from bigotry themselves AND TO CONTEST THE BIGOTRY of other Muslims. You seem totally blind to this problem.

You say "you have zoomed in on things that are themselves not all that mainstream for Muslim scholarship". I was speaking directly about my experience reading the Qur'an. Are you saying it isn't mainstream? The hadith that I was outraged by was cited by YOU, Waheed. Is it mainstream when you cite it but not when I do?

I'll have more to say about your specific comments...

NB said...

You have advanced this "argument" before and I have refuted it before: "One thing about Badr that is usually overlooked is that the Makkans had seized the goods of the Makkan Muslims, their wealth, properties and the like. These items were being transported, the wealth from these items as well, and it is this transportation which led to that situation. In other words, it's not an issue of Muslims being bloody fanatics attacking the Makkans. There is an issue of justice and recovery of one's stolen property that is also taking place."

Primary evidence should come from the Qur'an. The Qur'an details the grievances against the Makkans in several places but I have never seen this mentioned and it certainly isn't mentioned in the verse where Muhammad pardons the Nakhla murderers. [Q 2:217] This is the same argument that I use to refute the allegation that Makkans ever murdered Muslims.

I am not alleging that the Muslims at Nakhla were "bloody fanatics", only that they were robbers, and that your statement about justice and recovery applies to the Makkans who were robbed, not to the Muslims who were the robbers. At Badr, the Makkans were seeking restitution for the crime and assurances that the Muslims would refrain from such crimes in the future. They did not set out with an intent to annihilate the Muslims or even to turn them away from their religion.

Even if your allegation of usurped property could be substantiated, it would not be justification for the robbery or murder of just any Makkan who happened to be in the area. Think about the implications of such a policy.

I have read about the Treaty of Hudaybiyah. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that the treaty "heavily favored the Makkans". What did the Makkans get from the treaty?

We know what the Muslims got from this treaty by reading the entirety of the Surah that we've been discussing, Surah 48, Surah Al Fath. We read that Muhammad had already decided, now that he didn't need to fear an attack by the Makkans, to turn his attention against the Jews who remained in Khaybar and Fadak. His warriors were not happy to leave Hudaybiyah empty handed, but Muhammad was able to promise them that there would be booty for them from a different place. He also makes it clear that Muslims who had not accompanied him to Hudaybiyah would not benefit from the plunder of Khaybar.

You need to step back and look at the bigger picture. The Muslims weren't strong enough to carry on campaigns on two fronts so Muhammad made a treaty with the Makkans and went elsewhere. When he was ready to conquer Makkah two years later, he returned with a much larger force. Do you really think that Muhammad did not intend all along to return as a conqueror to Makkah? Again, the Qur'an itself provides the evidence.

Notwithstanding that the details of the "treaty violation" seem greatly exaggerated, you cannot sustain an argument that there was "reluctance" to march on Makkah. The efforts to avoid conflict came, as in every case we've discussed, from the Makkans. It was the Makkans who offered compensation in an attempt to maintain the treaty, not the Muslims. In every instance, the Makkans seem like decent people who did not deserve the malignancy of the Muslims.

And you still haven't named a Makkan who was pardoned without having to swear allegiance to Muhammad first.

NB said...

PS. I've also posted a comment in https://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2011/01/divine-punishment-quranic-teaching.html I know, the article is nearly 9 years old.