Islam in Crisis (part 1)

tehsinabasi writes: ``I don’t know how they did breach each and every clause of this constitution. They abrogated it, they said we have no more contract with the Muslims. ``


Reply:

I rest my case.

A Monologue?

ALL QUIET ON THE EASTERN FRONT:

I thought this topic and my posts would engender an uproar. But it seems the defenders of the faith devoid of props like Blasphemy laws, threats of banishment etc. have no legs to stand upon. Please research – gain knowledge, if you don’t have it consult an elder, a Mufti, the gauntlet has been thrown. The silence is deafening as it was when none of the Maulanas had the guts to say that “what Bin Laden did was wrong and against Islam”.

So you have already accepted that the Prophet’s life is not the practical example of the embodiment of a perfect life. So for you, Sunnah does not hold any meaning or importance. Or is it just the sayings of the Prophet that are important and not what he actually did. Good!! DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO ! (Kirk Douglas’s famous line from an old western)

Mr. T Ahmad:

You asked questions about my personal belief, I didn’t want to get into it here. Primarily because questions like this move the discussion to the individual rather then staying on the societal topic. It doesn’t matter whether a non-entity like myself stands on one leg and prays all night. The discussion I am participating in is about why Islam is in Crisis.

tahmed #89

>>>
Mr. Abbasi: If the message of Islam (as reflected in the prophets actions as you describe them) is indeed one of cruelty towards captors, as your post indicates, then (unless you are in favor of cruelty towards those within your power) I hope you will have the intellectual honesty to denounce Islam and declare yourself a secular person.
>>>

This is the stock argument that illiterate mullahs use when they have no answers left.

Re : #82 by m_souza

``
Mischief was done in the past centuries by the muslim invaders in India. And you are a by-product of that mischief..tahmed
Go to your Islamic jihadi mates...who are hell-bent upon making this world hell for `kafirs`...Osama and other who are always upto the mischief....Tell the Kashmiri militants whom you send from across the border...tell them to live in the present times and to live peacefully. ``

The Islamic Jihad morons are not just hell bent on making life hell for Kafirs but also believers. Taliban ``ultra believers`` are a case in point. They have actually made Afghanistan a scorched earth. No economy, no hope for development, people resigned to their despicable fate .... oh yeah, they have showed us the true islamic utopia of mullarchy.

Tehsinabbasi #116 You write: ``I never got a reply`` (from the professor to whom you wrote something pretending to be someone you were not).
Nor did I get a reply. From you. To a couple of questions I specifically asked of you.
And I wasnt even pretending to be anyone I am not.

Perhaps if you had thought bothered to reply, you would have found that your stories, whatever their historical veracity, are nevertheless quite irrelevant from a religious perspective. Since Islam isnt about who did what to whom 1400 years ago. It is about values.

Urstruly (to whom I had also posed the same questions) did provide a reasonable reply. And even though we do not totally agree (see his post #114), at least we have had a reasonable discussion.

In your case we have a monologue, a case of a deaf man talking.

Nakhla Continued:

About a year after this I was surprised to see an article in The Friday Times ``The power of the Ahle Hadith`` Khaled Ahmed’s Analysis. - the Ahle Hadith had actually taken the justification that was provided at Nakhla for their ends. Here is the excerpt from the article.

``One 1993 cassette, containing the khutba-e-juma in Faisalabad of Qari Abdul Hafeez of the Jamiat, levelled the following charges: that despite the fact that the leaders of Lashkar-e-Tayba held that a boy going for jehad did not need the permission of his parents, their own sons did not go to jehad because ‘their mothers did not give permission’; that the Abu Jandal Group of the Lashkar looted banks in Pakistan in the (wrongly attributed) tradition of a Companion of the Prophet (PBUH) who used to loot caravans to strengthen Islam; that members of Lashkar abducted Barelvi girls and kept them as slaves, claiming that Hafiz Saeed had allowed the custom of keeping slave girls; and that colossal sums of money gathered in the name of jehad were pocketed by the leaders of Lashkar.``

“Expedition of Nakhla”:

Scholars regard Nakhla a pivotal event in the history of Islam. The event occurred during the second year of Hijra. The Muhajireen were fairing very badly in Medina, they were mercantile people from Mecca stuck in an Agrarian society. The Ansaar had been welcoming to them but they didn’t have much to sustain themselves let alone care for the new comers. Things got so bad that the Muslims were starving. At this point certain raids were conducted on the Quraish caravans to Syria but none were successful. Somehow the Quraish always knew in advance that the muslims were coming and took defensive action.

This time though the Messenger of God gave 9 men under the command of Abdallah b. Jahsh sealed orders only to be opened after 2 days journey north. When he opened them the orders were to go South (opposite side) and to intercept caravans coming from Yemen. This was a tall order – but he had also been instructed that participation in this venture was voluntary so two of them quit the remaining 7 got to Nakhla. Here they intercepted a caravan coming from Yemen, with 4 men. On seeing the muslims the Quraish became apprehensive, but one of the muslims at once shaved his head and put on the ahram as if he was going to Mecca for an Umrah. This relaxed them. Muslims were in a quandary it was the month of Rajab during which all tribes of Arabia had signed a covenant that blood would not be shed and if they waited till morning the caravan would reach Haram in Mecca the sanctuary. So they opted for violating the sanctity of the sacred month. During the night they attacked them killed Amr b. Al Hadrami captured two and one escaped.

On reaching Madina the Prophet rejoiced in their success but when Abdullah b. Ubayy, the Jews and others started saying that the muslims had committed a grave sin by committing murder, seizing property and captives during the holy month of Rajab things got sticky. Then God revealed the following passage: Quran 2.217

“ They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel his people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And who so becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide therein:”

Nakhla is significant because an ancient covenant, which had been agreed upon by all tribes of Arabia had been broken by the Muslims. It put every one on notice that this new group was not playing by the established rules. Another fact is that in all likelihood Badr would not have occurred had it not been for the fact that Amr b. Al Hadrami had been killed.

At Badr once the Quraish realized that Abu Sufyan had taken an alternative route and already avoided the Muslims there was a big debate among the Quraish where the majority wanted to return to Mecca. Their argument was that on the day after the battle all they would have done would be to shed blood of their brother, cousin or nephew. Abu Jahal who was in the group who wanted to fight was able to swing the argument in favor of war only by claiming that how could they go back without avenging the death of Amr. The first individual combats included mawali of Amr b. Hadrami.


This event is a clear illustration of an act, which is absolutely wrong according to 21st century laws or morality receiving Quranic sanction. To play Devil’s advocate (pun intended), I sent a hypothetical case to Professor Tahir ul Qadri in Pakistan. I claimed to be an Attorney who had a client with a case in the Shariat court in Pakistan. My client had been involved in an armed bank robbery he had killed a guard and gotten away with Rs.20 crore. My client claims that he has done nothing wrong and is just following his obligations of being a true muslim. In his view and as the above incident and Ayah indicate he is trying to stop an UnIslamic institution which is based upon interest something that Islam abhors and it is his Jihad to destroy it. Killing the guard was bad but it is a minor sin when compared with the polluting effect that interest brings on the Ummah.

I never got a reply.

Urstruly # 104 says, “The Jews as a matter of fact breached each and every clause of this constitution. So after the war when their case was presented before prophet Mohammad, he found himself bound by Clause 30 to decide their fate according to their law. So he appointed an arbiter chosen by Jews themselves, and who himself was a Jew to decide their fate. He gave his verdict based on Mosaic law which prescribed death of all adult males. That resulted in the death of 700 Jews.”

I don’t know how they did breach each and every clause of this constitution. They abrogated it, they said we have no more contract with the Muslims.

Let me elaborate - during the battle of the trench, the Prophet and the muslims became very concerned about the loyalty of the Jews of Banu Qurayzah. Quraish had approached the Banu Qurayzah and wanted to create an enemy within Medina for the muslims. But this did not work as the Prophet through a brilliant maneuver was able to neutralize the Quraish negotiations with the Banu Qurayzah. A Muslim spy in the Quraish camp, convinced the Jews that the Quraish because their homes were in Mecca may opt for booty and return to their homes in Mecca thus leaving the Banu Qurayzah vulnerable to the wrath of the Muslims. He urged the Jews not to take any action against the Muslims unless the Quraish gave them hostages from among their nobility as harm would come to them as well. They agreed with this argument. He then went over to the Quraish leadership and said, I have information that the Banu Qurayzah regret having broken up with Muslims and to make peace have offered to give the Muslims nobles from the Ghatafan and the Quraish. So in no circumstance agree to giving hostages to the Jews. In this way when the Jews demanded hostages none were forthcoming.

Not a single act of hostility was committed by the Jews against the Muslims during the long siege of Khandak. One Jew was killed by a Muslim woman because he was found circling the fortress where Muslim elderly women and children were staying.

Regarding the selection of an arbitrator who determined the fate of the Jews. The Prophet himself selected the arbiter and he could have shown mercy if he wanted to, but he didn’t. This is quite clear from the case of the expulsion of the first tribe of Banu Qaynuqa.from Medina which happened just after Badr and before Uhud. He wanted to kill them all as well. Al Tabari says


Volume VII – Page 86 – “The Campaign against the Banu Qayanuqa”

“Gabriel brought the following verse down to the M o G: “and if thou fearest treachery from any folk, then throw back to them their treaty fairly.”(Quran 8.58) When Gabriel had finished delivering this verse, the M o G said, “I fear the Banu Qaynuqa.”

It was on the basis of this verse that the M o G advanced upon them…. The M o G besieged them for 15 days and prevented any of them from getting out. They then surrendered at the discretion of the M o G. They were fettered and he wanted to kill them, but Abdullah b. Ubayy (leader of the hypocrites) spoke to him on their behalf…..

“Muhammad treat my mawali (under my protection) well.” For they were the confederates of al-Khazraj. The Prophet delayed his answer, so Abdallah repeated, “Muhammad, treat my mawali well.” The Prophet turned away from him, and he put his hand into (the Messenger’s) collar. The M o G said, “Let me go!”- he was so angry that they could see shadows in his face (i.e his face coloured). Then he said, “Damn you, let me go!” He replied, “No, by God, I will not let you go until you treat my mawali well. Four hundred men without armour and three hundred with coats of mail, who defended me from the Arab and the non-Arab alike, and you would mow them down in a single morning? By God, I do not feel safe and am afraid of what the future may have in store. …. The Prophet said, “Let them go, may God curse them, and may he curse (Abdallah b. Ubayy) with them. So the Muslims let them go. Then the M o G gave orders to expel them, and God gave their property as booty to his Messenger and the Muslims.

tahmad32 #112

I have only one thing to say:

``I know my opinion is correct but there is a chance that it might be wrong. On the other hand your opinion is wrong but there is a chance that it might be correct.`` Imam Abu Hanifa

Ralph #111

Skepticism, if it is under control, is the first requirement for learning about something but even more important, if you really want to learn something, is an open mind. There is procedure of investigation in logic called a priori which means that you set up a goal in your mind, before embarking on your quest, that you will only prove a certain idea either wrong or right, the chances usually are that you will get what your goal was. But there is no limit to knowledge, it cannot be learned a priori.

The life of Holy Prophet is an open book open to the scrutiny of all. Those people who criticise him most often do it by referring to the work done by his followers.

Urstruly # 109

1. I would have to agree with you that it is a matter of interpretation. Reading the text, I find merely a treaty. It appears there was a war between two parties. After the war, a treaty was drawn stipulating what each of these parties were expected to do, or could or could not do. All treaties are do just that.

Still, it would a remarkable achievement if this was the first treaty ever between two warring parties in the history of mankind. To reach that conclusion, it seems necessary to study thousands of years long history of generations of Chinese emperors, Indian civilization, mesopotamian civilization etc.


2. Other issues are of historical nature that an objective historian can determine. It is well known that among Muslims the authencity of their historical records remains undisputed. However, there is at least some possibility that Muslims distored historical memories and records to create justification for muhammad`s behaviors. After all, these were the people who had given their allegiance to muhammd. We should ask whether, there is an independent way confirm Muslim`s historical memrories and documents what muhammad did and why? Perhaps some museums in Saudi Arabia may contain some documents written by the Jews and others who fought against muhammad.

As I said, the treaty is full of references to muhammad as the messenger of God and repeatedly invokes peace upon him and him only. If the Jews agreed to this treaty, then they were Muslims, and the question of their being kafirs doesnt arise.

Such questions have been asked by others. Christian and other historians do not take Christian Church`s own accounts of historical events as complete and reliable descriptions of events and personalities. Do you think it is reasonable to be more than sceptical of these historical descriptions of any religion?

urstruly #110 I have gone over the references to the prophet in the Quran that Naqshbandi provided, and I see no duality in what I wrote: Read the full set of references that Naqshbandi provides, and you will see that while the Quran says (a) to follow him (the prophet), it makes it clear in a subsequent reference (also provided by Naqshbandi, where the Quran says (b) that the prophet is responsible only for delivering the message, not in its implementation.
Thus, I think you will agree that the phrase ``follow him`` of itself can be interpreted to mean many things. For example it could be interpreted to mean (1) ``follow him in accepting the message of the Quran``, or it could mean (2) ``follow him in choosing peace over violence even with those who have done you great wrong, as he did in Hudayibah``, or it could mean (3) ``follow him by dressing up like he did, in speaking the language he spoke, in continuing customs he grew up in into your times``.
Common sense tells me that (1) is what is binding on me as a muslim, (2) is a good example that lives up to the universal values of Islam, and (3) are trivial matters that reduce religion to an absurdity.
If the prophet were to come back to earth, I have no doubt he would be deeply saddened by the extent to which many muslims have REVERSED things by emphasizing (3), by ignoring the finest examples of peace and mercy that he provided in (2) and by reducing (1) to a magical incantation. And I wont even get into (4) - the hero worship of ordinary men claiming to be aalims, pirs, mauvlis and even lesser prophets, who have come in the intervening 1400 years.
And with respect to (1), a clear message of the Quran is to not indulge in personality cults, to not attribute divinity to a human being. Thus, one is free to seek inspiration from the prophet muhammed, just as one is free to seek inspiration from other great indivdiuals through the ages. But that should not be confused with the divine message of the Quran. And as such, whether or not one considers acceptable the circumstances that led to the raids that Tehsin Abbasi mentions is immaterial other than a question of historical interest.
It is the divine message of the Quran, its emphasis the equality of all indivdiuals (muslim and nonmuslim, king or pauper) in the eyes of God, its universal values of mercy, kindness, that shines through the ages.

tahmad32

There is duality in your contentions. On one hand you accept the supremacy of the message and yet you do not want to act on the part of message which specifically stipulates Muslims to follow the path of Prophet (Naqshbandis post). When the message stipulates it in no uncertain terms then we are left with only one choice i.e. to follow him.

Ralph # 106

I will try to answer your questions but not in that order.

First your question# 3:

The Arabic word, that is used to describe the agreement between different parties, is ``Meethaq`` and phrase is called ``meethaq-e-Medina``. The word meethaq is a very comprehensive word with several meanings depending on the context it is used – some of the common meanings are treaty, pact, agreement, contract, and even a promise. So when this phrase was translated, many translators used different translations as it fit the topic they were discussing. The terms like `constitution` and `social contract` are relatively new because they only date back to two or three centuries. Now if you look at the history and nature of this contract (my previous post) it has all the elements of a constitution or a social contract. It was a treaty, but not quite. A treaty is usually among two sovereign parties but in this case we see that one of the party to this contract was the city state of Medina, which in turn consisted of different groups of people who ran their government under some authority. So by definition there can`t be a treaty among the people who already pledge allegiance to one sovereignty……it is just a matter of interpretation, the real proof is in the pudding.

As to your other questions:

The text of this pact is undisputed, however, the interpretation of it is not. The Jewish opinion of it is divided into two groups. One group accepts the idea presented in my last post and attest that Prophet acted justly and according to the constitution when the 700 Jews were executed. The other group, on the other hand blames Prophet that it was actually him who breached the pact by punishing Jews and while doing that he overstepped his authority because there is no clause in the pact that suggests such punishment for a party if it is found in breach of contract. It is true that the pact does not specify a punitive action for the breach of contract but if we look at various clauses of the contract and read them in conjunction with each other the reason for punitive action can be justified. For example, if we look specifically at the following clauses the punitive action is mandated, especially clause # 35:


10. The Believers, who fear Allah, will oppose the rebellious elements and those that encourage injustice or sin, or enmity or corruption among Believers.

11. If anyone is guilty of any such act all the Believers will oppose him even if he be the son of any one of them.


19 .The peace of the Believers (of the State of Madinah) cannot be divided. (it is either peace or war for all. It cannot be that a part of the population is at war with the outsiders and a part is at peace).

20 No separate peace will be made by anyone in Madinah when Believers are fighting in the Path of Allah

.
28. When you differ on anything (regarding this Document) the matter shall be referred to Allah and
Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).

29 The Jews will contribute towards the war when fighting alongside the Believers.

35. No one (no tribe which is party to the Pact) shall go to war except with the permission of Muhammed (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). If any wrong has been done to any person or party it may be avenged.



Please also do not forget how and why this treaty came into existence. It became a reality because all the participants were tired of Civil War and wanted an enduring peace. And peace cannot be established when someone is given privileges to break the law and get away with it too. So as discussed earlier, Prophet (pbuh) appointed a Jewish arbiter who gave his verdict according to Mosaic law as per clause 30 of this agreement. So they were punished according to their own law and not the Muslim law according to the pact.

Arjun-m

Read the excerpt of the constitution that you posted once again, and you will see that the Muslims suffered indignity because of not acting on the advice of Prophet.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts