@Hassan, who wrote

“I’m willing to concede that perhaps the details of the punishment of banu Quraiza is inauthentic, because God knows such things happen. I also know that to some extent Sira was held to a lower standard than Hadith used for legal rulings. However, i’m frankly shocked at the notion that not only did massive military events *not* occur (to the chagrin of 1400 years of Muslim historians)”

It cannot be denied that there were indeed major military efforts i am glad i agree with you on something. As for the issue of slavery it seems rather odd that we can believe in one breath that Allah creates men free, and that numerous hadith show that the Prophet(saws) actions with regard to slavery reveal that he was totally against it. To me it is similar to the rulings on alcohol which were progressive and reveal the intent to eventually abolish alcohol drinking. After all the Prophet(saws) was not only a product of his historical period but it is obvious that his intent was to forbid slavery, as it would make no sense to desire people accept Islam, but support slavery. Who could enslaved if the desired condition of mankind is Islam? So measures were put in place, under the guidance of Revelation to gradually abolish slavery.

The condemnation of slavery is NOT a very recent phenomenon. Do you think slaves approved of being enslaved?

With respect i don’t believe we are at an impasse, but i do think that many muslims are so afraid of “losing” their Islamic identity that they attach the same significance to divine things and historical things, which are definitely human. Science is a word that comes from the word meaning “knowledge”, that is why i advocate scientific standards.

“I have a strong feeling that any “scientific” standards that cut slavery out of the Sira entirely come from “Qur’an Only” Muslims who don’t believe in any hadith or sira to begin with. That being said, it’s not an issue of serious scientific study, but rather an issue of sectarianism. In this situation simply arguing what’s “right” or “likely” or “inauthentic” isn’t going to lead us anywhere. Obviously, we’re both taking this from other sources, so please let me know what new frontiers in Islamic historical studies lead to this difference of opinion.”

Again, what we are dealing with is a refusal to look at the historical tradition critically. Many muslims think this amounts to criticizing Islam, which only proves to me that people cannot distinguish what is universal, what comes from Allah, and what is man-made. Islam does not recognize sects, and the command of the Prophet(saws) not to divide into sects is not the same as recognizing that differences of opinion can and will arise. This claim about “qur’an only” muslims and majority, minority opinions underlies a fundamental flaw in muslim thinking today that has lead to stagnation, intellectually and spiritually. Appealing to the argument about the validity of majority views is inherently fallacious and betrays a lack of concern for truth.i always cringe when someone talks about what the majority of muslims believe. What “mainstream” muslims believe or who defines themselves as modern, moderate, salafi or orthodox is at best secondary, at worst, irrelevant. The key is what does Islam say.

Are you aware that Imam Abu Hanifah was totally opposed to using hadith and sira in jurisprudence(fiqh), and that if it wasn’t for Imam Shafi’i, hadith would not have the position in Islam that it has today. Now by no stretch of the imagination am i a “qur’an only” muslim, but i just want to highlight that “minority opinion” can by no means be equated with the wrong opinion.

“What i mean is, i have never in my life heard from anyone who makes the same claims. Not even the progressive Western figures like shakir, hamza yusuf, or Tariq Ramadan deny either the execution or slavery. The leading scholars in America like Sherman Jackson, Umar Faruk Abdullah, and Muneer Fareed all seem to agree on the the 1400 year old understanding so far as i’m aware.”

i think you are missing the point..the execution happened, slavery existed. However, the DETAILS were fabricated and any reading of the Qur’an shows that the aim(justice) was to eventually abolish slavery.

“Most of them assert that Aisha’s age is not an issue, no more strange than Mary’s pregnancy at 13 or 14 without prior consent. Regarding consent, people believed back then that children who reached puberty were afforded the same legal responsibilities as adults. We started treating children like Children in the West just around 100 years ago, but before then we put them to work in coal mines, and England regularly hanged them for minor crimes. A pubescent girl giving consent to a very favorable marriage (to the prophet of God, no less), can’t be discarded simply because she didn’t hit the age of consent in the western state of our choice (12 in spain. Is 12 old enough?). In any case, when a Prophet has a dream instructing him to marry her, that’s a somewhat special case (assuming you believe that widely-trusted hadith is really authentic).”

i agree with most of your points here, especially about the authenticity about the hadith telling the Prophet(saws) to marry her, but where our signals cross is this idea that the age of Aisha(ra) was not an issue with Muslims simply because i oppose this notion of associating certain things with an imaginary entity called ” the West”, requiring muslims to distance themselves from things seen as western, when Islam is not “eastern” or “middle eastern”, but universal, for all mankind. For this reason alone, you should know that pedophilia, in any age, is having sex with a child, which is why muslims when defending the hadith about the marriage age are keen to bring up that the Prophet(saws) waited until Aisha(ra) reached puberty in order to consummate the marriage; so it is obvious that her age was a concern. (btw the age of Mary(ra)is not mentioned in any authentic source only that she was a young woman( betulah). And neither is the age of Joseph.)

“What i mean is, in general this isn’t so much about a personal argument with you, as much as it is that I respectfully doubt that there is any legitimate Muslim historian, institution or body of scholars on Earth who deny that the Prophet took slaves, among other things. I’d like to see a link to an article or lecture from such a scholar.”

I will find the links to the scholars for you, insha’Allah, since i remember that the Prophet began to free his slaves when the relevant ayat were revealed

“Though i personally wouldn’t like to condemn 1400 years of Muslims as being fundamentally and seriously misguided (as they certainly would be if Slavery were Haraam and none of us knew it), my work would be so much easier if your sources were indeed legitimate, and *did* sanitize historical realities. If indeed we’re newly discovering that the Prophet were a modern progressive figure whose anachronistic teachings were completely lost on all Muslims before us, i’d like to hop on the bandwagon.”

It honestly sounds like you believe slavery is either halal, makruh or some other legal category..remember if it is not haraam, it is one of those categories.

“But i simply couldn’t do it without knowing who’s making these claims , and as the minority view, i respectfully lay the burden on you to provide them.”

With all do respect, because the Qur’an promises victory to the believers and since muslims of today are in no way in a state of victory, the argument is not about majority or minority views, as the majority view doesn’t negate the reality of the conditions of muslims today. But i’m sure that you are aware that the majority view as far as scholars are concerned falls into two camps, state-controlled ulema( the so-called orthodox opinion) and extremists. Other scholars have always been marginalized in Islam. “Mainstream Islam” or “Moderate Islam” is by no means a monolithic category. However if you want i can list many scholars, intellectuals and muslim thinkers. By i am not sure just exactly what claims you believe i am making

“The Verse is verse 67 from Surah 8, revealed after the Prophet chose to set Badr’s prisoners free if they were ransomed or taught Muslims to read. The famous narrative is that Abu Bakr wanted to set them free, but Omar insisted that the best way to sever the Muslim’s tribal kinship (and assert Islam as as a tough opponent) would be to execute the prisoners. The Prophet thereupon compared Abu Bakr to Jesus and Omar to Moses, and sided with Abu Bakr. Then this verse was revealed, and the Prophet made repentance for it, and let Omar know he was supported:
surah 8; ayah 67: “And it does not befit a Prophet to take prisoners without first decimating his enemies in the land. You desire the good in this world, but Allah desires for you the hereafter. And Allah is all-mighty, all-wise.”

Not only does this verse make slavery illegal, at least making slaves of prisoners of war, i will give you that, but the following verses prove your assertion wrong.

“Of course, your sources may say that entire commentary was fabricated, and that the verse refers to something else entirely. But i have no idea who these sources are, and what their real methodology is. I just have trouble believing there’s a group who’s managed to reassess Islam’s early history in this way while maintaining a cohesive narrative.”

With respect, i would like to believe my sources are the same as yours, namely the Qur’an and the sunnah of the Prophet(saws).

“By the way, as far as Aisha’s age goes, i do know that the older age has mathmatical and historical support, and i’m not insisting that she was 9. Perhaps one day i’ll insist she *wasn’t* 9, but the fact that it really shouldn’t matter, and doesn’t have cosmic moral implications, means i have no reason to shy away from the majority opinion. I bristle at the implication that minority makes, that the majority of Muslims are condoning child abuse or believing in a wicked version of the Prophet, unless they accept the older estimate.”

All i’m saying is to analyze the sources. Do the you think that the historical and mathematical support for the older age is relevant? The discrepancies should give you pause, but honestly if you think it’s ok for an adult to marry a child simply because a fallible source says so and because of your desire to adhere to what you believe is majority opinion, then that’s fine, as long as you realize that this isn’t about appeasing non-muslims who hate Islam; those who will never be satisfied with any answer you give.

@ Awesome
“Ahh, real intellectual debate :} I was beginning to forget what that looked like ever since JihadBob decide it was ok to pollute our threads.”

This is what we should be doing from now on(commenting on the articles or intellectually debating the issues they raise) and ignore jihadbob and his ilk..it serves no purpose to debate with people who aren’t really interested in debating.

“I am aware of the fabricated details with regard to the fate of the Quraizah tribe, which is why I avoided the 900 number, as scholars seem to regard it as false. The correct understanding seems to be that only the guilty ones were subject to whatever punishment was given, as there were still Jews in Medina, even after the Quraizah tribe was decimated.
Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the ones who agreed to abide by the treaty were spared, while those that refused were exiled, and those behind the treachery, were executed.”

Thank you brother, that’s all i was saying

Allahu A’lam
baraka Allah fi kum

Ahh, real intellectual debate :} I was beginning to forget what that looked like ever since JihadBob decide it was ok to pollute our threads.

By the way, as far as Aisha’s age goes, i do know that the older age has mathmatical and historical support, and i’m not insisting that she was 9. Perhaps one day i’ll insist she *wasn’t* 9, but the fact that it really shouldn’t matter, and doesn’t have cosmic moral implications, means i have no reason to shy away from the majority opinion. I bristle at the implication that minority makes, that the majority of Muslims are condoning child abuse or believing in a wicked version of the Prophet, unless they accept the older estimate.

i am really sorry to belabor the point as i don’t want to be a source of fitna,

However i must clarify myself.. I am not projecting my preferences into historical reality. Let’s be clear, the story about the jewish tribes has its origins in a sira with absolutely no isnad whatsoever. Imam Maliki condemned the story and said that ibn Ishaq was not a reliable source of history..do we ignore this? The Qur’an states two things only about this incident. Some were killed, some were not. The Qur’an makes it abundantly clear also that certain non muslims will never be pleased unless we accept their religion and abandon Islam, so i have no intention of appeasing Jihadbob or anyone else. Thorough analysis of the story reveals that the DETAILS are bogus.

Brother Hassan, the fact that there are alternate hadith that highlight the falsity and contradictory nature of the hadiths relating to Aisah(ra)age at marriage should give you pause. And the only way we would know if such a practice was accepted in that society is through sources which are themselves spurious. Islam does not prescribe reaching puberty as the ONLY criteria for marriage, it also mandates consent on the part of the female. People who somehow believe that 7th century humans were psychologically different from modern humans are at variance with reality. These are the ones believe that a 6 year old consented to marriage, and its consummation at 9. No one is retreating and saying “All Muslims before us were wrong, and only us modern Muslims have the truth”, rather we should realize the so-called majority historical view arose as a result of taqlid, not meticulous scientific study. Aisha(ra) being in her teens or 20′s is not only more than likely but would still be frowned upon by modern western sensibilities, as the Prophet(saw) was in his 50′s. The West’s view that they have the monopoly on morality will never be swayed, so the issue is not appeasement re-interpreting and sanitizing the Prophet(saw),rather it is intellectual rigor and historical accuracy

Where in the Qur’an does Allah(swt) chide and rebuke the Prophet(saws) for letting the prisoners from Badr go. i respectfully disagree.

Jabir,

“With respect, the universality and timelessness of Islam’s core ideals means it’s actually more open to moral relativism. The realities of Arabia’s political and social situation means the Prophet (saws) had to operate in response to them. Objecting to moral relativism would mean we’d have to choose a single “correct path” in every single thing, which means we’d either impose 7th century Arabia on the entire world, or fabricate a modern Utopia in 7th century Arabia that never existed.”

With respect i think you misunderstand moral relativism. The idea that something can be wrong in one instance and right in the next is fallacious. Indeed the Prophet’s(saws) actions clearly shows that he knew the difference between particulars and universals. Note: the example of the Prophet’s(saws) authority and later the authority of the caliphs(which by the way wasn’t a legitimate Islamic government as the devolution into royal kingdoms is a clear abandonment of the principles of shura and ijma) clearly shows that Islam doesn’t mandate a PARTICULAR form of government but does mandate that any Islamic government must be based on UNIVERSAL principles(such as justice).This is how Islam can be relevant for all time periods, avoid relativism, and still apply standards for a particular time and society without these themselves becoming binding on all Muslims for all times. So yes we can condemn autocratic rule in one sense because autocratic rule is only valid when there is a prophet or Mahdi present among the muslims

Awesome, while i appreciate your abbreviated history of this account i invite you to understand that the details of this story were fabricated by Jewish converts to Islam and later recorded by Ibn Ishaq in a way that reveals its tendentitiousness. Do you honestly believe that the beloved Prophet(saws) who lived the Qur’an countenanced the taking of slaves?

“They eventually agreed to surrender on the condition that their punishment should be left to the judgment of Sa’d Ibn Muaz. Sa’d, infuriated by their treachery (and who later died from the wounds he received in the attack), gave the sentence that the “fighting men” (who most agree numbered no more than 200-250) should be put to death, and that the women and children should become the slaves of the Muslims. This sentence was subsequently executed.”

Allahu A’lam