Among them are men who molest the Prophet and say, "He is (all) ear." Say, "He listens to what is best for you: he believes in Allah, has faith in the Believers, and is a Mercy to those of you who believe." But those who molest the Messenger will have a grievous penalty.
The above is from Soorah 9:61, Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation. The Tafseer literature states that the hypocrites are those whom the Quranic verse above is mentioning, they used the expression "He is an ear" (Huwa Udhunun) to assert that Prophet Muhammad صَلَّى اللّٰهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ did not have the ability to distinguish between those who are telling the truth and those who are lying to him.(ft.1).
In other words, they saw him as naive, as-at best- a useful fool. The Prophet's congenial and helpful nature was well known, even by those who would become his foes. He was known as someone who was very honest and trustworthy (As Saadiq and Al Amin), and was involved in activities designed to take care of the downtrodden(ft.2).
To the assertion that he is naive , the Qur'an says "Say: He is an ear, an ear of benefit to you" (Qul:Udhunu khayril lakum). This is an extremly profound assertion. It is profound because it expresses the fact that there are people out there, blessed by God to function as blessings to others. Similarly, there are institutions out there, which function as a vehicle for the channeling of those blessings.
Long Term Benefit
People of faith want to be connected to those which will help them in developing their faith and to channel their positive impulses to that which is wholesome. Those who lack faith, or are simply oppurtunistic in nature, can only go after short term benefits, and only for selfish reasons. They cannot think in an alturistic manner. Such thinking is- according to the Qur'an, a consequence of having a diseased heart!
The nature of Prophet Muhammad is a nature that has so much love, goodness and mercy therein, even for those who may not necessarily agree with his prophetic claims, that the benefits from his teachings actually outlived him as a person.
I think the same thing can be said of other messengers of God, as well as Non Prophetic figures, men and women who have been blessed with so much internal goodness that it shines forth and benefits others long after the death of those initial personalities.
Conclusion
Strive to do what is right, avoid the company and influence of those who are insincere, have diseased hearts, whose baggage is extremly destructive, and BE the blessing. Allah will in turn bless you. The blessings will be passed around, benefitiing all they touch at some level.
Have faith in this path, have faith in the ONE who created all of us, try to be positive even in the midst of the temptations to give in to negative emotions and naysayer detractors, and take as a model of success the human model, universal messnger and seal of the Prophet, Muhammad ibn 'Abdullah, upon whom be Allah's peace and blessings.
Footnotes
[1] This explanation is given by Imam Ash-Shawkanee(d.1839 CE) in his Commentary Fat-h ul Qadeer. Similar explanations are found in other tafaseer as well.
[2] The Hilful Fudool is the association that is said to have been created after an internal conflict in Arabian society. It is said that the Prophet (before the Prophethood) was twenty years old when this association was created.
17 comments:
Hi Waheed. In the spirit of the season, let me begin by agreeing with something you say: men and women who have been blessed with so much internal goodness that it shines forth and benefits others long after the death of those initial personalities.
Can we agree that this can be said also about some men and women who were either non-religious, or lacked your faith, or whatever?
One consequence of studying Islam and posting about it is that I've given much more thought about the nature of human behaviour and what motivates people. "Lack of faith" or "having a diseased heart" is such a simplistic way of looking at this and doesn't really provide guidance towards helping people who suffer from excessive selfishness, opportunism and shortness of perspective. Without a clear understanding of what leads to these faults, it is difficult to find pathways to correcting them. Likewise, understanding what motivates some to "shine forth" would be very helpful, indeed.
Now, I must comment on your Qur'anic justification for this idea. As usual, you seem to read only part of the verse. As an aside, I think the word "molest" in the translation is a poor choice since it implies harm brought by a powerful person onto one who is defenceless against the harm. By the time of this Surah, those who opposed Muhammad were the politically weak. That aside, let's look at what this verse says.
The verse is speaking about those who would harm Muhammad with the insult "He is all ear". Muhammad's response to this is that he is a mercy to those who support him but those who do not will face the torment. You have claimed over and over again that kufr is more than mere disbelief in Muhammad's prophethood, yet in this verse here, we see that merely insulting Muhammad brought the promise of "a grievous penalty". We can see how, over time, Muhammad's hatred for those who do not believe in him has increased to such a point that he considers any form of opposition to be a mortal sin.
I don't deny that I have become unrestrained in my criticism of Muhammad, and I understand that you and all Muslims could find it offensive. However, let me repeat something and I wish that you would acknowledge the legitimacy of my perspective:
Those who believe in God the way that I believe in God find the claim that God would possess such human emotions as anger, vengeance, and vindictiveness and that He would ever choose to punish any of His Creation in the way that is described in the Qur'an to be truly BLASPHEMOUS.
Putting this another way: While it may be true that you find my words about a man who lived hundreds of years ago insulting, I find his words and your repetition of his words to be an insult to God Himself. How can you say you believe in God and say that you believe that God would torture those of His Creation, and for what purpose?
Powerful people have claimed Divine authority as justification for terrible acts. I become anxious when I hear men at the top levels of government speaking in terms of "being chosen by God to lead the nation" (another blasphemy).
Anyway, Christmas approaches, and even though I am not a Christian, I still use the time to appreciate that this is an amazing world, to spend time with my family, and to remind myself of the abiding power of love. It may seem odd for me to say this to another non-Christian, but I'll say it anyways: "May you find love and joy during this holiday season and during the New Year"
May Allah reward you...
Hello NB!
You wrote: " I must comment on your Qur'anic justification for this idea. As usual, you seem to read only part of the verse. As an aside, I think the word "molest" in the translation is a poor choice since it implies harm brought by a powerful person onto one who is defenceless against the harm. By the time of this Surah, those who opposed Muhammad were the politically weak. That aside, let's look at what this verse says.
The verse is speaking about those who would harm Muhammad with the insult "He is all ear". Muhammad's response to this is that he is a mercy to those who support him but those who do not will face the torment. You have claimed over and over again that kufr is more than mere disbelief in Muhammad's prophethood, yet in this verse here, we see that merely insulting Muhammad brought the promise of "a grievous penalty". We can see how, over time, Muhammad's hatred for those who do not believe in him has increased to such a point that he considers any form of opposition to be a mortal sin."
THE "harm" (translated by Yusuf Ali as "molest") mentioned in this verse is the harm of plotting, the harm of disrespect and distancing one's self from God's messenger. Your reading as expressed above is really off the mark. Moreover, you reached for a point that was not mine, as mentioned in the article.
'" While it may be true that you find my words about a man who lived hundreds of years ago insulting, I find his words and your repetition of his words to be an insult to God Himself. How can you say you believe in God and say that you believe that God would torture those of His Creation, and for what purpose?
Powerful people have claimed Divine authority as justification for terrible acts. I become anxious when I hear men at the top levels of government speaking in terms of "being chosen by God to lead the nation" (another blasphemy)."
"Torture" is a translation, and not necessarily a correct one. Moreover, I do believe in God who is the rewarder. There is more, but will reply later.
Rather than going through each line of the article and subsequent comments, perhaps I should simply restate the point of the article.
In life, it is a good thing to be reminded that you have been beneficial, useful, to the world. In particular, to remember that, to be reminded of examples of that, even in the face of opposition, opposition posed by those who have their own personal agendas (and thus, lack sincerity and are simply ego-driven opportunists).
Stay trying to do good and BE ABOUT what is good and beneficial, protect yourself as much as possible from the opposition, and God will bless your efforts to produce real and tangible results.
This is a lesson seen in the life of the Prophet Muhammad as well, which is mentioned in the Qur'an. The opposition, perhaps folks who were plotting behind the scenes whilst pretending loyalty to that which is good, saw him (The Prophet) as being a naive figure, a useful fool at best. Well, God says, the joke is on them, and that can be equally be applied to our own existence.
I wanted to quickly mention another thing about the "harm" to the Prophet, which I didn't explain properly in one of the comments above.
There are attempts to harm the Prophet, especially in Madinah. Yes, the Prophet had power, but it was not in the absolute sense that I think many people imagine. In the Hadeeth literature we find many examples where opponents felt it was easy to harm him in some form or another, even coming to him in the presence of his wife to insult him and make a death threat (subsequently, the hadeeth states that his wife insulted them back, prompting the Prophet to ask her to calm down).
One of the first things the Prophet did (actually, part of the reason he was invited in the first place) was to resolve a tribal conflict which had been devastating to the region. THIS earned respect, even from the Non Muslim elements. In addition, a mutual defense agreement was made, often called the world's first constitution (there are many books on this).
So don't imagine that the Prophet was in the same position that heads of government are today. Even if that was argued, he lived humbly and was easily approachable, as mentioned in the biographical sources.
@Abdul Bari!
May Allah Bless you and yours!
Hi Waheed. I certainly don't disagree with the point of your article. We know that the idea of "goodness" has been part of religions for several millennia. One statement of it that the Persian scholars would have know about was the Zoroastrian Threefold Path: Good thoughts, Good words, Good deeds.
My concept of a "Divine Law", which is very different from your notion of a divine commandment, is that a such a law must be universal and inevitable. When you look at the "choice" of whether or not to obey the "law" and follow a path of righteousness, we can look at the world and see the consequences for those who do not follow this path. Societies where people stop respecting their neighbours descend into chaos as surely as a stone that is thrown into the air returns to the ground. Societies have always depended on cooperation. That is "the law"; whenever the law breaks down, the society breaks down.
Such "wisdom" as this can be found in every society, and I don't limit myself to any particular culture in the search of wisdom.
I would rather that we spent more time discussing more philosophical matters than arguing about what Muhammad was really like. Unfortunately, you continue to advance a myth which is not grounded in reality. But first, about this particular verse from the Qur'an.
You have admitted that this verse is about Muhammad and is NOT a statement of a general principle. This is a big issue for me regarding the Qur'an. It is so much about Muhammad and not about his people.
It is harmful to society to slander ANY person, not just "the Prophet". If it is the case that the Arabic word does carry the nuance of "molest", then it would emphasise that the slander is even more harmful when the victim is defenceless. By inserting himself into this verse, Muhammad weakens the message which ought to be universal.
That's mainly about the start and end of the verse. What does the middle say? "He listens to what is best for you: he believes in Allah, has faith in the Believers, and is a Mercy to those of you who believe." Is there a "universal truth" here?
"He listens to what is best for you". All of us should only listen to what benefits others ... sounds good to me.
"he believes in Allah" No, you can be good without god and believers can be bad.
"has faith in the Believers". I would say "We should have faith in those who are righteous".
"is a Mercy to those of you who believe". I would follow the Christians and say that we should be a Mercy for all, even our enemies.
Finally, about your cherry-picked history of Muhammad's rule in Madinah: Muslims do not dispute that Muhammad expelled entire tribes and even slaughtered all of the men of a tribe and enslaved the women and children. You counter this with allegations that perhaps there were "plots" against him. Is this truly your view of "justice"? If you lived in such a place, would you not pledge loyalty out of fear? Are you unable to see that the spread of Muhammadanism (I won't insult you by calling it "Islam"), was not through an acceptance of faith, but largely through the coercion of force? Of course it would be true that there were enemies amongst the "converts". These are characteristics of a totalitarian state.
You mention, again, Muhammad's treaties. Yet, none of these treaties were lasting. Naturally, Muslims spin the events and accuse the non-Muslims for being the first to violate these treaties; I don't see it this way. Regardless, Muhammad's 8-year rule of Madinah, starting after the battle of Badr, was dominated by broken treaties and tribal conflicts. How much weight can we give to the Constitution of Madinah when entire tribes were expelled or annihilated under it? Perhaps Muhammad brought a short term end to a tribal conflict, but if the treaty breaks down after a short time, should we count it as an accomplishment?
"I really do believe we have God on our side. ... People say, ‘How do you win?’ You don’t have the media. You have so many things against you' -- and we win. So there has to be something.”
— President Trump, January 3, 2020
Among them are men who molest the President of the United States and say, "He is (all) ear." Say, "He listens to what is best for you: he believes in God, has faith in the Believers, and is a Mercy to those of you who believe." But those who molest the President of the United States will have a grievous penalty.
"I would rather that we spent more time discussing more philosophical matters than arguing about what Muhammad was really like. Unfortunately, you continue to advance a myth which is not grounded in reality. But first, about this particular verse from the Qur'an." (N-B post)
I would like to remind you that this is a blog wherein I post articles from time to time, so I have the right to "advance" whatever I see fit. Moreover, your views about the Prophet Muhammad are based on misunderstandings or, more likely, a prejudiced position, assuming that he was a villain type character.
" It is harmful to society to slander ANY person, not just "the Prophet". If it is the case that the Arabic word does carry the nuance of "molest", then it would emphasise that the slander is even more harmful when the victim is defenceless. By inserting himself into this verse, Muhammad weakens the message which ought to be universal." (N-B post)
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here, but in any case the Qur'an, according to Islamic teaching, was conveyed through the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and since he is the first preacher of the Quranic message, since it is being given to him, there will certainly be information about him in it, and, more importantly, principles are-in fact- carried in the accounts that are given about him in the Qur'an.
" "He listens to what is best for you". All of us should only listen to what benefits others ... sounds good to me.
"he believes in Allah" No, you can be good without god and believers can be bad.
"has faith in the Believers". I would say "We should have faith in those who are righteous".
"is a Mercy to those of you who believe". I would follow the Christians and say that we should be a Mercy for all, even our enemies." ( N-B post)
Perhaps I should have translated the verse myself rather than simply sharing the Yusuf Ali translation. I would render it as "Say: He is an ear of benefit to you". Meaning, when the entire verse is read in context, that the opponents of the Prophet Muhammad saw him as a naive man, at best, a useful fool. That is why ( atleast according to the commentators cited before) he was called an "ear".
The reply is "okay, but he is an ear of benefit". Meaning that he cares, and has faith and mercy in his heart.
Incidentially, for your latter comment, the Prophet Muhammad himself is called in the Qur'an "mercy to all nations" ( Q 21:107).
The Prophet was certainly a benefit to all, and living that sort of life has its own rewards.
" Finally, about your cherry-picked history of Muhammad's rule in Madinah: Muslims do not dispute that Muhammad expelled entire tribes and even slaughtered all of the men of a tribe and enslaved the women and children. You counter this with allegations that perhaps there were "plots" against him. Is this truly your view of "justice"? If you lived in such a place, would you not pledge loyalty out of fear? Are you unable to see that the spread of Muhammadanism (I won't insult you by calling it "Islam"), was not through an acceptance of faith, but largely through the coercion of force? Of course it would be true that there were enemies amongst the "converts". These are characteristics of a totalitarian state." (N-B post)
There are distortions and untrustworthy things in the reports, but in any case when armed insurrections or plots occur, what do you expect to happen? In addition, the Prophet NEVER forced people to accept Islam, and the fact that the Qur'an itself ( just looking at it here as a historical document to refer to the happenings of the time and not from the perspective of faith) shows that people had little qualms about even insulting the Prophet directly or indirectly shows that the "state" he established was not a totalitarian one. In the hadeeth literature, it has it that a group came upon the Prophet, threatened his life, in the presence of his wife, and when his wife replied by using strong language, he (the Prophet, peace be upon him), spoke to her about HER language. Does that sound like a tryant?
" You mention, again, Muhammad's treaties. Yet, none of these treaties were lasting. Naturally, Muslims spin the events and accuse the non-Muslims for being the first to violate these treaties; I don't see it this way. Regardless, Muhammad's 8-year rule of Madinah, starting after the battle of Badr, was dominated by broken treaties and tribal conflicts. How much weight can we give to the Constitution of Madinah when entire tribes were expelled or annihilated under it? Perhaps Muhammad brought a short term end to a tribal conflict, but if the treaty breaks down after a short time, should we count it as an accomplishment?" (N B post)
If certain groups are involved in seditious activities against the government, if they pick up arms or engage with the enemy, is that not treasonous? As stated before, some of the reports you have come across are seriously disputed anyways. I'm not attempting to sugarcoat anything, but sharing that things are a lot more nuanced than you think.
When the Prophet enters Madinah, he resolves a tribal dispute, but he works hard to teach his audience inner cultivation and social reform. Indeed, you will notice I reference the latter very often, be it in conceptual areas such as racism or more practical problems such as addictions. Even his marriages were about addressing particular needs. So, yes, his accomplishments were great. They were huge and they were long lasting.
Hello Waheed. I always hope that one day we will have a reasonable discussion. I believe that a person who has lost his optimism is already dead!
Thanks to the internet, both of us can post "whatever we see fit". However, you will never persuade me of anything by saying that my views "are based on misunderstandings" without providing an example of what I'm misunderstanding and pointing out the flaw in my interpretation of the evidence.
Once again you propose that I have a prejudiced position, but how would such a prejudice arise? As I've informed you, I had no understanding of Islam before a few years ago. My preconception was that I would find some inspiration in the Qur'an and discover Muhammad to be a man of outstanding wisdom ... as I view such people as Greek and Roman philosophers, Confucius, the Buddha, Jesus, and many, many others. Not agreeing with a person's theological views is never an obstacle to appreciating their wisdom.
Muslims, on the other hand, have been taught, often from a very early age, how to think about Muhammad and his book. Their reading of Islamic texts is very much prejudiced by those who teach them. I have previously expressed the view that children should not be taught in this way but rather they need to be taught in an open-mind and unprejudiced way.
The problem with the verse under discussion is not a result of translation. There is no doubt that Muhammad had his detractors who spoke ill of him. However, the notion that opposition to a man like Muhammad would be punished by God is ridiculous and, from my perspective, rather blasphemous. You show YOUR prejudice when you write "Well, God says, the joke is on them."
You say that the Prophet never forced people to accept Islam. This is a preposterous assertion. Just read the verses that follow the verse that you cited at the start. Who do you think these "munafiqun" were? How you view them is just a result of the prejudicial way that you view the Madinan society. These were the people who had been forced to say that they were Muslims but they were not Muslims. You cannot force someone to BE a Muslim; there is no compulsion in religion. You can prevent them from practising their own religion and you can threaten them with slaughter. This Surah begins with a proclamation outlawing the former religion and banning the polytheists from making pilgrimage to the Kaaba. If there was an alternative to accepting Islam, what was it?
I'm glad that you mention Q 21:107. By comparing the language in Surah Al Anbiyaa and Surah At Taubah, we can plainly see Muhammad's change in tone. It's best to look at both Chapters in their entirety, but simply looking at the two verses that you mention, we see how instead of "rahmantan lil'alameen" Muhammad says "rahmatun lillatheena". Simply put, you cannot use Muhammad's words from when he had no power as evidence that he didn't become a tyrant once he had power. (and please pardon me if my Arabic is somewhat faulty. I'm trying my best to gain a true understanding of this text).
If you intended to persuade me that I'm relying on untrustworthy reports, you'll have to be specific about what you consider reliable and what is not.
The simple fact is that the Muslims did not face armed insurrection, as you claim. Even the Meccans left the Muslims alone until the attacks on their trade resulted in murder and they could no longer tolerate the Muslim aggression. The crime of the Banu Qurayza was a crime of non-participation. They remained in their homes and did not raise arms until the Muslims attacked them. How is it "treasonous" to seek allies against a force which is perpetrating a policy of ethnic cleansing?
On the other hand, I can point out the numerous occasions in which the Muslims murdered individuals or mounted attacks against an opponent on the mere pretence of "a plot". Some of the plots are so ridiculous you have to wonder why anyone would believe them. Jews were plotting to kill Muhammad by dropping a heavy stone onto him while he slept? Are you kidding me? Yet, that's the best reason given for the expulsion of a Jewish tribe from Madinah.
As you often do, you want to rely on an account of a single incident to refute a general pattern. Without knowing the circumstances of the man insulting Muhammad in the presence of his wife, we cannot say whether Muhammad could've justified murdering him. Is that really your view? Because Muhammad didn't murder this man, he must not have been a tyrant? What do you say about the men who WERE murdered for insulting him? If a man once passed up an opportunity to commit a crime, is that proof that he was never a criminal? What were the politics of this encounter? How powerful was Muhammad at the time? What was his opponent's status? What were Muhammad's options and what would have been the consequences of a different action? Murder is murder, you can't undo a murder by not murdering someone.
And please don't get me going on Muhammad's marriages. I view some of them with utter revulsion. I've also been reading accounts of Muhammad's death and I think there is a lot of strength to the arguments that he was poisoned by one of his wives. It's hard to choose what to believe from these accounts since so much depends on the testimony of Aisha bint Abu Bakr, someone who had a clear political agenda after Muhammad's death and cannot be relied on. I haven't seen the source of the account that we've been discussing in my previous paragraph, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Aisha was involved in it.
Post a Comment