In the early days of Islam, a few companions of the Prophet were fleeing persecution in Mecca and sought refuge in Abyssinia. The Christian ruler of the land, Ashama, demanded the companions to read aloud from their scripture and, when one of them recited from the sura of Mary, Ashama and his court were moved to tears. When they were told to make known their beliefs about Jesus, they said that Islam considers Jesus to be a messenger of God, the word of God, and the miraculously born son of the Virgin Mary. After hearing this, Ashama is said to have drawn a line in the sand and said that the differences between them were no more than that thin line. He then decreed that Muslims were allowed safe refuge in his kingdom[1].

It would be nice to think that this story could be applicable to modern Christians and Muslims, but take one look at the news and that thought disappears.

The Qur'an contains ninety-three passages in reference to Jesus and, together, they present a clear picture of what Muslims believe. Chronologically, this begins with Mary, the mother of Jesus. The Qur'an tells the story of Mary's birth and describes how God graciously accepted her, making her grow in goodness, and entrusting her to be raised by Zachariah[3][4]. God chose Mary above all other women as the most pure and sent angels to give her news that she was to give birth to a pure son[5] called Jesus, the Messiah[6]. The angels tell her that Jesus “will be held in honor in this world and the next”, he “will be one of those brought near to God”, “he will speak to people in his infancy”, and “he will be one of the righteous” [7]. Mary has an entire sura named after her, one of only eight people to have this honor, and is affirmed to have given a virginal birth and to have afterward remained a virgin[8]. It is believed that Jesus was able to speak as an infant; after Mary gives birth to Jesus and carries him back to her people, she is accosted with accusations and it is then where Jesus speaks his first words and defends her honor[9]. In these first words, Jesus declares himself as a prophet and a servant of God who will be raised up after death and return at the final judgment[10].

Throughout his life, Jesus is believed to have performed several miracles by the permission of God; he transforms a clay bird into a real one, heals the blind and the leper, and brings the dead back to life[11]. He was sent to follow in the footsteps of previous prophets and to confirm the Torah that had been sent before him[12]. The Qur'an also says that God gave Jesus the Gospel with guidance, light, and confirmation as a guide and lesson for the followers of God[13]. Jesus is believed to be a fully human prophet; he is never said to claim divinity but instead attributes all he does to the power of God. When asked by God if he ever said for people to take him as a god, Jesus replies, “I would never say what I had no right to say”[14]. The Qur'an also mentions the disciples of Jesus, although not by name. The disciples are said to follow Jesus and declare themselves as Muslims[15].

Regarding the death of Jesus, the Qur'an denies that Jesus actually died or was ever crucified[16]. Muslims believe that Jesus physically ascended into heaven and that the disbelievers claimed victory only because “it was made to appear like that to them”[17]. The Qur'an states that Jesus will return again at the end of days when everyone will be judged on their adherence to Islam[18].

In addition to the Qur'an, Muslims look to the Hadith as an authority on Jesus. Several Hadith expand upon elements of Jesus described in the Qur'an, particularly about the end of his existence on Earth and what comes after. The Hadith present an “image of Jesus as an end-of-time figure”[19]. In one Hadith, Muhammad says, “the son of Mary will come back down among you very soon as a just judge”[20] and in another he says that he has been shown that Jesus will return to defeat the Antichrist[21]. This supports the general thought that Jesus is currently awaiting the end of time when he will “descend to the earth and fight against the Antichrist, championing the cause of Islam” and “point to the primacy of Muhammad” before dying a natural death[22]. Muslims see Jesus as a precursor to Muhammad and believe that Jesus predicted Muhammad's coming in the canonical Gospel of John.

Many believers of both Islam and Christianity would be shocked at the number of similarities that lie in their sacred texts. Since the Bible was written and compiled before even the birth of Muhammad and therefore can contain no commentary on him or Islam, many Christians would be especially surprised to learn that Muslims regard Jesus as one of Islam's most important prophets. American Christians in particular have a distorted view of Islam imposed by media and therefore can be entirely unaware of what the religion actually entails. The Qur'an actually contains references to over fifty people and events that are also found in the Bible. It also repeatedly affirms the legitimacy of the Torah, the Hebrew bible, or the Old Testament as Christians call it.

Muslims agree with the biblical stories that are also present in the Qur'an but firmly refute those which contrast with their beliefs. For the stories that are present within the Bible that are not found in the Qur'an and also do not conflict with anything in Islam, Muslims are told to neither believe nor disbelieve them. In the Hadith, Muhammad tells his followers, “Don't believe what the Jews and Christians tell you, but don't call them liars either. Say 'We believe in God and in what has been revealed to us…'[23]”[24] Islam teaches that it is most important to just believe in what has been revealed by God.

People on either side often simplistically explain these similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an to affirm the legitimacy of their own religion. Secular scholars suggest that the Qur'an contains these narratives as a result of pre-existing traditions that existed even before the Bible; Christians say that the Qur'an simply borrowed their stories; and Muslims explain them as the truth that was revealed to Muhammad by God. However, when texts outside of the Bible or the Qur'an are brought to light, it leads to a far more complicated picture.

To say that Jesus didn't found Christianity would immediately anger many people. However, upon closer inspection of the phrase, it is difficult to say otherwise. The earliest book that came to be in the New Testament was written decades after Jesus' death and the Christian doctrines and creeds were created centuries later. The reality is that Christianity didn't exist until after Jesus' time and therefore couldn't have been created by him[25]. After Jesus' departure, many people took to writing down what had happened and what it meant. The first problems for Christianity arose when these writings turned out to be very different from each other. In fact, the practices and beliefs of people who called themselves Christians during the first three centuries were so varied that the differences between modern Christian sects pale in comparison[26].

During the second half of the second century, with the growing number of prophetic and perceived heretical movements among Christians, there was great need for a fixed canon[27]. Christian groups such as the Marcionites, the Ebionites, the Gnostics, and the proto-orthodox all insisted that they correctly upheld the teachings of Jesus and were all in competition to become the rightful version that would eventually be adopted by the Roman Empire[28]. The proto-orthodox, named as such because of its eventual victory, was ultimately endorsed by Constantine as the primary religion of the Roman Empire. As the proto-orthodox text “developed into the dominant religious, political, economic, social, and cultural institution of the West”[29], the other defeated texts were labeled heretical and were “rejected, scorned, maligned, attacked, burned, [and] all but forgotten”[30].

Just four gospels came to be included in the New Testament but modern archeology has rediscovered dozens of other gospels that “at one time or another, at one place or another…. were revered as sacred, inspired, [and] scriptural”[31] by different Christian groups in the first few centuries[32]. These gospels tell their own stories about who Jesus was, some in accordance with canonical gospels but many more of them different. When thinking outside the bounds of Christianity, several of these ancient texts overlap curiously with Islam and with what the Qur'an and Hadith teach of Jesus.

One such gospel is known as the Proto-Gospel of James. Other titles for the gospel have been found and include “The Birth of Mary”, “The Story of the Birth of Saint Mary, Mother of God”, and “The Birth of Mary; The Revelation of James”[33]. It is called the Proto-Gospel of James because it deals primarily with events that took place before the birth of Jesus. The author calls himself James and it is usually understood that this is James, the half-brother of Jesus who is mentioned in the New Testament. In this text he is “assumed to be Joseph's son by a previous marriage”[34]. Since this book is proved to have been already known to the church father Origen in the early third century, and most likely also to Clement of Alexandria at the end of the second century, it is believed to “have been in circulation soon after 150 CE” and was “enormously popular in the later centuries”[35]. The text describes in great detail the circumstances of Mary's birth and her upbringing until her eventual pregnancy with Jesus and it very much aligns with passages about Mary in the Qur'an.

Both texts mention the excitement of Mary's mother at discovering she would bear a child and also that she will devote her child to God. In the Qur'an she says, “Lord, I have dedicated what is growing in my womb entirely to You; so accept this from me. You are the One who hears and knows all” and, upon learning the child is female says, “I name her Mary and I commend her and her offspring to Your protection from the rejected Satan”[36]. The Proto-Gospel of James describes her as saying, “As the Lord God lives, whether my child is a boy or a girl, I will offer it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it will minister to him its entire life,” and, upon giving birth and learning the child is a girl says, “My soul is exalted today”[37]. Both texts tell of God's acceptance of Mary with “Her Lord graciously accepted her and made her grow in goodness”[38] in the Qur'an and “the Lord God cast his grace down upon her. She danced on her feet, and the entire house of Israel loved her”[39] in the Proto-Gospel of James. In both texts, Mary is raised in a temple by a man named Zachariah (Qur'an) or Zacharias (Proto-Gospel of James) and she leads a pure and chaste life[40] [41]. Although the Proto-Gospel of James does not mention the infant Jesus speaking, as the Qur'an does[42], it does tell of the infant Jesus performing a miraculous deed as he heals the burning hand of the midwife[43].

The Coptic Apocalypse of Peter is another early Christian text that corresponds to Islamic thought and teaching. Thought to have been written in the third century, it is allegedly written by Simon Peter, the disciple of Jesus[44]. The book's message is one that is stressed in numerous places throughout the Qur'an. In it, Jesus issues “dire warnings against the teaching of heretics who propagate falsehoods” and, strikingly in accordance with Qur'anic thought, it labels the heretics as “the bishops and deacons of the proto-orthodox churches, and their false teaching [that] Jesus was himself the Christ who suffered a literal death on the cross”[45]. The text maintains that the real Jesus is raised up above the cross while the people are crucifying what they think is Jesus, but is actually a substitute[46]. The author mocks the proto-orthodox view that Jesus actually died on the cross, seeing it as “laughable”[47]. The author believes that the true significance of Jesus' apparent death is much deeper than what proto-orthodox leaders believe and that, even though the people believed they crucified the flesh of Jesus, he was actually far removed from the perceived suffering[48]. The author says that those “who beheld the cross with full knowledge” should know that it was not actually Jesus on the cross but merely his outward appearance and he likens this to how “simple-minded Christians are nothing but the outward appearance of the living ones who have been fully enlightened by the spiritual truth” of the risen Jesus[49].

When aligned with Qur'anic verse, this book seems to propagate the same message concerning the false belief Christians hold about Jesus. The author's implication that “simple-minded Christians are nothing but the outward appearance of the living ones who have been fully enlightened by the spiritual truth” can be taken to correspond to Muslims' view that Christians have witnessed the same as Muslims have regarding Jesus but have essentially missed the point in assigning him divinity instead of attributing it to God. The language of this book when regarding those who believe they have killed Jesus is very similar in its mocking tone to verses in the Qur'an, “[they] said, 'We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God.' They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him- No! God raised him up Himself. God is almighty and wise.” [50] Like the author of the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter, in this passage the Qur'an takes an attitude of derision toward the “People of the Book,” whom Jesus will be a witness against on the Day of Resurrection[51]. Also, the insistence in the text that only those with “full knowledge”[52] will be spared from eventual suffering correlates with the Qur'anic verse, “For those of them that reject the truth we have prepared agonizing torment. But those of them who are well grounded in knowledge and have faith do believe what has been revealed to you [Muhammad], and in what was revealed before you- those who perform the prayers, pay the prescribed alms, and believe in God and the Last Day- to them We shall give a great reward”[53]. Both texts place a high importance on true knowledge as the way to be saved in the end and escape suffering.

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is one of the earliest surviving accounts of Jesus as a child[54]. Allegedly written by “Thomas, the Israelite”, it remains unclear who the author intended to be perceived as. Many early Christians recognized him as Judas Thomas, Jesus' brother and therefore a reliable authority[55]. The book tells stories of the young Jesus beginning at age five and relates a number of miraculous incidents in his childhood. These anecdotes portray a mischievous streak[56] in the young Jesus and relate encounters with other children, his teachers, and his father. The first known quotation from the text is by Irenaeus of Lyon, in 185 CE[57], which establishes a latest possible date of composition. The earliest possible date is thought to be around 80 CE because of the author's evident knowledge of twelve-year-old Jesus in the temple from the Gospel of Luke[58]. However, it is generally agreed upon by scholars that the text began to circulate during the first half of the second century[59].

The book begins with the author's explanation that he “[made] this report to all of you, my brothers among the Gentiles, so that you may know the magnificent childhood activities” of Jesus[60]. It contains eighteen anecdotes of varying length, the first being the story of the Jesus and the clay sparrows. It begins with a five-year-old Jesus playing by the ford of a stream, collecting water and making it pure. “He then made some soft mud and fashioned twelve sparrows from it.” Several other children were playing near by and “a certain Jew” ran away to report to Joseph, “Look, your child at the stream has taken mud and formed twelve sparrows. He has profaned the Sabbath!” Joseph came over and cried out, “Why are you doing what is forbidden on the Sabbath?” But Jesus simply “clapped his hands and cried to the sparrows, 'Be gone!' And the sparrows took flight and went off, chirping.” When all of the other Jews saw this, they were amazed and dispersed to go tell their leaders what they had seen Jesus do[61].

This same story can be seen referenced twice in the Qur'an; first in the third sura, The Family of 'Imran. In this sura, Mary is learning about Jesus, the son she will bear, and then Jesus speaks and tells of the miracles he will complete in the future, by the power of God. He begins with a reference to the story in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, “I have come to you with a sign from your Lord: I will make the shape of a bird for you out of clay, then breathe into it and, with God's permission, it will become a real bird…” [62] The story is referenced again in the fifth sura, The Feast, where God is reminding Jesus of all He has done for him and for Mary. God says, “Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favor to you and to your mother: how I strengthened you with the holy spirit, so that you spoke to people in your infancy and as a grown man; how I taught you the Scripture and wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel; how, by My leave, you fashioned the shape of a bird out of clay, breathed into it, and it became, by My leave, a bird; how, by My leave, you healed the blind person and the leper; how, by My leave, you brought the dead back to life; how I restrained the children of Israel from harming you when you brought them clear signs, and those of them who disbelieved said, 'This is nothing but sorcery'; and how I inspired the disciples to believe in Me and My messengers- they said, 'We believe and bear witness that we devote ourselves to God.'”[63] In these verses God reminds Jesus of the fact that everything he has been allowed to do has been by the power and will of God.

According to these two suras, the story of the clay birds is significant in Jesus' life as one of the major testaments to the power of God working through Jesus. The story in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas does not specifically attribute the deed to either the power of God or the divinity of Jesus but, in the context of other Christian works, it would be assumed to refer to the latter[64]. The two suras make sure to emphasize that Jesus was only able to accomplish this act with God's permission.

This alludes to the greater issue present between Islam and Christianity. Upon reviewing their fundamentally accepted occurrences having to do with Jesus, it is clear that they should agree for the most part. They both believe that Jesus was born to Mary, a virgin, and performed many miraculous deeds and preached the word of God. They both believe that, although he was thought by the crucifiers to have perished on the cross, he rose into heaven and will come again at the time of judgment. These facts are not so much a point of contention as is the interpretation of them. The difference lies in the focus, the lens through which both religions view these actions of Jesus. Christians focus on these miracles of Jesus as being indicative of his divine nature and hold this central in their faith. For Christians, other prophets such as Moses were able to perform miracles but, like his splitting of the Red Sea, it was all made possible by the power of God[65]. Jesus is the only one whose miracles are attributed to his own divine power. Here is where Muslims explain the discrepancies between the two religions as a result that Christians have missed the point of Jesus. Muslims see Jesus, as the Qur'an says, in a succession of prophets who are fully human and not divine and culminate with Muhammad.[66] Muslims believe that, if Christians accepted this view, all would be explained. Christians on the other hand take the approach that Muslims created a false and unnecessary new religion and believe that any similarities between the sacred texts are a result of Muslims borrowing from the Christian tradition[67].

Attempts have also been made by secular scholars to explain these consistencies between the two religions as the result of pre-existing historical trends even before the time of Jesus. There are many examples of similar narrative structures that have been found in texts dating back hundreds and even thousands of years that are present within the Bible[68]. Western scholars have also seen these trends as related to the rapid expansion of Islam in its early period[69]. They believe that unrest and civil war during the rise of Islam led to the widespread expectations of Muslims that the end of the world was near and, some scholars believe, the Qur'anic descriptions of Jesus as an end of time figure would have been “a reassurance to Muslims that their cause was not in vain” and that they “had recognized the side of righteousness in a confusing world of socio-political currents.”[70]

The Jesus of Islam is arguably the same as the Jesus of Christianity and can clearly be seen within Christian sources of all kinds but these sources are scattered and disputed amongst the Christians. The confusion arises because of the inconsistencies of Christian sources, both canonical and non-canonical, and is largely the result of the early Christians leaders who assembled faulty compilations and allowed for politics or their own agendas to play too much into the construction of the canon[71]. It is an indisputable fact that although the Bible is the Christian sacred text, it contains numerous significant contradictions. Just in the seemingly simple Genesis flood story there are three separate versions with different accounts of fundamental aspects of how the flood occurred[72]. Muhammad and his contemporaries like Abu Bakr had the foresight to record and compile the Qur'an right away so as to ensure purity of content. Just the same as Christianity, there were undoubtedly Muslims or other hopefuls who attempted to author false sacred texts but the manner in which the Qur'an was compiled did not allow for it. Even the Hadith can for the most part trace all its sayings back directly to the prophet.

However, no amount of criticism over the compilation of ancient works will change what happened and both Muslims and Christians are guilty of wasting too much ink over attempts to disprove the other. Scholars of both religions have for centuries tried to point out the opposite sacred text's references to Jesus in a way to affirm their own faith when instead they should be focusing on commonalities and ways to move forward. It is ironic that Muhammad spoke so well of Jesus while Christian writings have always been harshly critical of Muhammad[73]. Andalusia was a perfect example of what can come of harmonious interaction between religions[74]. Spain under Muslim rule was the epitome of intellectual and cultural exchange, with Christians, Muslims, and Jews all coexisting and creating positive outcomes[75]. However, just because such harmony was possible in Andalusia at that time, doesn't mean that is necessarily possible or the answer today.

These “lost” early Christian doctrines are often dismissed today, especially by church leaders, for the sole reason of being non-canonical and, therefore heretical. What many do not stop to consider is the fact that, at one point, all of these books were considered legitimate to a certain group. The significance of the victory of proto-orthodox Christianity is “almost impossible to exaggerate” and it left a number of marks on the history of Western civilization, “none of which has proved more significant than the formation of the New Testament as a canon of scripture”.[76] When faced with the question of why the other Christianities were defeated by Paul's proto-orthodox version, church leaders and other believers will often attribute it to the will of God. Many do not question whether the “right” version won out. Many Christians do not realize that “Christian Scriptures did not descend from heaven a few years after Jesus died” and either do not know or do not want to know that the books that eventually came to be collected into the sacred canon were written by a variety of authors over a period of sixty or seventy years, in different places and for different audiences[77]. This is honest historical fact. When considering this process, it is simply not enough to affirm that “decisions made about the canon, like the books themselves, were divinely inspired” and in order to get a proper understanding, it is necessary to consider the actual history of the process and to “ponder the long, drawn-out arguments over which books to include and which to reject.”[78] The process took centuries, and even then there was not unanimity[79]. The fact that the real process behind these decisions was political allows for entertainment of the thought of what Christianity and our world would be like if another version had won; the early Christian texts that correspond to Islamic teaching might not be heretical but could have been canonical. It is just not right or thorough to dismiss these similarities between the texts without proper consideration.

What all of the overlaps of texts such as the Proto-Gospel of James, the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter, and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas allude to is that there is more to the concordance between Islam and Christianity than is commonly thought. The collections of texts within the two religions hint at the existence of a shared historical narrative waiting to be further revealed. Many of the most influential and important ancient texts have been discovered in the last few generations and, aside from the fact that scholars have not finished understanding them yet, there are undoubtedly more discoveries to follow. All it takes is one text to shake the foundations and create new perspectives; the recent discovery of the Gospel of Judas presented an entirely opposite view of Judas from traditional Christianity[80]. Only just translated in 2006, the Gospel of Judas shows how even in a world where we think we have everything already figured out, there is no assurance that we won't have to revaluate at any time. There is still much work to be done in the study of these ancient texts. The current connections between early Christian books and the Qur'an paint only part of the picture and there is still much more to learn about the real historical narrative of Jesus' life. As for the question of whose books and whose ideas should be considered “correct”, only God can say.

In 2007 an Episcopalian priest was defrocked when, after deep thought, she considered herself both a Muslim and a Christian. People labeled her as idiotic and irrational, because such a thing is surely impossible. Isn't it?

by Hira āmīn

Political

From the political front unrest was found both in the provinces and in the elite Janissaries. The Janissaries, who comprised of young Christian boys being conscripted into the dervishme system, were trained to be officers, governors and soldiers. This method of strict discipline and rigorous training provided the government with skilled workers and was the key tool in early Ottoman success. However, the Janissaries who were once part of the most revered army in the world had become militarily ineffectual by the end of the 18th Century. The Crimean Tartars served as a support for this decay however as mentioned above, in 1774 when Crimea became independent they left the army.

The success in the Janissaries lied in their strict obedience to the Sultan, however; their ability to live on military salaries faded due to the costs of warfare and inflation. The government could no longer pay them a sufficient salary, which led them to violate the Janissary principle of only being a soldier and celibacy. They integrated into the urban class and became butchers, bakers, porters, craftsman; many owned coffee shops.[21]They married and their children were recruited and replaced the peasant boys in the divershime recruitment rounds, the last of these rounds being in 1703.[22] Thus by the early 18th century the Janissary corps were hereditary and urban in origin, so as Hourani says “their exclusive loyalties had broken down”.[23]

Due to their proximity to the Sultan and their elite status this had a catastrophic political impact. They had the power to make and break rulers as seen when they denied Sulayman the Magnificent's son Selim the throne until he paid them extra money.[24] Their integration within the urban classes gave the urban class a voice and power to object. Moreover, as the Janissaries became a hereditary corps – precisely what the prohibition of marriage rule wanted to prevent – this created an elite-popular urban class who had power to overthrow viziers and officials on behalf of the popular classes or due to intra-elite quarrels. It was for this reason in 1826 that Sultan Mahmud II killed and captured them to silence their voices and stabilize the Empire.

Unrest also lay within the province itself. The balance of power shifted from the Sultan to the viziers. At the end of the 17th Century the centre of decisions shifted from the Dome Chamber in the Palace to the Sublime Porte which was the vizier's house.[25]  However; Hourani asserts this could not change the situation, as the vizier's role was weak and could be easily dismissed by the Sultan, thus no radical changes were possible. Throughout the 17th and 18th Century the power shifted further into the local elites, decentralizing the system further.

The local elites always played a crucial role in the government and were loyal to the Sultan in providing taxes and recruits for the army. Quartaret claims this was due to the 1695 tax farming system where the government granted the right to collect taxes for a particular land in exchange for cash payments to the treasury. This ensured the central state maintained some control over the local elites as they could remove this lucrative privilege. However, the rising cost of wars and the inability for the government to pay cash back caused the local elites to keep the taxes for themselves. As we saw, above four fifths of the state revenue failed to reach the central government in 1789.

Quartaret emphasizes the lack of economic contingency for the cause of decentralization, but Lieven and Hourani assert this was largely down to ineffective leaders chosen by a hereditary process.[26] It seems that even though the quality of the leaders had declined, they did not simply sit back and watch the Empire fall apart. The leaders tried to modernize the system to try and salvage what was left. For example after the humiliating defeat and the treaties of Karlowitz (1699) and Passarowitz (1718) the Grand Vizier, Damad Ibrahim Pasha, sent an ambassador in 1719 to Paris with instructions to make a thorough study of the means of civilization and education.[27] In 1731, the Grand Vizier, Topal Osman Pasha hired a French nobleman to reform the Bombardier Corps on European lines. In 1734, a new training centre, the school of geometry was opened. The Janissaries found out and forced its closure, however; it re-opened again in 1773.[28] This and many other attempts of reform, such as the Tanzimat and Ghul Hane decree, show that the leaders were not inactive. However; it was the additional external economic factors and the ideological factors which hindered any of these reforms to have a substantial effect.

Ideological

The Ottomans began with a strong ideology; Islam. Islam was defined against the Christian West; it affirmed its many beliefs, but completed the line of Prophethood hence perfected and cleansed it from its adulteration over time. This view was crystallized with the destruction of the Byzantine Empire and the capture of Constantinople. Therefore the Christian West was inferior from every aspect – militarily, socially and above all religiously. This concept of superiority which at first served well for the empire was by time its ultimate cause of destruction. The sense of pride and fear of adulteration prevented them from taking the Western seeds of discovery and allowing them to flourish in the Muslim lands.

A good example of this was the length of time it took for the printing press to become widespread within the Empire. As Lewis says, “the most important technical innovation from Europe outside the military field was undoubtedly printing”[29] The Turks knew about the printing press since the 14th Century but only adopted it in the 18th Century. The delay was due to religious conservatives skeptical of European inventions and its evil effects in society.

Both the Janissaries in 1826 and the Mamluks in 1805 were massacred by the rulers for this very purpose – to clear the way for reformation. The fact that these brutal massacres had to take place to prevent uprisings against modernization and reform shows the superiority of culture, which was prevalent at that time.

Moreover, loyalty to the Sultan suffered greatly from two movements – Wahhabism and Nationalism. In the 18th Century a more conservative religious strand began in Arabia known as Wahhabism. They believed that the Islam the Sultan protected was not the “true” Islam and thus he was not the “true” leader of the Muslim Ummah. The movement spread with Ibn Saud taking Wahhab's ideology of “true Islam” and he conquered central Arabia, the Persian Gulf, Karbala and Hejaz.[30] They wanted the caliphate to be an Arab as “the Arabs were more worthy of it than the Turks.”[31]

The ideas of the French Revolution infected the Empire – in particular Egypt, which was invaded by Napoleon in 1798. The French left quickly but not before sowing the seeds of nationalism through their propaganda. They spread the message of the Turks ruining Egypt by their greed and the idea that the French will free them. Napoleon said, “It has been said to you that I have only come to this country in order to destroy your religion. This is a clear lie; do not believe it. Say to the slanderers I have come to rescue you from the hands of the oppressors.”[32] The Egyptians were not pleased with non-Muslim rule, however; the hatred towards the Turks developed. Mohammad Ali came into power in 1805 and while he still gave allegiance to the Sultan and supported him in battles, such as the Greek revolt and the Wahhabi revolt, they controlled their own internal affairs and as mentioned above kept their revenues within Egypt.

Conclusion

In conclusion, militarily, economically, politically and ideologically the Ottoman Empire declined from the reign of Sulayman the Magnificent. These factors were of course intertwined, which was why when reforms were made in one aspect the other factors stifled progress. Due to the influx of wealth from the New World they advanced both militarily and economically with the industrial revolution. Even if the Janissaries had not revolted and adopted their advance methods, the industrial revolution and the shift in global trade would have starved the empire from the financial means to survive. The strong ideology which at one point was the impetus to rival and take over the Byzantine Empire became the very reason not to adapt and take from the “inferior” Christian West. Hence the Ottomans were locked in an inextricable knot, thus divide and conquer were inevitable.

Bibliography

Freeman, Edward. The Ottoman Power in Europe.

Smith, Dan. The state of the Middle East.

Hourani, Albert. Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age.

Quartaert, Donald. The Ottoman Empire.

J Shaw, Stanford. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey Vol 1.

Mann, Michael. The Sources of Power.

Lewis, Bernard. The Emergence of Modern Turkey.

Lieven, Dominic. Empire.

Marcus, Abraham. The Middle East on the Eve of Modernity: Aleppo in the Eighteenth century.

Barkey, Karen. Bandits and Bureaucrats: Ottoman Route to State Centralization.

[21] Donald Quataert, The Ottoman Empire, page 45

[22] Ibid page 45

[23] Albert Hourani, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, page 35

[24] Donald Quataret, The Ottoman Empire, page 45

[25] Albert Hourani, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, page 35

[26] Dominic Lieven, Empire, page 146, Albert Hourani, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, page 35

[27] Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, page 46

[28] Ibid page 48

[29] Ibid page 50

[30] Albert Hourani, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, page 37

[31] Ibid page 37

[32] Ibid page 50

Crossposted from Lampost Productions

Question:

Didn’t the Muslim caliphate or khilâfah end in 1342 AH/1924 CE, when Turkey abolished the office? Didn’t the khilâfah have a continuous existence up to that point?

Answer:

These questions are two-sided, as they deal with fiqh and with history. The fiqh of the khilâfah is important, and perhaps that can be dealt with in a future article. In this article, however, I will be exclusively concerned with the history. In revealing historical facts, it is not my purpose to challenge any point of fiqh regarding the necessity of having a leader. Therefore, I am not disputing here that from the time of the death of the Prophet (SAAS) there was an amîr, and that the amîr had to be obeyed, and that the amîr also had the title of khalîfah. Most of what I would amend concentrates on the idea that the khilâfah was abolished in 1342/1924, which is an event whose significance has often been misconstrued by Muslims.

The early khilâfah had a more or less continuous history from Abu Bakr (RA), despite the civil wars of 35-40/656-661 and 64-73/683-692, until the coup that overthrew al-Walid ibn ‘Abd al-Malik in 126/744. That led to the Third Fitnah or Civil War (126-134/744-752), during which the ‘Abbâsids came to power in 132/749-750. This history is detailed in my book, The End of the Jihâd State: The Reign of Hishâm ibn ‘Abd al-Malik and the Collapse of the Umayyads, available from SUNY Press.

Contrary to most popular belief, the ‘Abbâsids’s position was weak, not strong, because the disordersof the Third Fitnah had undermined the khilâfah. The ‘Abbâsids never ruled in Algeria (except briefly in the extreme east of that country), Morocco, and Spain, so that the unity of the state had decisively ended. This actually first happened when the rebelling Berbers of Morocco set up their own khalîfah in 122/740, and it never happened after that year that all the Muslims ever were under one single khalîfah again. Although it has been mentioned that the Umayyads in Spain did not claim the title of khalîfah until the 4th/10th century, they were in a constant state of hostile relations with the ‘Abbâsids, who never ruled or even exerted any influence in Spain.

The North African Berbers, whose revolt had actually broken the back of the earlier Umayyad khilâfah in 122/740, had plenty of justification for their revolt, and it is really unfair merely to treat them as followers of a deviant sect of “Khawârij,” as has often been done. Even though their presence gave rise to the separate sect or madhhab of the Ibâdîs who still exist in the Algerian city of Ghardâyah and also in villages in Jabal Nafûsah in Libya, their initial impetus was purely political. All they did was to rebel against an Umayyad khilâfah which had lost all legitimacy except among the Syrians and which soon collapsed and disappeared. Remember that Sunnis have historically never validated the rule of the khalîfahs apart from the four Râshidûn and, often, ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azîz (99-101/717-720). While Mu‘âwiyah occurs in hadîth and might be defended as a Companion, that does not apply to the later Umayyad rulers. ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwân’s viceroy of the East, al-Hajjâj ibn Yûsuf (d. 95/714), even executed Sa‘îd ibn Jubayr (d. 95/714), the great muhaddith and authority of al-Bukhârî and other hadîth collections, sarcastically berating him for having thrown off his oath of allegiance by joining the ill-fated rebellion of Ibn al-Ash‘ath much earlier and then hiding out. This episode is documented in detail by al-Dhahabî in his huge biographical dictionary, Siyar a‘lâm al-nubalâ’, Vol. IV.

From the time of its first proclamation in 132/749, the ‘Abbâsid khilâfah continued to disintegrate through most of its history. It is quite notable that Abû Hanîfah (80-150/699-767), the putative founder of the Hanafî legal school and an outstanding jurist of the Muslim metropolis of al-Kûfah, after he had supported the ‘Alid rebel Muhammad al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah, spent the last four and a half years of his life (145-150/763-767) in the prison of Abu Ja‘far al-Mansûr (ruled 136-158/754-775), the ‘Abbâsid khalîfah. Indeed, Abu Hanifah was imprisoned in Baghdâd in the very year of the founding of that city and thus broke in the new prison. Further undermining the claim of the ‘Abbâsids to universal rule, a separate Fâtimid Shî‘î khilâfah was set up that lasted 297-567/909-1171 in North Africa and Egypt, and the surviving Umayyads in Spain also claimed the title of khalîfah 317-422/929-1031, when they fell. After that, many small princelings in Spain and North Africa claimed to be khalîfahs, so that a poet stated that they would take up big names like al-Mu‘tasim, just like housecats pretending to be lions. The Hafsid dynasty of Tunis claimed the title of khalîfah 651-977/1253-1569 and adopted ‘Abbâsid-sounding reign titles. When Islam spread to West Africa, so did claims to the office of khalîfah or amîr al-mu’minîn. This became part of the titles of ‘Uthmân ibn Fûdî (or dan Fodio) of Sokoto and his successors in Nigeria to this day. Since the khilâfah of the Ottomans was remote and made little pretense of being a real office, ‘Uthmân ibn Fûdî ignored it. The continuity of the use of such titles in the Muslim West also extends down to the present in Morocco, where Muhammad VI is still to this day amîr al-mu’minîn, just like ‘Umar ibn al-Khattâb, and that is taken with deadly seriousness in Morocco. Thus, the Moroccans, having their own continuous succession of the title, do not at all now and never before did recognize the Ottoman Turkish sultâns’s claim to the title of khalîfah. Indeed, since the sultâns of Morocco claimed descent from the Prophet (SAAS) and were thus Qurashîs, while the Ottomans were not, it might be held against the Ottomans rather that they did not recognize the Moroccan ruler as khalîfah and submit to him.

Meanwhile, in the East, the ‘Abbâsid khalîfahs exercised no personal power in 247-279/861-892 and again 295-334/908-945, when they were under the control of military dictators, and then lost all power completely with the capture of Baghdâd in 334/945 by the Shî‘î Bûyids or Buwayhiyyûn, who kept the ‘Abbâsid khalîfahs under house arrest until the Bûyids’s own downfall in 447/1055, when the Sunnî Saljûq Turks came as “liberators.” However, the ‘Abbâsid khalîfahs soon found that the Saljûqs were just as intolerable and would allow the khalîfahs no power, although they “respected” them, for example, by seeking to marry their daughters. The Saljûks arrogated to themselves the title of sultân or “authority,” which henceforth became the main title of the rulers in Islam until the last century, when malik or “king” began to make a comeback. The ‘Abbâsid khalîfahs only became independent again from the Saljûk sultâns in 547-656/1152-1258, after which Baghdad was captured and destroyed by the kâfir Mongols and the last ‘Abbâsid khalîfah was slain. The Egyptian Mamlûks set up one of his relatives, but he too was killed by the Mongols trying to go back to Baghdâd. After that, they set up a distant relative in Cairo in 659/1261 as khalîfah, and that line continued until the death of the last one in 950/1543. This was the so-called “‘Abbâsid khilâfah in Cairo.” Although the very far away Muslim Sultanate of Delhi in India used to seek investiture from them, everyone else regarded them as a joke. Usually the Mamlûk sultân would go out and drag the khalîfah along in his baggage just like one of his wives. It was form without content.

At the same time, the Turks of Turkey used the titles of amîr al-mu’minîn and khalîfah occasionally before 905/1500, but their real title was sultân, just like the Saljûks, Ayyûbids, and Mamlûks before them. After that the title khalîfah was not used by them for several centuries, until it was rediscovered at the Treaty of Kuchuk Kanarjli in 1188/1774. At that time, in that treaty with the Russians, the Turkish sultân reserved the title of khalîfah for himself so that he could still be considered the spiritual leader of the Crimean Tatar Muslims who were surrendered at that time to the Russians. Thereafter, it was used very little except from 1293/1876, when the Ottoman ruler ‘Abd al-Hamîd II started calling himself the Sultân-khalîfah in order to threaten the British Empire and thus preserve his rule. In this he was strongly opposed by ‘Abd al-Rahmân al-Kawâkibî (d. 1321/1903), who pointed out that according to Sunnî law, the khalîfah had to be from Quraysh, and the Ottomans were not Qurashîs and had never claimed to be. Long after ‘Abd al-Hamîd was overthrown in 1326-1327/1908-1909, many Muslims started looking back on him as the ideal ruler and his time as the golden age, because his overthrow practically meant the end of the multinational Ottoman Turkish state, but they did not think so at the time. His successors Muhammad V Rashâd (1327-1336/1909-1918) and Muhammad VI Wahîd al-Dîn (1336-1341/1918-1922) continued to use the title, but they were under the control of military dictators. When Muhammad VI surrendered to the British in 1337/1918, he fell under the control of those colonialists, and none mourned his expulsion by the military dictator Mustafâ Kamâl in 1341/1922. Thereafter for two years, Muhammad VI’s cousin ‘Abd al-Majîd II had the title of khalîfah without being sultân, until that was terminated by Kamâl in 1342/1924. That was the end of one khilâfah, but hardly the end of THE khilâfah, because there was nothing legitimate about the Ottoman claim to be khalîfahs to begin with.

After that, various rulers tried to claim to be khalîfah, including the British puppet kings of Egypt and the Hâshimite ex-king of the Hijâz, but no agreeable candidate appeared. The Sa‘ûdî rulers never tried to claim it, maybe because they had fought the Ottoman Turks on and off for nearly two centuries and did not respect their claim to the title, so they did not see that any legitimate title had become vacant.

It would seem to me that any attempt to restore the khilâfah today would have to begin by asking why all Muslims should not swear allegiance to King Muhammad VI of Morocco, who certainly holds this claim and does so through an ancient and venerable lineage that goes back much earlier than the Ottoman claim and is much more authentic. Not that I hold the view that that is what is to be done, but it would seem that classical theory would require allegiance to the existing khalîfah rather than setting up another as rival. The Ottoman state did represent the largest surviving Muslim state in the center of the Muslim world in the thirteenth-fourteenth/nineteenth century, it is true, but it almost went under in 1247-1256/1831-1840 and was only saved by British intervention. Thus, for most of its last century it did not constitute a truly independent Muslim polity but depended on Britain for protection from Russia and from other enemies. Indeed, its destruction after the First World War occurred because it had transferred its poltical allegiance to Germany, so that Britain no longer wished to preserve it.

Besides these difficulties with idealizing the Ottoman state, there are other problems. The centralizing organization of that state made the religious scholars very subservient, thereby undermining their traditional role as defenders of the people. Ottoman statism cynically used Islam in the thirteenth/nineteenth and early fourteenth/twentieth centuries, not cultivating real spiritual and moral values and already capitulating to the West. Thus, Mustafâ Kamâl, the secularist military dictator, represented more a continuation of Ottoman statism than a revolution against the Ottoman state model. Even if we go back to Muhammad II al-Fâtih (855-886/1451-1481) and Sulaymân I al-Qânûnî (926-974/1520-1566), we find the statist model in full operation. Nor is its derivation even wholly Muslim; in many of its forms and especially its content, it goes straight back to the defunct, authoritarian Roman Empire which it replaced in 857/1453. Of course, there is also some virtue in the Ottoman state as an example of possible Muslim political arrangements, but it can hardly be considered to accord with the classical shar‘î model of a Muslim state, nor can it be wholly defended on moral grounds. It is better to be circumspect about such matters.

The idealization of Sultân ‘Abd al-Hamîd II is also a dubious exercise. While I agree that he has been overly abused by European colonialist writers, his rule, although sometimes clever, was not ideal in an Islamic sense at all. It was rather filled with compromises and a huge intrusion of European influence, including a bankruptcy similar to Egypt’s meltdown of 1293/1876. Most modern defenders of Muslim statism would not have liked ‘Abd al-Hamid’s conservative dependence on the Sufi shaykh Abû al-Hudâ al-Sayyâdî, nor perhaps his personal character, nor would they have been content to live under his rule without protest.

Finally, one should note that it is not usually wise to take a partisan position about every episode in past history, as we were not there, did not experience it, and do not know the details to weigh who was more in the right in the majority of cases. It is true that we have set views received from our tradition regarding respect for the Prophets (AS), in particular our Prophet Muhammad (SAAS), as well as his Companions (RAA), especially the Rightly-guided Khalîfahs or Râshidûn. And even after them one may make some historical criticisms and judgements after careful study. But in most cases it is better to invoke and obey the command of the Prophet (SAAS) in the sahîh hadîth from al-Bukhârî, “lâ tasubbû al-amwât, fa-innahum afdaw ilâ mâ qaddamû” = “Do not curse the dead, for they have gone to the reward of what they did” (See al-Bukhârî, Sahîh, translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khân, Vol. 2, p. 270, hadîth 476 (kitâb al-janâ’iz, bâb mâ yunhâ min sabb al-amwât), and Vol. 8, p. 344, hadîth 523 (kitâb al-riqâq, bâb sakarât al-mawt); also reported by al-Nasâ’î, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and al-Dârimî).

Allāh says: “And those who came (into the faith) after them say: Our Lord! Forgive us and our brethren who were before us in the faith, and place not in our hearts any rancour toward those who believe. Our Lord! You are full of kindness, most merciful.” [SÅ«rah al-Hashr: 10]

The four imams — the leading scholars who founded the four canonical schools of Islamic Law — never allowed past disagreements to cause them to disparage or raise suspicions about the people of an earlier generation who held divergent views. Likewise, they never called for an inquest of their contemporaries who disagreed with them and they never got involved in their affairs except in a positive way.

The four imams certainly disagreed with one another and with other jurists of their day, but they always maintained their calm in debate and disagreed respectfully. They never permitted others who spread their ideas to use their teachings as a source of conflict or as a means to cause division.

It could possibly be that the principle they developed, of coexistence in the face of changing political and social circumstances, came as a result of their engaging with the substantial societal changes they witnessed during the era in which they lived. They recognized a need to develop a clear and precise approach to respond to such changes.

It can be observed that none of the four imams ever accepted an official political post, not as judge nor magistrate nor anything else. At the same time, they also never constituted themselves as a political opposition. They never gave their support to the government’s political opponents, even though all four imams times suffered government persecution on account of accusations that they did. However, a close examination of the imams’ historical circumstances shows that such accusations were baseless. Instead, they were victims of the old idea: “You are either with us or against us.”

Their insistence on intellectual autonomy is what brought such suspicion upon them, along with how unscrupulous people would sometimes manipulate their statements and interpret their juristic verdicts for various political ends.

In truth, the four imams represented a third way: neither aligning themselves with the interests of those in power nor with the political opposition. This allowed them to carry out a vital leadership role of their own in maintaining social stability in a society made up of a number of contending factions: between the ruling class and the populace, as well as between a bewildering array of ideological factions and intellectual movements, not to mention ethnic and tribal differences. After all this, we can understand how they were so good at tolerating the disagreements of their colleagues among the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence!

They all kept a measured distance from the various contending elements in society while remaining fully connected to society. This made it possible for them to be a point of stability and balance, which protected Islamic civilization from a great deal of conflict, strife, and social disintegration.

The role they played in their times is all the more needed today with our widening social and class disparity and a weakened culture of tolerance, conditions that promote conflict whenever conditions are ripe for it.

The presence of an autonomous knowledge-based mediating authority is needed to act as a a source of strength for the weak and a moderating influence on the strong, to arbitrate in matters, and to impart to society the values of tolerance and mutual understanding. There is a need for those who can speak out for justice and the inalienable rights that are needed to ensure peace and security in any country, and which can prevent violent factions and extremist movements of whatever persuasion from developing.

The world contains nations where you find a strong government and an equally strong civil society. They are held together by organizing principles and their vital, political, social, and charitable institutions. This is what makes the government strong through its people and the people strong through their government.

Most Muslim countries do not enjoy this balancing of institutional power, essential for stability and continuity, which comes from the presence of mediating institutions that are widely recognized and accepted on both an official and popular level, institutions whose role is often only appreciated when their loss leads to the erosion of society.

Ideological and partisan disagreements, religious differences, and other potential sources of division do not inevitably lead to conflict and strife. Allāh says in the Qur’ān: “It is He who has spread out the Earth for all His creatures.” [SÅ«rah al-Rahmān: 10]

Within the sphere of Islam, matters are referred back to universal principles and the legitimate needs of life that Islam upholds. When such a reference becomes impracticable due to the severity of the disagreement tor disparity of the parties involved and the matter cannot be brought to a resolution through dialogue, there still remains a broader circle for coexistence: the one of: “knowing one another” referred to in the verse: “O humankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that you may come to know one another.” [Sūrah al-Hujurāt: 13]

This coming to know one another, this mutual and reciprocal knowledge of the other, is the foundation for social relationships necessitating goodwill, justice, and kindness.

It is possible that through such relationships you will realize your own best interests as well as those of the people you disagree with at one and the same time. We see this in so many aspects of life: commercial dealings, in public administration, health, development, and industry.

Returning to the four imams, it needs to be pointed out that the disagreements between them in Islamic Law were nothing compared to the disagreements that existed among the Companions and Successors. Moreover, they introduced through their own juristic efforts a number of opinions that were new to their generation. Therefore, it is wrong for anyone to claim that their views abrogate the views of their predecessors and exclude all views other than theirs.

The later scholars who worked within the framework of one of the four schools of law, though they did not usually go off in an entirely independent direction, never ceased to engage in choosing between different opinions and deducing new rulings on the basis of precedent. I have studied the legal preferences of the preeminent Hanbalī jurist Ibn Qudāmah, and found that he sometimes adopted a position that was at variance to what was adopted by all four schools of thought. He did so after acknowledging and discussing all of their received opinions. His judgments in these cases are often quite erudite and impressive.

We can find similar cases among the jurists of all four schools of law. This is because the views of the Companions, Successors, and other jurists are no less important than the views of the four imams. They were also from the earliest Muslim generations and theirs is a rich and valuable legacy which has been preserved for us in works like the Musannaf of `Abd al-Razzāq, the Musannaf of Ibn Abī Shaybah, and the writings of Ibn Mundhir.

When we look at the magnitude of the changes taking place in the world today, we can appreciate the value of there being such a broad spectrum of opinion during the earliest days of Islam. Their contributions should not be ignored, since they enrich our understanding of Islamic Law. Though there may have been times in the history of Muslim civilization that such a plurality of opinion was unnecessary for society to function, our present age is certainly not one of those times.

The age of `A'ishah, daughter of Abu Bakr, when she married the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is something that has only recently become controversial. The traditional account is that the marriage was consummated when she was nine years old, which naturally appears strange, if not uncomfortable, to many in a modern, western context. Hence, some recent Muslims (of varying levels of intellectuality, motivations and scholarly qualifications) have re-visited the sources. They have discovered some evidence in the classical historical texts, and reinterpreted the traditionally adduced narrations, to suggest that `A'ishah may actually have been older (with various ages suggested). My aim, in this brief piece, is not to analyze the arguments for and against a young marriage age for `A'ishah, but rather to contextualize the entire discussion with a bird's-eye view that remains intact regardless of which view (if either) an individual chooses to commit to.

The first (and most) important point to note is, as indicated above, is that the controversy is a relatively recent one. The Prophet's own contemporaries took no issue with the Prophet's marriage to `A'ishah; it was not problematic in their eyes. This includes both his disbeliever antagonists and his believing followers. Certainly, his antagonists were ever eager to discredit him, and the Qur'an itself records details of this. They accused him of being a sorceror, a madman or a soothsayer. They objected to his marriage to Zaynab, remonstrating that (according to pre-Islamic Arab culture) a man may not marry the divorcee of his adopted son just as he may not marry the divorcee of his biological son. Yet they did not attempt to discredit him on the basis of his marrying a girl too young for him. Neither in the Qur'an nor in any historical source is there any mention of such an objection having been raised, despite the fact that these sources do mention numerous other strategies used by the Prophet's opponents.

So, if the Prophet's contemporaries did not object to `A'ishah's age of marriage, then we conclude with certainty that her age was within the norm. Logically, this in turn implies one of two things: either it was acceptable, in 7th century Arab culture, for older men to marry younger girls (even as young as 9), or the reason for their non-objection was that `A'ishah was in fact older. Once again, my aim here is not to prove one or the other, but to put the whole issue in perspective. The age of `A'ishah is not a central tenet of Muslim faith, nor should it eclipse the core message and teachings of Islam. Muslims contemplating the issue of `A'ishah's age might find it beneficial to recall that, 'Part of the excellence of a person's Islam is his/her leaving aside what does not pertain to him/her.'

Non-Muslims would serve themselves better by contemplating the Prophet's teachings of monotheism and righteousness, and the Book he presented as God's revelation, rather than dwelling on what is, at most, a socio-culturally historical oddity.

The general character of the Prophet, and his marital history, speak clearly against the notion that he was other than upright. His first marriage, at age 25, was to a widowed woman (Khadijah) who was 15 years his senior, and he remained in a happy and solid monogamous marriage to her for a quarter-century (twenty-five years), the marriage ending only with Khadijah's death, aged 65. If we are extrapolating general lessons from the Prophet's life, then his marriage to Khadijah is far more relevant for paradigmatic value. It was only subsequent to that, and often under specific circumstances (as others have discussed) that he married other women, and all of them (other than `A'ishah) were either widows or divorcees. Some historical sources even record that one of the strategies his antagonists tried, to dissuade him from his preaching, was to offer him whatever wealth or wives he desired, but he refused this initiative.

Hence, without necessarily putting the two possibilities (regarding `A'ishah's age) on equal footing, and without stifling those who wish to delve deeper into the scholarly (and sometimes non-scholarly) arguments on either side, it is sufficient for the Muslim to defer the issue to God, saying, “I believe whichever of the two is the truth before God.” There are many more useful and pressing issues for us to occupy ourselves with.

The modern option of upgrading `A'ishah's age might offer a more immediate appeal, and an 'easy' and convenient solution, for which little further explanation or reasoning would be necessary. Indeed, in the absence of birth certificates, records of ages prior to the modern era can be expected to have some margin of error. However, it is worthwhile to look at the issue in a larger perspective, and to avoid viewing the veritable tapestry of human culture, across space and time, through the colored lenses of modern, western culture. A slight familiarity with anthropology is sufficient to convince one that there has been, and still is, remarkable variety in human cultural practices and norms. The Catholic Encyclopedia observes about the Virgin Mary (peace be upon her) that, “it is possible that Mary gave birth to her Son when she was about thirteen or fourteen years of age.”[1] In Shakespeare's classic play Romeo and Juliet, Juliet was only thirteen, yet her mother tells her that “ladies of esteem” younger than her are already mothers.[2] According to the “Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society,” both Christian Canon law and European civil law considered seven years as the age of consent, but judges in medieval England would approve marriages based on mutual consent at ages even lower than 7.[3] As recently as the nineteenth century, ages of consent of 13 to 14 were common in Western countries.[2] Now, we are responsible for acting in accordance with our conscience, and our own societal norms may well factor into this, but it may be a bit presumptuous to pass judgment on people of the past and future, and those of other cultures. People in the future may well look on some of our mores as bizarre.

The bottom line, is: God knows best about all the details of things. And, it remains well-established that Islam's central message is one of monotheism, decency and morality. It is to this that our energies can be more profitably devoted.

[1] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm, accessed 06/11/2010

[2] Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act I, Scene 3.

[3] http://www.faqs.org/childhood/A-Ar/Age-of-Consent.html, accessed 06/15/2010

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent, accessed 06/11/2010

From a distance you notice his eyes – piercing, brilliant and engaging.  The choicest Praise and Mercy of Allāh be upon him.  Muhammed, the Praised one is Ahmed, the greatest in Praise of Allāh; sublimely appropriate.  Al-Mustapha, the Divinely Chosen, is real.  He was flesh and blood.  Human.

I love him, O Allāh, I love him – sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam.

In a world of distortion, where truth is overcome by fiction, the full moon rises.  Although obscured by shadows or an overcast sky, the moon remains.  Such is the fame and honour of Muhammed, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam.

Of average height, he towers above the elite of history.  He would stand fully erect without a lazy slump.  He was powerful, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam.  His chest was broad with a dusting of hair that extended vertically in a thin line down to his flat stomach, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam.

Any kind of hardships you can envision and pray to never face was shouldered by him, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, simultaneously.

He experienced in his 63 years of blessed life more tribulation than a cohort.  He, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, was an orphan, a widower, battle scarred, and unjustly outcast.  He outlived many of his children and buried some of his grandchildren.  His uncle, the Mercy of Allāh be upon him, was martyred and his body desecrated.  He, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, was defamed, mocked, lied to and lied about.  He was poisoned, stoned, and had to witness his companions tortured on account of their faith in his Message, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam.,

Sabraan, remain steadfast in patience, O Family of Yasser; your destination is Paradise.  His teaching was simple.  Allāh, the All Mighty, is the only One deserving of worship and devotion.  All that we encounter is by His Command.  No harm can befall without His Permission.

His hair, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, was black and wavy.  He liked to keep it longer in length, usually not past his earlobes.  It contained a few gray strands, about 23 in number.  With dark irises he could, by Divine Permission, view a world that was unseen.  He had long, dark eyelashes that from a distance could be mistaken for kohl.  He, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, would not avert his attention from a petitioner until their voice fell silent.  His eyes would sleep but his heart was awake.  His eyes never betrayed or invited treachery, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam.

The weakest, poorest and socially downtrodden would access him, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, as readily as the chieftains.  He sheltered the needy, fed the hungry, protected the vulnerable, guarded the secrets and instructed the uninformed.  He, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, was calm when others were agitated, loving when others were filled with hate, and polite when shown contempt.  He, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, is the highest standard of character and the spring of Divinely ordained etiquette.

His skin, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, was soft and naturally fragrant.  His blessed hands were softer than silk and gave off the scent of aromatic musk.  He was reddish in colour.  He was not dark, nor was he pale.  His skin was blemished with the seal of prophethood between his shoulder blades.  He was proportional in all respects, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam.

In his prayer, he found comfort and pleasure.  His voice quivered in awe of the All Mighty.  When leading others, he would, for the most part, recite from al-Qisar (the short chapters).  If he heard a child crying, he would cut the recitation short to relieve the parent of any distress.  His, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, grandchildren would ride atop his back during his prostration, and he would not move until they felt content.  His voice was measured, and he paused at the end of every verse.  He would recite the Quran in various accents to accommodate all the dialects of his companions.  When alone at night, he would pray.  He would remain vigilant for half the night, sometimes more, sometimes less.  When he recited a passage addressing Allāh’s Divine Mercy, he would stop and ask for it.  If one of torment, he would seek protection from it, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam.

His face, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, was manifest beauty.  His eyes were well set apart and covered by full brows.  They were not sunk into his face or overtly protruding.  His mouth smelled sweet, and his teeth were always clean and white.  His saliva was a medicine and blessing, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam.  By the Grace of Allāh, it was a cure to the blind, increase in food to the poor, and an ointment to the disfigured.  He had a full, dark beard that obscured his slender long neck from a distance. His smile was radiant, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam.

He was soft spoken except when he sermonised on Friday.  His voice was melodious and captivating.  He spoke only when necessary and refrained from idle chit-chat.  His, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, tongue was true.  He loved to listen and would ask questions of those whom he instructed.  He was modest and sensitive to the needs and feelings of others.  He smiled and laughed often, seldom loudly.

When he, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, was displeased, it could be read from his face.  He never raised his hand against another living creature except during Divinely ordained battle.  He, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, was courageous and led from the forefront.  He stood in the ranks of his soldiers and faced the hardship they endured.  He ate what they ate, slept where they slept and dressed as they dressed.  He, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, was a man unlike the world has ever seen.

He, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, dressed similar to his compatriots.  He never owned a throne or regal markings to distinguish himself, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, from others.  He would walk without an escort and disliked sentries being placed to guard him.  He preferred neutral shades of white, green and black to clothe himself with.  When he ate, it was never to his fill, and he always ate while sharing his food with others.  He loved milk, dates and honey.  His favourite dish was tharrid – roasted mutton on buttered bread and broth.

He, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, cared for the earth and despised wastefulness and corruption.  He was a tree hugger – LITERALLY.  He loved animals and instructed his companions to show kindness to them.  When a camel wept, he would stroke it and speak to it in hushed tones.  When the tree whimpered, he paused his sermon and embraced its trunk, whispering to it soothing words of comfort.  Animals took comfort in him, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam.

Today, his modality of life and tradition remain intact, preserved not only in print, but in conscious spirit.

He loved us so much, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam.  He would think of those who would believe in him many generations after his generation and weep in longing and hope.  He loved us more than some care to consider.  Every Messenger of God was allowed a request that would be answered by Allāh.  All the Messengers utilised their invocation in the worldly life except for Muhammed, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam. He, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, preserved his invocation to be intercession on the Day of Judgement for those who accept his message!

None can truly claim faith until Muhammed, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam is more beloved to them than their parents, spouse and children.  To know him is to love him.  To love him is to obey him.  If he, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, was to walk into your life now, what would he think?

O you who believe, send your greetings to Muhammed, sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam.

“Remember that there is much good in bearing with patience that which you dislike, and that victory comes with patience, and that with hardship comes a way out and with difficulty comes ease.” (Ahmad).

Golden words of advice spoken to Ibn ‘Abbas by the Messenger of Allāh (sallaAllahu alayhe wasallam). In the story of Ka'b bin Malik (radhiAllahu anhu) and those who stayed behind is a reflection of the truthfulness of these words.

40 painful days of isolation have passed. Ka’b bin Malik (radhiAllahu anhu) and the two companions await a response, a sign of relief. Divine revelation had ceased to descend upon the Prophet (sallaAllahu alayhe wasallam), by Allāh’s wisdom, just as He delayed it in the incident of the slander of Aisha (radhiAllahu anha).  But the Prophet (sallaAllahu alayhe wasallam) now has a message for Ka’b and his companions. A messenger was sent. Had he come with tidings of relief? Were the Muslims were permitted to speak to them?

When forty out of the fifty nights elapsed, behold! There came to me the messenger of Allāh’s Apostle and said, ‘Allāh’s Apostle orders you to keep away from your wife,’

I said, ‘Should I divorce her; or else! what should I do?’ He said, ‘No, only keep aloof from her and do not cohabit her.’ The Prophet sent the same message to my two fellows. Then I said to my wife. ‘Go to your parents and remain with them till Allāh gives His Verdict in this matter.’

The trial is bitter, with seemingly no signs of a sweet end. Yet Ka’b responds with words showing his ardent desire to ensure compliance with the order of the Messenger of Allāh (sallaAllahu alayhe wasallam).  If he was told that he must divorce her, he would have done so immediately without delay.

Here we notice exemplary manners from the Companions in dealing with the commands of the Prophet (sallaAllahu alayhe wasallam). The messenger who came to Ka’b did not reply with extra words beyond those conveyed to him by the Prophet (sallaAllahu alayhe wasallam). He did not say ‘I think he meant this (to divorce) or I think he meant not to divorce.’ He repeated the previous command without further interpretation.  Ka’b also complied immediately and refused to ask for flexibility, even when others told him to seek it:

Kab added, “The wife of Hilal bin Umaiya came to Apostle and said, ‘O Allāh’s Apostle! Hilal bin Umaiya is a helpless old man who has no servant to attend on him. Do you dislike that I should serve him? ‘ He said, ‘No (you can serve him) but he should not come near you.’ She said, ‘By Allāh, he has no desire for anything. By, Allāh, he has never ceased weeping since his case began till this day of his.’

In testing His slaves, Allāh is Merciful. From His mercy upon them was that this command came towards the last days of the test, perhaps they would not have been able to remain patient had it come earlier on. Through this,  is a reminder to console ourselves in testing times by pondering over the mercy of Allāh, that He did not allow the test to be worse.

The Prophet (sallaAllahu alayhe wasallam) was also merciful to his ummah. Even though the matter was serious, he exempted Hilal bin Umaiya by allowing his wife to serve her elderly husband.

On that, some of my family members said to me, ‘Will you also ask Allāh’s Apostle to permit your wife (to serve you) as he has permitted the wife of Hilal bin Umaiya to serve him?’ I said, ‘By Allāh, I will not ask the permission of Allāh’s Apostle regarding her, for I do not know what Allāh’s Apostle would say if I asked him to permit her (to serve me) while I am a young man.’

Then I remained in that state for ten more nights after that till the period of fifty nights was completed starting from the time when Allāh’s Apostle prohibited the people from talking to us.

Separating a man from his wife, a hefty matter, only emphasized that this was indeed a great trial. But, Ibn Al-Qayyim (rahimahullah) in his book Zad Al-Ma’aad, points out that the command to avoid their wives, was in fact a sign of closely approaching good in two ways.

First, the messenger sent by the Prophet (sallaAllahu alayhe wasallam) was considered a type of ‘speaking’ with them, after he had completely avoided them, even through an intermediary.

Second, the specific command for them to avoid their wives served as a reminder for them to abandon any means of pleasure and increase in worship. When worship is increased, this signals that the period of test or punishment is almost over. Related to this is the last ten nights of Ramadan, when the Prophet (sallaAllahu alayhe wasallam) set an example of avoiding his wives and heavily increasing worship, before the month reaches its end.

So as signs of the end of this trial begin to appear, for every afflicted believer, there are also tidings of hope.  When you are overcome by distress, worry, and debts or when backs are turned to you and a genuine smile can no longer spread across your face due to the grief shadowing your days, think of Ka’b (radhiAllahu anhu). Remember now that it is a sign from Allāh, that the time has come to turn to none but Him, subhanahu wata’ala.

“And who is better in religion than one who submits himself to Allāh.” (al-Nisaa’ 4:125)

This is the purpose of your trial; that you are freed from arrogance, pride and cured of the hardened heart that comes with a state of ongoing ease and prosperity.

The goal is to repent to Allāh and flee to Him, so that your heart is attached to Him like never before. Ka’b bin Malik had no one to complain to but Allāh. Refrain from complaining to the creation, who cannot relieve you of your agony.  In fact, we should be shy from Allāh, that He sees us asking and hoping in other than Him. Ka’b never gave up hope in Allāh when everyone turned away. To give up hope in your Creator and Sustainer is to hold poor thoughts of Him, subhanahu wata’ala. How is it that we fail to place our trust in Him, when He is more Merciful to us than our own selves?

In the hands of the people, you will not find honor or even disgrace. When you keep asking of them, they increase in annoyance. As for Allāh, when you ask Him, He is more pleased.  Allāh loves to hear his slaves invoking, begging and asking from Him Alone.

“Is He [not best] who responds to the desperate one when he calls upon Him and removes evil.” (al-Naml 27:62)

Reflect on the example of Prophet Ayyub (alayhe asallam) who, in a state of affliction in wealth, children and health, called out to Allāh:

And [mention] Job, when he called to his Lord, “Indeed, adversity has touched me, and you are the Most Merciful of the merciful.”

So We responded to him and removed what afflicted him of adversity. And We gave him [back] his family and the like thereof with them as mercy from Us and a reminder for the worshippers [of Allāh]. (al-Anbiyaa’ 21:83,84)

Allāh ends off the example of this Prophet by describing it as  ذِكÙ'رَىٰ لِلÙ'عَابِدِينَ : ‘A reminder for all those who worship Us.’

On these words, Ibn Kathir comments: “We made him an example lest those who are beset by trials think that We do that to them because We do not care for them, so that they may take him as an example of patience in accepting the decrees of Allāh and bearing the trials with which He tests His servants as He will.’ (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)

When you turn to Allāh in supplication, be sure of a response. If it is delayed, He will compensate you by filling your heart with patience and certainty, both of which are sources of reward, until invoking Him carries a sweetness of its own. A delayed response makes the believer blame none but himself, hence leading to repentance. Once we humble ourselves, seeking forgiveness, admitting that indeed we are undeserving due to our sins, Allāh will forgive and bring forth relief.

It is not the calamity that has narrowed our life, rather falling in the trap of the incapable ones is what restricts us. The Prophet (sallaAllahu alayhe wasallam) said: “The most incapable person is the one who does not make du`a.” (Sahih Al-Jami’)

The heart of the believer is pulled towards its Lord in times of hardship, unlike those hearts numbed from sensing the alarm that awakens the living hearts.  Every test is a key with which we unlock our hearts. Allāh (subhanahu wata’ala) says,

“Then why, when Our punishment came to them, did they not humble themselves? But their hearts became hardened.” (al-An’aam 6:43)

Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri narrated: One day the Messenger of Allāh (sallaAllahu alayhe wasallam) entered the mosque. He saw there a man from the Ansar called Abu Umamah and said to him: “What is the matter that I am seeing you sitting in the mosque when there is no time of prayer?”

Abu Umamah said: “I am entangled in sorrow and debts.”

The Prophet (sallaAllahu alayhe wasallam) replied: “Shall I not teach you words by which, when you say them, Allāh will remove your sorrow, and settle your debts?”

Abu Umamah said: “Yes, Messenger of Allāh”

The Prophet (sallaAllahu alayhe wasallam) said: “Say in the morning and evening:

Allaahumma inni a’oodhu bika min al-hamm wa’l-hazn wa’l-‘ajz wa’l-kasal wa’l-jubn wa’l-bukhl wa dala’ al-dayn wa ghalbat al-rijaal

“O Allāh! I seek refuge with You from worry and grief, from incapacity and laziness, from cowardice and miserliness, from being heavily in debt and from being overpowered by (other) men.”

Abu Umamah said: “When I did that Allāh removed my distress and settled my debt.” (Abu Dawud).

When Abu Umamah faced hardship, he fled to Allāh, Who aided him with the du’aa that the Prophet (sallaAllahu alayhe wasallam) taught him, thus relieving his distress.

Finally, after you plead to your Creator, seeking a way out of the darkness, recall the example of Prophet  Zakariya (alayhe asallam) who upheld righteous deeds whilst invoking Allāh for offspring.  When the angels came to grant him glad tidings of a son, Yahya, they found him standing in the mihrab. Istiqamah on the obedience of Allāh, after du’aa is a cause of being blessed with a response, as opposed to heedlessness and displeasing Allāh, after asking Him.

“So the angels called him while he was standing in prayer in the chamber, “Indeed, Allāh gives you good tidings of John.” (Aal-‘Imran 3:39).

As for our beloved companion, Ka’b bin Malik (radhiAllahu anhu), a messenger came to him while he too was in a state of obedience, having just concluded the fajr prayer:

When I had offered the Fajr prayer on the 50th morning on the roof of one of our houses and while I was sitting in the condition which Allāh described (in the Qur’an) i.e. my very soul seemed straitened to me and even the earth seemed narrow to me for all its spaciousness, there I heard the voice of one who had ascended the mountain of Sala’ calling with his loudest voice, ‘O Kab bin Malik! Be happy (by receiving good tidings).’ I fell down in prostration before Allāh, realizing that relief has come.

Allāh has spoken the Truth;

“For indeed, with hardship [will be] ease. Indeed, with hardship [will be] ease.” (al-Sharh 5,6).

A letter from an unbelieving king; a promise of protection and a good life.
His brothers in faith; turning away, no words, no greetings, no promises.

 

Then I took the letter to the oven and made a fire therein by burning it.

Without second thought, the king’s letter was burned. His brothers were given precedence.
He could have decided to go and ‘stick to his principles’. After all, the king did not ask him to abandon his religion, it was a brief invitation to move to a place where he wouldn't feel ‘inferior’. Or he could have decided to take it home, carefully contemplate the offer, and then reach a final decision. Aside from rejecting it, he could have kept the letter merely for its royal origin.

But our beloved companion knew otherwise. He knew that this was a fitna, a great one, for his faith and his allegiance to the Muslims.
His loyalty remained with the believers, for whom the sincere ones grant their love and allegiance. Everyday application of ‘aqeedah (creed) was the way of the companions, whose fiqh (true understanding) of the fundamentals of Islam shone in their actions.

Facing some sort of hardship from our fellow Muslims, should not lead us to give up on them. They are most deserving of patience, and not preferring others over them even if they allure us with kindness.

“And keep thy soul content with those who call on their Lord morning and evening, seeking His Face; and let not thine eyes pass beyond them, seeking the pomp and glitter of this Life; no obey any whose heart We have permitted to neglect the remembrance of Us, one who follows his own desires, whose case has gone beyond all bounds.” (al-Kahf 18:28).

Such is true manifestation of walaa to the believers. How is it that one can turn away from those who share the strongest ties of kinship in faith?

“Your ally is none but Allāh and [therefore] His Messenger and those who have believed – those who establish prayer and give zakah, and they bow [in worship].” (Al-Ma’idah 5:55).

In instantly burning the letter, Ka’b (radhiAllahu anhu) was an example of hastiness in ridding ourselves from all means that lead to corruption in deen.
Burning the letters and cutting the ropes pulling us toward misguidance is a step to being saved from the eternal Fire. Every link between us and the prohibited should be terminated, thereby disallowing any chances for the whispers of shaytan. The truly determined ones are those who do not allow the juice to ferment, as Ibn Al-Qayyim so eloquently symbolized. The more one permits means of temptation to remain in their surroundings the more they are at risk of poisoning their faith.

Prophet Sulayman (alayhe asallam) was one whose example of cutting off ties with that which distracted him from the remembrance of Allāh was mentioned in the Quran.

And to David We gave Solomon. An excellent servant, indeed he was one repeatedly turning back [to Allāh].
[Mention] when there were exhibited before him in the afternoon the poised [standing] racehorses.
And he said, “Indeed, I gave preference to the love of good [things] over the remembrance of my Lord until the sun disappeared into the curtain [of darkness].”
[He said], “Return them to me,” and set about striking [their] legs and necks. (Saad 38:30-33).

When the racehorses diverted  him from the ‘‘aṣr prayer until the sun had set, he slaughtered them all to reprimand himself for allowing them to distract him. For the sake of emphasis, you have just spent hours washing, waxing and adding classy accessories to your luxorious car. You stand back to admire your efforts for a moment, but your joy is cut short when you look up to find the sun setting while you were heedless to prostrate to your Creator in fulfillment of your obligation.  Would your prized car be pledged for charity on the spot? Although not obligatory to do so, it is an illustration of the importance of remaining alert to that which diverts from the five daily prayers.
Allāh (subhanahu wata’ala) warns us:

O you who have believed, let not your wealth and your children divert you from remembrance of Allāh . And whoever does that – then those are the losers. (al-Munafiqun 63:9).

As soon as Allāh blesses and guides us to realize that a certain path leads to sin, our immediate response should be blocking all access to it, particularly if it lies in the proximity of our homes, of close reach to us and those living with us. Otherwise, it will keep tempting us until we eventually submit to its calls, except whomever Allāh has mercy on.

From the incident of the king’s letter, there is a lesson in being extra cautious of wolves who take advantage of the lone sheep. There are those who prey on believers in their moments of weakness and despair, calling them to their way and ultimately leading them to their own ruin. This is of particular importance to our youth, who may find themselves wandering alone in the fields of temptation and immorality. Such wolves may appear disguised in sweetness and friendship, like the king who attempted to take advantage of the weakness and loneliness of Ka’b. Hence the need for Muslim youth to associate in the company of the righteous, who encourage one another towards virtue, forbid one another from treading the paths of temptation and strengthen one another’s resolve in the face of the trials of this life.

If we turn to the example of the Prophet (sallaAllahu alayhe wasallam), it will be of no surprise that burning the letter was Ka’b’s response. The example before his eyes was a courageous one of strong resolve. He (sallaAllahu alayhe wasallam) refused to be coaxed by his people into accepting vast wealth, lofty status and beautiful women as a 'reward' for giving up the faith he so deeply loved and so earnestly strove for.  Allāh commanded him,

Then do not obey the deniers. They wish that you would soften [in your position], so they would soften [toward you]. (Al-Qalam 68:8,9)
His (sallaAllahu alayhe wasallam) only response to the allurement of his people was:

“”I am not more able to abandon this (course) for you, than you are to light up a flame for me from the sun.” (Recorded by Al-Albani in As-Silsilah As-Saheehah)

Just as Ka'b followed in the footsteps of his beloved, be among the strong-willed, who do not allow a temptation of this temporary life to unravel works of  previous good, done seeking the pleasure of their Creator.

But, along with your determination, most needed is Allāh's help and guidance to keep your foot steady and your heart firm. Like the Prophet (sallaAllahu alayhe wasallam), we too must supplicate:

Yaa muqallib al-quloob thabbit qalbi ala deenak

O Controller of the hearts, make my heart adhere firmly to Your religion.

As the Prophet (s) prepared himself for a prized opportunity to present Islam to the noblemen of Quraysh, a blind man approached simultaneously with a question to ask.

The Prophet (s) frowned.  The Prophet (s) in the early days of the risala, yearned for an opportunity to present the Sacred Message to the influential upper crust of Meccan society.  Finally, an audience was permitted.  In attendance were those who others respected and put trust in their judgment. `Utbah, Shaibah, Abu Jahl, Umayyah bin Khalaf, and Ubayy bin Khalaf all assembled.

From a distance, in quick stride, ‘Abdullah ibn Umm Maktoom (ra) called out to bystanders to lead him to Muhammed (s).

The Prophet frowned.  A frown that went unwitnessed by the created was Seen by the Creator.

بِسÙ'مِ اللهِ الرَÙ'Ø­Ù'منِ الرَÙ'حِيمِ

عَبَسَ وَتَوَلَÙ'Ù‰ Ø£ÙŽÙ† جَاءهُ الÙ'أَعÙ'Ù…ÙŽÙ‰

(The Prophet) frowned and turned away because there came to him the blind man

وَمَا يُدÙ'رِيكَ لَعَلَÙ'هُ يَزَÙ'ÙƒÙŽÙ'Ù‰

But what would make you perceive, [O Muhammad], that perhaps he might be purified?

Ø£ÙŽÙˆÙ' ÙŠÙŽØ°ÙŽÙ'ÙƒÙŽÙ'رُفَتَنفَعَهُ الذِÙ'ÙƒÙ'رَى

Or that he might receive admonition, and that the admonition might profit him?

Ø£ÙŽÙ…ÙŽÙ'ا مَنِ اسÙ'تَغÙ'Ù†ÙŽÙ‰ فَأَنتَ لَهُ تَصَدَÙ'Ù‰

As for him who thinks himself to be self-sufficient; To him you attend;

وَمَا عَلَيÙ'ÙƒÙŽ Ø£ÙŽÙ„ÙŽÙ'ا يَزَÙ'ÙƒÙŽÙ'Ù‰

And you are not accountable for his failure to attain purity

ÙˆÙŽØ£ÙŽÙ…ÙŽÙ'ا Ù…ÙŽÙ† جَاءكَ يَسÙ'عَى

But as to him who came to you running.

وَهُوَيَخÙ'Ø´ÙŽÙ‰ فَأَنتَ عَنÙ'هُ تَلَهَÙ'Ù‰

And is afraid (of Allāh and His Punishment); of him you are neglectful and divert your attention to another,

ÙƒÙŽÙ„ÙŽÙ'ا إِنَÙ'هَا تَذÙ'كِرَةٌ فَمَن شَاء ذَكَرَهُ

Nay, indeed it (these Verses of this Qur'an) are an admonition, so whoever wills, let him pay attention to it. (Sura 80.1-12)

Abdullah ibn Umm Maktoum (ra) was blind from birth and hence his mother was called Umm-Maktum (Mother of the concealed one). His father Qays ibn Sayd and mother Aatikah bint Abdullah were not notable or of fine pedigree.  He was, by all accounts, a commoner.

I went to visit a well known elder of the West Australian Muslim community at hospital today.  I went, Allāh knows, out of compulsion and a sense of duty rather than in pursuit of divine virtue.  On the way up to the room the elevator door opened a couple of floors before my intended destination. I saw Waseem and felt angry with myself.  He was in a hospital robe pushing an IV pole. How could I have forgotten to visit him?! I pardoned my way out and greeted Waseem with genuine delight in my heart and concern on my mind.  We walked to his room.

At the age of 26 he felt an abdominal pain one night and felt strange for a few weeks before going to see a doctor.  Tumors, cancer and a terminal prognosis were announced all within a short couple of days.

But the brother was smiling and his room felt good. Imaan good. Sabr and contentment good. He smiled throughout our time together. I told him I am going to see someone upstairs and will come back down to see him.

I came, out of duty and respect for one man, and found my Imaan grow in meeting, coincidentally, another who had slipped my mind.

The Prophet (s) is sinless.  At first inspection, and to the untrained eye, one may think that Allāh is rebuking or censoring His Beloved Messenger.  That is not the case.

Allāh (swt) says in surat al-Fath 40.1-2

إِنَÙ'ا فَتَحÙ'نَا Ù„ÙŽÙƒÙŽ فَتÙ'حًا مُÙ'بِينًا

Indeed, We have given you, [O Muhammad], a clear conquest

لِÙ'يَغÙ'فِرَ Ù„ÙŽÙƒÙŽ اللَÙ'هُ مَا تَقَدَÙ'Ù…ÙŽ مِن ذَنبِكَ وَمَا تَأَخَÙ'رَ وَيُتِمَÙ' نِعÙ'مَتَهُ عَلَيÙ'ÙƒÙŽ ÙˆÙŽÙŠÙŽÙ‡Ù'دِيَكَ صِرَاطًا مُÙ'سÙ'تَقِيمًا

That Allāh may forgive for you what preceded of your sin and what will follow and complete His favor upon you and guide you to a straight path.

The “sins” of the Prophets (s) are not works of immorality or evil.  On the contrary, they are actions of righteous deeds that are beyond their call at a given period of time.

The Prophet’s (s) neglect of ibn Umm Maktoom was not out of contempt. It was out of diligence and seeking goodness for the notables.

But the Prophet (s) frowned.

Ibn Umm Maktoom (ra) was unaware of this frown until the Prophet (s) saw him after the revelation of this sura and honoured him by placing his cloak on the ground for him to sit on.  The Prophet (s) loved Ibn Umm Maktoom.  He (ra) would be the second muezzin for the Prophet (s) and would be his (s) deputy in Medina during his (s) travels.

The frown was not meant for Ibn Umm Maktoom.  Rather, it was at his (s) inability to change the hearts of the notables and their rejection of the Truth. He (s) frowned because when the notables saw Ibn Umm Maktoom (ra) they scoffed declaring arrogantly their revulsion of being asked to join this commoner in his faith in Allāh and the Messenger. Allāh (swt) therefore seeks to comfort the Prophet (s) with the admonition:

وَمَا عَلَيÙ'ÙƒÙŽ Ø£ÙŽÙ„ÙŽÙ'ا يَزَÙ'ÙƒÙŽÙ'Ù‰

And you are not accountable for his failure to attain purity

ÙˆÙŽØ£ÙŽÙ…ÙŽÙ'ا Ù…ÙŽÙ† جَاءكَ يَسÙ'عَى

But as to him who came to you running.

وَهُوَيَخÙ'Ø´ÙŽÙ‰ فَأَنتَ عَنÙ'هُ تَلَهَÙ'Ù‰

And is afraid (of Allāh and His Punishment), of him you are neglectful and divert your attention to another,

ÙƒÙŽÙ„ÙŽÙ'ا إِنَÙ'هَا تَذÙ'كِرَةٌ فَمَن شَاء ذَكَرَهُ

Nay, indeed it (these Verses of this Qur'an) are an admonition, so whoever wills, let him pay attention to it.

The Quran is the Word of Allāh. It has subtle and delicate nuances that bewilder the knowing.

Whenever Allāh (swt) speaks of ibn Umm Maktoom (ra) in Surat ‘Abasa, Allāh (swt) drops a (taa) to imply the earnestness and desire of faith on the part of Ibn Umm Maktoom.  For example, yazzakkā: the original tā’ [of yatazakkā] has been assimilated with the zāy to imply expedience and sure desire.

As such Allāh (swt) says:

تَلَهَÙ'ىٰ ÙŠÙŽØ°ÙŽÙ'ÙƒÙŽÙ'رُ يَزَÙ'ÙƒÙŽÙ'Ù‰

Instead of:

تَتَلَهَÙ'ىٰ يَتَذَÙ'ÙƒÙŽÙ'رُ يتَزَÙ'ÙƒÙŽÙ'Ù‰

With regards to the conscious rejecters of faith the taa remains as a reminder of their distance from Allāh and belief.

تَصَدَÙ'ىٰ اسÙ'تَغÙ'نَىٰ

Eventually, all who were assembled that day would die as conscious rejecters of faith, overwhelmingly during the Battle of Badr.

Ibn Umm Maktoom (ra) would die a martyr as the standard bearer during the battle of Qadisyeh during the leadership of ‘Umar (ra).  A blind man leading the believers to victory in defence of the message he so cherished. Fitting.

I will see Waseem, my commoner friend, tomorrow insha Allāh.

Sand and only sand for thousands of kilometers extending over four nations, Rub al-Khali or the Empty Quarter is the world’s largest sand desert. Uninhabited one may think but the Bedu tribes have survived on the edge since before recorded time.

Sand dunes reach as high as 250 meters, while billions of glittering stars light up its night sky – a feat hikers and campers, locals and expats, don’t like to miss. Formidable conditions – extremely high temperature and dry as a bone – have kept travelers and settlers far away.

To say this place was once luscious green, with lakes and ponds and springs, chirping birds, grazing deer, sleeping water buffaloes, and of course devouring humans would be an unaccepted blasphemy, a madman’s dream, and a creative myth. Yet it’s all true – facts are stranger than fiction.

Much has been written about this Quarter by experts (references at the bottom). Archeologists and geologists have found remains of thousands of lakes (in two periods: between 37,000 and 17,000 years ago and between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago), fossils of cattle and hippos, and of flint tools including knives, scrapers, borers and arrowheads. The mission, the hard work, and the use of technology by scientists to uncover details have all been documented in chronology.

This piece is about the people who inhabited a part of the area. Who were they and what happened to them?

National Geographic reports: “In 1932 Bertram Thomas recorded Bedouin tales of a fabled trading city that disappeared beneath the sands of the Empty Quarter, beginning a love affair between Western explorers and the ancient city of Ubar. According to myth, Ubar was a sumptuously rich city, grown fat from the frankincense trade. Said to have been destroyed as punishment for its inhabitants' impiety, the city remained elusive for centuries.”[1]

How much of a myth are these stories of Muslim Bedus?

Did you not see how your Lord dealt with Aad? Iram (the city) of the pillars, The like of which were not created in the land? (Qur’an, 89:6-8)

The people of Aad lived in an area between Yemen and Oman.[2] Iram “refers to the House of the kingdom of Aad” as mentioned by early scholars like Qatadah and As-Suddi. [3]

The Qur’an additionally says “of the pillars” because they lived in trellised houses that were raised with firm pillars.[4]

“Do you build high palaces on every high place, while you do not live in them? And do you get for yourselves palaces (fine buildings) as if you will live therein forever?” (Qur'an, 26:128-129)

The National Geographic article continues: “It wasn’t until 1992, after decades of fruitless exploration, that scientists finally made headway. Using space-based radar imagery, they detected ancient caravan tracks that converged near modern-day Shisr in southwest Oman. Their excavations uncovered a large octagonal fortress with thick walls standing ten feet (three meters) high, along with eight towers at its corners. Greek, Roman, and Syrian pottery shards discovered in the ruins – the oldest dating from 4,000 years ago – suggested the site was indeed an important trading center. The fact that the city seemed to have met with a rather cataclysmic end – much of it fell into a sinkhole created by the collapse of an underground limestone cavern – was compelling evidence to suggest that this was indeed the fabled city of Ubar.” [5]

The myth busted! The Qur’an is the most truthful and protected book known to mankind.

More evidence of Iram is found in the December 1978 edition of National Geographic magazine. In 1973, the city of Ebla was excavated in Syria. The city was discovered to be 4,300 years old. Researchers found in the library of Ebla a record of all of the cities with which Ebla had business ties. On the list was the specific name of the city of “Iram.” The people of Ebla had apparently conducted business with the people of “Iram.”

These fascinating details hint at yet another (among the infinite) proof of the divinity of the Qur’an. Presenting such historic, precise details of a people who lived thousands of years before the advent of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) during a time void of academic research and technological advancement is not humanly possible.

Leaving aside these intriguing details, let’s come back to our original question: Who were these people? We must know that the Qur’an is not a book of history or science. It does have many signs for people to believe in it – historic, scientific, literary, etc – but its primary purpose is to guide humanity.

The story of Aad is one for our guidance. Aad were the strongest people of their time in their physical stature, and were the mightiest in power. But they were rebellious, arrogant, and disobedient tyrants. They worshiped false gods besides Allāh. They abused the blessings and power they had, and they spread corruption on earth.

As for Aad, they were arrogant in the land without right, and they said: “Who is mightier than us in strength?” See they not that Allāh Who created them was mightier in strength than them. And they used to deny Our verses! (Qur’an, 41:15)

As with every disbelieving nation in the past, Allāh first sent a prophet to the people to remind them and call them back towards righteousness.

Aad denied the Messengers. When their brother Hud said to them: “Will you not fear Allâh and obey Him? Verily, I am a trustworthy Messenger to you. So fear Allâh, keep your duty to Him, and obey me. No reward do I ask of you for it; my reward is only from the Lord of the Universe. “Do you build high palaces on every high place, while you do not live in them? And do you get for yourselves palaces (fine buildings) as if you will live therein forever? “And when you seize (somebody), seize you (him) as tyrants? “So fear Allâh, keep your duty to Him, and obey me. And keep your duty to Him, fear Him Who has aided you with all (good things) that you know. He has aided you with cattle and children. And gardens and springs. Verily, I fear for you the torment of a Great Day.” They said: “It is the same to us whether you preach or be not of those who preach. This is no other than the false tales and religion of the ancients. And we are not going to be punished.” So they denied him, and We destroyed them. Verily, in this is indeed a sign, yet most of them are not believers. (Qur’an, 26:123-139)

How were they destroyed?

And as for Aad, – they were destroyed by a furious violent wind! Which Allâh imposed on them for seven nights and eight days in succession, so that you could see men lying overthrown (destroyed), as if they were hollow trunks of date palms! Do you see any remnants of them? (Qur’an, 69:6-8)

For seven nights and eight days continuously they were battered with a cold, violent wind. Was it a massive cyclone or a turbulent wind carrying tons of sand? We don’t know. Its magnitude and nature may not be known to us, but we know it was severe and it rooted out these people. Only Prophet Hud and the people of Aad who believed in him were saved. They migrated to Hadramout in Yemen and settled there.

The last verse is quite interesting: “Do you see any remnants of them?” Which means, as Ibn Kathir said, “Do you find any one of them left or anyone who even attributes himself to being from them?” This is the obvious meaning.

However, there’s one remarkable fact. Retired Aramco geologist Hal McClure, who in his 1984 doctoral thesis at London University reported in detail on the lakes, says there are no fossil remains of humans there. “Absolutely none” have been found at the lake, he said, though explorers have found flint tools, including knives, scrapers, borers and arrowheads.[6]

“Do you see any remnants of them?” The verse is absolutely right even if there were fossils because there are no people of Aad living today. But could it also mean they were destroyed without a trace left behind?

So next time when we’re out in the Empty Quarter, enjoying the sand dunes and the glittering night sky, let’s remember how it was once a trading center, with gardens and gushing springs, inhabited by a powerful and rich civilization, but who made life hell on earth and rebelled against God.

Let’s remember how an entire city lies buried beneath the sand we’re camping upon.