QUESTION 3:
Doesn’t the Qur’an state that Muslims should never take Jews and Christians for friends?
ANSWER:
A) This is an incorrect translation in the first place. The Qur’an does not tell Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as friends. The word used in the Qur’an is awliyaa’, which means overlords or protectors not mere friends. If we look at the verses that deal with this injunction, we will notice that they always refer to negative situations. For example, in 5:57-58, the context refers to those who mock you when at Muslims when they call for prayers. Would any sane person of any religion take as their defender one who mocks them in this way?. It is not appropriate to view these verses in isolation, since there are many verses that teach how peaceful relationships should be developed with non-Muslims.
B) Coming back to the question of marriage, which is more intimate, the marital relationship or friendship? According to the Qur’an [5:5], a Muslim man can marry a Jewish or Christian woman. As a wife, her Muslim husband has obligations to her. As revealed in Surah 30, verse 22, he should dwell with her treat in peace and treat her with love and compassion. Does it make sense that a Muslim would be permitted to marry a non-Muslim, but not befriend her?
QUESTION 4:
Why does the Qur’an refer to Jews and Christians as kuffar or infidels? What kind of respect and tolerance is that?
ANSWER:
A) Again, here is a big mistake with translation, one that is sometimes committed by Muslims, too. If you look at the English dictionary meaning of infidel, it means someone who does not have a faith or does not believe in Allah. Does the Qur’an say that the Jews and Christians do not believe in Allah? No. Surah 29, verse 46, says that the God of Christians, Jews and Muslims is one and the same. The word infidel is an inaccurate translation of the word kafir in this case.
B) The term kafir, referring to a person, or kufr, referring to an act, is used in the Qur’an in a variety of contextual meanings. This is why I hesitate to use even the terms “non-believer” or “disbeliever” for the translation, as is it is not clear from these English terms what is the object of unbelief or disbelief; God? a particular prophet? others?. I would prefer the term “non-Muslim,” as it applies to various categories of Kufr, whether it refers to knowingly rejecting of message of Islam [disbelief] or being a non-Muslim due to the lack of awareness of the authentic message of Islam [unbelief]. Following are examples of the varied contextual uses of term Kufr in the Qur’an:
i) Kufr is sometimes used in a positive sense. A good believer can also be a kafir. How? The Qur’an says, “Faman yakfur bil taghoout wayu’mim billah.” (whoever rejects taghut and believes in Allah) (2:256). Anyone who believes in one thing is a kafir (rejecter) of its opposite.
ii) Kufr can be used in a neutral/ benign sense as the origin of kufr in the Arabic language means to cover up. So the farmer who is putting a seed in the ground and covering it up is performing kufr. Spiritually, deliberate deviation from the true and authentic of prophets is a form of “cover up” of truth.
iii) The word kufr can, also, be applied to a Muslim when he is doing something wrong, but not necessarily something that would place him or her outside the state of belief in Islam. For example, a Muslim who is able to go for Hajj but does not go, without denying the need to go, would be committing an act of kufr, in a sense of ungratefulness to Allah [3:96-97].
iv) Kufr is used in Qur’an as the opposite of shukr, to be grateful [e.g. 31:12]
v) Kafir is used in the Qur’an not only to refer to Jews or Christians, but also those who rejected the prophets and denied the existence of God. It has been used to refer to the people of Noah and the people of Abraham. It has, also, been used to refer to those who denied prophethood and rejected the existence of Allah altogether, which obviously is not the case with Christians and Jews.
vi) It can be used in a more serious sense, but with a variety of meanings. It refers to the rejection of Islam. It describes one who knows the truth, but rejects it out of pride or vanity. This is someone who knows the truth in his or her heart and deliberately rejects it. Nonetheless, we cannot assess this. The Prophet [P] gave Muslims very clear instructions, after one incident when people assumed to know why someone professed belief in Islam. He asked them whether they had opened up his heart, i.e. did they know whether what was in his heart was sincere. The bottom line is that we have to leave it to Allah; only Allah, who knows the sincerity of a particular person’s acceptance. Allah is All-knowing, and he is the only Judge of all of us.
QUESTION 5:
Why does the Qur’an speak approvingly of the persecution of Jews in Madinah? Doesn’t that betray an element of anti-Semitism or anti-Jewishness and why does the Qur’an describe Jews and idolatrous people as the most inimical to the believers [5:85]? Isn’t that confirmed by the Prophet’s “massacre and persecution” of the Jews of Madinah?
ANSWER:
A) How could the Prophet Muhammad [P] be anti-Jewish when the Qur’an mentions the name of Moses [P] and other Israelite prophets in terms of great praise? The Qur’an describes the original Torah that was revealed to Moses [P] as giving light and guidance, and the Qur’an demands respect for the rights of all peacefully co-existing people, including Jews. Criticism in the Qur’an is not about Judaism or Christianity. The criticism in the Qur’an is aimed at distortion and wrong actions committed by Christians, Jews, as well as some Muslims; it does not criticize the pristine message revealed by Allah to Moses [P] and Jesus [P]. Just as the Biblical text include criticism of believers, whether followers of Moses [P] or Jesus [P], the Qur’an also cites wrong actions of Muslims and other groups. Furthermore, criticism is not meant for the sake of criticism, but rather to warn Muslims in particular against repeating the same mistakes in the future.
B) What is clear, historically, about Prophet Muhammad’s dealings with the Jewish tribes in and around Madinah, is that as soon as he migrated to Madinah, he established the constitution of Madinah or ‘Sahifa’. As Dr. Hamidullah described it, it was the first multicultural, multi-religious constitution in the world. It gave everyone equal rights, including the Jews. It conferred legal autonomy and the right to practice one’s own religion freely, and it required a commitment to defend the city of Madinah against external aggression. None can accuse the Prophet [P] of breaking this agreement. Even non-Muslim scholars, such as Montgomery Watts, never mention that the Prophet [P] betrayed his agreements. In fact, other parties committed acts that were contrary to the agreement on more than one occasion. Whatever penalty was applied, however, it was only applied to the specific group of people who committed the offense, not to all. If it was applied to all, one might suspect group bias, such as anti-Semitism, but it was only to the offending tribe. Furthermore, the punishment was always proportionate to the offense that was committed. Uncovering a Muslim woman was different from conspiring to kill the Prophet [P], and such actions were handled in different ways. The ultimate betrayal occurred during the Battle of the Trench, when a group of Jews from Madinah contacted the enemy, unilaterally renounced the constitution of Madinah, and helped the enemy during war against the Prophet [P] and Madinah. In modern times, this is referred to as high treason at the time of war. Referring to this incident, many say the Prophet [P] massacred the tribe of Banu Quraizah , but this is a distortion of the historical facts. In fact, it was not a sentence by the Prophet [P]. The people of Banu Quraiza chose their own arbitrator and former ally [Sa`d] who determined their punishment according to the law of the Torah, which specifies killing of men for treason. The Prophet [P] simply agreed with his sentence, but it was not the sentence of the Prophet [P] in the first place. A scholarly article by W.N. Arafat questions the exaggerated estimate of the number of fighting men who were punished which is found even in some biographies about the Prophet’s life, like Ibn Ishaq. His argument is compelling and well researched25
C) The main question is whether 5:85 speaks of all Jews and at all times or to those who were hostile to Muslims and betrayed them contrary to their treaty. Given both the textual and historical contexts, it refers only to those who initiated enmity, if not outright aggression against Muslims or those who adopt this attitude, not to a whole religious group.