Islam in Crisis (part 1)

Tehsinabbasi #153 What you are saying makes no sense at all. It is absurd to say, as you do, that what Armstrong writes in her book ``Holy War`` (or indeed any of her other well known books like the ``The Battle for God``) has nothing to do with history. These books in fact provide a factual description of not only the history of what happened in ancient times and brings it all the way to current history of the middle east. As for whether the future is bright or dark for mankind - neither you nor I nor anyone else can foretell. I already made it clear that things can go either way, and of course one hopes for the best. You again lay down your opinions as if they were facts.
I dont see much point in continuing this discussion. Your ignorance is match only by your certainty that you know everything.

Tahmed #152
Please go further on the link that you provided and the whole thing falls flat http://www.medialdea.net/historyguy80538/introduction.htm. As far as Karen Armstrong is concerned, she is a scholar of comparative religions, which again has nothing to do with history. When she talks about King David she is referring to him as mentioned in the Bible etc. Google references are also related to the Bible, but if you do find some real historical references to David or Moses or even Jesus I would really appreciate them.

``The important thing of course is neither the past nor even the present, but the future. And I think there is no doubt that unless humanity manages to destroy the planet, we will find a general progression towards greater education, knowledge, rationality in ALL parts of the world. ``

This is wishful thinking. Had rational thought continued, scientific revolution and the progress that we have made in the 21 century could have been achieved in 300 A.D. The rational thought of Aristotle and the Greeks were replaced by the Christian Dogma which lead us into the Dark Ages which lasted nearly a thousand years. Islamic Rennaissance took the sceptre of this rational thought and advanced scientific knowledge for about 200 years again to be bottled up by Imam Abu Ghazali and the eventual burning down of all libraries by the Tartars. The west has since taken over this advancement, but dont for a moment think that fundamentalist forces in the west or east could not cease control and decide on eliminating all knowledge and reverting us back into darkness.

Tehsinabbasi #151 The massacre of the Canaanites is described in the best selling book by Karen Armstrong ``Holy War``. KA is of course one of the most respected scholars of comparitive religions. A search on google.com using key words like King David etc. will yield tons of literature on the subject. Here is one link that provides the exact dates of when he reigned, as well as more detailed dates. http://www.medialdea.net/historyguy80538/kingdavidreign.htm
There is no question, contrary to the impression you seem to have, that the early muslims tended to show much better behavior in battle than other people (read KA`s book that I mention, for example, or a history book by any other generally respected scholar).
However, that was then, and we need to focus on where we are today. Today, I agree that cultures where the dominant population happens to be christian or jews are educationally, culturally, socially, politically, economically, scientifically, way ahead of those that happen to be muslim. And it is also true that many muslims live in a dream world, and are actually stupid enough to think that by glorifying the past deeds of early muslims they are glorifying themselves. But this does not mean that this has always been so.
The important thing of course is neither the past nor even the present, but the future. And I think there is no doubt that unless humanity manages to destroy the planet, we will find a general progression towards greater education, knowledge, rationality in ALL parts of the world.

I was not aware of any historical evidence that David existed other then what is written in the Old Testament. So if you have some historical reference I would appreciate that. Let me refer to this link (http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0150David.html) which may illustrate what I am saying. I referenced Moses just to illustrate the time line. Best guesstimates for Moses being alive in 12 to 1400 BC means that David had to be after Moses to be a Jew. So him existing in 1800 BC would be out of the question.

About the part, were the Jews or Christians equally brutal in ancient history as the Muslims. I am not debating that at all. Reason is that Jews and Christians continuously rewrite their ideals as to what the highest moral values should be for the present time. They admit that what was happened in the past was wrong and pass laws which prohibit it from happening in the future. Even the Pope reinterprets

This is not true for the Muslims. If they would also say that, Hey! That was true for that time, not any more, the rules are different for now. It would be no problem. Instead they continuously revert to the seventh century Medinat state as the ideal that has to be established. You can see that in the Taliban, in the MMA’s attempt right now or Saudi Arabia. Whereas you seem to dismiss it as an aberration, I think these folks are committed to the ideals as laid in the Quran and Sunnah and if they achieve them they are surely going to revert to the medieval tyranny as it existed in seventh century Arabia. The whole glass house seems to break down when somebody reveals conditions how they really were and has to be stopped through Blasphemy Laws. Moreover nobody has the authority in Islam to deny what was permitted or permit what was denied. That is why, when Ayub Khan removed the curse of multiple marriages he had to do it by decree. No Aalim or Mufti would endorse the abolition or of corporal punishment or giving equal rights to women, accept interest as essential part of a functioning economy or saying entertainment TV, music or pictures is okay.

So you are right about me not being open minded, because we are dealing with a people, who have completely closed their minds and submitted themselves to a dogma frozen in time.

Tehsinabbasi #149 I was referring to David, not Moses. And there is ample evidence that David was a real person - and plenty is known about his life right down to the 40 years that he ruled. While David was not much into public works, his son King Solomon was. And remains of those works are to be found still (including stables for his horses as Megiddo, and the Wailing Wall - originally known as the Western Wall - was part of famous Temple of Solomon that he built.
Your post indicates that you do not accept that ancient jews could have committed the misdeeds (by our standards today) even though you accept that ancient muslims do and go a step further to infer that this means Islam as a religion promotes misdeeds. I think my friend you need to take a common sensical look at things (ancient times were more cruel times than are generally accepted today, regardless of your religion), otherwise you are taking the same narrow-minded and unrealistic view of things as the islamic extremists who claim that ancient muslims could do no wrong.

tahmad32 #145:

Ahmad Sahib, historically speaking, there is no record of a man called Moses who ever walked on this earth. In other words, records of Kings, communities etc show no traces of the existence of this Biblical character. This is similar to the Odyssey and Iliad, which refer to the legendary city of Troy and the Trojan war. History though, does not have any record of such a city nor of any kings or heroes, which comprise that epic. Similarly there is no historical evidence of a King named Dasaratha or his famous son Rama the main characters of the Ramayan. Where as the Odyssey is referred to as Greek Mythology, most Indians not all agree that Ramayan and Mahabharat are part of the Indian Mythology, the folks of the Abrahamic faiths consider the gospel to be the truth. But there is no evidence of it. The presence of early Jewish tribes and their writings, temples etc. point to a guesstimate, that if such a person did exist (his legend may have grown with time) it would be around 1200 B.C.

So escape from Egypt, pestilence and all the punishment that God unleashed on the Pharoah and the Egyptians because they wouldn’t “let my people go” are all part of the legend and should not be confused with the methodical work of historiography

To tahmed32, but also to clarify my own earlier post, #64.

This post is meant primarily as a clarification. At some point after my post, #64, you (tahmed32) referenced what I wrote and offered your translation of a term I used.

Confusion may have been caused because I was remiss in not having given the translation myself. The term was Ijtihad which I find translated by scholars as ``original thought.`` Fazlur Rahman in his book ``Islam`` goes on to specify that Ijtihad as creative opinion on matters of religion required for its legitimacy ``qiyas`` (kee-YAAS), or ``analogical reasoning,`` which he describes as reasoning based on precedent.

The activity of Ijtihad could be done by an individual as an exploration of faith and for self-guidance in matters of religion. It was in those contexts in which I stated my opinion that Ijtihad is or should be the responsibility of every Muslim.

But, as Rahman states (and I humbly concur), the result of such inquiry could not be authoritative as such on the community -- need not apply to others much less be binding as dogma -- unless the result was adopted by Ijma, which is defined as consensus.

I believe you translated the term I used, Ijtihad, as consensus either because of your own study of these terms, or by blameless error. But the responsibility for my words lies with me, and so I offer now the definitions I should have offered earlier.

*********************

Endnotes:

1) Apart from the definitions I have supplied above, a historical context should dispel confusion that may have arisen from this post or #64.

With the ascendancy of Al-Shafi`i in the second century of Islam, the role of Ijtihad was formally reduced in importance to a drastic degree. Al-Shafi`i promoted the body of Hadith as determinative for most every question of how the Sunnah could guide believers` actions. By the beginning of the 4th century, most Muslim scholars (notably not all) had given up on Ijtihad, and to a lesser degree on Ijma.

Many have since concluded that the laws of Islam as promulgated by scholars by the 4th century (and hence the interpretations of those scholars) are largely immutable. I credit this rigidity with helping to protect Islam while the yokes of European imperialism and missionary zeal were heavy on the world. But I believe Muslims have been too slow to slough off the protection afforded, and that much of what is wrong with Muslim responses to the world in which we live can be traced to dogma interpreted centuries ago in a world which no longer exists.

In espousing Ijtihad as a duty for all Muslims, a duty that I emphasize in #64 itself requires of Muslims the further duty of study, I address first the undivided responsibility to God of each Muslim for his or her actions. I stand with those who say that doing what we would not personally accept responsibility for solely on the grounds that a scholar has called the same a religious duty is a poor excuse to present to God or to humanity.

But I do not claim that my view is one that is popular among scholars or represents a mainstream of religious thought in the Muslim community.

2) For those who are curious about the history of Islamic theological discourse, including a brief and insightful history of the Prophetic tradition and how Muslim jurists over time approached the relevance of the Quran, Hadith, original thought, etc., I strongly recommend Fazlur Rahman`s ``Islam`` which is a concise, authoritative, and well-referenced guide. It is not an easy read, but a very fruitful one.

Islam by Dr. Fazlur Rahman, University of Chicago Press, Second Edition, 1979.

Urstruly#146

Only you can connect these dots, that Sa`d b. Mu`adh a beduin who had recently accepted Islam, was a scholar of Mosaic Law and well versed in Deutoronomy chapter 20. Fabulous!

Tehsinabasi # 144

This post of yours is only a reiteration of what you have already posted.

You say ``The person who passed judgment on the Jews was neither a Jew, nor was he appointed by the Jews and he didn’t issue his verdict under any Jewish Law. So you are wrong on all counts.``

Reply:

As for the part:

The person who passed judgment on the Jews was neither a Jew, nor was he appointed by the Jews

You provided the proof yourself by posting the excerpt from Al-Tabri in a previous post and I told you to at least read before you post anything.

And as for

and he didn’t issue his verdict under any Jewish Law

Here is the Jewish law. I hope now it helps.


Deutronomy Chapter 20

Verses 10-14

10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.

11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.

12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:

13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

14
But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/B05C020.htm

Tehsinabbasi #144 Any views on what happened after Jewish tribes fled Egypt to the Promised Land of the Canaan (modern day Israel and Palestine) around 1800 BC under David and Joshua. According to Karen Armstrong in the ``Holy War``, it appears that this was ethnic cleansing from hell - with entire villages being levelled to the ground, and no one spared (man, woman or child) and the original inhabitants by the tens of thousands being put to the sword. Since they lived on land that was ``Promised`` to the Jewish people. And do you know why the Passover is celebrated - because the Angel of Death flew across Egypt, taking the life of the first born male in every Egyptian household, while leaving the Jewish households alone. The early muslims may have been cruel, but so were people all over the world - the Romans and even the Christians (whose spiritual leader, Jesus, specifically emphasized love).

Dont misunderstand me - this does not mean that there is anything wrong with the Jewish religion. There is too much irrational hatred and suspicion for people of other religions among many muslims as it is. It just means that the further back we go in human history, the more cruelty and inhumanity of man we find. And muslims are no different from other people in this regard. That, I think is all you are saying. Please correct me if I am wrong and you think that muslims have been more cruel than other communities throughout history.

Urstruly# 139: You should read the post again and please confirm against your sources. Let me again plainly state to you so that you can understand it. The person who passed judgment on the Jews was neither a Jew, nor was he appointed by the Jews and he didn’t issue his verdict under any Jewish Law. So you are wrong on all counts.

A little background so that the quotation from Al Tabri is clearer to you. In my earlier post regarding the Banu Quainuqah, that tribe was saved by Abdallah b. Ubayy who was from Al Khazraj tribe who were the muwali of the Banu Qainuqah. Al-Aws the second tribe of Medina were the muwali of Banu Qurayzah. Now when the Banu Qurayzah got in trouble the al-Aws approached the Prophet in a similar fashion as Abdallah b. Ubayy, to save the Banu Qurayzah. Instead of agreeing to let them go or show mercy to them, M o G said to the Aws would you agree if one of yours would pass judgment on them. They agreed and the Prophet appointed Sa’d b. Mu’adh (a muslim from the al-Aws tribe) as their judge.

mr abbasi,

.......i think you are blaming the wrong guy ..........

.......... you are being too harsh on poor muhammad who, as we all know, only did what god and gabriel wanted him to do ............as urstruly has pointed out, those 700 jews were in material breach of section 35 of the treaty of madinah and therefore deserved to die - after all, the law is the the law or, as someone said, ``shit happens`` ............

.....my problem is with god himself who did not choose to send down one measly ayah that could have spared those poor men and saved their wretched women and children from slavery ........ why did god remain silent ?.........he never hesitated to send down gabriel with the appropriate ayahs that allowed the prophet to marry zainab or set the price of spring lamb ............ wasn`t this important enough or wasn`t he in the rahim mood that day?.......... pretty inconsiderate of him, if you ask me !..............

............ what kind of a god whould allow this kind of senseless carnage ? .......... he surely can`t be the same god who spoke to ashoka after the battle of kalinja ? ..........

Tehsin abasi # 136

Do you even bother to read to what you post?

I do not have Al-Tabri`s book with me but the excerpt that you have provided verifies with Tafheem-ul-Qura`n of Moududi & Khutbat-e-Bahawalpur by Dr. Mohammad Hamidullah. I stand by your excerpt and my previous post. Plz go through your excerpt from Tabri again. May God show you the light.

RE: #135 by Raw_Dust

First of all I did not “choose” this line of argument just to win an argument, but on the other hand I stated a verifiable historical fact.

There is a short answer to your question and then there is a long one. The short answer is that: you should read my post# 104 and see how and why Mosaic Law was applied to the Case of Banu Quraizah.

For the long answer I would request you to read section 2.1, 2.2, and 2.6 of my article on Blasphemy Law along with the references. Meanwhile I am working on a detailed answer, which will suite your querry.

http://63.194.130.82/cgi-bin/show_article.cgi?aid=00001344&channel=university%20ave&start=0&end=9&page=1&chapter=1


By the way, I believe that Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) has revoked the old doctrines and I am also part of consensus of Islamic clergy w.r.t that. But the matter is not that simple-just pick up any book on Islamic Fiqah (law and jurisprudence) and you will see how Muslim jurists of any fiqah have argued in that respect and how it relates to the contention in my article.

Re: Naqshbandi

Thank you for that input. I think i was mistaken about my understanding of this legitimacy issue.
Last part of the same post though i have to say is irrelevant to me.

Peace and thanks.

Naqshbandi

It is ok. Relax. We should answer the querries of the people as objectively and as cool headedly as possible, so that they understand. If they don`t, then we should look into us that may be our argument was not persuasive enough. Remeber, when our master (pbuh) was sitting outside Taif after he was stoned and chased out of the city, broken, sad and tired, his shoes filled with his own blood and Gabriel asked him a question, and what his answer was?