Defending the Prophet Against Orientalist Critique - Part 1 (Corrected)
By Yasir Qadhi | 2026-01-07T19:46:30.864694+00:00 | Topic: Seerah
Defending the Prophet Against Orientalist Critique
Part 1 of 2 - Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
Opening
Introduction: The Context of Recent Controversies
The relevance of the topic that we're gonna talk about, I think is self-evident. In particular and especially in light of the recent Danish cartoon controversy of 2005. And what I'm going to do before getting to the actual gist of my topic is to give a little bit of a long introduction.
Talking about miscellaneous issues. The first of these issues before moving on to the academic side of things. Many people mistakenly presume that this is an issue of free speech.
That what is at stake is the freedom of speech and the right to say whatever you want to say. But I want to state quite clearly that this is not the case. The issue of insulting the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) really has absolutely nothing to do with the freedom of speech even from a western perspective.
Every Society Has Taboos
And this is because every single society in the world, every single society has certain issues that it considers taboo. It considers unmentionable. Sometimes that taboo is legally enshrined that the government says you cannot talk about that.
And every single country on the face of this earth has laws directed against certain types of speech. Libel, slander, hate speech, etc. Sometimes it is not the government that sets these laws.
It is societal norms and cultural values. Every single society has certain issues that are simply taboo. You don't talk about them. Or if you do, you must pay a price. Maybe not going to jail, but you will pay a social stigma. You will pay a price of your value being lost in society.
Examples from Western Society
For example, in the country that we live in, North America, United States of America. Racist diatribes, speaking ill of African-Americans, for example. It's not illegal.
You're not going to go to jail if you're a racist. But what is going to happen if you open your mouth and you start criticizing African-Americans? Stereotyping them, using the N-word. What would happen if any self-respecting politician, dignitary, media person used that word? He wouldn't go to jail.
It's not against the law. But such a person, as you all know, what happened to that radio show host, when he used a very vulgar or a very evil term. He was stigmatized.
He was considered socially ostracized. The company had to fire him. How about the actor that plays Kramer on Seinfeld, Michael Richards. When he, in a certain comedy show that he was at, he just went into a diatribe against African-Americans. Said something downright vulgar and evil. It's not illegal.
He didn't end up going to jail. But socially, he was stigmatized to the level that he had to come forth and unabashedly say, I was a racist, I made a mistake. He had to basically admit that he made a very evil error.
Nobody stood up to defend him and said, "Oh, you know what, he had the right to say that. Why don't you allow him to express his freedom of thought?" Nobody did that. Because socially, culturally, it is simply taboo in North America to speak about these topics.
Anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial
Similarly, anti-Semitism is taboo in many countries. You simply cannot speak bad about Jews without facing the social consequences. Holocaust denial.
Ridiculing the Holocaust. In fact, in 13 Western countries that openly claim to be democratic, they're not dictatorships. In 13 European countries, Holocaust denial is a crime that is punishable by being put in jail.
You all know a few years ago when the famous band, the Dixie Chicks, when they were performing, I think it was in Germany, I forgot where. When they were performing, and they ridiculed President Bush and they said, "we're really embarrassed and ashamed that we're from the same state as President Bush is." They didn't go to jail for that.
But what happened? Their entire career was literally destroyed overnight. To this day, there's a stigma attached to them. Again, it's not that it's illegal.
It's that every society, every culture, has, as I said, a line that you don't cross. Now, it just so happens that the honor of our Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) doesn't exist beyond that line for them. They have other issues that is beyond that line.
But the honor of our Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم)the sanctity of our religion, the holiness of what we deem to be sacred, is not beyond that line. Other things are. And so, I want to say, it's not an issue of freedom of speech.
The David Irving Case: Double Standards
And I found it very very ironic that one of the main standard newspapers of America, when the Danish cartoon controversy broke, I was following this with a lot of meticulous care, I found it very ironic that in one day, on the front cover, they were criticizing the fact that Muslims had a problem with this, that they need to get up and wake up and smell the coffee and understand our values. And on the second page, there was another story of a certain person who had uttered racist remarks, and how evil he was, and how he should be banned from public speech, and how he had lost his whole face in society. Nobody stood up to call for freedom of speech for that person, even though he was offending a lot of people.
So I want to just emphasize as my first introduction that we need to be very blunt about this. We are not asking for such things to be made illegal. I understand that in this country, it's not going to be possible.
But what we are asking is that they become culturally taboo, self-imposed, we call it. Self-imposed silencing, not legal silencing. And I want to give you another example.
And this happened ironically after the Danish cartoon controversy by a few months. David Irving, how many of you have heard of David Irving? Not too many. This is a name we need to know as Muslims, not to support.
I don't support this person at all. But to demonstrate the double standards that exist in the society and culture that we live in. David Irving is a famous, or I should say infamous historian.
Used to teach at Oxford, he has a long resume. And he became infamous because he wrote many books talking about the Holocaust. And saying that this figure of 6 million is too many.
It wasn't 6, it was lesser than that. He wasn't denying the Holocaust. What he was doing was questioning the history of the Holocaust.
Now I stand here today and I say unequivocally, I do not support David Irving. And I am not a Holocaust denier. I am not.
But what I find amazing was that nobody, not one single person, stood up and said, "you know what? He's a historian, he should have the rights to write his books and papers." Nobody did that. And in fact, laws were passed against him.
As I said, there are 13 countries that have anti-Holocaust laws, not just to deny, to question the figure 6 million. If somebody says no, there were in fact 5.5 million. Some countries will put you in jail for that.
And so it so happened that the Jews of all of these countries took David Irving to court, even though he wasn't living there. And the court all ruled with the Jews of those countries. So much so, that when David Irving visited the country of Austria, a democratic, a secular, a western country.
Austria had already passed a law against him. The court case had already been closed and shut. He was guilty.
And so as he stood up to deliver his speech in Austria, lo and behold, the police came. He's a British citizen. The police came and arrested him and put him in jail, where he remained for almost one year.
For what crime? For what crime? For daring to question the figures of the Holocaust. Once again, I state unequivocally, I am not supporting David Irving and what he said. I am not.
But what I am questioning, why is it that not a single organization, no major media outlet from the New York Times to the Washington Post, nothing stood up and said, "hey look guys, it's just something he said. Allow him the freedom of speech. Why isn't he allowed to say what he wants to say?" He's being put in jail in a foreign country as a British citizen being jailed in Austria simply because he wrote an academic book about the Holocaust.
And he remained in jail for almost one year until finally when he was released, he learnt his lesson and now he's hiding in his house not saying anything at all. He doesn't want to go back to jail again. Again, we're not supporting somebody like that.
Neither are we supporting racists. Neither are we supporting anybody of their ilk. But what we are pointing out is something called double standards.
Why is it that when we criticize those who make fun of our Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم)we're labeled intolerant, we're labeled backward, we're labeled this and that. And yet all of these people when they say things that are, in all honesty, less insulting to the people who follow this religion, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلمno matter how much, we all of course are against the Holocaust. But it's not making fun of Musa عليه السلام. It's not making fun of their Prophet.
And no doubt for the یهود )Yahud), their Prophet and their God is more sacred to them than any historical event. Similarly for us, our Prophet, our God, our book is more sacred and holy for us than any historical incident. And so this person is put in jail and nobody supports him.
Everybody is for the fact that he should be punished. Every single person. So the double standards are quite clear.
The Path Forward
And I think that if we want to get involved in this area, in this arena, we need to be very aware that every society has its zone, that they feel comfortable poking a few jokes here and there. And then there are self-imposed lines that respectable members of any society simply cannot cross. And if they do cross it, they have to face the consequences.
If not legally, at least socially. And I just want to point out before I move on that 50 years ago or a 100 years ago, it was possible to say things about African Americans that you can't say now. It was possible to say things about our theological cousins of the یهود that you cannot say now.
What happened? They worked. They strived. They made it such that those issues become taboo.
A 100 years ago, what did politicians say about African Americans? Not even a 150 years ago. The governor of Alabama when Martin Luther King was giving his freedom speech 45 years ago. The governor of Alabama was an open racist.
Open racist. Nobody can do that anymore. Why? Because the African Americans worked hard.
They made sure that these issues become culturally taboo even if they're legally permissible. The same applies to the Jews. A 100 years ago, 50 years ago, Henry Ford said some things about the Jews that are considered very anti-Semitic.
And he published books and magazines about them. This is 50, 60 years ago. Look what happened to him.
Hardly anything. Because the time was different. What did the Jews do? What did the do? They fought.
They strove. They educated the people. And they made these issues culturally taboo.
So we as Muslims need to do the same thing. We're not asking for laws to be passed. At least I am not.
Because I understand the freedom of speech as it works in this country. We're not gonna get any laws passed. What we are asking is cultural sensitivity.
The Academic Response to Attacks
Be that as the case is, the question arises, what do we do in the light of such harsh attacks? I think that every one of us sitting here today, I think that we all understand that reacting emotionally is not just un- Islamic, it's counterproductive. I think that none of us here justifies what happened in the wake of the Danish cartoon controversy in Pakistan, in Lebanon, in Syria. I think none of us justifies that.
We all know bombing a McDonald's, no matter how bad their fries are, you don't have to go bomb them. We all understand that burning the Danish embassy down is not gonna get you anywhere. So I'm not gonna talk about that because we all, in this room, we're all on the same wavelength.
That is too extreme. That is ridiculous. That is counterproductive.
The issue comes about economic boycott and that is something that can be discussed but that's not, again, the point of this particular panel session. I'm ambivalent about this. I know that many Middle Eastern countries boycotted Danish products.
They said that it had an impact. Again, that's another topic that we need to think about. The issue of reacting in the media, these are all areas that need to be discussed.
Islamic Contextualization of Attacks
And these attacks, by the way, are called ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem means you're attacking the messenger instead of the message. You're attacking the persona rather than what he says.
These types of attacks realize, my fellow Muslim brothers and sisters, that this is the general trend of all the prophets before our Prophet (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ) and including our Prophet (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ) That they were rejected, they were ridiculed, they were mocked, they were made fun of by their own peoples before other peoples.
The famous story in Surah Yaseen, which all of you know, when the person is killed by his own people, and he says:
"Oh, woe to the servants. There did not come to them any messenger except that they used to ridicule him."
"Oh, woe to these servants of God! Why is it that every time a messenger comes to them, they have to ridicule and mock him?" No messenger does a prophet come except that they end up يَسْتَهْزِئُونَ - making fun of him, cracking jokes at him, mocking him.
In other verses in the Quran, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى) consoles our Prophet (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ) by telling him that many were the prophets that came before you and all of them were ridiculed and mocked.
In many verses, including Surah Al-An'am verse 10, Surah 13 verse 32, Surah 21 verse 41, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى) consoles our Prophet (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ):
"And certainly, messengers were ridiculed before you, but those who mocked them were encompassed by what they used to ridicule."
We have sent many prophets before you. Many were the men that came before you. And what happened to them? فَاسْتُهْزِئَ - They were mocked and ridiculed.
They were talked about in a very mean and contemptuous fashion. And the reason that I began the academic talk with this point is to remind ourselves that this is not a new phenomenon. Rather, it goes back to the earliest of times.
Historical Examples of Prophetic Mockery
The very first messenger of Allah, Nuh (عَلَيْهِ السَّلَام), he was mocked severely by his people. He was building something they had never seen in their lives. He was building a ship in the middle of a desert.
He was building this structure that he claimed could float on water. And they had never seen a ship. Remember, Nuh (عَلَيْهِ السَّلَام) was the first human being to build a ship.
And so Allah (عز وجل) tells us
"And whenever a group of his people passed by him, they ridiculed him."
Every time a person went by him, he mocked Nuh (عَلَيْهِ السَّلَام). Every single time any person went by Nuh (عَلَيْهِ السَّلَام), they laughed at him and he joked at him. And this happened for Allah knows how many hundreds of years.
Similarly, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى) tells us that the Prophet Shu'aib (عَلَيْهِ السَّلَام) was called a madman, a lunatic. That the Prophet Hud (عَلَيْهِ السَّلَام) was mocked because his people said, "all of your followers are nothing but shepherds. Your followers are the lowest of the low. Why should we respect you?"
Every single prophet was mocked in a unique and specific way. And that is why Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى) told our Prophet (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ):
"Indeed, We will suffice you against the mockers."
We will take care of those who ridicule and mock you. We will take care of them, we will deal with them. No matter what you do, Ya Rasulullah, you will not be able to counter their effects. Leave it to us. We will take care of them.
Charges Against Our Prophet (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ)
And the Quran tells us that even in the lifetime of the Prophet (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ), a number of charges were laid against him. That he was a liar, that he was a madman, that he was a poet, that he was taught by others. These are the four main charges by the way.
That he was a liar, that he was a madman, that he was a poet, and that he was taught by others. The four main charges that the Quran mentions. And just as a footnote, it is absolutely amazing to me as a researcher in orientalist institutions, studying with non-Muslim academics, it is absolutely amazing that to this day, the only things they can say about our Prophet (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ) are one of these four.
They cannot go beyond this. To this day, they cannot invent something other than these four things to discredit his message. And Allah (عز وجل) mentioned it from day one.
Allah mentioned it in the Quran and defended him against these four charges. So Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى) tells us that this is something standard in the past.
And you know what? He also tells us it will happen in the future.
Allah's Warning About Future Attacks
Allah tells us it's happening in the past, it happened in the past, and Allah warns us in the Quran, O Muslims, it's gonna happen in the future. It will happen in your time. Allah says in the Quran, in Surah Ali Imran, verse 186:
"You will surely be tested in your possessions and in yourselves. And you will surely hear from those who were given the Scripture before you and from those who associate others with Allah much abuse."
Allah says, addressing us: And of a surety you will hear, you will hear from the Jews and Christians, and the pagans, i.e. the rest of mankind who's left, all other religions, you will hear from them much that will cause you hurt and grief. أَذًى كَثِيرًا - It's gonna cause you a lot of hurt and pain. What is the response?
"But if you are patient and fear Allah - indeed, that is of the matters [requiring] determination."
If you are patient, and you have piety of Allah. If you are patient and you have piety of Allah, that is the best methodology. مِنْ عَزْمِ الْأُمور - That is the best way to proceed.
So, contextualizing these attacks. It's nothing new. It will happen just like it happened in the past. Moving on.
Categorizing These Attacks
Categorizing these attacks. We contextualize them. Point two, categorizing these attacks.
Realize that there are many avenues of attacking our Prophet (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ). And we are concentrating in this talk on attacks against his character and persona. There are other ways of attacking Islam, to attack the Quran, to attack theology, to attack Sharia. All of them have their own defense.
In this panel, we're concentrating on attacks to the persona, to the nature, to the character of our Prophet (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ). Such attacks can generally be characterized in one of three categories.
Category 1: Outright Lies
The first of these categories. Number one, outright lies. Sheer fabrications. Absolutely no historical basis whatsoever. And there are many examples of this.
For example, the charge that the Prophet (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ) suffered from epilepsy. That he would go into seizures and fits when the وَحْي (wahyi) came down. This is utter fabrication that was started in the Middle Ages by the Spanish Christians.
Another example, that the Prophet (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ) died in the year 666 of the Christian era. And this was propounded by, amongst other people, Peter the Venerable, the abbot of Cluny who was very active in spreading false information about Islam. And the first person to think of translating the Quran into a western language.
Peter the Venerable was the first person to find others to translate the Quran into Latin. Not to defend it, not to give da'wah, but to critique it. And of the things that he spread, is that the Prophet (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ) died in the year 666.
What is this category? Who can tell me? What is 666? The number of the beast. And so he claimed that the Prophet (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ) was the Antichrist.
Another outright lie, which was very common in much of the Middle Ages, is that the Muslims worship the Prophet (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ) that his name is not Muhammad but مَاهُوند (Mahund).
And in fact, in many books written, even by famous English and British writers in the 13th, 14th century, we find that the Prophet (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ) is referred to as ماهوند. Because ماهوند is the name of a devil. And so they distort in Christian theology.
So they distort the name of Muhammad (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ) and they say his name is ماهوند.
Another outright lie, which has become so common, it is now an expression in the English language, which people use to this day. That expression is, "if the mountain does not come to Muhammad, Muhammad will go to the mountain."
This is a common expression, meaning that if the situation doesn't work out the way I wanted, I will adapt to the situation. That's an expression now. What is the basis of this expression? There is a lie that was fabricated first by the famous Francis Bacon.
The famous British author who wrote in 1625. Where basically he said that the Prophet (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ) challenged the Quraysh that the mountain will come to him. And so he issued the challenge and the mountain didn't move.
And so the Quraysh began to ridicule and mock him. And so he said, "very well, if the mountain will not come to me, I will go to the mountain and beat the challenge in that way." Of course this is a sheer fabrication.
No such story ever happened. But it has become legendary in many books until as I said, it is an expression in the English language. So the first category, outright lies.
And this category was very common in the Middle Ages, in the 17th, 18th century. But with the advent of the modern universities, with the advent of more interaction with Muslims, these types of lies are getting rarer and rarer.
And for those of you who are interested, there's a very interesting book by Minoo Reeves, M-I-N-O-O R-E-E-V-E-S called "Muhammad in Europe, A Thousand Years of Western Myth-Making. Muhammad in Europe (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ)A Thousand Years of Western Myth-Making", published by the NYU Press in 2003. And it gives you a lot of these lies.
Category 2: Distorted Truths
The second category of attacks are distorted truths. They are not lies, but something is factual. And then certain elements are read in. Certain things are added.
Certain flavors are put in which twist the entire thing around. And realize that there is always a negative way of representing the same fact. The glass is half empty or half full.
Both are true. How do you wanna look at it? And the best example of this in our own sources is that of the woman who came to complain about her husband to the Prophet (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ). Famous story, famous hadith in Sahih Bukhari.
The woman comes and complains and she says, "Ya Rasulullah, my husband beats me when I pray, he forces me to break my fast, doesn't allow me to fast, and he misses fajr regularly." So the Prophet (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ) called him, called the husband. He didn't just base his burden on what the wife said.
Actually, if the husband is just like that, it's like أعوذ بالله, it's like doing kufr. He doesn't want his wife to pray or fast, just to pray fajr himself. So the Prophet (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ) called the man.
And the man said, "Ya Rasulullah, I'm a young man, I come home from the fields and my wife is standing in prayer, I want the dinner to be ready, I want this and that there. So I tell her to shorten the prayer. And she's fasting every single day, and I would like to be a husband to her on these days, and she doesn't have to fast nafl fast, she can fast in Ramadan.
So that's why I don't want her to pray long, I don't want her to do extra nafl fast." And so the Prophet (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ) said, "Yes, okay, nafl fast are your husband's right. He can let you fast, he can prevent you from fasting.
And you don't have to pray surah al-Baqarah and your salah, you can read surah al-Ikhlas as well, no big deal." So the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) sided with the husband. The third issue of fajr, the husband said, "Ya Rasulullah, we are a family known for having a sleep problem.
In other words, I try to wake up, but it's something we are known that we don't wake up except with great difficulty." And so the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said, "if you really slept, overslept fajr, pray as soon as you wake up. In other words, if it's something you try to wake up."
So basically the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) sided with the husband in all three issues. Now the question arises, did the wife lie? The response is no. The wife was truthful.
The wife was absolutely truthful. But it is a matter of perspective. And so, similarly, if this can happen with good Muslim couples, as we all know we're married here, definitely happens all the time.
If this can happen with good Muslim couples, how about when somebody doesn't have إيمان and they read into the سيرة. Of course they will distort. Of course they will change and twist.
Not that they're gonna lie. They will simply look at it in a twisted angle. And there are once again many examples here.
Example: The Caravan Raids
For example, it is a common claim that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) in the early Madinah phase, resorted to highway robbery. That he would stand on the road, or basically hide himself with the sahaba on the road, and every time a caravan went, he would just attack and rob them, and take their goods and belongings. Now, initial response, this is totally false.
But you go and you look up and you find out, no, it's not totally false. It's just distorted. The Prophet (صلی الله عليه وسلم) and the sahaba never attacked caravans unconditionally.
They attacked the Quraysh. There's a big difference. There's a big difference to say that he used to attack caravans all over Arabia, and he used to attack the Quraysh.
The Quraysh, yes, definitely. The sahaba would definitely find out where they're heading, and attack their caravans. Why? Because of 13 years of oppression.
Because of being expelled from their own countries and lands. Because of confiscating their property. The Quraysh expelled the Muslims, took over all their money.
The sahaba had no money when they left for Madinah, the (مُهَاجِرون - muhajirun). These people wronged us. We have the right to do this back to them, only.
The sahaba never attacked caravans of other tribes, only the Quraysh. So it's a factual statement that has been distorted.
Example: Banu Qurayzah
Another example, that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) orchestrated a mini holocaust of the Jews of Madinah. Specifically the Banu Qurayzah. Once again, yes indeed, it is true that these Jews of the Banu Qurayzah were executed. But nobody gives you the details.
Why? They were accused of treason. They were accused in the battle of the (أَحْزَاب - ahzab), the battle of the trench, of trying to plot within the city to overthrow the Muslims. That is treason when they're surrounded by 10,000 of the Quraysh, 10,000 of the pagan armies.
And within Madinah, all of a sudden, the Banu Qurayzah revolts. And the Banu Qurayzah tries to instigate an internal, a fifth column. And they almost succeeded if Allah (عز وجل) had not shown their plot.
Of course, treason in almost every country has extremely harsh punishments. And so the punishment given to them was not because they were Jews, it was because they committed treason. Had nothing to do with their ethnicity, with their religion.
So this is true, but the way it's distorted, the way it's presented, is a half-truth.
Example: Relations with People of the Book
Likewise, the claim that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was initially very fond of the Christians and Jews, but later on scorned them. Factually, this is true.
Initially, the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was fond of the Christians and Jews, but why? Because he was hoping that because they are people of the book, they would recognize him as a prophet. And so he was optimistic that these people will follow me. Instead, when they tried to kill him, on more than three occasions, the Jews tried to kill him.
When they rejected his message with the utmost severity, when they sided with the pagans, when they said to the pagans and the idol worshippers, as the Quran tells us, they told the idol worshippers, "you are more rightly guided than these monotheists." The Jews said, to those who worship idols, this is a verse in the Quran, "you are more rightly guided than those who worship Allah alone." This was their animosity.
So yes, of course, eventually, the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) cut off all ties with them. All of this are distorted truths, half-lies, it's a matter of perspective. So when you hear something like this, our job becomes like the job of the husband, when the wife came and complained, you contextualize, you give a frame of reference.
Category 3: Attacking Cultural Norms
And the third critique, we said there is two, right? Number one, outright lies. Number two, distorted truths. Number three, and this is perhaps the most difficult, attacking the cultural norms of the time.
Attacking societal values that might have been acceptable in 7th century Arabia, but are not acceptable in 21st century America. And this is really the most difficult, this is the most difficult type of critique to defend because the average human being is not an expert in sociology, in history, in ethics. The average human being simply thinks the cultural norms of his or her civilization are the correct cultural norms and values.
And they don't realize that cultural norms and values change from time to place. The values of post- Victorian England are radically different than the values of 21st century America. The sexual mores of America 200 years ago, radically differ from the sexual mores of the 21st century America.
These things change. And so, 7th century Arabia had its own issues, which were considered permissible by Muslims and non-Muslims back then.
The Slavery Example
The most classic example, slavery. The Quran, no doubt, gave a lot of rulings for slavery. But let's be honest, it didn't come and totally ban it. It did ban alcohol.
It banned many things, but it didn't banish slavery. It merely gave conditions. Now, in my humble opinion, the word slavery in the English language cannot be used in a positive sentence.
And the Arabic concept of (رقّ - riqq), of servitude, of slavery is radically different than the Western concept of slavery. And so, I think we are fighting a losing battle if we go into this tangent and try to defend it, for example. We just gloss it over and say that was something that happened in the past.
Islam doesn't require slaves to exist. It's not a necessary condition. So, these are cultural values.
The Marriage to Aisha Example
Another thing which we don't have time to talk about, but it's definitely something very important. Marrying Aisha at a young age, at the age of 9, for example. Okay, and I firmly believe, by the way, that Aisha (رضي الله عنها) was 9 years old.
I know that there are other opinions out there. And there's people trying to say that she was 18, 19. I think that historically speaking, it's quite clear that she was 9 years old.
And if we open this door of trying to change our history, we're getting into other problems which I might talk about in question and answer. In any case, the fact that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) married
Aisha at the age of 9, none of the enemies of Islam found this problematic. Abu Jahl, Abu Talib, if there was a lot.
I mean, none of the enemies of Islam found this problematic. It was culturally acceptable. Just like 200, 300 years ago, it was absolutely acceptable for a 14-year-old girl to get married.
Romeo and Juliet. Do you know how old Juliet is in the play? She's 14 years old. Romeo is 15.
This is in Shakespeare's time. In Shakespeare's time, Romeo and Juliet are 14 and 15 years old. And to him, this is something culturally acceptable.
In our times, that's something, it's taboo. You just don't do that. Imagine if in Shakespeare's time, it was 14 and 15, backtrack another thousand years.
The age of 9, the age of 10 was a mature age for those climates, for those cultures. It's a cultural value that has changed. Aisha, when she was 9 years old, was very similar to what we would consider a 16, 17- year-old of our generation.
Intellectually, mentally, and so forth. So this is a cultural value that they are attacking. And it is very difficult to defend because you usually need a little bit of intelligence in the person you're talking to.
The person you're talking to needs to understand that culture changes. And many people don't understand that. So that is definitely one of the biggest challenges that happens.
Detailed Example: The Story of Zaynab bint Jahsh
I wanted to conclude. These are the three primary modes of attack. I wanted to conclude by giving some examples. Some lengthy examples. We only have 10 minutes. I'll try to summarize them.
The first example, and by the way, I've given three tactics. I'm not being exclusive. These are the primary three tactics.
Also, most of the time, an attack against the honor of our Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is a combination of these three. It's not that only one is used. A story is invented, bits of fabrication, bits of distorted truth, bits of cultural values, and then presented.
And so an example of this, one example, in a little bit of detail. The story of Zaynab bint Jahsh and the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم)'s marriage to Zaynab. Now, Zaynab bint Jahsh was the cousin of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم)and she was married to Zayd.
And Zayd (رضي الله عنه) was the adopted son of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم). As you all know, he had adopted Zayd. And so he was called Zayd ibn Muhammad. And just like in our culture, in our culture, American culture, adopted children and biological children are considered the same.
Morally, I'm saying. Morally. If you try to say, "no, no, there's a difference." Morally, society will say, "oh, you're being so mean, you're being so unfair." Cultural values, once again. Islamically, in the beginning period of Islam, it was the same.
Adopted children, biological children are the same. And so when the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) adopted Zayd, his name became Zayd ibn Muhammad. And the wife of Zayd, i.e. Zaynab, became the daughter-in-law of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم)
And as you all know, daughter-in-laws are permanent (مَحْرَم - mahram). Even if the marriage breaks between the son and the wife, the father-in-law always remains a مَحْرَم. This is a strange thing, subhanAllah.
The husband becomes a non-مَحْرَم after the divorce. The husband becomes a non-مَحْرَم because after the divorce is over. But the father-in-law remains a مخرم forever.
So, in this case, when Zayd and Zaynab were married, the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) eventually ended up marrying Zaynab.
The Orientalist Version
What is the Orientalist version? The Orientalists all agree, there is pretty much (إجْمَاع - ijma')unanimous consensus amongst them, that the version of events goes as follows. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) allegedly fell in love with Zaynab. He went to visit her in her house, and she opened the door and she was wearing clothes that typically she would wear when she's sleeping.
In other words, not fully dressed up. And that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) saw her beauty and was impressed by that, and fell in love with her. And when Zayd heard about this, then he divorced his wife so that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) could marry her.
And Allah (جل جلاله) conveniently revealed according to them, verses that talk about adopted children are not real children and you can marry their wives. This is the non-Muslim version of events, that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) saw Zaynab dressed inappropriately, fell in love with her at first sight, and wanted to marry her, so he concocted these verses to say that adopted children are not biological children.
The Problem with This Version
The problem with this sequence of events is that it is presented as undisputed fact from within the Islamic tradition. It's as if this is the only version of events. Yet the fact of the matter is that this version is only one version of the story. And let us call this, for lack of a better term, the love story version.
There are other versions that exist in classical and medieval texts which are generally considered more acceptable and more authentic. In fact, Sahih al-Bukhari, Tafsir ibn Kathir, or the Sirah ibn Ishaq, all of the
standard references present a very different picture.
Before we get into who's right and wrong, don't you think it's hypocritical for a non-Muslim to come and pounce on the most sensationalist story and ignore all the other versions, and then not even tell you the other versions exist? Not even question the fact that there are other versions of the story?
The Authentic Version
Let me give you, for example, the earliest Tafsirs written, Tafsir of Abd al-Razzaq in 211, Tafsir of Ibn Abi Hatim in 327, the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, the earliest Sirah books written, Sirah of Ibn Ishaq, the earliest Hadith books written, the Hadith of the Sahih of Imam Bukhari.
All of these books give a radically different story. What is the story there? The story there is that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was informed by Allah that eventually Zaynab would be his wife. And Zayd and Zaynab began having arguments and disputes.
Zayd did not want to remain married to Zaynab. So Zayd came to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) wanting a divorce. And the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) felt awkward because he knew that when that divorce takes place and the (عِدّة - iddah) is over, Zaynab would become his wife, and he himself did not like the cultural taboo of marrying a supposed daughter-in-law.
So he told Zayd, (اتَّقِ اللَّه - Fear Allah) and don't divorce her. He told Zayd not to divorce her. And he feared men's criticism of this cultural taboo.
Not that he had love of Zaynab. Rather, he was embarrassed at marrying a supposed daughter-in-law. So he wanted to stall it.
Zayd wanted a divorce. This is the version of Sahih Bukhari. And the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) says, "No, you stay with her. Don't divorce her." And Allah (عز وجل) then revealed verses in Surah Ahzab:
"while you feared the people, but Allah has more right that you fear Him."
Why were you scared of the people? It is more befitting that you are scared of Allah. Shouldn't be embarrassed at the people statements.
There is no love story in Sahih Bukhari, in Ibn Kathir, in Sahih Bukhari. All of these books.
The Source of the Love Story
The question arises, where does this love story exist? Response, again we're getting a little bit academic here. But it exists in a tafsir called (تفسير مُقَاتِل بْن سُلَيْمَان - Tafsir Muqatil ibn Sulaiman).
And Muqatil ibn Sulaiman by unanimous consensus is not a scholar. He's not a historian. He is a storyteller.
He is a storyteller. In other words, he's a tabloid paper. He's not the New York Times.
Literally, he's a tabloid paper. So the orientalist, imagine, and I said this in academic conference when I was defending the story in a certain context. I said, imagine walking into a bookstore, walking into a supermarket.
And ignoring the New York Times. Ignoring the Washington Post. Ignoring every single reputable, the Times magazine, Newsweek.
And getting your news from the Daily Inquirer for example. This is the equivalent of what these people are doing. They ignore every single authentic legitimate book.
And they go to the most obscure references. How many of you have even heard of (تَفْسِير مُقَاتِل بن سليمان) Yes, it exists. It's not a fabrication.
Meaning the book is not a fabrication. What's inside it might be. But the book itself, it exists.
How many of you are aware of it? Nobody. But these guys hunt down these stories, extract them, and popularize them. So, this is one example.
Brief Mention: The Satanic Verses
There are many other examples as well which we don't have time to get into. Just one sentence about the second incident is that of the satanic verses. The infamous satanic verses.
Firstly, even the name satanic verses. It is a western invention. It is not found in the Islamic sources by this name.
The name in Islamic sources is (قصة الغرانيق - qissat al-gharaniq) or the story of the birds. And Sir William Muir who is one of the famous Scottish orientalist died in 1905. He was the first person to give it the name satanic verses.
And he popularized it and it is now considered a fact in non-Muslim circles. To dare deny this fact, it's considered to be you're just being an overzealous Muslim. You're not academically fair.
They've already made up their minds about it. Even though once again, this story is not found in any of the famous books of hadith. It's not found in any of the reputable sources of our history.
It's found in obscure works. And it is now considered to be a complete fact. And I've talked about this in more detail in a CD of mine.
Conclusion: How to Respond
I don't have time to discuss it now. In conclusion and to summarize before I hand it over to my dear and esteemed mentor and friend Sheikh Hasib Rajas. The key points that I'd like to leave you with are three.
Point 1: Historical Pattern
Firstly, there is a general trend in the history of not just our أُمَّة (أُمَّة - ummah) of all أمم (أمم - umam) that prophets and righteous men are ridiculed in one way or another. And it is psychologically gratifying for those who reject the message to reject it based upon rejecting the messenger rather than the message.
When you cannot attack the message, you begin to attack the messenger. It is something that is intellectually easy, psychologically gratifying. And to be honest, intellectuals don't use this attack. You deal with the message.
لا إله إلا اللَّهُ، جَنَّةَ، تَوْحِيد, آخِرَة. This is what you deal with. But to attack the messenger instead of the message is a tactic that has always been used by the riffraff, by the people, by the masses.
It's nothing new. So realize this.
Point 2: The Quranic Response
Secondly, the general rule of the Quran is that we respond to such vitriolic attacks with kindness and intelligence and piety. This is the general rule. We respond by showing we are the better of the two. We respond like Allah (عز وجل) says:
"and argue with them in a way that is best."
Argue with them in the best manner. And if you cannot respond with nobility, then my advice is do not respond, period. If you cannot respond with nobility and أَخْلاق (أَخْلاق - akhlaq), then do not respond. And that is exactly what Allah (عز وجل) says.
When the average Muslim is offended, when the person comes and tries to ridicule him:
"And when the ignorant address them [harshly], they say [words of] peace."
When the foolish come and they try to argue with them, they say سلاما peace, I have better things to do with my time. If you cannot respond academically, intellectually, if you cannot respond with أَخْلاق and manners, don't respond. Just say سلاما
And console yourself with the fact that when you hear these things, your blood boils indeed. But it wasn't just your blood that was boiling. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) do you not think he was affected? Do you not think he was affected by what people said?
Allah said in the Quran to him, Surah Al-Hijr, verses 97 to 100:
"And We already know that your breast is constrained by what they say."
We know that your heart is constricted because of what they say. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) felt narrow, he felt a constriction in his heart. What was their response?
"So exalt [Allah] with praise of your Lord and be of those who prostrate."
Praise your Lord and prostrate to Him. Get involved in the worship of Allah.
"And worship your Lord until there comes to you the certainty (death)."
And worship Allah until death comes to you. You're not gonna respond to every single riffraff. You're not gonna respond to every barking dog.
Let them bark. You have better things to worry about. This is what our Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is told.
So don't let it dishearten you to the level that you close your productivity. You do what you can, and you aim for higher goals.
Point 3: Academic Integrity
And the last and final point. If you do respond, do so with academic integrity. Don't change the religion. Don't distort our own history.
Because not only is this impermissible and unethical, you're opening up a very very dangerous door. If you cannot defend except by distorting your own religion, then in all honesty, you are opening up a more evil door than what those people said.
If you cannot defend except by distorting or denying what is true, then you are not qualified to defend. And leave it to those who are qualified.
Final Thoughts
In conclusion, the final point. I'd like to stress that responding to Orientalist critique is merely one way of defending the honor of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم). There are many many many ways of defending his honor.
And to be brutally honest, the best way to defend the honor of our Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is not through academic debates, it's not through fancy rhetoric, it's not through meeting people and discussing things with them, but rather through simple and sincere action, through humility, through humbleness, through sincerity, through good أخلاق
The best way to defend the honor of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is to follow his سُنّة and to show and to demonstrate to people that indeed our Messenger was nothing except a رَحْمَةً لِلْعَالَمِينَ :
"And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds."
That is the best way to defend the honor of our Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم).