Introduction
There are a number of issues that, while seemingly academic in the Muslim world, have real life implications in the wider global scene. Among those issues is that of praying for Non Muslims, both alive or dead. A related issue would be the question of giving Zakaat (The mandatory charity) to Non Muslim recipients.
This issue of praying for Non Muslims is raised in the West due to mutual interactions and interests, where there is a greater chance of viewing the other in human terms (as opposed to a limiting label). Online debates were in full force upon the death of Chadwick Boseman,( star in Black Panther) which saw some Muslims offering their condolences, including using traditional religious expressions such as "From God we come, to him is our return".
There are texts typically cited in support of the notion that we are forbidden by religion from offering supplication on behalf of Non Muslims. Those texts are examined below.
Prophet Ibrahim 'alayhis salaam (Abraham)
It is not for the Prophet and those who have believed to ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they were relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are companions of Hellfire.
And the request of forgiveness of Abraham for his father was only because of a promise he had made to him. But when it became apparent to Abraham that his father was an enemy to Allah, he disassociated himself from him. Indeed was Abraham compassionate and patient. (Qur'an 9:113-114, Saheeh International translation).
The above text is from the ninth chapter, which carries, among other names "Al-Baraa-ah", which means "disassociation". The Soorah itself is given during war context, according to all authorities. A treaty had been entered into between the Muslims and the Makkan opposition, the latter breaking it(ft.1).
The Makkans were generally related by blood or tribe to The Prophetصَلَّىٰ ٱللَّٰهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ as well as his followers, yet- at that time- that did not stop them from waging war upon the Muslims . This text reminds the Muslims that in battle context, one must be strong, that emotional manipulation should not be allowed, even from family members, if such members have an agenda against you.
This teaching is given voice elsewhere in the Qur'an:
" O you who have believed, indeed, among your wives and your children are
enemies to you, so beware of them. But if you pardon and overlook and
forgive - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." ( Q 64:14, Saheeh international translation).
It should be noted that even though the ninth chapter is given within a war context, it does not address the Mushriks en masse. Q 9:4 asserts that the previously referenced treaty remains in force for those who did not break it, meaning that a strong stance need only be maintained with those who have expressed danger via their actions!
Abraham's exampleعَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ - - is given, in that his father had been a clear enemy, taking many actions to actually put Abraham in danger of losing his life. If a parent or another loved one actually takes steps to take your life, at a minimum, one must protect himself from clear and present danger. This is something which is widely understood in the modern world, in that "family" and "friends" can actually be the worse of enemies, for a variety of reasons. (ft.2)
Thus, there is a clear difference between belligerent foes and those in one's family/circle who, while maintaining a differing religious identity, do not have enmity.
Hadeeth reports
Other reports exist in the hadeeth literature which forbids, at some levels or another, invoking God on behalf of Non Muslims. However, the majority of those reports have been declared weak or even fabrications by such luminaries as Shaikh Akram Nadwi. Some of them are outright contrary to the Qur'anic usage, while others clearly do not assert what is claimed in their name.(ft.3) Some have- for example, asserted that it is forbidden to initiate salaam greetings with Non Muslims, and that if initiated by a Non Muslim, the Muslim should respond with "Peace for those who follow guidance."(As salaamu 'ala man it tab'a'a al hudaa) Yet, the Qur'an itself says that one should respond with a similar or better greeting when addressed (Q 4:86), as well as asserting that one should not assume that the one making greeting is not actually a believer (Q 4:94).
More evidence
The Qur'an calls Allah "The Caretaker of the Universe" (Q 1:2). That shows simply that Allah, the God of the Qur'an, of Muslims, and the world in general, cares for his creation, regardless of their particular label.
The same text allows marriage and consumption of food with huge segments of Non Muslim population ( Q 5:5). Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is referred to as a Mercy for all nations (Q 21:107), The Qur'an likewise tells Muslims to keep strong family ties with Non Muslim members ( Q 29:8), and tells us to be just with all, and not allow religious differences to drive us in the opposite direction ( Q 60:8-9).
Conclusion
It should be apparent that there is no harm in making supplication for those who do not believe as we do, be they dead or alive. Of course, Allah's response is his business, and He says he can respond with mercy or punishment, even for those who are deemed as 'evil'. (Q 3:129-130).
It should also be noted here that the Salaat Al Janaazah (funeral prayers) is a rite specific for Muslims. Quranic verses are recited therein, as well as supplications that are made by believing Muslims for believing Muslims, specific to particular Islamic theological assumptions. Thus, it is inappropriate for a Non Muslim to have that sort of funeral, just as it would be likewise a disrespect for a believing Muslim to be given a Christian funeral. This is more a matter of respect for one's religious life and identity, than it is an issue of conflict.(ft.4)
Notes
(1) The details of this are widely available, for which I would recommend The Life of Muhammad by Muhammad Husayn Haykal.
(2) All relationships have some level of review and renewal. Islam certainly calls for maintaining family ties, even with disbelieving family members, but it is likewise acknowledged in the Qur'an (64:14) that "enmity" can exist in one sense or another. The aforementioned text says to "take caution", leaving it up to individual evaluation how that takes place. The same can be said for narcissistic, manipulative and jealous individuals outside of blood ties. An interesting article on this subject, by psychotherapist Sharon Martin, can be found at https://blogs.psychcentral.com/imperfect/2019/10/its-okay-to-cut-ties-with-toxic-family-members/ .
(3) The Prophetic tradition of saying "May Allah have mercy on you " (yarhamukumullaah) when a person sneezes is said to be altered when a Non Muslim sneezes to "May Allah guide you and rectify your condition", allegedly because it is forbidden to pray for "mercy" for a Non Muslim. Even supposing that report is true (although not mentioned in the saheehayn), it still is a supplication for the Non Muslim, and, moreover, that wording is also found in the practice of sneezing, i.e., The one who sneezes praises God, the one around them respond with the request for mercy for them, and the one who sneezed responds with "May Allah guide you and rectify your condition " (Yahdeekumullaah, wa yuslih baalakum).
(4) It is often asserted that Muslims cannot attend the funerals of Non Muslims, due to the latter having their own religious beliefs contrary to Islam. This has no support from Islamic texts, and would totally destroy mutual respect among family/friends of varying religious labels. This writer has attended many non Muslim funerals, and has never felt any qualms in doing so. On the question of what to do if-in that situation, feeling uncomfortable in the Non Muslim funeral rites (for example, a Catholic funeral in which the mark of the cross (known as "signing") is made, the Muslim can simply don't do that, or any action that they may feel is contrary to Islamic teachings.
These sort of social quagmires exist among Christian and Jewish communities as well, reaching vastly different conclusions. Rabbi Tovia Singer argues that Jews are allowed to pray in Muslim mosques but not even enter into a church https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moRM1YFdvyI , The Jehovah's Witnesses, likewise, forbid their members from even entering a Non J.W. worship site.
35 comments:
Hello Waheed.
I cannot believe that you continue to cite these verses and to spin a false narrative around them in order to justify them. I hope that your readers do, in fact, check out the book by Haykal that you recommend and see for themselves what the truth is ... I'll say more about this in a moment, but first I want to say a few words about the main topic.
I pray for you and your followers whenever I see how you have fallen into misguidance. I pray that your eyes will be opened to the truth and that you will come into the light. I absolutely DO NOT direct my prayer to a deity. Just as Muhammad asked the pagans whether their idols answered their prayers, I ask the same of those who pray to a deity. I find it utterly incongruous that there are religious people who believe that there is a deity who wilfully creates the conflicts in which we find ourselves every day and that somehow supplications will somehow alter that deity's wilfulness.
You once again claim that Soorah 9 was given during a war context and that the treaty that is referred to in the opening verses was a treaty between the Muslims and the Makkan opposition (presumable the Treaty of Hudaybiyah). However, it is clear that these verses came after the conquest of Mecca. All authorities seem to be agreement that these verses were recited during the Hajj of 9AH. Your readers can read for themselves in the book that you cite in the chapter "The Year of Deputations and Abu Bakr's Leadership of the Pilgrimage" http://www.islam4theworld.net/Sirah/LifeMuhammadS/
Your readers can read that Abu Bakr was leading a peaceful pilgrimage to Mecca and that the treaty being referred to allowed pagans to participate in the Hajj. Haykal writes: "There was apprehension that the years would follow one another while the unbelievers continued to perform pilgrimage to the holy sanctuary and mingle with the Muslims in religious worship. After all, there was a general pact between Muhammad and the Arabs that none should be prevented from reaching the Holy House if he so desired, that none should be attacked during the holy months. Likewise, the relations with various Arab tribes were governed by pacts whose terms had not yet expired. As long as these pacts had not expired, the associationists had the same right to perform the pilgrimage to the Holy House as the Muslims. For sometime yet, the Muslims would have to continue to see pre-Islamic worship performed side by side with theirs around the Ka'bah."
Haykal goes on to point out how incongruous it was for Muslims to have destroyed the pagan idols and how the Muslims had "cleansed" the Ka'aba of idols but still allowed pagans in their midst while they prayed. Haykal uses the word "anathema" (cf. 9:28) to describe the relationship of non-Muslims praying in the presence of Muslims.
Haykal also mentions "the Surah of "Bara'ah" was revealed at the right time but too late for implementation in this pilgrimage. The Hajj season had begun and already thousands of associationists had converged upon Makkah as they were accustomed to do for generations. Though this was obviously not the time to implement the revelation, it was time to proclaim it and to let the associationists know that, henceforth, no covenant between Muslims and associationists would be valid unless it specified a given term."
It is clear that the Hajj was proceeding PEACEFULLY and that the Muhammad did not want to violate the treaties and to disrupt the Hajj that had already begun. However, Muhammad was proclaiming that this would be the last year that the pagans would be allowed to follow their traditions.
All of this, your readers can read for themselves and see that your assertions are simply false. It gives me no pleasure to call you out like this, Waheed, but you seem to be a victim of believing what you want the truth to be rather than believing what the truth actually is, and I pray that you open your eyes.
...
To be honest, I find it disturbing that there is any debate within Islam about what is right when it comes to respecting non-Muslims and that there is need for you to write about it. It is obvious to me that the confusion comes directly from the Qur'an and that the resolution is to be honest about the serious flaws in the Qur'an. There is much conflict as a direct consequence. It is up to you whether you choose to confront these verses and Muhammad's actions or whether you continue to misrepresent what the Qur'an says.
Hello N-B.
As always, there is much to unpack in your comments. I will strive to do so in the following paragraphs.
" I pray for you and your followers whenever I see how you have fallen into misguidance. I pray that your eyes will be opened to the truth and that you will come into the light. I absolutely DO NOT direct my prayer to a deity. Just as Muhammad asked the pagans whether their idols answered their prayers, I ask the same of those who pray to a deity. I find it utterly incongruous that there are religious people who believe that there is a deity who wilfully creates the conflicts in which we find ourselves every day and that somehow supplications will somehow alter that deity's wilfulness" (N-B quote)
There's an internal contradiction in your statement, which is perhaps your attempt at irony or simply an oversight. How can you assert you will "Pray" for me on one hand, and assert that it is "utterly incongrous" to "pray to a deity".
You have a one track mind, in the sense that whenever someone has a view which differs from your own, you respond with vitriol. You have the choice to pray or not to pray, to believe or not to believe (hence, your anonymous screen name), but you want to take away that choice from others, to impose your choice upon others.
There is a philosophical premise that is present in your quote above, i.e. why pray to a God who ordains things anyway. That is a good question, one which I will share thoughts on in detail at another time. For the moment, I will say that worship and supplication have the power of channeling one's thoughts, of expressing what the heart needs and wants, and essentially hoping that one's wishes falls along the pattern that God has set into motion. I have seen the power of prayer and supplication, likewise, it is globally seen, across the religious divide.
Hi Nb
In reply to your other comments, I will share your quotes and post comments under them.
" You once again claim that Soorah 9 was given during a war context and that the treaty that is referred to in the opening verses was a treaty between the Muslims and the Makkan opposition (presumable the Treaty of Hudaybiyah). However, it is clear that these verses came after the conquest of Mecca."
The treaty was something the opposition broke. Admittedly these details are not related to the main thrust of the article (Can Muslims pray for Non Muslims?), but below kindly read the details as explained by Maulana Maududi (whom you often refer to) in his comments on this Soorah.
" This Surah comprises three discourses. The first discourse (vv.1-37) was revealed in Zil Qa'adah A.H.9 or thereabout......The second discourse (vv.38-72) was sent down in Rajab A.H. 9 or a little before this, when the Holy Prophet was engaged in making preparations for the Campaign of Tabuk. In this discourse, the Believers were urged to take active part in Jihad, and the shirkers were severely rebuked for holding back their wealth....the third discourse (vv.73-129) was revealed on his return from the campaign of Tabuk. There are some pieces of this discourse that were sent down on different occasions during the same period and were afterwards consolidated by the Holy Prophet into this Surah in accordance with inspiration from Allah. But this caused no interruption in its continuity because they dealt with the same subject and formed part of the same series of events.....Chronologically, the first discourse should have come last; but being the most important of the three in regard to its subject-matter, it was placed first in the order of compilation."
(Tafhim Ul Qur'an, Vol.IV, pp 157-158, Lahore, 1983 edition)
So with regards to the assertion I am misrepresenting the Qur'an, that assertion is incorrect. While admittedly my phraseology could be polished better, there is no misrepresentation taking place at all. The overall point is that the Soorah in question was given to the Prophet in particular circumstances, and that the verses cited in the article, belonging to that Soorah, only forbids us invoking God for those who are enemies of God as well as active enemies of our own well being.
Returning to Maulana Maududi's comments, since you seem to think I have misspoken regarding the Qur'an, and the enemy breaking the treaty, on the very next page, he phrases it in the following fashion: " The Holy Prophet was able to send missions among different tribes for the propagation of Islam. The result was that during the short period of two years, it became such a great power that it made the old order of 'ignorance' feel helpless before it. SO MUCH THAT THE ZEALOUS ELEMENTS FROM AMONGST THE QURAISH WERE SO EXASPERATED THAT THEY BROKE THE TREATY IN ORDER TO ENCOUNTER ISLAM IN A DECISIVE COMBAT. BUT THE HOLY PROPHET TOOK PROMPT ACTION AFTER THE BREACH SO AS TO NOT ALLOW THEM ANY OPPURTUNITY TO GATHER ENOUGH FORCE FOR THIS..." ( emphasis added)
Moreover, Haykal in pp 396-400 ( Plainfield, 1995 edition) shares the details of the break, which was alluded to by the "war context" reference. So I hope you will remove the thought that I am misrepresenting the Qur'an and Prophetic Sunnah.
With regards to the bigger picture that the article refers to; understand that people of faith attempt to be honest and faithful to that religious foundation. I have seen Mormons do this, Christians of various types, as well as Hindus and Muslims. That is what I am doing here. I am looking at the texts, to see for certain if what his usually held to be correct is actually correct. Even those who disagree with the premise of this article will nonetheless agree that Islam calls for respect and dignity for all human beings, regardless of religious label. The disagreements creep in with regards to certain details that have to do with social life (holidays, greetings, marriage etc), such as what we have been discussing here, i.e. is it Islamically justified for a Muslim to invoke Allah on behalf of a Non Muslim, living or dead.
Please note that formatting issues have forced me to break up this comment into parts.
There is much to unpack in your comments, too, but first can you please follow the link to Haykal's book that I provided in the first comment and identify the section that you are referring to. As you will see, the pages are not numbered in this online copy.
Thanks.
Let's start with the main subject of your article ... the appropriateness, acceptability and tolerance for the prayer of "others" or for "others".
I simply describe to you the difference in my religious view of prayer and the Muslim view and somehow this is a "one track mind" and "vitriol". It is my religious opinion that supplications to a deity are futile and this is based on a rational principle that an all-knowing, all-seeing deity is not going to be influenced by our feeble utterances. If you believe otherwise, so be it. Just don't imagine that we are condemned to eternal damnation for failing to pray as you do, something that is said over and over again in the Qur'an. No, we cannot take that choice away from you, but do not expect us to be indifferent to the choices that you make concerning us.
However, you then go on to exactly agree with what I was saying from a psychological perspective. I pray (I wish, I hope) that my words and actions may affect the course of events in the world in a positive way. Your words: "expressing what the heart needs and wants, and essentially hoping that one's wishes falls along the pattern that God has set into motion".
If I ever cease to believe this, then my spiritual life has already come to an end.
You say in your article that prayer upon the death of a non-Muslim became the subject of debate amongst Muslims. As I said, the very idea that this is debatable is problematic. Surah 9 has plenty of verses which illustrate these problems. On the other hand, people without deep seated religious preconceptions are able to adapt to the situation of the family and friends of the deceased and don't have these problems.
Waheed, I don't think I said that you are misrepresenting the Qur'an, rather I'm saying that you are misrepresenting the CONTEXT of the verses that you are citing.
You ought to read to the end of the paragraph from Maududi that you quote. He is providing historical background for the chapter and he is reminding the readers of the events that had taken place in the time leading up to this chapter. He is explaining how the conquest of Mecca and the battle of Hunayn had destroyed the resistance against Islam. The paragraph ends with the words: "The result was that hardly a year had Passed after the Battle of Hunain, when the major portion of Arabia came within the fold of Islam and only a few upholders of the old order remained scattered over some corners of the country."
The point is that the opposition had been so badly crushed that Muhammad was able to take his large army for weeks on a pointless expedition to Tabuk leaving only a small garrison behind in Medina. We know that Medina was no longer under threat and it is clear that there was no longer a "war context" when these verses were recited.
It amazes me that you are so blind to the problems in this Surah. Haykal acknowledges the issues when he writes "Those who hastily have jumped to conclusions condemning Islam and its Prophet do not consider this aspect of the matter and regard these very strong verses of the Surah as a call to fanaticism and intolerance inconsistent with genuine civilization.
This is a clear admission that these verses can be read in that way. So how does he defend them? Well... with hubris and condescension that would never convince a non-Muslim. He says that "we have no talent for social and historical criticism", as if ad hominem attacks are any sort of defence. He writes about contradictions without ever giving an example of one.
You write "Even those who disagree with the premise of this article will nonetheless agree that Islam calls for respect and dignity for all human beings, regardless of religious label." Yet, this chapter is a barrage of intolerance and bigotry and Muslims can find any number of verses which would dissuade them from treating others with respect and dignity. The chapter is filled with religious labels to identify those who are to be oppressed. There is no doubt that verses from this chapter could fuel a debate about the appropriateness of offering condolences for non-Muslims.
Hello N-B.
I see that you have attempted to soften, in your latter comments, the assertion regarding misrepresenting the Qur'an, nonetheless, you said " I cannot believe that you continue to cite these verses and to spin a false narrative around them in order to justify them". You also said " All of this, your readers can read for themselves and see that your assertions are simply false. It gives me no pleasure to call you out like this, Waheed.." , among other comments.
In light of this, it is reasonable for me to describe your comments as vitriol and one track minded.
I have never believed that a Non Muslim praying has no value, neither does Islam itself teach that. It teaches that prayers and supplications be directed to the Creator (and none other), that God alone be worshiped. However that is not the same as attacking others for the way in which they are praying (which is what you implied I asserted).
Moreover, I am not making any choices for you or anyone else. I don't attack you at all for praying or not praying. That does not even make sense.
With regards to the characterization of the ninth Soorah of the Qur'an, Historical and textual context all agree that the initial environment discussed in that chapter is one of tension, conflict, stemming from the treaty being broken by the opposition. The Soorah itself speaks on a variety of subject matter, and while I can understand your opinion about it singling out Non Muslims, if the chapter is read in full and in context, it becomes apparent that the chapter is really talking about foes. It is inappropriate to engage with enemies, who want to destroy you, who are taking actions meant to cause destruction.
There is a famous Muslim teacher who, while dealing with a text related to the subject matter of this Soorah (although not located in this chapter), shares some information on it in a easily understood fashion.
I hope you will listen to it. His perspective is interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI3XYnc1YVQ
Hello Waheed.
The most powerful "enemy of Islam" in the 21st Century is the Truth. Now that the foundational texts of Islam have been translated into numerous languages and made available to everyone in the world through the internet, Muslims can no longer control the narrative. Anyone who can read can find out what is true and what is not.
I tell my friends that they need to read the biography of Muhammad. I point out to them that the reason they have never seen a documentary of the life of Muhammad is that Muslims do not want the rest of the world to hear the story and that they aggressively prevent documentarians from presenting even the stories from the Islamic traditions. Muslims have much to hide.
However, Muslims, too, can now see for themselves that their teachers are not being honest with them. They can take the time to check Nouman Ali Khan's many assertions about context and see for themselves the lack of evidence to support his claims. They will discover for themselves that N.A.K. is not being truthful. Whether he is confused or misinformed or is simply lying, I cannot say. However, the fact that he finds it necessary to use a fabricated context in order to justify a position speaks volumes.
I am no hypocrite. I have spent many, many hundreds of hours digging through the histories and the Qur'an to find the evidence I need to support my positions. You seem to think that you can merely dismiss this research without ever doing any research of your own, not that you should have to do any original research; credible answers supported by clear evidence should already be available to you. A neo-con famously said that an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, however, wouldn't Muslims have gathered this evidence if it existed? ...
...
If anyone is in doubt as to what Muhammad's intentions were with these verses in Chapter 9, they only need to read what happened after the four months allotted in 9:2. They can read how Muslim warriors descend on all remaining non-Muslim outposts and forced their conversion. They can read how the Muslims destroyed whatever cultural artefacts remained and eradicated the pagan culture.
We in North America are very sensitive to this sort of wanton destruction of another's culture having seen the same sort of destruction perpetrated against the "pagan" natives. In Canada, we call it a cultural genocide. Even today, there are are many who arrogantly believe that our culture is vastly superior to theirs and that the natives' loss is of no significance.
And please don't be so foolish as to suggest that these people were not attacked because of the way they prayed. Maybe "YOU" don't attack "ME" on an individual basis, but Muhammad absolutely and unequivocally attacked those who did not pray as he prayed and this is thoroughly documented in the Qur'an itself.
I would be delighted if you invited another non-Muslim to join the conversation, perhaps Rabbi Akselrad or Reverend Gregg. If I'm wrong about these points, someone like them would be more likely to persuade me that you are.
Hello N.B.
As always, there are a great many assumptions packed into your comments. I will take some time to address them:
" The most powerful "enemy of Islam" in the 21st Century is the Truth. Now that the foundational texts of Islam have been translated into numerous languages and made available to everyone in the world through the internet, Muslims can no longer control the narrative. Anyone who can read can find out what is true and what is not" (N-B quote)
There is something called Orientalism, basically a field which has existed for about 150-200 years, in which the foundational texts of Islam have been translated and scrutinized, mostly in critical fashion, by western academics. Your quote suggests that it is only with the advent of the internet that one finds "narratives" uncontrolled by Muslims. Moreover, translations (of varying quality and authenticity) of the texts have existed for a long time now, by Muslims and Non Muslims alike. So unfortunately your statement here is not grounded in reality.
" I tell my friends that they need to read the biography of Muhammad. I point out to them that the reason they have never seen a documentary of the life of Muhammad is that Muslims do not want the rest of the world to hear the story and that they aggressively prevent documentarians from presenting even the stories from the Islamic traditions. Muslims have much to hide." (NB quote)
Again, biographies of the Prophet Muhammad, upon whom be God's blessings- have existed for a long time, and, there are in fact documentaries on the Prophet's life, as well as actual movies.
" However, Muslims, too, can now see for themselves that their teachers are not being honest with them. They can take the time to check Nouman Ali Khan's many assertions about context and see for themselves the lack of evidence to support his claims. They will discover for themselves that N.A.K. is not being truthful. Whether he is confused or misinformed or is simply lying, I cannot say. However, the fact that he finds it necessary to use a fabricated context in order to justify a position speaks volumes." (NB quote)
The assertions he made are basically the same as found in the historical and the tafseer (Quranic commentary) literature. He quotes the Qur'anic references from memory (but didn't share the chapter/verse reference), and weaves his presentation accurately. I shared with you because I thought it easily understood by any viewer, but you dismissed it as a "fabricated context".
" I have spent many, many hundreds of hours digging through the histories and the Qur'an to find the evidence I need to support my positions. You seem to think that you can merely dismiss this research without ever doing any research of your own, not that you should have to do any original research; credible answers supported by clear evidence should already be available to you. A neo-con famously said that an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, however, wouldn't Muslims have gathered this evidence if it existed? .." (N-B quote)
"Hundreds of hours digging through the histories and the Qur'an" is not enough to become an authority on Islam, or on any field for that matter. Moreover, very interesting thought you shared, wherein you state "...to find the evidence I need to support my positions..". You are cherry-picking, and seemingly presenting a misreading, of texts. You have spent "hundreds of hours", but I have spent much more time than that, in more sources, not being limited to English. I do in fact believe and do original research, so the implication that I am simply a blind or fanatical follower is simply an untrue and unfair assumption.
Donald Rumsfeld, really? Quoting him? He was proven to have lied throughout the time he made that quote. That quote was meant to legitimize an invasion of Iraq (under the pretext of looking for weapons of mass destruction), and, as it turned out, NONE were found. Please, quote a different source for a sound-bite!
" If anyone is in doubt as to what Muhammad's intentions were with these verses in Chapter 9, they only need to read what happened after the four months allotted in 9:2. They can read how Muslim warriors descend on all remaining non-Muslim outposts and forced their conversion. They can read how the Muslims destroyed whatever cultural artefacts remained and eradicated the pagan culture. " (NB quote).
That "pagan culture" had more than artifacts. That pagan culture encouraged female infanticide. It encouraged forced marriages. It fostered senseless tribal wars. It fostered racism, and a variety of other things. So the Prophetic mission has, in its immediate implementation, to eradicate things of that nature. In any case, the Muslims entered into Makkah peacefully, and the Prophet eliminated the idols at the Masjid Al-Haram.
" And please don't be so foolish as to suggest that these people were not attacked because of the way they prayed. Maybe "YOU" don't attack "ME" on an individual basis, but Muhammad absolutely and unequivocally attacked those who did not pray as he prayed and this is thoroughly documented in the Qur'an itself." (NB quote)
Please provide evidence that Islam attacks people due to their prayer method. Islam certainly teaches monotheism, that God alone should be worshiped, and condemns idolatry, but what you have been suggesting is simply not the case. Moreover, let me remind you that on this blog, the blog of a believing Muslim, YOU are the one who can be described as "attacking", in the sense that you (oddly) asserted that I (or perhaps you mean Islam/Muslims in general) are imposing our prayers/supplications/ideas on you.
" I would be delighted if you invited another non-Muslim to join the conversation, perhaps Rabbi Akselrad or Reverend Gregg. If I'm wrong about these points, someone like them would be more likely to persuade me that you are" (N-B quote)
Certainly, anyone else is welcome to join the discussion, but what would the goodly Rabbi and Pastor say that would connect to a discussion on whether Islam allows praying for Non Muslims, or if Islam is tolerant in general.
Well, Waheed, you do make it hard for me to respond in a respectful way. The best I can do is "pack an assumption" into my comments that your readers are intelligent enough to see the serious flaws in your arguments.
Evidence does matter and absence of evidence matters, too. I'm not surprised that my reference to what Rumsfeld said went right over your head.
Context also matters, as Nouman Ali Khan points out so eloquently in the video that you linked. This is a big issue for Orientalists since it implies that the meaning of the Qur'an depends on knowing the context. Since the context is not definitively knowable, this implies that the meaning of the Qur'an is uncertain. This implies that Muslims are able to extract diverse interpretations to suit their whims and to support any wrong idea that they have in their own minds.
However, the problem with your comments about the context is that even though we have accepted as "fact" that Chapter 9 (or most of it) came during 9 AH, you still wish to apply it to a situation that occurred during the previous year. Besides, we have already established that the Muslims "peaceful" entry into Makkah is no more a sign of the Makkans acceptance of Muhammad than the Nazi entry into Paris in 1940 was a sign of French acceptance of Nazism.
But the main point here is that you seem proud of how Muhammad took the Ka'bah from those who considered it holy; a shrine that pagan Arabs had travelled to for generations before the scourge of Islam befell them and desecrated their shrine. And still you insist that Islam is tolerant of how others pray! This was indeed a vindictive act since believers in one omnipresent God can worship anywhere and don't need, and should eschew, shrines, and certainly there was no necessity for using the Ka'bah for their own worship.
However, the verses in question, according to tradition, refer to assaults on the pagans after the conquest of Makkah, for example, the destruction of the Ka'bah in Yemen. Clearly these people were not a threat to the Muslims and your arguments of "self-defence" fall flat.
You, yourself, have no qualms about repeating a bigoted characterisation of these people. These sound much like the libels that the Jews faced in Europe and the outcome was much the same. You have been indoctrinated with hatred and such hatred leads to fanaticism.
What makes your argument laughable is your claim that the ends justified the means. Muhammad certainly did not bring an end to those problems, like senseless wars, which we can agree were real. I cannot say whether these pagans were racist or not, however, the bigotry that the Muslims replaced it with is manifest.
Hello NB,
Interesting that you speak to a struggle to reply with respect, when, in the past, you have had no problems expressing disrespect, even accusatory language, towards me. In any case, let's take a look at some of your comments.
" This is a big issue for Orientalists since it implies that the meaning of the Qur'an depends on knowing the context. Since the context is not definitively knowable, this implies that the meaning of the Qur'an is uncertain. This implies that Muslims are able to extract diverse interpretations to suit their whims and to support any wrong idea that they have in their own minds." (N-B post).
I am genuinely confused as to what you are saying here. The text has a context, and the historical events that surround the initial revelation has a context. The latter is, admittedly, harder to always dissect, because we have to figure out what reports are authentic as opposed to spurious, and so forth. For this Soorah, the context, both in its relation to texts as well as history, is pretty well established.
" However, the problem with your comments about the context is that even though we have accepted as "fact" that Chapter 9 (or most of it) came during 9 AH, you still wish to apply it to a situation that occurred during the previous year. Besides, we have already established that the Muslims "peaceful" entry into Makkah is no more a sign of the Makkans acceptance of Muhammad than the Nazi entry into Paris in 1940 was a sign of French acceptance of Nazism." (NB post)
As stated in previous comments, the context as well as the overall message are already pretty well established. I have not deviated at all - in terms of my description of the back-round of the circumstances behind the initial revelation of Soorah At Taubah (also known as Al Baraa-ah), from how its typically presented and understood.
Your latter comment comparing the Muslim entry into Makkah to the Nazi occupation of France is a very odd assertion. The Muslims were, in general, Makkan in origin. Many of them still had family and property in Makkah. The Prophet himself was Makkan!
The Nazis faced popular resistance in France, whereas the Makkans not only did not rebel, but the Prophet did much to heal those old wounds. He gave amnesty to the killer of his uncle. He did not punish the leaders of the two decades of opposition. The latter is so well known, that we have a number of reports showing rather bluntly how they accepted the Prophet, and would consult him (upon whom be God's blessings and eternal peace) even regarding private family matters.
" But the main point here is that you seem proud of how Muhammad took the Ka'bah from those who considered it holy; a shrine that pagan Arabs had travelled to for generations before the scourge of Islam befell them and desecrated their shrine. And still you insist that Islam is tolerant of how others pray! This was indeed a vindictive act since believers in one omnipresent God can worship anywhere and don't need, and should eschew, shrines, and certainly there was no necessity for using the Ka'bah for their own worship." (NB quote)
Admittedly you are not able to see it in a different way. Muslims see it as purifying the shrine, originally associated with Abraham (peace and eternal blessings be on him), returning it to its original purpose- i.e the worship of the One God.
I do insist that Islam is tolerant of how others pray. The Qur'an itself has a skeletal form of the Muslim prayer ritual, and it acknowledges that others have prayers and-in general- does not speak of it in a critical way.
Moreover, Islam allows, for example, marriage and social ties with "people of scripture". It speaks of Churches, synagogues, in a positive fashion. Islam certainly has a structured format of worship, but that is for Muslims, not to be imposed on Non Muslims.
" You, yourself, have no qualms about repeating a bigoted characterisation of these people.These sound much like the libels that the Jews faced in Europe and the outcome was much the same. You have been indoctrinated with hatred and such hatred leads to fanaticism." (N-B quote)
You accuse me of "hate" and "fanaticism". That is such a wild accusation. I only share what the general historical outline is, regarding pre-Islamic Arabia. Nothing more than that.
".. Muhammad certainly did not bring an end to those problems, like senseless wars, which we can agree were real. I cannot say whether these pagans were racist or not, however, the bigotry that the Muslims replaced it with is manifest."
Obviously I don't agree with that. Wars certainly happened afterwards, but in addition to this an entire new civilization emerged, with countless contributions to humanity.
Hello Waheed.
You said: "Admittedly you are not able to see it in a different way" which is a remarkable projection. Of course, I understand that Muhammad's acts of "cleansing" are seen my Muslims as "purifying". But that's not the point. The point is that there is the opposite perspective from the victims, something which you are not able to see at all. This isn't about ME; it is about whether Muhammad was tolerant of other religions, and allowed them to practise their religions. You keep accusing me of asserting that you are trying to impose something on ME. Of course that is not the case. You have no power over me and you cannot compel me in any way. That cannot be said about the many, many victims of Muhammad's abuse of power. The histories are full of stories of how the victims wept and mourned their losses at the hands of Muhammad's forces. The conversion of Arabia was achieved by force.
When you say that "Islam speaks of churches and synagogues in a positive fashion", I have no idea what source you are referring to. I'm speaking about the period of Muhammad's tyrannical rule and its continuation into the time of the first Caliphs. During that time, the Jews were utterly destroyed. They were expelled, slaughtered, enslaved, tortured, forced into marriages, and those who were lucky enough to be allowed to remain in Arabia for a time were required to pay exorbitant taxes. Actions speak louder than words and these actions speak loudly, indeed.
You seem to be attempting to narrow this discussion by saying that Islam isn't intolerant of others' prayer rituals. You want to make the issue about the words that are said or the gestures that are made. But these details only matter to fanatics. I'm referring to the actual destruction of the pagan places of worship by Muslims. A true, voluntary conversion would have seen the pagans "purifying" their places themselves.
I really don't understand what you are arguing against or for what purpose. You obviously know that the Arabs were given the choice of expulsion, conversion to Muhammad's religion, or death. What can be less tolerant than this, really? The absence of respect for a departed non-Muslim is just a trivial consequence of this character.
Hello NB
You write:
" The point is that there is the opposite perspective from the victims, something which you are not able to see at all. This isn't about ME; it is about whether Muhammad was tolerant of other religions, and allowed them to practise their religions. You keep accusing me of asserting that you are trying to impose something on ME. Of course that is not the case. You have no power over me and you cannot compel me in any way. That cannot be said about the many, many victims of Muhammad's abuse of power. The histories are full of stories of how the victims wept and mourned their losses at the hands of Muhammad's forces. The conversion of Arabia was achieved by force." (N-B quote)
There is always another side of any argument. You seem to be ignoring a number of important facts which I think you should know. The Makkan leadership had waged war, assassination campaigns, seizing of Makkan Muslim's property, among other things, for two decades. It wasn't limited to some hypothetical debates on the internet. Real people, real lives, were affected. You speak of "Muhammad's victims", yet ignore that he (Prophet Muhammad) went into Makkah peacefully. He sent missionaries throughout the Arabian peninsula, and while some pockets were totally against the mission, nonetheless he achieved success, and cannot simply be stated that it happened by force.
" I have no idea what source you are referring to. I'm speaking about the period of Muhammad's tyrannical rule and its continuation into the time of the first Caliphs. During that time, the Jews were utterly destroyed. They were expelled, slaughtered, enslaved, tortured, forced into marriages, and those who were lucky enough to be allowed to remain in Arabia for a time were required to pay exorbitant taxes. Actions speak louder than words and these actions speak loudly, indeed." (N-B quote)
The Prophet did not live a very long time as ruler of Arabia, but more importantly, most of what you say above is false or over-simplistic assertions. Jewish tribes engaging in espionage or acts of conspiracy against him were dealt with. Any government would take such actions in defense of the state. Moreover, some of the accounts are false as it is. You mention "force into marriages". Marriage was actually a way that groups would solidity alliances and/or end military conflict. This happened globally, I'm sure you have to be aware of that.
You mention that the Makkans should have-if the conversion was voluntary, destroyed the idols themselves. Well, that's pretty much what happened anyways.
Qur'an 22:40 mentions churches and synagogues in a positive way, and even before "mosques". That is the text I referenced in a prior comment.
As for the purpose of this article, it seeks to address a misconception, one that has social and even spiritual consequences. You view it as trivial, but for Muslims ( and believers in other religions in general) these are important issues. If you don't find benefit in the article, there's nothing we can do about that, as that is your own judgement.
I would suggest taking a look at "THE Satan series" lectures, as well as those on the attributes of civilization, on this blog. It may at least give you a better idea of the Islamic understanding on subjects of this nature.
Waheed, it will make more sense if I deal with your points in chronological order.
Q 22:40 is said to be an early Madinan Ayah. As I have pointed out several times, Muhammad's attitude towards the Jews changed over time. It is apparent that this change did not happen gradual but pivoted at the time of the Battle of Badr. Prior to Badr, Muhammad was insecure in his own belief that he was a prophet of the Jewish God. There are many Ayat in which Muhammad expresses his self doubt and attempts to reassure himself that he was indeed a prophet. He also expresses admiration for the Torah and encouraged his followers to listen to the Jews. However, this all changed after Badr.
Muhammad believed that he was victorious at Badr because of Allah's support. He was now convinced of his own prophethood and believed that he had Divine assistance. He bragged about this in Madinah. However, the Jews would hear none of it. They could see clearly that Muhammad was delusional and they mocked his extravagant claims. It is human nature to mock the ridiculous.
Je suis Samuel says ...
If fanatics are offended by mockery, that is their problem. We have no obligation to remain silent in the face of the ridiculous. If fanatics are incited to murder, then it is the murderers who are the criminals not the victims.
You assert without any evidence "most of what you say above is false or over-simplistic assertions", not pointing out a single false assertion of mine. You assert without evidence that the Banu Qaynuqa engaged in espionage or acts of conspiracy. You claim that some accounts are false without even bothering to cherry-pick even one such claims which might refute my main point.
You write: "Marriage was actually a way that groups would solidity alliances and/or end military conflict. This happened globally, I'm sure you have to be aware of that."
No, I am not aware of examples of marriages like this during modern times. We are no longer ruled by aristocrats who use marriage to solidify their power.
However, it is outrageous to suggest that Safiyya bint Huyayy's marriage was anything like that.
I have nothing more to say about the conquest of the pagans in Makkah and Ta'if and elsewhere. Anyone can read the histories and see how the pagans faced death if they did not destroy their idols and swear allegiance to Muhammad. "Amnesty" that must be paid for by allegiance in battle is not true amnesty.
Finally, you seem to be agreeing with me when you write: "You view it as trivial, but for Muslims ( and believers in other religions in general) these are important issues. " It is only the fanatically religious who find importance in this issue. Those who are tolerant of other's religious beliefs have no problem honouring others in death.
But the premise of this article is easily solved by answering the simple questions: "What did Muhammad do? Did he pray over a deceased pagan?" It isn't as if the situation never arose during his lifetime.
Hello N-B.
Regarding your comment above, there are several things I would like to share:
[1] Regardless of your personal view about Q 22:40, none have ever said it is a teaching that is no longer considered or without value.
(2) THE Qur'an certainly has criticisms of the Jewish leadership in those days, both in the theology and worldly matters, and actually has predictions of future problems (another issue for another time), that does not negate that Islam does not advocate the destruction of the churches, synagogues etc. Indeed, it was Muslims who, upon entering Jerusalem, gave allowances for Jews to worship in peace, and, indeed, one of the great leaders ('Umar ibn Al Khattab) was so careful not to offer his prayer in the church of the Holy Sepulchre (Sacred site for Christians) when offered, out of fear that future generations of Muslims would use that as an excuse to seize it and transform it into a Mosque.
(3) There were Jewish converts to Islam in the Prophet's time, including among religious leadership, 'Abdullah Ibn Salaam being among the most famous. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was very vocal in preaching his message. Moreover, in the past I have shared the events surrounding skirmishes between Muslims and some of the Jewish groups.
(4) Marriage for political alliances, to resolve conflicts etc, are well known. You add the caveat of "modern times", when we were not talking about that, but rather, things which happened 14 centuries ago. In any case, both East and West still see these sort of marriages. One example which comes to mind is the Saudi family, when they conquered their foes on the Arabian peninsula, married among the former foes. Indeed, political marriages still happen in the Gulf, and it can even be said that US president John F. Kennedy's widow's marriage to Aristotle Onassis had those implications ( I have seen a documentary that mentions this ). I am truly surprised you have not encountered this at all.
(5) I am not agreeing with you at all above when you suggested that I was. Truth be told, I am a practicing Muslim, with deep interest in my religion, I work in the field of religious education, yet I have never had any problems attending the funerals of Non Muslims. I am "religious", but that does not stop me from things like attending the funerals of Non Muslims,and have no problem with "honoring others in death'.
(6) We have a report in the hadeeth literature that asserts that a Jewish funeral procession passed by The Prophet (PBUH), and he stood up out of respect. When told this was a Jewish deceased, the Prophet said "Is he not a soul?". The original article did not cite this report because of contradictory views held on it (one view is that the Prophet was actually standing out of respect for angels, things like that).
Hello Waheed. I continue to find your double standard distressing.
First of all, you are incorrect in stating that you have in the past built a legal case against the Banu Qaynuqa that would warrant their expulsion. Not even the "skirmishes" that you mention are described in the Sirah. (I have Guillaume's translation of Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, if you care to point me to your "evidence") All you find there is a mention by Asim b. Umar b. Qatada that these Jews were the first to go to war, but nothing specific, and nothing corroborated by the Qur'an.
When is the expulsion of a people from their homeland ever legally justified?
Regarding Q 22:40, Muhammad also said:
9:30 The Jews say, "`Uzair is the son of Allah"; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before [them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?
9:31 They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.
9:32 They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it.
9:33 It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although they who associate others with Allah dislike it.
9:34 O you who have believed, indeed many of the scholars and the monks devour the wealth of people unjustly and avert [them] from the way of Allah. And those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah – give them tidings of a painful punishment.
9:35 The Day when it will be heated in the fire of Hell and seared therewith will be their foreheads, their flanks, and their backs, [it will be said], "This is what you hoarded for yourselves, so taste what you used to hoard."
Now, I ask you, Waheed, what would the world say about a leader who spoke these words today? Would they care that he said something positive about the houses of worship of these people 7 years earlier or that one of these people had converted years before?
This is not mere "criticism". This is a call for their destruction. Yet you praise Muhammad for using lies to demonise people, promoting hatred and finally destruction.
-----------------
You will recall that the point about the marriage of Safiyya bint Huyayy began as a refutation of your point that one of Muhammad's achievements of destroying the pagan culture was the end of the practice of forced marriages. I hardly think that Jackie Kennedy's marriage to Onassis was in any way "forced".
Indeed, marriages arranged for political purposes have been a part of European culture until quite recently. However, the view of women as property that can be given by men to men is abhorrent in society and a just ruler would make such a declaration. However, even that does not describe what happened with Safiyya bint Huyayy. For such a transaction to be "acceptable" in a society which does allow for women to be treated as currency, the trade must be agreeable and beneficial to both parties. However, that isn't how this marriage is described in the Sirah. The Sirah simply notes that Muhammad "chose" Safiyya for himself.
Again, I must point out to you your double standard. What would you say if Western leaders captured Muslim women for brides without any consent of the societies from which they were abducted? Yet, you praise Muhammad for such deplorable conduct.
Hello NB,
I'm not a lawyer presenting an argument in court over something that reportedly happened 14 centuries before my own birth. In terms of the events which preceded that situation, here's a brief article on it. It's on the PBS website, and I would suggest, since you seem to see yourself as an authority on Islam and Muslim history, that if you have issues with their website contents, to comment on their page. I am unable to copy/paste from their site.
https://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_jews.shtml
Regarding the Quranic verses you cited, did you read them? Because other than the first one which has a strong phrase ("may Allah destroy them", which actually does not really capture the Arabic sense, that would be another discussion), the verses give strong theological criticisms. Moreover, in terms of your argument, that the Quranic verses you cite would naturally lead the Prophet or the Muslims to disenfranchise The Jewish (or even Christian) places of worship, I cited 'Umar ibn Al Khattab's actions. He was a close companion of the Prophet. His daughter was even a wife of the Prophet. When he ruled,he made sure not to even offer his prayer in the Church of the Sepulchre, out of concern that future Muslims would use that as an excuse to take it away.
These sort of things are recorded. If Islam was bent upon destruction, surely that would have been the perfect time, but- as we know- that did not occur.
With regards to some of your queries, I don't believe each and every assertion found in the literature. There are historical, as well as Quranically based reasons, for this. Similarly, how certain things are presented or understood sometimes clash with realities. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be on him, was a very merciful man. I mentioned that he gave amnesty to his Makkan foes. Your rather whimsical dismissal of that fact (which, even in today's world, does not happen) notwithstanding, his mercy and sense of justice were deeply profound, and attested to by friends and foes alike. That is what I know of him.
I never claimed that Jackie Kennedy's wedding was forced, I simply pointed out how the marriages tended to be (and in many ways, continues to be) in those days.
There is much in the literature regarding the wives and family of the Prophet. They all speak of him in loving terms, and in an articulate fashion, even after his (I.e. the Prophet's) death!
If he was this sort of oppressive personality, they could have said something, even hinted a little bit, after his death. However, that simply was not the case.
Hi Waheed.
I have expertise in some areas and I share my expertise in my posts. You can learn from me or not. That is up to you. I do not claim to be an authority on Islam or Muslim history, however, I have focused on a ten-year history of a small town in Arabia and I consider myself more knowledgeable about this history than those who have watched a Muslim-produced documentary on PBS.
I am disappointed to hear that you do not consider yourself sufficiently knowledgeable in Islamic law to answer my question. I assumed that an Imam had similar training as a Rabbi and would be able to answer questions like "what is the basis in Islamic law for the expulsion of a population?" This is a serious question which deserves a serious answer.
The justification for the expulsion given in the PBS documentary is similar to what is found in the Sirah: "Two of the tribes--the Banu Nadir and the Banu Qaynuqa--were eventually exiled for falling short on their agreed upon commitments and for the consequent danger they posed to the nascent Muslim community."
Do you accept that this is what happened and is a legitimate basis for expulsion?
I don't really want to be distracted by your comment about Caliph 'Umar as I don't really see the relevance. However, wasn't he the one who ordered the construction of the massive monument ON TOP OF THE JEWISH HOLY SITE in Jerusalem which bears polemical anti-Christian inscriptions? Doesn't this beg the question: What was he doing in Jerusalem in the first place? And didn't you answer your own point about the political reasons for not destroying churches? And last, wasn't he the one who finally expelled the Jews from Khaybar?
A criminal who refrains from committing crimes at every opportunity is still a criminal. "He could've done worse" is no way to praise a man.
I am not being "whimsical" in my dismissal of "mercy" being the motivation behind the Makkan pardons. First of all, not all of Muhammad's opponents were spared; some were sentenced to death. For those who were spared, you cannot generalise and you must look at the individual circumstances. If it is Abu Sufyan that you are referring to, then I think there were obvious political reasons for not executing him. "Mercy" enters as a motivation only when there was no political advantage to be gained by sparing him.
You were the one who brought up Jackie Kennedy in the context of forced marriages. ARRANGED marriages are a common practice in many cultures and I don't know if that is what you are accusing the pagans of. However, Safiyya's marriage was definitely NOT an ARRANGED marriage and is a far worse practice than anything you are accusing the pagans of.
This is how the death of Safiyya's husband is described in the Sirah: "so the Messenger of God gave orders concerning him to al-Zubayr b. al-'Awwam, saying, "Torture him until you root out what he has." Al-Zubayr kept twirling his firestick in his breast until Kinanah almost expired; then the Messenger of God gave him to Muhammad b. Maslamah, who beheaded him to avenge his brother Mahmud b. Maslamah."
Yet you describe Muhammad with the words: "his mercy and sense of justice were deeply profound, and attested to by friends and foes alike. That is what I know of him."
I will return to the verses that I previously cited and elaborate on their relevance to the main topic of this thread... when I find some more time.
Hi NB,
Regarding your post above, I have no idea of what your expertise is in, you have not shared that in any of your postings. I am always happy to learn, however the issue here, and elsewhere on the blog, is that you seem to get frustrated when I don't agree with whatever conclusion you have reached.
I have been engaging the Islamic faith and related texts for a long time, longer that "hundreds of hours". I have similarly answered your concerns about the expulsion of those who were working to undermine the state.
The relevance of 'Umar ibn Al Khattab to the subject (now, the subject being Non Muslim worship sites) is that he was undeniably devoted to the religion, to the Prophet personally, and would, without doubt, destroy whatever he found repugnant to Islam. Meaning, if he believed or knew the Prophet ordered the destruction of churches and synagogues, he would have done so.
'Umar in fact did not construct the Al Aqsa mosque, it was built much later. I will deal with that in another comment later.
In terms of what you said regarding the Prophet's treatment of Makkah, what political gain does he get from sparing Wahshi, the slave who killed his uncle? Even Abu Sufyan himself? Or Hind?
There are reports in history that are often not rooted in reality. This goes for those who have religious and secular implications alike. Scholars examine all of these things, and reach their own conclusions.
Thus, there are reports which we reject. Reports which my teachers have rejected. Assertions that are false attributions, which emerged after the Prophet's time. There are even false things attributed to 'Umar, found in Muslim books, which were found to be untrue. That's simply what happens, for a plethora of reasons.
Thus, we have to look at the broad, big picture, of what we know about the Prophet, and that broad picture leads us to reject some ideas or actions attributed to him. I too don't have much spare time, so this is a summmarized reply.
I share the PBS link, I share the NAK clip, excerpts from Haykal's "The Life of Muhammad", and tended to do that, because those sources may be more useful to you. You choose to think of the Prohet (Peace be upon him) in a negative fashion. Moreover, sharing the links tend to be faster than long comments from me.
Hi Waheed. OK, let's try to tone this down a little ..
By now, you should have figured out a lot about me and what my abilities are. Expertise is not a diploma hanging on the wall. Yes, I am a little frustrated, but not because you don't agree with me. Rather, it is because you don't seem able to take what I'm saying seriously and to examine my ideas with an open mind. I am very open to disagreement when it is supported by evidence and sound reasoning. What I post are my own ideas, based on my own reading of the Islamic sources and commentaries, not something copied and pasted off of the internet. If I'm mistaken in my readings, then you, a teacher, should be able to set me straight in a way that I understand.
You read my ideas with some sort of a preconceived idea that I have some sort of grievance against Islam. This is not the case. As I've said several times, I began with a positive expectation, expecting to find valuable, timeless wisdom within Islam, just as I have found in the Bible and in other great texts. However, I soon found out that the founder of Islam was nothing like the founders of other great religions nor the writers of other great theological and philosophical works.
To be fair, Islam is unique in that its sources are more "authentic" than other religions. Muslims see this as a strength, but it is also a weakness. Other religions are able to mature and evolve over time. This allows them to continue to adapt to the world and to re-interpret their legendary founders. Adherents (who aren't fundamentalists) are free to reject stories which no longer resonate. You say that there are reports that you reject, but practically, there is no authority which is capable of creating a revised Islamic history. You are stuck with the history and you are stuck with the Qur'an, something you need to admit is far from perfect. You need to separate what you truly believe from what you doubt but have been told you must believe.
I absolutely agree that we can't assume that all reports are rooted in reality. I have quite bluntly rejected some of the reports that you have cited, but always I provide an explanation for why the report does not seem real. I see these as debates where neither of us can prove that we are correct, but it is worthwhile examining the report to understand what is most likely the truth. New information is always welcome during such a debate. However, you should know by now that I see arguments based on Muhammad's character as circular. You are confirming his good character by rejecting credible stories simply because they contradict your preconceived notion of his character.
But I believe the real problem in these discussions is respect. I began with a presumption that "an Imam" would be a trustworthy source of information and ideas about Islam. I even wrote a defence of you, years ago, on whyislam, urging the Christian writers to show "the Imam" more respect. However, too often, you have simply diverted from the main issue or belittled my views without providing a cohesive response. If you don't take my views seriously, you shouldn't expect me to take yours seriously, either.
To relate this to the original topic, I should point out that the underlying attitude that is being questioned is the respect due by a Muslim to a non-Muslim. It is pretty obvious to anyone that Muslims generally treat other Muslims differently from how they treat non-Muslims.
This same issue is at the heart of the treatment of the Banu Qaynuqa, so please take my question seriously and think about the implications of a policy which allows people to be expelled from their homes for being political opponents of the ruler. Think about all of the places in the world today where there are always people, often Muslims, living under governments which they oppose. Do you seriously believe that expulsions of these people would be justified?
Yes, let's try to be more respectful.
To establish a better basis for discussion, let us understand clearly the difference between our views of Muhammad. But I think it is also important to understand that, in my opinion, the differences that we have are much the same as the differences that existed in Muhammad's time and it is through this lens that I read the Islamic texts.
I wish you would simply say that you agree with certain points and that would save going over the same ground over and over again. I wish you would agree that those of us, whether living today or living during the time of Muhammad or living any time in between, who have read/heard what Muhammad has said, and don't believe him to be a prophet have a fairly consistent view of Muhammad. If we don't see him as a prophet, then we believe that either he was delusional and truly believed that Allah was communicating to him, OR he was lying about his revelations, OR it was a combination of both. My personal view is that Muhammad was an honest man who truly believed what he was preaching. However, 7th Century Arabs did not have the same understanding of the mind that we have today and many of them would have seen him as a fraud.
I know that it is difficult for you to admit that we view Muhammad this way, but can we agree that that is how Muhammad's opponents, whether Jewish, Christian, or pagan, viewed him?
Can we also agree that Muhammad found this opposition very upsetting? You say that I become frustrated and angry when you don't agree with me, but can't the same be said about Muhammad when entire communities rejected his mission? Don't the Qur'an and the Sirah fully support the assertion that Muhammad was angry with his opponents?
Before I go on, is there anything that I say that you will agree with?
Hello NB,
From my perspective, and I think that of any reader, your method seems to seek out any negative thing you can find, or to create a negative reading where one does not exist. Then, when I (for example) don't agree with you, you become frustrated at my being "closed minded". You have hinted at this approach when you stated before about "mining" the texts in order to support whatever your argument happens to be.
I "Know" the Qur'an and Prophet better than you. This is not a statement of arrogance, but rather a simple fact, so when you insist on reading- for example, Prophet Muhammad in a negative way, I am going to have to say something. This is what happened on WHYISLAM. You would post- often intentionally as I recall- attacks on the Prophet, and would not cease in that. The forum moderators received complaints, to eventually you were not permitted to post there anymore. Moreover, you have - on this very blog- over the years said very disrespectful thing even about me personally, although generally I don't reply in kind, in addition to your negative assertions about Islam.
In any case, when I do share a correction, you tend to not accept it.
" Other religions are able to mature and evolve over time. This allows them to continue to adapt to the world and to re-interpret their legendary founders. Adherents (who aren't fundamentalists) are free to reject stories which no longer resonate" (N-B quote)
In terms of the Qur'an, I find the stories more relevant as time progresses. Be that as it may, I get your point. I will invite you to look up the Arabic term Ijtihaad. We can discuss your comment after you get an idea regarding that. In addition, Quranic interpretations itself is quite vast and rich in diversity, there is much to be gleamed from that field.
" You say that there are reports that you reject, but practically, there is no authority which is capable of creating a revised Islamic history. You are stuck with the history and you are stuck with the Qur'an, something you need to admit is far from perfect. You need to separate what you truly believe from what you doubt but have been told you must believe. " (N-B quote)
It has been accepted almost from the beginning of the Muslim intellectual history that there are false reports that have crept their way into the literature. Indeed, there is a saying that the Seerah reports and the war reports contain the most untrustworthy accounts in any field of study.
Much of the issues you bring up (in terms of the Prophet's dealings with the Jewish tribes) have been addressed in various ways by scholars.Some think it's all back projection, or that some of the details are false, whereas others sanctify reports to the point where they accept whatever is stated. I have my ways of investigating these things, and reaching certain conclusions. In terms of the Prophet- may peace be on him- we have a broad picture of him that is agreed upon by friend and foe alike. You described him above as an honest man. Rather than reinventing the wheel, and constant diverting from the subject of this particular article, I propose that we talk about the Prophet in the following thread, http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2012/02/muhammad-prophet-of-islam-dispelling.html . Also the following video, starting around minute 6:40, which looks at the Prophet's life outline, as well as relevance in today's world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opd2ljIv9R8&t=6s
" To relate this to the original topic, I should point out that the underlying attitude that is being questioned is the respect due by a Muslim to a non-Muslim. It is pretty obvious to anyone that Muslims generally treat other Muslims differently from how they treat non-Muslims." (N-B quote)
Even those who believe it is forbidden to invoke God on behalf of a deceased Non Muslim don't dispute the importance of showing everyone a certain level of respect.
The Qur'an {17:70) itself states that God gives honor to all human beings.
The original article simply disputed a notion that is widely held regarding invoking God on behalf of a non Muslim.
There are accounts in the Prophet's own life that shows his respect extending even to disbelievers opposed to him on a personal level.
Hello Waheed. I will take up your suggestion and respond to your comments in the other thread that you mention.
Concerning the topic of this thread you write: "The original article simply disputed a notion that is widely held regarding invoking God on behalf of a non Muslim."
Isn't it clear from Chapter 9 that Allah has already condemned the "mushriks". I mentioned 9:30 and the verses that follow to point out that, at this time, Muhammad is describing even the Jews and Christians as "mushriks". The Qur'an is clear that there can be no forgiveness for these people and that praying for their forgiveness is pointless.
Your attempt to narrow the verses of this chapter are futile. It isn't me that you are arguing with, but mainstream Muslim scholars who read these verses as having broad implications. I have even read some who describe this chapter as a "Muslim Constitution" where Muhammad lays out in clear terms how his society is meant to be structured going forward.
Who are you "to dispute a notion that is widely held" when it is clear that what you are disputing is what the Qur'an says in clear language and is understood by hundreds of millions of Muslims over 14 centuries? If you don't like what these verses say, maybe you should stop reading them and stop teaching them and admit there are serious problems with the Qur'an. I don't envy the position of Imams who have to continually make excuses for the Qur'an while trying to believe that it is perfect. This attitude forces you into cognitive dissonance.
Hello N-B.
I will share some thoughts on your statements above in the following fashion.
" Isn't it clear from Chapter 9 that Allah has already condemned the "mushriks". I mentioned 9:30 and the verses that follow to point out that, at this time, Muhammad is describing even the Jews and Christians as "mushriks". The Qur'an is clear that there can be no forgiveness for these people and that praying for their forgiveness is pointless." (NB quote)
The context is enmity, this becomes evident when looking at the majority of this chapter's contents.
Indeed, the point only reinforces what I was trying to share, that praying for Non Muslims is not problematic at all, except when they have been enemies to you, taking actions in the real world, meant to be a means of destruction.
It has no bearing on those Non Muslims who have not been involved in oppression and the like.
" Your attempt to narrow the verses of this chapter are futile. It isn't me that you are arguing with, but mainstream Muslim scholars who read these verses as having broad implications. I have even read some who describe this chapter as a "Muslim Constitution" where Muhammad lays out in clear terms how his society is meant to be structured going forward" (NB)
I can understand why you say this, especially when one considers the more extreme religious understandings being prevalent online. Yet, what we are saying here is what many people already do, regardless of conservative voices. In addition to this, Al Azhar university itself, the oldest and arguably most respected institution, have issued fatwas ( legal opinions based on Islam) allowing, for example, Muslim children to attend the funerals of their non muslim parents/family members.
If you want a source, I'm sure I can get it for you.
I'm not sure of anyone using this Soorah as a diagram for a social order. I would argue that the entirety of the Quranic text, when studied and understood, would be a stronger case to argue.
The Prophet did -upon his arrival in Madinah, make a treaty with the various factions, which has become known as the Madinan constitution and the like. There are a couple of really interesting books on this aspect of history, if interested, I will be happy to share the titles.
" Who are you "to dispute a notion that is widely held" when it is clear that what you are disputing is what the Qur'an says in clear language and is understood by hundreds of millions of Muslims over 14 centuries? If you don't like what these verses say, maybe you should stop reading them and stop teaching them and admit there are serious problems with the Qur'an. I don't envy the position of Imams who have to continually make excuses for the Qur'an while trying to believe that it is perfect. This attitude forces you into cognitive dissonance." (N-B quote)
What I am saying is that the language is very clear, but it is not asserting what is commonly believed.
It is not cognitive dissonance, rather, it is looking at the sources carefully, with the intention of reaching understanding.
Admittedly, people don't understand the same text in the same fashion. This goes for any text, religious or secular. Fields of study/interpretation are thereafter formed in the communities involved. Position papers are published, books are written, speeches are given, etc. We are simply sharing here a contribution to discussions of that nature, albeit influenced by trends which we see.
Thank you so much Love your blog..
law of attraction manifestation techniques
Post a Comment