Download A detailed response to Yusuf Eades

A detailed response to Yusuf Eades
Mark Durie
February 2002
In the last issue of the Melbourne Anglican (February 2002) Yusuf Eades, an Australian
convert to Islam and former student of mine at Melbourne University, took issue with
certain comments I made on the Qu’ran. Yusuf, in responding to my questions, affirmed
the tolerance of the Qur’an, but gave no explanation for the violence or its supersessionist
teachings about Christianity and Judaism.
I have prepared a summary response to Yusuf, which has been submitted to the
Melbourne Anglican as a letter. This is a more detailed response.
Jihad in the Qur’an and the Sunna
It is a matter of fact that there are in the Qur’an repeated calls to violence against
unbelievers. The question is how to interpret these, and specifically, how has Islam
interpreted them.
Here it is necessary to realize that the verses of the Qur’an are linked to events in
Muhammad’s lifetime: this is crucial in interpreting them correctly, because verses
revealed later can contradict or modify earlier verses. This principle is known in Islamic
theology as ‘abrogation’. Specifically the revelation of jihad must be understood in the
context of Muhammad’s whole life. In his early Meccan period Muhammad followed a
path of non-violent testimony: fighting was forbidden. Subsequently Muhammad
migrated to Medina to avoid persecution. After the migration jihad was revealed. Later,
after the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad is recorded as saying “There is no migration
after the conquest, but jihad and good intention remain; and if you are called forth for
fighting, go forth immediately.”
Yusuf Eades regards the famous verse ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ (2:256) as
‘central to the Islamic world view’. Yet, according to a tradition of Mujahid “This was
before the Messenger of God was commanded to fight against the People of the Book.
God’s saying ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ was abrogated and he was commanded
to fight against the People of the Book in the Sura Repentance.”
This reference is to verse 9:29, which reads “Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor in
the last Day, nor forbid that which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow
the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the polltax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.” Thus Tabiri
(d. 923 AD) wrote ‘The People of the Book are not to be compelled to enter Islam if they
submit to paying [tribute].’ That is, ‘no compulsion’ is something which is granted only
to those who surrender to Islamic rule, under the terms of a treaty.
This is the classical Islamic doctrine of jihad as applied to Christians and Jews: it is an
obligation to fight Christians and Jews (‘People of the Book’) until they convert to Islam,
or until they surrender, agreeing to pay a headtax and to live under the political dominion
of Islam. When Yusuf rejects defining jihad as fighting to spread Islam, his argument is
not with me, but with numerous Islamic authorities.
My understanding of this difficult topic has been enlightened by a significant theological
essay on the Quranic foundations of jihad. Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Hamid, Sheikh
of the Sacred Mosque of Mecca published his essay, entitled The call to Jihad (fighting
for Allah’s cause) in the Holy Qur’an, in the introduction to the 9-volume published
English-language edition of the Sahih Bukhari. The Sahih Bukhari is the most
authoritative Sunna collection, and the most revered book in Islam after the Qur’an. This
call to Muslims to engaged in jihad can be found reproduced on countless Muslim
websites around the world.
In his essay Abdullah bin Muhammad makes it very clear that jihad means fighting:
“And the verses of the Book (Qur’an) and Sunna (The Prophet’s Tradition) have
exhorted greatly for Jihad and have made quite clear its rewards, and praised
greatly those who perform Jihad (the Muslim Holy War-fare) and explained to
them the news of various kinds of honours which they will receive from their Lord
(Allah). This is because they (Mujahideen) are Allah’s troops.” (p. xxv) [Material
in brackets is in the original.]
The Sheikh of Mecca further describes the progressive revelation concerning jihad, which
progressed from an initial prohibition of fighting in the Meccan period, to a permission to
fight, to an obligation to fight:
“So at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was
made obligatory .” (p xxiv)
“So they (Muslims) were not permitted to abandon ‘the fighting’ against them
(Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend
hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are strong and have the
possibility of fighting against them.” (p. xxiv) [Material in brackets is in the
original.]
The Sheikh later compares Islam’s doctrine of warfare with other ideologies, making the
point that Islam’s doctrine of warfare is more comprehensive and self-fulfilling than all
other ideologies:
“And you will not find any organization past or present, religious or nonreligious
as regards (Jihad and military) (ordering) the whole nation to march forth and
mobilize all of them into active military service as a single row for Jihad in
Allah’s cause so as to make superior the word of Allah (i.e. none has the right to
be worshipped but Allah), as you will find in the Islamic Religion and its
teachings.” (p. xxix) [Material in brackets is in the original.]
The Sheikh of Mecca is not alone in his opinion. Ibn Kaldun, the most famous Muslim
historian, who was also a jurist and judge, wrote the following in his ‘Introduction to
History’ (Al Muqaddimah):
“In the Muslim community, holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the
universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to
Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore caliphate and royal authority are
united, so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of
them [religion and politics] at the same time. The other religious groups did not
have a universal mission, and the holy war [jihad] was not a religious duty to
them, save only for purposes of defence. …” [After a discussion of Christian
beliefs he continues:] “We do not think that we should blacken the pages of this
book with discussion of their dogmas of unbelief. In general, they are well known.
All of them are unbelief. This is clearly stated in the noble Qur’an. [To] discuss or
argue those things with them is not up to us. It is [for them to choose between]
conversion to Islam, payment of the poll-tax, or death.” [I, 480]
Muhammad spoke of the divine call to jihad as a distinctive of his prophethood. He
understood this in terms of his victory through a campaign of terror and his rights to the
spoils of war (Muhammad’s share was the quint – 20% of the total taken):
“I have been given five things which were not given to any one else [i.e. any other
prophet] before me. 1. Allah made me triumphant by terror for a period of a
month. 2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for
praying and a thing to perform Tayammum (purification without water), therefore
anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due. 3. Booty
has been made lawful for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me. 4. I
have been given the right of intercession. 5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his
nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.”
All the Sunna collections include a substantial book or chapter headed ‘Jihad’, each of
which is concerned with fighting and warfare. In the Sunna, ‘fighting non-believers’ is a
commonplace interpretation of the word jihad. A typical example is the story of a man
once came to Muhammad and asked him: ‘Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad’.
Muhammad replied that there was no greater deed, and the Muslim fighter is rewarded
even for the footsteps of his horse.
The Qur’an itself contains many Suras which deal with fighting (as the Sheikh of Medina
explains). Several are named after battles or aspects of warfare (‘fighting’, ‘trenches’,
‘victory’, ‘rows’, and ‘booty’). In the first thousand years after Muhammad many
renowned scholars of Islam wrote treatises on ‘Jihad’. All are about warfare. The website
of Al-Muhajiroun, a London-based association of Muslims, whose representatives have
appeared regularly on British television, defines jihad as ‘using military force, where
diplomacy fails, to remove the obstacles the Islamic State faces in carrying its ideology to
mankind’. In Let us be Muslims, a book recommended by the Office of the Islamic
Council of Victoria, the author Sayyid Abul A’la Mawdudi has a concluding chapter
which is entitled ‘Central Importance of Jihad’ and which speaks of toppling Western
governments. The final sentence of this chapter is: “Let us not be like those who claim to
believe in Allah, but give neither time, money, nor lives for the sake of His Din (religion,
sovereignty). Let us come forward and fight in Allah’s cause with whatever we possess.”
Ibn Warraq and Bat Ye’or
Ibn Warraq is a secular humanist of Indian Muslim background. I do not agree with all
his positions on Islam, nor do I always agree with the tone in which they are put, but they
are informed and worthy of consideration. His arguments, like Bertrand Russell’s
arguments against Christianity, deserve careful consideration. The fact that Ibn Warraq
opposes classical Islamic doctrine does not mean that his views should be dismissed or
ignored. The historian Bat Ye’or (a pseudonym meaning ‘daughter of the Nile’) is
originally from Egypt and is now a British citizen. She is a descendant of the ancient
Egyptian Jewish community, which now has all but disappeared after more than 2,500
years. As a former Egyptian Jew, the Daughter of the Nile has every right to examine the
history of Islam’s treatment of the People of the Book, because this is her history too. Her
carefully researched historical works, like the writings of Ibn Warraq, deserve our
consideration.
The Acehnese struggle against the Dutch
Yusuf objected to my use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with Acehnese resistance
to Dutch colonialism. My use of this word was not meant as a moral judgement of the
Acehnese cause, nor did I attribute their battle for freedom to religious intolerance. My
point was about the theological category of their resistance.
Certainly the Acehnese were entitled to resist the Dutch invaders and they fought bravely.
This included, right up until WWII, sporadic and unpredictable attacks against Dutch
civilians. This phenomenon is well-documented in both Dutch and Acehnese sources, and
it was conducted according to the doctrine of jihad.
Does Islam respect Christian history?
Yusuf objected to my suggestion that Islam denies Christianity its history. The most
telling example of what I mean by this is Islam’s rejection of the death of Jesus (Sura
4:157-158). This rejection is consistent with the view that it would be unthinkable for
God to permit his prophet to be crucified. As God has power over all things, he would
not let one of his prophets be treated as a ‘loser’ (a Qur’anic term for disbelievers). The
one thing that ancient pagan, Jewish and Christian sources agree on concerning Jesus is
that he died. The whole edifice of Christian belief is built upon the historical fact of
Jesus’ death. The gospel narratives revolve around this event. The Islamic claim that
Jesus never died is the most profound rejection of Christian history that one could
imagine.
Does Islam respect Christianity?
Yusuf also overestimates Islam’s respect for Christianity. Certainly the Qur’an has much
to say about Jesus, a figure whom Muhammad admired greatly, and compared himself to.
However, when the Qur’an speaks of those who ‘[truly] observe the Torah and the
Gospel’ (5:68) one must remember that Moses and Jesus are understood to be Muslim
prophets, and the ‘Torah’ and ‘Gospel’ to be revelations of Islam - like the Qur’an which are now lost in their original form. Historic Christianity and Judaism are regarded
as corrupted forms of Islam. What Islam affirms in these religions is nothing more nor
less than what it discerns as the somewhat obscured image of Islam itself. In contrast, the
Christian doctrine of the Trinity is called shirk ‘association’, one of the most
blasphemous of all sins. Muhammad repeatedly commanded that all who change their
religion away from Islam should be put to death, e.g. “Whoever changes his Islamic
religion, then kill him.” Apostasy is one of only three crimes for which it was permissible
to put a Muslim to death. This penalty remains the law of the land in half a dozen Muslim
countries today. Respect for Christianity is logically incompatible with a command to
put converts to Christianity to death. It is also logically incompatible with the ideology of
perpetual obligatory jihad.
The Muslim writer Shamim A. Siddiqi of Flushing, New York put the classical position
of Islam towards Christianity very clearly in a recent letter to Daniel Pipes, New York
Post columnist:
“Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad were all prophets of Islam. Islam is
the common heritage of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim community of America,
and establishing the Kingdom of God is the joint responsibility of all three
Abrahamic faiths. Islam was the din (faith, way of life) of both Jews and
Christians, who later lost it through human innovations. Now the Muslims want
to remind their Jewish and Christian brothers and sisters of their original din.
These are the facts of history.”
This strategy - of appearing to affirm Christianity and Judaism - is a cornerstone of
Muslim apologetics amongst Christians. What is being affirmed is in fact neither
historical Christianity nor Judaism, but Jesus as a prophet of Islam, Moses as a Muslim
etc. This is strategy is intended to lead to ‘reversion’ of Christians and Jews to Islam,
which is what Sidiqqi is referring to when he speaks of ‘the joint responsibility’ of Jews
and Christians to establish ‘the Kingdom of God’, which is a kind of code for shari’ah
law and the rule of Islam.
The Qur’an teaches that the Christian and Jewish scriptures were deliberately corrupted
by their followers. However this is contradicted by the facts of history. When during the
Renaissance Western Christians rediscovered the Hebrew scriptures, they found them to
agree remarkably closely with their Greek and Latin translations which had been copied
and recopied over a thousand years. There were copying errors, and some minor
additions, but no significant fabrications of the stupendous scale which would be required
in order to concoct the story of Jesus’ death. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were
discovered, they included Hebrew Biblical manuscripts dating from before the time of
Jesus. These too were found to agree remarkably closely with the Hebrew Masoretic texts
of a thousand years later. Again, no fabrications, but evidence of remarkably faithful
copying.
In the manuscript evidence for its canon, Christianity compares most favourably with
Islam. The Islamic canon consists of Qur’an and the Hadith. Certainly the New
Testament contains no text functionally equivalent to the Qur’an, which is regarded in
Islam as a direct transcription of divine speech. There is no evidence that Jesus received a
‘book’ such as this. The equivalent of the Christian gospels are the Hadith (or Sunna) –
traditions of Muhammad’s words and example, which the Qur’an states are binding for
the Muslim community. These traditions determine a great deal of Islamic observance.
They are organized, not in narrative sequence like the gospels, but in collections
according to thematic headings. The gospels are attested by thousands of primary
manuscripts, more than any other ancient text. The earliest papyrus manuscripts date
from the first hundred years after their originals were composed, and the originals were
put down within living memory of Jesus. In contrast the Hadith were only codified in
written form in the third century after Muhammad. This is a longer time gap than has
passed since Captain Cook first landed on the shores of Australia.
Christianity in Islamic Eschatology
In all the three great monotheistic religions, eschatology - the doctrine of the last things is of fundamental importance. The last things represent the final longed-for
consummation of these religion’s hopes and aspirations. The traditions of the Sunna
describe the end-times destiny of Christianity and Judaism in vivid terms. Muhammad
said of the last days “You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a
stone would say: ‘Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding behind me); kill him.” Of
the future return of Christ, Muhammad said: “The Son of Mary will shortly descend
amongst you (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the cross and kill the pig and
abolish the poll-tax. Then there will be abundance of money and nobody will accept
charitable gifts.” Tha’alibi interpreted this saying as follows: Jesus ‘É will make war on
behalf of Islam, until in his time he destroys all religions save that of Islam ...” Of course
the cross is a symbol of Christianity. The poll-tax symbolizes the protection of the lives
and property of conquered ‘people of the Book’ (see discussion of Sura 9:29 above). Its
abolition implies their death or conversion to Islam. The resulting abundance of money
refers to the booty that will result from this conquest.
The Constitution of Medina and its aftermath
Yusuf refers to the Constitution of Medina as a model of tolerance and religious
harmony. This was a declaration by Muhammad inviting the Jews of Medina to submit to
his rule in Medina as the Messenger of God, but allowing them to retain their religion.
As an experiment in religious tolerance the Constitution of Medina had a tragic outcome.
The history of Muhammad’s life and the Sunna record Muhammad’s annoyance with the
Jews of Medina who disputed his claims about the Hebrew scriptures and also his claim
to be a prophet of God. After a time two Jewish tribes, the Banu Qaynuqa’ and the Banu
al-Nadir, were expelled from Medina, leaving their lands and homes to the Muslims. One
of these tribes was first invited to convert to Islam, and only expelled after they had
declined this invitation.
Later when the pagan Meccans came to attack Medina, the Meccan forces withdrew
unexpectedly. Then Muhammad turned his troops against the remaining Jewish tribe of
Medina, the Banu Qurayza, who had stayed neutral during the aborted siege by the
Meccans. The Qurayza surrendered hoping that they might at least at least have their
lives spared, as had happened with the other two Jewish tribes. Instead Muhammad had
all the men beheaded in batches in the Medina marketplace, 600 to 900 of them, and the
women and children distributed amongst the Muslims as slaves. One of the Qurayza
women became a wife for Muhammad. Some time later Muhammad besieged the Jews
of Khaybar Oasis, to the north of Medina, and took many captives, including a new wife
for himself, Safiyya. To a man who asked Muhammad, perhaps with some doubt about
this enterprise, ‘On what issue should I fight the people [the Jews of Khaybar Oasis]?’,
Muhammad replied ‘Fight until they [become Muslims] and when they do that, then their
blood and their riches are inviolable from your hands.’ However Muhammad did allow
some Jews to remain at Khaybar and to continue farming their lands on condition of
paying a 50% tax to the Muslims. Eventually these too were expelled, and Muhammad’s
death bed wish was for no other religion but Islam to exist in Arabia. These episodes
provided normative precedents for Islamic case law relating to the jihad, which regulating
the taking of booty and the rights of the conquered peoples. These are also among the
foundational stories of the origins of Islam, which have helped shape its attitude to
peoples of other faiths.
Concluding remarks
I have no desire to condemn a billion Muslims to perpetual jihad against unbelievers.
There are enough Islamic authorities already preaching this message without me adding
my voice to them. It would also be a terrible mistake to believe that most Muslims
around the world believe in this jihad.
However what I do insist upon is that Christians have a right and a duty to examine Islam
in the light of its foundational authorities - the Qur’an and the Sunna.
We have a right to read and understand the theological claims of intelligent Muslims, like
Maududi, an intellectual father of the worldwide Islamist revival, and Sheikh Abdullah
bin Muhammad bin Hamid, incumbent of the pulpit in the most sacred mosque in the
Muslim world. We have a right to say ‘This is what some significant Muslims teach, and
let’s look at the evidence in the Qur’an for their beliefs.’ In the light of the Islamic canon
their claims deserve careful consideration and do not appear to be not historical
aberrations or mad fabrications. Indeed, of all the Muslim writers that I have read on the
subject of jihad, it is those who believe in jihad as perpetual, obligatory warfare against
unbelievers who make the most comprehensive and convincing use of Qur’an and Sunna
sources in their arguments.
I am not saying that all Muslims believe these things. It is objectionable that Muslim
dawa (proclamation) to Westerners, as found in countless tracts, widely viewed television
documentaries, and many books, has the effect of concealing the classical doctrine of
jihad as warfare. At the same time these very teachings are fundamental for
understanding widespread official and unofficial discrimination against Christians in
Muslim countries, as well as what is happening in the diverse zones of jihad fighting such
as Kashmir, Israel-Palestine, Indonesia, the Philippines, Nigeria, Sudan, Lebanon,
Chechenya and now the USA as well. The twin claims that Islam is the epitome of
tolerance, and that jihad is essentially non-violent, serve to conceal the sufferings of
millions, both today and throughout history. This motivates my interest in this topic.
Finally I must emphasize that Christendom has had its own appalling history. My
reflections above are not intended to minimize this. Nor am I saying that Christians are
better people than Muslims. ‘All have sinned’, as the Bible puts it. My concern in these
reflections is primarily with the theological foundations of Islamic faith, the need to
understand how some Muslims have made use of these foundations in constructing their
theological understandings, and the effects of these theologies in history.
A comparative study might explore the life of Jesus, whose non-violent example offers a
very different model of the Kingdom of God from that of Muhammad. But that is another
story …