In the very interesting and quite revealing article "Stung from the Same Hole Twice" the author Shibli Zaman discusses the voting behavior of Muslims in the USA and presents some thoughts how the Muslim minority could gain more political influence.

Every American citizen has the right to seek influence in the public square, to vote, to campaign for a particular political party or cause, or to stand for election. This is a constitutional right available to American Muslims as well as it is the right of American Christians, Atheists, and every American citizen whether holding a specific world view or confessing no world view in particular.

What does raise concern, though, is in what way and by the use of which arguments Zaman tries to make his case. Let me quote his statement, add some further background information, and then ask a few pertinent questions.

Zaman writes:

It is just common sense found in every culture, religion or language group not to blindly trust those again who have lied to you or have deceived you before.

Merely for the purpose to tell the Muslim constituency among American voters not to be too naive, and then to suggest that they should organize themselves more effectively, the author would hardly have had to produce such an elaborate story and commentary.

Backing one's argument by a saying of Muhammad, or a reference to his life and his way of action as model to imitate, gives religious authority to the call for action. All the more is it important for non-Muslims to understand the event that is appealed to.

The manner in which Zaman presents the story and its interpretation looks fair enough and seems innocent. There would be nothing to protest against if the above quoted version were all there is to this story. But appearances can be misleading. This saying of Muhammad and the context in which it was uttered is very well known among Muslims. Many of them will know the rest even if it is not explicitly mentioned.

The first very important observation about the illustration chosen by Zaman as the basis for his argument is that he did not quote the end of the story. On the Muslim website "Quraan.com" in the section "Authentic Islamic Literature" we find it reported in this way:

Before his return, he took Abu ‘Azza Al-Jumahi as a prisoner of war. Incidentally, this man had also been captured at Badr but on account of his poverty, and the large family he supported, the Prophet ... had been gracious enough to release him on condition that he would not involve himself in war against the Muslims again. Abu ‘Azza did not keep his promise and took part in Uhud hostilities on the side of the polytheists. Here again he implored Muhammad ... for pardon but the latter told him that a believer wouldn’t be taken twice in the same snare. He then deservedly merited the sentence of death which was executed by Az-Zubair or, in another version, by ‘Asim bin Thabit. (Source: The Battle of Uhud)

It is somewhat mysterious why Zaman and his sources refer to this man by what appears to be a nick name (Abu Ghurrah [one whose front part of the hair is sticking out]) instead of his real name, but it is clearly the same man and the same incident. The following quotations provide confirmation of the above as well as some additional details on what really happened:

At Hamra al Asad Mahomet made prisoner one of the enemy, who had loitered behind the rest. This was the poet Abu Ozza, one of the prisoners of Badr, who had been freely released, on the promise that he would not again bear arms in the war against the Prophet. He now sought for mercy:— "O Mahomet!" he prayed, "forgive me of thy grace!" "Nay, verily," said the Prophet, "a believer may not twice be bitten from the same hole. Thou shalt never return to Mecca. Stroke thy beard, and say, I have again deceived Mahomet. Lead him forth to execution!" So saying, he motioned to a bystander, who at one blow struck off the captive's head.^{76
          76} K. Wackidi, 106½; Wackidi, 299; Hishami, 272. Aasim was the executioner.
(Source: Sir William Muir, The Life of Mahomet, Vol. 3, p. 185)

The most authoritative biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq reports tersely:

THE NAMES OF THE POLYTHEISTS WHO WERE KILLED AT UHUD

[...] Of B. Jumah b. 'Amr: 'Amr b. 'Abdullah b.'Umayr b. Wahb b. Hudhafa b. Jumah who was Abu 'Azza whom the apostle killed when a prisoner; and Ubayy b. Khalaf b. Wahb b. Hudhafa b. Jumah whom the apostle killed with his own hand. [...]
      Thus God killed on the day of Uhud 22 polytheists. (Source: A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, Oxford University Press, Karachi, 1995, p. 403)

Fact: Abu 'Azza was involved in a second battle between the Meccan army and the Muslim army. He was not killed in combat, but was taken prisoner by the Muslims after the battle was over and executed as a prisoner.

Questions:

• Does Zaman agree with the execution of prisoners of war? Is this an acceptable standard of behavior? Would it be right to execute Muslims who have fought twice against democratic countries?
• If Zaman does not agree with this action of Muhammad, why has he chosen to use this particular statement and incident as the basis for his call to American Muslims to take action?
• More generally, if Zaman does not agree with the use of violence in the persuit of his political goals and being aware that Muslims in general know that Muhammad has used violence to achieve his goals, why does he not at least distance himself from this part of the story if he does not want to do without the saying itself?
• The person and life of Muhammad is the role model to follow for Zaman and every committed Muslim believer. Is the appeal to this particular incident as the basis of a call for action issued to the American Muslim population an implicit endorsement of violence or even a call to use violence? Even though he uses this particular story, and shows by his use of the Muslim sources that he doesn't do this ignorantly, i.e. he is well aware of the context, there is not the slightest hint in the article that the author renounces the aspect of violence that is inherent in it.

I hope that Zaman will not ignore these questions but provide answers to them.

Was Abu 'Azza guilty and deserved to die for breaking his word given to Muhammad? Because he took up arms against Muslims again? Because Muhammad had been so merciful to him the first time?

Let's have a closer look. The quoted sources state that Abu 'Azza was a poor man, i.e. had no wealth nor power or great influence to be any substantial threat to Muhammad and his cause. He was seemingly not even a warrior of renown. He appears to have been a somewhat absent-minded person who got caught not only in the first battle, but again after the second one at Uhud in which the Meccan army had been victorious. He did not even get caught during the battle, but after it was all over, on the way home, when he carelessly loitered behind and fell into the hands of a group of Muslims.

The already quoted Muslim website makes also the following statement about him:

They [the Meccans] also devised other ways of recruitment including hiring poets to entice the tribes into fighting the Muslims. Safwan bin Omaiyah allured Abu ‘Azza, the poet to work in this context in return for riches after the war or supporting his daughters if killed. Incidentally, this poet was prisoner of war (in the context of the Badr events) in the hands of the Muslims and the Prophet ... was gracious enough to release him unransomed provided he would not engage in fight against him. (Source: The Battle of Uhud)

He was hired as one poet among other poets for the purpose to encourage the fighters with motivating slogans. He seems not even to have been a actively fighting member of the army. It was not his own initiative to fight against Muhammad, certainly not in the second battle at Uhud, probably not even in the first one at Badr. He had to be persuaded to accompany the Meccan army, and when living in poverty a rich reward makes a strong argument.

Due to their poverty, his family could probably not pay a ransom for him after the battle of Badr, so that Muhammad graciously decided to let him go home without. It is important to note here: Abu 'Azza was no danger of any kind to Muhammad and his troops. Those people that Muhammad deemed to be a threat were executed at the first opportunity. Muhammad never wasted any time to get rid of those whom he considered a serious enemy. For example, he had Nadr bin al-Harith and `Uqba bin Abi Mu`ayt executed in cold blood after they became prisoners of war at the battle of Badr. Most of the other prisoners were allowed to be ransomed by their families.

[Side remark: This paper does not intend to give a detailed discussion of the arguments pro and contra the murder of Abu 'Azza. Only so much: Yes, Abu 'Azza broke his word given to Muhammad. But does that really justify his execution? Does Muhammad even have a moral basis to complain about that? Muhammad explicitly allowed his followers to use deception against their enemies (see, for example, the murder of Kab b. al-Ashraf). In the months before Uhud, the Muslims had attacked many Meccan caravans, sought to raid them and steal the property of the Meccan traders, though not always successfully. Does not the continuing Muslim aggression against the Meccans and the raids on their caravans shed a completely different light on the story? Was it unilaterially Meccan aggression against peaceful Muslims, or was this not rather a necessary defense because Muhammad and his robbers continued to threaten the Meccan caravan trade and thus the very livelihood of Mecca? To gain a deeper understanding of the development of events in these months, the reader may want to consult Sir William Muir's biography of Muhammad, The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, Chapters XI-XIV.]

The main question remains: Given that Muhammad's own consequence of the incident was to have Abu 'Azza executed for a broken promise (to make absolutely sure that he would not get stung another time, even though this particular sting from Abu 'Azza was rather minor), what is Zaman's position on the use of violence against those who are not delivering what Muslims demand? Why does he use this particular story and saying of Muhammad to call American Muslims to action?

Zaman then continues with these statements:

There is no question that some Muslims have experienced insults, even physical attacks and suffered injustice in various forms in the aftermath of Sept. 11. They should get the opportunity to tell it, should receive apologies where they have been treated unjustly whether by neighbors, co-workers, employers or by state authorities, and they should be compensated where they have suffered damages. These Muslims can go to court if injustice has been done to them. Answering Islam has immediately spoken out against such reactions (e.g., in these articles: *, *, *). Our sympathies are with all innocent victims of hatred and violence regardless of religious affiliation.

However, some of Zaman's statements and comparisons are more than just "inappropriate". His comparison of the current situation in the USA with Nazi Germany is outrageous. It is certainly true that there have been instances of personal hatred by some individuals directed at a number of Muslims — each one was one too many, and each one of them has to be condemned and is being condemned — but these were isolated acts. There was and is no concerted effort for a widespread persecution or even extermination of American Muslims like the murder of millions of Jews in gas chambers in Germany and Eastern Europe during the Nazi regime. The genocide of the Holocaust was meticulously planned and it had the purpose to exterminate all Jews simply for belonging to a certain people group, not just some who were wealthy or politically influential. The Jews were deprived of their rights as citizens. They had no chance to appeal to courts. They were declared to be sub-human beings. They had no right to live. Muslims in America are citizens and can go to the court when somebody breaks the law and hurts them. Those isolated, individual, and mostly spontaneous actions of hatred against Muslims cannot in any way be compared to the government-planned and executed attack on all Jews in Germany.

Zaman has certainly not done "Careful studies of World War II and the socio-political scenario of the Jewish minorities of Germany ...". His claims that American Muslims are in the same or at least a comparable danger as the Jews were in Nazi Germany are not only exposing him as a very bad historian, they actually create the very atmosphere of hate, fear and suspicion that he supposedly protests against. Fear and hatred usually go together. Comparisons like these seek to instill an irrational fear of "Christian America" into American Muslims, incite even more hatred and destroy any chance of good neighborhood relations. Such arguments can only have the consequence to poison the minds of uneducated masses with mediocre historical and political discernment. Nobody of any influence seeks to kill American Muslims summarily.

If Zaman, however, truly believes that American Muslims are in such a danger, then the use of Muhammad's saying in this context suddenly makes sense again. Serious danger demands serious action. Many fundamentalist Muslims use this saying in the context of jihad since that is the context in which Muhammad used it.

One can certainly discuss whether John Ashcroft's statement was theologically correct or not, or whether it was tasteless or not. It was certainly not politically correct. However, one of the fundamentals of any free society is the freedom of expression for one's opinions, including wrong opinions and tasteless statements. That is a very high value that needs to be defended.

It cannot be that Muslim sensitivities dictate what can be said in public and what not.

It is part of this essential freedom of speech in the free country USA that Zaman and others can openly criticize the Bush administration without the fear to imprisoned or killed for such criticism. In many Muslim majority countries such a freedom does not exist.

Those particular charges made in the above quoted paragraph are, however, quite absurd. The Muslims were the first to break the taboo of attacking an enemy in the sacred months and when questioned about this violation of the sacred laws, Muhammad then "justified" it with a revelation in the Qur'an (2:217). Nor am I aware that Muslim armies when they invaded the countries of the infidels ever suspended their conquests for the sake of their holy month of Ramadan, let alone honoring any sacred holidays of those they attacked. Neither in the first centuries of Islam when Muslim armies conquered everything from Egypt to Iran and from Spain to India, nor in the recent war between Iran and Iraq. Such moralizing accusations are nothing but hypocrisy.

Despite Zaman's imagination of a holocaust-like situation of Muslims in America it is obvious that Osama bin Ladin's destruction of the World Trade Center towers murdered many more American Muslims than the current Bush administration. The cruel reign of the Taliban probably killed more Afghan Muslims than the invasion of the US in that country, and Saddam Hussein has probably killed one hundred times as many Muslims than were killed by the US troops in both Gulf Wars together. Even though I personally was against the Iraq war, even though the US have committed many mistakes, done much injustice and continue to do so, .... nevertheless, every month since the time that Saddam Hussein was removed from power means that hundreds if not thousands of Iraqi Muslims are not murdered which would otherwise have lost their lives under this cruel regime.

Zaman is looking at the faults of President Bush and of American Christians under the magnifying glass and turns an absolutely blind eye on the enormous atrocities committed by Muslim leaders. When looking at the political situation in nearly all Islamic countries, and particularly after he listed the names of cruel dictators, tyrants (Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi) and an Islamic terrorist leader who is responsible for the death of many thousands (Osama bin Ladin), Zaman's conclusion can hardly be more unreal:

The Bush administration is the worst imaginable nightmare for American Muslims? Does Zaman really want to claim that he and most American Muslims would rather live under a regime like the one of Saddam Hussein than in the United States of America under the Bush administration?

If Zaman's analysis were true we should see a steady stream of American Muslim refugees leaving the country and seeking asylum in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Libya, Algeria, ... in order to escape the incredible suffering they have to endure because they are living under every Muslim's worst nightmare.

Is that what we observe? Has Zaman lost all sense for reality? Even though it has recently become more difficult for illegal immigrants, is it not in the contrary so, that there are thousands of Muslims every month that seek to immigrate to the USA? Why do they want to leave Paradise in order to live under the oppressive regime of the Bush administration?

Why has Zaman and his family not left the USA yet? He has received a good education, he clearly has many skills. Most Muslim countries would welcome him, should he want to immigrate there.

Zaman is not alone with such an attitude. Many Muslims in the USA want to enjoy all the privileges, advantages and conveniences of being an American citizen, but they malign the country of their choice and teach others to hate it as well. One can make similar observations about Muslims in other Western countries. Frankly, I find this hypocritical and sickening.

As eloquent as Zaman's article is, when analyzed more carefully it turns out to be really bad propaganda and is without doubt inciting hatred against America in many American Muslims, poisoning their minds and poisoning the atmosphere between Muslims and non-Muslims. If this is what even intellectual Muslims are preaching, then non-Muslims have every reason to be vigilant and watch Muslim activities with suspicion.

Many Muslims dream of establishing Islamic laws and rule in the West, change the country to a system that already doesn't work anywhere else in the world. Or which Muslim-led country does the author want us to look to as an example to emulate? Zaman campaigns for more Muslim influence in American politics. As I said, this is his constitutional right. But what does he have to offer? If Islamic Shariah isn't working anywhere in this modern world, why does he think it would not ruin America as well and bring it to the same low standards that we observe in countries with Muslim-run governments?

One last observation about the next section of Zaman's article:

The basis of Zaman's attack, his unscholarly and atrociously wrong derivation of the word "proskuneo", is discussed in a separate article: Shibli Zaman and the Abuse of Etymology. Contrary to Zaman's interpretation, this incident is actually a milestone in the process of overcoming the barriers between Jews and Gentiles when it is read in its proper context. The incongruence only exists for those who want to force a negative meaning on the text and turn a statement of faith and trust into one of humiliation. The meaning of this story has been explained elsewhere.

Here I only want to comment on his "punch line" which I have put in bold letters in the above quotation. I agree with this statement and wonder how Zaman can still be a Muslim if he really believes this. Let me quote a couple of verses from the Qur'an:

In fact, the Qur'an has a wide range of imagery and insults for those who refuse to believe in Islam. They are likened to cattle (camels, cows, sheep), a goat-herd, dogs, asses, vile beasts, etc. See the entry UNBELIEVERS in the Index to Islam for details. The contempt of non-Muslims is an integral part of the teaching of the Qur'an.

Although the Jews considered Gentiles (non-Jews) ritually unclean, the Jewish Temple nevertheless had a "Court of the Gentiles" and Solomon specifically prays during the dedication of the temple that God may hear the prayers of the people from many different nations that will come to the house of God in Jerusalem (see 1 Kings 8:41-43). One of the very few occasions that Jesus used force was when he cleared the temple of the money changers and merchants who had set up their tables in the court of the Gentiles and thus prevented that the non-Jews could pray to God (Mark 11:15-17). And the Apostle Peter received a special vision from the Lord to help him overcome his hesitation regarding fellowship with Gentiles. In this vision the Lord told him, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean" (Acts 10).

After God had abolished the concept of ritual (im)purity and broken down the barrier between Jews and Gentiles, why has Muhammad introduced and enforced a similar law, and made the separation even more strict? Nobody who is not a Muslim is allowed to enter the Meccan Mosque, and is not even allowed to enter the city of Mecca, because Islam considers impure / unclean all who are non-Muslims.

If Zaman finds the above story in the Gospel accounts so unbearable and humiliating, if he revolts so much against it, why does he not have any problem with the humiliation and the low status that the Qur'an puts on everyone who is not a Muslim?

The last part of Surah 9:29 uses a very strong word. Saghiroon means "to belittle", "to bring low", "to humiliate".

The Bible does not call on Christians to humiliate non-Christians. However, the Quran commands that Muslims should fight Christians and humiliate them through the method the tribute is collected. The Qur'an does not specify how much the Jizya tribute has to be, whether 2% or 50% of the income or assets of a dhimmi, or how often it is collected. The only detail specified is the demand that it has to be collected in a way that humiliates them.

Again, we need to ask: Why is Zaman searching for faults of Christians and the Bible with a magnifying glass, but he completely ignores similar or even much worse statements that are found in the Qur'an and in the deeds of Muhammad? Why these double standards?

One final observation: Although the innocent (Muslim) victims of the Bush administration are mentioned several times in this article, I searched in vain for any word about the innocent victims of Muslim aggression. Not one word of regret, let alone a condemnation of the September 11 atrocity, or about other Muslim violence that has led to the suffering of many innocent people.

Zaman has no hesitation to use many strong and even insulting words against Bush and the people in his administration (e.g., his lunatic allies in the Christian Coalition; the Christian extremists in Bush's cabinet; Bush's statements as hypocrisy at best, and diabolical at worst; this shameless lying; vote the perpetrators out of office; let George W. Bush be remembered for 4 years of unintelligible pig latin; the unleashing of a fanatic evangelist campaign to defame Islam; G.W. Bush's facetious rekindling of his father's failed war), but he is very careful to use only words about Osama bin Ladin that could not be interpreted as disapproval or condemnation of his person, his convictions or his actions. This, too, can hardly be accidental.

Have I completely misinterpreted Zaman's message and intentions? I would hope so. I am more than willing to be corrected and am looking forward to his clarifications and answers to my questions. In my view these questions needed to be raised in response to Zaman's statements. I believe they are important and need to be discussed.

May the Lord God grant us all the thirst for His divine truth, and not to be satisfied with anything less than the truth.

Jochen Katz

About five weeks after this above article was published, I accidentally stumbled on an article by Mr. Zaman which was posted to the Islamic newsgroup about three years ago. Ironically, in it we find the highest Muslim leader of the time calling the Roman emperor a DOG which is cited by Zaman with apparent approval, together with a call to use violence against the kufaar (meaning infidels, another strong insult in Muslim language). Bold and color emphasis are mine.

From: Shibli@Zaman.Net (Shibli Zaman)
Subject: "BID`AH! BID'AH! BID`AH!" What is your problem?
Date: 2000/07/06
Message-ID: <8k0v3o$ha3$1@samba.rahul.net>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam


bismillaah wa-l Hamdu lillaah waS-Salaatu was-salaamu `alaa
rasoolillaah,

as-salaamu `alaykum,

Upon his death bed the Prophet Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ordered
that the disbelievers must be removed from Jazeeratu-l `Arab (the
Arabian Peninsula) forever.

"The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, "Expel the
pagans from the Arabian Peninsula..." [al-Bukhari 4:288]

The Abbasid Caliph al-Mu`tasim prepared the Empire's entire forces to
invade Byzantium simply because a Muslima's hijab was disheveled by
some hooligan disbelievers in the Roman territory. He wrote a letter
to the Byzantine Emperor in which he stated, "Oh you Roman Dog!...I
have an army of men, which when lined up stretches from where I stand
to where you stand, who love to fight and be killed and much as your
men love to live!"

Yet, today in our lifetime the so-called "Khaadim al-Haramayn" King
Fahd, armed with the fatawa of the "eminent" Salafi scholars invited
the armies of the kufaar from all over the world to settle in the
Arabian Peninsula. Had al-Mu`tasim been alive he would have razed the
Saudi heresy to the ground and executed every last member of this cult
which calls for the disbanding of jihad against the Jewish occupation
of Palestine and the invitation of disbelieving armies into the
Arabian Peninsula. Had the Prophet Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam been
alive they would have been dealth with in the same way the
ahl-Qaynuqa, Khaybar, etc were dealt with.

The greatest bida`ah is to rule with a law other than Allah's
impeccable Shari`ah. The forbiddance in "Saudi" Arabia of the basic
freedom's Allah has given women is a great bida`ah, which according to
many scholars is outright kufr since it is an unfounded amendment to
the Shari`ah. Yet, you have these cultists labeling most of the
Muslims in the world "mushrikeen" and complaining over "Milad an-Nabi"
celebrations.

In the Russian/Afghan war in the 80's there was a leader who heralded
from a place called Kunar which is in the north of Afghanistan. Their
Salafi leader was called "Shaykh Jameel ar-Rahman" and the Gulf
nations heralded him as the officially endorsed future ruler of
Afghanistan. While Gulbudeen's forces were fighting the Russians, they
were being attacked simultaneously by Jameel al-Rahman's militia. The
reason? Because some of Gulbuddin's army were wearing amulets of
Qur'anic script and this supposedly made them disbelievers against
whom jihad needed to be waged! Russians are slaughtering the entire
population, yet the Salafis saw a danger not in them, but in the
Muslim Mujaahideen. Gulbuddin tolerated the attacks against his forces
without recourse for a brief period. Then he invaded Kunar and killed
every last one of them, decapitating them with bayonettes (which is
not a quick and easy method of decapitation). That was the end of
Jameel al-Rahman and the beginning of the war against the Salafis in
Afghanistan. [note: Needless to say, Gulbuddin is not the admired
figure today that he was back then. Love for the dunya can bring even
the most pious folk to the depths of its lowliness. Only Allah knows
his heart, and may Allah forgive him and bring him on the right path.]

Stop whining about ta`weeth and Milad. If you want to wage war on
those who do bida`ah, start by continuing what was done in al-Khobar
in the mid 90's. Fight for the sake of Allah against those who occupy
the land of the two holiest cities. Then, not only will most of the
Muslim world respect your war against bida`ah, THEY WILL JOIN YOU!

was-salaamu `alaykum,

Shibli Zaman
Shibli@Zaman.Net

(Source: Google Newsgroup Archive, accessed 23 August 2003)

Responses to Shibli Zaman
Answering Islam Home Page