Syria's Mufti: Islam commands us to protect Judaism

[Libertarian Muslim]

Syria's Mufti: Islam commands us to protect Judaism

Sheikh Hassoun tells U.S. group: If Mohammed told me Jews or Christians were heretic, I would say he was a heretic.

By Haaretz Service Tags: Islam Jewish World Syria Israel news

Syria's foremost Muslim leader declared on Tuesday that Islam commands its followers to protect Judaism, according to Army Radio.

"If the Prophet Mohammed had asked me to deem Christians or Jews heretics, I would have deemed Mohammed himself a heretic," Sheikh Ahmed Hassoun, the Mufti of Syria, was quoted as telling a delegation of American academics visiting Damascus.

Hassoun, the leader of Syria's majority Sunni Muslim community, also told the delegates that Islam was a religion of peace, adding: "If Mohammed had commanded us to kill people, I would have told him he was not a prophet."

Religious wars were the result of politics infiltrating systems of faith, he said, asking:

"Was Moses of Middle Eastern or European descent? Was Jesus a Protestant or a Catholic? Was Mohammed Shi'ite or Sunni?"

According to the Mufti, the conflict between Israel and its Arabs neighbors has nothing to do with an Islamic war against Judaism.

"Before you got American citizenship, and I got Syrian citizenship, we were all brothers under the dome of God," he said.

Jews had once lived in Syria peacefully and with fair treatment, he added, explaining that his own grandfather had a Jewish partner.

"Jews lived in Syria for years and they still have a role in Syrian society," he said.

Source: Haaretz

[BaalChatzaf]

Dhimmi Status for Jews. How wonderful!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Robert Campbell]

LM,

Do you believe that there is any role for dhimmi status in today's world?

Robert Campbell

[Libertarian Muslim]

Do you believe that there is any role for dhimmi status in today's world?

Robert Campbell

I suppose that depends on what your understanding of a dhimmi is Robert.

[Robert Campbell]

Do you believe that there is any role for dhimmi status in today's world?

Robert Campbell

I suppose that depends on what your understanding of a dhimmi is Robert.

LM,

My understanding is that being a dhimmi is a form of second-class citizenship for some non-Muslims under an Islamic regime.

What's your understanding of it?

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

Do you believe that there is any role for dhimmi status in today's world?

Robert Campbell

I suppose that depends on what your understanding of a dhimmi is Robert.

LM,

My understanding is that being a dhimmi is a form of second-class citizenship for some non-Muslims under an Islamic regime.

What's your understanding of it?

Robert Campbell

Robert:

Ixnay on the Adonisay!

(Note from MSK: I changed the name.)

[Robert Campbell]

Adam,

Sorry, I posted before seeing the announcement.

Will be sure to ixnay in the the future.

Robert Campbell

[9thdoctor]

My understanding is that being a dhimmi is a form of second-class citizenship for some non-Muslims under an Islamic regime.

My understanding is that you pay lower taxes and don’t have to serve in the military. But that’s the best case, and by implication it means you’re living in a theocracy. No thanks.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Do you believe that there is any role for dhimmi status in today's world?

Robert Campbell

I suppose that depends on what your understanding of a dhimmi is Robert.

LM,

My understanding is that being a dhimmi is a form of second-class citizenship for some non-Muslims under an Islamic regime.

What's your understanding of it?

Robert Campbell

Thank you Robert.

Many people, even unfortunately some very ignorant Muslims have this opinion and believe the obligation is to make Dhimmis feel inferior to Muslims.

Actually the truth is that once you study documents like the Constitution of Medina which was the pact that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh made with the Jews of Medina you'll see that it grants not only equal rights to dhimmis, but also grants them autonomy within the state so as to not have Islamic law imposed on them. It is an agreement that all will come to aid of the state should it be attacked and if one tribe is unable to fight, they must provide money to cover the cost of fighting from their side as Islamically, non Muslims are not obligated to fight in defense of the nation whereas Muslims most certainly are. It also makes it clear that any military expedition that was undertaken by the Muslims to further the causes of Islam would not obligate the Jewish tribes to join.

[Robert Campbell]

LM,

According to the site you meant to quote the Constitution from, it dates from 622, shortly after Muhammad and his followers arrived in Medina.

Am I correct about the date?

This means that the Constitution (or Pact) pre-dates the extermination of one of the Jewish tribes in Medina. (In a previous exchange you claimed that Muhammad was blameless in this case. But from some further reading, I have seen the argument made that you can't blame the death sentence for all of the adult men of that tribe on the Jewish judge alone. He was known to have a life-long grudge against the tribe on whose fate he was asked to rule.)

It also pre-dates Sura 9 of the Qur'an (was Sura 9 in fact the last to be added?).

And Qur'an 9:29 appears to prescribe rather different treatment for dhimmis.

Note also that the Constitution of Medina presupposes theocratic rule: Muslims are to be governed by Islamic law, and Jews by Jewish law. The idea of everyone being subject to the same secular law is entirely foreign to it. So is the idea of there being anyone who is not subject to some kind of religious law.

Robert Campbell

[Libertarian Muslim]

According to the site you meant to quote the Constitution from, it dates from 622, shortly after Muhammad and his followers arrived in Medina.

Am I correct about the date?

Yes, the Constitution of Medina was around 622, it's when the agreement between the Jews and Muslims of Yathrib and the Muslim migrants of Mecca was forged to create a new city state which was then called Medina.

This means that the Constitution (or Pact) pre-dates the extermination of one of the Jewish tribes in Medina. (In a previous exchange you claimed that Muhammad was blameless in this case. But from some further reading, I have seen the argument made that you can't blame the death sentence for all of the adult men of that tribe on the Jewish judge alone. He was known to have a life-long grudge against the tribe on whose fate he was asked to rule.)

Regarding the Jewish tribes you've mentioned. It's important to realize firstly that out of all of them, the incident that you refer to happened to one tribe. Secondly, it was not Muhammad who chose the judge in this circumstance, it was the Jews themselves who selected him and if this person really had such enmity for them, then surely they wouldn't have selected him as their judge. Had Muhammad been the one to judge he would have exiled the tribe as he'd done with others that had helped the Quraish previously, but their choice was for a Judge who then judged them by Jewish law. I must state that I don't place blame on anyone because blame would indicate guilt of a crime, of which there were none. This tribe committed treason by attacking the nation they swore an oath to protect and they paid a heavy price for their treachery.

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. (Deuteronomy 20 10-14)

It also pre-dates Sura 9 of the Qur'an (was Sura 9 in fact the last to be added?).

And Qur'an 9:29 appears to prescribe rather different treatment for dhimmis.

Chapter 9 was revealed more than a year before the last verses of the Qur'an were revealed, in fact it was the verses in chapter 5 that were.. The unfortunate thing with the collation of the Qur'an was that instead of ordering it in a special order, the people at the time simply put it from the longest chapter to the shortest which was not the logical thing to do. There was a special order for it that's been lost somewhat.

So in terms of 9:29, it was revealed at a time of war, specifically after the Prophet Muhammad pbuh had sent emissaries to Syria where there was Byzantine rule, they were sent to deliver the message of Islam and invite people to become Muslim, however the Christians, going against all international law murdered 15 of the delegates. This was an act of war and so the Muslims were ordered to fight them and subdue them, that is where this verse in particular is referring to. It's not a wholesale order to humiliate or subjugate any non Muslim, the Jizya is not something meant to subdue, non Muslims don't have to pay it if they provide arms and forces to fight against threats attacking the state.

Note also that the Constitution of Medina presupposes theocratic rule: Muslims are to be governed by Islamic law, and Jews by Jewish law. The idea of everyone being subject to the same secular law is entirely foreign to it. So is the idea of there being anyone who is not subject to some kind of religious law.

The Madina charter was very specific to the time there. You stated that it didn't take into consideration secular law, however that's not necessarily true. Tribal law is secular actually and not related to religion, the tribal laws of the Arabs were respected providing they did not infringe on individual liberties, for example the burying of live baby girls, the inheritance of women, the slavery that was practiced before, etc. Those practices were abolished and outlawed.

You are also right that Muslims lived under Islamic law and Jews lived under Jewish law. But those were their choices to do so. Regarding the possibility of having people living under secular law, I don't see why not, if Tribal laws were respected then so should other laws of a secular nature that don't infringe on the rights of others, providing of course that people who wish to live under Jewish or Islamic law etc are able to do so too.

[Robert Campbell]

LM,

OK, so Sura 9 is from 630 or 631, if I'm getting my time-line straight.

The Qur'an wasn't compiled in chronological order, as you say. Nor was it handed down with footnotes to provide the context for the different chapters.

More importantly, for well over 1000 years Sura 9 wasn't widely interpreted the way you are saying it ought to be. Can you name a single Islamic scholar or philosopher from the Middle Ages who did not interpret the Qur'an as establishing a communal obligation to wage war on non-Muslims and ordaining permanent dependent status for Christians and Jews (sometimes extended to Zoroastrians and Hindus) under Islamic rule?

This matters, not because people like me take the judgments of ibn Rushd or al-Ghazali or ibn Khaldun as authoritative, but because many of your fellow believers are still inclined to do so.

Convincing me that Qur'an 9:29 isn't a divine call to wage war, build an empire, and keep expanding supremacy matters far less than convincing all but a nutty fringe of Muslims that it doesn't.

How is that endeavor going?

I have more reading to do concerning the extermination of that Jewish tribe in Medina. I have to say, though, that even a writer like Karen Armstrong who is inclined to a highly favorable view of Islam from her God-is-love perspective (e.g.., threats of hellfire are not to be taken literally, and Islamic belief is exonerated from promoting the oppression of women) says bluntly that Muhammad effectively ordered the mass killing.

I see what you mean about tribal law being incorporated into the Pact. The references to blood money must have come from tribal law, although I've noticed that the Qur'an seems to take paying compensation for a murder with blood money for granted.

I also see that you are still maintaining that Muhammad and his immediate followers abolished slavery. Can you give me one reliable historical source on that issue?

Because from the information available to me, Muhammad marched into Mecca in 630 and slavery was finally declared illegal in Mecca in ... 1962 (even then, the Sa'udi royal house effectively treated itself as exempt from that law for a while longer).

Again, the more important job isn't convincing me that the Qur'an carries an anti-slavery message and that Islam has always been opposed to slavery. It's other Muslims whom you need to convince.

Robert Campbell