Tag Archive | "Karen Armstrong"

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Medina Charter of Prophet Muhammad and Pluralism

Posted on 06 February 2012 by Tea Server




The original Madina Charter document does not exist but the most widely read version of the Constitution is found in the pages of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirah Rasul Allah (For English translation of the full text see wikisource),

The clash of civilizations, cultures, tribes, and religions seems to be prevalent throughout all of history. At the same time, history reveals simultaneous conflict and efforts to resolve tensions and division feeding animosity through mediation, diplomacy, and dialogue. Many conflicts seem too complicated for an agreement to be established on just one point, whether or not the conflict revolves around territory, religion, or ethnic discrimination. 

So what approach is best to mediate issues in a contemporary world that seems to be driven by economics, natural resources, and ethnic or religious ideologies? The Medina Charter serves as an example of finding resolve in a dispute where peace and pluralism were achieved not through military successes or ulterior motives but rather through respect, acceptance, and denunciation of war – aspects that reflect some of the basic tenets of the religion Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was guiding and promoting. Through an examination of the Medina Charter, I will show how pluralism was advanced and instated in Medina and the reasons reflecting on such a document could help avoid the divide and misunderstanding plaguing much thought, rhetoric, and media today between Muslims, Christians, and Jews all over the world.

When the Prophet was forced to immigrate to Medina, the population was “a mixture” (akhlat) of many different tribes (predominantly Arabic and Jewish), who had been fighting for nearly a century, causing “civil strife,” and it was for this reason that the Prophet was summoned there (Peters 1994, 4). Tribal fighting and a lack of governance in Medina (known as Yathrib) meant disputes were dealt with “by the blade” on many occasions, which deepened the divides and fueled conflicts. 


Karen Armstrong explains aptly the mentality and workings of the tribal system dispersed through war-torn Arabia, where the Prophet was striving for peace (Armstrong 2006, 19). “The tribe, not a deity, was of supreme value, and each member had to subordinate his or her personal needs and desires to the well-being of the group and to fight to the death, if necessary, to ensure its survival” 
(Armstrong 2006, 24). 
Such a system was, in a political sense, representative of the little cooperation between the tribes in the Yathrib. In this region reigned power hungry strategies, an emphasis on arms and strength in military, and a belief that clearly mediation was unachievable except by a trustworthy outsider who had no connections to the issues or the tribes. Not only did the Prophet fit these prerequisites, but his personal ambition as given to him by God was also one of spreading peace and unity, creating a community, or ummah, made up of diverse groups, through the teachings of the Quran and in the name of Islam.

The Quran states that the Lord “teaches by the pen” (96:1-5). This is indicative of the Medina Charter in that it is a reflection of these verses, which show that God is educating people and changing thought patterns through discussion. In this case, the discussion resulted in peace achieved through contemplation and through seeking agreements in which tribes felt they had benefited from the charter and had not been robbed of status or unresolved antagonism from the past. “Many Islamic rituals, philosophies, doctrines, [different interpretations of] sacred texts, and shrines are the result of frequently anguished and self-critical contemplation of the political events in Islamic society” (Armstrong 2006, 14). 

Islam places great emphasis on reason – the reasoning of the universe, of life, and indeed, of religion too. Al-Ghazzali (1058-1111) said, “Doubt is to find truth. Those who do not have doubt cannot think. Those who cannot think, cannot find truth.” Although this quote is more in reference to the philosophical side of Islam, it reverberates from the heart of reason – something that is central to Islam. 

Yetkin Yildirim writes about the use of one’s own knowledge and the absolute approach of reason. If the answer is neither in the Quran, Sunnah, or Hadith, then one’s own reasoning or ijtihad is required (Yildirim 2006, 109-117). So the Prophet, through the Medina Charter, was practicing Islam through action. For with reason, discussion, and contemplation, a peace treaty was created.


Quba Mosque in Madina. Considered to be the first Mosque in Islam. Date of photo unknown

The mere formation of the Charter and peace were tremendous feats, and the content of the Charter itself reflects this magnitude. The formation of an ummah through respect and acceptance resulting in pluralism shows us one of the ways in which the Prophet combated jahiliyyah, or ignorance – the state of mind causing violence and terror (Armstrong 2006, 19). Examining some of the clauses in the Charter also shows how the Prophet managed to take leadership and create a lasting peace. The first clause, “They are a single community (ummah),” (Sajoo 2009, 94) depicts the ultimate message and goal of the rest of the charter. It marked the creation of a community, and the Charter served as a unifying document in a city of diverse groups, cultures, religions, and languages. 

The Prophet came to Medina with tolerance – an aspect of Islam which is fundamental to the manner in which the religion operates in foreign lands. “It is for this tolerance in the Islamic view that Muslims have looked at the religion of the people in the lands they conquered with respect; they did not intervene with their beliefs nor touch their churches” (Can 2005, 172). Clause 25 epitomizes the level of tolerance in the charter and also serves as an example of Islam in practice. “The Jews … are a community (ummah) along with the believers. 

To the Jews their religion (din) and to the Muslims their religion” (Sajoo 2009, 96) This statement ties in with the verse from the Quran (2:256) which says, “There is no compulsion in religion.” For in the eyes of God, as it says in the Quran “… those who believe … Jews, Christians, and Sabaeans … and does right – surely their reward is with their Lord” (2:62).

The Medina Charter reflects pluralism both in the content and in the history of the document. F. E. Peters explains that “the contracting parties, although they did not embrace Islam, did recognize the Prophet’s authority, accepting him as the community leader and abiding by his political judgments” (Peters 1994, 199). 

As there is no account of an uprising in history books and because the Prophet was there at the suggestion of the tribes, we know that he was never rejected. Because of the laws he introduced, the existing groups clearly did not feel threatened by his new presence or his new governance. The society was pluralistic, and it was not repressive. 

The Prophet – as clause 25 shows – never imposed Islam upon the people of Medina, which meant that they could still practice without disruption their religions and customs, aspects of life that were important to them. He did not create an ummah through denouncing all ways of life except for Islam or by recognizing Islam as the singular religion; instead he united all inhabitants of the city under one banner of ethical living and moral principles – commonalities between all humans and all religions.

The Prophet drew upon the essence of unity, respect, tolerance, and love to combine and create a pluralistic community. Clause 40 exemplifies this: “The ‘protected neighbor’ (jar) is as the man himself so long as he does no harm and does not act treacherously” (Sajoo 2009, 97). People were safe and respected and free to exert their beliefs and would be protected in doing so. This protection, however, could not shield them from treachery or wrong doing.


The Medina Charter is arguably the first constitution ever written incorporating religion and politics (Yildirim 2006, 109-117). And even though the politics of the region have changed since it was written – in recent times for the worst – Islam’s values have continued to spread and are lived throughout the whole Muslim world. Despite the hold of power that some governments still have over their people, the true face of Islam shines through in how people live, communicate, and approach life. I speak from personal experiences when I traveled through Iran, Turkey, and Northern Iraq in January, 2009. 

And despite what the media had to say about the people in those lands, my time there was spent in the houses of complete strangers, who showered me with hospitality that transcended any I had experienced before. Although the governing body has changed, the points of the Medina Charter and tenets of Islam preached by Prophet Muhammad still exist amongst the people. My heritage was accepted with curiosity and respect – just as the Prophet implemented in Medina between the tribes. My place in the society was welcomed with honest enthusiasm, and I felt a part of a community – like the community that Prophet implemented in Medina. I was exposed to mainstream Islam, which we hear so little about in the West due to the confusion which unjustly joins Islam and extremism together. I saw tolerant Muslims who saw me as another person who wanted peace and respect – not treachery. This is what the Prophet also accomplished in Medina – a community which was not based upon religion or ethnicity but one built on unity and acceptance. One built on tolerance. One built on peace. It seems the Prophet was aware that spirituality and faith cannot be governed, and for this reason alone, he sought unity and respect as opposed to discriminating between tribes and their beliefs.

In contemporary times, an analysis of the Medina Charter can give us insight into Islam and religious pluralism (Sachedina 2001). Medina marked the first real occurrence of coexistence between religions and groups in Islam and mirrors the Quran which “in its entirety provides ample material for extrapolating a pluralistic and inclusive theology of religions” (Sachedina 2001, 26). 

The Quran is the unquestionable and the absolute; therefore, it is the key to understanding religious pluralism in Islam. Clause 39 of the Medina Charter says, “The valley of Yathrib is sacred for the people of this document” (Sajoo 2009, 97). And so too is the universe, which is sacred to all of humanity. The Quran reveals that “the people are one community” (2:213), so if we are one (which we are) in the world, in the universe, then regardless of religion, it is God’s mercy and compassion which will save us. By differentiating between beliefs, we neglect that under one sun we all pray to a greater entity, a greater being. We were all created by God, so unity seems imperative and practical.


The Medina Charter is very relevant to current tensions existing between the Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Unfortunately, it seems that ignorance and fear, suspicion and disrespect plague the interaction and stereotypes that exist between these three great Abrahamic religions. In the post-September 11th era, a new wave of antagonism has arisen, and people around the Western world generally fear Islam. Sadly, people confuse the actions of nationalists and fundamentalists, who so unjustly hide behind a Holy Book claiming that their intentions are those of God, with what the actual religion promotes. As Rumi believed, the essence of all religions is the same, for they all teach love. The deep philosophical and even deeper spiritual teaching of Rumi is based on a state of mind that seeks mutual vision and dialogue, which I hope will be achieved one day, breaking down the polarized world of different religious thought. Another verse of the Quran emphasizes this need for dialogue, unity, and tolerance: “Surely this community of yours is one community, and I am your Lord; so worship Me” (21:92).

The Prophets action’s in Medina prompt us to use reason in our approach to the wide, diverse beliefs of the world – from Europe to Asia, North, Central, and South America to Africa and everything in between.

 It prompts us to understand how “the spiritual space of the Quran [...] was shared by other religions” (Sachedina 2001, 23). Such an understanding reveals that Islam is a monotheistic religion that respects the rights of other faiths (Stewart 1994, 207). In a globalized world where we are connected so easily, unlike any other period in history, our mutual understanding of one another and our beliefs are the most important means to achieve peace and stability. 

It is in a contemporary sense, in a globalized world, that the Medina Charter is of such necessity. Inter-religious discussions took place with the Prophet in Medina, for Boase writes about a time when Christians performed their prayers in a mosque after a meeting with the Prophet during their visit (Boase 2005, 252). We can learn how in every country, a community, an ummah, is the single most effective way to produce a pluralistic state. The Medina Charter was a fusion of attributes which all world religions teach: peace, love, freedom, acceptance, and tolerance – resulting in stability.

Peace was achieved in Medina, not through the might of arms or the scale of wealth, but through the unyielding principles of Islam – tolerance, love, reason, and a belief in God – whether the God in the Bible, the Quran, or the Torah. 

The Medina Charter, arguably the first charter ever written, shows that Islam rejects the use of compulsion in religion and violence and that over centuries of human existence, the most effective way to resolve conflicts comes through mediation. 

The Medina Charter is an example that should be discussed and referred to in current conflicts. The creation of a community, or ummah, offers pluralism to everyone. For people are not judged on their beliefs, but on their actions. Persecution is the instigator of all tensions, and reason and tolerance is the essence of all peace. Just as in the streets of Medina, through tolerance and respect, we too may one day have a world-wide ummah, where a passing Christian will say, “Peace be upon you” to a Muslim, who will reply, “Peace be upon you too.”

**********

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Crossroads of Religion and Politics

Posted on 14 December 2011 by Tea Server

Image lifted from http://aduunyo.com

I had a friend in college who was discovering Islam around the time I was. Though we were both born Muslims, we were now understanding it and practicing of our own accord. We weren‘t converts, but “Reverts“. After college, she went on to study Islam at a madrassa-esque school for women and I went on to law school, but we stayed in touch and shared books and articles we found interesting. My interest in Islam was sparked by the post 9/11 hatred that the media spewed about a religion I had grown up with, but never taken the time to understand. Because I didn’t understand Islam, I didn’t know how to defend it. Being dumbfounded on occasion, I decided I needed to learn what was true and right so as to be able to either defend my religion, or agree with the accusations leveled against it.

My friend came from a family that was somewhat religiously inclined. She was never interested in school or having a set career South Asians choose for their children (i.e. doctor, engineer, lawyer, banker) and so, she carefully slipped into a comfort zone that was her religion. Islam tied her to the rest of her family. It gave her a sense of belonging and provided ideas she could contribute when discussions arose, which was often. Her religion was her identity. I think that’s usually the reason we turn to religion, for a sense of belonging and legacy. But turning to a religion without understanding it is like polishing firewood. Sadly, our emotions get the better of us and we neglect the intellectual imperative of understanding the nuances of religion. We defend our beliefs, without comprehension which makes our arguments limp; thereby dissuading non-Muslims even further. Most fail to understand religion because we are taught that questioning is deserving of hellfire, so we silently obey and follow those that teach it.

A recent opinion piece by Eric Weiner in the New York Times explains how “the Nones” or the “people who say they have no religious affiliation at all” are the most rapidly growing group of people in the United States; currently, they make up approximately 12 percent of the population. In Pakistan, we see the Reverts claiming ground.

I see reverting every day with my friends. They’re pulled into the fervent fascination of religion, and feed their curiosity by following one or several neighborhood clerics. Or better yet, someone on television. It is these clerics that later align themselves with political parties or form one of their own (Tehreek-e-Talban is well known). Therefore, in order to pull in the vote of the youth, all political parties play at the heartstrings of our newly-religious-youth and chant slogans accented with God‘s name. This isn’t a novel concept, nor one that is restricted to Pakistan. The case is the same in the U.S. where at last weeks Republican Debate in Iowa, almost all the candidates kept advertising how they were the most conservative and proud of their Christian upbringing.

Back in the day, General Zia (Pakistani Military Dictator 3.0) promulgated various laws that were supposedly based on religion; of these, the most famous are the Blasphemy Laws. Under these laws, a religious sect known as Ahmedi’s were declared non-Muslims. One of the famous Ahmedi’s was Dr. Abdus Salam; Pakistan’s only Nobel Laureate. It is said that when he approached General Zia to protest the declarations, Zia said that his religious clerics had advised him that the Ahmedi’s were changing the words of the Qur’an to promote their philosophy. When Dr. Salam proved otherwise, Zia shrugged and said that he would not have set the law as such had he known better. He did not change it then; admitting a mistake is like admitting defeat. Besides, this law had gained Zia popular vote with the youth and the religiously fervent.

Mr. Weiner argues that the rise in the Nones is due to politics – “God is for suckers, and Republicans.” In Pakistan’s case, God is for every political party to manipulate in a manner that benefits them, regardless of its repercussions or the validity of the statements made. This is because everyone wears religion on their sleeve, the religion that they have not studied, or have been misinformed about by their clerics and elders. Like Mr. Weiner points out, we have lost sight of the graces of God and the behavior expected of us. God asks us to be compassionate, like Karen Armstrong explains in her book “Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life”, compassion means to endure something with another person; not to feel sorry for them. How can we endure something we don’t fully comprehend?

I wish that the religious clerics that advise our political leaders and Reverts would do so with utmost wisdom, and not with personal hatred or disdain shrouded in a religious chant. I also wish that the Reverts make use of the amenities that are available to them, figure out the truth for themselves, and not follow on hatred towards another people or falsified views of God.

So, although it is considered inopportune to discuss religion and politics at the dinner table, this holiday season, let us do just that. Ask your friends and family to explain their views and you get a moment to explain yours. Respect each others opinions and realize that it is perfectly fine to disagree, so long as your views are researched and not standing on a pile of ill-founded emotions that you picked out of someone else’s recycling bin.

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , ,

Ashura as a Myth

Posted on 05 December 2011 by Tea Server

The Day of Ashura is a day of mourning for the martyrdom of Husayn in the Battle of Karbala for the Shia Muslims. A rich tradition of beliefs and rituals surrounds the commemoration of this day: there are intense, poetic recitations, there are beating drums and chants, narrations of the history of the event, public processions, ceremonial chest beatings, ritual flagellations, and even re-enactments of the battle of Karbala. There is a deeper significance to all of this, which I became aware of only after I had read Karen Armstrong’s work on mythology.
Armstrong does not limit herself to the narrow definition of a myth as a ‘purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions or events…’ something that is mutually exclusive with an actual historical event. Her conception of a myth is deeper and meaningful. A myth, she says “is an event that – in some sense – happened once, but which also happens all the time.”
To my mind, it is difficult to find a more perfect contemporary example of it than the tradition of Ashura. The battle of Karbala is an actual historical event, it happened on 10th of Muharram 61 AH (680 CE). However, in a sense, this battle happens every year in the lives of Shia Muslims.
Armstrong says, a myth “is nearly always rooted in the experience of death and the fear of extinction.” The death of Husayn forms the core of this tradition.
“Mythology is usually inseparable from ritual. Many myths make no sense outside a liturgical drama that brings them to life, and are incomprehensible in a profane setting.” It is the rituals of recitations, narrations, chest-beatings, flagellations, re-enactments that breathe life into Ashura. While it is a very meaningful activity for the Muslims who do it, from the profane perspective, it is incomprehensible and absurd.
“The most powerful myths are about extremity; they force us to go beyond our experience. There are moments when we all, in one way or another, have to go to a place that we have never seen, and do what we have never done before.” Ashura forces the participants to go beyond their day to day experience, and takes them to a time and place they have never seen, the day of the battle of Karbala.
“myth is not a story told for its own sake. It shows us how we should behave.” For the Shias, the martyrdom of Husayn provides the central ethical narrative to their lives; it is not just a historical story, it leaves them with moral understanding of what sort of personal virtues they should aspire to in life.
In mythology “we entertain a hypothesis, bring it to life by means of ritual, act upon it, contemplate its effect upon our lives, and discover that we have achieved new insight into the disturbing puzzle of our world. 
A myth, therefore, is true because it is effective, not because it gives us factual information. If, however, it does not give us new insight into the deeper meaning of life, it has failed. If it works, that is, if it forces us to change our minds and hearts, gives us new hope, and compels us to live more fully, it is a valid myth. Mythology will only transform us if we follow its directives. A myth is essentially a guide; it tells us what we must do in order to live more richly. If we do not apply it to our own situation and make the myth a reality in our own lives, it will remain as incomprehensible and remote as the rules of a board game, which often seem confusing and boring until we start to play.”
This is how I make sense of the Day of Ashura.
Quotations are from A Short History of Myth by Karen Armstrong.

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When Will There be Tolerance towards Islam and Muslims?

Posted on 15 November 2011 by Tea Server

A lot of the people hold bleak view about Islam. Recently, I had a discussion with someone having such an outlook. The conversation started with the primary question about what is Islam. I said that Islam is a religion to be understood, that it a way of life. Being a simplistic answer as it is, the person expressed the notion that is generally held by people who are not positive of Islam’s potential for human guidance. The person said that it is a geo-political belief system which has world domination as its ultimate aim.

Now, what does a Muslim say to that, or for that matter, anyone who knows Islam and its teachings, how can one explain a view being associated with it, which is in essence completely contrary to its basic preaching? The briefest answer that I could have given at the time to comprehensively sum up the whole view which is right, and which ought to be linked with any religion, is that no religion in its essence seeks the world. Thinking of this very idea of world domination is against the concept of religion itself.

Still in disagreement, the person came up with another more exaggerated view saying that it has its source in the Koran itself. The person asked me to pick up the Koran and read it and further presented me with a request, not in a polite way, saying that I should go on reading the Koran instead of making “stupid” statements. To such a thing, I could only politely reply that I am a Muslim and have read the Koran many times over. It is a book to be read time and again so that each time a deeper meaning to its highest messages could be understood. I further asked her pointing out the intolerance in her behavior to show some tolerance of discussion on this social forum, which has essentially been created to discuss various things. Such people often miss the hypocrisy of their own act when they call Muslims intolerant and don’t have the nerve to discuss when the truth not to their liking is being told.

After listening to all this, the person went back again to the initial point, which she thought was a strong one and worth reiterating that “Tell me that the aim of Islam is not world domination. Tell me that it does not require the destruction of all infidels, who will not convert to Islam.” If such a distorted view is something that she is willing to adhere to without knowing the facts, then nothing could be done to help elaborate the truth. All one could explain is that Islam is not a religion asking for world domination and neither infidels should be killed for practicing the freedom of belief system that the Lord has granted them with. To realize this approach of Islam, I think one has to read its history, its real concepts and its real philosophy. Islam is not a religion of force, neither was it spread through sword.

The level of knowledge with such allegations she had shown about Islam is a definite telling that she knows nothing about the religion in actuality. I did express to her what I inferred through her comments. To which she did not flinch a bit calling me a liar. Ironic, is not it? She can choose not to believe me, it is of course her right. But if someone really wants to know about Islam, not from the one who has been following it with an understanding of its concepts, then they should read the books that have been written on the subject, watch the documentaries that have been made covering its stories and ideas, study the works of scholars that have presented Islam not with an exaggerated rosy image, but with what its truthful teachings are. The works of authentic scholars go a long way in establishing something for certain, but only if their efforts to understand are understood and the things that they understood as men of higher learning be understood, the purpose of their works will be served well in this way.

Considering the conversation she was making, I told her that one should be knowledgeable before passing statements. In order to support her statements, she shared an article written by some W. Armenious from the USA on July 14, 2002, in which it was mentioned how brutal Muslims are. That they prosecute non-Muslims in their own territories and that the Koran supports their inhumane behavior. Perhaps the point has not been established. I am not so sure when it will. Because the day that it does amongst those people who question Islam’s teachings, the world would really be a better place with an understandable environment and with an air of tolerance and co-existence. For someone choosing to believe that Islam is a religion of violence and that Muslims are violent people, though it is impossible for any nation, let alone Muslims or Islam, to be that uncivilized, it is again their freedom to think. It is useless to convince such people otherwise.

But, for the one who seeks the truth about one of the most important global matters that effect societies, then one must get educated about the people involved and about their issues, about Muslims and their problems. To begin with, “Islam” by Karen Armstrong is not a bad 101 course in getting introduced to one of the largest faiths in this world. And like this one, there are plenty of other authentic sources available to get informed by. Since there is a lot of propaganda involved as well, one has to be very careful in what one is relying on when learning about anything. But for sure, common sense does say that it is utterly wrong to go on believing in something which is false. It is in the end self-deceptive to continue to do so.

After explaining her whatever her thoughts about Islam are, are all based on false notions which have been propagated to incur hatred against the religion and its followers, and after requesting her to be tolerant in discussing the matter with patience and open-mindedness, she still told me to “Get away from me with your nonsense. We can all see what is going on in Egypt with Coptic Christians being slaughtered, and the same thing in Sudan. Your religion of peace is indeed a religion of Satan.”

To again corroborate her outrageous behavior, views, and false statements, she presented another article from the same author which said more or less the same things. The level of her outrage did not end here. To show her own level of low tolerance for understanding Muslims and their religion and her attempts to defame it, she blocked me so that no further correspondence could take place on that social platform and whatever that she has written be there with no replies from me, a Muslim, to defend her religion, her faith, and her fellow Muslims. It goes to show, who is tolerant and who is not, whose teachings and traditions have taught them to give a hand to others in guidance towards the truth and whose not.


Similar Articles at PakFellows Blog:

Syndicated from: PakFellows Blog

Comments (0)

Register your blog:

Enter your blog address below to become a part of the TeaBreak network.

About TeaBreak:

TeaBreak.pk is a blog aggregator that syndicates pakistani blogs and categorizes them appropriately. Our mission is to give our readers a break from work and let them enjoy their blog time. And we are doing this by bringing all the popular blogs of Pakistan on one platform.