Loss of Ummah - Is Agriculture the culprit?

I happen to agree with TehsinA's take on the subject. Indeed Muhammad did take all power in his hand, for of course he had the divine advice of Allah and it worked also because he was eager to take other people's advice. However Muhammad did not leave clear instructions on what powers the next leader of this new 'ideology based tribe' or Ummah should have. This made it EXTREMELY lucrative for everyone to take a stab at the position.
The fact that Ansaar were totally left out of power is shocking and disgusting. This does explain the bloodshed by the Umayyads to gain power as there was much to gain.
Ummah was never a good model not in the time of Muhammad and not after it.
Ghazwah are/were tribal custom and were considered defendable and therefore a crime. However I am not sure if they were redeemable (like murder) which will make them even bigger 'crime'.
There is a common trend in the 'reluctant reformists' to say "all was well until Muhammad and Rashidun and things got out of hand afterwards." This is not entirely a true statement. Whereas one can argue the reasons on why Muhammad and Rashidun behaved the way they behaved, not all their actions can be blindly justified.
For example it is hardly an 'achievement' that the Arabian Peninsula was 'rid' of Shirk soon after Muhammad's death. This was acheived by a bloodbath perpetrated in the name of preserving the religion. Entire tribes (men, women, fetus) of 'false prophets' were murdered, also of those who denied Zakat etc. Whether political or economical reasons, this was a barbaric act and it was shamefully tied to religion. Much like what Taliban are doing today.

#38 Posted by mahfari

This is not a pissing contest and I am not here to compare or compete on my scholarly credentials. Fact of the matter is that I am keenly aware of my ignorance and the more I read the more I realize how little I know.

I am neither a lawyer nor a legal scholar, the reason I am here is because the author Dr. Faraz has an interest in history, philosophy and religion all three subjects that I passionately study. Now if you have a legal background and you think you can approach the subject in another way I am happy to look at it and hopefully learn from it. But I think you posing questions from a certain scholastic view and expecting me to answer in a manner which you know fully well is possible only if I have studied the ‘syllabus’ as you have is preposterous.

But please don’t think that my outrage is a cloak, indignation to hide my lack of knowledge, not at all. I shall submit to you my ignorance without aid of any quick and fervent Google searches so that you can gloat in your superiority while I reduce myself to learning from my ‘intellectual superior’. So here it goes.

“As to praising Socrates' ideas of justice, from where did these ideas came? Please respond.”

I think Plato’s Republic is the original work in which this particular conception of justice was fully debated for the first time.

“As to equating ideas of justice in Islam with traditions and other prevalent ideas , it shows the inability to know, understand and keep the Islamic legal tradition in its perspective and context.”

Islamic legal tradition in its perspective and context? Are you kidding? We have already determined that the Caliph had all power vested in him, pray tell me which Caliph or ruler in the 1400 year history of Islam submitted himself to Islamic legal tradition? You can include the Prophet himself in this as well because when the laws he made interfered with his wishes he made himself an exception to them.

“From where does the individuality of women comes into law? Any idea?”

I would again go back to the Republic in which Plato while discussing who should be Philosopher king suggests that both men and women should have an equal opportunity to be trained and then selected to be guardians.


“How the International Private and Public law was codified and its roots?”

I would be just guessing.


“This is one definition.... Other than Greece people could also think!”

The point is not that people could think, the point is that the system of justice as adopted by the world today, the part which is in the UN charter is based upon the Greek conception of justice rather then Chinese, Indian, Hamurabi or the Talmud.

“Facts are sacred and opinion is free, but opinion based upon wrong facts is most dangerous..”

You did not dispute my facts your problem is with the conclusions I draw. I am glad that you suffice it by calling them dangerous. You could easily have gone the traditional route used for 1400 years, called me a munafiq, a munkar or a murtad. Better still if it so happened that I had said it in a place where the ‘ummah’ were strong and comfortable enough you could have shouted death to the blasphemer and there would have been no shortage of Momins to carry out this unholy enterprise.

“.....how many works of Legal though have you gone through personally?

Name any 5........oh too much.......let it be two only ...original works..”

I don’t know if these qualify as original works of legal thought by you but would you say Moses code also called the covenant would that qualify as an original work of legal thought? The first five books of the Bible are the Talmud and I haven’t studied all of them but have studied Genesis and the Exodus and a good bit of Job.

Plato’s Republic, I think that should definitely qualify. I study it all the time and would have probably read it about ten times.

Nichamacean Ethics by Aristotle – I think it does qualify as an explainer of justice, of what is right and what values need to be upheld.

The Greeks did not have a religion of dos and donts, so I don’t thinking in your mind books like the Iliad, the Odyssey or Theogony which I have studied would qualify as works of original legal thought but outside the Oracle at Delphi there were two plaques signifying only two principles. One – Nothing in excess (moderation in every thing). Two – Know thyself (do not commit hubris you will die just like everybody else).

How about Mahabharat or more importantly Gita? Would they qualify in your terminology.

Finally how about the Quran, I hope you would agree that it should be the inspiration for most Islamic legal thougt.

Can you?

I don’t know if I did but am always here to learn. Thank you.

Re: # 36 Dear Tehsin,

The point was that Ummah is not restricted to Muslims only and it is a political statement. It depends upon common objectives and goals and it is not aimed to divide human beings.


As to praising Socrates' ideas of justice, from where did these ideas came? Please respond.

As to equating ideas of justice in Islam with traditions and other prevalent ideas , it shows the inability to know, understand and keep the Islamic legal tradition in its perspective and context.

From where does the individuality of women comes into law? Any idea?

How the International Private and Public law was codified and its roots?


Judges are not surgeons...ask any practicing judge! They are interpreters and ADAL is keeping things at their original and true place when involved in conflict or ambiguity. This is one definition.... Other than Greece people could also think!


As to confused and hatred statements about an era shows the biased approach , as you answer depicts.

I remeebr Ibn-e Khaldun... never judge past from present standards.Understand its standards then make a sense.


Facts are sacred and opinion is free, but opinion based upon wrong facts is most dangerous.........how many works of Legal though have you gone through personally?

Name any 5........oh too much.......let it be two only ...original works..

Can you? If yes then let us learn and discuss more and if not , then do,nt do injustice without reading the basic texts and hearsay is not truth.

Still waiting Dr Faraz's response.

#18 Posted by drfarazmasood

“You said that egalitarian society was far-fetched that I said, but you gave example of an egalitarian society itself”

Why I say that calling it egalitarian is disingenuous because the muhajirun when they moved to Medina were in really bad shape and completely dependent upon the ansar for their livelihood. First the Prophet created a covenant called the ‘muakah’ whereby he made an ansar a brother of a muhajir. This helped some of the muhajirs but then there were the really destitute referred to as the Al sufah who basically were taken care of by the Prophet and the rest of the Muslims. The next you can say was the Constitution an attempt to regulate and bring about accommodation and a bond of acceptance and friendship among all the people. But you see we have to look at these initiatives if they were to be harbingers of an age of love and peace as it seemed in the first instance after hijra.

The Muakah once the Muhajirs got stronger was abandoned because the Muhajir did not need it. But this did not mean that there was any shortage of poor and destitute flocking to Islam. Had the Prophet wanted he could have asked all well to do Muslims to have a muakah with a needy Muslim and that would have been revolutionary and enhanced Medinan society’s egalitarian credentials but that did not happen. Al Sufah also disappeared and there was no formal institution established to take care of the poor and the weak. Next we have the Medinat constitution which included dealing with others and I guess giving others rights to practice their laws according to their traditions, but once Muslims started their conquests they instituted jizya which was definitely not in the Medinat Charter.

Now to the point that I referred to in my previous post – that the Prophet did not allow any body else to claim any authority. Now you can call that by doing so he made everybody equal, or you can say that by holding all authority in his own person he created the institution of the Caliph as super duper monarch with all authority, executive, judicial, legislative, military and relgious vested in one person. The Medinat state lasted only ten years hardly long enough for any institution to take root, but the key is did it make a lasting impact. It did not, as soon as the Prophet died the Quraish managed to wrest all power to them and the Ansar were left out in the cold. Next, among the Quraish the Prophet’s family basically took over all power to the extent that the shura that elected Uthman consisted of Talha and Zubair (Hadrat Abu Bakr’s son in laws), Abdullah ibn Umar bin Farooq, Saad bin Abi Waqqas, Abdul Rehman bin Auf, Uthman and Ali. All would be considered princes of the new order, how do you call this egalitarian?

To institute any reforms, to bring about changes to the prevalent way of doing things requires adherence to principles. So what can we learn from Mecca and Medina? Were these attempts at genuine reform of society to an egalitarian ideal or was there another principle at work, a principle which has withstood the test of time which was at work then and continues to remain intact even today. This Faraz is the principle of political expedience. When you are weak as the Muslims were in Mecca you bide your time suffer what you absolutely have to while getting by whether by appealing to the others sense of justice or fairplay or kinship or pity. (Remember Negus, he was a Christian ruler but it was okay to use him). But when you are strong then you use different ways to get the best deal for yourself, be as ruthless or kind as you wish to be that is all. Even today Pakistani rulers and all Arab and Muslim rulers continue to trash constitutions in the name of political expediency – the need of the time is the principle that governs their decision making rather then any constitution or law or legitimate authority.

#26 & 29 Posted by mahfari


By just taking the second article and saying that it encompasses everybody and turn it into one community, an ‘Ummah’ is spinning it beyond spin. Please read on and let us look at the whole charter in its entirety as to what sort of ‘collective welfare’ this document was going to establish.

It becomes very clear according to the articles that follow that all it agrees is for every ‘tribe’ to follow their own rules and customs to regulate their affairs and that is all. It is fairly uncomplicated and most of it is merely repetition of the same article with a different tribe name inserted and let us also look at its impact for generations to follow.



THE MEDINA CHARTER
622 C.E.
Let us study the constitution of Medina as it was written, because it reveals quite vividly the condition of the society then and what this document was meant to achieve.

The first 2 points set up who the parties to the agreement are, 3-11 deals with blood money being paid and redeeming their prisoners according to their previous customs and traditions and the believers according to their customs. 12a- makes believers responsible for helping out those who are poor among them just so that they don’t become destitute while paying off blood money. 12b- makes it difficult for ex-slaves to find allies against their previous Muslim masters. 13- 23 enjoins believers to be against trouble makers. 14- decrees relationships between Muslims and stops them from making alliances with non-muslims to the detriment of the former. Regulates Muslim behavior how they should become a single community helping each other and uniting against others. Next it is the Jews agreement with them their rights and obligations which include them being able to administer themselves and making sure they have similar rights. In external affairs they could only go out to war with the Prophet’s permission.


The document is definitely obsessed with payment of blood money and redemption of prisoners. This is very interesting; it is hard to imagine in this day and age what kind of society it was at that time where every body was so concerned about blood money. But we can find this very much in our present, because it is customary for mothers from our background even today to say stuff like “Maan sadqay”, which of course is an expression that I will give my self as blood money or sell myself into slavery for you. But this danger was very real at the time. All tribes were very concerned about having their own either killed or sold in slavery. One can call it honor among thieves and robbers. This document kind of formalizes each tribe to do their duty according to their tradition, but for Muslims it goes further and kind of molds them to take action cohesively and for each other. In other words greater responsibility for Muslims to look after each other and the good of their community, especially during times of conflict.

On the face of it, it seems fairly innocuous, no real change from how things were from before for the people of the time. It was actually quite revolutionary for them that their way of doing things was being formalized. Now there was going to be certainty for the results of a particular act. But this formalization, THIS CODIFICATION INTO LAW, THIS CONSTITUTION WILL BECOME THE BIGGEST THING TO HAUNT MUSLIMS FROM THEN TILL ETERNITY.

The reason is that this codification of what was customary in that hinterland, that backward part of the world, with its robbers and cutthroats, with its revenge killings, with its hostage takers, with its slavery, perhaps the worst society in the world at the time, their form of justice became justice for Muslims for eternity. Had it been the great paragon of eternal justice don’t you think Pakistan at its inception would have adopted this Medinat Charter as its constitution and as we were propelled into a kingdom of heaven, of everlasting peace and justice so would all the countries of the Middle East and the world follow suit. Not so! It hasn’t happened.

Pakistan didn’t adopt it, the Arabs didn’t adopt it, and neither did the Persians or anyone else. In fact nobody adopted it, it was a one time event like the other super initiative that the Prophet instituted, that of mu’akhah. The Khulfai Rashidun had to muddle through with it but after their death, with kingship it was back to good old Roman Law or Persian Law. Was it corruption which led the Ummayyads from not adopting this form of justice, we all know that Ameer Muawiyah despite his shenanigans was an able administrator. Could it just be that he felt that the Romans had a better handle on justice? The fact remains that Damascus was a much better administered land then Kufa.

The reason why the justice of revenge as enshrined in the Medinan Constitution is a very low form of justice, which in our world today seems like a gross miscarriage of justice. The reason is that revenge assumes an aggrieved party, which in this case was your kin, so depending upon who your kin was that determined your worth under the law. If they were destitute, ignorant, or uncaring and the other side smart and powerful they could force you to take very limited blood money as compensation for your demise. But in case you were strong enough then you could extract greater value then you were entitled to, in other words perpetuation of might is right principle, hardly a basis for justice.

We cannot even say that we have evolved to our present system of justice and that 21st century norms of justice are different from what happened before. Yes Islam was revolutionary for its time in the hinterlands of Arabia, but the system of justice that we and the whole world has embraced has not only its basis, but rather its form in what occurred nearly a thousand years before Islam burst on the scene. It was Socrates who put into perspective the concept of justice once and for all when he said that revenge can never be justice. Justice is a commitment to the common good of those involved in conflict, and ultimately to society as a whole. Harming any body by cutting of their limbs can never be justice. The purpose of justice has to be to uplift every body to the best that they can ever be, and the power of the state or the polis has to be used in a manner which is best for the welfare of that individual. Power has to be applied judiciously for the good of the accused just like a surgeon uses his skills for the betterment of his patient; justice has to be used to make the criminal be a better person, uplift him.

This conception of justice has been adopted the world over because it presents the most hopeful case for humanity and the human condition. Justice has to be what a parent would want for their errant child. No parent would ever want to harm their child permanently by cutting of their hands, because this is not going to have any impact on the condition of their soul.

#26 Posted by mahfari

“Ghazwa was not any tradition in Islam it means the wars in which physically Holy Prophet peace be upon him participated and read modern law of Warfare where property of vanquished is still treated as legitimate of conqueror. Remember Treaty of Versailles?”

You are absolutely right about Ghazwa being a raid in which the Prophet participated but calling it a war is a stretch. This is why neither Badr, nor Uhud nor Khandak are regarded as ghazwas or razias because they were legitimate wars with the aim of doing harm to the enemies and if there was booty at the time it was considered legitimate. A declared or maybe an undeclared war between enemies, but ghazwa or razia was not a war. It didn’t matter who the caravan belonged to or if the raid was on a tribal oasis, the idea was to find a prey and take advantage of his vulnerability. This was more like piracy or thuggery or highway men. Now ghazu, razia or ghazwa has been called a custom here it would be no different from robbers or pirates or thugs who inhabited other parts of the world at the time. Would we say that it was a custom for robbers to deprive caravans of their goods, I don’t think so all societies i.e. legitimate authorities (as in Arabia) tried to act against these thieves and developed safeguards to protect or punish them for such acts.

First thing, Arab society had never been egalitarian. Neither before the advent of Islam nor after. Socio - economic reforms may have taken root during the period of Prophet Muhammad(S.A.W), and a few decades after his death. But by the time Ameer Mawaaya Became caliph (He called himself first King of Arabs), Tribal system, had already made a comeback. It is another matter that Arabian peninsula had never been previously unified under one ruler, and the ruling domain of a tribal lord was usually restricted to local settlement. But even in that settlement the gap between rich and poor used to be quite stark. Remember Hazrat Jaffer's Speech in Najashi's court.
Now related to the question of Ummah, well I what I really can't understand is the fact that why should one always be looking for utopian goal to achieve. Yes the ideal scenario for Muslim Ummah would be somehow create a society replicating the one that was present in Prophet Muhamamad's (S.A.W) lifetime. But if can't then are we all doomed? Instead of trying to compelling people living in total orthogonal socio - economic, environmental, and cultural variables as those of Arabian peninsula 1400 years ago. Why can't we take the core values of Islam and try to live accordingly in our own cultural and geographical domain. I think Islam will be much better served if we stop pondering over questions like "Which ride has more "barkat", riding a camel or a car?".

Re # 26: "Ummah is not only Muslims as the second article of Mithaq shows, all the people who agree on collective welfare of a society irrespective of religious beliefs are Ummah."

I whole-heartedly agree with you. Here is the first secular nation in front of your eyes where every religion in one nation are free to practice their own faith. Here's the line from my article: "Ummah (a Nation) was created when Prophet Muhammad migrated to Medina and created a society which was egalitarian, with more or less similar socio-economical standing, irrespective of RELIGIOUS VIEWS AND ORIGIN". I did mention the same thing in the article above.

"As to Makkah and Medina being agricultural society"

I do not believe that Makkah was an agrarian society. As far as Medina goes, I think it was a very limited farming society. We have discussed the details below. You have not given me any evidence to suggest otherwise.

"Ghazwa was not any tradition in Islam it means the wars in which physically Holy Prophet peace be upon him participated".

Well, As far as I know, Ghazu was a pre-islamic custom, which stayed well beyond after Islam came into being, and moved to Medina. The only time, it was not directed against each other tribe when the whole concept was changed into one that of a nation rather than of 'tribes' and the same Ghazus or Raids were directed against the Sassinid and Roman Empires outside Arab.

Re: # 23
"Muhammad married Ayesha when she was merely thirteen, it would be considered pedophiliac according to today's standards and many people say that. Go back to nineteenth century, Mahatma Gandhi's father, Karamchand Gandhi was 40, when he married his fourth wife, Patlibai, then thirteen years old. It does not mean that all these people were pedophlliac, but yet following certain standards which are not acceptable in today's world."
Lets get out fact straight. Mohammad was fify plus when he married Ayesha who was six lunar years old and consumated the marriage when she was nine lunar years old. just imagining a nine year old girl in the bed of fify six years old makes me puke.
BTW Karamchad Gandhi might be pedophile but he did not claim to be all knowing prophet of god.

Pocha Deem N K G Sala

Just like Hanuman Ramayan Kali Durga Putrid Ganga Dirt of hoogly was given to Coolies thugs Santhal your Fore Fathers Stupid Christian convert from Baurie /Santhal Nincompoop

Re: # 19
raj71...
What is crime and what is not, is defined by the society you live....And as per my understanding bedu tribes, where mo was born and brought up were not part of any civilised society...someone commented that KoRun is funnily stupid and very ugly...now, for bedu tribes, it was enough for them....

This is a document from Muhammad the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), governing relations between the Believers i.e. Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib and those who followed them and worked hard with them. They form one nation -- Ummah.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/medina/macharter.htm


The first article of Constitution of Medina.

#7 Tahir
"Anyone who derides Allah's signs (ayahs), His messengers, and His revealed Word will be dealt with directly; I merely attempt to prevent Muslims from falling into ditches prepared by the Godless."

Please ask Allah to do the needful directly against those who challenge Allah's word quickly rather than waiting for decades till his death. Nobody ever reads law book to follow it but example of what happens to others, if they break law, works as deterrent and makes them aware of law.

Your Allah should be at least as intelligent as any judicial system of today.

Unless allah does not exist. Only you and your taliban ilk use him for threatening others.

Waiting for response Dear Faraz Sahib.

Dear Ummah is not only Muslims as the second article of Mithaq shows, all the people who agree on collective welfare of a society irrespective of religious beliefs are Ummah.

Present day jahil biased (ignorant Mullahs and their jahil biased opponents are extremists of the same sort who fail to understand the true factual position.


As to Makkah and Medina being agricultural society, it is so ridiculous that what to say about it. Please read the economic and social history of the times. I just quote that one of reasons of wars between Non.Muslims and Muslims in earlier times was for routes of trade.

Trade was in blood of those Medina and at lesser level in Makkah as Makkah was more of a bureaucratic and government and religious center of Arabia.


Ghazwa was not any tradition in Islam it means the wars in which physically Holy Prophet peace be upon him participated and read modern law of Warfare where property of vanquished is still treated as legitimate of conqueror. Remember Treaty of Versailles?

Present US wars need no mention. Facts are sacred and opinion is free.

And all human activities are not measured by economic modes alone. The life is more complex. If the fallacies of basic thesis of this article are clear then we can proceed further, if not .........then let us think more and exchange ideas.

Truth is never biased and we need to study Islam's place in human civilization in an objective manner , whether positive or negative.

Re: # 23
A very intelligent argument here faraz. My own article also tries to bring out the importance of relevance of time as well as context while interpreting religion. You can see the article on chowk. it is titled as " Islam and Modern Times: Is There a Case For Reinterpretation? "
There was a very good chapter in Irshad manji's book also which took same line as yours.
I think it is important to understand that different economic systems require a differen sort of what marx called as 'super structure'.