The expression "Allahu Akbar" or "God is Great" is often used and sometimes even abused. It is very important to not only recite but to live by.
This Khutbah explores mainly the importance of this expression, and serves as food for thought for the viewers.
28 comments:
Non Believer
said...
Hello Waheed. As I've mentioned before, I am not permitted to respond to your posts on whyislam, so I will respond to you here.
You wrote: "To answer your query, it can be said fairly that the history of the descendants of Issac, as you describe them, was one of continuous behavior and thinking that was contrary to the Divine will. In other words, they were more in need of this process than others.
Jesus in the New Testament, peace be on him, accuses them of being community that kills Prophets. Even if we just used the NT ( and the OT as well), it is enough evidence to show that they were in need of Divine Guidance but they seemingly kept on rejecting it whenever it came to them."
I was intending to write at length about how offensive this anti-Jewish polemic is, however, while researching the topic I found that a man with more authority than me has already done the work: https://www3.nd.edu/~reynolds/index_files/jews%20as%20killers%20of%20the%20prophets%20final.pdf
" on the basis of the Hebrew Bible the prominence of this theme in the Qur’an hardly makes sense. None of the great prophets in the Hebrew Bible are killed by the Israelites."
Something that I think can be said fairly is that Muslims have rejected their Divine Guidance and, at this time in history, are in far greater need of this process than others.
Muslims are murdering Muslims; Muslims are murdering children. All of this is according to their Divine Guidance? Why single out the Jews for alleged and ancient crimes when the Muslims of today are guilty of failing to heed the words of prophets? How many Muslim sages who have tried to bring justice to their communities have the Muslims themselves killed?
Heal thyself! Everything you say about the descendants of Isaac can also be said about the Muslims.
[1] This particular post ( on this blog) has no relation to the excerpt from another website, it does not make sense to really discuss that on this blogpost.
[2] In the quote you cited from WI, I actually allude to the New Testament, not necessarily the Qur'an.
[3] More importantly, you seem to accuse me of penning a "anti-Jewish polemic". The only thing I did was answer a query.
[4] I did read the link you shared, but I found it to be self-contradictory, in the sense that while it cites both canonical and non canonical sources, it seems to acknowledge that the scriptures and texts accepted by Jews and Christians has in it the issue of killing of Prophets, it seems to suggest that those scriptures borrowed from the non-authoritative sources. In any case, the record of scripture is what is being presented, and, since neither God nor scripture has any baring on you, being as you do not believe in God as a premise, then of course Prophets, be they killed or die naturally, would likewise be a false premise. Since those three are false premises in the first place, in your thinking, then there is no reason even to cite it as a means to criticize Islam/Muslims.
[5] As for what you said about Muslims, sure, Muslims have problems, and if a person wants to be critical of Muslims in the same words as the Qur'an using for Banu Israael, be my guest.
As I said, the WI post was an answer to a particular question.
First of all, let me remind you that I've never said that I do not believe in God, nor am I critical of someone for believing in God. Belief in a man and his book is quite a different matter.
What you said (fairly?) is that the Israelites were more in need of "this process" than others. What do you base that on? When Muslims single out a group of people this way, it implies that there was something peculiarly evil about them. Yet, you provide no evidence. The question I continue to ask is "why?" Why did Muhammad single out this group? It seems obviously political.
It sounds really terrible when you say that Jews were prophet killers. This sounds just like the rhetoric we hear these days about immigrants being murderers and rapists. We must consider the facts.
It appears to be true that the Jews recount a handful of stories of "prophets" who were killed during the 2500 years before Muhammad. However, of the stories I've found, they are stories of social reformers being killed by powerful rulers. You say that these killings are "enough evidence to show that they [the Jews] were in need of Divine Guidance but they seemingly kept on rejecting it whenever it came to them." But what we have are a small number of stories of when an heroic figure spoke truth to power and died for it. There is nothing in these stories that tells me that the general population was continually in need of Divine Guidance and kept rejecting it.
These few killings happened centuries before Muhammad and for him to use them to imply that the Jews of his day were in need of "Divine Guidance" is reprehensible. For modern day Muslims to continue to smear Jews this way is abhorrent, especially when you consider the dissidents who were killed by Muhammad himself and by tyrannical rulers beginning with the earliest Caliphs and including brutal Muslim dictators during my lifetime.
There is nothing "fair" about your statements and the ongoing repetition of this misleading narrative only continues to drive Jews and Muslims apart. As I've pointed out before, Muslims could be encouraged to pray together with Jews and to learn to praise God in the way that the Jews do. That is a path forward; not accusing them of being "prophet killers".
In the past you seem to have indicated that you did not believe in God. In any case, for a Muslim, belief in "a man" and "a book" (i e Muhammad and the Qur'an) is that which points us towards God.
You have to look at the broad picture in the Qur'an. It is critical of Jews, no doubt, but it also says that they are not all alike, that amongst them are people so honest that they would give back a treasure they had been entrusted with. Moreover, the Qur'an allows Muslims social and even marriage ties with them. I would also like to share that the Qur'an is sometimes critical of the Muslims, of Christians, and others.
You mention about the killing of Prophets, admitting that 'some" were killed. That is what precisely the Qur'an says. It also says that men of truth would likewise be killed unjustly. These are true assertions, even by your own admission.
What is "reprehensible" is assuming that none are in need of Divine guidance. All are in need of that. If you are now asserting belief in God, you should then agree that Jews, Muslims, everyone, is in need of Divine guidance.
Also, I don't get this obsession with making Muslims pray the way Jews pray. You have mentioned this before during our discussion on Soorah Al-Faatihah. No one says that people of today are guilty of their ancestor's issues. In any case, Qur'an does not stereotype.
[1] "No one says that people are guilty of their ancestor's issues."
But you did say that. If a handful of people were guilty of certain crimes over a 2500 year period, you cannot fairly say that this was a "continuous behaviour". Quite to the contrary, this proves that these people were generally law abiding. Furthermore, you insist on ignoring that the context of these few incidents matters. Without this important context, you cannot fairly say that the Qur'an "precisely says" anything meaningful about this subject.
Would it be "said fairly" that the history of Islam "is one of continuous behavior and thinking that is contrary to the Divine will"?
[2] You make reference to Q 5:5 and Q 3:75. Since I've already pointed out to you that these verses do not imply what you claim, it is more than disingenuous for you to attempt to repeat this deception. It is ironic that Muslims often accuse non-Muslims of removing context from Islamic texts in order to twist their meaning when, what I have witnessed, is that it is Muslims who are the ones most commonly doing this. You shouldn't argue with me if you aren't able to do so honestly.
[3] I am not obsessed and I'm not trying to make Muslims do anything. Jews declare: "The LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Deut 6:4) while Muslims declare: "There is no god but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God." It is clear that Jews cannot make the Islamic declaration, but why do Muslims believe that people can only believe in this God through Muhammad? The Qur'an is clear that Allah is the same god as the Jewish God and that the Jews knew God centuries before Muhammad appeared on the scene. Hence, it cannot be disputed that to know God a belief in Muhammad is unnecessary.
[1] As I mentioned, the Qur'an does not generalize. It does distinguish between honest elements amongst what it calls "people of scripture" and those who carry the behaviour and legacy that is actually the opposite of that. If you want to ask the hypothetical question "Has Islam been acting contrary to Divine commands", you can ask that question and we can talk about it. It is worth mentioning that if you were to speak to Muslim activists over the last 100 years, probably the majority would say that the Muslims have serious problems, and that those problems stem from disregarding the core teachings of the religion.
[2] I can't recall you refuting my reference to verses about the allowance of marriage and social ties with Jews and Christians. Whatever you think of those texts is irrelevant when one considers how the Muslims understand the text. Muslims understand - for example Q 5:5, as being a text which allows marriage relations with people of scripture. It is true that there is a restriction ( one which is sometimes disputed, even within the realm of scholarship), i.e. Muslim women don't marry Muslim men, but even that does not negate the fact that we see this verse as making a marriage tie with Ahlil Kitaab as being in fact Islamically lawful. As for Q 3:75, which I alluded to, read it again. It does not have anything controversial therein, indeed, it acknowledges that there are very honest people among the Jews and Christians.
[3] Towards the end of your third comment, you ask a very important question. I admit that it is largely irrelevant to the things we have been discussing, nonetheless it is a good question when you says "why do Muslims believe that people can only believe in this God through Muhammad..?" Actually belief in God is a necessary prerequisite before even entertaining that Muhammad was Allah's messenger. When one declares the second part of that declaration, one is acknowledging [1] That God has sent communication to Muhammad, the one to whom the Qur'an was sent. Therefore, it is an acknowledgment of the position of the Qur'an. [2] It puts Muhammad along with the Prophets known through the Biblical tradition. In other words, in the Qur'an you see Muhammad alongside the other Prophets carrying on the same message as the Shema you referenced in your post above. "The declaration of Allah is that only He deserves worship, this is the declaration of the angels, those with knowledge, standing forth for justice.." {Q 3:18) Muhammad carries the same message, as seen in the above Quranic verse.
A person can "know God" without referring to Muhammad, but God sent forth Muhammad, with a message of reminder { Q 15:9). If a person believes in God and encounters the message of Muhammad, he or she should be open to investigate it. If they don't accept it, that is their business and their choice, but if a person believes in God they should consider what is proclaimed as being from that God. May Allah's peace be on all the Prophets and messengers, and may we be guided by God.
Here is a post that discusses implications of the idea of monotheism. It's old, but relevant to this discussion. If you have any comments on that one, do post them in the bottom of that article.
Waheed: "the Qur'an does not generalize. It does distinguish between honest elements amongst what it calls "people of scripture" and those who carry the behaviour and legacy that is actually the opposite of that."
I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The Qur'an does not generalize? What does that mean? And then isn't your statement exactly the sort of poor generalization that I'm criticising?
Shouldn't I expect an eternal Book of Truth to correctly identify exactly what distinguishes these things?
Waheed: "It is true that there is a restriction ( one which is sometimes disputed, even within the realm of scholarship), i.e. Muslim women don't marry [non-]Muslim men."
Sometimes disputed? How is that possible? No, the Qur'an is clear. So the question that a critical reader asks is "Why is this law framed asymmetrically?" Why did Muhammad permit some mixed marriages, but not others? Is there a moral or social issue or is it political? I would counsel my non-religious child that a marriage with a very religious person from a very religious family could lead to serious social problems for them, but it would be the same advice for a son or a daughter. Only the politics of the role of men and women in Arab society could justify this distinction.
Waheed: "As for Q 3:75, which I alluded to, read it again."
No, you read it again, all the way to the end. You seem to see only one sentence, but I see four. The last is particular important: "And they speak untruth about Allah while they know." To be clear, Muhammad is accusing the entire People of the Scriptures of lying about God. However, I accuse only Muhammad of doing this while I withhold blaming all Muslims. It's a big difference.
Waheed: "if a person believes in God they should consider what is proclaimed as being from that God"
Proclaimed by whom? As I've stated many times, we must judge for ourselves what to believe and what not to believe. The quality of the message is what we must judge, not the assertions made by the messenger.
" I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The Qur'an does not generalize? What does that mean? And then isn't your statement exactly the sort of poor generalization that I'm criticising?"
Perhaps a better term would be stereotyping. The Qur'an does not do that. It will say a critical assessment and follow it up by saying such things like "They are not all alike".
" Sometimes disputed? How is that possible? No, the Qur'an is clear. So the question that a critical reader asks is "Why is this law framed asymmetrically?" Why did Muhammad permit some mixed marriages, but not others? Is there a moral or social issue or is it political? I would counsel my non-religious child that a marriage with a very religious person from a very religious family could lead to serious social problems for them, but it would be the same advice for a son or a daughter. Only the politics of the role of men and women in Arab society could justify this distinction"
The Quranic text actually does not directly say that Muslim women can't marry Non Muslim men, that is why it is sometimes disputed in this age. I believe in and follow the "distinction" due to seeing that males and females are different. That is simply the reality of human nature, another discussion for another time. Nonetheless, Muslims agree that there is an allowance to marry (and in the verse, dining with, i.e social ties) Jewish and Christian women, even though the Qur'an is critical of some of their respective beliefs.
" No, you read it again, all the way to the end. You seem to see only one sentence, but I see four. The last is particular important: "And they speak untruth about Allah while they know." To be clear, Muhammad is accusing the entire People of the Scriptures of lying about God. However, I accuse only Muhammad of doing this while I withhold blaming all Muslims. It's a big difference."
Your assertion is not correct, it is not even believed by the most conservative of voices within the scholarship. Let's see the whole verse again "And among the people of scripture is those, if entrusted with a Qintaar (treasure), will return it to you, and amongst them are those, if entrusted with a coin, they won't return it except if you keep standing over him. This is because they assert "there is no blame over us when dealing with the Ummiyyeen". And they are attributing to God a lie, knowingly."
This is the verse. The context clearly tells us that with these dishonest types, they create a justification for cheating. The context shows that it is contrasting the honest from the dishonest.The cheating types will "lie about God knowingly" in the sense that they may use God and religious terminologies to justify their behavior.
If this is not enough, let's have a read of what a conservative ( I cite this voice just to give more evidence) interpreter of the Qur'an has to say.
The commentator heads his comments under the title "Praising good qualities in some Non Muslims is correct" and then says "In this verse, some people have been praised for their trustworthiness...refers to the people of the book in the absolute sense including Non Muslims as well, then the situation generates the question: When no act of a Kaafir is acceptable, why praise them?"
He continues "...The purpose is to point out something good, even if it be that of a Kafir...this statement also makes it clear that Islam does not resort to prejudice and short-sightedness. On the contrary, it shows open-hearted appreciation of the excellence of even its adversary in respect of his achievements.." ( Ma'riful Qur'an by Mufti Muhammad Shafi, volume 2, page 98, Karachi 1998 edition).
Ibn Katheer's commentary has a long discussion in its entry on this verse, but in the part of the verse which says "there is no blame on us when dealing with the Ummiyyeen" has it that "they would say 'there is no obligation on us in religion which prevents us from devouring the wealth of the arabs.."
" Proclaimed by whom? As I've stated many times, we must judge for ourselves what to believe and what not to believe. The quality of the message is what we must judge, not the assertions made by the messenger."
The "quality of the message" and "assertions made by the messenger" are synonymous expressions, there is no reason to view them differently. Meaning, judge the message, judge the messenger, the one bringing the message.
Prophet Muhammad was-even before the revelation, seen in Makkah as a person of extreme honesty. It was his personality and goodness which was the initial attraction for many.
One of the accounts has it that there was a woman who was so opposed to the Prophet's message that she would do things like throw trash on a path he ( The Prophet) would walk. One day, she fell ill, and upon hearing this, he went to her and took care of her till her health returned. She accepted Islam as a result.
"...The purpose is to point out something good, even if it be that of a Kafir...this statement also makes it clear that Islam does not resort to prejudice and short-sightedness. On the contrary, it shows open-hearted appreciation of the excellence of even its adversary in respect of his achievements.." ( Ma'riful Qur'an by Mufti Muhammad Shafi, volume 2, page 98, Karachi 1998 edition). These sound like the words of a bigot trying to convince himself he is not a bigot! Just look how he uses the word "Kafir". Q 3:75 is describing an honest, Jewish man, yet, this Mufti has no trouble calling him a rejecter of God. Do I really need to keep pointing out to you just how offensive Islam is toward non-Muslims and, in particular, how offensive this word is when it is used like this?
My answer to the question "When no act of a Kaafir is acceptable, why praise them?" is unequivocal: A Kaafir (an amoral person) should not be praised. Just look at the consequences we see in the world today when we turn a blind eye to amoral behaviour and look for reasons to praise such as these!
And nice story about the sick woman. As Muslims like to say: Allah knows what is true. However, Muslims admit that many were not as fortunate as this woman and were murdered because of their opposition to the Prophet's message. An act of kindness toward a sick woman does not expiate the murders of so many.
It seems that the throwing of trash in his path was the worst sort of indignity that Muhammad suffered during his period of "extreme persecution" in Mecca. There's a hadith (I don't have time to look it up right now, but I'm sure you know it) where it says that the worst that happened is that once a Meccan was so enraged by Muhammad's insults that he throttled him in order to silence him. That's it! That's the extreme persecution that you use to justify Muhammad's acts of violence against the Meccans, beginning with the murder of a caravan leader at Nakhla and followed by so many more.
" These sound like the words of a bigot trying to convince himself he is not a bigot! Just look how he uses the word "Kafir". Q 3:75 is describing an honest, Jewish man, yet, this Mufti has no trouble calling him a rejecter of God. Do I really need to keep pointing out to you just how offensive Islam is toward non-Muslims and, in particular, how offensive this word is when it is used like this?"
This is changing the subject on your part here. May I remind you that initially you disputed the assertion I shared regarding the Qur'an saying positive things even about Non Muslims, and quoting even a rather conservative voice's commentary on the Qur'an, in which the author acknowledged that the Qur'an is saying something positive about a member of another religious community. Your reply focused on one word that he used ( a word which, in the verse under discussion, is not used). Next, you say that "Islam is offensive to non Muslims". If a person is offended by another person's religious beliefs, there's nothing to really be done about that.
" Muslims admit that many were not as fortunate as this woman and were murdered because of their opposition to the Prophet's message. An act of kindness toward a sick woman does not expiate the murders of so many."
It is interesting that on one hand you are willing ( as are many who have negative feelings about Islam) to reject any positive report about the Prophet yet accept anything which could possibly paint a bad picture of the Prophet and Islam in general.
Muslim scholars tend to reject some of the reports as outright false or simply exaggerated. This is admittedly a more scholarly or academic discussion as to which reports are false and which are true, but consider that the Prophet's personality of forgiveness, light, mercy and God-awareness was very attractive, and even after his death -and may God's peace be on him- it continued to gain strength and the Muslims developed an entire civilization. In other words, Muhammad the Prophet was not the villain that he is portrayed to be by detractors.
" It seems that the throwing of trash in his path was the worst sort of indignity that Muhammad suffered during his period of "extreme persecution" in Mecca. There's a hadith (I don't have time to look it up right now, but I'm sure you know it) where it says that the worst that happened is that once a Meccan was so enraged by Muhammad's insults that he throttled him in order to silence him. That's it! That's the extreme persecution that you use to justify Muhammad's acts of violence against the Meccans, beginning with the murder of a caravan leader at Nakhla and followed by so many more."
There was much more than this. There are many incidents, both short as well as long term. The Muslims were- basically- thrown out of Makkah for a while, placed in starving conditions, to the point they would tie big rocks around their stomach to deal with the hunger. Muslims from weaker backrounds were actually killed, some tortured to death. The details are available in such works as those mentioned in previous discussions. Moreover, you seem to imagine that the Prophet was very powerful, an equal foe to the Quraysh, when the reality is is that for much of the time, the Quraysh always outnumbered the Muslims. Yet, despite setbacks, the teachings of The Prophet prevailed. The Qur'an puts it like this "They want to blow out God's light with their mouths, yet God seeks to perfect his light, regardless of the hatred of the rejectors"
"offensive toward" does not mean the same thing as "offended by". Please learn the difference.
I really don't think that you can just brush past that word and pretend it isn't there. If I told you that I thought my wife's "raghead doctor" was a very competent specialist, you should be appalled.
Yes, because all of the sources are Muslim sources, I expect the sources to be biased. If the sources say something which non-Muslims see as negative, it signals that Muslims do not see anything wrong with what is reported, otherwise it wouldn't have been passed down. When we write our own history, it tends to be one-sided. On the other hand, positive reports need to be evaluated in terms of plausibility and giving consideration to the motivation for preserving the report. There are many stories which are just too implausible to be taken seriously.
It's astonishing to me that you make a false equivalence between helping a sick woman and murdering numerous opponents. How can you try to brush off such a difference, and then try to blame me for my bias? I don't have any predisposition to be anti-Muslim; I'm just reading the stories provided by Islamic tradition and evaluating them as impartially as I can.
Hitler did great things for Germany and Stalin for the USSR, do you praise them? George Bernard Shaw praised them and compared Muhammad to them, something you quoted out of context. I criticized you for using Shaw as an example of a Westerner who admired Muhammad, but you never answered me.
If you need a model of "forgiveness, light, mercy and God-awareness", then there are many people who exemplified these without the sort of violence and oppression that was continuous during Muhammad's rule in Medina. What would Muhammad's victims say about whether or not Muhammad was a villain? ...2
Again, you gloss over the murder at Nakhla, the start of the violence between Muslims and non-Muslims, an armed robbery. Oh, I'm sure you'll point out the murder of Sumayyah, a story with no chain of authority and very little plausibility. The crimes of the Meccans against the Muslims are listed in Q 2:217: "They ask you about the sacred month - about fighting therein. Say, "Fighting therein is great [sin], but averting [people] from the way of Allah and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid al-Haram and the expulsion of its people therefrom are greater [evil] in the sight of Allah . And fitnah is greater than killing." And they will continue to fight you until they turn you back from your religion if they are able. And whoever of you reverts from his religion [to disbelief] and dies while he is a disbeliever - for those, their deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and those are the companions of the Fire, they will abide therein eternally." Obviously, if there had been a prior murder, it would have been placed front and centre here and would have been used to justify the murder of a Meccan. However, instead, Muhammad establishes the principle that murder is justified as retaliation for these lesser crimes.
My view is that the story of Sumayyah was fabricated in order to justify the killing of Abu Jahl, another injustice for which the Muslims needed an excuse. Do agree that at the Battle of Badr, using modern standards and an unbiased prospective, the Meccans' cause was a just cause while the Muslims' cause was not? The Meccans were protecting their trade and avenging the murder at Nakhla. The Muslims had no justification.
No, I do not imagine that the Muslims were at all powerful before they gained strength in Medina for a few years. The reaction of the Meccans was provoked by Muhammad repeatedly insulting the Meccans' religion, not by a political threat. This is documented in Ibn Ishaq and Bukhari.
And then you end your post with a verse with the "K-word" Who do you imagine it refers to other than honest people, like the Jew in Q 3:75, who reject Muhammad's claim of being a prophet? This is made clear in the verse that follows the one that you quoted.
" "offensive toward" does not mean the same thing as "offended by". Please learn the difference.
I really don't think that you can just brush past that word and pretend it isn't there. If I told you that I thought my wife's "raghead doctor" was a very competent specialist, you should be appalled."
I have no idea of this whole "offensive toward" and "offended by" assertion you are making. In terms of offensive language, let us remember that the Qur'an uses the term here ( Q 3:75) "people of scripture". It's not an offensive title at all!
" Yes, because all of the sources are Muslim sources, I expect the sources to be biased. If the sources say something which non-Muslims see as negative, it signals that Muslims do not see anything wrong with what is reported, otherwise it wouldn't have been passed down. When we write our own history, it tends to be one-sided. On the other hand, positive reports need to be evaluated in terms of plausibility and giving consideration to the motivation for preserving the report. There are many stories which are just too implausible to be taken seriously."
The traditional Muslim evaluation of texts, mainly within the hadeeth literature and historical reports to a lesser extent, has taken into consideration that there are reports which have been falsely attributed to the Prophet or to others. This situation even exists with Muslim historians.I don't know how I can explain this better. There were Muslim rulers who were cruel and tyrannical, and in order to justify their actions they would fabricate something.There were sectarian movements who would- either out of misplaced piety or a means to outargue another sect, fabricate reports and attribute them to the Prophet. Of course all of this is summarizing.
Also I notice that you cite Q 2:217, seemingly to justify your assertions about Islam/Muslims/Prophet Muhammad as being aggressors, yet there is another section that should be looked at, because that section would basically show your thesis to be incorrect.
22:39 Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory.
22:40 [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right – only because they say, “Our Lord is Allah.” And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.
Abu Jahl was killed during a battle, so I'm unsure of what you are trying to say. It's probably because we have so much gap in time for replies that, frankly, I forget or overlook.
The word "Kaafir" is a deeply nuanced word, and is not translated as simply "Non Muslim", because in the Qur'an it is used in connection with powerful, yet destructive, elements.
I don't know what "thesis" of mine that your are attempting to show to be "incorrect".
What is clear from every account is: 1. At this point in time, no Muslim had been killed by a non-Muslim. Q 2:217 would not say "fitnah is greater than killing" had there been a killing. 2. The Muslims intercepted the caravan at Nakhlah, infiltrated the encampment by disguising themselves as pilgrims and then initiated the hostilities all with the purpose of robbing the caravan. I have never seen an account that contradicts this sequence of events. Again, if the Muslims were acting in self defence, that would have been clear from Q 2:217.
Therefore, we know that the Muslims killed non-Muslims, but not with normally accepted justifications, namely, in retaliation for a killing or to save themselves from being killed.
My "thesis" is that if you view the incident objectively without regard to who the murderers were and who the victims were, you would agree that this was a criminal act and that the perpetrators deserved to be punished harshly. It is only because of bias and a very bigoted view, that Muslims are able to justify this horrifying crime.
In terms of Nakhlah, I think you have to remember that there had been many things which happened which preceded this, and Badr in general. You say that "no Muslim had been killed by a Non Muslim" which is simply not true. Muslims in Makkah had been facing many things, including killings. I think I mentioned previously Sumayya as an example, a Muslim woman who, along with her husband, had been brutally tortured and killed. If memory serves, you think that account is falsified.
Again, in terms of the life of the Prophet, do STUDY the biographies of the Prophet. I have suggested two works in the past, in particular (if you want many details and citations) the work "The Life of Muhammad" by Muhammad Husayn Haykal. Depending on internet articles here and there do not cut it when approaching the finer details and backround information.
Hello Waheed. Thank you for responding to this thread. There are several issues:
1. Establishing your position and the "main stream" position. You seem to think that I have not studied the biography of Muhammad. This is far from the truth. The problem is that I do not know what modern day Muslims consider to be authentic and "main stream". When I first encountered ibn Ishaq, I felt that modern Muslims would challenge many of his accounts. I've been surprised by how widely his accounts are supported by Muslim posters. I have also seen some of the explanations, however, until you cite these explanations, I cannot assume that you agree with these authors. Some of their views seem extreme. Even now that you cite Haykal, I still cannot assume that you agree with every position in his book. We cannot have a productive discussion until you've stated your position. I try to make my position clear; it is my position; I'm not cutting and pasting from some site somewhere.
2. Relying on evidence. You state that something "is simply not true" but you provide no evidence. I think by now you should have respect for the fact that I do actually spend considerable time seeking evidence to support by assertions. I have been studying the Qur'an and the life of Muhammad for years now and I would say that I have spent more time studying this subject than I spent studying for my university degrees so many years ago.
3. Muslims were killed in Makkah? Where is your evidence? There are several places in the Qur'an where the crimes of the Makkans are listed, and there is no mention of killings. Haykal has a chapter "The Malevolent Conduct of Quraysh" and there is no mention of killings. What is the basis for your charge other than a single uncorroborated anecdote? I don't wish to sound rude, but spreading lies about people is a serious transgression in any culture.
4. Fitnah is a greater crime than murder. Haykal's chapter "The First Raids and Skirmishes" (http://www.islam4theworld.net/Sirah/LifeMuhammadS/) is full of contradiction and this is the source of much misunderstanding. He says "All weapons used by the aggressors may be used against them." buts admits that the Quraysh "fighting" against Islam was a campaign of "propaganda". That said, killing was unjustified.
5. Hate crime. Most Westerners would see the incident at Nakhlah as a "hate crime". The victims were targeted because of where they came from; they themselves were not accused of any crime. They were carrying out their usual civilian life with no aggressive intentions. Some Westerners would go so far as to say that this was the first act of Islamic Terrorism. To get to that, we would have to establish that the motive of the killing was to disrupt Makkan trade by terrorizing the traders so that they would be afraid to continue.
[1] In terms of Ibn Is-haq, actually his reliability in terms of the Seerah (records or stories about the Prophet) has always been suspect. Haykal, in his preface to his biography of the Prophet, records many examples from the early period which raise doubts as to the accounts he gives. Martin Ling's biography of the Prophet is basically an English translation of Ibn Ishaq's work. It is this skepticism which led me to recommend in general the works of Haykal ( for a detailed study) and MMA ( for a brief introduction) and not Martin Lings.
[2] I have never seen anyone, academic or otherwise, challenge that the early Muslims were persecuted and often killed. Sumayyah bint Khayyat was the full name of the example I cited. If you do a simple search in the biographies or on the internet I'm sure you will come more information. In addition, do consider that had there been no persecution or oppression, a migration (first to Ethiopia, and then Madinah) would not have been needed.
[3] In terms of the Qur'an mention of the actions of the Quraysh, please take a look at 22:39 and 40. It says "Permission( to fight) is given to those on whom war is made, and because they are oppressed...those who are expelled from their homes unjustly simply because they assert "God is our Lord..". The Qur'an also says "Fight those who fight you.." ( Q 2:190). Moreover, the histories tell us very vividly the accounts of the killings of early Muslims, not to mention the attempts on the Prophet's own life. Perhaps a person can dispute one or two accounts, but to dismiss all of it as simply anecdotal is simply unreasonable.
[4] As for the citation from Haykal, I will reply to that later, when I have the sources in front of me, in order to share exact citations.
Thank you for your post and your reference to Haykal's work. With regards to chapter seven of his book "The Malevolent conduct of Quraysh", it states therein violence of all sorts as being directed against the Muslims in the period before the migration. Haykal phrases it thusly "...They thought that this negative policy of boycott, isolation and starvation would be more effective than the previous policy of harm and injury, though the latter was never stopped."(pg 115, 1995 edition).
In the previous chapters of the book you will find more reports about that early history. Torture, blockade, attempts to kill the Prophet when bribery would not work, all sorts of things.
In the same work, Haykal presents a summary of what happened at Nakhlah. Before sharing the details of that (which I shall summarize below), he writes under the heading "Islam and Fighting" the following:
" If, at that time, the Muhajirun felt justified in seizing the property of the Quraysh in retaliation for the latter's confiscation of their property when they emigrated..." (pg 208)
So we now have a context for what happened at Nakhlah, the summary of which is below.
[1] The Prophet sent a group out on reconnaissance.
[2] When they arrived, they found a Qurayshi caravan. In light of what had previously occurred (the seizing of the Muslims' own properties), the group, after much internal discussion, decided to seize a donkey of the Qurayshi caravan. They captured two prisoners, and during the encounter another Qurayshi was killed.
[3] When this group returned to Madinah, the Prophet himself was upset at this, because he had given no such orders. Moreover, this had happened during a time when the traditional Arab calendar disallowed fighting.
[4] This incident was used as a propaganda tool against the Muslims.
[5] When the Quraysh came to ransom their men, the Prophet agreed to a prisoner exchange, however one of the Quraysh ((Hakam ibn Al Kasyaan) decided to accept Islam, living in Madinah for the rest of his life.
[6] In terms of addressing the propaganda against the Muslims mentioned in item 4 above, the Qur'an addresses it in 2:217.
Hi Waheed. There are two main subjects here: 1. The persecution of the Muslims before the Hijra 2. The justification of the murder at Nakhla
I understand that the reliability of ibn Ishaq is suspect. Mostly I rely on some sort of confirmation in the Qur'an to substantiate accounts, whether Sirah or Hadith. I also rely on general human experience to judge if an account is plausible. With that in mind, there is no doubt that the early Muslims were persecuted. The escalation is described at length in Haykal. For example, he writes: Muhammad did take the initiative of attacking their gods. Hitherto he had not mentioned them at all. Now, hs attacked them directly. To the Quraysh this was so serious that it aroused deep hatred. This man had become a threatening problem to them demanding definite solution. Until then they had not taken him seriously but had ridiculed him. When they assembled in Dar al Nadwah or around the Ka'bah and its idols and happened to mention him, they would speak lightly of him and ridicule his cause. Now that he had directly attacked their gods, ridiculed their worship as well as their ancestors', severely condemned Hubal, al Lat, al `Uzza and all other idols, the matter called for' something more than ridicule. Is this plausible? What would happen today if a man appeared at the Ka'bah and proclaimed himself a prophet, attacked Islam, calling Muhammad a fraud and ridiculed their worship? Would the Meccans today allow this man to continue preaching in this way for 13 years? The persecution of this man would be far, far worse than what Muhammad faced. In other words, the Meccans of the 7th Century were much more tolerant than the Meccans today. The 7th Century Meccans were angry and hoped to silence Muhammad's insults, but they did not resort to murder. As I've said, I assert this based on the Qur'an itself which accuses the Quraysh of many things but, as far as I know, never accuses them of murder.
The Jews also said "God is our Lord" yet they were not expelled from their homes, that is, not until the Muslims came. The pagans and the Jews were more tolerant than the Muslims. This is clear.
Let's look at the legal principles related to Nakhlah: 1. Some people were forced to leave some property behind when they fled as refugees. Do they have a legal right to seize property of others who happen to be from the place they fled from? 2. If a refugee murders someone from the place from which he fled, is the fact that he had been forced to flee sufficient justification for the murder?
One other question: What was the "propaganda"? Isn't it a simple statement of fact that a Qurayshi was killed by Muslims posing as pilgrims during a holy month?
(1) The thing is is that the Makkans did resort to murder and a campaign with many facets therein, which included attempts at bribery, murder, persecution, and the like. Read the history of Bilal ibn Rabah, read about 'Ammar, read about Sumayyah, among others.
(2) The issue with Madinan Jews "expulsions" had to do with acts of treason. Indeed, one of the first actions of the Prophet was to establish what is sometimes the constitution of Madinah, with all the parties in that city, establishing mutual defense pacts. There are a number of books which delve into that aspect in much detail, if you wish for some recommendations let me know.
(3) I understand the premise behind the question, but we should remember that the goods seized was not simply someone's blanket or shoes. We are talking about wealth, wrongfully usurped. It is very possible that some of the very items usurped were in that caravan. Even if that supposition is incorrect, parties at conflict will seek to have their redresses made in some form.
(4) Earlier I mentioned 'Ammar ibn Yaaser. He was a Muslim, he influenced his parents to accept Islam. His parents were killed in front of his very eyes by the Makkans. These sort of things were happening to the early Muslims. The Makkans, seeing the Prophet and his faith as a threat, continued their intrigues even when the Muslims had left Makkah. In other words, these things did not happen in a vacuum. There is much that preceded Nakhlah. Haykal's work has a record of the dialogue the Muslim party had among themselves debating what actions to take, and in light of much of the above mentioned facts, felt justified in doing something.
In terms of propaganda, there was much the Quraysh were already doing, and many of their particular assertions are mentioned in the Qur'an. The Nakhlah issue became only one more of them.
What would happen in a court of law today if the defendant used the excuse "they were Meccans and we hate Meccans"? The dialogue that you mention only increases the culpability of the murderers since it confirms that the murder was premeditated. Would anyone tell a modern day judge: they agreed to kill whomever they could and to seize the goods in his possession? This would lead to the death penalty in any country that uses that penalty. Yet you defend Muhammad's judgement? Seriously?
The "persecutions" that you describe were committed by a very small segment of the Meccan population, led by a small number of men, and it violates basic principles of law to hold others responsible for it. We know that they never murdered, because Muhammad never claimed that they did. The victims of torture that you mention all appear to have been slaves who were abused by their owners for being disobedient. Slavery is an abhorrent practice and we know that slaves have always been abused. I'm not excusing the abuse; only pointing out that its basis was disobedience. As you well know, slavery continued under Muhammad and he sold many hundreds of captives into slavery. No doubt you will remind me that Muhammad expected slaves to be treated properly, but that legal protection did not protect those who were sold into the slave trade.
You seem to believe that there is nothing wrong with a man harassing worshippers at their temple, telling them that he has heard from God and has been told that their beliefs are wrong and that if they don't follow him they are doomed to an eternity of punishment. What would you do if this happened where you live? What would you do if someone in your household became a follower of such a person? People like this appear all the time.
I have already responded to your comment about Madinan Jews in https://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2017/12/foundations-for-proper-thinking.html Click here
What your post above does not take into consideration is that this situation is a sort of war, with periods of cold war and hot war. The Makkan leadership in particular is who persecuted, tortured, killed the Muslims. Moreover, in terms of Nakhlah, the account we have been discussing tells us that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not order an attack, he ordered simple reconnaissance.
It seems to me that your post above tends to downplay the persecution felt by the Muslims as simply punishment to recalcitrant slaves. It was much more than that. At one point, there was an embargo imposed on the Muslims, which resulted in deaths, including that of Khadijah, the Prophet's wife.
This history is well detailed, I can only suggest that you read the references we have been discussing- in the earlier chapters, for more information on that.
You equate the Prophet's mission to harassing people in a temple. That's now how he did things. He called for a public meeting where he proclaimed his mission, only to be mocked by a figure such as Abu Jahl. Once, when he himself was praying at the Ka'bah in Makkah, someone put goat entrails on his back. My point is that "harassment" is a charge best placed in the hand of the Makkan leadership, not the Prophet!
Sorry, Waheed, but you are clearly wrong. Even if it were true that Muhammad did not order the men to commit any crime (I don't believe it), that does not excuse the murderers of their murder. Not at all. Can you please think about the implications of a policy that allows murders like this? Our societies would devolve into chaos if we all acted according to such a policy. In fact, many societies are currently in chaos because people are murdering innocent people in retribution for some injustice.
And no, I am not trying to downplay the persecution felt by the Muslims. However, you have to admit that the accounts grossly exaggerate this persecution. I have already shown that without doubt no Muslims were killed during this period by the Makkans. Now you add starvation resulting from the embargo, something that is contradicted by your own source. Haykal writes: Were it not for the few who compassionately furnished the Muslims food, the latter would have surely starved. . The Makkans were not murderous or they would surely have murdered Muhammad. When it became apparent that the boycott would not succeed, they lifted the boycott. Their response to Muhammad was very measured and limited to trying to get Muhammad to cease his insults.
You mention again the incident of Muhammad being assaulted with entrails, but think about this the other way around. What would happen if a non-Muslim prayed at the Ka'bah after the Muslims had conquered Mecca? The Muslims would have killed him. There is no doubt. What about if it happened today? If he wasn't lynched on the spot, he would be arrested and imprisoned for a very long time. Muhammad also greeted pilgrims telling them that they were following a false religion. Should I try standing on the road to Mecca during Hajj and proclaim that Muhammad is a false prophet?
What you are doing is projecting onto the Makkans how the Muslims would have acted. The Muslims were cruel and merciless in their treatment of their opponents. The Makkans were not. They showed restraint and a desire for a peaceful resolution to the problems that Muhammad was causing them. They approached Muhammad's uncle Abu Talib and beseeched him to intervene and de-escalate the situation.
And what were those problems? Muhammad was causing division within families and tribes. How would you feel if a family member of yours was seduced into a religious cult? That is how Makkans would view this. The notorious Abu Lahab, Muhammad's uncle, what did he do? He believed that his nephew was crazy and simply tried to prevent people from listening to his blasphemy. For this, Muhammad curses him and his wife. Yes, there are many stories about some terrible things that Abu Lahab did, but these are all inconsistent with those stories of his normal, expected actions as a caring uncle trying to protect his "crazy" nephew.
The Haram, site of the Ka'bah in Makkah, was a public space. It was deemed, even by the idolaters, as a sacred site, therefore the Prophet should have had the same rights to pray there in peace.
You suggest the persecution was exaggerated. Muslims were killed, they were tortured. Some suffered less than others, depending largely on social status. There were Muslims who were tortured by having boulders placed on them, placed laying down on the hot sand. We spoke previously on Sumayyah ( You asserted the view that account was fabricated) being horribly killed for refusing to renounce Islam.
There was a blockade, and yes some Makkans violated it out of a sense of compassion and tribal duty, however that does not deny the impact of the blockade.
After the first Gulf War, The US placed sanctions on Iraq. It is true that Iraq was able to circumvent somewhat those sanctions, yet that does not deny the impact of those sanctions (Famously, Madeline Albright was asked if the death of 100,000 Iraqi children was worth it, she replied "yes").
It's a pretty amazing assertion that you make (when you say we are projecting on the Makkans the cruelty Muslims would do). When the Prophet, upon whom be peace, was victorious over the Makkans, he issued a general amnesty, which even included therein most of the figures responsible for the persecution and wars in times past.
Re-thinking your view about the Prophet, I think it's needed to look at how Muslims view the Prophet afresh. In other words, look at what we take from him. What are the core values?
Do have a look at two posts on this blog "Muhammad: Man and Prophet" as well as " The Prophet as guide" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaK_Is6v5EA . The latter is a Friday prayer sermon, but the point is for you to see the believer's point of view and why and how we view the Prophet, peace be upon him.
28 comments:
Hello Waheed. As I've mentioned before, I am not permitted to respond to your posts on whyislam, so I will respond to you here.
You wrote: "To answer your query, it can be said fairly that the history of the descendants of Issac, as you describe them, was one of continuous behavior and thinking that was contrary to the Divine will. In other words, they were more in need of this process than others.
Jesus in the New Testament, peace be on him, accuses them of being community that kills Prophets. Even if we just used the NT ( and the OT as well), it is enough evidence to show that they were in need of Divine Guidance but they seemingly kept on rejecting it whenever it came to them."
I was intending to write at length about how offensive this anti-Jewish polemic is, however, while researching the topic I found that a man with more authority than me has already done the work: https://www3.nd.edu/~reynolds/index_files/jews%20as%20killers%20of%20the%20prophets%20final.pdf
" on the basis of the Hebrew Bible the prominence of this theme in the Qur’an hardly makes sense. None of the great prophets in the Hebrew Bible are killed by the Israelites."
Something that I think can be said fairly is that Muslims have rejected their Divine Guidance and, at this time in history, are in far greater need of this process than others.
Muslims are murdering Muslims; Muslims are murdering children. All of this is according to their Divine Guidance? Why single out the Jews for alleged and ancient crimes when the Muslims of today are guilty of failing to heed the words of prophets? How many Muslim sages who have tried to bring justice to their communities have the Muslims themselves killed?
Heal thyself! Everything you say about the descendants of Isaac can also be said about the Muslims.
Hello NB,
A couple of things.
[1] This particular post ( on this blog) has no relation to the excerpt from another website, it does not make sense to really discuss that on this blogpost.
[2] In the quote you cited from WI, I actually allude to the New Testament, not necessarily the Qur'an.
[3] More importantly, you seem to accuse me of penning a "anti-Jewish polemic". The only thing I did was answer a query.
[4] I did read the link you shared, but I found it to be self-contradictory, in the sense that while it cites both canonical and non canonical sources, it seems to acknowledge that the scriptures and texts accepted by Jews and Christians has in it the issue of killing of Prophets, it seems to suggest that those scriptures borrowed from the non-authoritative sources. In any case, the record of scripture is what is being presented, and, since neither God nor scripture has any baring on you, being as you do not believe in God as a premise, then of course Prophets, be they killed or die naturally, would likewise be a false premise. Since those three are false premises in the first place, in your thinking, then there is no reason even to cite it as a means to criticize Islam/Muslims.
[5] As for what you said about Muslims, sure, Muslims have problems, and if a person wants to be critical of Muslims in the same words as the Qur'an using for Banu Israael, be my guest.
As I said, the WI post was an answer to a particular question.
First of all, let me remind you that I've never said that I do not believe in God, nor am I critical of someone for believing in God. Belief in a man and his book is quite a different matter.
What you said (fairly?) is that the Israelites were more in need of "this process" than others. What do you base that on? When Muslims single out a group of people this way, it implies that there was something peculiarly evil about them. Yet, you provide no evidence. The question I continue to ask is "why?" Why did Muhammad single out this group? It seems obviously political.
It sounds really terrible when you say that Jews were prophet killers. This sounds just like the rhetoric we hear these days about immigrants being murderers and rapists. We must consider the facts.
It appears to be true that the Jews recount a handful of stories of "prophets" who were killed during the 2500 years before Muhammad. However, of the stories I've found, they are stories of social reformers being killed by powerful rulers. You say that these killings are "enough evidence to show that they [the Jews] were in need of Divine Guidance but they seemingly kept on rejecting it whenever it came to them." But what we have are a small number of stories of when an heroic figure spoke truth to power and died for it. There is nothing in these stories that tells me that the general population was continually in need of Divine Guidance and kept rejecting it.
These few killings happened centuries before Muhammad and for him to use them to imply that the Jews of his day were in need of "Divine Guidance" is reprehensible. For modern day Muslims to continue to smear Jews this way is abhorrent, especially when you consider the dissidents who were killed by Muhammad himself and by tyrannical rulers beginning with the earliest Caliphs and including brutal Muslim dictators during my lifetime.
There is nothing "fair" about your statements and the ongoing repetition of this misleading narrative only continues to drive Jews and Muslims apart. As I've pointed out before, Muslims could be encouraged to pray together with Jews and to learn to praise God in the way that the Jews do. That is a path forward; not accusing them of being "prophet killers".
In the past you seem to have indicated that you did not believe in God. In any case, for a Muslim, belief in "a man" and "a book" (i e Muhammad and the Qur'an) is that which points us towards God.
You have to look at the broad picture in the Qur'an. It is critical of Jews, no doubt, but it also says that they are not all alike, that amongst them are people so honest that they would give back a treasure they had been entrusted with. Moreover, the Qur'an allows Muslims social and even marriage ties with them. I would also like to share that the Qur'an is sometimes critical of the Muslims, of Christians, and others.
You mention about the killing of Prophets, admitting that 'some" were killed. That is what precisely the Qur'an says. It also says that men of truth would likewise be killed unjustly. These are true assertions, even by your own admission.
What is "reprehensible" is assuming that none are in need of Divine guidance. All are in need of that. If you are now asserting belief in God, you should then agree that Jews, Muslims, everyone, is in need of Divine guidance.
Also, I don't get this obsession with making Muslims pray the way Jews pray. You have mentioned this before during our discussion on Soorah Al-Faatihah. No one says that people of today are guilty of their ancestor's issues. In any case, Qur'an does not stereotype.
[1] "No one says that people are guilty of their ancestor's issues."
But you did say that. If a handful of people were guilty of certain crimes over a 2500 year period, you cannot fairly say that this was a "continuous behaviour". Quite to the contrary, this proves that these people were generally law abiding. Furthermore, you insist on ignoring that the context of these few incidents matters. Without this important context, you cannot fairly say that the Qur'an "precisely says" anything meaningful about this subject.
Would it be "said fairly" that the history of Islam "is one of continuous behavior and thinking that is contrary to the Divine will"?
[2] You make reference to Q 5:5 and Q 3:75. Since I've already pointed out to you that these verses do not imply what you claim, it is more than disingenuous for you to attempt to repeat this deception. It is ironic that Muslims often accuse non-Muslims of removing context from Islamic texts in order to twist their meaning when, what I have witnessed, is that it is Muslims who are the ones most commonly doing this. You shouldn't argue with me if you aren't able to do so honestly.
[3] I am not obsessed and I'm not trying to make Muslims do anything. Jews declare: "The LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Deut 6:4) while Muslims declare: "There is no god but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God." It is clear that Jews cannot make the Islamic declaration, but why do Muslims believe that people can only believe in this God through Muhammad? The Qur'an is clear that Allah is the same god as the Jewish God and that the Jews knew God centuries before Muhammad appeared on the scene. Hence, it cannot be disputed that to know God a belief in Muhammad is unnecessary.
Hello N.B.
[1] As I mentioned, the Qur'an does not generalize. It does distinguish between honest elements amongst what it calls "people of scripture" and those who carry the behaviour and legacy that is actually the opposite of that. If you want to ask the hypothetical question "Has Islam been acting contrary to Divine commands", you can ask that question and we can talk about it. It is worth mentioning that if you were to speak to Muslim activists over the last 100 years, probably the majority would say that the Muslims have serious problems, and that those problems stem from disregarding the core teachings of the religion.
[2] I can't recall you refuting my reference to verses about the allowance of marriage and social ties with Jews and Christians. Whatever you think of those texts is irrelevant when one considers how the Muslims understand the text. Muslims understand - for example Q 5:5, as being a text which allows marriage relations with people of scripture. It is true that there is a restriction ( one which is sometimes disputed, even within the realm of scholarship), i.e. Muslim women don't marry Muslim men, but even that does not negate the fact that we see this verse as making a marriage tie with Ahlil Kitaab as being in fact Islamically lawful. As for Q 3:75, which I alluded to, read it again. It does not have anything controversial therein, indeed, it acknowledges that there are very honest people among the Jews and Christians.
[3] Towards the end of your third comment, you ask a very important question. I admit that it is largely irrelevant to the things we have been discussing, nonetheless it is a good question when you says "why do Muslims believe that people can only believe in this God through Muhammad..?" Actually belief in God is a necessary prerequisite before even entertaining that Muhammad was Allah's messenger. When one declares the second part of that declaration, one is acknowledging [1] That God has sent communication to Muhammad, the one to whom the Qur'an was sent. Therefore, it is an acknowledgment of the position of the Qur'an. [2] It puts Muhammad along with the Prophets known through the Biblical tradition. In other words, in the Qur'an you see Muhammad alongside the other Prophets carrying on the same message as the Shema you referenced in your post above. "The declaration of Allah is that only He deserves worship, this is the declaration of the angels, those with knowledge, standing forth for justice.." {Q 3:18) Muhammad carries the same message, as seen in the above Quranic verse.
A person can "know God" without referring to Muhammad, but God sent forth Muhammad, with a message of reminder { Q 15:9). If a person believes in God and encounters the message of Muhammad, he or she should be open to investigate it. If they don't accept it, that is their business and their choice, but if a person believes in God they should consider what is proclaimed as being from that God. May Allah's peace be on all the Prophets and messengers, and may we be guided by God.
Here is a post that discusses implications of the idea of monotheism. It's old, but relevant to this discussion. If you have any comments on that one, do post them in the bottom of that article.
[url]https://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2008/10/only-one-god-forgotten-aspects-of.html[/url]
A more "religious" or theological look at Tauheed is found below.
[url] http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2008/01/tauheed-understanding-divine-monotheism.html[/url]
Waheed: "the Qur'an does not generalize. It does distinguish between honest elements amongst what it calls "people of scripture" and those who carry the behaviour and legacy that is actually the opposite of that."
I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The Qur'an does not generalize? What does that mean? And then isn't your statement exactly the sort of poor generalization that I'm criticising?
Shouldn't I expect an eternal Book of Truth to correctly identify exactly what distinguishes these things?
Waheed: "It is true that there is a restriction ( one which is sometimes disputed, even within the realm of scholarship), i.e. Muslim women don't marry [non-]Muslim men."
Sometimes disputed? How is that possible? No, the Qur'an is clear. So the question that a critical reader asks is "Why is this law framed asymmetrically?" Why did Muhammad permit some mixed marriages, but not others? Is there a moral or social issue or is it political? I would counsel my non-religious child that a marriage with a very religious person from a very religious family could lead to serious social problems for them, but it would be the same advice for a son or a daughter. Only the politics of the role of men and women in Arab society could justify this distinction.
Waheed: "As for Q 3:75, which I alluded to, read it again."
No, you read it again, all the way to the end. You seem to see only one sentence, but I see four. The last is particular important: "And they speak untruth about Allah while they know." To be clear, Muhammad is accusing the entire People of the Scriptures of lying about God. However, I accuse only Muhammad of doing this while I withhold blaming all Muslims. It's a big difference.
Waheed: "if a person believes in God they should consider what is proclaimed as being from that God"
Proclaimed by whom? As I've stated many times, we must judge for ourselves what to believe and what not to believe. The quality of the message is what we must judge, not the assertions made by the messenger.
" I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The Qur'an does not generalize? What does that mean? And then isn't your statement exactly the sort of poor generalization that I'm criticising?"
Perhaps a better term would be stereotyping. The Qur'an does not do that. It will say a critical assessment and follow it up by saying such things like "They are not all alike".
" Sometimes disputed? How is that possible? No, the Qur'an is clear. So the question that a critical reader asks is "Why is this law framed asymmetrically?" Why did Muhammad permit some mixed marriages, but not others? Is there a moral or social issue or is it political? I would counsel my non-religious child that a marriage with a very religious person from a very religious family could lead to serious social problems for them, but it would be the same advice for a son or a daughter. Only the politics of the role of men and women in Arab society could justify this distinction"
The Quranic text actually does not directly say that Muslim women can't marry Non Muslim men, that is why it is sometimes disputed in this age. I believe in and follow the "distinction" due to seeing that males and females are different. That is simply the reality of human nature, another discussion for another time. Nonetheless, Muslims agree that there is an allowance to marry (and in the verse, dining with, i.e social ties) Jewish and Christian women, even though the Qur'an is critical of some of their respective beliefs.
" No, you read it again, all the way to the end. You seem to see only one sentence, but I see four. The last is particular important: "And they speak untruth about Allah while they know." To be clear, Muhammad is accusing the entire People of the Scriptures of lying about God. However, I accuse only Muhammad of doing this while I withhold blaming all Muslims. It's a big difference."
Your assertion is not correct, it is not even believed by the most conservative of voices within the scholarship. Let's see the whole verse again "And among the people of scripture is those, if entrusted with a Qintaar (treasure), will return it to you, and amongst them are those, if entrusted with a coin, they won't return it except if you keep standing over him. This is because they assert "there is no blame over us when dealing with the Ummiyyeen". And they are attributing to God a lie, knowingly."
This is the verse. The context clearly tells us that with these dishonest types, they create a justification for cheating. The context shows that it is contrasting the honest from the dishonest.The cheating types will "lie about God knowingly" in the sense that they may use God and religious terminologies to justify their behavior.
If this is not enough, let's have a read of what a conservative ( I cite this voice just to give more evidence) interpreter of the Qur'an has to say.
The commentator heads his comments under the title "Praising good qualities in some Non Muslims is correct" and then says "In this verse, some people have been praised for their trustworthiness...refers to the people of the book in the absolute sense including Non Muslims as well, then the situation generates the question: When no act of a Kaafir is acceptable, why praise them?"
He continues "...The purpose is to point out something good, even if it be that of a Kafir...this statement also makes it clear that Islam does not resort to prejudice and short-sightedness. On the contrary, it shows open-hearted appreciation of the excellence of even its adversary in respect of his achievements.." ( Ma'riful Qur'an by Mufti Muhammad Shafi, volume 2, page 98, Karachi 1998 edition).
Ibn Katheer's commentary has a long discussion in its entry on this verse, but in the part of the verse which says "there is no blame on us when dealing with the Ummiyyeen" has it that "they would say 'there is no obligation on us in religion which prevents us from devouring the wealth of the arabs.."
" Proclaimed by whom? As I've stated many times, we must judge for ourselves what to believe and what not to believe. The quality of the message is what we must judge, not the assertions made by the messenger."
The "quality of the message" and "assertions made by the messenger" are synonymous expressions, there is no reason to view them differently. Meaning, judge the message, judge the messenger, the one bringing the message.
Prophet Muhammad was-even before the revelation, seen in Makkah as a person of extreme honesty. It was his personality and goodness which was the initial attraction for many.
One of the accounts has it that there was a woman who was so opposed to the Prophet's message that she would do things like throw trash on a path he ( The Prophet) would walk. One day, she fell ill, and upon hearing this, he went to her and took care of her till her health returned. She accepted Islam as a result.
"...The purpose is to point out something good, even if it be that of a Kafir...this statement also makes it clear that Islam does not resort to prejudice and short-sightedness. On the contrary, it shows open-hearted appreciation of the excellence of even its adversary in respect of his achievements.." ( Ma'riful Qur'an by Mufti Muhammad Shafi, volume 2, page 98, Karachi 1998 edition).
These sound like the words of a bigot trying to convince himself he is not a bigot! Just look how he uses the word "Kafir". Q 3:75 is describing an honest, Jewish man, yet, this Mufti has no trouble calling him a rejecter of God. Do I really need to keep pointing out to you just how offensive Islam is toward non-Muslims and, in particular, how offensive this word is when it is used like this?
My answer to the question "When no act of a Kaafir is acceptable, why praise them?" is unequivocal: A Kaafir (an amoral person) should not be praised. Just look at the consequences we see in the world today when we turn a blind eye to amoral behaviour and look for reasons to praise such as these!
And nice story about the sick woman. As Muslims like to say: Allah knows what is true. However, Muslims admit that many were not as fortunate as this woman and were murdered because of their opposition to the Prophet's message. An act of kindness toward a sick woman does not expiate the murders of so many.
It seems that the throwing of trash in his path was the worst sort of indignity that Muhammad suffered during his period of "extreme persecution" in Mecca. There's a hadith (I don't have time to look it up right now, but I'm sure you know it) where it says that the worst that happened is that once a Meccan was so enraged by Muhammad's insults that he throttled him in order to silence him. That's it! That's the extreme persecution that you use to justify Muhammad's acts of violence against the Meccans, beginning with the murder of a caravan leader at Nakhla and followed by so many more.
" These sound like the words of a bigot trying to convince himself he is not a bigot! Just look how he uses the word "Kafir". Q 3:75 is describing an honest, Jewish man, yet, this Mufti has no trouble calling him a rejecter of God. Do I really need to keep pointing out to you just how offensive Islam is toward non-Muslims and, in particular, how offensive this word is when it is used like this?"
This is changing the subject on your part here. May I remind you that initially you disputed the assertion I shared regarding the Qur'an saying positive things even about Non Muslims, and quoting even a rather conservative voice's commentary on the Qur'an, in which the author acknowledged that the Qur'an is saying something positive about a member of another religious community. Your reply focused on one word that he used ( a word which, in the verse under discussion, is not used). Next, you say that "Islam is offensive to non Muslims". If a person is offended by another person's religious beliefs, there's nothing to really be done about that.
" Muslims admit that many were not as fortunate as this woman and were murdered because of their opposition to the Prophet's message. An act of kindness toward a sick woman does not expiate the murders of so many."
It is interesting that on one hand you are willing ( as are many who have negative feelings about Islam) to reject any positive report about the Prophet yet accept anything which could possibly paint a bad picture of the Prophet and Islam in general.
Muslim scholars tend to reject some of the reports as outright false or simply exaggerated. This is admittedly a more scholarly or academic discussion as to which reports are false and which are true, but consider that the Prophet's personality of forgiveness, light, mercy and God-awareness was very attractive, and even after his death -and may God's peace be on him- it continued to gain strength and the Muslims developed an entire civilization. In other words, Muhammad the Prophet was not the villain that he is portrayed to be by detractors.
" It seems that the throwing of trash in his path was the worst sort of indignity that Muhammad suffered during his period of "extreme persecution" in Mecca. There's a hadith (I don't have time to look it up right now, but I'm sure you know it) where it says that the worst that happened is that once a Meccan was so enraged by Muhammad's insults that he throttled him in order to silence him. That's it! That's the extreme persecution that you use to justify Muhammad's acts of violence against the Meccans, beginning with the murder of a caravan leader at Nakhla and followed by so many more."
There was much more than this. There are many incidents, both short as well as long term. The Muslims were- basically- thrown out of Makkah for a while, placed in starving conditions, to the point they would tie big rocks around their stomach to deal with the hunger. Muslims from weaker backrounds were actually killed, some tortured to death. The details are available in such works as those mentioned in previous discussions. Moreover, you seem to imagine that the Prophet was very powerful, an equal foe to the Quraysh, when the reality is is that for much of the time, the Quraysh always outnumbered the Muslims. Yet, despite setbacks, the teachings of The Prophet prevailed. The Qur'an puts it like this "They want to blow out God's light with their mouths, yet God seeks to perfect his light, regardless of the hatred of the rejectors"
Hi Waheed.
"offensive toward" does not mean the same thing as "offended by". Please learn the difference.
I really don't think that you can just brush past that word and pretend it isn't there. If I told you that I thought my wife's "raghead doctor" was a very competent specialist, you should be appalled.
Yes, because all of the sources are Muslim sources, I expect the sources to be biased. If the sources say something which non-Muslims see as negative, it signals that Muslims do not see anything wrong with what is reported, otherwise it wouldn't have been passed down. When we write our own history, it tends to be one-sided. On the other hand, positive reports need to be evaluated in terms of plausibility and giving consideration to the motivation for preserving the report. There are many stories which are just too implausible to be taken seriously.
It's astonishing to me that you make a false equivalence between helping a sick woman and murdering numerous opponents. How can you try to brush off such a difference, and then try to blame me for my bias? I don't have any predisposition to be anti-Muslim; I'm just reading the stories provided by Islamic tradition and evaluating them as impartially as I can.
Hitler did great things for Germany and Stalin for the USSR, do you praise them? George Bernard Shaw praised them and compared Muhammad to them, something you quoted out of context. I criticized you for using Shaw as an example of a Westerner who admired Muhammad, but you never answered me.
If you need a model of "forgiveness, light, mercy and God-awareness", then there are many people who exemplified these without the sort of violence and oppression that was continuous during Muhammad's rule in Medina. What would Muhammad's victims say about whether or not Muhammad was a villain?
...2
Again, you gloss over the murder at Nakhla, the start of the violence between Muslims and non-Muslims, an armed robbery. Oh, I'm sure you'll point out the murder of Sumayyah, a story with no chain of authority and very little plausibility. The crimes of the Meccans against the Muslims are listed in Q 2:217: "They ask you about the sacred month - about fighting therein. Say, "Fighting therein is great [sin], but averting [people] from the way of Allah and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid al-Haram and the expulsion of its people therefrom are greater [evil] in the sight of Allah . And fitnah is greater than killing." And they will continue to fight you until they turn you back from your religion if they are able. And whoever of you reverts from his religion [to disbelief] and dies while he is a disbeliever - for those, their deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and those are the companions of the Fire, they will abide therein eternally."
Obviously, if there had been a prior murder, it would have been placed front and centre here and would have been used to justify the murder of a Meccan. However, instead, Muhammad establishes the principle that murder is justified as retaliation for these lesser crimes.
My view is that the story of Sumayyah was fabricated in order to justify the killing of Abu Jahl, another injustice for which the Muslims needed an excuse. Do agree that at the Battle of Badr, using modern standards and an unbiased prospective, the Meccans' cause was a just cause while the Muslims' cause was not? The Meccans were protecting their trade and avenging the murder at Nakhla. The Muslims had no justification.
No, I do not imagine that the Muslims were at all powerful before they gained strength in Medina for a few years. The reaction of the Meccans was provoked by Muhammad repeatedly insulting the Meccans' religion, not by a political threat. This is documented in Ibn Ishaq and Bukhari.
And then you end your post with a verse with the "K-word" Who do you imagine it refers to other than honest people, like the Jew in Q 3:75, who reject Muhammad's claim of being a prophet? This is made clear in the verse that follows the one that you quoted.
" "offensive toward" does not mean the same thing as "offended by". Please learn the difference.
I really don't think that you can just brush past that word and pretend it isn't there. If I told you that I thought my wife's "raghead doctor" was a very competent specialist, you should be appalled."
I have no idea of this whole "offensive toward" and "offended by" assertion you are making. In terms of offensive language, let us remember that the Qur'an uses the term here ( Q 3:75) "people of scripture". It's not an offensive title at all!
" Yes, because all of the sources are Muslim sources, I expect the sources to be biased. If the sources say something which non-Muslims see as negative, it signals that Muslims do not see anything wrong with what is reported, otherwise it wouldn't have been passed down. When we write our own history, it tends to be one-sided. On the other hand, positive reports need to be evaluated in terms of plausibility and giving consideration to the motivation for preserving the report. There are many stories which are just too implausible to be taken seriously."
The traditional Muslim evaluation of texts, mainly within the hadeeth literature and historical reports to a lesser extent, has taken into consideration that there are reports which have been falsely attributed to the Prophet or to others. This situation even exists with Muslim historians.I don't know how I can explain this better. There were Muslim rulers who were cruel and tyrannical, and in order to justify their actions they would fabricate something.There were sectarian movements who would- either out of misplaced piety or a means to outargue another sect, fabricate reports and attribute them to the Prophet. Of course all of this is summarizing.
Also I notice that you cite Q 2:217, seemingly to justify your assertions about Islam/Muslims/Prophet Muhammad as being aggressors, yet there is another section that should be looked at, because that section would basically show your thesis to be incorrect.
22:39 Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory.
22:40 [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right – only because they say, “Our Lord is Allah.” And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.
Abu Jahl was killed during a battle, so I'm unsure of what you are trying to say. It's probably because we have so much gap in time for replies that, frankly, I forget or overlook.
The word "Kaafir" is a deeply nuanced word, and is not translated as simply "Non Muslim", because in the Qur'an it is used in connection with powerful, yet destructive, elements.
I don't know what "thesis" of mine that your are attempting to show to be "incorrect".
What is clear from every account is:
1. At this point in time, no Muslim had been killed by a non-Muslim. Q 2:217 would not say "fitnah is greater than killing" had there been a killing.
2. The Muslims intercepted the caravan at Nakhlah, infiltrated the encampment by disguising themselves as pilgrims and then initiated the hostilities all with the purpose of robbing the caravan. I have never seen an account that contradicts this sequence of events. Again, if the Muslims were acting in self defence, that would have been clear from Q 2:217.
Therefore, we know that the Muslims killed non-Muslims, but not with normally accepted justifications, namely, in retaliation for a killing or to save themselves from being killed.
My "thesis" is that if you view the incident objectively without regard to who the murderers were and who the victims were, you would agree that this was a criminal act and that the perpetrators deserved to be punished harshly. It is only because of bias and a very bigoted view, that Muslims are able to justify this horrifying crime.
In terms of Nakhlah, I think you have to remember that there had been many things which happened which preceded this, and Badr in general. You say that "no Muslim had been killed by a Non Muslim" which is simply not true. Muslims in Makkah had been facing many things, including killings. I think I mentioned previously Sumayya as an example, a Muslim woman who, along with her husband, had been brutally tortured and killed. If memory serves, you think that account is falsified.
Again, in terms of the life of the Prophet, do STUDY the biographies of the Prophet. I have suggested two works in the past, in particular (if you want many details and citations) the work "The Life of Muhammad" by Muhammad Husayn Haykal. Depending on internet articles here and there do not cut it when approaching the finer details and backround information.
Hello Waheed. Thank you for responding to this thread. There are several issues:
1. Establishing your position and the "main stream" position. You seem to think that I have not studied the biography of Muhammad. This is far from the truth. The problem is that I do not know what modern day Muslims consider to be authentic and "main stream". When I first encountered ibn Ishaq, I felt that modern Muslims would challenge many of his accounts. I've been surprised by how widely his accounts are supported by Muslim posters. I have also seen some of the explanations, however, until you cite these explanations, I cannot assume that you agree with these authors. Some of their views seem extreme. Even now that you cite Haykal, I still cannot assume that you agree with every position in his book. We cannot have a productive discussion until you've stated your position. I try to make my position clear; it is my position; I'm not cutting and pasting from some site somewhere.
2. Relying on evidence. You state that something "is simply not true" but you provide no evidence. I think by now you should have respect for the fact that I do actually spend considerable time seeking evidence to support by assertions. I have been studying the Qur'an and the life of Muhammad for years now and I would say that I have spent more time studying this subject than I spent studying for my university degrees so many years ago.
3. Muslims were killed in Makkah? Where is your evidence? There are several places in the Qur'an where the crimes of the Makkans are listed, and there is no mention of killings. Haykal has a chapter "The Malevolent Conduct of Quraysh" and there is no mention of killings. What is the basis for your charge other than a single uncorroborated anecdote? I don't wish to sound rude, but spreading lies about people is a serious transgression in any culture.
4. Fitnah is a greater crime than murder. Haykal's chapter "The First Raids and Skirmishes" (http://www.islam4theworld.net/Sirah/LifeMuhammadS/) is full of contradiction and this is the source of much misunderstanding. He says "All weapons used by the aggressors may be used against them." buts admits that the Quraysh "fighting" against Islam was a campaign of "propaganda". That said, killing was unjustified.
5. Hate crime. Most Westerners would see the incident at Nakhlah as a "hate crime". The victims were targeted because of where they came from; they themselves were not accused of any crime. They were carrying out their usual civilian life with no aggressive intentions. Some Westerners would go so far as to say that this was the first act of Islamic Terrorism. To get to that, we would have to establish that the motive of the killing was to disrupt Makkan trade by terrorizing the traders so that they would be afraid to continue.
[1] In terms of Ibn Is-haq, actually his reliability in terms of the Seerah (records or stories about the Prophet) has always been suspect. Haykal, in his preface to his biography of the Prophet, records many examples from the early period which raise doubts as to the accounts he gives. Martin Ling's biography of the Prophet is basically an English translation of Ibn Ishaq's work. It is this skepticism which led me to recommend in general the works of Haykal ( for a detailed study) and MMA ( for a brief introduction) and not Martin Lings.
[2] I have never seen anyone, academic or otherwise, challenge that the early Muslims were persecuted and often killed. Sumayyah bint Khayyat was the full name of the example I cited. If you do a simple search in the biographies or on the internet I'm sure you will come more information. In addition, do consider that had there been no persecution or oppression, a migration (first to Ethiopia, and then Madinah) would not have been needed.
[3] In terms of the Qur'an mention of the actions of the Quraysh, please take a look at 22:39 and 40. It says "Permission( to fight) is given to those on whom war is made, and because they are oppressed...those who are expelled from their homes unjustly simply because they assert "God is our Lord..". The Qur'an also says "Fight those who fight you.." ( Q 2:190). Moreover, the histories tell us very vividly the accounts of the killings of early Muslims, not to mention the attempts on the Prophet's own life. Perhaps a person can dispute one or two accounts, but to dismiss all of it as simply anecdotal is simply unreasonable.
[4] As for the citation from Haykal, I will reply to that later, when I have the sources in front of me, in order to share exact citations.
Hello N.B.
Thank you for your post and your reference to Haykal's work. With regards to chapter seven of his book "The Malevolent conduct of Quraysh", it states therein violence of all sorts as being directed against the Muslims in the period before the migration. Haykal phrases it thusly "...They thought that this negative policy of boycott, isolation and starvation would be more effective than the previous policy of harm and injury, though the latter was never stopped."(pg 115, 1995 edition).
In the previous chapters of the book you will find more reports about that early history. Torture, blockade, attempts to kill the Prophet when bribery would not work, all sorts of things.
In the same work, Haykal presents a summary of what happened at Nakhlah. Before sharing the details of that (which I shall summarize below), he writes under the heading "Islam and Fighting" the following:
" If, at that time, the Muhajirun felt justified in seizing the property of the Quraysh in retaliation for the latter's confiscation of their property when they emigrated..." (pg 208)
So we now have a context for what happened at Nakhlah, the summary of which is below.
[1] The Prophet sent a group out on reconnaissance.
[2] When they arrived, they found a Qurayshi caravan. In light of what had previously occurred (the seizing of the Muslims' own properties), the group, after much internal discussion, decided to seize a donkey of the Qurayshi caravan. They captured two prisoners, and during the encounter another Qurayshi was killed.
[3] When this group returned to Madinah, the Prophet himself was upset at this, because he had given no such orders. Moreover, this had happened during a time when the traditional Arab calendar disallowed fighting.
[4] This incident was used as a propaganda tool against the Muslims.
[5] When the Quraysh came to ransom their men, the Prophet agreed to a prisoner exchange, however one of the Quraysh ((Hakam ibn Al Kasyaan) decided to accept Islam, living in Madinah for the rest of his life.
[6] In terms of addressing the propaganda against the Muslims mentioned in item 4 above, the Qur'an addresses it in 2:217.
This can be found in Haykal's book on pp 208-211.
Hi Waheed. There are two main subjects here:
1. The persecution of the Muslims before the Hijra
2. The justification of the murder at Nakhla
I understand that the reliability of ibn Ishaq is suspect. Mostly I rely on some sort of confirmation in the Qur'an to substantiate accounts, whether Sirah or Hadith. I also rely on general human experience to judge if an account is plausible. With that in mind, there is no doubt that the early Muslims were persecuted. The escalation is described at length in Haykal. For example, he writes: Muhammad did take the initiative of attacking their gods. Hitherto he had not mentioned them at all. Now, hs attacked them directly. To the Quraysh this was so serious that it aroused deep hatred. This man had become a threatening problem to them demanding definite solution. Until then they had not taken him seriously but had ridiculed him. When they assembled in Dar al Nadwah or around the Ka'bah and its idols and happened to mention him, they would speak lightly of him and ridicule his cause. Now that he had directly attacked their gods, ridiculed their worship as well as their ancestors', severely condemned Hubal, al Lat, al `Uzza and all other idols, the matter called for' something more than ridicule.
Is this plausible? What would happen today if a man appeared at the Ka'bah and proclaimed himself a prophet, attacked Islam, calling Muhammad a fraud and ridiculed their worship? Would the Meccans today allow this man to continue preaching in this way for 13 years? The persecution of this man would be far, far worse than what Muhammad faced. In other words, the Meccans of the 7th Century were much more tolerant than the Meccans today. The 7th Century Meccans were angry and hoped to silence Muhammad's insults, but they did not resort to murder. As I've said, I assert this based on the Qur'an itself which accuses the Quraysh of many things but, as far as I know, never accuses them of murder.
The Jews also said "God is our Lord" yet they were not expelled from their homes, that is, not until the Muslims came. The pagans and the Jews were more tolerant than the Muslims. This is clear.
Let's look at the legal principles related to Nakhlah:
1. Some people were forced to leave some property behind when they fled as refugees. Do they have a legal right to seize property of others who happen to be from the place they fled from?
2. If a refugee murders someone from the place from which he fled, is the fact that he had been forced to flee sufficient justification for the murder?
One other question: What was the "propaganda"? Isn't it a simple statement of fact that a Qurayshi was killed by Muslims posing as pilgrims during a holy month?
Hello NB,
Thanks for your comments.
(1) The thing is is that the Makkans did resort to murder and a campaign with many facets therein, which included attempts at bribery, murder, persecution, and the like. Read the history of Bilal ibn Rabah, read about 'Ammar, read about Sumayyah, among others.
(2) The issue with Madinan Jews "expulsions" had to do with acts of treason. Indeed, one of the first actions of the Prophet was to establish what is sometimes the constitution of Madinah, with all the parties in that city, establishing mutual defense pacts. There are a number of books which delve into that aspect in much detail, if you wish for some recommendations let me know.
(3) I understand the premise behind the question, but we should remember that the goods seized was not simply someone's blanket or shoes. We are talking about wealth, wrongfully usurped. It is very possible that some of the very items usurped were in that caravan. Even if that supposition is incorrect, parties at conflict will seek to have their redresses made in some form.
(4) Earlier I mentioned 'Ammar ibn Yaaser. He was a Muslim, he influenced his parents to accept Islam. His parents were killed in front of his very eyes by the Makkans. These sort of things were happening to the early Muslims. The Makkans, seeing the Prophet and his faith as a threat, continued their intrigues even when the Muslims had left Makkah. In other words, these things did not happen in a vacuum. There is much that preceded Nakhlah. Haykal's work has a record of the dialogue the Muslim party had among themselves debating what actions to take, and in light of much of the above mentioned facts, felt justified in doing something.
In terms of propaganda, there was much the Quraysh were already doing, and many of their particular assertions are mentioned in the Qur'an. The Nakhlah issue became only one more of them.
Waheed, I am truly shocked by your response.
What would happen in a court of law today if the defendant used the excuse "they were Meccans and we hate Meccans"? The dialogue that you mention only increases the culpability of the murderers since it confirms that the murder was premeditated. Would anyone tell a modern day judge: they agreed to kill whomever they could and to seize the goods in his possession? This would lead to the death penalty in any country that uses that penalty. Yet you defend Muhammad's judgement? Seriously?
The "persecutions" that you describe were committed by a very small segment of the Meccan population, led by a small number of men, and it violates basic principles of law to hold others responsible for it. We know that they never murdered, because Muhammad never claimed that they did. The victims of torture that you mention all appear to have been slaves who were abused by their owners for being disobedient. Slavery is an abhorrent practice and we know that slaves have always been abused. I'm not excusing the abuse; only pointing out that its basis was disobedience. As you well know, slavery continued under Muhammad and he sold many hundreds of captives into slavery. No doubt you will remind me that Muhammad expected slaves to be treated properly, but that legal protection did not protect those who were sold into the slave trade.
You seem to believe that there is nothing wrong with a man harassing worshippers at their temple, telling them that he has heard from God and has been told that their beliefs are wrong and that if they don't follow him they are doomed to an eternity of punishment. What would you do if this happened where you live? What would you do if someone in your household became a follower of such a person? People like this appear all the time.
I have already responded to your comment about Madinan Jews in https://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2017/12/foundations-for-proper-thinking.html Click here
Hello NB,
I hope this finds you well.
What your post above does not take into consideration is that this situation is a sort of war, with periods of cold war and hot war. The Makkan leadership in particular is who persecuted, tortured, killed the Muslims. Moreover, in terms of Nakhlah, the account we have been discussing tells us that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not order an attack, he ordered simple reconnaissance.
It seems to me that your post above tends to downplay the persecution felt by the Muslims as simply punishment to recalcitrant slaves. It was much more than that. At one point, there was an embargo imposed on the Muslims, which resulted in deaths, including that of Khadijah, the Prophet's wife.
This history is well detailed, I can only suggest that you read the references we have been discussing- in the earlier chapters, for more information on that.
You equate the Prophet's mission to harassing people in a temple. That's now how he did things. He called for a public meeting where he proclaimed his mission, only to be mocked by a figure such as Abu Jahl. Once, when he himself was praying at the Ka'bah in Makkah, someone put goat entrails on his back. My point is that "harassment" is a charge best placed in the hand of the Makkan leadership, not the Prophet!
Hi Waheed.
Sorry, Waheed, but you are clearly wrong. Even if it were true that Muhammad did not order the men to commit any crime (I don't believe it), that does not excuse the murderers of their murder. Not at all. Can you please think about the implications of a policy that allows murders like this? Our societies would devolve into chaos if we all acted according to such a policy. In fact, many societies are currently in chaos because people are murdering innocent people in retribution for some injustice.
And no, I am not trying to downplay the persecution felt by the Muslims. However, you have to admit that the accounts grossly exaggerate this persecution. I have already shown that without doubt no Muslims were killed during this period by the Makkans. Now you add starvation resulting from the embargo, something that is contradicted by your own source. Haykal writes: Were it not for the few who compassionately furnished the Muslims food, the latter would have surely starved. . The Makkans were not murderous or they would surely have murdered Muhammad. When it became apparent that the boycott would not succeed, they lifted the boycott. Their response to Muhammad was very measured and limited to trying to get Muhammad to cease his insults.
You mention again the incident of Muhammad being assaulted with entrails, but think about this the other way around. What would happen if a non-Muslim prayed at the Ka'bah after the Muslims had conquered Mecca? The Muslims would have killed him. There is no doubt. What about if it happened today? If he wasn't lynched on the spot, he would be arrested and imprisoned for a very long time. Muhammad also greeted pilgrims telling them that they were following a false religion. Should I try standing on the road to Mecca during Hajj and proclaim that Muhammad is a false prophet?
What you are doing is projecting onto the Makkans how the Muslims would have acted. The Muslims were cruel and merciless in their treatment of their opponents. The Makkans were not. They showed restraint and a desire for a peaceful resolution to the problems that Muhammad was causing them. They approached Muhammad's uncle Abu Talib and beseeched him to intervene and de-escalate the situation.
And what were those problems? Muhammad was causing division within families and tribes. How would you feel if a family member of yours was seduced into a religious cult? That is how Makkans would view this. The notorious Abu Lahab, Muhammad's uncle, what did he do? He believed that his nephew was crazy and simply tried to prevent people from listening to his blasphemy. For this, Muhammad curses him and his wife. Yes, there are many stories about some terrible things that Abu Lahab did, but these are all inconsistent with those stories of his normal, expected actions as a caring uncle trying to protect his "crazy" nephew.
The Haram, site of the Ka'bah in Makkah, was a public space. It was deemed, even by the idolaters, as a sacred site, therefore the Prophet should have had the same rights to pray there in peace.
You suggest the persecution was exaggerated. Muslims were killed, they were tortured. Some suffered less than others, depending largely on social status. There were Muslims who were tortured by having boulders placed on them, placed laying down on the hot sand. We spoke previously on Sumayyah ( You asserted the view that account was fabricated) being horribly killed for refusing to renounce Islam.
There was a blockade, and yes some Makkans violated it out of a sense of compassion and tribal duty, however that does not deny the impact of the blockade.
After the first Gulf War, The US placed sanctions on Iraq. It is true that Iraq was able to circumvent somewhat those sanctions, yet that does not deny the impact of those sanctions (Famously, Madeline Albright was asked if the death of 100,000 Iraqi children was worth it, she replied "yes").
It's a pretty amazing assertion that you make (when you say we are projecting on the Makkans the cruelty Muslims would do). When the Prophet, upon whom be peace, was victorious over the Makkans, he issued a general amnesty, which even included therein most of the figures responsible for the persecution and wars in times past.
Hi NB,
Re-thinking your view about the Prophet, I think it's needed to look at how Muslims view the Prophet afresh. In other words, look at what we take from him. What are the core values?
Do have a look at two posts on this blog "Muhammad: Man and Prophet" as well as " The Prophet as guide" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaK_Is6v5EA . The latter is a Friday prayer sermon, but the point is for you to see the believer's point of view and why and how we view the Prophet, peace be upon him.
Post a Comment