59:2 Strongholds would protect them against God
-
Salam Friends
592 He it is who turned out of their homes, at the time of first gathering , such of the followers of earlier revelation as were bent on denying the truth. You did not think that they would depart - just as they thought that their strongholds would protect them against God but God came upon them in a manner which they had not expected, and cast terror into their hearts; they destroyed their homes by their own hands as well as the hands of the believers. Learn a lesson, then, O you who are endowed with insight!
Question The People of the Book believe in God. Why would they, then, think that they needed protected against God (or His wrath)?
One would think that their strongholds would protect them against their enemies.
Or does it mean that their stronghold would protect them against the Muslim God (who they, perhaps, thought was different than theirs)? Another point could be that although most believed Muhammad (S) was Messenger of God they decided (for worldly/tribal reasons) to oppose him thus opposing God??
Do we need a better translation here? Sometimes meanings are lost to mistranslations.
-
Salam Friends
592 He it is who turned out of their homes, at the time of first gathering , such of the followers of earlier revelation as were bent on denying the truth. You did not think that they would depart - just as they thought that their strongholds would protect them against God but God came upon them in a manner which they had not expected, and cast terror into their hearts; they destroyed their homes by their own hands as well as the hands of the believers. Learn a lesson, then, O you who are endowed with insight!
Question The People of the Book believe in God. Why would they, then, think that they needed protected against God (or His wrath)?
One would think that their strongholds would protect them against their enemies.
Or does it mean that their stronghold would protect them against the Muslim God (who they, perhaps, thought was different than theirs)? Another point could be that although most believed Muhammad (S) was Messenger of God they decided (for worldly/tribal reasons) to oppose him thus opposing God??
Do we need a better translation here? Sometimes meanings are lost to mistranslations.
Salam Mubashir
The believers in question are the jewish tribes in Medina that (politically) betrayed prophet Muhammed. This verse actually makes sense to me, it is a statement that you should not backstab your ally. Regardless of what scripture you follow, God will be on the honest side.
-
Salam Mubashir
The believers in question are the jewish tribes in Medina that (politically) betrayed prophet Muhammed. This verse actually makes sense to me, it is a statement that you should not backstab your ally. Regardless of what scripture you follow, God will be on the honest side.
Medinan or Meccan Jewish tribes?
-
Obviously, anybody who does something against what God has established as His law would logically look for protection from the consequences og their deeds, that is protection against what God may dispose in their harm, according to His sunna and law. In fact it is a sort of self-deception, but that is what it is always when we go against God's commandments.
Salaam
-
I thought only the Mecca Jewish tribe was in war with him.
Salam Bigmo
The Meccan jews never betrayed prophet Muhammed, they were never on his side as far as I understand.
The Medina jewish tribes signed the treaty of Medina but later betrayed prophet Muhammed and joined the Meccan tribes. They didnt join the fighting but they did not fight alongside prophet Muhammed.
For this betrayal prophet Muhammed forgave them the first time. The second time they betrayed him by joining the Meccans he appointed a judge chosen by the jews (I think he was chosen by the jews, not sure about that, anyways it was not prophet Muhammed himself who judged).The judge punished them according to the law of Medina, to kill all the men and let the women and children go........thus starting a bitterness between the muslims and jews that has yet to pass.
Politics back then were harsh.....
-
Salam Bigmo
The Meccan jews never betrayed prophet Muhammed, they were never on his side as far as I understand.
The Medina jewish tribes signed the treaty of Medina but later betrayed prophet Muhammed and joined the Meccan tribes. They didnt join the fighting but they did not fight alongside prophet Muhammed.
For this betrayal prophet Muhammed forgave them the first time. The second time they betrayed him by joining the Meccans he appointed a judge chosen by the jews (I think he was chosen by the jews, not sure about that, anyways it was not prophet Muhammed himself who judged).The judge punished them according to the law of Medina, to kill all the men and let the women and children go........thus starting a bitterness between the muslims and jews that has yet to pass.
Politics back then were harsh.....
This is Sunni talk. Nothing to do with Quran. The Quran did not force anyone to make alliance or treaty with anyone. If they do not want to make treaty thats their business. The only reference to fighting Jews in Quran was regarding Meccan Jews who allied with the pagans. The Medina Jews rejected Muhammad but thats their business. The Quran only recognizes defensive war.
-
This is Sunni talk. Nothing to do with Quran. The Quran did not force anyone to make alliance or treaty with anyone. If they do not want to make treaty thats their business. The only reference to fighting Jews in Quran was regarding Meccan Jews who allied with the pagans. The Medina Jews rejected Muhammad but thats their business. The Quran only recognizes defensive war.
I find it hard to believe it is just Sunni talk, Bigmo. The sunnis I know that are a bit above average scholared do not want to talk about the Medina Charter and the fact that the jews were punished according to a law NOT based on the Quran because they would then recognise that prophet Muhammed was forming a secular state and following secular laws. This does not go well with their Sharia law thinking.
The average-joe Sunni muslim has never heard of the Medina charter, it is not something they are taught at Quran school. There is a reason for this........if you get what I mean.....
But hey, Sunni schools differ alot so maybe in your circles they have a different attitude towards the Medina charter.Since sura 59 comes from the Medina period, I thought it was talking about the Medina jews. But if you have other evidence, please share with me and I will stand corrected.
-
I find it hard to believe it is just Sunni talk, Bigmo. The sunnis I know that are a bit above average scholared do not want to talk about the Medina Charter and the fact that the jews were punished according to a law NOT based on the Quran because they would then recognise that prophet Muhammed was forming a secular state and following secular laws. This does not go well with their Sharia law thinking.
The average-joe Sunni muslim has never heard of the Medina charter, it is not something they are taught at Quran school. There is a reason for this........if you get what I mean.....
But hey, Sunni schools differ alot so maybe in your circles they have a different attitude towards the Medina charter.Since sura 59 comes from the Medina period, I thought it was talking about the Medina jews. But if you have other evidence, please share with me and I will stand corrected.
It could be about Medina but if you look at the Quran the sword verses are talking about the pagans of Mecca who forced the believers into exile. Some of the Jews there are refered to as their allies. In Medina we had no conflict of this sort although the Jews there rejected the prophet. We are told in the Koran (9.13) that the people who were fighting Muhammad were the same ones who forced him and the believers into exile. There were hypocrites mentioned in Medina in the Quran but these are the ones who often sided with the meccans whenever it was convenient. There is only a very brief reference in the Quran of Muhamamd fighting the Jews (33.26 - 27) probably because the meccans were dominated by the pagans with the Jews being the side show. The vast majority of the war verses in the Quran is talking about the pagans.
As far as Medina charter I think it has to do with the source this charter is found.
"Scholars do not possess the original document but rather a number of versions can be found in early Muslim sources. The most widely read version of the Constitution is found in the pages of Ibn Ishaq's Sirah Rasul Allah (see wikisource), while alternative copies are located in Sayyid al-Nas and Abu ?Ubayd's Kitab al-Amwal. Most scholars accept the authenticity of the document."
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina#Sources
The problem is Ibn Ishaq narrations does not have the same clout for Sunnis as Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Dawood or Ibn Majah. I think this is why it does not hold a strong place for Sunni Islam.
-
It could be about Medina but if you look at the Quran the sword verses are talking about the pagans of Mecca who forced the believers into exile. Some of the Jews there are refered to as their allies. In Medina we had no conflict of this sort although the Jews there rejected the prophet. We are told in the Koran (9.13) that the people who were fighting Muhammad were the same ones who forced him and the believers into exile. There were hypocrites mentioned in Medina in the Quran but these are the ones who often sided with the meccans whenever it was convenient. There is only a very brief reference in the Quran of Muhamamd fighting the Jews (33.26 - 27) probably because the meccans were dominated by the pagans with the Jews being the side show. The vast majority of the war verses in the Quran is talking about the pagans.
As far as Medina charter I think it has to do with the source this charter is found.
"Scholars do not possess the original document but rather a number of versions can be found in early Muslim sources. The most widely read version of the Constitution is found in the pages of Ibn Ishaq's Sirah Rasul Allah (see wikisource), while alternative copies are located in Sayyid al-Nas and Abu ?Ubayd's Kitab al-Amwal. Most scholars accept the authenticity of the document."
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina#Sources
The problem is Ibn Ishaq narrations does not have the same clout for Sunnis as Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Dawood or Ibn Majah. I think this is why it does not hold a strong place for Sunni Islam.
Salam Bigmo
You have to enlighten me here........
Surah 59 is called "The Mustering". Other names normally used are "Mobilization", "Banishment" and "Exile". It speaks of the "immigrants" referring to the muslims that left Mecca and settled in Medina 598 For the immigrants who are poor and were driven out of their homes and deprived of their properties; they were seeking a grace from God and acceptance, and they supported God and His messenger; these are the truthful ones.
599 And those who provided them with shelter, and were believers before them; they love those who immigrated to them, and they find no hesitation in their hearts in helping them, and they readily give them priority over themselves, even when they themselves need what they give away. Indeed, those who overcome their desires are the successful ones.
Before Medina there were no muslim immigrants because you have migrate to become an immigrant. Most historians including non-muslims tend to agree the surah came about in Medina. To me, this is pretty strong evidence the surah is from the Medina period.There is no evidence that prophet Muhammed were ever betrayed by the Meccan jews. By betrayal I mean the jews in some fashion promised/made a contract/signed an agreement with prophet Muhammed/the muslims which they later broke. The Medina Jews however did sign the Medina charter but did not honour it.
There is no evidence that prophet Muhammed ever attacked Mecca. On the contrary, he was true to islam and only practiced defensive warfare. Surah 59 speaks of the jews sitting behind strong walls, thinking that they were safe against harm (meaning someone is attacking them) 592....and they thought that their fortresses would protect them from God. But then God came to them from where they did not expect, and He cast terror into their hearts. They destroyed their homes with their own hands and the hands of the believers. So learn from this, O you who possess vision..The "attack" had not much to do with religion, it was simply enforcing the law of Medina. Therefore it could hardly be the Meccan jews but the Medinan jews surah 59 is referring to. Please show me if there is any evidence that surah 59 is speaking of the Meccan jews.
Anyways, a lot more interesting topic is the Medina charter. I will leave you with this which I find "in a nutshell" why Sharia and Saudi Arabia are soooo unbelievable out of islam
Mark Graham writes
Muhammad?s brilliance lay in politics as well as spirituality. One of the most extraordinary events to take place during this time was the drafting of the Covenant of Medina (Sahifat al-Madinah), what some consider to be the world?s first constitution. It was a treaty and city charter between the Arabs and Jews of the city. All groups (Muslims, Jews, and non-Muslim Arabs) pledged to live in civic harmony, governed by mutual advice and consultation. The Covenant bound these varied groups into a common defense pact and stipulated that the Jews of the city were one community with the Muslims, that they were free to profess and practice their religion and that they were entitled to all the rights pertaining to the Muslims. This amazingly foresighted document was a revolutionary step forward in civil government. Despite the ultimately tragic end of Muslim and Jewish cooperation in Medina, this blueprint of interreligious tolerance would serve Islam and its subject peoples well in the future.
Mark Graham. How Islam Created the Modern World. Amana Publications, 2006. Pages 21.
Read more http//www.themuslimtimes.org/2011/11/islam-a-religion-of-peace/the-constitution-of-medina-the-first-written-constitution-of-the-world#ixzz2JlWKnmG8