What would the Prophet of Islam have done today when pilloried? Mahfuzur Rahman

What would the Prophet of Islam have done today when pilloried?

Mahfuzur Rahman

Published on February 16, 2006

Among Muslims the predominant response to the recent pillorying of the Prophet of Islam in a Danish newspaper has been one of anger. Even where anger did not turn into frenzy and mayhem, there was bitterness, a feeling that the west has unfairly treated Muslim sensibilities in the name of freedom of expression. It will be wrong, however, to think that Muslim thinking been nearly as monolithic as that: some Muslims must have been torn between their respect for their Prophet and that for the freedom the modern world has endowed on them. Others have called for restraint and equanimity. Among the latter are those who have asked fellow Muslims to follow the example of the Prophet in particular in their show of tolerance to acts of provocation.

A recent article by Ibrahim Hooper, a well-known member of the Council on American -Islamic Relations (CAIR), pleads precisely for this course of action. This is undoubtedly a noble gesture. Nevertheless, it is essential to look a little more closely at the plea and its historical background. I intend to do this in the following paragraphs. It will be seen the conclusion that emerges is substantially different from, and far more complex than, the one presented in the CAIR article. Following the Prophetic examples cited can indeed be an act of piety; but there are other examples which will not serve the cause of kindness and tolerance towards fellow human beings. The verses from the Koran cited in the article are also selective and quotations that convey very different impressions are easy to find.

The CAIR article points out that the ï¿½The Islamic traditions include a number of instances of the prophet having the opportunity to strike back at those who attacked him, but refrained from doing so.ï¿½ One need not doubt that there were such instances. Neither can one ignore the following historical facts.

The killing of Kaï¿½b bin Ashraf, the poet: Sahih Al-Bukhari states ï¿½ Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah, (ra): Allahï¿½s Messenger (pbuh) said: ï¿½ Who will kill Kaï¿½b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Messenger? Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, ï¿½O Allahï¿½s Messenger! Would you like that I kill him?ï¿½ The Prophet (pbuh) said, ï¿½Yesï¿½ï¿½

[Sahih Al-Bukhari, Translation by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Darussalam Publishers and Distributors, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Vol. 5, pp. 221-223.] The long hadith then narrates how the assassins set out on their mission, the subterfuge they used to coax the poet out of his house, and killed him. Ibn Ishaq [ Sirat Rasul Allah, English translation by A. Guillaume entitled Life of Muhammad, Oxford University Press, Karachi, 1967, pp.367-368] tells the same story in gory detail, and narrates how the Prophet accompanied the assassins part of the way on their mission and how he received them after it was accomplished.. This was perhaps the first political assassination in Islamic history, though certainly not in the history of mankind.

The killing of Abu Rafi, the Jew: Sahih Al-Bukhari states: ï¿½ Narrated Al-Baraï¿½ bin Azib (ra): Allahï¿½s Messenger (pbuh) sent some men from the Ansar to(kill) the Jew Abu Rafi, and appointed Abdullah bin Atik as their leader. Abu Rafi used to hurt Allahï¿½s messenger (pbuh) and help his enemies against himï¿½ï¿½ Here again is a long hadith that describes in considerable detail how the assassins got into Abu Rafiï¿½s palace and killed him. The actual killing was done by Abdullah bin Atik who narrates the gruesome detail of the murder: ï¿½ ï¿½I dove the point of the sword into his belly (and pressed it through) till it touched his back, and I realised that I have killed him.ï¿½ Incidentally, while escaping after the murder, he broke his leg in a fall. As he reported the accomplishment of the mission, the Prophet saw the broken leg and instantly healed it. [Ibid. 223-225]

While Ibrahim Hooperï¿½s citation of instances of the Prophet (pbuh)ï¿½s dealings with fellow human beings paints a picture of kindness and forgiveness, these the two murders, ordered by the Prophet (pbuh), and reported in authentic hadith, certainly throw a very different light on the subject. Such examples to the contrary are, furthermore, not rare. Two more examples should suffice here, also both taken from Sahih Al-Bukhari.

Corpses of Quraish leaders thrown into a pit: ï¿½ Narrated Abu Talha (ra): On the the day ( of the battle ) of Badr, the Prophet (pbuh) ordered that the corpses of twenty-four leaders of Quraish should be thrown into one of the dirty dry wells of Badrï¿½..So, on the third day of the battle of Badr, he ordered that his she -camel be saddled, then he set out, and his Companions followed him saying among themselves, ï¿½Definitely he (i.e. the Prophet (pbuh) is proceeding for some great purpose. When he (pbuh) halted at the edge of the well, he addressed the corpses of the Quraish infidels by their names and their fathersï¿½ names, ï¿½O so-and-so, son of so-and-so, and O so-and-so, son of so-and-so! Would it have pleased you if you had obeyed Allah and His Messenger? ï¿½. ï¿½Umar said, ï¿½O Allahï¿½s Messenger! You are speaking to bodies that have no souls!ï¿½ Allahï¿½s Messenger (pbuh) said, ï¿½By Him in whose Hand Muhammadï¿½s soul is, you do not hear, what I say better than they do.ï¿½ Qatada said, Allah brought them to life (again) to let them hear him (i.e. the Prophet (pbuh)) to reprimand them and slight them and take revenge over them and caused them to feel remorseful and regretful.ï¿½ ï¿½ [Ibid. pp. 188-189]

It may well have been that throwing corpses of people killed in battle into dry wells was among the prevailing customs in Arab societies. But this does not make the episode of the dead Quraish leaders being flung into wells in revenge any more merciful, especially when this is juxtaposed against a general hypothesis of mercy on the part of the Prophet of Islam (pbuh). Similarly, cruel punishment for crime may have been the order of the day, but the following example, also from Sahih Al-Bukhari, of punishment meted out by the Prophet (pbuh) himself does stand out.

ï¿½Narrated Anas (ra): The climate of Al-Madina did not suit some people, so the Prophet (pbuh) ordered them to proceed along with his shepherd, i.e. his camels, and drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they proceeded along with the shepherd (and the camels) and drank their milk and urine, till their bodies became healthy. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. When the news reached the Prophet (pbuh), he sent some people in their pursuit. When they were brought, he cut their hands and feet, and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron.ï¿½ [Ibid. vol. 7, p. 329.]

Humanity, mercy and forgiveness have often been trodden into blood- soaked earth in the course of the history of the human race. No nation or religion, or rather its adherents, can claim to have a squeaky clean record here. Islam is no exception. With that background in mind, it is useful to recount here the historical fact of the massacre of Banu Quraiza for those who look at Prophetic action as an exemplar of Muslim behaviour today.

Soon after the Battle of the Trench in the year 627CE/ 5AH, the Jewish tribe of Banu Quraiza was by besieged Prophet Muhammadï¿½s forces for their alleged support for the Muslimï¿½s enemies, the Quraish. The historical reasons for the attack on Banu Qurayza are a matter of controversy. What is not is the gruesomeness and scale of the retribution inflicted on the tribe. Ibn Ishaq describes the scene thus: ï¿½Then they [ Banu Qurayza] surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them [the male members of the tribe] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Kaï¿½b b. Asad their chief. There were some 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Kaï¿½b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, ï¿½will you never understand? Donï¿½t you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!ï¿½ This went on until the apostle made an end of them.ï¿½ [Ibid p. 464.] The women and children of the tribe were spared death and were taken into slavery.

One need not doubt acts of kindness on the part of the Prophet of Islam in his private life. But asking Muslims to emulate him in the hope of making them more tolerant human beings in the modern world is also tantamount to asking them to turn a blind eye to the above acts of horrendous cruelty. There must be other ways to promote tolerance and mercy. We shall return to this shortly, but first we need to take a brief look at some of the quotations from the Koran that the CAIR article uses to underline Islamï¿½s image of tolerance and peace.

The article quotes a few verses of the Koran suggesting divine counsel to the Prophet to avoid confrontation with the unbelievers and refrain from using force in his mission to spread Islam. In fact the article could have quoted many more to that effect. There are numerous verses where the Prophet is comforted and reminded that his duty is only to warn, that he is not the arbiter of their affairs and so on. Thus: ï¿½Say, ï¿½Not mine is the responsibility for arranging your affairsï¿½ ï¿½ ( VI: 66); ï¿½ Say, ï¿½ I am not here to watch over your doingsï¿½ï¿½ (VI:104); ï¿½So leave them and their inventions aloneï¿½ ( VI: 112); ï¿½Say, ï¿½My work to me, and your to youï¿½ï¿½ (X:41); ï¿½ Will thou then compel mankind against their will to believe?ï¿½ (X: 99); ï¿½ But if they turn away, thy duty is only to preach the clear Messageï¿½ (XVI:82); ï¿½And thou art not the dispenser of their affairsï¿½ ( XLII:6); ï¿½Thou art not one to overawe them by forceï¿½ ( L:45); or, perhaps the best-known of them, ï¿½ [Say] ï¿½ To you be your Way, and to me mineï¿½ï¿½ (CIX:6).

These verses and, many others in the Koran, would give the impression of tolerant Islam, which totally rejects force in the matter of religion. It is important to note, however, that a large majority of the verses were Meccan, from a period when the nascent religion was weak and was struggling to survive in a largely hostile social and political environment. It is unhelpful to hark back to verses of that period as representative of the true spirit of Islam, to the exclusion of other verses. The mood in the Koran changed dramatically when Islam began to thrive in Medina and started to assert itself. Much of the Meccan tolerance was gone.

There are other difficulties with selective quoting from the Koran for the purpose of making a case for tolerance and forgiveness, as the CAIR article seeks to do. A very large number of examples can be cited to illustrate the difficulties. For the present let us consider the oft-quoted verse: ï¿½Let there be no compulsion in religion: the truth stands out clear from errorï¿½ (II: 256).The verse has often been cited by Islamic moderates as a clear example of Koranï¿½s emphasis on moderation and tolerance. That it belongs to a Medina sura (Baqara) is probably supposed to add to its importance. But, apart from the consideration that such verses are relatively rare in Medina suras, there are major differences of opinion on the implication of the verse itself. The interpretation preferred by the moderates is not the only one available. There are very different ways of looking at the verse. The following is one.

A well-known Bengali translation of the Koran and commentary by Maulana Muhiuddin Khan (original by Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi, published from Saudi Arabia) contends that that the verse does not have anything to do with violence against unbelievers, but goes on to say: ï¿½Reading this ayat, some might ask: this suggests that no force should be applied in matters of religion, whereas Islam has taught us to conduct jihad and fight. Deep reflection should suggest that such a question is not an appropriate one. That is because in Islam the lesson of jihad and qetal [i.e. fighting or killing] is not aimed at compelling people to believe. If that were the case, there would be no need for kafirs to take their own responsibility in exchange for jizyia.ï¿½ The commentator goes on to say: Islam ï¿½also prohibits the killing of persons who have begun to pay the jizyia and obey [Islamic] laws.ï¿½ He points out that since Allah has asked that tumult and oppression (fitna in Arabic) perpetrated by the kafirs be rid of through jihad and qetal, ï¿½ killing of transgressing oppressors [ meaning the kafirs] is like killing snakes or scorpions or some such animals that cause painï¿½ (Translations mine.) With transgression presumably to be judged from the point of view of the Muslims alone, and with the kafirs being able to save their skin only on payment of jizyia, this line of argument revolving around the verse hardly gives one the impression of tolerance in the ordinary meaning of the term that the moderates would prefer.

There are indeed numerous verses of the Koran which admit of different and even conflicting interpretations or do not mean what they apparently says, making the practice of referring to them quite hazardous. It is neither practical nor useful to try a comprehensive survey of such verses here. But let us take quick a look at a verse that the CAIR article cites: ï¿½ When ( the righteous) hear vain talk, they withdraw from it saying : ï¿½Our deeds are for us and yours for you: peace be on youï¿½.ï¿½ XXVIII: 55( Meccan sura). Does the verse really mean ï¿½Peace be on you, unbelieversï¿½? No, according to some commentators. There is a remarkably similar verse in another Meccan sura: ï¿½But turn away from them, and say ï¿½Peaceï¿½!...ï¿½ ( XLIII: 89) The Maulana Muhiuddin Khan translation and commentary has this to say: ï¿½ï¿½say Salamï¿½ does not mean ï¿½Salam- alaikumï¿½( Peace be on you), because it is not permissible to address a non-Muslim in that languageï¿½, meaning that the language is reserved for Muslims only. It only means ï¿½I want to sever connection with you nicelyï¿½. While this suggests a degree of tolerance, it does not extend to amity even in a Meccan sura, and the meaning of the verse turns out to be different from what it apparently says.

There are pieces in the Koran that prescribe kindness and courtesy. In a remarkable verse it says: ï¿½When a (courteous) greeting is offered you, meet it with a greeting still more courteous or (at least) of equal courtesyï¿½ï¿½ ( IV:86). Apparently there is no requirement in the holy book to extend such courtesy to the unbelievers.

In much of the Medina suras, peace with the unbelievers was to be had only on Islamï¿½s terms. Perhaps the final word on this is suggested by: ï¿½Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, ( even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subduedï¿½ ( Sura Tauba, IX:29) (Yusuf Aliï¿½s translation). This was among the last suras to be revealed, lending weight to the finality of its pronouncement on Jihad in the Koran.

One would find many instances in the Koran where God is presented as a forgiving Being. And this has often been offered as evidence of Godï¿½s mercy to all mankind. It is none the less undeniable that such mercy is available only to the believers. The unbelievers, who take others as partners, are doomed for eternity. Any suggestion that unbelievers could conceivably be brought close to the believers in a fraternal relation is shattered by verses like the following: ï¿½For the worst of beasts in the sight of God are those who reject Himï¿½.ï¿½ (VIII:55)

This rather long discussion suggests the apparent futility of seeking support for the case for tolerance and understanding, between Muslims and members of other faiths, in the Koran and the character and dealings of the Prophet of Islam. In fact Islam, or any other religion, is not about brotherly love towards those who reject it. One can even argue that otherwise there would not be a raison dï¿½ï¿½tre for any religion. The source of understanding between people of different faiths must be sought elsewhere.

It is tempting to stop right there. But that would be a pity. Prophets of other faiths, big and small, have often been pilloried. Rarely in modern times has this led to violent protests from the adherents of the faith in question. In the days following the publication of the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, I came to contrast the violence provoked by it to the total absence of such reaction when another Prophet of another great religion was shown in very unsavoury light in a literary work. Dan Brownï¿½s novel The Da Vinci Code, which has sold tens of millions of copies, centres around the story of Jesus Christ, far from going to heaven after his crucifixion, going off with Mary Magdalene, travelling to Europe and raising a family. It will, I believe, be recognized that to the Christians this depiction of their Prophet is potentially a far more shocking matter than the cartoons of the Prophet of Islam to the Muslims. How did the Christians react to it? Not with violence, not even with a loud protest. And where did the mainstream Christians learn such tolerance? They learned it from a secular liberal tradition. Muslims should follow that example, rather than waste time in futile search for it their holy books and prophetic traditions.