Introduction
Islam portrays itself as a faith that is not only for the benefit of all humanity, but as a logical, practical and healthy way of life. The more life experiences emerge, the more this portrayal is found to be true.
Ultimately, what Islam seeks for its adherents is a foundation for moral and spiritual development, tools to accomplish this. This is a life-long process for most of us, and it is our belief that this is precisely why the Qur'an contains stories, be it in detailed or truncated form. One chapter which illustrates this is is the twenty-forth Soorah, called simply An Noor or "The Light".
Positive conjecture is the healthy, default position to be held by people of faith
The Soorah makes allusions to a particular incident in the time of revelation. In brief, the Prophet Muhammad (Sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and a number of others went on an expedition. Among the party was his wife 'Aa'ishaa. There was a point when the Muslim party had left, accidentally leaving her behind. She was discovered by a man (Safwan), the latter, with respect and intelligence, places her on his camel, walks it back to Madinah.
This caused gossip to emerge, a scandal, voiced in whispers, alleging an affair between the wife of the Prophet (referred to traditionally as "Mother of the believers") and Safwan. This Soorah speaks on this in the following words:
لَوۡ لَاۤ اِذۡ سَمِعۡتُمُوۡہُ ظَنَّ الۡمُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ وَ الۡمُؤۡمِنٰتُ بِاَنۡفُسِہِمۡ خَیۡرًا ۙ وَّ قَالُوۡا ہٰذَاۤ اِفۡکٌ مُّبِیۡنٌ
"Why didn't the people of Imaan (faith), men and women (alike), when they heard it, not have a good thought of their own selves, and assert; "this is clearly false." (Q 24:12).
One of the principles we should learn from this is a principal called Husnudh dhann, or positive conjecture. Essentially, it means to assume the best before assuming the worst. When positive thinking is not present, it is an unstable foundation. Negative assumptions (soo'adh-dhann) as default is a dangerous foundation for a community as well as a family.
Sooratun Noor has interwoven much spirituality in the discussion about an accusation of that nature, as well as laws and social etiquette. It goes on to say:
یَعِظُکُمُ اللّٰہُ اَنۡ تَعُوۡدُوۡا لِمِثۡلِہٖۤ اَبَدًا اِنۡ کُنۡتُمۡ مُّؤۡمِنِیۡنَ
وَ یُبَیِّنُ اللّٰہُ لَکُمُ الۡاٰیٰتِ ؕ وَ اللّٰہُ عَلِیۡمٌ حَکِیۡمٌ
" Allah gives you admonition never to return to this (type of scandalizing), if you have faith, and Allah makes clear for you the signs, Allah is the One who knows, the wise." ( Q 24:17-18)
Prejudice as a reason behind negative assumptions
Muhammad Husayn Haykal's book The Life of Muhammad ( 1995, Indianapolis, pp.334-335) has pointed out two basic reasons behind the spread of the rumor regarding the Prophet's wife and Safwan. The first involves internal family dynamics, whereas the second was political. Haykal points out the details, in which old tribal conflicts were once again agitated as a result of this, some taking on a sort of cause in order to solve old rivalries.
The Qur'an focuses upon the political motivations wherein it states " Indeed, those who spread about the lie, are a powerful element ('Usbah) from your midst." (Q 24:11).
اِنَّ الَّذِیۡنَ جَآءُوۡ بِالۡاِفۡکِ عُصۡبَۃٌ مِّنۡکُمۡPrejudice entered into the picture, and this is something we can learn from today! Prejudices ( to "prejudge") are not only based on skin color, ethnicity or language. Indeed, most countries have communities therein which has biases towards others in the same country, sharing the same items listed above.
Prejudices can come in the same community. The Non-Hijabi sees the Hijabi as fanatical, the latter seeing the former as immoral, the clean shaven views the bearded man as a zealot, the bearded Muslim looks at his clean-shaven counterpart as lacking religious commitment. The Salafi judges the Shiite, etc.
We are quick to judge those who have even the slightest difference, even in the same community, to make negative assumptions.
We have to learn to judge on merits and evidence, and avoid jumping to conclusions based on our prejudices. Essentially, Islam asks us to remove prejudices.
More benefits of the Soorah
The Soorah gives guidance on a number of issues.
(1) In terms of accusations of adultery, an entire legal process is placed. Four witnesses (vv.4-8)(ft.1) are required before even an accusation can be made in a legal setting. Otherwise, a person bringing that to the court without this evidence is deemed unreliable and actually to face punishment (v.4).
(2) It gives us some guidance as to marriage.(vv.32-34)
(3) It gives us some social etiquette, dress code.(vv.27-32)
(4) It gives us the beautiful "Verse of light" (Q 24:35). (ft.2)
Perhaps this is why , when the incident is spoken of, Allah says "Do not think of it as evil for you, nay, it benefits you." (Q 24:11)
لَا تَحۡسَبُوۡہُ شَرًّا لَّکُمۡ ؕ بَلۡ ہُوَ خَیۡرٌ لَّکُمۡ
May we learn from our sacred history. That is why it is there.
Footnotes
(1) The scholars have added, based upon Prophetic narrations, that Zinaa (adultery) must be proven via four people witnessing penetration (and no other act). This is a nearly impossible condition. This is necessary to both protect the privacy of people as well as public morals.
(2) Ayatun Noor has fascinated readers since the Quranic revelation. I have shared some reflections on it at the following link. http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2008/01/divine-illumination-examination-of-ayah.html
65 comments:
It was so good to hear from you. I am delighted to learn that you are leading a congregation in Las Vegas.
Your reflection of Sura Noor are excellent.
Foyt witnesses is a high bar that would dissuade people from bringing false allegation of zina. But how would a woman get justice when she accused a man and there are no witnesses?
You could send me an email if you wish to explain.
My regards to your family.
Wassalam,
Amjad Hussain
Aghaji@bex.net
Thank you Uncle for your comment. I miss you and your column.
There are a couple of aspects to this question. (1) A woman falsely accused of adultery. (2) A man or woman found to have indeed committed adultery, but four witnesses are not present.
So for #1, the one who makes the accusations without the required evidence (4 witnesses to have actually witnessed penetration)is open to legal punishments. Scholars say the same if the one falsely accused was a man, but it is seen as especially heinous to accuse a woman falsely.
For the second scenario, I think that the four witnesses is intentionally set this high as a legal requirement, because this is an impossible requirement to meet, unless the act is taking place in a public place, harming the social morals and standards. No other issue in Islamic jurisprudence requires this amount of proof.
Thus, what the Qur'an seems to be "policing" is what happens outside, what is damaging to the society.
With that in mind, if a spouse discovers that scenario, it seems that there are choices they can choose from, i.e. to reconcile or to divorce, without airing dirty laundry to the courts.
Hello Waheed and Amjad.
I think, Amjad, that the question that you ask "But how would a woman get justice when she accused a man and there are no witnesses?" is much more general than what you ask. The simple reality is that many, many crimes are witnessed only by the victim or not witnessed at all. Criminal cases are tried based on only circumstantial evidence or worse, cases don't make it to court on account of insufficient evidence. Once the evidence has been gathered, the judge or jury is seldom able to render an absolute determination of guilt or innocence. That is the reality of our imperfect and often messy world.
What do we do about it?
We accept that "proof" of guilt is often impossible and so we set a lower bar. This allows us to convict criminals who otherwise couldn't be convicted, but also results in wrongful convictions. We have to accept that our justice system is imperfect and that life is not always fair. We have to seek a middle path.
We must recognise that we cannot rely on always getting justice from our justice system and so we need to protect ourselves from being the victim of a crime. However, again we must seek a middle path. There are downsides to excessive security.
My point is that few things can be seen as "either black or white" and laws which attempt to make it so don't recognise this reality. Obviously, I don't agree with what is written in these verses. I would also respectfully suggest that women be invited as equal participants when passing laws which affect them.
Hello to you both,
It seems there was a misunderstanding on my part regarding the original question. Much of the above (article and my subsequent comment above) was about the accusations/assumptions of adultery.
That is not the same thing as rape, which seems to be the question or issue currently under discussion.
@ N-B, what about the Quranic verses cited in the article do you have problems with? Perhaps it would be a good idea to read the entire Quranic chapter before answering the question.
I think we are both referring to accusations of adultery. Admittedly, the back story in this case is unusual in that the accusation is not coming from the spouse of the accused. Normally, if a third party accuses a married person of adultery but the spouse of the accused believes his/her spouse to be innocent, that would be the end of the story. It is merely gossip and the crime is slander, not adultery.
However, how would these verses apply if Muhammad had reason to believe the accusations against his wife? Would we see the same verses? I don't think so! And I think Amjad's concern is in the case it is the wife who believes her husband to be involved in adultery.
Slander is a whole other problem, and it is noteworthy that the Jews placed both adultery and slander alongside murder and theft in the Ten Commandments.
Hi Waheed. You've asked me to elaborate on my problems with these verses. There are two distinct social problems to consider: adultery and slander. Let's consider each in turn.
First, let me say that I find the back story to be nearly unbelievable. In my culture's conservative tradition, and I would say in most cultures', no man would ever put his wife in the situation that is described. It is inconceivable that Muhammad would bring a wife on such an expedition and not ensure that she was fully attended to. As you have raised, not only was adultery possible, but so was rape. Had she been raped, she would have had no witnesses and would not have been able to make an accusation. She would have been forced to conceal the incident for the rest of her life.
I say that in our conservative tradition, this situation would not be allowed to happen; a man and a woman would not be allowed to be alone like that. However, since the women's liberation movement, these conventions have been relaxed. Women have decided that the restrictions imposed by these conventions overbalanced their rights to certain freedoms. Women have decided for themselves how they wish to balance risks and freedoms, even though they may not fully understand that consequences like #metoo are consequences of the decisions that they have made. We don't live in a perfect world where these freedoms don't have risks. As in most cases, the best path is a middle path.
When I read these verses (24:1-21), I am struck by Muhammad's rage, yet he hasn't addressed his own failure to protect his wife. Don't you think that at least some of the blame for this incident should fall on him?
I'll write some comments about slander when I get a chance.
First, I think it is important to distinguish slander from scandal. As I've implied, in our cultural tradition, if a man and a woman are alone together, they are presumed to have had sexual relations. There is no requirement for witnesses or proof. We were taught from an early age to avoid this form of scandal.
I should mention that my view of swearing by Allah is no different from my view of praying to Allah. All-seeing and all-knowing Allah does not need to be informed by our words. I see the verses here concerning oaths to be utter nonsense.
Considering what has been going on recently, especially in the USA, with regards to truth-telling, it is important to look at this more critically. There appears to be a growing trend that a person can say whatever lie they want, provided they aren't "under oath". We see people in the public view repeating the most outlandish falsehoods but if the matter comes before a court, they suddenly change tactic and avoid making the statements that they have been making publicly. However, the public is more likely to have heard what was said publicly and not what was said in court.
Truth isn't established by the precise number of oaths that are uttered nor by the precise number of witnesses who are willing to take oaths. People who knowingly spread falsehoods need to be held accountable, regardless of what they swear.
Hello N-B,
The details behind the backstory are laid out very well in Haykal's work, and while it is understandable that you would find it "nearly unbelievable", I think it shows- in many respects- that popular assumptions, about Islam and Muslims, are woefully incorrect.
In the backstory, she was mistakenly left behind, because the carrier in which she was supposed to be in was light, she was assumed to have been in it, whereas the opposite was the case.
This seems to be very human behavior. These things happen.
In any case, the Soorah itself, the verses highlighted in the article in particular, has weaved therein social as well as spiritual lessons together. While the backstory is known, the contents of the Soorah are largely general and applicable in any environment.
HI NB
In terms of your next post, in Muslim cultures there is a similar teaching, and indeed, it is adopted by some Christian ministers as well as executives, as a means to avoid any hint of a scandal.
Yet, look at the backstory of 'A'ishaa and Safwan. When he came across her, what was he supposed to do? He had enough intelligence and respect to place her on his camel, and walk it (and her) back to town. That happened publically, yet, people still created scandal.
They did so for a number of reasons, and whereas the political seems to be the main point discussed in the chapter, the "love of gossip" is also pointed to, as well as giving guidelines regarding a number of related issues, including manners, dress, legalities, and- in the midst of it- God concept.
While You are basically correct in your statement about oaths, remember that these were people who were very God-centered. Read 'A'ishaa's defense of herself. She was very articulate.
In terms of the #Me-too movement today, yes, some conventions have not only been relaxed, but overturned totally, for a variety of reasons. I agree that balance is necessary, and that every environment is different, so the assumptions that would generally work in one place, would not necessarily work in another place.
The Soorah seems to also point to the importance of positive assumptions before jumping automatically to a negative conclusion.
You mention "rage". Can you elaborate on why you make that statement?
Hi Waheed.
I've seen some of the hadith concerning the incident of Aisha. I believe that the traditions are narrated by Aisha herself and are collected in Sahih Bukhari. Is it true that Shiite scholars see these traditions differently from how Sunni scholars see them? My understanding is that Shiite scholars do not consider Aisha to be a reliable source.
Regardless of sectarian differences, there are problems both of credibility and of consistency within these traditions. Whether these problems were created by Aisha herself or whether they arose deliberately or inadvertently during the passing down and recording of the stories is impossible to determine.
The part of the story concerning how Aisha was left behind is too implausible to be believed. According to the hadith (https://muflihun.com/bukhari/59/462), Aisha knew that Muhammad had announced the departure before she wandered away from the camp and before she discovered that she was missing a necklace. Everything about this part of the story doesn't make sense.
As we can see further along, Muhammad himself did not believe this story. The hadith tells how a month passed while Muhammad treated his ailing wife with coldness. Only after that time and after he had carried out some enquiries was her innocence "revealed" to him.
24:16 says And why, when you heard it, did you not say, "It is not for us to speak of this. Exalted are You, [O Allah]; this is a great slander"?
Yet, Muhammad didn't declare it to be a "great" slander until a month later.
And who were the spreaders of this gossip? You allege that it was Muhammad's political enemies, but in the hadith, Aisha's mother accuses Muhammad's wives!
And what about this maid-servant, Barira, where was she when Aisha was wandering around in the desert by herself?
There are too many flaws within this story and even more flaws when comparing with other stories concerning this incidence to go through them all here. I'm sure there are articles that do a better analysis than I am able to do.
These stories cannot be taken at face value. We have to be critical and think about how these details came to be recorded. Why are there so many intricate details which are almost certainly fabricated? Who fabricated them and why? We can never answer these questions definitively, but at least we need to be mindful of the uncertainty when citing these stories as evidence.
Hello NB,
In the text you shared, it said that 'A'ishaa was still young, thus, I can see her wandering off in order to retrieve a necklace, regardless of the circumstances.
Similarly, I could see her husband (The Prophet-peace be upon him) being distant, when there is something a bit unresolved in the air, when people are talking about it.
The text you cited likewise supports what I shared, in that there were political motivations shaping the spread of the gossip.Yes, there were internal family dynamics, but the Qur'an seems to focus upon the political aspects. Indeed, that very thing happens in the United States as well. There is a great deal of scrutiny given to the spouses, children of leaders. Political scrutiny as well as obsessive personalities emerge in these situations.
The 24th Soorah, I think, has to be read in full, because it uses the opportunity to address a variety of issues, and has interwoven the beautiful "verse of light".
The Shiites tend to have a very different approach to the hadeeth tradition.
Shiites tend to rely on reports that have only come through the Prophet's family, excluding his wives. They also have a wider use of the word "hadeeth" to encompass the statements of their Imams.
Thus, while Sunnis will take from the companions and wives, and any reporters deemed reliable, the Shiites have an approach which excludes most of the companions (and definitely the wives). They have their own hadeeth collections, but they will use the other sources when they deem it agreeable to their own positions.
Hi NB,
The regulations given in the Soorah, do have a look at them.
Hi Waheed. This conversation has taken a very unusual turn. I am surprised that you are defending this hadith so vigorously. I am saying that Muhammad would never have put Aisha in such a situation. I am the one showing faith in Muhammad's good character and asserting that if he brought a wife on an expedition he would have ensured her safety at all times. You have shown that Muhammad is capable of self-criticism, so if he had indeed neglected his wife's security with such serious consequences, he would have used this occasion to speak out about the duties of the husband to properly care for his wife. If the story is to be believed, then Aisha was lucky to have been found by a Muslim and not by someone who might have harmed her.
I am defending Muhammad's good character and you are not. Go figure!
I have so many questions about this hadith: Did it really come from Aisha? Was it circulating while Muhammad was alive? What parts of it are true? Can anything be corroborated, for example, is there any other story of a wife accompanying Muhammad on an expedition?
I will do as you suggest and look at the remainder of the Soorah. There is at least one verse that has caught my attention and about which I hope to find time to write about.
Waheed, as an aside and I don't want to diverge from the main topic, I don't agree with your observation "Indeed, that very thing happens in the United States as well. There is a great deal of scrutiny given to the spouses, children of leaders."
This is a very new development and one that I hope won't persist once the leadership in the USA changes. Attacks and harassment of family members has been very much viewed in Western politics as crossing a line. The reason for such a norm is obvious ... what goes around comes around. Unfortunately, the current President doesn't concern himself with the consequences of his actions.
Hi Waheed. I hope you are well.
Light (and Darkness)
The "verse of light" certainly stands out especially given the drab content of the surrounding verses. Maybe that's why it is found here, so as to provide an even greater contrast.
Something I have pointed out before is that the Creator also created darkness. The fundamental dualities are recognised from the very first verses of the Bible when God separates the heavens from the earth, the light from darkness, and the seas from the dry lands.
Muhammad seems to miss this point when in verse 40 he speaks of the dark ocean covered with clouds. "And he to whom Allah has not granted light - for him there is no light." It is, before all, Allah who is the Creator of this darkness.
I think the Christians capture this duality with great clarity in Luke 11:
34 Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are healthy, your whole body also is full of light. But when they are unhealthy, your body also is full of darkness.
35 See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness.
36 Therefore, if your whole body is full of light, and no part of it dark, it will be just as full of light as when a lamp shines its light on you.
What particularly resonates with me about these verses is that they personalise the light. The Creator has placed the light and the darkness within every one of us and it is our personal responsibility to shine our full light. In a way, this places God within us, rather than as an external entity; something that is much more in tune with my non-Christian theology.
This is very different from Muhammad's confusing concept that Allah chooses not to give some of us light and then blames us for not following the light which we have never seen. Furthermore, it is ridiculous when Muhammad claims that he and his followers are the ones who are standing in the light while the rest are standing in darkness.
Hello NB,
In terms of the circumstances behind 'A'ishaa being lost and subsequently found, the account makes sense. There were other occasions in which the Prophet's wives would travel, even in circumstances which may have proven to have danger therein (Hudaybiyah is a good example).
I don't agree with using family ties as a means to be critical of political foes, or for political capital. I was stating that that is something that can be found even in American politics.
In terms of how the Qur'an treats "light" and guidance. it should be noted that the Qur'an typically places blame on non adherence to light on the person not adhering. To use the language you employed above, personal responsibility (more accurately, lack of its use) led them to misguidance.
This is clear when read in Arabic. "In their hearts there is illness- and God increases their illness". A particle of consequence ("Fa") is used there, to show that it wasn't God who took them astray, but their own blindness etc.. which simply was added to by God because of their behavior.
Hello Waheed. So you don't seem to see anything wrong with this hadith and its relationship with the Surah which is the subject of this thread.
Forgiveness
The verse that caught my attention was Q 24:22 "And let not those of virtue among you and wealth swear not to give [aid] to their relatives and the needy and the emigrants for the cause of Allah, and let them pardon and overlook. Would you not like that Allah should forgive you? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."
In this verse, Muhammad connects Allah's forgiven to our own, as the Christians do in their daily prayer: "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us". Christians also say "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." Christians also say "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." and there are other verses that I could point out in this connection.
But what does Muhammad say? Let me finish the verse that you began (Q 24:11) "For every person among them is what [punishment] he has earned from the sin, and he who took upon himself the greater portion thereof - for him is a great punishment [i.e., Hellfire]."
and "Indeed, those who like that immorality should be spread [or publicized] among those who have believed will have a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter."
In the hadith, it is reported: "Allah's Apostle got up on the pulpit and complained about 'Abdullah bin Ubai (bin Salul) before his companions, saying, 'O you Muslims! Who will relieve me from that man who has hurt me with his evil statement about my family?"
You describe these events as "political", yet Muhammad was himself present when Aisha showed up with Safwan. Muhammad himself was not convinced of Aisha's innocence. According to this hadith, Ali bin Abi Talib said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Allah does not put you in difficulty and there are plenty of women other than she'. Even Aisha's parents won't defend her! Aisha tells Muhammad: "Now if I tell you that I am innocent, you will not believe me, and if confess to you about it, and Allah knows that I am innocent, you will surely believe me." Only after Muhammad "has a dream" does he decide to proclaim Aisha's innocence and to accuse his opponents who had the same thoughts that he had had.
The notion that Islam is somehow the "perfection" of the religions that came before it is perhaps Islam's most disingenuous claim. It is clear that Muhammad had a poor understanding of the Christian concepts of love and forgiveness. This incident would have taken an entirely different direction had Muhammad practised these basic principles. For someone who claims to be a follower of the Prophet Jesus, it is remarkable just how selfish his motivation is shown to be throughout this incident.
Hello NB,
In your comment above, you are connecting things that have no natural connection, atleast as far as I can see.
You placed in bold type Q 24:19, but what that verse (the part you have zoomed in on) is understood to reference the legal punishment for slander, which is given in Q 24:4.
While Abdullay ibn Ubayy certainly is reported to have capitalized on the rumors for his own reasons, I am unaware of any report that he was punished in any way. Moreover, the Prophet himself conducted his ('Abdullah ibn Ubayy) funeral service.
With regards to forgiveness, that is a diversion topic, nonetheless I will share a thought on that.
Islam sees itself as a faith that is not restricted to the prayer hall. It is for all areas of life. Jesus himself, upon whom be peace, is reported to have said that blasphemy against the holy spirit is unforgivable. (Matthew 12:31). In addition, Jesus did not, by any accounts, ever have any real political authority or social power, his ministry itself was three years (six according to a minority view, therefore, his mission, even from a Christian perspective, had no legal implications.
Muhammad on the other hand, upon whom be peace, has some guidelines, rather concrete ones in many instances, that touch the legal realm. Therefore, the punishment mentioned is a legal one, there is also perhaps a punishment in the life to come, for the crime of bringing forth a kind of terror in society. I would suggest reading the Soorah in its entirety.
Earlier in this discussion, you mentioned the Prophet actually believing his wife was not guilty of the accusation. Now, you seem to change your mind.
You mention Q 24:22, but the commentary behind it is that the verse is telling Abu Bakr ['A'ishaa's father) that he should not cease support of poor family members, even though they had been involved in spreading the rumor.
Your comment has prompted an idea that sometime in the future, I should write about forgiveness and love in Islam. It seems that, unfortunately, you have yet another wrong idea, and it would be good to have something that any reader could reference on that topic.
Regards
S Waheed
Hello Waheed. I don't know what things your think I'm connecting that are not naturally connected. Also, I have read the Soorah in its entirety. Which verses do you think are pertinent to this conversation? I hope you aren't referring to Q 24:47-54. More about that in a moment.
I haven't changed my position. We don't know for certain whether Aisha spoke the words in the hadith we have been talking about, nor when the words were spoken. However, my opinion has been, from the start, that I find no reason to think that these were not Aisha's words. I wonder when she would have spoken them and it is my opinion that she didn't tell this story with these details until after Muhammad's death, bearing in mind that the story may have developed over a period of time. Furthermore, there are several aspects to the story which are doubtful as to their truthfulness leading me to wonder why Aisha is being less than forthright.
I have never said that I thought that Muhammad believed his wife to be innocent, only that I don't believe Aisha's version of the incident which puts Muhammad into a very unfavourable light. That he used his dictatorial powers to put a stop to the gossip doesn't prove that he was truly satisfied of her innocence.
No, Abdullay ibn Ubayy was never punished for any crime. Why was that? Could it be that he was never guilty of a crime and therefore Muhammad had nothing to punish him for? Could it be that he wasn't the arch-villain that Muslims, like Aisha, later made him out to be? And can the same be asked about Abu Sufyan's "clemency"? Once pledged to Muhammad, these men were immune from fabricated prosecutions of "treachery"; not like the Jews and pagans who continued to deny Muhammad's claims. You can see the clear double standard of justice.
My point about forgiveness is drawn from a verse from this Surah after you suggested that I read it in its entirety. How can you call it a "diversion topic"? In reality, it ought to be one of the central focuses of this Surah, but it isn't. As you point out, the verse has the very limited scope of being directed to Muhammad's father-in-law. As such, it shows its unimportance relative to other topics in the Surah.
What I don't understand, and what I wish you would straighten me out about, is where is the concern regarding women being left on their own? This is the root of the problem and the societies I'm familiar with have social rules and conventions which limit the movement of women so as to avoid a woman being alone with a man other than her husband. What were the rules that were in place at the time of this incident? Why didn't Muhammad use this occasion to proclaim rules so that men, including himself, would not find themselves in this situation in the future?
This is the real social problem brought to light by this incident, yet Muhammad seems more concerned about the rumours that result. If that's not enough, he then moves on to the appropriate amount of skin that a woman may expose to unrelated men. Which is the greater risk: being alone with a man or showing too much skin?
As you point out, the "unforgivable sin" in Christianity is blasphemy against the Spirit. The next verse says that even blasphemy against the Son will be forgiven. When I reached Q 24:47, I had to stop for a time and recover my composure. I find the verses from 24:47 to 24:54 to be blasphemous against God (or "the Spirit").
You should try to understand this reaction. I would suggest as a way to comprehend it, you consider that I view Muhammad to be "just another man", and to replace his name in these verses with a different man. Then, you would be reading these verses as I do. Imagine how you would react if the President of the USA used the phrase "God and the President" in messages like these verses?
Admit it ... you would be horrified.
Hello NB,
The topic I thought was diversionary was when you brought the New Testament quotations into the discussion. In the interest of time and focus, I will quote you and share some reflections.
" I haven't changed my position. We don't know for certain whether Aisha spoke the words in the hadith we have been talking about, nor when the words were spoken. However, my opinion has been, from the start, that I find no reason to think that these were not Aisha's words. I wonder when she would have spoken them and it is my opinion that she didn't tell this story with these details until after Muhammad's death, bearing in mind that the story may have developed over a period of time. Furthermore, there are several aspects to the story which are doubtful as to their truthfulness leading me to wonder why Aisha is being less than forthright." (N-B)
To my knowledge, none has disputed that 'A'ishaa denied the accusation, and that she had her rather long explanation of the backround of the accusation. Even Shiite commentators (who are critical of her because of subsequent events in the political and historical process) accept this.
" I have never said that I thought that Muhammad believed his wife to be innocent, only that I don't believe Aisha's version of the incident which puts Muhammad into a very unfavourable light. That he used his dictatorial powers to put a stop to the gossip doesn't prove that he was truly satisfied of her innocence." (N-B quote)
In your Dec 20th post, you mention " I think we are both referring to accusations of adultery. Admittedly, the back story in this case is unusual in that the accusation is not coming from the spouse of the accused. Normally, if a third party accuses a married person of adultery but the spouse of the accused believes his/her spouse to be innocent, that would be the end of the story. It is merely gossip and the crime is slander, not adultery.".
This is why it seems that you initially accepted 'A'ishaa's account. In any case, from the perspective of a person of faith, these things happen in order to convey lessons. Soorah Al Hujuraat (which I have written on on this blog in the past), while talking about a rather mundane event, delves not only into social guidelines, but deep religious truths. Soorah An Noor does the same, so it is not simply that the Prophet wanted gossip to cease.
" My point about forgiveness is drawn from a verse from this Surah after you suggested that I read it in its entirety. How can you call it a "diversion topic"? In reality, it ought to be one of the central focuses of this Surah, but it isn't. As you point out, the verse has the very limited scope of being directed to Muhammad's father-in-law. As such, it shows its unimportance relative to other topics in the Surah." (NB)
While I do point out the view of the commentators, at the same time I don't deny it's application (of Q 24:19) in a general sense. Even if a legal penalty does not happen, or it does happen, it does not negate that forgiveness can happen. It happens in the modern world as well. A person can forgive his father's murderer, even hug him in court, but they still would be sentenced by a judge. Similarly, a crime of arguably a lesser import, such as gossip, can be forgiven. It's all in accordance with the local or unique situation.
As for the rest, I will address that later, if God wills.
Waheed, perhaps I need to clarify a few things that I've said. I may have been a little confused initially about what "the slander" was.
The simple fact is that no one is disputing that Aisha was alone with Safwan. This is the story that people were circulating and which Aisha herself has admitted to. Therefore, there is no slander or lying by retelling this story. You, Waheed, are no less guilty of spreading this story than the Medidans of that time... and, I should add, by doing so, you have coloured my opinion of Aisha.
As I've said, how the matter is dealt with is between the husband and his wife. The problem Muhammad found himself in was exacerbated by him taking a month to take a position. When he finally declares his position, the Qur'anic verses don't seem to me to be indicative of a man who truly believes his wife's innocence.
We are each entitled to our own opinions about whether or not Aisha was guilty of any impropriety and about whether or not Muhammad truly believed her to be innnocent.
Had there been no factual basis for saying that Aisha was alone with Safwan, then telling such a story would be a lie and a damaging slander. Individuals are virtually defenceless against lies like this and if the practice is allowed without consequences, great harm is done to the very fabricate of society. Some societies, most notably the USA, struggle with drawing a line between the freedom of speech and the freedom to lie. This is a very real problem, but this is not the lesson of Bukhari Book 59 No 462.
I don't know what you mean when you say "deep religious truths". Perhaps you can clarify with an example.
The "social guidelines" of this Surah seem to miss the mark. I think it is worthwhile to read what the Bible says on this same topic. It is no diversion to look elsewhere for better guidance.
" No, Abdullay ibn Ubayy was never punished for any crime. Why was that? Could it be that he was never guilty of a crime and therefore Muhammad had nothing to punish him for? Could it be that he wasn't the arch-villain that Muslims, like Aisha, later made him out to be? And can the same be asked about Abu Sufyan's "clemency"? Once pledged to Muhammad, these men were immune from fabricated prosecutions of "treachery"; not like the Jews and pagans who continued to deny Muhammad's claims. You can see the clear double standard of justice." (NB)
Hello NB. Time constraints prevent me from always responding in a prompt manner, so excuse the format.
'Abdullah Ibn Ubayy was viewed as the leader of the hypocrites for reasons that go beyond the issues regarding 'A'ishaa. It is even said that his own son was a dedicated Muslim, was aware of his father's actions against the Muslims, and even offered to execute him, but the Prophet declined.
Instead, he died a natural death, and the Prophet himself conducted the funeral service.
There was no pogrom against the Jews, rather, it was the latter's involvement in actions against the state which prompted conflict. Even with that, as previously mentioned, Jews lived in prosperity and peace in Muslim lands, at times when Europe was persecuting them. This is a proof that Islam, the Prophet himself, did not have some sort of "let's wipe them all out " thinking.
AS for the rules ( I am unable to copy/paste your statement for some reason) regarding leaving women alone etc, that is a very good question. There are traditionally some rules ascribed to the Prophet himself, as well as given in the Qur'an itself, about gender interaction.
What were the precise circumstances (guards etc), we can't say. We can say what the reports say, that during an expedition, 'A'ishaa had lost a necklace, she went to look for it, and in the meantime, the party had departed. Because she was so light, they assumed she was still in the carrier.
THIS happened, I believe, because of the rules. There was a certain level of respect and even distance that had to me maintained. It's not very different from how the leader's families are treated today. WE can't simply walk up to them.
Also, from the Muslim perspective, the Prophet is, in essence, God's spokesman. "God and His Messenger" is no different from the Bible language. "None come to the Father, except through me", Jesus is reported to have said. He is also reported to have said "He who loves me will be loved by my Father".
Hello Waheed.
Some small points:
1. I hope that your readers will find the time to read the bible passages (https://biblehub.com/niv/john/14.htm) that you cite. Even if your readers don't fully understand John's metaphorical identity of Jesus as the Word of God, they will easily see how different this chapter is from any Surah and especially the Surah that is the topic of this thread.
2. There is no logic in saying that because not all future Muslim leaders carried out pogroms against the Jews, it is "proven" that Muhammad and his companions did not carry out such a pogrom.
3. There is no logic in saying that respect for a leader's family's privacy would lead to a woman being left entirely alone. The hadith names a maid-servant of Aisha. It is inconceivable that Aisha would travel on such an expedition without at least a maid-servant, that the maid-servant wouldn't know Aisha's whereabouts at all times, and that the maid-servant would leave the encampment not knowing where Aisha was.
Now the main point:
You write: "'Abdullah Ibn Ubayy was viewed as the leader of the hypocrites for reasons that go beyond the issues regarding 'A'ishaa. It is even said that his own son was a dedicated Muslim, was aware of his father's actions against the Muslims, and even offered to execute him, but the Prophet declined."
In this very Surah, we read: "Why did they [who slandered] not produce for it four witnesses? And when they do not produce the witnesses, then it is they, in the sight of Allah, who are the liars." (24:13)
So I ask you, where are the witnesses of 'Abdullah Ibn Ubayy's wrongdoing? Don't Muslims slander the Hypocrites, the Jews, the Christians and the Polytheists? Do you really think you should be able to make vague accusations of "involvement in actions against the state" and not be required to produce evidence?
But your statement is worse than that: You allege that 'Abdullah Ibn Ubayy's son was willing to murder his father in reaction to this slander. Even though the story confirms that Muhammad knew that he lacked the legal justification to have this man killed, you are retelling a story that shows how this sort of Islamic rhetoric incites violent extremism.
Waheed, please think carefully about how you speak about non-Muslims.
Hello NB,
Some points to address
* You provide a link to the BibleHub website, but other than talking about the "metaphorical identity" of Jesus, you make no comment about the Biblical verses I shared, and they were only shared to show that the phraseology of connecting the Divine Being with the presence of the Messenger is found within other religions as well.
* The point about Muslim rulers vis-a vis the relationship with the Jewish community was that there would have to be precedent on some scale that would allow the Muslims to do a pogrom against the Jews, but that was not the case. Indeed, the Prophet's own father in Law, 'Umar b. Al Khattab, invited Jews to live in Jerusalem. Here's an interesting link to a news site with the article entitled "Jews under Muslim rule".https://www.dawn.com/news/1150340 . Certainly, if Islam taught, or if the Prophet (peace be on him) taught that Jews had to be wiped out, why would 'Umar bother to try to be fair with them at all?
* The Prophet's household, while certainly loved and respected by Muslims, did not live in the same royal style as the rulers of other places both past and present. Indeed, the Qur'an makes mention of their humble way of living, allowing the wives to leave in peace, with a goodly settlement, if they were unprepared to continue living that way. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable that 'A'ishaa, the Prophet's wife, would search out a lost item, by herself, upon discovery of it being missing, without having to bother other people, be they servants or not.
Hello N-B,
Continuing on the above comment, you write " So I ask you, where are the witnesses of 'Abdullah Ibn Ubayy's wrongdoing? Don't Muslims slander the Hypocrites, the Jews, the Christians and the Polytheists? Do you really think you should be able to make vague accusations of "involvement in actions against the state" and not be required to produce evidence?"
I suggest reading Haykal's work for a more detailed answer. However, there were a number of immoral, or atleast questionable actions, on the part of 'Abdullah b. Ubayy. He would sell woman for sexual puropses. He would collude with enemy forces, a reasonable action.
REGARDING the statement of Abdullah's son, that only proves that the Prophet was able to inspire great change in their society, to the extent that the son wanted to pay back for that guidance and leadership of Islam by disposing of an enemy of it.
Your reading of this issue is a rather odd interpretation. The Prophet's own consideration, mercy and fairness shines forth in his refusing the offer of the son. Indeed, later on, when 'Abdullah b. Ubayy did in fact die of natural causes, the Prophet, upon request of the son, offered the funeral prayers and his own shroud to bury him.
Your view that this "shows how this sort of Islamic rhetoric incites violent extremism" is not valid. If we were, for the sake of argument, keep to your assertion, how would you read the NT statement associated with Jesus : I have not come to bring peace, but rather, the sword, I have come to turn a man against his father, daughter against her mother, daughter in law against mother in law" (Matt.10:34-36)?
There is a typo in the above comment "a reasonable action" does not belong in the post.
Hello Waheed.
Out of respect for your comment not to divert into a discussion of Bible verses, I simply provided for your readers a link to the verses that you had cited and a minimal amount of context to help them understand those verses. I was willing to leave it up to them to form their own conclusions. Since you've asked me to comment further, I shall do that now.
There is much that we don't know about the origin of the Gospel stories. Scholars generally agree that the Gospel of John was written decades after Jesus was dead and also after the other Gospels had been written. Most likely it wasn't written by a single author at a single time, but developed into its current form over a period of decades. As such, it is a refined and sophisticated book. It is not an attempt at a literal retelling of the life of Jesus.
In John 1, the authors lay the groundwork for their story, a story about the Word of God which became manifest through Jesus. So when Jesus speaks of himself in John 14:6-7, it is as if to say "The Word of God is the way and the truth and life. No one comes to God except through His Word. If you really know the Word, you will know Him as well."
Now, if you replace the metaphysical "Word of God" with the physical "God's Messenger", you end up with nonsense: "God's Messenger is the way and the truth and life." Huh? Yet, that is how Muslims, beginning with Muhammad, try to understand the Gospel of John. I could be wrong, but I think if you substitute "tauheed" in this way, you will be much closer to the intended meaning of this Book than thinking in terms of a physical "Son". Unfortunately, Muslims are too obsessed with the phrase "Son of God" to see past it and to understand the metaphysics which aren't that different from Islam.
By contrast, given the backstory of Surah An-Nur and the direct political nature of its verses, very few of the verses containing the phrase "Allah and His Messenger" would be better understood by substituting "His Messenger" with a metaphysical concept. Because Muslims expressly describe this Surah in political terms, it must be examined for its politics, and it is a legitimate question to ask whether we would tolerate any politician speaking words like these.
The answer is clearly "no" we (Western liberals) would not tolerate politicians speaking this way.
While on the subject of Bible verses, you raise (once again) "I have not come to bring peace, but rather, the sword, I have come to turn a man against his father, daughter against her mother, daughter in law against mother in law" (Matt.10:34-36)
I ask you which of the apostles did these verses incite to raise a sword against a family member? Which apostles raised a sword or even owned a sword?
Remembering that these words were written decades after Jesus was dead and no such incidents were recorded, who could take these words literally?
It should be obvious to all, even Muslims, that "the sword" is a metaphor and that the intent of the verse is not one of incitement.
By contrast, Muslims under Muhammad did literally raise their swords against family members. There are verses which tell Muslims not to forgive their unbelieving family members. There is much incitement in the Qur'an.
A couple more points: you write: "However, there were a number of immoral, or at least questionable actions, on the part of 'Abdullah b. Ubayy. He would sell woman for sexual purposes."
Where is the evidence of selling woman? We know that Muslims sold the women that they captured. In the section of Haykal immediately after the Aisha story that we have been discussing, he writes: "Juwayriyyah, daughter of al Harith, was one of the captives of the Banu al Mustaliq. She was a noble and attractive woman and her lot fell to a man of al Ansar. She sought to ransom herself but her captor, knowing that she was the daughter of the leader of the Banu al Mustaliq, demanded. a very high price which he thought her people were capable of paying."
Also, I remember a story being discussed on whyislam a few years ago regarding whether a Muslim could sell a slave woman after he got her pregnant. If I recall correctly, this was also related to the Banu Al Mustaliq expedition.
You exhibit such a double standard.
===========================================================
You also said: "He would collude with enemy force."
Really? Which enemy force did he collude with? When was this?
Hello NB,
With regards to the discussion around the cited Biblical verses, there are a couple of points worth mentioning.
* It is not all that important if the Gospels are literal accounts of the life and statements of Jesus (PBUH), at least not for this discussion. The verses are there, in the NT. Do you think that "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.." has not inspired any violence? Indeed, it has. One need only look at the bulk of Christian history. THERE were crusades, inquisitions, persecution of rival sects. There is also a NT text which {Luke 19:27) which has Jesus say that those who don't accept him as king should be killed, in his presence. Yes, you can say that it's a parable, but that does not change the fact that this text, and others (particularly in the OT) are present.
* Messengers of God embody the Divine Will and message. That is why it's important to adhere and follow them. This is even a Christian perspective. Look at the Jews in the time of Jesus. They believed in God, and even had amongst them sects deeply dedicated to the Mosaic law. They are criticized, from the mouth of Jesus, as presented in the NT, because they won't accept him. The Bible has him say "None come to the Father, except by me" "He who has seen me, has seen the father". The Qur'an has the precise same teaching. We read "Say (O Muhammad), if you love God, follow me". "Whomsoever obeys the messenger, obeys God".
* I actually agree, to a certain extent, that Muslim polemics pays too much attention to the term "son of God", however, there's a reason behind it. While the term is clearly metaphorical (a fact recognized by the late Muslim debater Shaikh Ahmad Deedat, who would say the Bible has it that God has "sons by the tons"}, unfortnately it has been taken in a literal way by the bulk of Christendom. It is due to this that Muslims are not to use such language, why the Quranic chapter 112 is so very important.
The other parts of your posts, I will address them more when I have time.
Hello Waheed.
It doesn't help your argument when you use a whataboutism. By saying that Christians, too, have done bad things in the name of religion, you are acknowledging that Muslims have done bad things in the name of religion. I don't really think that those particular verses were the inspiration of Christian persecutions. Rather, with both Islam and Christianity and also with a whole host of "-isms", arrogance is generally the underlying inspiration for persecutions.
You say that it is important to adhere and follow all "Messengers of God". Yet, who is to say which claimants are "true" Messengers and which are not? Muslims have rejected many claims and have even fought bloody wars against some of these. Muslims take the audacious position that they and they alone are able to tell a true Messenger from a false Messenger. This is exactly the sort of arrogance that leads to conflict.
Honestly, I don't really see the importance of Q 112. Most religions that I know anything about have some concept of an abstract Unity. It may be called by different names, but it is a widespread and universal notion. It is obvious that a pre-existent Unity is neither born nor begets.
At the same time, religions rely on real concepts of humanity in order to describe the Unity in terms that followers can relate to. Whether or not the religion explicitly describes these as metaphors, they are, indeed, metaphors and they help followers to understand the underlying abstract concept. Islam is no different. For example, many of the "99 Names of Allah" are metaphorical references to human qualities. Furthermore, Muslims use language which they ought not when they describe Allah with human-like emotions which are clearly not appropriate and which have been used politically.
Hello NB,
Regarding 'Abdullah ibn Ubayy, the following links give a detailed look at his thinking, actions, and how they have application in understanding current realities.
I would suggest watching the lectures in order.
https://www.facebook.com/154152348017299/videos/1352935948379931
(Understanding Nifaaq)
https://www.facebook.com/TheMasjidIbrahim/videos/2713932535586136
(Learning from the Seerah: 'Abdullah ibn Ubayy: then and now)
Hello NB,
You write " Yet, who is to say which claimants are "true" Messengers and which are not? Muslims have rejected many claims and have even fought bloody wars against some of these. Muslims take the audacious position that they and they alone are able to tell a true Messenger from a false Messenger. This is exactly the sort of arrogance that leads to conflict."
Well, examine the claims of the claimants. THIS is what we all do anyways.
As for Soorah 112, it certainly has in common the message of the Shema, and other monotheistic formulas, but from the Islamic perspective this is because they come from the same source, moreover, it also functions as a clarification on confusing expressions/concepts, such as the Trinity.
Hi Waheed.
You write: "Well, examine the claims of the claimants. THIS is what we all do anyways."
Yes, exactly right. So why do Muslims criticise the Jews who examined the claims and rejected the claimants? That is what we all do.
There's lot to unpack from your videos.
Can we agree on a few things?
1. It is not the crime of sedition to disapprove of your ruler and it is not a crime to organize opposition in a peaceful way.
2. It is not treason to maintain relations with others whom someone has declared to be "the enemy" based on his own personal grievances.
If you don't agree with this, then the world is full of "traitors".
I do my best to sort out what is reasonably true from what is probably not true, given the scant information that we have.
I believe that the political situation at the time of Badr is fairly reliable. According to the Sirah, (quoting from Haykal) "The total number of men on this expedition amounted to three hundred and five. Eighty-three of them were Muhajirun, sixty-one belonged to al Aws, and the rest to al Khazraj."
Unlike with some expeditions, there was no criticism of loyalists who remained behind, so this number can be taken as an accurate measure of Muhammad's support at that time.
An often heard claim is that Muhammad was invited to Yathrib to take over the leadership of the entire city. Yet, we see that when so much was at stake, only a fraction of the Yathrib population came out in support of Muhammad. We also know that, prior to this, some of the Muhajirun had become caravan robbers to support themselves, not an indication that they were well received in Yathrib.
...
You allege that Abdullah ibn Ubayy engaged in conspiracies, yet, there is no evidence that any of these ever led to conspiratorial acts. It is one thing to wish for different leadership and it is not uncommon to wish that someone we dislike was removed from our lives, but that is not the same as carrying out a plan to raise arms and fight.
You claim that Abdullah plotted to assassinate Muhammad but the Sirah doesn't mention any foiled attempts. The Sirah does, however, mention assassinations order by Muhammad.
You claim that Abdullah attempted to raise an army of 2000 against the Muslims but the Sirah doesn't mention any sort of battle like that. The Sirah does, however, mention Muhammad raising armies against his "enemies".
You claim that Abdullah wanted to rid Medina of the Muhajirun. You are almost certainly correct! There are many reasons why he would want them out:
1. No one likes to be ruled by foreigners and the Muhajirun were newly arrived in Medina. (We're talking about 6 AH or thereabouts)
2. No one likes to see their child absorbed into a religious cult which actively breaks up families.
3. No one likes the insecurity of living in a state which is perpetually at war with its neighbours. This is particularly ironic in that Muslims claim that Muhammad was invited to Yathrib to bring peace but once there he engaged in warfare on a nearly continual basis.
You claim that Abdullah was thwarted in his big ambitions, but there is nothing to indicate that he wanted anything more than the preservation of the tribal system that was working well enough. On the other hand, Muhammad had huge ambitions beyond Medina.
You say that Muhammad showed great judgement by not executing Abdullah, yet, the simple reality is that Abdullah had committed no crime.
You say that Muhammad showed forgiveness by attending to Abdullah's funeral, yet, the simple reality is that Abdullah had lived honourably as a Muslim and Muhammad had no choice.
What was it that we were talking about? It was SLANDER.
Muslims slander Abdullah ibn Ubayy, insulting him with derogatory names, yet it is clear that Abdullah never committed a crime and retained the respect of his people to the end.
You are trying to make a political point in your talk, but the point that I think needs to be made is the importance of treating others with dignity and respect even when they don't share your views. Which party do you resemble when you label your opponents "enemies of the people" and accuse them of unfounded conspiracies?
Waheed, I should say a few words about your accusation that Abdullah ibn Ubayy was "nativist" (and I'm not going to quibble with your choice of word).
You have to try to see the Muslims from Abdullah's perspective. By this time, he had witnessed the character of the Muslims who were living in Medina. He had seen them rob and murder at Nakhlah. He had had to defend the Jews of the Banu Qaynuqa from being slaughtered by the Muslims. He had stood up in opposition to the expulsion of the Banu Nadir and the slaughter of he Banu Qurayza and now he had witnessed the assault, plunder, capture and, yes, rape of the Banu al Mustaliq.
Most people look down on those who engage in lawlessness and violence. A man of high moral standard like Abdullah ibn Ubayy would look down at these people with disgust, all the more so since these men were making the absurd claim that THEY were the ones of high moral standard.
Hello NB,
As always, it seems that you approach the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) from a rather jaded perspective. It is interesting how you would praise 'Abdullah Ibn Ubayy as if he was someone who stood for "Law and Order" against a lawless and immoral Muhammad (God forbid). By those standards, you should likewise heap praise upon the Romans in Palestine during the time of Jesus (Peace be upon him), as well as his opponents among the Jewish religious scene.
In reply to some of your views posted above, in any society, there exists laws when it comes to collaboration with the enemy, especially in wartime. So I don't agree with your conclusions that were mentioned above. It maybe useful to read about the mutual defense pact that the Madinan residents entered into, which included Jewish and Mushrik members. It if often called by Muslim writers the world's first constitution.
The actions of 'Abdullah ibn Ubayy are, in fact, mentioned in the Seerah literature. Indeed, in the presentation, the source was cited, directly. I can't be held responsible if you didn't encounter such information in your readings.
As previously mentioned, there are reports that exist which I simply don't accept. In the past the reasons have been laid out.
Perhaps ultimately the argument centers around details, but also the conclusion of it all. The end of it all was that Muhammad, God's messenger, was successful, in both a worldly and a spiritual sense. This is why he is praised greatly by even Non Muslim admirers.
His success was because of his moral fiber. It was because of his connection to the Almighty. It was because of the message of the Qur'an delivered to him. This is not only a statement of faith, but one of fact.
As for rejecting the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him), people are free to accept or reject.
There is a criticism of rejecting the Prophet's mission directed towards the Jewish community in the Qur'an, because it says "They recognize him as they do their own sons". The signs of his veracity can even be ascertained from the Jewish records. He is "a prophet like unto Moses", mentioned in Deuteronomy.
In fact, there is discussion about this amongst Jewish scholars. Some of them have acknowledged him as an authentic Prophet, but with the caveat that he is simply a Prophet to the Arabs.
Another interesting fact is that it is said that the Palestinians are actually descendants of Jewish converts to Islam.
Hi Waheed.
I don't understand your analogy. The Romans and Jews who held power sought an excuse to execute Jesus just as the Muslims held power and sought an excuse to execute 'Abdullah Ibn Ubayy. So if I "praise" the threatened Madinan, 'Abdullah Ibn Ubayy, I should likewise "heap praise on" Jesus? Seems reasonable to me! I don't have trouble distinguishing the oppressors from the oppressed.
You speak of "actions" mentioned in the Seerah, however what you cited were merely words. If speaking in opposition to a leader is treason, then a majority of Americans are traitors, having either spoken out against the former President or against the current President. 'Abdullah Ibn Ubayy neither took action nor incited action against Muhammad.
I think we should look more carefully at what was recorded about this exchange:
"They have tried to outrank us and outnumber us in our own lands. By God, the proverb, 'Fatten your dog and he will eat you up!' fits us and [the wearers of ] the jilbab of Quraysh to a tee. By God, if we go back to Medina, those who are stronger will drive out the weaker from it. This is what you have done to yourselves ! You allowed them to settle in your lands and divided your wealth with them. Had you kept from them what you had, by God they would have moved to lands other than yours."
There is a question as to who was meant by the "stronger" and the "weaker". This is clarified a few paragraphs later:
Usayd said: "You, by God, O Messenger of God, will drive him out, if you wish. He is the weak one by God, and you are the strong." Then he said: "Messenger of God, be gentle with him."
What you have to understand is that Muhammad had put Medina on the map, but not in a positive way. The reputation of the city was in shambles. Trade near the city had been disrupted, local tribes had been expelled or slaughtered, and nearby tribes were now being assaulted. All Arabs were now in fear of this growing menace. Abdullah's regrets for having provided the Muslim refugees with comfort are genuine and entirely understandable. He clearly understands that there is no turning back of the clock and that the fate of his tribe has been sealed. It is a mistake to read his words as threatening.
When looking this up, I came upon the following "He gave their children, women, and property to the Messenger of God as booty-God gave them to him as spoil."
What happened to the men? Disappeared never to be heard from again? I see ...
Yes, you have mentioned previously that there are reports that you don't accept because you don't believe them. That's not really a reason, is it?
You go on to make some remarkable assertions:
"This is why he is praised greatly by even Non Muslim admirers."
We've discussed this in the past. I recall you mentioned G.B.Shaw, who praised him as a dictator like Hitler and Stalin", and Mahatma Gandhi, the model of nonviolence, whose carefully chosen words were a brilliant example of diplomacy.
"His success was because of his moral fiber. It was because of his connection to the Almighty. It was because of the message of the Qur'an delivered to him. This is not only a statement of faith, but one of fact."
No, that is just a statement of faith.
"They recognize him as they do their own sons" (Qur'an) and he is "a prophet like unto Moses", mentioned in Deuteronomy.
So you're asserting that because Muhammad said this, it must be true? Isn't that a circular argument?
"Palestinians are actually descendants of Jewish converts to Islam." Yes, all Muslims are descendants of non-Muslims, obviously. What's your point?
The real issue is whether or not people converted to Islam because of the attraction of the religion or because of social and political pressures. The same can be asked about today's Muslims, whether they continue as Muslims because they truly believe in Muhammad or because of social and political pressures.
If children's minds are corrupted by teaching like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=xNdpvCWT2Ag then it is not at all surprising to me how difficult it is to persuade them as adults to re-examine their assumptions and to seek the truth.
Hello N-B,
I hope this finds you well.
The point I was raising by citing the example of Jesus (peace be upon him) is that by your arguments, you would be heaping praise upon both the Romans and the Jewish religious opposition.
Your continued attempts to defend 'Abdullah b.Ubayy seems to only come from the fact that he opposed the Prophet, that he is recorded to have been that way.
Your reading of the conditions of Madinah is not correct. The Prophet solved problems, and sought alliances, not to destroy. I again would urge you to look up the details of what is called these days "Madinan constitution".
The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was praised by other scholars and thinkers as well. That can likewise be looked up.
In sharing that it is said that the Palestinians are descendants of Jewish converts to Islam, I am sharing that in order to show you (although you probably already know) that significant numbers of people, from Jewish and Christian backrounds, were able to recognize the Islamic claims to be correct, which would address your views that somehow the Prophet/Islam hates Jewish community for not being able to see the Prophet's validity.
In the Prophet's own time, often it was his own ethics which were found attractive. Indeed, the same can be said of later generations of Muslims, particularly in business dealings. This is how Islam spread.
It didn't necessarily spread with armies or even Muslim missionaries. The latter has not existed too much, atleast not in the same manner and organization as found with Christian missionaries.
I don't understand your opposition to the video you shared, unless it is simply the content ( summarizing the history) that you feel children should not be exposed to?
Lessons on a variety of subjects are taught daily by schools and teachers globally. If Muslims can't teach their children about the history, who tells us what they can and should be taught?
Hi Waheed. Things are fine here. I hope you are well, too.
You have mentioned the "Madinan Constitution" several times. We should look at it a little more closely. During which years, was it in effect? If it was in effect at the time of the Battle of Badr, wouldn't all of Madinah been obligated to participate in the Battle? If it was in effect at the time of the expulsions of the Jewish tribes, wouldn't that have been a violation of the Constitution? Can we conclude that the Madinan Constitution could not have been in effect during the early years of Muhammad's Madinan period?
You cannot claim that people chose Islam if they had no choice, nor can you claim that the reason that people chose Islam is that they recognized the Islamic claims to be correct. This will be a challenge for Islam in America where people do have a choice and the societal pressures holding Muslims to Islam are much weaker.
Please stop conflating Muhammad's views of the Jews with the views of later Muslims. The relationship between the Madinan Jews and the "false Jewish prophet", and especially vice versa, was very personal and did not always manifest itself after his death. Muhammad's views are exposed in the numerous verses where he describes the Jews as cursed, unjust to themselves, makers of mischief in the land, worshippers of Allah's son "Uzair", and so on.
The context of most of these verses is that the Jews deserved this curse because of their denial of prophets, so, it is clear that Muhammad's wrath was driven by the Jews' denial of his prophethood. I don't understand why this conclusion is in any way controversial. If not all Muslims follow Muhammad's example, then that is a good thing.
Teach history as history and stories as stories, and don't confuse the two things. Real history doesn't divide people neatly into "good guys" and "bad guys". Also, be mindful of what lessons you are actually trying to teach. When I get some time, I'll write more about this in the context of your more recent post.
Hello NB,
From what I know, it took much time for "The Madinan constitution" to be worked out. I will look up the dates later, but in any case it doesn't really matter (atleast not for the purposes of this discussion), the point being that (a) The Prophet sought out, as a means to protect the community as well as to resolve internal strive, a framework to accomplish that. (b) The other parties in that mutual agreement included Non Muslims, such as Jewish groups. (C) It does not force people to accept Islam. Indeed, as pointed out many times, force is antithetical to authentic faith, the Qur'an itself speaks against force in religious affairs(Q 2:256).
You chose to read the Prophet's situation vis a vis the Jewish groups as "personal". There were Jews who accepted Islam. There are Jews today, who remain Jewish, who recognize the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), albeit with the caveat he was a Prophet of God to the Arabs. The literature also tells us of internal Jewish debates which identified him with Biblical figures.
The Quranic verses you alluded to don't always refer to Jews, they can have general application (and it is said, regarding 'Uzair, different things, among them being that there was a heretical Jewish sect who referred to Ezra as God's son).
I actually agree that history is complex and doesn't always necessarily divide between "The good guys" and "bad guys". In fact, that important nuance is actually the Quranic approach. It will be critical of Christians and Jews and then say "They are not all alike". It will praise Jews who are honest down to the penny (obviously I am just paraphrasing, using American English, a Quranic statement).
It similarly praises Christians who have practices that make them humble and unarrogant.
In Chapter sixty, the Qur'an reminds us that religion should not make us be unjust, and that conflict is only with those who have been engaged in oppression.
Hi Waheed.
My point about the "Madinan constitution" is that you aren't able to point out any practical impacts of it being in place. If you can't point to it having any success, how can you say that Muhammad achieved anything by it? Isn't it just an ineffective idea that accomplished nothing at all?
You continue to misrepresent what Q 2:256 says. I've already explained this at length, but don't take my word for it. Maududi explains it: "The verse means that the creed of Islam and its way of life cannot be thrust upon anyone forcibly. As a matter of fact, this cannot be forced upon anyone." This is entirely different from forcing conquered people to swear allegiance to their conqueror. I can see that you aren't able to make that distinction between the man, Muhammad, and the religion, Islam. It is on that basis that I assert that Muslims "worship" Muhammad. Either you have to be able to make the distinction or you have to admit that you worship the man... It's up to you.
Who are these Jews today who recognise Muhammad as "a prophet of God to the Arabs"? Isn't that just saying that these Jews acknowledge that the Arabs regard Muhammad as a prophet? Can you cite your evidence that there were Jewish "debates" which identified him with Biblical figures? As far as I've seen, this is merely Islamic apologetics.
Which verses that I alluded to don't refer to Jews? But regardless, there has to be only one verse which does refer to Jews to establish my point.
You are saying that there was this heretical Jewish sect, never reported by any other source before or after Muhammad, that Muhammad had encountered and he considered to be representative of Jews generally? That's just crazy. Face it: it was a deliberate slander.
We have also discussed that a verse that says, paraphrasing as you do and moving the focus to any population you might choose, "Muslims are not all alike, a few of them are honest down to the penny", is no praise. The actual verse could be applied to any population and doesn't imply anything about anyone that isn't already generally known.
Finally, the verses in Chapter 60 that you allude to is very narrow in focus. It is remarkable to me how you are willing to bend the Qur'an, expanding verses that refer to specific situations claim they have broad application and narrowing others which appear to be broad to narrow situations. There's a verse in the Qur'an (more than one, I think) about those who twist the words of their scriptures.
You just rehash the same weak arguments. I've seen them before. I've discussed them with some friends and they agree with me that they lack substance. It's time for you to abandon these false arguments.
Hello NB,
With regards to the Madinah constitution, there is a very nice book, published in Canada, which goes into the benefits, but also the overall history behind it. If you are interested, I will share the title with you. Now on to some of the other points you bring up...
* The quote you share from Maududi regarding Q 2:256 is precisely what I have said. Perhaps you are simply misreading it, in your haste to try to prove that my point and citations are invalid?
* The Prophet and Islam certainly became the leading force in Arabian society, however that does not imply conquering and forcing people to accept Islam.
* It is not my fault that you have never come across discussions amongst Jewish thinkers about the Prophet Muhammad, peace be on him. A quick google search, for your benefit, names figures such as Maimonodies, who had the thought that he was a Prophet, but one for Arabs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism%27s_views_on_Muhammad
* Regarding 'Uzair or Ezra, here's another, more detailed article, on the Quranic text that speaks of "jews" referencing him as Son of God.
http://drjonathanbrown.com/2016/the-quran-the-jews-and-ezra-as-the-son-of-god/
Regarding your other comments, all I can tell you is that the Qur'an actually does not generalize, that is why it says what I mentioned to you previously. It allows us to eat food prepared by Jews and Christians (which suggests social interaction), it allows marriage with them (which is definitely closer than social interaction mentioned above), and even places Jewish, Christian and Muslim places of worship on equal footing in Soorah twenty-two.
*You assert that I have twisted the texts in Soorah 60 and dismiss my statements as weak, false, lacking substance, and that this is the consensus of your friends. Believe me, many readers have expressed dismay at me for even entertaining your views as much as I do. It is unfortunate that people tend to read but not leave comments (even myself, I only reply to comments as time and desire permits) too much. You can believe what you want, however I advice you to keep studying. There's more to Islam than (a translation of) Ibn Is-haq's Seerah work.
BTW, I have done more copy/pasting of articles from the internet than usual. Mainly, this was done out of time constraints, but also to show that the issues we have discussed and the interpretations given are relatively easily found.
Hi Waheed. There's a fair bit to unpack here.
You continue to be incorrect about Q 2:256. Both Maududi and I are reading it as "There can be no compulsion in religion" and Maududi specifically mentions "the creed of Islam".
Think about a man who is confronted by those who would use force to compel him to swear that Muhammad was the final prophet, that the Qur'an is a divine revelation, that there are angels and other supernatural beings, that there will be a Day of Judgement, and that there is divine destiny.
If a man doesn't believe these things, then no threat of force can compel him to believe these things.
It's that simple.
However, that is in no way a statement of tolerance for a person who doesn't believe these things. The Qur'an is abundantly clear how those who did not believe were to be judged. Faced with this predicament, all under Muhammad's rule would naturally claim to be believers, whether they believed or not.
Now it is my turn to ask if you've misread something: Maimonides describes Muhammad as a Madman who had the objective of being a dictator and who invented nothing new. (I always knew that I wasn't the first person to see Muhammad this way!)
Of the hundreds of millions of Jews who have lived during the last 1400 years, the article mentions only a small handful, and then mainly those with esoteric views of Muhammad's relationship to the Messianic Age.
My point about 'Uzair is mainly the question "what is the point of the verse"? Why does Muhammad at this time of his reign make this bizarre claim about the Jews? What makes it particularly bizarre from my perspective is that many Muslims have clearly worshipped a man to a far greater degree than any Jew ever has.
I have already written at length about how Muhammad's relationship with the Jews changed during the years after the Hajj. Verses from around the time of the Hajj are simply not relevant when discussing the relationship once he had power in Medina.
I wish that your readers would post. I wish that your young adult readers would take the time to research the issues that I raise; it would be an good learning experience for them.
Hello N-B,
* You are continuously missing something when it comes to Q 2:256. This is, of course, not the only text in the Qur'an regarding the fact that people can choose to be Muslims or not, but even in your repeat-it's saying the same thing. So I don't know what the issue is.
* Islam does not require force, not at all. Moreover, no scholar, of any sect (to my knowledge) has ever argued that people should be forced to become Muslims. Islam spread in the Prophet's time, he (peace be on him) did fight those who fought him, his triumph allowed his teachings to flourish further, but that is not the same as compelling people to follow your religion.
* I have read many works over the years, including Jewish writers who have written their views on the Prophet Muhammad. Yes there are critical writers, those who will say a good as well as a bad statement regarding the Prophet, and perhaps as time allows I will share quotes from the sources (I source books better than websites), but in any case, those who said nice things about the Prophet cannot be dismissed as some crazed esoteric figures.
* In any case, some of these issues are moot, atleast as far as the Jewish community and the Prophet(upon whom be peace) are concerned. Wikipedia asserts that there are only about 14 million Jews worldwide. That is a small number. There are over one billion Muslims, and it is asserted in a Pew Research Center forecast that Islam will be the faith of the majority of the globe by 2050.
* If people want to reject or accept Islam, that is their business. One of the reasons that the Qur'an has criticism of seventh century Arabian Jews is that the sense of entitlement, that they are the "chosen people", blinds them to Divine guidance that comes in the form of a Messenger. The Bible has Jesus (peace be upon him) say similar remarks in his time. It is worth noting that some Muslim scholars have suggested that the critical assessments given in the Qur'an about them is actually intended as a lesson for the Muslims themselves, not to fall into the same traps.
Hello Waheed.
I cannot speak for people who lived 1400 years ago, only for myself. You use the word "choose". I do not "choose" not to be a Muslim. I simply do not believe that Muhammad was a prophet. There is nothing about choosing. You cannot compel me to believe otherwise. In short, at least in my case and in the case of Islam, there is no compulsion in religion.
I cannot speak for Muslims past or present as to why they identify as Muslim. The vast majority of them were born into Islam. I have seen how these children are raised and how their young, vulnerable minds are shaped to believe what you (NOT PERSONALLY) would have them believe. I, too, have a problem with the Jewish phrase "chosen people", but Christians and Muslims are no different, and in many respects far worse, in this regard.
In this very blog, a Muslim went unchallenged when he said that he benefited from Divine Guidance while Allah chose not to guide me. I don't take that as any sort of insult because I surely have no wish to be guided as he is being guided. Do you think this is a conclusion he came to by himself, or is this something he was taught as a child?
You speak in Machiavellian terms when you write "his triumph allowed his teachings to flourish further". This is the same sense of entitlement that you accuse the Jews of. However, it is far worse in that the Muslims' Divine Guidance overrode any human rights of those who got in their. This is the great irony: Muslims became exactly what Muhammad criticised the Jews for... but much, much worse.
If Muslims scholars suggest that these are lessons for the Muslims themselves, then the Muslims have failed to learn and the Muslims oppressed the Jews for no gain.
Surely you can see the arrogance of these words:
"This is the declaration of the leadership of the Muslim Community. "Thus" refers both to the Guidance of Allah which was sent through Muhammad (Allah's peace be upon him) and to the change of the qiblah. It was by following the Guidance that the Muslims achieved those excellences which led to their appointment as the "Community of the Golden Mean," and it was the change of the qiblah from the Temple to the Ka`bah that was an indication that the Israelites had been deposed from the leadership and the Muslims had been appointed to it. Therefore the change of the giblah from the Temple to the Ka`bah was not merely a change of direction as the foolish people took it to be, but it was really the formal declaration of the change of leadership from the Israelites to the followers of Muhammad (Allah's peace be upon him).
The word "ummat wasat" is so comprehensive in meaning that no English word can correctly convey its full sense. It is a righteous and noble community which does not go beyond proper limits, but follows the middle course and deals out justice evenly to the nations of the world as an impartial judge, and bases all its relations with other nations on truth and justice.
The meaning of "We have appointed you as ummat wasat so that you may be witnesses in regard to mankind and the Messenger may be a witness in regard to you" is: On the Judgement Day when all mankind will be called to account together, the Messenger, as Our authorised representative, will give evidence in regard to you to prove that he had imparted to you, by word and by deed, without any reservation, the whole teaching of sound thought, righteous deed and justice given by Us. Then you, being representatives of the Messenger, in your turn, will be required to give evidence to prove that you had done your utmost to impart, by word and deed, to mankind whatever the Messenger had imparted to you just as you had received it from the Messenger."
Hello N.B.
* We all have choices in life, and make them as we see fit. No one is trying to "compel" you to believe in the Prophet Muhammad, upon whom be peace. After all, you sought out this blog, the WI forum years ago, and continue to want to dialogue on the Prophet and the religion.
* In terms of the Muslim who posted here in the past, his story is actually very relevant to your assumptions. He was a Christian, who, after much time and reflection, decided that Islam made sense to him. He was NOT born into the faith, or compelled in any way to accept it. Indeed, that is the real pattern I see on an almost daily basis. Folks who are open minded enough to look at the texts and teachings for themselves, discover that Islam indeed has something to offer them, and subsequently accept with the heart and tongue that None deserves worship except God, and that Muhammad was indeed a messenger of God. You seem to think that Shenango (his screen-name) was brainwashed, but trust me, he is far from that. This may also interest you, he is someone NOT in any congregation I have been apart of, nor is someone who would automatically agree with how I present/understand Islam. He has a mind of his own, trust me on that!
* In terms of "entitlement", that is your choice to think that. THE point I was attempting to convey is that the Prophet's success allowed for further, long term success.
* We have been through this, Muslims did not oppress the Jews. Even if, for argument sake, I allow individual or isolated moments in history, it seems you are attempting to equate that to the way Christian Europe used to deal with them, and that assumption is historically incorrect. Indeed, why else would Spanish Jews, who thrived under Muslim rule, flee (upon the Muslim defeat in 1492) to other Muslim areas?
* In terms of what you ended your above comments with, wouldn't you want a group, a power or civilization, to strive to act with justice? There is admittedly a theological assumption present within the Qur'an, that the Muslims will become a civilization of justice, fairness, imparting morals and ideas that will benefit all of humanity, and that-in a similar way, Muslims will benefit from the Prophetic model. Much of Islamic history was precisely this. Sciences, philosophy, the list goes on and on.
OK, Waheed, you seem to want to compare Muhammad's rule to that of the Spanish Inquisition, one of the most brutal regimes mankind has ever witnessed. I think you have clearly proven my point by doing so. Let me say this: I have never heard a Christian praise the 15th Century Spanish as a model for modern politics. I am not aware of any modern-day "Make Spain Great Again" campaign which aspires to repeat the Inquisition.
You say that "there is admittedly a theological assumption present within the Qur'an, that the Muslims will become a civilization of justice, fairness, imparting morals and ideas that will benefit all of humanity"
By using the words "will become" are you finally admitting that Muhammad's regime was not itself a civilization of justice and fairness, but only an aspiration?
If only you would have said so sooner, I wouldn't have spent so much time pointing out just how unjust and unfair the Muhammadan regime was.
You ask: "Wouldn't you want a civilization to strive to act with justice?" It is interesting that you can even ask such a question. It seems to be a fundamental characteristic of human psychology to be angered by injustice. Why is it that even very young children rage with the words "THAT'S NOT FAIR"? How is it that leaders are able to manipulate masses of people, sometimes millions of them, by convincing them that they have been cheated out of something that is rightfully theirs?
Indeed, claiming injustice is a powerful political tool that has often been used to justified worse injustices.
Please don't go there. Please don't continue to use the argument that Muhammad's injustices can be justified because it allowed Muslims to spread his theological ideas. Nobody needed to die or to be enslaved so that theological ideas that were already widespread could take root in Arabia.
Hi N-B,
It's a seriously odd situation, wherein you use my words ("will become") as a means to not only attack the Prophet Muhammad, but attempt to co-sign me to this deception.
I don't know if you believe what you stated, or it's simply a tactic.
You want to project an image of the Prophet (God's peace be upon him) as an oppressor, however, not everyone agrees with you. The US Supreme court depicted him as a great lawgiver, and even have a statue to commemorate this. https://www.soundvision.com/article/prophet-muhammad-honored-by-the-us-supreme-court-as-one-of-the-greatest-lawgivers-of-the
The following video, starting at 3:19, has another quote regarding the Prophet
https://www.facebook.com/FastTalkFross/videos/1128510440824668
The video's citation of Non Muslim writers ends at 8:07, from a lecture called "Misconceptions on Prophet Muhammad".
On a general note, you tend to share the notion that the Prophet was a war-monger, here's Hamza Yusuf, also quoting Karen Armstrong, on that notion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmcQOb_FPO4
"Not everyone agrees with me". True. Not everyone agrees with you, either. Not everyone agrees with Karen Armstrong or Hamza Yusuf or whatever it was that the US Supreme Court Justices understood at that particular time.
How do people settle a question like this? Only one way ... with evidence.
I have cited evidence over and over again ... the expulsion of the Jewish tribes, the slaughter of not ONE but TWO tribes, the attack and torture at Khaybar, the taking of women into captivity including at least two taken into Muhammad's own household and many more crimes. These incidents are documented in the Sirah, in the Hadith and are often supported by verses in the Qur'an itself. We have to rely on the earliest and most authentic evidence as possible, not the opinions of later writers who may have agendas that we do not understand.
What have you offered in response? First of all, you don't refute that any of these acts of aggression were carried out by Muhammad and his forces. You claim, as a moral principle, for example, that it is sufficient to say that there was a report from a spy that an attack was being planned, even when it becomes obvious from the accounts that no attack was being planned.
You also claim, as a moral principle, that Muhammad's aggression was justified because it "allowed for further, long term success." Since you raised the example of the Spanish Inquisition, perhaps we should look at it from this same perspective: The Spanish did have further, long term success following the Inquisition. They largely rid Spain of the "treacherous" non-Christian elements from then until the present time. The Spanish spread Christianity to South and Central America and parts of North America where it remains dominant to this day. They also spread Christianity to far-reaching places, such as the Philippines. The Spanish Inquisition was as "successful" as the earlier Muslim conquests had been.
Do you see the perilous position you put yourself in when you adopt an "ends justifies the means" excuse for Crimes Against Humanity?
A handful of people claiming WITHOUT EVIDENCE that Muhammad attempted to resolve disputes peacefully prior to raising an army holds no sway in such an argument. If such evidence exists, then cite the evidence.
In the past, you've raised the Conquest of Mecca as an example. However, the simple facts are:
1. Muhammad did proceed to Mecca with an army,
2. The Meccans sought a peaceful resolution and sent a delegation to meet with Muhammad. However, it was Muhammad who refused to meet with the delegation and to find a peaceful resolution.
The fact that the Meccans surrendered without a fight does not contradict the view that Muhammad was a war-monger any more than the surrender of Paris to the Nazis contradicts the view that Hitler was a war-monger.
There is similar evidence that the Battle of Badr could have been avoided had Muhammad sought a peaceful resolution.
Frankly, I feel truly blessed not to be in your position in this argument. I'm far too fond of the truth!
Hello N-B.
Regarding the Prophet, peace be upon him, I cited Karen Armstrong (whose views admittedly often clash with my own), because, on balance, she is a scholar, with a great degree of research, with documented citations, easily found within her books.
It is worth noting that she is not a Muslim.
It is an odd comparison, the Catholic conquest of Spain, and the Prophet's entry into Makkah.
The former initiated massive oppression, some of which you have mentioned in the above comment, whereas the latter has the Prophet actually tell those people, people who had been doing war crimes against him for years "No reproach on you today". The latter sought healing, whereas the former sought the exact opposite.
I came across this today, composed by Safi Kaskas. Shared with permission:
(1)
Banu Qurayza
A war story has been circulating since the first biography was written about the Prophet by Ibn Ishaq around 765 CE. It is about Banu Qurayza’s betrayal of their treaty and the consequent events following their defeat.
It is necessary to reexamine stories like this, at this time, to verify their historical reliability, by verifying the author’s use of a reliable chain of narrators that is acceptable. Whether the events contradict the Qur’an the most reliable source we have or whether they contradict reliable Hadith. Whether they contradict common sense and the logic of events based on reliable sources.
In 627 CE, the idol worshiper Meccans, and their allies besieged Medina in the Battle of the Trench[1], intending to destroy it. When they were not able to continue the siege they decided to withdraw[2]. The Jewish Qurayza tribe had a treaty with the city of Medina and its leader Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). They pledged to fight with Medina and not to support its enemies[3]. The Qurayza however, betrayed the treaty by allying themselves with the Meccans and the other attacking tribes, aiming to attack Muslims from behind while the other attackers attack from the front. Once the Battle of the Trench ended, the tribe was besieged by the Muslims. The tribe decided to fight and after a short battle they were defeated and they surrendered. The story here gets murky and hard to logically accept, for Ibn Ishaq’s account talks about thousands of men, women, and children who were taken prisoners and marched to Medina where they were kept overnight in the house of a Muslim woman. The next morning, they were charged with treason by a judge accepted by both parties, Sa'd ibn Mu'adh. According to Sa'd's verdict the male combatants were to be killed, while all the women and children were to be taken enslaved[4].
(2)
The details of this controversial story come to us mainly from Ibn Ishaq’s Sira, where he claimed hundreds of prisoners were killed (between 400 to 900) without seting any reliable list of authorities
The most widely discussed criticism of his sīra was that of his contemporary jurist Mālik ibn Anas. Mālik rejected the stories of Muhammad and the Jews of Medina on the ground that they were taken solely based on accounts by sons of Jewish converts. These same stories have also been denounced as "odd tales" (gharāʾib) later by ibn Hajar al-Asqalani.
The 14th-century historian al-Dhahabī, using hadith terminology, noted that in addition to the forged (makdhūb) poetry, Ibn Isḥāq filled his sīra with many munqaṭiʿ (broken chain of narration) and Munkar (suspect narrator) reports.[5]
According to the Qur’an’s account of this event, there is no mention of captives being killed, nor was a number mentioned in the most reliable Hadith books of Bukhari and Muslim.
The only reliable source we have is Hamad Ibn Zunajwaih (797 – 862 C.E.) in his Book Al Amwal using the narration of Ibn Shahab who mentioned the event and stated that forty men were killed[6].
I reject the Banu Qurayza alleged massacre (600 to 900 men killed) because it is opposed to what the Qur’an tells us about it, the Qur’anic rule concerning hostages, what I know about the Prophet as a leader, and the later events that took place.
The earliest work referring to the alleged Banu Qurayza massacre is that of Ibn Ishaq Biography of the Prophet. It is also the most detailed and the most widely quoted. Later historians drew, and in most cases depending on his account of the events. But Ibn Ishaq died in 767 C.E. or 145 years after the event in question.
Some later historians indicated that they are not really convinced, but they were not apparently prepared to do further investigations. One authority, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, however, denounced this story and the other related ones as "odd tales". A contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, Imam Malik (711 – 795), the jurist denounces Ibn Ishaq outright as "a liar" and "an impostor" just for transmitting such stories.
reject that story for the following reasons:
1- The entire story of hostages being killed is against the Qur'anic rule regarding prisoners of war. The Qur’an specifies that they should be granted their freedom or else they are to be allowed to be ransomed. “Then, once they are defeated, bind them firmly. Then either release them by grace, or by ransom, until the war is over.” (Q 47:4) It is inconceivable that the Prophet (pbuh) will kill his prisoners against the Qur’anic rules.
2- During a battle the Qur’an states that if your enemy surrender and ask for your protection, you should grant it and make sure that he gets home safely. “If any of those [fighting] idolaters seeks your protection, protect him so that he will be able to hear the words of God. Take him to a place where he is safe because they are people who do not know the truth. (9:06)
3- If an enemy combatant chose peace and showed interest in saving himself, you should stop fighting. The Qur’an says: “So, believers, be careful when you fight in God’s path, and use your discernment. Do not say to someone who offers you a greeting of peace, “You are not a believer, aspiring for worldly goods. God has plenty of gains for you. You were once in the same position, but God has been gracious to you. Therefore, use your discernment. God is always aware of what you do.” (4:94)
4- The reference to the story in the Qur'an is extremely brief, and there is no indication whatsoever of the killing of a large number of people.
5- The prisoners of war in Islam turn into wayfarers after they are set free and they have rights. According to the Qur’an: “They feed the needy, the orphan, and the prisoner, for the love of Him. (76:08) [Saying], "We feed you for the sake of God. We want neither compensation nor gratitude from you.” (76:09)
6- The rule in Islam is to punish only those who were responsible for the sedition.
7- The story said that Sa'd's verdict was to kill the male warriors. Hence, to kill such a large number of people, including innocent men, is diametrically opposed to Islamic justice mainly the basic principles based on the verse. "No soul shall bear another's burden." It is obvious in the story that the leaders were were well known.
8- It is unlikely that the Banu Qurayza should be slaughtered when the other Jewish tribes who surrendered before Banu Qurayza and after them were treated leniently and were allowed to go. Indeed Abu Abu`Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam relates in his Kitab al-Amwal that when Khaybar felt to the Muslims there were among the residents a particular family or clan who had distinguished themselves by excessive unseemly abuse of the Prophet. Yet in that hour the Prophet addressed them in words which are no more than a rebuke: "Sons of Abu al-Huqayq (he said to them) I have known the extent of your hostility to God and to His apostle, yet that does not prevent me from treating you as I treated your brethren." That was after the surrender of Banu Qurayza.
9- If indeed so many hundreds of people had actually been put to death it would not be in the market-place where new trenches had to be dug when a large trench was already in existence out of town. The battle is called the Battle of the Trench.
10- Had this slaughter actually happened, jurists would have adopted it as a precedent. In fact, exactly the opposite has been the case. The attitude of jurists, and their rulings, have been more according to the Qur'anic rule in the verse, "No soul shall bear another's burden."
The Islamic tradition knows a number of descendants from the Qurayẓa by name, most famous among them being Muḥammad b. Kaʿb al-Quraẓī, who died in Medina around 120/738. Others include his father Kaʿb ibn Asad ibn Sulaym and his brother Isḥāq, as well as ʿAṭiyya al-Quraẓī, al-Zubayr ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn al-Zabīr, ʿAlī ibn Rifāʿa and the progeny of Abū Malik al-Quraẓī. This suggests that… several male persons of the Qurayẓa did survive the conflict in Medina[7].
[1] Quran Surah Al-Ahzab (33:25-26)
[2] Ibid.
[3] Sira Ibn Hisham 1/51
[4] Sahih Muslim (Book 019, Number 4370) At Tabari, Tarikh Al Umam wal Muluk 2/586
[5] Al-Dhahabī, Mīzān al-iʿtidāl fī naqd al-rijāl, at "Muhammad ibn Ishaq"
[6] Al Amwal 461
[7] Schöller, Marco. “Qurayẓa (Banū al-).” Encyclopedia of the Qurʾān.
(The above posts have been shared, with permission, from the author, Safi Kaskas. They reflect his views and understanding of the accounts.)
Hello Waheed. Thank you for bring this article by Safi Kaskas to my attention.
We have been discussing the fate of the Banu al Mustaliq and this article is discussing the Banu Qurayza, however, there is much in common between the two stories and I will focus on those elements which they share.
I have tried to be clear over and over again that we should view these as stories and not as accurate historical accounts. This is clearly Safi Kaskas's view, as well.
The question I have repeatedly asked about these stories is NOT "why did Muhammad act in these ways?" but RATHER "why do Muslims SAY that Muhammad acted in these ways?"
I have pointed out that these stories portray Muhammad carrying out heinous criminal acts. Safi Kaskas is supporting this view by pointing out actions which are described in Ibn Ishaq as being carried out by Muhammad that are in direct violation of specific Qur'anic rules.
I have more to say about Safi Kaskas's article, but first can we finally agree on ONE thing:
The "Muhammad" of ibn Ishaq's stories is a criminal and that Muslims should not be repeating these stories as if they were accurate accounts of the prophet Muhammad's life.
Hello NB,
You requested a comment on your reply above, but I am unsure of what sort of comment are you looking for, because in the past I have explained that there are many things in the literature which I don't accept, due to learning different details, methodological problems, etc...
Muslims are not perfect, there has been inaccurate things that have found their ways into the books, forcing us to reexamine those things. The above article was one example.
BTW I invited the author to post on this blog, and perhaps he will find the time to do so. My time is extremely short, thus it becomes months before I can even share a comment.
There are two very different perspectives on Muhammad's biography which are being offered.
I would be happy to engage with Safi Kaskas and better understand his perspective. As I understand him, he is acknowledging that there are incidents described in the biography that do, in fact, portray Muhammad as a criminal. However, in Kaskas' belief-based view, Muhammad would never engage in such criminal activity, therefore the stories must not be true. This raises new questions for me, however, one important consequence is that those who share this view are able to identity stories of Muhammad's actions which absolutely should not be cited as examples for Muslims to follow. In my opinion, this is a very important step for Muslims to take and it surprises me that the internet does not abound with articles justifying this approach.
The other perspective is that the stories are true, but the actions that Muhammad took were justified and therefore were not criminal. This seems to be the mainstream view.
These views are not mutually exclusive. It may be that there are some incidents that some view as criminal and others view as justified.
I would be happy to refrain from raising those incidents once we could agree that they were criminal. Asking whether or not an historical action was criminal is a very different question from asking whether or not the story is factual and I think we ought to be able to agree that some of the stories as told in ibn Ishaq describe criminal actions.
Post a Comment