{"id":162013,"date":"2022-01-25T02:42:03","date_gmt":"2022-01-25T02:42:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/?p=162013"},"modified":"2022-01-25T02:42:08","modified_gmt":"2022-01-25T02:42:08","slug":"religious-pluralism-and-anti-muslim-polemics-from-the-case-of-the-najran-christians","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/?p=162013","title":{"rendered":"Religious Pluralism and Anti-Muslim Polemics from the Case of the Najran Christians"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Spahic Omer<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Al-Mughirah b. Shubah reported: \u0153When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: \u02dcYou read \u02dcO sister of Harun (i.e. Maryam, Mary, the mother of Prophet \u02dcIsa, Jesus) in the Quran, whereas Prophet Musa (Moses) was born much before \u02dcIsa. When I came back to Allahs Messenger (pbuh) I asked him about that, whereupon he said: \u02dcThey (the people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of holy prophets and pious persons who had gone before them\u009d (Sahih Muslim, Book 38, Hadith No. 13).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\nfollows are several observations on the content and also context of this report\n(hadith).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\ncase of the Najran Christians<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As\npart of the internationalisation of his revealed message and his prophetic\nmission, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) invited the Christian population of the Najran\nregion to Islam. Najran was situated in the southwestern part of the Arabian\nPeninsula near Yemen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\norder to intensify his dawah efforts and general communication with the people\nof Najran, the Prophet sent al-Mughirah b. Shubah, a prominent companion of\nhis, to the place. Hence, al-Mughirah was at once a religious and political\nemissary of the Prophet. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nabove hadith denotes a window into the nature as well as scope of al-Mughirahs\ntask. It also shows how challenging, yet tricky, the assignment was.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Later\nas the communication and relations between the two sides grew stronger, a\nChristian delegation from Najran decided to visit the Prophet in Madinah. The\nProphet met them nowhere else but in the shades of his mosque. The members of\nthe delegation numbered 60 and they were led by a sizeable group of their\nscholars and priests (perhaps 45). When the time of one of their prayers was\ndue, they were allowed to pray right inside the mosque. They prayed facing the\nEast (the mosques qiblah or prayer direction was towards the South). The\nProphet took care of their accommodation and of the other aspects of\nhospitality as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite\nfierce and unrelenting discussions, the Christian delegation refused to budge\nand acknowledge Muhammad as prophet. For their part, furthermore, they even\ntried to convert the Prophet – and Muslims – to Christianity. Even though the\nChristians stuck to their guns, a mutual agreement concerning bettering\nrelations was worked out. The two became above all political and economic\nallies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Islam\nand religious diversity <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\ncase of the Christians of Najran signifies Islams approval of religious\ndiversity and tolerance. If religious pluralism indicates the legitimacy of the\npresence of diverse religious beliefs and practices, with people enjoying their\nrights justly and discharging their duties responsibly, then it can be said\nthat Islam promotes the idea of religious pluralism as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Islams\nposition is very clear. There is no compulsion in religion; people are free to\nchoose whatever religion, ideology, or philosophy they want; for each one is\nhis own choice and everyone will face but the consequences of his\npreference(s). Each and every person is the king of his own castle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However,\nthese tenets are valid and will work only in environments where freedom,\njustice and integrity prevail. Islam as the final revelation to mankind\nwishes to present its case to the world and to be heard. It does so reviewing\nand correcting the past wherein the earlier revelations had been distorted\nbeyond recognition, challenging the present which is fraught with outcomes of\nthe interplay of opposing burdens (ideological forces) of history, and charting\nan independent and its own future course.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Islam\nfurthermore wants to project the truth and falsehood as such, neither adding to\nnor subtracting from them, and to remove any obstacles, material or immaterial,\nas may misrepresent either one of them. Both the truth and falsehood ought to\nbe discernible, accessible and understandable at all times. They are to be the\nmonopoly of nobody. They are not to be controlled either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since\nits inception, Islam wanted to create free milieus in which people should be\nable to say \u0153yes\u009d or \u0153no\u009d either to the truth or to falsehood. They are\nexpected to do that freely and under no influence of deceit or manipulation of\nany kind. As the ultimate light, Islam never feared darkness; as the ultimate\ntruth, it never feared delusions and errors; and as the ultimate enlightenment\nand knowledge, it never feared misguidance and ignorance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All Islam ever wanted was freedom, dialogue, interactions and excellence. Genuine Islamic culture and civilisation were about promoting and facilitating these noble values, as well as about demoting and impeding their antitheses, as much in theory as in practice. Islam stood for freedom and justice because it knew that no manifestation of misguidance and error stood a chance in the presence of heavenly truth and guidance. Islam, coupled with freedom, without a doubt, is irresistible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\nthe case of the Najran Christians, they were made acquainted with the latest\nmessage (revelation) of Islam revealed to the final messenger, Prophet Muhammad\n(pbuh); they were invited to it; they were shown utmost kindness and\nhospitality while in Madinah and were allowed to debate the message; when they\nrefused to embrace Islam and accept Muhammad as prophet, their choices\nwere respected; and finally, a political pact and collaboration between them\nand Madinah were agreed upon and a representative of the Prophet was sent with\nthem to administer and further enhance the relations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\ngeographical region of Najran was integrated as such into the domains of the\nrapidly expanding Islamic state. Doing so was an unmistaken sign not only of\nIslamic tolerance towards others, but also of its readiness to peacefully and\nproductively coexist with them. Eventual and total absorption was likewise\nintended. It was agreed that the Christian population of Najran will pay the\njizyah (a tax on free non-Muslims under Muslim rule) and live undisturbed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This\nindeed connoted the genesis of a true religious (Islamic) pluralism\ncharacterised by mutual respect, understanding, dialogue and cooperation. The\ngoals were mutual worldly interests and the interests of the reality of the\nspiritual kingdom as much as possible. The situation was a far cry from some\nmodern genres of religious pluralism according to which the blanket recognition\nand affirmation of diverse religious paths as equally valid are served.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While\nthe Prophets type of pluralism was dynamic, enlightening, probing and even\nprovoking, the latter are the polar opposite: stupefying, sluggish and even\nsomewhat hypocritical. Moreover, the former championed the truth and peoples\ntruly ontological well-being, whereas the latter champion epistemic and moral\nrelativism, coupled with philosophical scepticism and agnosticism. Inasmuch as\nthe former was heaven-centric, the latter are humanistic or\nhuman-centric. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Knowing\nwhat was at stake the Prophet went to great lengths to bring home the intended\nmessage. The subject of mubahala (to invoke a curse on a party that was lying\nabout its religious convictions) was mooted, but the Christians recoiled and\nopted for a less dramatic way out of the conference. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This\nway the Prophet demonstrated that despite potential peace treaties and\nsocio-political and economic alliances, paths towards the truth should always\nbe explored. That should be done in such wise and ingenious ways that neither\nthe interests of the truth nor of alliances get endangered in the long\nrun. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unquestionably,\nthere is only one truth, just as there is only one God and one existential\nreality and guidance. Asserting that there are multiple truths, multiple\ndeities (gods), multiple existential realities and guidances is as irrational\nas it is unworkable. It is not a viable blueprint for the prospects of\nlong-term coexistence. When all is said and done, such has the potential to\nsolve nothing, or very little. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\norigins of anti-Muslim polemics<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nabove hadith shows that anti-Muslim polemics were as old as the commencement of\nthe Islamic cause. The environments of Makkah and Madinah were truly\ncosmopolitan, sometimes yet internationally toxic. The Prophet faced challenges\nand threats from polytheist Arabs, the Jews, the Christians, and from\nhypocrites cutting across all social groups. In unison and separately, they\nleft no stone unturned in attempts to assail the integrity of the Prophets\npersonality and his work. Such were the scale and reach of the Prophets\nmission, and the fervour, along with heterogeneity, of his enemies\nhostilities, that virtually all possibilities were exhausted. Nothing genuinely\nnew could the subsequent foes of Islam invent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Herein\nlies a very important principle. All \u0153authentic\u009d accusations against Islam and\nthe Prophet have already been concocted and articulated. At the same time, they\nhave already been answered, either directly by the Quran and the Prophets\nSunnah, or indirectly by the wisdom of some of the Prophets companions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nsubsequent accusations were repetitions, remodelling of the original\nfabrications and lies, or were simply meaningless and absurd innovations. If\nthe latter had any worth or consequence, they would have been conceived, one\nway or another, by the endless circles of enemies during the Prophets era and\nby their constant plotting, locally and transnationally, conceptually and practically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Which\ngoes to show that, today, neither non-Muslims in their attacks on Islam and its\nProphet, nor (many) Muslims in their defending of them, are adequately\nknowledgeable about Islam and the Prophet. Their example is that of a Sisyphean\njob that requires a lot of work and yet will never be fully completed, nor will\never fully satisfy its executor(s). If non-Muslims and Muslims really know the\nsubject matter, they would quickly realise that what they are up to has already\nbeen dealt with, or is inconsequential.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maryam\n(Mary) the sister of Harun (Aaron)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nabove mentioned hadith is a good case in point. When al-Mughirah b. Shubah was\nsent to Najran he had to put up with a barrage of questions, objections and\ndenunciations by the Christian populace. One of them stood out and he was\nunable to respond on his own. Therefore, he sought the advice of the Prophet\nhimself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nQuran calls Maryam (Mary), the mother of Prophet \u02dcIsa (Jesus), \u0153the sister of\nHarun (Aaron)\u009d (Maryam, 28). The Christians of Najran took this narrow-mindedly\nand raised an objection to the effect that such a name of Maryam was improbable\nand historically inaccurate, for there was a long historical gap between Prophet\nMusa – whose brother was Harun – and Prophet \u02dcIsa. There was approximately 1,500\nyears separating them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However,\nwhen the Prophet – the teacher of all teachers whose revealed knowledge and\nwisdom signify the criterion and the fountainhead of all knowledge and wisdom –\nwas informed of this, with remarkable calmness and confidence he replied: \u0153Why\ndidn’t you tell them that they (the people of the old age) were named after\ntheir prophets and righteous people before them?\u009d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This\nshould have been the end of story for both Muslims and non-Muslims, because the\nquestion was raised and was emphatically answered. It should have been the end\nof the matter. Alas, such by no means was the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As\nfar as non-Muslims are concerned, this baseless accusation never stopped\nconstituting a cornerstone of their – albeit principally Christian – anti-Muslim\ncampaigns. For example, as early as in the first half of the 8th<\/sup>\ncentury, while responding to a letter written to him by Caliph \u02dcUmar b. \u02dcAbd\nal-\u02dcAziz (\u02dcUmar II), Byzantine Emperor Leo III (d. 741) called attention to the\nfact that the Quran considers Mary the sister of Aaron.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Around\nthe same time, John of Damascus (d. 749), a celebrated Christian priest, monk\nand apologist-cum-polemicist, denounced the Quranic \u0153claim\u009d that Mary was \u0153the\nsister of Moses and Aaron\u009d. He regarded the matter as part of \u0153the heresy of\nIshmaelites\u009d. In passing, John of Damascus could be held the father of\nChristian anti-Islamic polemics and his two works: \u0153Heresies (the\nHeresy of Ishmaelites)\u009d and \u0153Disputation between a Christian and a Saracen\n(Muslim)\u009d were seminal in the field.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, Riccoldo da Monte di Croce (d. 1320), an Italian\nChristian missionary and polemicist, cried to \u0153the Queen of Heaven\u009d in his\n\u0153Letter to the Blessed Virgin Mary: \u0153And about you he (Prophet Muhammad) has\nwritten – for I have read it in Arabic in so many places in the Quran – that\nyou, O Virgin Mary, were the ancient Mary who lived at the time of Moses. Consequently\nhe (Prophet Muhammad) expressly declares that your father was Amram, and that\nMoses and Aaron were your brothers.\u009d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even Martin Luther (d. 1546), a legendary theologian, author and a\nseminal figure in the Protestant Reformation, addressed the topic and\nconsidered it a factual error in the Quran. He wrote: \u0153In the chapter Maryam<\/em>,\nthat is, Mary, it says that Mary the mother of Christ was the sister of Aaron.\nIt is true that Moses and Aaron had a sister named Mary and all three were\nchildren of one father, \u02dcImran<\/em>, as Exodus 2 says. But between that Mary\nand this Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, are over 5,000(?) years, and that\nMary died in the desert where<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt\u009d (Adam S. Francisco).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The voices of theological dissent continued to reverberate well into the modern times of the 20th<\/sup> and 21st<\/sup> centuries, as the continuous rumblings of Zakaria Botros, a former Orthodox Coptic priest, by way of illustration demonstrate. The infinite opportunities engendered by the Information or Computer Age were fully capitalised on as well for the purpose. As a result, the same theme is featured prominently on a great many Christian websites that are dedicated to \u0153responding to the questions, objections and arguments of Muslims\u009d, to \u0153debunking incorrect Muslim claims\u009d, and to \u0153converting Muslims to Christianity\u009d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As\nfar as Muslims are concerned, on the other hand, why did not they just stick to\nthe Prophets answer? Why did they try to add to, embellish and \u0153enhance\u009d the\nexisting wisdom, using questionable sources or merely their own intuition, and\nallow thereby Christian polemicists greater leeway in their operations? Why did\nnot Muslims walk in the footsteps of al-Mughirah b. Shubah?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As\nfor instance, Ibn Kathir said in his Tafsir: \u0153(O sister of Harun!) referring to\nthe brother of Musa, because she was of his descendants\u00a6It has also been said\nthat she was related to a righteous man among them whose name was Harun and she\nwas comparable to him in her abstinence and worship.\u009d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly,\nMaududi said in his Tafhim al-Quran: \u0153\u02dcSister of Aaron may either mean that\nMary had a brother of the name of Aaron, or it may mean that she belonged to\nthe family of Prophet Aaron.\u009d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fakhruddin\nal-Razi in his Mafatih al-Ghayb enumerated four different views as regards the\nidentity of Harun whose \u0153sister\u009d Maryam was.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If\nMuslims were not careful in developing appropriate methodologies for dealing\nwith Christian anti-Muslim polemics, they may be dragged into a quagmire. This\nis the case on account of the intentions and hidden agendas of Christian\npolemicists, and on account of the fact that the Christians cannot, even if\nthey wanted, offer anything useful in this particular regard. Such discussions,\nit follows, normally unfold along the lines of beating around the bush, or\nabout outmanoeuvring – and occasionally outshouting – each other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\nis a mainstream Christian view that \u0153as it stands the sources dealing with the\nlife of Ann, Joachim (Marys parents) and Mary do not mention brothers and\nsisters of Our Lord’s mother. The canonical gospels – as we know – do not speak\nof Mary’s parents (either). What we know about them comes from tradition and\nfrom apocryphal writings\u009d (Father Johann Roten). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\nother words, there is no way the Christians can know who the siblings of Mary\nwere, hence – one wonders – how they could profess essentially anything\nconcerning the area under discussion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rejecting\nmodern accusations and lies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Applying\nthis same principle can help repudiate a host of other fabrications and lies\nthat are the product of recent times. Most of such fabrications are the result\nof certain islamophobic tendencies, especially in the West following the\ninitiation of the colonisation and westernisation enterprises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some\nof such accusations and lies are in the sense that Islam is a religion of\nviolence and that it was spread by the sword, that Prophet Muhammad was a\nviolent man who sowed barbarity, that Prophet Muhammad was a paedophile because\nhe married \u02dcAishah when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage\nwhen she was nine years old, that Islam did not ban slavery, that Islam\nmistreats women, that the Quran is mistaken by claiming that the Jews\nworshipped Ezra (\u02dcUzayr) as the son of God, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These\nand other similar accusations could be rejected simply by saying that they are\ninventions of subsequent times either due to ignorance or ulterior motives. If\nthose issues were real or problematic, the numerous enemies of Islam and the\nProphet would have been more than happy to hasten to raise them as such. But\nthey did not, not because they were not intelligent or insightful enough – like\ntodays islamophobes and agnostics – but because there was nothing to\nraise and object to. The mentioned themes are the distortions, fallacies,\nmisinterpretations, exaggerations and fantasies of latter times, fuelled by\nradical anti-Islamic polemics and islamophobia, together with the liberal and\nrelativistic thought patterns. Positively, none of the mentioned censures and\n\u0153faults\u009d dates back to the Prophets epoch, nor to the imagination of his\ncontemporaries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nflawed conceptual frameworks and equally flawed methodologies of the mentioned\nepistemological dispositions, primarily, need to be targeted, rather than the\nrecurring arbitrary and whimsical elements of thought. While the latter is the\neffect, and so, relatively fluid and a moving target, the former is the root\ncause and is constant. Additionally, the latter amounts to no more than\nspeaking out of caprice and following assumptions as well as what human souls\ndesire; however, for none of these an authority had been decreed, and none can\navail anything against the currency of the  truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This\nwhole attitude is summarised in the words of al-Baydhawi who said in his\ncommentary of the Quran, Anwar al-Tanzil wa Asrar al-Tawil, pertaining to the\nQurans criticism of the Jews that they worshipped Ezra (\u02dcUzayr) as the son of\nGod. Al-Baydhawi said that the Quran, first and foremost, meant the Jews of\nMadinah. The strongest proof that such was the truth brought to light by the\nQuran – and the Prophet – was that the Jews of Madinah were the addressees to\nwhich they never objected, nor contradicted it, even though they were dying to\ndo so whenever and as much as possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is to say, the silence of the Jews meant approval. Likewise, the enemies silence on the Prophets marriage(s), his conduct in war and peace, his treatment of men and women, of Muslims and non-Muslims, also meant that in their eyes there was still nothing wrong in those deeds. And to allege many centuries later, chiefly owing to intellectual myopias and ethics disorders of epic proportions, that the mentioned behavioural models of Islam and its Prophet Muhammad were improper, simply does not hold up. The issue is a matter of common sense.***<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Assoc. Prof. Dr. Spahic Omer is an academic in the Department of History and Civilisation, AHAS KIRKHS. The views expressed here are those of the author\/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of IIUMToday.<\/em>)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Spahic Omer Al-Mughirah b. Shubah reported: \u0153When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: \u02dcYou read \u02dcO sister of Harun… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22,8,21],"tags":[],"nelio_content":{"isAutoShareEnabled":true,"autoShareEndMode":"never","automationSources":{"useCustomSentences":false,"customSentences":[]},"followers":[12,156,5],"suggestedReferences":[],"efiUrl":"","efiAlt":"","highlights":[],"permalinkQueryArgs":[]},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162013"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=162013"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162013\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":162033,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162013\/revisions\/162033"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=162013"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=162013"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=162013"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}