Skip to main content

The Medina Charter (Part 2)

First, I would like thank Aloysious for his speedy response given to my earlier post: The Medina Charter as a Basis of Nation Building. I apologise for the fact that I am unable to respond as quickly due to other commitments. Secondly, I would like to say that I have read the text of the Charter, all be it about 16 years ago. I think it is a little presumptuous on the part of Aloysious to conclude that I have yet to read it; although I do admit that I did depend on memory when responding to his article.

Thirdly, I do not think that we are encumbered by ‘the weight of the Muslim past’ as Aloysious puts it. Rather we find much to be proud of and many lessons which are still very relevant to our needs.

In responding to Aloysious’s article, I made the assumption that the tribes mentioned were polytheists and not Jews. This, Aloysious has stated as being incorrect and I stand corrected. The reason why I assumed they were polytheists was because I know for a fact that when The Holy Prophet migrated to Medina and made the Charter, there were Muslims, Jews and Polytheists (Mushrikiin) making up the Medinan society. Since the Jews were mentioned collectively as Jews and at the same time there was mention of the tribes in Aloysious’s article, I wrongly assumed that the tribes were non-Jews and therefore polytheists. This error on my part however does not negate the fact that the Medina Charter was an “agreement between ALL members of the Medinan Society”.

This is not a ‘fantasy’ on my part as it has been so described by many, Muslim and non-Muslim researchers alike, including western scholars like Montgomery Watt. However, I note that there exist two different interpretations to certain clauses particularly that at the very beginning of the Charter, the text of which reads;
“This is the kitab (written document) from Muhammad the Prophet (of God) between the Believers and Muslims from Quraish and Yathrib (Medina) and those who follow them thereby becoming part of them and fight together with them”.
One interpretation of the clause takes the phrase “between the Believers and Muslims from Quraish and Yathrib”, as the Muslims of Quraish and the Muslims of Yathrib, making it solely between the Muslims. The second interpretation, which to my opinion is the more accurate, states that the term ‘Yathrib’ refers to ‘the people of Yathrib’ instead of just the Believers and Muslims of Yathrib. The reason why it is the more accurate interpretation is, as was stated earlier, the Medinan society was then made up of three components, namely, Muslim, Jews and Polytheists. Any agreement leaving out any of the three components would have been ineffective.

Incidentally this interpretation would mean that the following clause stating all the three parties to the agreement as being one ‘ummah’ or ‘one nation’ would make the Charter a declaration of the oneness of all the members of the city state. It would be similar to the concept of nationality of the modern day nation states.

It is based on this interpretation that present day writers present the Medina Charter as being a basis for nation building.

Proof of the inclusion of the Polytheists in this agreement is further enforced by the reference to the polytheists in the clause 20(B) which states:-
“And it is not allowed for any of the polytheists to protect the property of the (Meccan) Quraish nor their lives and to prevent the Believer from attaining his rights (with respect to the property or life)”.
This clause becomes somewhat meaningless if the polytheists are not a party to the Charter.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, (is it even possible?) my first response to Aloysius’s first article put forward three main points as follows:-
  1. The Medina Charter was an agreement between all members of the Medinan Society which I still hold to be true as per the arguments above.
  2. That there is a difference between the Medina Charter and the treaties with other religionists in lands later liberated by the Muslims. This point I assume is not an issue.
  3. That the treatment of the non-Muslims in the case of the latter were based on the principles of ‘Siyasah Syariiyah’ which has to principally conform to Islam’s demand for justice for all but the details of which were influenced by the circumstances and practices of that time.
I will now concentrate on the third point and argue it out as follows:-

1. The Jizyah is not a ‘humiliation’ of the ahlul-dhimmah.
On the question of surrender and submission and humiliation, Aloysious states that there is little difference between these terms. If that is so, then no government can be free of an intention to humiliate as every government will need the citizens to surrender to its authority, unless of course if you are an anarchist.

When the previously non-Muslim government falls to the Muslim army, allegiances have to change, as there is now a new government in place.

Payment of the Jizyah forms an act of acceptance of the new government by the non-Muslim citizens and does not necessarily denote humiliation. The payment denotes acceptance of the new status quo while implying that there will be no attempt to oppose it by force of arms. Those citizens who become Muslims pay the zakat and will be at the beck and call of the Muslim army in the event a need arises.

Any government will insist on the acceptance of its sovereignty. What makes the government just or otherwise are the policies, which it implements concerning its people, and not the fact that it demands loyalty and allegiance from its subjects. In this case, the non-Muslims are allowed to keep and practice their religion; their honor will be protected, as will be their lives and property. They will be allowed to partake of the developments in society and even progress in status and position based on merit. Maimonides himself being a case in point.

However, there should be no intention of challenging the authority of the government.

In the case of the Banu Taghlib, their refusal to pay the Jizyah denotes unwillingness to give allegiance and submit to the new government. The reasons for their feeling humiliated and refusing to pay jizyah may simply be to their unwillingness to be a ‘protected people’ insisting that they are capable of protecting themselves. They consider themselves free and autonomous and any acceptance or submission to the new authority would be a humiliation. This unwillingness to submit to the new order is therefore interpreted as an act of defiance and would therefore be met with force as would be natural for any government, even in this day and age, would do.

It is most likely that as a result they were ‘punished’ for their defiance by having tighter and more restrictive terms included in their eventual surrender. This was intended to ensure that no other tribe would follow their example of defiance. That may well be the reason for the terms during the time of Umar Abdul Aziz.

2. The Dress code and accepting Islam’s position of authority.
In the case of the treaty of Umar, what I mentioned was that it was normal for the various tribes and peoples to dress in a particular manner, identifying their faiths, allegiances and area from which they came. It is safe to assume that the code was based on what was already practiced by the various tribes and religionists.

Why was this necessary? As I explained, it is in order to distinguish the people as after the ‘liberation’ or ‘opening’ of a new territory; the allegiances were still in doubt. I mentioned that there might still be belligerent and combative elements; I did not say ‘difficult times’. Distinguishing the different tribes was a necessary tool for security and control. Also, the way the society was then with the different tribes each having their own tribal leaders etc. would have made the dress code a useful tool for identifying who comes from where and the party they report to.

I did not go into the other details as I thought it was clear based on the same line of logic that the state needs to be in control. As allegiances were suspect, there is a need to ensure that there would not be an attempt to challenge the status quo. The restriction with respect to riding horses and bearing of swords was explained. With respect to the churches, it is in recognition of the fact that it was a Muslim government and although the other religionists were allowed to practice their faiths, it should not be done in a manner seen as a challenge to the authority of Islam, which had just been established. This was more a politically motivated policy rather than a religious edict.

The repair of the Churches falling into disrepair would have meant those Churches abandoned by the people due to their conversion to Islam. These Churches would be left unattended as they were no longer in use and it would be a useful propaganda for the new Government. This again, is a purely ‘political’ action and not one based on a religious edict.

As is proven in other periods, Churches were allowed to be built. Below is an extract from Islamonline which summarised the points written by Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi in his book Ghayr al-Muslmein fi el-Mujtama` al-Islami; Wahbah Pub., Cairo, 1997. in reference to this fact.
“Permitting non-Muslims to build their own houses of worship in towns mainly populated by Muslims also falls under this scope, where early in Muslim history several churches were built in Egypt during the first Hijri century. An example of this is the construction of the Mar Marcus Church in Alexandria (between AH 39 and 56), and the construction of the first church in Fustat in the Roman Alley during the reign of Maslamah ibn Mikhled (between the years AH 47 and 68). Ruler Abdul `Aziz ibn Marwan also authorized constructing a church in Helwan while founding the city, besides allowing a number of bishops to erect hermitage cells.
Historian Al-Maqrizi once said, “All modern day Cairo churches were undoubtedly restored in Islam.”
As for the villages and areas which are not considered among the Muslim provinces, non-Muslims were not repressed against practicing and illustrating their religious rituals, including the renovation of old churches and cathedrals, and were free to expand building such houses of worship as their population grew”.

3. Details of treaties being ‘Circumstantial’.
I also mentioned earlier that the details of treaties were also ‘circumstantial’.

I would like to highlight this point by referring to the personality mentioned by Aloysious when talking about Islamic Spain, namely the Jewish philosopher Maimonides. It is true that when the Al-Muwahiddun or the Al-Mohads, as the west calls them, came into Spain, the political scenario was in turmoil. The rule of the Al-Murabbitun was collapsing and it seemed as though Spain would return to the age of the ‘Muluk Al-Tawaif’ or ‘the kings of tribes’ wherein there would be many small kingdoms fighting one against the other. In the face of this political instability the Al-Muwahiddun moved in and took control of Spain. They stamped their leadership by the harshest of terms, part of it by making the Spanish Jews choose between Islam, migration or death.

The family of Maimonides, who was then in his early teens, after a while, opted to migrate. Strangely enough, they migrated to North Africa and then settled in Al-Maghribi or Morocco and went to Fez. Fez was the seat of the Al-Muwahiddun’s throne! The Al-Muwahiddun were based in Morocco as was the Al-Murabitun before them.

Maimonides then studied in the University of Fez, by some accounts, then moved on to Egypt where the Fatimids were initially in power only to be replaced shortly by the Seljuks. Maimonides was then made the personal physician to Salahuddin’s family, particularly to his son. Yes, THE Salahuddin Al-Ayubi.

Conditions in Spain were different, political policies were different. Conditions in Morocco and Egypt were different, political policies were different. However, I personally do not accept the practice of forced conversions, all be it for the sake of political expediency, as one sanctioned by Islam.

4. The issue of forced conversions
Islam is very clear on this issue of forced conversions. In Surah Yunus, Verse 99 and 100 Allah SWT says :-
“If your Lord had enforced His will, surely all who are on the earth would have become believers (Muslims) all together. Will you then force men to become believers? And no soul will become a believer except by the permission of God. His wrath will descend on those who will not use their reasoning.”
In a nutshell; Who do you think you are to force people to become Believers when even God allows them this freedom of choice! And, God and God alone will decide who will receive the gift of His guidance and believe! And finally the wrath of God is promised for those who do not use their brains, i.e. those who do not acknowledge God’s decision on free choice and force people to convert AND those who do not choose belief when so many signs of His greatness is evident all around us.

Nonetheless, even the ‘forced’ conversions practiced by the Al-Muwaihiddun was explained by Maimonides in his later writings as something merely requiring verbal confession without any real enforcement or enthusiasm about it. No thumbscrews here. When brought to court after having been recognised by some one from Spain as having been a Muslim in Spain and then becoming an apostate in Egpyt, a Judge declared forced conversions as a farce and rejected the case when it was brought to court.

5. The issue of ‘liberating’ or otherwise and the issue of Spain
I note Aloysious’s contention on the question of the expansion of Islam and its liberating nature. He says non-Muslim records belie this characterization (which I dispute). He even gives the Japanese expansion during WW II as fair comparison stating that “Conquerors and empire builders in history are apt to give pretty names to their acts of aggression. The Muslim conquerors needed to legitimize religiously their military adventures: hence the Muslim historians’ characterization of the conquests as liberation from impious regimes and an “opening” up of the people to the message of God”.

The same skepticism is employed when talking about Muslim Spain while however this time acknowledging that I am joining “a long and distinguished line of people in citing the so-called golden age of Islam in Spain, where Jews, Christians and Muslims are all supposed to have lived in glorious harmony”. He then states that there is a strain of amnesia affecting people when talking about Muslim Spain and “that there needs to be a moratorium on selective citations of Muslim Spain as the exemplar of tolerance and harmonious co-existence”.

All I can say in response is that the history is there for all to see and if one seeks the truth objectively then the facts will speak for themselves. I believe history is proof of the liberation, which was Islam. The justice with which the early Muslim rulers ruled is well documented and can in no way be compared to the rule of the Japanese armies in the Far East. The speed with which Islam was accepted by the ‘liberated’ communities was astounding to say the least, more so as it was achieved without the ‘Inquisitions’ or ‘Genocide’ and forced conversions which some wish us to believe.

The unopposed expansion of the Islamic empire into Egypt, freeing the Coptic Christians from the persecution of Byzantine as well as its expansion into Africa and finally into Spain was all achieved within 70 years of the death of the Holy Prophet (MPBUH). The exemplary character of the Muslims and their leaders won hearts and conversions occurred by the thousands. Wherever Islam expanded into, it brought illumination, growth and prosperity. Unknown towns such as ‘Timbuktu’ became centers of learning, visited and frequented by all, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

I find great difficulty in drawing parallels with the ‘ubi kayu’ era which Aloysious refers to.

Similarly, in the west and north, Islam expanded into Iran, Palestine, Syria, went to the borders of China, and established formal diplomatic ties with the Tang dynasty in the same period. Muslim armies served the Tang dynasty well, saving its rule during the Anxi rebellion when the emperor was too busy with his Madam Yang.

Such speedy expansion could not have been achieved without the support of the locals who quickly joined the fold of Islam and became equal partners in its empire. Tariq Ibn Ziyad, known in Spanish history and legend as Taric el Tuerto (Taric the one-eyed), a Berber, the Muslim general leading the Muslim army into Spain at the request of Julian, a Christian aristocrat, was probably a first generation Muslim himself.

With respect to Spain, the long and distinguished list of people referred to by Aloysious is made up of Muslim and non-Muslim historians and intellectuals. As a researcher, Aloysious should be more open to the facts. I am the first to acknowledge that there might be some deviations but lets "not miss the forest for the trees".

6. PAS and ‘Theocracy’
It is not true that PAS seeks to “replicate a medieval theocratic state in the 21st century” as claimed by Aloysious. First, we have to acknowledge that ‘theocracy’ is not something which came from Islam. Theocracy in the form of the unification of religious and political authority, or the subjugation of the political authority to the religious authority, while the religious authority holds absolute power and has the sole right to interpret religion, came from the west.

Islamic history, after the time of the Prophet (MPBUH), saw the separation of political and religious authority even in the time of the Rightly Guided caliphs. Even in the time of the Prophet, the Prophet had full authority on religious issues but on political policies, he held discussions with his Companions.

The second Caliph, Umar Al-Khattab, had no total authority on religious issues. He was reprimanded in one instance by a Muslimat on the issue of dowries which he ruled should have a limit set. After a short debate, he conceded defeat and admitted that the Muslimat was right. Religion is not the monopoly of anyone or any institution in Islam and many scholars in Islam’s history publicly criticsed the Muslim kings. The ulama’ in the past, was a diverse and independent institution which argues its case based on religious arguments hoping to convince the Muslim masses through persuasion rather than coercion. They were like current day NGOs only that they would have influence and following due to their religious knowledge and their ability in presenting and convincing the public.

The umara’ or the rulers of later years were consistently attempting to place the ulama’ under one body for ease of control. However, in most cases, they failed.

‘Theocracy’ has little to do with Islam and as such it is not within the political objectives of PAS. This is not just my opinion but the opinion of PAS. The party’s constitution and the way it is organised should be proof enough of this fact.

7. What we agree on
I am glad that there is something that we agree on and what we agree on seems to be THE most important, namely that political policies in the past were based on circumstances then and need not have any kind of force for our time. Then it was a system of Monarchy, all be it based on some form of Islamic justification. Now it is a democracy and it is in recognition of this fact that the Medina Charter, as interpreted above, can be referred to by the Muslims as a basis of Nation building.

With respect to the question who then speaks for Islam, the correct answer would be the Quran and the Prophetic traditions and ALL who speak based on these. It is for this reason that the voice of Islam still sounds the same, be it when in power or otherwise.

WalLahu ‘Alam

Comments

I found this on the internet. Can you check if this is genuine and without alteration? I read it 15 years ago also and have forgotten the key points in it.

Full Text of the Madina Charter

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

2. The Quraysh Mohajireen will continue to pay blood money, according to their present custom.

3. In case of war with any body they will redeem their prisoners with kindness and justice common among Believers. (Not according to pre-Islamic nations where the rich and the poor were treated differently).

4. The Bani Awf will decide the blood money, within themselves, according to their existing custom.

5. In case of war with anybody all parties other than Muslims will redeem their prisoners with kindness and justice according to practice among Believers and not in accordance with pre-Islamic notions.

6. The Bani Saeeda, the Bani Harith, the Bani Jusham and the Bani Najjar will be governed on the lines of the above (principles)

7. The Bani Amr, Bani Awf, Bani Al-Nabeet, and Bani Al-Aws will be governed in the same manner.

8. Believers will not fail to redeem their prisoners they will pay blood money on their behalf. It will be a common responsibility of the Ummat and not of the family of the prisoners to pay blood money.

9. A Believer will not make the freedman of another Believer as his ally against the wishes of the other Believers.

10. The Believers, who fear Allah, will oppose the rebellious elements and those that encourage injustice or sin, or enmity or corruption among Believers.

11. If anyone is guilty of any such act all the Believers will oppose him even if he be the son of any one of them.

12. A Believer will not kill another Believer, for the sake of an un-Believer. (i.e. even though the un-Believer is his close relative).

13. No Believer will help an un-Believer against a Believer.

14. Protection (when given) in the Name of Allah will be common. The weakest among Believers may give protection (In the Name of Allah) and it will be binding on all Believers.

15. Believers are all friends to each other to the exclusion of all others.

16. Those Jews who follow the Believers will be helped and will be treated with equality. (Social, legal and economic equality is promised to all loyal citizens of the State).

17. No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew.

18. The enemies of the Jews who follow us will not be helped.

19. The peace of the Believers (of the State of Madinah) cannot be divided. (it is either peace or war for all. It cannot be that a part of the population is at war with the outsiders and a part is at peace).

20. No separate peace will be made by anyone in Madinah when Believers are fighting in the Path of Allah.

21. Conditions of peace and war and the accompanying ease or hardships must be fair and equitable to all citizens alike.

22. When going out on expeditions a rider must take his fellow member of the Army-share his ride.

23. The Believers must avenge the blood of one another when fighting in the Path of Allah (This clause was to remind those in front of whom there may be less severe fighting that the cause was common to all. This also meant that although each battle appeared a separate entity it was in fact a part of the War, which affected all Muslims equally).

24. The Believers (because they fear Allah) are better in showing steadfastness and as a result receive guidance from Allah in this respect. Others must also aspire to come up to the same standard of steadfastness.

25. No un-Believer will be permitted to take the property of the Quraysh (the enemy) under his protection. Enemy property must be surrendered to the State.

26. No un-Believer will intervene in favour of a Quraysh, (because the Quraysh having declared war are the enemy).

27. If any un-believer kills a Believer, without good cause, he shall be killed in return, unless the next of kin are satisfied (as it creates law and order problems and weakens the defence of the State). All Believers shall be against such a wrong-doer. No Believer will be allowed to shelter such a man.

28. When you differ on anything (regarding this Document) the matter shall be referred to Allah and Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).

29. The Jews will contribute towards the war when fighting alongside the Believers.

30. The Jews of Bani Awf will be treated as one community with the Believers. The Jews have their religion. This will also apply to their freedmen. The exception will be those who act unjustly and sinfully. By so doing they wrong themselves and their families.

31. The same applies to Jews of Bani Al-Najjar, Bani Al Harith, Bani Saeeda, Bani Jusham, Bani Al Aws, Thaalba, and the Jaffna, (a clan of the Bani Thaalba) and the Bani Al Shutayba.

32. Loyalty gives protection against treachery. (loyal people are protected by their friends against treachery. As long as a person remains loyal to the State he is not likely to succumb to the ideas of being treacherous. He protects himself against weakness).

33. The freedmen of Thaalba will be afforded the same status as Thaalba themselves. This status is for fair dealings and full justice as a right and equal responsibility for military service.

34. Those in alliance with the Jews will be given the same treatment as the Jews.

35. No one (no tribe which is party to the Pact) shall go to war except with the permission of Muhammed (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). If any wrong has been done to any person or party it may be avenged.

36. Any one who kills another without warning (there being no just cause for it) amounts to his slaying himself and his household, unless the killing was done due to a wrong being done to him.

37. The Jews must bear their own expenses (in War) and the Muslims bear their expenses.

38. If anyone attacks anyone who is a party to this Pact the other must come to his help.

39. They (parties to this Pact) must seek mutual advice and consultation.

40. Loyalty gives protection against treachery. Those who avoid mutual consultation do so because of lack of sincerity and loyalty.

41. A man will not be made liable for misdeeds of his ally.

42. Anyone (any individual or party) who is wronged must be helped.

43. The Jews must pay (for war) with the Muslims. (this clause appears to be for occasions when Jews are not taking part in the war. Clause 37 deals with occasions when they are taking part in war).

44. Yathrib will be Sanctuary for the people of this Pact.

45. A stranger (individual) who has been given protection (by anyone party to this Pact) will be treated as his host (who has given him protection) while (he is) doing no harm and is not committing any crime. Those given protection but indulging in anti-state activities will be liable to punishment.

46. A woman will be given protection only with the consent of her family (Guardian). (a good precaution to avoid inter-tribal conflicts).

47. In case of any dispute or controversy, which may result in trouble the matter must be referred to Allah and Muhammed (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) of Allah will accept anything in this document, which is for (bringing about) piety and goodness.

48. Quraysh and their allies will not be given protection.

49. The parties to this Pact are bound to help each other in the event of an attack on Yathrib.

50. If they (the parties to the Pact other than the Muslims) are called upon to make and maintain peace (within the State) they must do so. If a similar demand (of making and maintaining peace) is made on the Muslims, it must be carried out, except when the Muslims are already engaged in a war in the Path of Allah. (so that no secret ally of the enemy can aid the enemy by calling upon Muslims to end hostilities under this clause).

51. Everyone (individual) will have his share (of treatment) in accordance with what party he belongs to. Individuals must benefit or suffer for the good or bad deed of the group they belong to. Without such a rule party affiliations and discipline cannot be maintained.

52. The Jews of al-Aws, including their freedmen, have the same standing, as other parties to the Pact, as long as they are loyal to the Pact. Loyalty is a protection against treachery.

53. Anyone who acts loyally or otherwise does it for his own good (or loss).

54. Allah approves this Document.

55. This document will not (be employed to) protect one who is unjust or commits a crime (against other parties of the Pact).

56. Whether an individual goes out to fight (in accordance with the terms of this Pact) or remains in his home, he will be safe unless he has committed a crime or is a sinner. (i.e. No one will be punished in his individual capacity for not having gone out to fight in accordance with the terms of this Pact).

57. Allah is the Protector of the good people and those who fear Allah, and Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is the Messenger of Allah (He guarantees protection for those who are good and fear Allah).
Anonymous said…
Dear YB,
The wrath is meant for divine haters,and to those who are very hostile
hafiz said…
salam YB khalid! teruskan perjuangan! saya ada karang sebuah artikel http://www.universalkita.com/2008/12/kumpulan-erdogan-sang-pembaharu.html
Kopi Pes said…
Dear YB,

Here are some of the comments you received on MT regarding your article, some of them are really ugly just dont mind them.

Keep on explaining to the people about Islam and the rest we let The Almighty decides. We dont have the power to change people. Takbir!



written by michael chick, December 11, 2008 09:59:30
You do not need to be a Theology expert to understand that Islam condemns Corruption. And that UMNO should be removed simply on that basis alone. Hand-Chopping would have been practised in the Middle East. If that be the case, then almost all Malaysian Police, and UMNO would walk around without their arms after Friday Prayers...
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 18
...
written by Malaysiaputra, December 11, 2008 11:09:23
Khalid Samad, all these talk about the "goodness" of Medina Charter is useless as far as I am concern. Like reading a story book. Until today show us where any so called Islamic dominated govt do anything close to it ? See the pesucution of those of other religion in Saudi Arabia for instance. There are reports of non Muslims working in Saudi Arabia charged with trumph up charges and behead without being given a fair trial. The world judge the tree by its fruit.Not one or two but as a whole, the whole harvest. When we see "fruits" like those of Mumbai, its impact is greater than all the argument you can forward.
report abuse
disagree 7
agree 11
...
written by taishan, December 11, 2008 11:18:00
When the previously non-Muslim government falls to the Muslim army, allegiances have to change, as there is now a new government in place.

If so stop bitching about the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan. Or is it just a one street ?
report abuse
disagree 4
agree 10
...
written by cheekhiaw, December 11, 2008 11:56:24
the fact that the Medina Charter was an “agreement between ALL members of the Medinan Society”

---

Sure, that's why they are now throwing stones at what others' used to hold as holy. Those others willingly accepted that humiliation.

Same as some in Malaysia that claim that there was a social contract agreed to years ago where some people willingly pawned the future of their children to some thieves wielding crooked knives baying for others' blood unless they 'willingly' submit to their barbaric claims.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 9
...
written by Raja Chulan, December 11, 2008 16:06:50
Khalid Samad

Why don't you tell the whole truth about the Medina Charter according to what is found in the Al Koran Al Sunnah and the Hadith.

It was design to neutralize the opposition in Medina to establish an Islamic order. Just face the truth and stop lying.

Another Islamist Apologist.
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 11
...
written by cheekhiaw, December 11, 2008 16:59:54
That idiot thinks only he studies things from the dark ages...

xxx
report abuse
disagree 3
agree 0
...
written by cheekhiaw, December 11, 2008 17:02:27
And do you think that unto such as you;
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:
God gave the secret—and denied it me?
Well, well, what matters it? Believe that, too.
- Rubaiyat, Omar Khayyam

And do you think that to one such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave the true history and denied it me?
Well, well, what a maggot-minded fool.

xxx
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 1
...
written by Thambidoorai, December 11, 2008 19:15:19
a few evenings ago, a friend pointed out to me:

the abrahamic religions are fundamentally problematic; they might work only in a world completely homogeneous of populace and outlook, which our world clearly isn't. the whole premise on which they sit is just insupportable.

the followers of the first are convinced that they are THE chosen people and that they have a direct agreement with their one god.

the second group are convinced that, irregardless of your deed, there can be no salvation unless through the son of their one god.

the third group declare, as loudly as they can get away with, several times a day that their god is great and that there is no god but their one god.

sit 3 "deeply pious" people down together, one from each respectively...unless they are equally powerful...otherwise, do you really think they would not try to kill off the other 2 eventually?
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 5
...
written by nana tanjung, December 11, 2008 22:14:33
Bro Khalid, I told you already, padan muka... it is a waste of time responding to these hell-bound bastards...they'll only realize when they on their death bed. Too late then.
report abuse
disagree 3
agree 1
...
written by renoir, December 12, 2008 01:01:43
Regardless whether we agree with all or any of Khalid's views or not, we should thank him for taking the time to let us know his understanding of the Medina Charter. He'd written so many things I don't know or am unsure of, and I guess it would take many hours - or days! - for me to discover the details he discussed. I listen to all sides partly because of my shallow knowledge on this matter, and partly because in things historical there could be no closure.

Unless we don't intend to know anything at all, we've to learn to listen even to views we don't agree with. This is obvious as listening only to those who share our views is not much different from not listening at all. Some people can live with that as they believe they already know all there is to know. I can't, and I think a society or a people or a nation with such as attitude is one that's doomed. After thousands of years in the ascendency, China started, around the time of the Ming, to believe that it had nothing more to learn from the world. As result, from the 16th century onwards, its lead in the arts and sciences slowly eroded as an emergent Europe, fresh from the Renaissance and the Reformation, relentlessly caught up and surpassed China in most fields of human endeavor. Europe's rise was quite unknown and unaccepted by the Chinese, until the first English cannons sank Chinese ships and fortifications in Guangdong.

Finally, we can agree or disagree, that's our right and privilege. But resorting to ad hominem attacks instead of reasoning out our thoughts is not civilized discourse. I hope Mr.Khalid will accept my apologies for the rudeness shown by certain people from my community.

LChuah
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 2
...
written by Thambidoorai, December 12, 2008 01:49:01
Dear Mr Chuah,

I admire your sense of civility and intellectual generosity...i really do.

I only wonder if it is all encompassing? Whether, for example, you would be as embracing in your ideal of "agreeing to disagree" when faced with rubbish from people like Mansor Pundik, sorry, i mean Puteh.

There are times, i believe, when faced with utter unmitigated intellectual excrement from people like Mansor Pundik, the only appropriate response in vulgarity.

Cheers! smilies/grin.gif
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 0
...
written by cheekhiaw, December 12, 2008 02:11:01
To some fools, every view and opinion is the same and are equally undangerous.

That's probably why after whacking their ancestors with those English canons and full of themselves with their pope's canons, people like Rudyard Kipling called his ancestors 'half-devil half-child'.

He should learn from Mr Kipling.

xxx
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 0
...
written by Proarte, December 12, 2008 05:50:06
Before the Medina Charter, there were thriving Jewish , Christian and polytheist communities living in peaceful coexistence in Arabia for 600 years.

Muhammed's religion was spread through violence, treachery, subjugation and humiliation. The Medina Charter gave a false sense of security to those who were subjugated by Muhammed. After Muhammed consolidated his power in Medina, he then waged war against the polytheist Meccans and finally won. He then wiped out the people he had a contract with in Medina.

The proof is in the pudding. There were thriving Jewish and Christian communities in Arabia for hundreds of years . When Muhammed came on the scene,Jews and Christians were targetted as enemies.The Koran confirms this. By the time Muhammed died, there were no longer any Jews and Christians in Arabia. They were either murdered, forced to convert or exiled.

How can these victims of Muslim treachery and violence wax lyrical and be tearful with nostalgia for the Medina Charter? How did the Medina Charter prevent the ethnic cleasing of Jews and Christians from Arabia?

This pattern of persecution was repeated throughout the lands of Arab conquests. In Spain during the relatively benign rule of the al Muratbittun, considered the Golden age of Islamic Spain, Non-Muslims lead separate parallel lives to the Muslims. There was mutual suspicion and distrust but there was peace mainly due to the enormous contribution Jews and Christians to the economy and state coffers in the form of taxes. This period of properity and peace saw the flowering of the humanities, sciences, philosophy and medicine which was to have a tremendous influence in Europe. The lack of militaristic ambition and investment made the al Murabbitun vulnerable to attack and they were eventually supplanted by the the al-Mohads in a most brutal and genocidal manner. Such is the reality of Muslim 'brotherhood'.

Tens of thousands of refugees, Muslims, Jews and Christians and amongst them the finest artisans, poets, scientists and philosophers the world had known left Spain for Morocco, many settling in Fez. They brought with them a vast pool of talent and wealth which was exploited by the local al -Murabbitun Rulers who saw them as a cash cow. To this day Fez has the visible legacy of the contribution of these Spanish refugees in the form of amazing architecture and fine artwork.

The fact that even the great Maimonides was made a refugee shows aspects of Muslim rule in Spain which had been racist, genocidal and ignorant. Such was the hatred they engendered in Spain that the al -Mohads were eventually hounded out in 1492 by Ferdinand and Isabella in the final phase of the 'reconquista' with the fall of Granada and this saw the end of the 800 year old Muslim rule in the Iberian peninsula.

To my mind the Medina Charter was not worth the paper it was written on because the Jews , Christians and Polytheists were betrayed and wiped out by Muhammed's marauding army of willing 'shahids'.



report abuse
disagree 1
agree 2
...
written by AsamLaksa, December 12, 2008 11:36:12
Forget any old charter. Use basic principles of equality. Make a new system of governance from scratch that you can cater to today's values. No need to bend previous systems to fit today. Just bear in mind equality, equality, equality.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 1
...
written by cheekhiaw, December 12, 2008 11:41:19
It's OK. There are fools from the Ming era that want to catch up on learning from the world...

xxx
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 0
...
written by cheekhiaw, December 12, 2008 12:10:10
Proarte,

They did not have paper when that messenger was around - the gods were not that great yet.

When they finally got those papers from the Chinamen, everyone else were either too cowed or dead to dispute their version of everything. That's when things can be made great.

But some Ming fellas didn't know all that, so they are happy like hell to suck it in.

xxx
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 0
...
written by renoir, December 12, 2008 13:43:28
Dear Thambidoorai, I think the difference in intellect between the two persons you mentioned is obvious. Still, if I were to refute M.P.'s writings - which I won't because I value my time - I would do it with reason and not with ad hominen attacks. Reason, properly used, can be more powerful than "vulgarity."

LChuah
benzaini said…
What is written by Proarte is totally wrong and misleading. No such peaceful coexistence in Arabia for 600 years was reported in historical sources as claimed. The Jews prosecuted the Christians in Yemen and vice versa. The polytheists were against the Jews in Medina and vice versa, and were at war among themselves.

To claim that there were no longer any Jews and Christians in Arabia by the time Muhammad (p.b.u.h) died is a sign of ignorance. In Yemen, the Jewish community was there until the creation of Israel to which they began to migrate. Even in Medina, when the Prophet died, there were still some small Jewish tribes. The only Jewish tribes forced to leave Media were those of the Qaynuqa', al-Nadir and Qurayzah (some of the later were also killed) for their conspiracy and treachery against the Muslims.

As to Spain, the rule of al-Murabitun is never considered as the Golden age of Islamic Spain. That belonged to earlier period in the Islamic rule over Spain. Islam and the teachings of its Prophet could not be taken as responsible for what occurred under the al-Murabitun and other rulers who deviated from Islamic teachings. Any how, if the Muslim rule in Spain so cruel to the Jews, how did they still exist in Spain after the fall of Muslim rule and come to be persecuted by the Christians?

It is more puzzling that if the Muslim rule in general was so cruel how did "...tens of thousands of refugees...including Jews and Christians left Spain to Morocco...."..a region from which came al-Murabitun and others.

And finally, al-Muwahhidun or the al-Mohads of Proarte had long gone from Spain before the coming of Fredinand and Isabella in 15th century.

Wa Allah a'lam.

Popular posts from this blog

Berakhirnya Drama RUU 355?

Drama perlaksanaan sistem perundangan Islam yang mengambil bentuk usul persendirian YB Marang berhubung Akta 355 kelihatan menghampiri adegan penamatnya. Pada peringkat kesudahannya UMNO/BN kelihatan sebagai pihak yang meraih keuntungan terbesar dengan pembangkang berada dalam keadaan berpecah dan tidak bersepakat. Keutuhan Pakatan Rakyat yang telah mewarnai pilihan raya ke 13 pada 2013 sudah jelas hilang. Yang sepatutnya mengambil tempatnya, iaitu Pakatan Harapan, masih dalam keadaan sedikit terumbang-ambing, khususnya berhubung hubungan dengan PAS.

Tindakan UMNO/BN untuk mensasarkan PAS melalui isu perundangan Islam adalah satu ‘master-stroke’ yang tidak boleh dinafikan mana-mana pihak. Melaluinya bukan sahaja PR berpecah, namun ketidak-tentuan sikap terhadap PAS menyebabkan apa-apa tindakbalas untuk menyelamatkan keadaan menjadi tidak padu dan kurang bersungguh-sungguh. Kebergantungan terhadap PAS oleh pihak tertentu menyebabkan mereka tidak sanggup memutuskan hubungan dengan PAS s…

Video Parlimen: Melayu, Songkok dan Biadab?

Banyak yang telah diperkatakan berkenaan respon saya terhadap Pasir Salak di Parlimen awal minggu ini. Saya sertakan disini video perbalahan tersebut.



Dia mencarut dan mempermainkan nama keluarga Seputeh dan apabila ditegur terus berdegil. Kemudian dia terus mengejek Batu Kawan yang turut menegurnya. Sikap degil Pasir Salak mempertahankan akhlak buruk diri sendiri terpaksa saya hadapi dengan kata-kata keras sebegitu dan malangnya dibela pula oleh Speaker.

Harap saksikan dan nilai sendiri videonya secara keseluruhan dan jangan dirujuk satu lagi versi yang telah disunting melalui Blog BNBBC. Sudahlah akhlak tidak seberapa, cuba menipu pula?



WaLlahu 'Alam
KHALID SAMAD

Penjelasan atas Fitnah yang Disebar Kononnya Ahli Parlimen Shah Alam, YBKS 'Sembah Ayam'

1. PAS untuk sekian kali sudah bertukar menjadi parti fitnah dan maki hamun. Tiada selain memunafikkan, mengkafirkan atau dituduhnya syirik kepada orang lain termasuklah dalam gambar saat akhir video CNY yang dibuat DAP.



2. Perlu faham bahawa mengikut bahasa Cina, perkataan Na (itu) Ji (Ayam) yang kebetulan bunyinya sama macam Najib.

3. Video tersebut adalah berkaitan Kisah Ayam itu (Na Ji) yang jahat dan selalu merugikan tuannya.

4. Tuannya serah ayam itu kepada YB Teresa kerana sudah tidak mampu lagi membela ayam itu. Tiba-tiba semasa menerima ayam itu, ia terlepas lari, mereka semua mengejarnya dan berjaya ditangkapnya semula.

5. YBKS telah memasukkan ayam itu (na ji) dalam sangkar (penjara) dan ucap Selamat Tahun Baharu Cina.

6. Photo terakhir itu menunjukkan mereka semua mengucapkan Selamat Tahun Baru Cina pada Na Ji yang sudah berada dlm sangkar (penjara).


7. Tiada upacara atau scene sembahan di situ. Gong Xi Faa Chai yang disebut bukanlah penyembahan.

Seronokkah buat dan se…