jane abraham
2006-10-17 02:54:30 UTC
by Dr. Mazeni Alwi
Chairman, Muslim Professionals Forum
When the Christians of Jerusalem decided to give in to the Muslim army
that had been laying siege to the city under the command of Amr bin Al
As (RA), they set a condition that Caliph Umar (RA) must come in
person, to sign the peace treaty. Umar and his attendant had only one
camel and they took turns to ride from Medina to Jerusalem . He
approached the city peacefully and by foot, to be cordially received by
its Christian guardian, Bishop Sephronious. Umar signed the peace
treaty with the rulers of Jerusalem which read,
"This is the protection which the servant of God, Umar, the Ruler of
Believers, has granted to the people of Jerusalem . The protection is
for their lives and property, their churches and crosses, their sick
and healthy and for all their coreligionists. Their churches shall not
be used for habitation, nor shall they be demolished, nor shall any
injury be done to them. There shall be no compulsion for these people
in the matter of religion, nor shall any of them suffer any injury on
account of religion. The people of Jerusalem must pay the poll tax like
the people of other cities and they must expel the Byzantines and the
robbers ..."
The gates of the city were opened and Umar went to the Temple Mount and
said his prayer. Afterwards the Bishop invited him to tour the biggest
church of the city. Umar was in the church when the time for the
afternoon prayer came. The Bishop offered to let him pray in the
church. "No" replied Umar, "If I do so, the Muslims one day
might take this as an excuse to take the church from you". So Umar
prayed on the steps of the church. He then gave the Bishop a pact that
forbade Muslims from ever praying on the steps of the church. Until
today, the keeper of the key to Jerusalem 's Church of Holy Sepulchre
is in the same Muslim family for generations. The fire-bombing of a
church in Gaza in the wake of Muslim protests over Pope Benedict's
speech represents an aberration in Christian - Muslim relations in
Palestine , one that is spurred by the radicalization of society under
a long and brutal military occupation than the teachings of Islam
itself.
The portrayal of Islam as a religion that preaches violence and is
primarily spread by it is nothing new in western discourse. It is the
most potent argument for justifying all manner of prejudicial treatment
on the religion and its followers, from soft discrimmatory policies to
islamophobic writings in the media even to occupation of muslim lands
killing their innocents, destroying their societies and plundering of
their resources. This is something that Muslims have learned to accept
to live with, especially in the last few years.
But why did the Muslim react in such a manner when Pope Benedict
repeated something that we are already accustomed to hearing from not
so friendly western public figures? After all flamboyant
televangelists like Jerry Falwell have said worse things than the Pope
- calling the Prophet of Islam a paedophile and terrorist - yet we
never asked for an apology. In the modern era, not least because of
the late Pope John Paul II, Muslims have a genuine respect for the head
of the Catholic church. The Crusades, the Reconquista, the
Inquisitions were far behind us. The Catholic Church with its long
history and tradition, its large number of faithful and the authority
of its leadership, its unambiguous moral precepts and its liturgies and
rites represent what constitutes Christian orthodoxy to ordinary Muslim
eyes, as the last bastion against the inexorable march of
secularization of western society. The Pope and the church is seen as
embodying the vestiges of sacredness and other worldliness of that
society, whose historical trajectory and fortunes is a reminder to us
of the dangers of unfettered hubris. This is also an era where few
have the neither the desire nor the stomach for religious wars. Where
the role of religion in society has been radically rolled back, both
the Islamic and Christian orthodoxies should be sharing a common vision
of restoring spirituality to moderate the rampant individualism,
materialism as well as other less edifying aspects of modernity. This
is at least the general view point of ordinary Muslims, given the
position as the Christian faithful as "People of the Book" and the
reverence with which Jesus (AS) is held by Muslims.
Therefore, to Muslim eyes, what the Pope said in his address at his old
university about the Prophet and Islam is totally uncharacteristic for
someone holding the office of Head of the Catholic Church. That Pope
Benedict was the Vatican's foremost theologian before his
appointment, for His Holiness to have descended to the language and
rhetorics of American televangelists pressed into the service of
President Bush's war on terror is a great disappointment and utterly
shocking to Muslims.
One can't help comparing him to his predecessor, whom Muslims regarded
as someone who had served his faith with utmost sincerity, and at the
same time a genuine builder of bridges. At his death Muslim religious
leaders praised Pope John Paul as having contributed greatly to his
religion and humanity, as a unique example in spreading peace and
tolerance among peoples. When the Muslim world felt anguished and
humiliated, he stood firmly against the US-led occupation of Iraq and
the Israeli separation wall, pointing out that US Middle East policies
were not helping the cause of peace.
Not only did Pope Benedict's attack on Islam and the Prophet followed
by a half-hearted apology grudgingly given evoked strong reaction in
the Muslim world, a number of western commentators took him to task for
his low-brow critique of Islam that appeared more like common-place
prejudice and questioned his possible motives, juxtaposing his well
known position on Turkey with regards to its EU membership bid for
greater effect. One notable piece that has been in wide circulation
among Muslims was written by the veteran Israeli journalist and peace
activist Uri Avneri. Drawing many examples mainly from the Ottoman era
and Andalusian golden age to debunk the Pope's thesis, he gave an
insightful account of Muslim society's tolerance of Christians and
Jews in their midst, some flourishing as scholars while some others
rose to the ranks of ministers.
It has to be admitted that wars are part of Islamic history from very
early on, but perhaps not more or not less than in the history of other
religions that have built civilizations. Wars were simply an
instrument of politics for much of the history of human civilization up
to the recent era when the massive destruction and colossal loss of
lives wrought by modern warfare in World War II made us shudder, and
diplomacy and international law became established as the framework for
settling the affairs of nations. The battles led by the Prophet at
Badr and Uhud was a defence against the idolators of Mecca who mustered
a superior force to annihilate the nascent Muslim community. In the
classical Islamic period there were many wars fought between Muslim
political entities vying from power within the larger body-politics of
the Islamic Caliphate - wars that were motivated primarily by worldly
ambitions. The biography of Ibn Khaldun tells of his fortunes and
reversals as he switched political loyalties from one court to another
in the mini kingdoms of North Africa of the 1300's. It was during
one of his low periods that he spent 3 years in isolation to write his
"History of the Maghreb" whose introductory volume, "the
Muqaddimah" became a celebrated text today a pioneering work in
sociology/historiography. In the early Islamic period violent strife
stirred up by extremist elements like the Kharijites had been the cause
of costly internecine battles that took the lives of some eminent
companions of the Prophet (SAW). The war that the first Caliph Abu
Bakr (RA) waged on the rejecters of the zakat was perhaps the rare
instance where religion rather than realpolitik had been the basis.
It is understandable that in the context of the politics times, the
prophet and his companions took part in battles and wars. Even in the
era of the primacy of international law, however undesirable and
destructive wars are, they may be inevitable and legitimate. Just as
"just war" is an accepted concept in international law and
diplomacy, jihad in its specific military sense is part of the Islamic
lexicon. What Islam laid down should war becomes inevitable is ethical
limitations and chivalrous conduct, that the humanity of the adversary
must be respected, that non combatants, women, children, the aged and
religious leaders must not be harmed and that public buildings,
dwellings, crops and water sources must not be destroyed. The books of
fiqh of the classical Islamic period would customarily have a chapter
on Jihad to remind Muslims of their religious duty to act within the
limits.
Needless to say, how Muslim armies conducted themselves throughout
Islamic history or what their motives were for going to war may not
necessarily accord with what have been laid down in the books of Fiqh
anymore than the conduct of crusader Reginald of Chatillon or the
Serbian militia's murder and rape of Bosnian Muslims in the name of
defending Christendom represent Christian teachings.
Had Pope Benedict questioned why the Muslim armies crossed the Straits
of Gibraltar and went on to conquer Spain for Islam or why the Moors
pushed north as far as Poitiers and Tours in the French heartland to
support his argument, we may have some difficulty in giving a
convincing answer, never mind that conquest of Spain gave birth to
civilization that became a conduit for Europe's recovery of the Greek
intellectual legacy though the works of Ibn Rushd, Ibn Sina and Al
Faraby that was to pave the way for the Renaissance and the
Enlightenment. But Pope Benedict chose to attribute to Prophet
Muhammad (SAW) himself the violence and the sword to perpetuate the
western prejudice on Islam. Thanks to early Muslim scholars for their
scrupulousness who have recorded in meticulous detail the prophet's
life, his companions and Islam's early history, it is not difficult
to respond to misconceptions and deliberate distortions. One such
example from Al Tabari is the "Covenant of Umar" the second Caliph
of Islam, a document addressed to the people of Jerusalem after the
conquest of the city in 638 CE, 5 years after the prophet's death,
narrated in the introductory passage above. Not only did Umar (RA) act
in a just manner that is a reflection of his deep piety, being one of
the Prophet's closest companions, he also exhibited the austere
simplicity (zuhd) that was exceptional for the age when conquering
emperors would ride in triumphantly with pomp and splendor. The Caliph
took turns to ride the one camel he shared with his attendant from
Medina to Jerusalem . Al-Tabari also wrote in detail of similar
treaties made by the Prophet's companions with the inhabitants of
other conquered cities in Syria-Palestine and Egypt . It is clear
that the Islamic conquest of Jerusalem and other cities in the region
was not to seek conversion of the Christians. It was an imperative of
realpolitik of the age and the Muslims sought to put Islamic political
order in place of the Byzantines who happened to be Christians.
In Baladhuri's account of the early jihad (Futuh al Buldan - the
openings of the nations), there is clear evidence of the importance
Muslims attached to the idea of "no compulsion in religion", as
demonstrated by a text written by the Prophet to the Christian
community of Najran in Southern Arabia guaranteeing them certain social
and religious rights under Islamic rule,
"Najran and their followers are entitled to the protection of
Allah and to the security of Muhammad the Prophet, the Messenger of
Allah, which security shall involve their persons, religion, lands and
possession, their camels, messages and images (a reference to crosses
and icons) ... No attempt shall be made to turn a bishop, a monk from
his office as a monk, nor the sexton of a church from his office"
The other controversial point raised by Pope Benedict commented on the
verse "There is no compulsion in religion (2:256)", was the charge
that the Prophet was the author of the verse which he later abrogated.
He noted that the "experts" say that this was composed early on
when "Muhammad was powerless and still under threat" but later he
ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Was the Pope
implying that the Quran was authored by the Prophet? While this is
perfectly understandable for a non muslim to hold as a personal
opinion, to insist so publicly in such a manner while holding the
highest office in the Catholic Church is insensitive and does great
damage to good faith between Muslims and Christians.
The decline of religion and religious culture in the west, the catholic
countries like Spain, France, Italy and Ireland included, is not about
to let up. Known for his doctrinal conservativeness, this must be one
of Pope Benedict's major area of concern. In the attempt to conflate
Christianity with post-modern, post-Christian west and doing its
bidding by recycling the old European myths about Islam and its Prophet
- is this a sign of desperation in a struggle against the relentless
decline of religion? In the modern European context Islam is not in
competition with Christianity. Muslim readily recognize Europe's
Christian heritage and its immense contribution to western civilization
from art and architecture to the development of academic disciplines
and the university, to providing the ethical foundations in liberal
thought, even if many have decried religion as an obstacle to human
progress. The idea of re-asserting Christian values, culture and
identity in highly secular Europe is going to be tough and one can only
view it with resigned pessimism. However it is something that many
Muslims could identify with if the vision is to leaven secular
modernity with a moral and ethical compass that is expansive and
accommodative. However the Pope started on the wrong footing by
reviving the old prejudices against Islam.
Today it is the Muslims who continue to fiercely hold on to the notion
of the Sacred Transcendent, Divine Guidance and Grace through
prophethood, of unambiguous immutable moral precepts and values, and of
the Sacred Law without having to apologize to secular materialism. If
the Catholic Church needs friends in these lean times, they can find
them in the Muslims.
__._,_._
Chairman, Muslim Professionals Forum
When the Christians of Jerusalem decided to give in to the Muslim army
that had been laying siege to the city under the command of Amr bin Al
As (RA), they set a condition that Caliph Umar (RA) must come in
person, to sign the peace treaty. Umar and his attendant had only one
camel and they took turns to ride from Medina to Jerusalem . He
approached the city peacefully and by foot, to be cordially received by
its Christian guardian, Bishop Sephronious. Umar signed the peace
treaty with the rulers of Jerusalem which read,
"This is the protection which the servant of God, Umar, the Ruler of
Believers, has granted to the people of Jerusalem . The protection is
for their lives and property, their churches and crosses, their sick
and healthy and for all their coreligionists. Their churches shall not
be used for habitation, nor shall they be demolished, nor shall any
injury be done to them. There shall be no compulsion for these people
in the matter of religion, nor shall any of them suffer any injury on
account of religion. The people of Jerusalem must pay the poll tax like
the people of other cities and they must expel the Byzantines and the
robbers ..."
The gates of the city were opened and Umar went to the Temple Mount and
said his prayer. Afterwards the Bishop invited him to tour the biggest
church of the city. Umar was in the church when the time for the
afternoon prayer came. The Bishop offered to let him pray in the
church. "No" replied Umar, "If I do so, the Muslims one day
might take this as an excuse to take the church from you". So Umar
prayed on the steps of the church. He then gave the Bishop a pact that
forbade Muslims from ever praying on the steps of the church. Until
today, the keeper of the key to Jerusalem 's Church of Holy Sepulchre
is in the same Muslim family for generations. The fire-bombing of a
church in Gaza in the wake of Muslim protests over Pope Benedict's
speech represents an aberration in Christian - Muslim relations in
Palestine , one that is spurred by the radicalization of society under
a long and brutal military occupation than the teachings of Islam
itself.
The portrayal of Islam as a religion that preaches violence and is
primarily spread by it is nothing new in western discourse. It is the
most potent argument for justifying all manner of prejudicial treatment
on the religion and its followers, from soft discrimmatory policies to
islamophobic writings in the media even to occupation of muslim lands
killing their innocents, destroying their societies and plundering of
their resources. This is something that Muslims have learned to accept
to live with, especially in the last few years.
But why did the Muslim react in such a manner when Pope Benedict
repeated something that we are already accustomed to hearing from not
so friendly western public figures? After all flamboyant
televangelists like Jerry Falwell have said worse things than the Pope
- calling the Prophet of Islam a paedophile and terrorist - yet we
never asked for an apology. In the modern era, not least because of
the late Pope John Paul II, Muslims have a genuine respect for the head
of the Catholic church. The Crusades, the Reconquista, the
Inquisitions were far behind us. The Catholic Church with its long
history and tradition, its large number of faithful and the authority
of its leadership, its unambiguous moral precepts and its liturgies and
rites represent what constitutes Christian orthodoxy to ordinary Muslim
eyes, as the last bastion against the inexorable march of
secularization of western society. The Pope and the church is seen as
embodying the vestiges of sacredness and other worldliness of that
society, whose historical trajectory and fortunes is a reminder to us
of the dangers of unfettered hubris. This is also an era where few
have the neither the desire nor the stomach for religious wars. Where
the role of religion in society has been radically rolled back, both
the Islamic and Christian orthodoxies should be sharing a common vision
of restoring spirituality to moderate the rampant individualism,
materialism as well as other less edifying aspects of modernity. This
is at least the general view point of ordinary Muslims, given the
position as the Christian faithful as "People of the Book" and the
reverence with which Jesus (AS) is held by Muslims.
Therefore, to Muslim eyes, what the Pope said in his address at his old
university about the Prophet and Islam is totally uncharacteristic for
someone holding the office of Head of the Catholic Church. That Pope
Benedict was the Vatican's foremost theologian before his
appointment, for His Holiness to have descended to the language and
rhetorics of American televangelists pressed into the service of
President Bush's war on terror is a great disappointment and utterly
shocking to Muslims.
One can't help comparing him to his predecessor, whom Muslims regarded
as someone who had served his faith with utmost sincerity, and at the
same time a genuine builder of bridges. At his death Muslim religious
leaders praised Pope John Paul as having contributed greatly to his
religion and humanity, as a unique example in spreading peace and
tolerance among peoples. When the Muslim world felt anguished and
humiliated, he stood firmly against the US-led occupation of Iraq and
the Israeli separation wall, pointing out that US Middle East policies
were not helping the cause of peace.
Not only did Pope Benedict's attack on Islam and the Prophet followed
by a half-hearted apology grudgingly given evoked strong reaction in
the Muslim world, a number of western commentators took him to task for
his low-brow critique of Islam that appeared more like common-place
prejudice and questioned his possible motives, juxtaposing his well
known position on Turkey with regards to its EU membership bid for
greater effect. One notable piece that has been in wide circulation
among Muslims was written by the veteran Israeli journalist and peace
activist Uri Avneri. Drawing many examples mainly from the Ottoman era
and Andalusian golden age to debunk the Pope's thesis, he gave an
insightful account of Muslim society's tolerance of Christians and
Jews in their midst, some flourishing as scholars while some others
rose to the ranks of ministers.
It has to be admitted that wars are part of Islamic history from very
early on, but perhaps not more or not less than in the history of other
religions that have built civilizations. Wars were simply an
instrument of politics for much of the history of human civilization up
to the recent era when the massive destruction and colossal loss of
lives wrought by modern warfare in World War II made us shudder, and
diplomacy and international law became established as the framework for
settling the affairs of nations. The battles led by the Prophet at
Badr and Uhud was a defence against the idolators of Mecca who mustered
a superior force to annihilate the nascent Muslim community. In the
classical Islamic period there were many wars fought between Muslim
political entities vying from power within the larger body-politics of
the Islamic Caliphate - wars that were motivated primarily by worldly
ambitions. The biography of Ibn Khaldun tells of his fortunes and
reversals as he switched political loyalties from one court to another
in the mini kingdoms of North Africa of the 1300's. It was during
one of his low periods that he spent 3 years in isolation to write his
"History of the Maghreb" whose introductory volume, "the
Muqaddimah" became a celebrated text today a pioneering work in
sociology/historiography. In the early Islamic period violent strife
stirred up by extremist elements like the Kharijites had been the cause
of costly internecine battles that took the lives of some eminent
companions of the Prophet (SAW). The war that the first Caliph Abu
Bakr (RA) waged on the rejecters of the zakat was perhaps the rare
instance where religion rather than realpolitik had been the basis.
It is understandable that in the context of the politics times, the
prophet and his companions took part in battles and wars. Even in the
era of the primacy of international law, however undesirable and
destructive wars are, they may be inevitable and legitimate. Just as
"just war" is an accepted concept in international law and
diplomacy, jihad in its specific military sense is part of the Islamic
lexicon. What Islam laid down should war becomes inevitable is ethical
limitations and chivalrous conduct, that the humanity of the adversary
must be respected, that non combatants, women, children, the aged and
religious leaders must not be harmed and that public buildings,
dwellings, crops and water sources must not be destroyed. The books of
fiqh of the classical Islamic period would customarily have a chapter
on Jihad to remind Muslims of their religious duty to act within the
limits.
Needless to say, how Muslim armies conducted themselves throughout
Islamic history or what their motives were for going to war may not
necessarily accord with what have been laid down in the books of Fiqh
anymore than the conduct of crusader Reginald of Chatillon or the
Serbian militia's murder and rape of Bosnian Muslims in the name of
defending Christendom represent Christian teachings.
Had Pope Benedict questioned why the Muslim armies crossed the Straits
of Gibraltar and went on to conquer Spain for Islam or why the Moors
pushed north as far as Poitiers and Tours in the French heartland to
support his argument, we may have some difficulty in giving a
convincing answer, never mind that conquest of Spain gave birth to
civilization that became a conduit for Europe's recovery of the Greek
intellectual legacy though the works of Ibn Rushd, Ibn Sina and Al
Faraby that was to pave the way for the Renaissance and the
Enlightenment. But Pope Benedict chose to attribute to Prophet
Muhammad (SAW) himself the violence and the sword to perpetuate the
western prejudice on Islam. Thanks to early Muslim scholars for their
scrupulousness who have recorded in meticulous detail the prophet's
life, his companions and Islam's early history, it is not difficult
to respond to misconceptions and deliberate distortions. One such
example from Al Tabari is the "Covenant of Umar" the second Caliph
of Islam, a document addressed to the people of Jerusalem after the
conquest of the city in 638 CE, 5 years after the prophet's death,
narrated in the introductory passage above. Not only did Umar (RA) act
in a just manner that is a reflection of his deep piety, being one of
the Prophet's closest companions, he also exhibited the austere
simplicity (zuhd) that was exceptional for the age when conquering
emperors would ride in triumphantly with pomp and splendor. The Caliph
took turns to ride the one camel he shared with his attendant from
Medina to Jerusalem . Al-Tabari also wrote in detail of similar
treaties made by the Prophet's companions with the inhabitants of
other conquered cities in Syria-Palestine and Egypt . It is clear
that the Islamic conquest of Jerusalem and other cities in the region
was not to seek conversion of the Christians. It was an imperative of
realpolitik of the age and the Muslims sought to put Islamic political
order in place of the Byzantines who happened to be Christians.
In Baladhuri's account of the early jihad (Futuh al Buldan - the
openings of the nations), there is clear evidence of the importance
Muslims attached to the idea of "no compulsion in religion", as
demonstrated by a text written by the Prophet to the Christian
community of Najran in Southern Arabia guaranteeing them certain social
and religious rights under Islamic rule,
"Najran and their followers are entitled to the protection of
Allah and to the security of Muhammad the Prophet, the Messenger of
Allah, which security shall involve their persons, religion, lands and
possession, their camels, messages and images (a reference to crosses
and icons) ... No attempt shall be made to turn a bishop, a monk from
his office as a monk, nor the sexton of a church from his office"
The other controversial point raised by Pope Benedict commented on the
verse "There is no compulsion in religion (2:256)", was the charge
that the Prophet was the author of the verse which he later abrogated.
He noted that the "experts" say that this was composed early on
when "Muhammad was powerless and still under threat" but later he
ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Was the Pope
implying that the Quran was authored by the Prophet? While this is
perfectly understandable for a non muslim to hold as a personal
opinion, to insist so publicly in such a manner while holding the
highest office in the Catholic Church is insensitive and does great
damage to good faith between Muslims and Christians.
The decline of religion and religious culture in the west, the catholic
countries like Spain, France, Italy and Ireland included, is not about
to let up. Known for his doctrinal conservativeness, this must be one
of Pope Benedict's major area of concern. In the attempt to conflate
Christianity with post-modern, post-Christian west and doing its
bidding by recycling the old European myths about Islam and its Prophet
- is this a sign of desperation in a struggle against the relentless
decline of religion? In the modern European context Islam is not in
competition with Christianity. Muslim readily recognize Europe's
Christian heritage and its immense contribution to western civilization
from art and architecture to the development of academic disciplines
and the university, to providing the ethical foundations in liberal
thought, even if many have decried religion as an obstacle to human
progress. The idea of re-asserting Christian values, culture and
identity in highly secular Europe is going to be tough and one can only
view it with resigned pessimism. However it is something that many
Muslims could identify with if the vision is to leaven secular
modernity with a moral and ethical compass that is expansive and
accommodative. However the Pope started on the wrong footing by
reviving the old prejudices against Islam.
Today it is the Muslims who continue to fiercely hold on to the notion
of the Sacred Transcendent, Divine Guidance and Grace through
prophethood, of unambiguous immutable moral precepts and values, and of
the Sacred Law without having to apologize to secular materialism. If
the Catholic Church needs friends in these lean times, they can find
them in the Muslims.
__._,_._