Islam in Crisis (part 1) Naqshbandi:

“Therefore, as a Sunni Muslim, I say that whatever the Beloved Messenger of Allah alayhi salatu wa salaam decided about the Jews of Banu Qurayza was absolutely correct and just and no amount of political correctness will make a Sunni change his mind. Case closed.”

You refer your post to Rashid did you mean Tehsinabbasi, please clarify.
Reply – No Sir! Case is not closed but your mind is. If you happen to be in America, I would like to know, what are you doing in Dar al Harb? O hypocrite! Follow the Beloved Messenger’s example and kill, kill, kill!!!

Islam in Crisis (part 1) Tahmad

“Your posts implicitly link these HISTORICAL EVENTS to the message of Islam. I am explicitly rejecting this link,”

Please reread what I wrote, “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.”

For the past 1400 years including all the years that you have spent in Dinyat class and listening to the Maulvi before Jumma prayers a sanitized version of the events that I have been mentioning have been drilled into your head. Moreover what is the ideal Islamic state which the Talibans in Afghanistan, The Saudis and other Islamists are trying to achieve. Please pay attention, all their actions point towards them trying to create a Medinat state as established by the Prophet. I am illustrating the things that were wrong with that state and why efforts made by today’s Muslims to go in that direction result in their societies turning into medieval tyrannies.

“and explicitly saying that it is the VALUES that ordinary men are expected to live up to, as reflected in the Quran, that is the message of Islam.”

Now you change the equation – ordinary men, individual beliefs (separation of mosque and state) so long you don’t tell others what to do, I have no problem with it.

Islam in Crisis (part 1) Urstruly: “I rest my case.”

Reply: You have no case. Abrogation does not imply violation. It means from here on we do not have a contract. After abrogating the contract they could have gone to war with the Muslims but they didn’t. Was this enough for the Prophet to cut of their heads all 700 of them and sell their women and children in slavery? Islamic Justice?

Islam in Crisis (part 1) 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.

Islam in Crisis (part 1) 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.``

Islam in Crisis (part 1) “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.

Islam in Crisis (part 1) 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.

Islam in Crisis (part 1) With reference to my previous post – words are definitely mine and not Tabari’s. According to him the number of Ghazwat is 27 (some sources say 26) and Sarayas is 35. There are plenty of instances, which would back up my claim. Most students of Islamic History would not have a problem accepting that all Ghazwas and Sarayas that took place till Badr were an attempt by the Muslims to raid the caravans of the Quraish. I would be happy to provide instances from al-Tabari if needed. Only thing is that like most of us we have jobs and lives interfere in our ability to sit on Chowk. Moreover I don’t have al-Tabari in electronic form where I could cut and paste it. So I have to do it the laborious way, which is difficult as my typing speed leaves a lot to be desired. Anyways here it goes.


Reference: The History of al-Tabari published by SUNY.

Volume VIII – Page 35 – “The Expedition against the Banu Qurayzah”

“The Messenger of God went out into the marketplace of Medina and had trenches dug in it, then he sent for them and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in groups….. They numbered 600 to 700 – the largest estimate says they were between 800 and 900….. The affair continued until the Messenger of God had finished with them” - Page 39 – The Messenger of God sent Sa’d b. Zayd with some of the captives from the Banu Qurayzah to Najd, and in exchange for them he purchased horses and arms. The Messenger of God selected for himself from their women Rayhanah bt. Amr, a woman from the Banu Amr b. Qurayzah, and she remained his concubine, when he predeceased her, she was still in his possession. The Messenger of God offered to marry her and impose the curtain (hijab) on her, but she said, “ Messenger of God, rather leave me in your possession (as a concubine), for it is easier for me and for you.” So he did so.”


Volume VIII – Page 51 – “The Expedition against the Banu al-Mustaliq”

“God put the Banu al-Mustaliq to flight and killed some of them. He gave their children, women and property to the Messenger of God as booty – God gave them to him as spoil.”


Volume VIII – Page 96 – “The Expedition against the Banu Fuzarah”

“After he (Zayd b.Harithah) recovered from his wounds the Messenger of God sent him with an army against the Banu Fuzarah. He met them in Wadi al-Qura and inflicted heavy casualties on them. Qays b. killed Masadah b. and took Umm Qirfah prisoner. He also took one of her daughters and Abdallah b. Masadah prisoner (Her name was Fatimah bt. Rabiah. She was married to Malik b. She was a very old woman). Zayd ordered Qays to kill Umm Qirfah, and he killed her cruelly. He tied each of her legs with a rope and tied the two ropes to two camels, and they split her in two.”

Volume VIII – Page 117 – “The Expedition to Khaybar”

“The Messenger of God began taking herds and property bit by bit and conquering Khaybar fortress by fortress. … Next was al-Qamus … the Messenger of God took some of its people captive, including Safiyyah bt. Abi wife of Kinanah… The Messenger of God chose Safiyyah for himself…. The captives of Khaybar were divided among the Muslims….Page 122 – Kinanah who had the treasure of the Banu al-Nadir, was brought to the Messenger of God, who questioned him, but he denied knowing where it was…. Then the Messenger of God commanded that the ruin should be dug up, and some of the treasure was extracted from it. Then he asked him for the rest of it. Kinanah refused to surrender it, so the Messenger of God gave orders concerning him to al-Zubayr, saying, “Torture him until you root out what he has.” Al-Zubayr kept twirling his firestick in his breast until Kinanah almost expired, then the Messenger of God gave him to Muhammad b. Maslamah, who beheaded him to avenge his brother Mahmud b. Maslamah.”

Islam in Crisis (part 1) No topic could me more timely for a free and open debate then the one laid by the author and I commend him on doing so. He has also been careful to tread gingerly on sacred ground. But I think it is high time that we debate openly and determine whether this emperor is really wearing any clothes. The author has outlined 3 fault lines of Islam but has discussed only the first two and not the historical, which hopefully is coming in Part II.

I think the historical context of Islam is perhaps the most important and requires the most careful study. Unlike prophets of other religions Muhammad’s life and times are well documented and detailed historical records are available to us. This gains further importance as the life and practices of the Prophet are taken as a living Quran and presented as a model to the Ummah to be examined and followed.

A study of the Medinat state established by the Prophet after Hijra gives one a clear idea as to what an Islamic State was and could be. This is regarded as the ideal age of Islam which all Muslims wish to revert to.

During the 10 years of the Medinat period, a total of 62 raiding parties were sent out by the Prophet (Al-Tabari). This means a raid every 2 months. The purpose of these raids was plunder. Goods, land, animals, children, women were all taken as booty which are benignly referred to as “mal-e-ghanima”. Men women and children were either killed or held for ransom. In other cases where no ransom was forthcoming they were sold in slavery, women were distributed among the victors.

Raids like Nakhla, the expulsion of the three Jewish tribes from Madina, the mass executions all give us a good snap shot of the conditions of the time. The violence in Madina contrasts sharply from the Meccan period. This clarifies for every one the true nature of the Madinat State. I strongly recommend Al-Tabari’s History of Islam. It would give pause to some of the various accolades our esteemed participants on chowk love to espouse when describing Islam. If I may quote one such instance “that the over-all spirit is one of peace, mercy, fairness, respect for all faiths and the equality of all individual, male or female, rich or poor, Muslim or nonmuslim”.

Changing The Thana Culture Vow! I am just amazed as to how much research you’ve put in to make your allegations. The bibliography is voluminous. You couldn’t go beyond a cursory reference to Canterbury Tales (from your MA English days I am sure). How dare you put us thru these raw (forget half baked) ideas.

A good 400 years went by after the time frame you refer to, which included the Renaissance, the age of Reason, Discovery, Industrial Revolution all contributed immensely to the world of Chaucer which was late Middle Ages. Not a word about that and then you dismiss both Piri Muridi and Feudalism in one para.

Your solutions for dismissing police are equally remarkable. You should talk about your area of rural Muzafargarh. I don’t think the dust has completely settled yet on Mukhtar Bibi rape case ordered by that wise Punchayat.

Towards a Ramzaan Sunset ``I wonder if she’ll go out with me``

Are you serious - looking for some lesbo action. We definitely are coming out of the closet, arent we. Very interesting!

Hypocrisy Big 9/11 is monumental in the sense that it woke America to a menace that it didn’t think existed. America in its naiveté thought that 21st century world was like them. Meaning that the Muslim world really did not believe in the literal words of its scriptures and had embraced secular values of liberty, justice and humanism. Upon realizing that this was not the case, America and now Russia, China, Australia, India, Israel and of course Europe are all aligned to take action against the Muslim world. Iraq just happens to be the first on the hit parade. Syria, Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan are all in line to get theirs.

The blame and responsibility surely rests on us Muslims. When Blasphemy laws are needed to prevent open debate. Kids cannot be taught history or other disciplines that may be controversial. Pakistan I love it dearly but is a failed state. Other Muslim countries are not better. When Saddam prepares his son to take over once he is gone and Bashar has already replaced Assad in Syria and King Hussein’s son has already been crowned in Jordan. Guys wake up!!! It is the 21st century – Liberty??? Did we ever learn what it means? Guess not – may be now we will get a chance when a McArthur like character rules Iraq for the next 5 years. Establishing institutions, setting up checks and balances, developing a secular curriculum in schools so that all shias, sunnis, kurds, ahmadis, Christians, jews feel like Iraqis.

America please send a McArthur to Pakistan as well, we want to get rid of the likes of Mulla Fazlu.