Against the terrible treatment of non-Muslims and violation of their religious and human rights in the Islamic world, many modern educated Muslims, especially those living in the Western countries, often make extraordinary claims that Islam allows unfettered religious freedom to non-Islamic peoples. For example, Brig. Gen. (Retd) Ashrafuzzaman wrote a well-articulated essay on "Religious Freedom in Islam" (http://www.shodalap.com/country_islam.pdf) in a Bangladeshi web magazine, in which he claimed that 'Islam allows total religious freedom' to the non-Muslims. He derived this conclusion from the text of the holy Koran and examples of Prophet Muhammad. This assertion is, however, is in total contrast to what evidently exist in the Muslim world. The history of Islam, usually written by the pious Islamic historians and scholars, does not present a good picture of the treatment of non-Muslims under the Islamic rule either. Moderate Muslims find unfettered religious freedom in Prophet Muhammad's life and actions, but the history and biographies of the prophet, written by the pious Islamic scholars like Ibn-Ishaq, al-Waqidi, ibn-Sa'd, At-Tabari and Imam al-Ghazzali et al., depict a terrible and often cruel treatment of the non-Muslims by the Prophet.
"The intolerant verses of the Koran"
When the critics of Islam cite violent verses from the Koran to suggest the intolerant nature of Islam, most educated moderate Muslims quickly make allegation of quoting the verses out of context for the purpose of defaming Islam, which otherwise stands for peace and tolerance. Yet, those Muslims will hardly come forward to enlighten the critics about the correct context of the verses in question. Others come up with vague, false or misleading interpretation or context of such verses to make their case in favor of religious freedom in Islam. One of the oft-cited violent verses of the Koran is 'fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them' [Q 9:5], which appears to advocate a complete annihilation of the idolaters (pagan, heathens) instead of tolerance of any kind. Brig. Zaman in has essay presented a circumstantial context of this verse before moving on to making his case for what he calls 'total religious freedom in Islam'.
He says Muslims lead by Prophet Muhammad made an expedition towards Syria (expedition of Tabuk in October, 630 AD), because they received intelligence that the Byzantine army was mobilizing a force there for attacking the Muslims. This verse was revealed in the run up to the preparation of this expedition. But when Muslim army arrived near Syria, they found no signs of build-up of the Byzantine army and they returned without any confrontation.
Brig. Zaman's has got the context totally wrong to which I will come back later. But his cooked up story, however, is ridiculous in all aspects of it. Even if we would agree that the intelligence of Byzantine army's preparation was true, the Muslim army, if peaceful and non-aggressive, as claimed by Brig. Zaman, could not set on an aggressive expedition to deter it. Instead, Muslims should have stayed home and fortify their defenses. Moreover, going on an aggressive attack on an army already in preparation is a ridiculous and suicidal war strategy for even an aggressive army. Brig. Zaman, with an illustrious career in defense, should have known this simple fact about war strategies. This story is even more ridiculous when the Byzantine army has just reached the pinnacle of power in the world after defeating the Persians a couple of years earlier. In 630, Muslims were too paltry a force to think that they could trash down world's most powerful army by going on an aggressive offensive.
The fact that Muslims did not see any build-up of force in the Syrian border meant that the intelligence was either false or the story of such build-up was concocted by Prophet Muhammad or by later Muslims historians. The fact that Khalid al-Walid had earlier made a limited foray into that territory suggests that Prophet Muhammad had wanted to make a bigger inroad. Given the power of the Byzantine army, a huge expedition was needed and for convincing the people to come onboard, such a story of imminent danger might have been essential. Hence, the Muslim army's increasing military might and their limited success in that dangerous front earlier, might have had made them aggressive and launched the expedition on their own in order to conquer the periphery of the Byzantine empire.
This idea is supported by the fact that during that expedition of Tabuk, Muslims conquered a few small dominions between Damascus and Medina some of them by force and other by threat of military aggression. A letter sent to the prince of the Ayla tribe read:
"To John ibn Ru'ba and the chief of Ayla. Peace be upon you. .. I will not fight you until I have written thus unto you. Believe or else pay tribute (Jizyah). ...Ye know the tribute. If ye desire security by sea and by land, obey Allah and his apostle.... But if ye oppose and displease them, I will accept nothing from you until I have fought against you and taken captive your little ones and slain the elder; for I am the apostle of Allah in truth...." [Muir, p402]
It is ridiculous to claim that when Muslims were on a defensive aggression to deter an impending attack on their territory, Muhammad would send such threatening letter expressing barbaric and cruel intents for the purpose of extending the domain of Islam. Neither the content of the letter shows any glimpse of religious freedom for the Christian Ayla tribesmen. Muslim's subsequent aggression and significant inroad into the Byzantine territory by the year 638 AD and into other territories within their power also give credence that there was always an intention to attack the Byzantine territory in the Muslim camp.
Prophet Muhammad's first biography by Ibn Ishaq also says nothing of an impending attack by the Byzantine army. But instead, it describes the prophet's aggressive intent of attacking the Byzantine frontier, much to the Muslim warriors' disagreement and unwillingness to join the expedition in rough weather condition of the time. [Ibn Ishaq, p602]
Now coming back to the correct context of the verse 9:5 (Slay the pagans, wherever ye find them), this verse is totally unrelated to the Tabuk expedition. Instead, it was revealed a few months later during the Hajj in 631 AD. After conquering Mecca and capturing the Ka'ba, the Prophet allowed the Pagans to perform the pilgrimage and visitation to the sacred house but only took the charge of collecting the toll. In order to avoid the place, still tainted by the idolaters, the Prophet never undertook pilgrimage to the sacred house during this period, but sent a delegation from Medina. During the 631 Hajj pilgrimage, the Prophet sent a delegation of 300 hundred men with Abu Bakr at its head. Immediately afterwards, Allah allegedly revealed these verses and he later sent Ali forward to join the delegation and pronounce those verses during the Hajj. After the animal sacrifice rituals, Ali pronounced the latest revelations from Allah before the assemble congregation:
[Q 9:1-5] "Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty. Travel freely in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape Allah and that Allah will confound the disbelievers (in His Guidance). And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve, Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him). Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
These verses were tailor-made to remove the last vestiges of idolatry from the sacred house of Ka'ba. Secondly, they were also meant for the forcing all pagans into Islam by reneging any obligation Allah and his apostle had offered to them the earlier year and by the giving command to kill the idolaters wherever found after a four-month grace period was over. The idea is supported by the fact that the Prophet made pilgrimage journey the next year in 632 (farewell Hajj) after paganism was completely wiped off from the Ka'ba and the city of Mecca with this command.
The fact that the Byzantine territory was inhabited by the Christians but the verse is meant for exterminating the idolaters also proves Brig. Zaman totally wrong.
"The tolerant verses"
Deceptive Muslims would normally scour the whole Koran to extract a few verses which sound relatively reconciliatory, yet hardly worthy of any value for peaceful coexistence in the modern civilized society. Brig. Zaman has done exactly the same ignoring scores of cruel, aggressive and retaliatory verses. He also did not bother to consider the temporal context of these apparently non-aggressive verses. Weren't those verses revealed during the early days of Prophet Muhammad's preaching mission when his community was only a feeble force? Isn't it true that all the hate-filled and retaliatory verses were revealed only when the Muslim community had become a fighting force?
and appaled with this trend when the mythical events or events described in religious books are used to discuss current relgious and political affairs as well as deeds of the current human beings. It is unfortunate that we continue to see such articles. if we follow that logic we should associate the current Zionist abominations with the Old Testament(destruction of the indigenous people in the Holy Land) and current Iraqi massacres by the US forces with the original agressive behavior of Constantine. I would advise once and for all to separate those things. IN NO WAY the current and everyday behavior of the people can be explained by referring to Prophets, whether Muhammmad or Daniel. We should not refer to those books no matter how they might be revered as to the objective sources of information about our everyday life. Nothing in the Bible can be associated with the current American characteristic features of behavior. It is the USAGE of the Bible we have to be concerned with. I believe the same is true for Moslems, Jews, Hindus, etc. I wrote about it before: Please, leave the Gods and Prophets alone and look into the mirror.
by
Mark Sashine (53 articles, 19 quicklinks, 250 diaries, 3574 comments)
on Thursday, December 28, 2006 at 4:59:06 PM
Re: "I am extremely concerned" - by Alamgir Hussain
Thanks for your "extreme concerns". Problem should not be with the rebuttals but with those lofty, yet unsubstantiated claims on Prophet Muhammad and the Koran. Most horribly, world's greatest media outlets, like BBC, CNN rush to air such views (Islam is this, Islam that..) shamelessly. But people become "concerned" only when the most accurate analysis of those false and misleading claims are being made. It seems, in 21st century world, falsehood must prevail and be propagated but truth must be buried.
It is also ridiculous to claim that Muhammad and Koran does not have any bearing on Muslims' behavior and attitude today. The gross violation of human rights and dignity and often-cruel treatments of non-Muslims in countries like Malaysia, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia does not have any bearing on the Koran and Prophet Muhammad's teaching. Of course, we have all the Islamic terrorism turmoils at every corner of the world. You cannot carry a Bible Arabia while flying to Saudi by BA flight from UK but surely the Saudis can distribute Koran, set up preaching missioneries and Islamic institutes, mosques and Madrasa all over the West. Your claim is ridiculous at its best.
by
Muhammad Hussain (21 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments)
on Thursday, December 28, 2006 at 9:57:17 PM
He has made a valid argument. He deserves a courteous answer? Is what he says a lie or is what he says the truth?
You and I have fought on this before. The definition of truth is simple: "The correspondence of knowledge to reality."
Does his knowledge correspond to the reality of what he has said? Do these things go on in the countries he has mentioned? Are you condoning what goes on in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, and Sharia Law in general. He makes a very plain and simple argument.
Where are the atrocities being perpetrated by Christians? In what country? Let us not talk so much of a hundred years ago, but what is going on right now. In which countries are Christians doing the things that you accuse them of doing?
Why can a Muslilm have a Koran and build a Mosque in America or any place in Europe and Christians not be allowed to have church built and own a Bible in Saudi Arabia? Why are Musllims allowed to propagate their faith to Christians and Christians are murdered by Sharia Law when they try to persuade a Muslim to become a Christian?
Panurg, time to grow up? This is 2006 CE not 706 CE. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Phil
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 969 comments)
on Friday, December 29, 2006 at 12:03:56 AM
Ok, let's start with a simple example. During the communist period in my former country (atheistic state) it was forbidden to bring into the country the 'decaying western pornography' for example, as well as other foreign press. At the same time in any Western or even Eastern -Arabic country anyone could buy Pravda. Did that mean that the people under Communisim were somehow more vehemeent fanatics than the Moslems and Westerners? Or maybe it meant that Eastern Orthodox Church was somehow promoting spiritual slavery among Russians and supported communistic tendencies? Not in the wildest dreams. It meant only one thing- the government in my former country used one tool and the governments of other countries used other tools. It is convenient for the Saudis- princes to present themselves as promoters of Islam the same way as for some strange reason the current Germaan government sneaks into Russia and promotes restoration of the German invaders' cemeteries. It is called nationalism. In the Jewish state, for instance, Christian Jews are half- citizens (I am not even talking Arabs) but no one in good sense will refer that to Moses or something. It is politics. Yes, Western States let the Islam in. But it is now. In the 19th Century it was very much the opposite. It was politicss before and always. Follow the money.
As for Arabic terror, take it or leave it in its current form it came out after the State of Israel was proclaimed and before that Zionists were terrorists, hunky- dory.
Folks, I maybe had read much more anti- Christian and anti -Islamic books than anyone just because they were freely available in my former life and there ARE a lot of those, starting with the famous quote by Voltaire about 'tramping on the serpent' ALL those books adopt the logic of the above Mr. Alamgir Hussein- they pull a thread out of the mythical, symbolic religious texts and then project that thread on the deeds of the people. They, those authors- communists, as a matter of fact were sometimes much more thorough because they had an access to chronicles of Great Mogols, for instance. Nothing of that mattered, though. There is no advantage of one religion over another no matter how many corpses we throw at each other. The matter is not whether there is a Mosque in London or a Church in Jidda. The matter is who uses the religion and how. It is only a tool. And a person can go and put himself in front of the machine- gun saying ' Long Live the Communism' (I know many such events) exactly as he can blow himself up for Allah or Jesus. It is a tool.
I do not think we will agree here. i sincerely hope, though that you both shall eventually understand that I am not protecting Islam or others. Religions do not need protection. I protect you and myself too. It is not just your logic is flawed because you follow those I described. It is dangerous for you and me first and foremost. Malcolm X in his biography (written by the author of Roots) describes a period when he considered all white people 'the devils'.He himself afterwards tells how self-destructive it was for him. he was killed by a black man and by the order of a black man. Goodness is not a privilege of one religion or ideology. It is a disticnt feature of one person as well as badness. Religions are tools of people. I am starting to repeat myself.
I wish you both well, folks, but so far I do not see more point in discussion further.
Happy New Year ( hey, do you know that Russians claim it to be a Communist Holiday:)
Mark Sashine
by
Mark Sashine (53 articles, 19 quicklinks, 250 diaries, 3574 comments)
on Friday, December 29, 2006 at 7:27:48 AM
i think it was 'trample on a serpent', that is a correct way to quote. In Voltaire's time the serpent was a Church. In 1993 the same slogan was used to mercilessly kill the innocent people in Moscow by paramilitaries on the Yeltzin's side. Thousands died, Americans among them. All ' Christian West' cheered Yeltzin and not a Church in the West asked for compassion. The serpent was trampled on... a tool as I said.
Mark Sashine
by
Mark Sashine (53 articles, 19 quicklinks, 250 diaries, 3574 comments)
on Friday, December 29, 2006 at 7:48:33 AM
Why do I get the impression that Mr. Hussain is indulging in a diatribe against Islam that is perhaps coloring his objectivity? Certainly Islam has had some dark chapters, but every major religion has, some more so than others. However, no one can hold a candle to the Catholic Church, which, when it wasn't burning alleged witches at the stake by the tens of thousands and stealing their property, destroying Cathars by perhaps even greater numbers, warring on the Protestants, robbing, killing or denigrating the Jews, launching Crusade after Crusade against Islam while simultaneously shrugging its shoulders over the Crusaders' sack of Christian Constantinople, this same Church, on top of all this, also gave official "spiritual" sanction to the Conquistadors' vast plunder of the new world and the slaughter and enslavement of millions of indigenous people. The Catholic Church, through its sins of commission and omission, has directly or indirectly caused the murder of millions of human beings throughout its rather checkered history. And the modern Church has yet to atone for much of this.
Against this horrific backdrop, Islam's sins appear rather mild. If, for example, the Coptic Christians, whom Islam generally tolerated throughout the centuries, despite the reign of the Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, had been under the jurisdiction of Rome, they may very well have been branded heretics and exterminated, and of course, all their property confiscated. Even the Greek Orthodox Church had been cruel to them. And we all know how the Jews fared in Christendom. Meanwhile, the Jews in Moorish Spain flourished.
So I would tone my rhetoric down a little if I was you, Mr. Hussain. The last thing we need now is to fan the fires of misunderstanding and hatred toward Islam that already burn in this country, because we have already seen what Christian militarism and intolerance has done in the past. Christian armies on a rampage are a sorry, sordid spectacle.
by
Mac McKinney (47 articles, 75 quicklinks, 176 diaries, 1128 comments)
on Saturday, December 30, 2006 at 1:21:37 AM
I have only made a rebuttal to popular claims of Muslims. If that constitute diatribe so be it - so long I have been factually correct. I have talked about the koran, and Muhammad. They are not history to 1.4b Muslims. They are not even the present. They are for all time.
I have little problem with people make factual analysis of atricties of any kind - be it Christian, Islamic, Mongol, Nazi or whatsoever. I do applaud any such movement and effort, which is critical for the truth to prevail. It's also a moral responsibility of civilized people of the world to pay homage to the great multitude of innocent victims whose sacrifice have shaped our present and should shape the future too. Putting the history in true perspective is the precondition of paying homage to those victims, many of whom remains demonized. We should, in no way, try to hide barbarity of the Nazis and ask for demolition of all the holocaust museums. We should advocate for more museums to be built, not only for the holocaust but also for the atrocity of any kind that might have happened at any point in history.
by
Muhammad Hussain (21 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments)
on Saturday, December 30, 2006 at 11:32:39 PM
I contend that your are interjecting rhetoric and emotion too much into an article purporting to be scholarly. Just to be fair, all of us are likely guilty of rhetorical flourishes from time to time that we later regret, but this must still be addressed on such an important topic.
For example, you state that the "Quran is hateful to non-Islamic religions, people and their cultures on every page of it." There may be a lot of this in the Koran, just as there is a lot of it in the Bible, but you are going too far with such a blanket allegation. The Koran often speaks favorably of its kindred Abrahamic Faiths, as witnessed in such passages as follow:
"Not all of them are alike; a party of the people of the Scripture stand for the right, they recite the Verses of God during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin Al-Ma'rϋf and forbid Al-Munkar ; and they hasten in (all) good works; and they are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for God knows well those who are Al-Muttaqϋn."(3:113-115)
"And there are, certainly, among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), those who believe in God and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before God. They do not sell the Verses of God for a little price, for them is a reward with their Lord. Surely, God is Swift in account." (3:199)
"Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." 2:62
Say (O Muhammad ): "O people of the Scripture: Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but God, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides God.(3:64)
"And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him do we submit." (29:46)
At worst, the Koran, is schizophrenic about other religions, railing against them all in one breath, but accepting at least the Christians and Jews in another breath. In the Bible we likewise find passages that are patently intolerant, such as those promoting the mass slaughter and destruction of infidel peoples and nations, while other passages may actually praise other peoples.
All three Abrahamic religions suffer from the common characteristics of patriarchal monotheism. They all served, and still serve today, as instruments of state repression and social control. They all promote theological hierarchies, with a Lord of the Universe holding court over his creation of less and less heavenly beings, and by association of the state with the divine, political hierarchies as well. But at the same time, there were and are legitimate spiritual revelations and inspirations in all three, so we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just as Judaism has the Kabbalah, Christianity its Gnostic traditions and enlightened monks, so does Islam have its Sufi tradition of mystical enlightenment. In all three religions, the dull literalists and bureaucrats often brutally clashed with the inspired outsiders whose message was seen as a threat to their hierarchies, but these enlightened messages are interspersed into their sacred texts anyway. The trick for modern man and woman is to seperate the wheat from the chaff and progress beyond all hatred and intolerance in their Faiths.
by
Mac McKinney (47 articles, 75 quicklinks, 176 diaries, 1128 comments)
on Sunday, December 31, 2006 at 1:21:57 AM
You have read the Koran in the temporal context that I have alluded a bit. Muhammad wanted the Jews and Christians to join his religion and accept him as their prophet at the beginning. But when the stubborn Jews and Christians firmly rejection his religion and even started criticizing the fatcual errors and logical fallacies of his alleged revelations and when he had become powerful enough, he started spelling venom and blood against them. Koran says, if there are two verse on the same issue but differing in meaning, the first one gets annulled. Many of the early verses are thus abrogated.
If you are interested, you should read my following essay in which I have sought to encapsulate the temporal transformation of Muhammad.
We can go round and round about the meaning and intent of the Koran, but as I said before, the Koran, like the Bible, is schizophrenic regarding other religions. The average reader around the world is not going to have a volume of scholarly tomes in his back pocket to decide which verse abrogates another verse. He or she is going to interpret a verse in relation to his own time and place and historical background. And whatever may exist in often bewildering sacred scriptures will be secondary to the historical unfoldment of that religion and what has become tradition.
And how did Islam unfold as a religion after what we may call the initial "turf" wars to establish itself in Arabia? As Islam transformed into an Islamic Empire that comprised millions of peoples of different religions, including Jews and Christians of various non-Catholic denominations, how did the theocratic authorities react? Did they fanatically embrace one particular verse that proclaims death to all infidels and wipe out all the millions of non-believers?
No, they decisively did not. Did they oppress non-believers at all? Yes, but that depended on the historical time and locale. Certainly, non-believers often had less rights than full-fledged Muslims in an Islamic world, but again, you only have to compare the history of the Jews in Moorish Spain with the history of the Jews in Europe to realize that the Jews generally found much more tolerance under Islam than they did under Christians in Europe, culminating with the horrors of Nazi Germany.
There may be fanaticism today in some Islamic circles, but this fanaticism does not exist in a vacuum. It is engendered by very real attacks upon Islamic countries and Islam in general by the West. It is no secret that in certain Fundamentalist Christian circles in America today the destruction of Islam as a Faith is considered a necessary goal for the achievement of the second coming of Christ and the Millenium. And they are off to a pretty bloody start in Iraq and Afghanistan. Murdering or forcibly converting a billion Muslims is a psychotic fantasy for some who have wormed their way into political or military power in the West.
That there is and has been this intolerant strain in all three Abrahamic Faiths is something that must be recognized and fought against. That there are progressive elements in all three Faiths must be recognized and encouraged.
by
Mac McKinney (47 articles, 75 quicklinks, 176 diaries, 1128 comments)
on Sunday, December 31, 2006 at 9:37:16 AM
I am not interested in protecting any religion and least interested in what Christianity or another religion is.
My speciality is Islam and I am trying put the facts in place against lies and deception spread by the Muslims. As I said, I have a moral responsibility to respect those millions who have fallen victims of all sorts. Victims of Islam's barbarity have been demonized, including 50-80 millions in India alone. 1.4b Muslims see them as vile kaffirs (infidels) who deserved it, as it is clearly spelled in the Koran. I hope, we could do without going round and round..
Thanks, Alamgir.
by
Muhammad Hussain (21 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments)
on Sunday, December 31, 2006 at 10:24:52 AM
I understand what you are saying, Alamgir, but my final point is please don't stereotype all of Islam and all Muslims in images that only feed hatred elsewhere. History, practice and belief differ considerably throughout the world. There is a positive side to Islam as well as to the other Abrahamic Faiths, despite the negativities of the past.
by
Mac McKinney (47 articles, 75 quicklinks, 176 diaries, 1128 comments)
on Sunday, December 31, 2006 at 1:13:09 PM
12 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
