Unfettered Religious Freedom in Islam - Fact or Fiction? Part 2

Prophet's Capture of Ka'ba and destruction of idols therein

The most obvious example of Prophet Muhammad's intolerance of other religions is the capture of the pagan sacred idol-temple of the Ka'ba and the immediate destruction of the 360 idol-gods housed therein. Moderate Muslims never fail to make a lame excuse that the Ka'ba is house of Allah (founded by Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) and his son Ishmael) and Allah wanted Prophet Muhammad to remove all the idols from the Holy Ka'ba but not from elsewhere. Brig Zaman has made exactly the same claim.

But how credible is this claim? There is no evidence to suggest that Abraham (Prophet Ibrahim), if at all he had existed, ever traveled to Mecca. The Torah and the Bible, which carries the legends of Abraham, give no indication of he and his son ever traveled to Mecca. If the house of God was located in Mecca and it's capture and restoration was so essential for Allah, he must have instructed Jesus (Prophet Isa) to travel there to restore his sacred house as the first priority. The same should have applied to Moses (Prophet Musa) as well. It is also ridiculous that the creator of the universe needs a house which has to be located only at Mecca, depriving the rest of the world.

Where in the Koran has Allah specifically expressed his wish to destroy all the idols inside Ka'ba for cleansing His house? There is a general hatred of idolatry in the Koran but no specific commands to remove them from the Ka'ba alone. Why did then Muhammad with his Muslim converts used to offer prayers to the " chief Idol-god of Ka'ba called Allah (Hubal)" during the early years of Islam in Mecca when the Ka'ba was filled with the idols? Why did the Prophet seek to perform pilgrimage to the idol-filled Ka'ba in 628 which led to the signing the treaty of Hudaibiya? Why did the prophet go back to the Ka'ba to perform pilgrimage the next year in 629 according to the terms of the Hudaibiya treaty? If idols were so hated by Allah, why didn't He instruct Prophet Muhammad to enter the Idol-littered House of God only when they had cleansed it of the idols? Why did Prophet Muhammad send Khalid ibnul Waleed (al-Walid) for destroying other idol-temples around Mecca, such as the temple of al-Uzza in Nakhla located far from the Ka'ba? After the submission of At-Taif, why did the Prophet sent Abu Sufian and Al-Moghira to destroy the idol temple of al-Lat there, defying the residents' desperate appeal to spare their age-old sacred temple and the Goddess? They hewed it down in the midst of helpless cries and wailing of the women and residents [Muir, p450-5451].

Furthermore, before conquering Mecca (Makka, Makkah), Prophet Muhammad also captured the abodes and properties of a few major Jewish clans of Medina, namely those of Banu Qainuqa, Banu Nadir and Banu Quraiza , which has been described by all biographers of the Prophet. As for the Banu Qainuqa and Nadir clans, the entire population were evicted and their homes, weapons and other properties immediately captured as the spoils of wars. For the Banu Qurayza tribe, all the grown-up males (600-900) were cruelly slaughtered in the presence of the Prophet. Their homes and properties were captured and the woman and children made captives, who were later sold in Nedj for weapons and horses. These outposts, where Jewish clans used to live, must have had Jewish temples (synagogues). Where is the evidence that after capturing those Jew abodes, Muhammad and the Muslims preserved the places of Jew worship? These temples of Jewish worship were not located inside or near Ka'ba and indeed were located far from Mecca. Why did then Allah wish to have those Jew temples destroyed when He asked Muhammad to protect non-Muslim religious institutions in the Holy Koran?

These instances only point to the fact that Allah required the Muslims to cleanse the vestiges of idolatry from any territory they conquered; not from the Ka'ba alone. This also conforms to the principle of general hatred expressed towards idolatry in the Koran. Prophet Muhammad only executed this command with single-minded conviction.

Prophet's Peace treaties with the non-Muslims

Educated moderate Muslims, like Brig. Zaman, also typically cite a few allegedly equitable treaties (covenants) the Prophet had signed with the non-Muslims as evidence of Islam's principle of peaceful coexistence with the latter. Before coming back to how equitable those treaties were, I will first consider the contextual circumstances of the Muslim community when those treaties were signed. One of the oft-cited treaties was the one signed allegedly with the Jews of Medina after the Prophet's arrival there in 622 AD. According to Ibn Ishaq's account, it must have been signed within the first year of Prophet Muhammad's relocation to Medina [Ibn Ishaq, p231]. The question is: weren't the newly arrived refugee Muslim community a weak force in Medina during the signing of this covenant? Muslims were earlier allowed to settle in their city in a welcoming atmosphere by the Jews. If such a treaty of mutual protection and non-aggression was truly offered by the Jews soon afterwards, this constituted a gesture of offering further refuge, protection and peace to the Muslims by the Medina Jews but not vice-versa. In other words, the gesture of peace was shown by the Jews towards the helpless Muslim community, not the other way round.

If they wanted, the Jews could have destroyed the few Muslims that arrived there from Mecca. But what followed as a result of the Jews' offering refuge and treaties of protection was a tragedy on their community. The Jews had to pay a heavy price for offering refuge and peace to the community of Prophet Muhammad? The eviction and annihilation of Jewish clans for no major offenses (there are some flimsy claims by Muslims only without substantiation, which are minor offenses and easily excusable) is a clear evidence of that.

Furthermore, isn't it true that most of the treaties, which the Prophet had signed with the non-Muslims, were eventually broken by the Prophet himself on minor and often unsubstantiated offenses or breaches of the non-Muslim parties? Indeed, breaking the treaties was one of his principles in his own words, as soon as the situation became conducive:

"The Prophet said, 'If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.'" [Bukhari: 7:67:427]

The treaty of Hudaibiya with the Mecca citizens was signed for a period of 10 years in 628 AD but was broken by the Prophet on a petty excuse when barely into its second year. They broke it just because the Muslims had become an indomitable force to take over Mecca by that time and they did not want to wait another eight years for the terms of the treaty to expire. This was proven when Muhammad truly attacked Mecca in 630, subdued the citizens, captured their age-old sacred temple of Ka'ba and destroyed all the idols housed therein.

Was there one single treaty which the Prophet had signed after conquering Mecca, that is, after they had become a powerful force? Of course, there were treaties of submission and payment of Jizyah after non-Muslim communities and territories were overrun or brought into submission under the treat of attack. Until his death, the Prophet only strove to expand his domain as far as possible by aggressive attacks or threats to do so. There is no single evidence that the Prophet ever offered a true gesture of peace to non-Muslims.

Equitability of the treaties

As Muslims make lofty claims about the Prophet's signing the just and equitable treaties of protection and nonaggression, it is time to look into the terms of the treaties to judge how equitable and just they were. Let us here consider the treaty the Muslims had signed soon after they had arrived at Medina as refugees, which has been documented by Ibn Ishaq in Sirat Rasul Allah [Ibn Ishaq, p231; Watt, p221]. Some of the salient points are listed below:

1. No believer shall be put to death for the blood of an infidel, neither shall any infidel be supported against Muslims.

2. Whosoever of the Jews follow us (Muslims) shall have our aid and succor; they shall not be injured nor shall any enemy be aided against them.

3. No one shall go to war excepting with the permission of Muhammad

4. Any disputes shall be referred to Allah and His apostle

5. Contracting parties are bound to help one another against any attack on Yathrib ( Medina).

6. The polytheists (of Medina) shall not take the property or person of Quraysh under his protection, nor shall intervene against a Muslim.

7. Contracting parties of this document will have protection against attack and injuries

8. Allah approves this document. Allah is the protector of the good and God-fearing man and Muhammad is the apostle of God.

This is a document Muhammad had created soon after arriving at Medina with his Muslim community as refugees. But if one considers the terms of the document, it is not a document of equitable justice and rights but a constitution of an Islamic state (territory) in which the Jews - the wealthiest and dominant community in Medina are placed as a negligible entity. Their life and properties are protected only if they show allegiance to this autocratic document. They do not have the right to arbitrate any dispute, which must be referred to Muhammad. They are bound to join the fight if the Muslims are attacked by external enemies. The Jews and non-Muslims cannot wage a war against their enemies from outside without the permission of the Prophet. The blood of the Jews and other pagans has no value; only the blood of the Muslims would be avenged or compensated. Is this a document any better than the terms Dhimmis historically used to get from the Islamic state? Absolutely not! Are the terms and treatment of the Dhimmis in the Islamic state equitable and present justice and human rights? Absolutely not!

Modern-day educated Muslims make so much of such a vile document that presents terms of subjugation, humiliation and gross violation of rights and justice of the non-Muslims. Another thing must be understood that there were nine contracting parties in this document and they were the Muslim refugee and Arab tribes (non-Jewish) who had become essentially Muslims by converting to Islam in great number after Muhammad's arrival in Medina [Watt (2), p19]. Despite the Jews being influential and economically dominant, none of them were co-signatories. Some of them have only got a peripheral mention. Most importantly, the three most influential and wealthy Jewish clans, namely the Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir and Banu Qurayzah, got no mention at all. Those Jewish tribes who got negligible mention are likely to be allies of Arab tribes who had been the co-signatories of this document. It should be understood that there was a bitter age-old rivalry between the pagan Arabs and Jewish tribes in Medina. It is also ridiculous that the Jews of Medina, who so stubbornly rejected Muhammad's religion, would accept this document which does not only recognize him as the apostle of Allah but also puts him as the autocratic head of all affairs of Medina soon after his arrival there as a refugee leader. These issues suggest this document might have had been signed in secret between the Muslim refuges and the essentially Islamic Arab tribes (who were fast becoming Islamic) to form an alliance against the Jews. The fact that the Jewish tribes were exiled or exterminated one after another at the first opportunity gives credence to such a purpose behind this so-called equitable and just document famously known as the 'Constitution of Medina' in Islam.

Whatsoever, this document has nothing equitable and just towards the non-Muslims. Instead, it is constitution of subjugation, humiliation, deprivation and violation of rights and justice of the non-Muslims in their own territory by a refugee leader.

-----------

References

1. Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah, trs. A Guillaume) Oxford University Press, Karachi.

2. William Muir, The Life of Mahomet , Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002.

3. WM Watt, Muhammad at Medina, Oxford University Press, Karachi, 1981

4. WM Watt (2), Islam and The Integration of Society , Routledge & Kegan Paul; London, 1961