Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad

[ericc]

To Muslims and all interested in religious harmony and world peace:

Recently I came across an article by Dr. John Andrew Morrow. lafzmagazine.com/the-covenants-of-the-prophet-muhammad-with-the-christians-of-the-world/

Based upon his research, apparently during Prophet Mohammed’s time, he signed several covenants with Christians giving them protection. Dr John Andrew Morrow identified and located 6 covenants with the Christians:

1. Covenant with the Monks of Mount Sinai
2. Covenant with the Christians of the World (1630)
3. Covenant with the Christians of the World (1538)
4. Covenant with the Christians of Persia
5. Covenant with the Christians of Najran
6. Covenant with the Assyrian Christians

covenantsinitiative.com/

Briefly glancing over the Covenant with the Christians of the World covenantsoftheprophet.wordpress.com/2013/08/11/the-covenant-of-the-prophet-muhammad-with-the-christians-of-the-world-1538/

, it appears the Prophet gave his protection to them. I think I recognised some of the names of his companions as witnesses.

Seeing/reading the discrimination/destruction of minority Christians in the Middle East and South East Asia, my question to Muslims whether these covenants are:

1. Genuine
2. Still in force and
3. Compel Muslims round the world to comply.

In the interest of world peace, these would be powerful weapons against those who misuse or abuse the Muslim religion by selective reading of the Qaran to kill and destroy People of the Book.

The purpose of this post is to trigger interest in these documents and hopefully peace-loving Muslims will and can with these as supporting documents nullify attempts by aggressive Muslims towards Christians. I am aware that there are those who paint a violent picture of Islam and they do have valid reasons to believe so. These documents would be a brilliant support for a non-violent faith but these must be acted upon to secure peace and not just talk.

I believe Muslims themselves would be the most appropriate folks to approach to ascertain these documents for authenticity. These appear to be long forgotten documents. It is important to determine that these are not forgeries bearing in mind that people have tried to fake ancient biblical documents not too long ago. Do existing Muslim literature refer to these Covenants? It is strange that these Covenants were not made more prominent since these do have tremendous value, historically and religiously. Or are there vested interests suppressing them?

BUT if these documents are authentic and still binding on to the Muslim faithful, and if the Sunni and Shite leadership were to support these covenants, a substantial world peace can be achieved. For those under persecution, these covenants can save lives.

If the whole thing is bogus, please do let us know. It is important not to raise false hopes.

 

[ericc]

The interview with Dr John Andrew Morrow. A refreshing change from the typical Muslim scholar worldview. i.e. speak no evil of other fellow Muslims.

craigconsidinetcd.com/2014/02/09/interview-on-scholars-spiritual-journey-into-islam-and-the-life-of-prophet-muhammad/

 

[drac16]

Awesome!

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. John Andrew Morrow also has a book which you can find on Amazon: amazon.ca/Covenants-Prophet-Muhammad-Christians-World/dp/159731465X

 

[ericc]

Awesome!

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. John Andrew Morrow also has a book which you can find on Amazon: amazon.ca/Covenants-Prophet-Muhammad-Christians-World/dp/159731465X

We need a force of public opinion in the Muslim community to compel troublemakers and hijackers of the Muslim religion to abide by these covenants. If they don’t they shouldn’t call themselves Muslims and cloth their agenda with selected words of the Qaran while disregarding the Prophet. These covenants, if they are indicative of the mind of the Prophet, would mean that present day practice of the Muslim faith is a far cry from what the Prophet had in mind. The largest majority of Muslims reside in Indonesia and if one were to monitor the persecution of the Christians there, it is definitely not based upon these covenants. It is the strength of the secular policies of the government there that prevents religious strife to explode. Otherwise, it will be as bloody as the Middle East.

After the Prophet’s passing , it seems like the Prophet’s writings became a convenient tool for personal ambitions. If John Andrew Morrow’s allegation of deliberate destruction of the covenants is true, it depicts such groups of people are out to wipe out non-Qaran, non-hadith writings of the Prophet having clothed themselves with the label of Islam. These covenants may be a hindrance to the execution of their personal agendas. And these people are intertwined in the fabric of the Muslim community after so many centuries that it is impossible to segregate them. Many of them are holding positions of power, authority, and education.

A revolution in Muslim thought is required.

These covenants must be brought forth and publicly profiled so that the silent majority of peace loving people need not remain in silence for fear of offending their extremist religious comrades for “siding with the enemies” of Islam. I know how it is done. Moderates are asked to shut up with allegations of befriending the enemy. Anyone who question too much are also put into the same silo. Unfortunately, the one who shout the loudest and with credentials of teaching authority ( generations of their family are imams or scholars and therefore their personal opinions can’t be wrong) gets noticed and everyone else gets cowed by their ferocity into silence. And these are the ones who would love to wield power.

The religious leadership in the interest of peace and interest of preserving the legacy of the Prophet therefore must speak authoritatively on these covenants. The lay Muslims typically just don’t have the clout to make things happen. Just submit and don’t ask “unnecessary” questions else you will be tagged negatively.

 

[MartinJordan]

Professor Morrow is a Muslim. Interesting.

That said, I would have to disagree with Prof. Morrow that this should address Christians’ concerns because Jesus is God and not the slave of Allah.

Would Muhammed actually accept to leave Christians who partake in the Body and Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist to follow their Faith?

" I could easily accept Jesus as the Spirit of God, the Manifestation of God, the Epiphany of God, and the Son of God, in a purely spiritual sense which conveys the most sublime of status, however, I could not, and would not, attribute divinity to Him. A being that was born and died cannot be eternal. I never, at any point in my life, accepted that Jesus was God, much less that the Holy Spirit was God. "

Prof. Morrow - lastprophet.info/the-covenants-of-the-prophet-muhammad

What does the parts in bold mean?

MJ

 

[ericc]

Professor Morrow is a Muslim. Interesting.

That said, I would have to disagree with Prof. Morrow that this should address Christians’ concerns because Jesus is God and not the slave of Allah.

Would Muhammed actually accept to leave Christians who partake in the Body and Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist to follow their Faith?

" I could easily accept Jesus as the Spirit of God, the Manifestation of God, the Epiphany of God, and the Son of God, in a purely spiritual sense which conveys the most sublime of status, however, I could not, and would not, attribute divinity to Him. A being that was born and died cannot be eternal. I never, at any point in my life, accepted that Jesus was God, much less that the Holy Spirit was God. "

Prof. Morrow - lastprophet.info/the-covenants-of-the-prophet-muhammad

What does the parts in bold mean?

MJ

That would be obvious that Prof. Morrow has a bias being a Muslim. Many can not accept that God volunteering himself to be brought to the level of an ordinary human being to be mocked, tortured and killed. We can because we can see and feel the Love of Christ. We can because we KNOW that nothing is impossible to God. They just can’t because their God is so distant and impersonal. We can because Christ call us friends, brothers, family with our Father in heaven.

But the reason for this post is not to rehash arguments on Muslims view on Christ. It probably is ineffective until they have personal encounters with the Man himself. And you hear testimonies from time to time of their conversion to the Christian faith around the net. Real or fake, I don’t know. The Net just can’t be trusted.

But if these Covenants are real, they can be utilized to save lives when people are being threatened for being Christians. Provided they are true Muslims obeying the Prophet’s directives. But perhaps there are also cafeteria-style Muslims too. Christians don’t have a monopoly on that. I am not looking at it from a theological perspective anyway. Just as a defense mechanism to protect lives.

If we can get these Covenants to be translated to the Malay or Indonesian language, it could find its way there and may be useful for peace.

 

[MartinJordan]

That would be obvious that Prof. Morrow has a bias being a Muslim. Many can not accept that God volunteering himself to be brought to the level of an ordinary human being to be mocked, tortured and killed. We can because we can see and feel the Love of Christ. We can because we KNOW that nothing is impossible to God. They just can’t because their God is so distant and impersonal. We can because Christ call us friends, brothers, family with our Father in heaven.

But the reason for this post is not to rehash arguments on Muslims view on Christ. It probably is ineffective until they have personal encounters with the Man himself. And you hear testimonies from time to time of their conversion to the Christian faith around the net. Real or fake, I don’t know. The Net just can’t be trusted.

But if these Covenants are real, they can be utilized to save lives when people are being threatened for being Christians. Provided they are true Muslims obeying the Prophet’s directives. But perhaps there are also cafeteria-style Muslims too. Christians don’t have a monopoly on that. I am not looking at it from a theological perspective anyway. Just as a defense mechanism to protect lives.

If we can get these Covenants to be translated to the Malay or Indonesian language, it could find its way there and may be useful for peace.

Please don’t take me as glossing over what you are saying and I can understand what is the point of this “convenant” .

However, it is Prof. Morrow who is pushing this agenda that Muslims (Sunni’s, Shia’s etc) should take this attribution of the “convenant” in the right spirit as it were so that Christians can be safe.

I want to state that there is this internecine (Islamic) problem (violence) that deals with Sunni’s/Shia’s in particular doing things tat for tat and that is something that needs to be fixed before Prof Morrow goes on. His personal bias is also extremely relevant, because how can he say things like Manifestation of God etc as if he’s some Bahai. Maybe I’m ignorant but I don’t recall ANY Muslim state Jesus is a Manifestation of God in the spiritual sense.

I’m stressing therefore Prof. Morrow needs to make clear where he stands by saying “i can accept this if…” He’s talking about a historical document apparently, so he better clear up the “historical Jesus” too. Better do that than putting one’s own bias, Without this thorough research he will not get any mileage by saying “Christians concerns can be mitigated by the Muhammed convenant” intention so to speak, especially if Prof. Morrow is certain the convenant is true, then should start proving Jesus being the Truth is false.

MJ

 

[ericc]

I want to state that there is this internecine (Islamic) problem (violence) that deals with Sunni’s/Shia’s in particular doing things tat for tat and that is something that needs to be fixed before Prof Morrow goes on. His personal bias is also extremely relevant, because how can he say things like Manifestation of God etc as if he’s some Bahai. Maybe I’m ignorant but I don’t recall ANY Muslim state Jesus is a Manifestation of God in the spiritual sense.

I’m stressing therefore Prof. Morrow needs to make clear where he stands by saying “i can accept this if…” He’s talking about a historical document apparently, so he better clear up the “historical Jesus” too. Better do that than putting one’s own bias, Without this thorough research he will not get any mileage by saying “Christians concerns can be mitigated by the Muhammed convenant” intention so to speak, especially if Prof. Morrow is certain the convenant is true, then should start proving Jesus being the Truth is false.

MJ

This covenant initiative won’t solve inter-Muslim Sunni-Shite conflicts nor change his belief about Christ. His covenant initiative is not about Christ divinity at all so I am somewhat surprised that you paint the success of this initiative is related to it. The success of this initiative is not conditional among Muslims agreeing to his view on Christianity at all, but on Muslims agreeing whether these covenants exist and binding to all Muslims.

The way I see it is that he believes the Prophet has these covenants out there but few of the Muslims, Sunni and Shites, are aware and following them. To him it is not about Jesus but the Prophet. Although he use the term Manifestation of God, he doesn’t view Jesus as divine. Although they say Jesus is Word of God, they don’t view him as divine either. So their concept is vastly different from that of Christians so we shouldn’t read too much of it when they use those terms. They “owned” the Quran so we shouldn’t tell them how to interpret it neither do we want them to interpret the Bible for us. Heck, Catholics won’t want Protestants to interpret it for us and vice versa.

 

[MartinJordan]

This covenant initiative won’t solve inter-Muslim Sunni-Shite conflicts nor change his belief about Christ. His covenant initiative is not about Christ divinity at all so I am somewhat surprised that you paint the success of this initiative is related to it.

Dear Eric thanks for not biting my head off.

But You see Morrow s view on the covenant is related to personal rejectiom of Catholicism. He is first hurt that his mother left her Faith and then he goes on talk about
The Bible and extra books etc etc as a conduit to embrace Islam without even touching on what Catholicism teaches about Jesus.

He should know better that It is not only Scripture that defines who Jesus truly is. He puts his personal bias to accept Muhammed over the Apostolic Faith So there will be no mileage till he analyses Catholicism properly. He really should know better.

The success of this initiative is not conditional among Muslims agreeing to his view on Christianity at all, but on Muslims agreeing whether these covenants exist and binding to all Muslims.

How so? His adherence to Muhammad and rejection of Catholicism is INTEGRAL to his view that the document is true. There’s no way around this.

The way I see it is that he believes the Prophet has these covenants out there but few of the Muslims, Sunni and Shites, are aware and following them. To him it is not about Jesus but the Prophet. Although he use the term Manifestation of God, he doesn’t view Jesus as divine. Although they say Jesus is Word of God, they don’t view him as divine either. So their concept is vastly different from that of Christians so we shouldn’t read too much of it when they use those terms. They “owned” the Quran so we shouldn’t tell them how to interpret it neither do we want them to interpret the Bible for us. Heck, Catholics won’t want Protestants to interpret it for us and vice versa.

Now see where I’m not going to agree with you? You speak about Scripture but Catholicism is not about Scripture alone.

MJ

 

[jimkhong]

If we can get these Covenants to be translated to the Malay or Indonesian language, it could find its way there and may be useful for peace.

Hi ericc, greetings from a Malay/Indonesian speaking Christian from that part of the world.

I think it needs to be explained that the issue is not so simple. Largely because the inter-religious strife in this part of the world and in many places I suspect is not religious in nature. This is an inter-ethnic strife and nationalist politicians who utilises religions for their own nefarious ends.

Take my country for instance: Many people outside Malaysia assumes that Malaysia is Malay and Muslims. Yet, Malays are only 50% of the population despite lending its name to the country (and thereby allowing some ultra-nationalistic Malay to claim the country as ‘their’s’). The higher birth rate of Malays allow its proportion to increase from 40% during independence to 50% today but this led to much racial tensions between the Malay minority and the non-Malay populations.

Now, Malays are defined in the constitution as Muslims, ie, they are ethnically Malays as long as they remain Muslims and Malay-speaking. So, it is easy to see how one’s religious identity get rolled up into the racial identity, making the whole issue even more volatile. Throw in a further 20% of the population who are indigenuos Malay-speaking but non-Malay (originally) non-Muslim peoples, who has since become target for Muslim conversion efforts. With Muslim conversion, numbers of Malays in the population increases, helping consolidation of Malay political power.

This is only a very simplified explanation of what is going on. In such a heady mix, do you think there is space for rational, fact-based, history-informed discussion of inter-religious dialogue?

Indonesia, on the other hand, has been less religiously identified. But the inter-ethnic fissure remains wide. Chinese who makes up 2-4% of the population were perceived to control the economy. So, for decades, the Chinese (many of whom were Christians) get by by supressing their Chinese identity and adopting Indonesian names. The fall of Suharto in the late 90s liberalised the situation for the Chinese but now there is a backlash. The problem for those seeking to backlash is that the non-Chinese population is not homogeneous ethnically. So the rallying cry becomes Islam.

Again, would you expect rational discussions of doctrines in such an environment?

The world is rather different from the compartmentalised Christian religious thinking int he West. In most places of the world, religion is part of one’s identity and not one’s opinion/experience of the divinity. Even the Shia-Sunni divide is no mirror of the Catholic-Protestant differences. It is mixed in with the Arab-Farsi rivalry that dates back millenia.

Will be happy to explain this further as I think it is important for Westerners to not see the rest of the world through Western mentalities. I am not saying that nothing that works in the West will apply here but Western solutions require very heavy adaptation for them to work here - so much adaptation that they no longer resemble the solutions in the West.

 

[MartinJordan]

Hi ericc, greetings from a Malay/Indonesian speaking Christian from that part of the world.

I think it needs to be explained that the issue is not so simple. Largely because the inter-religious strife in this part of the world and in many places I suspect is not religious in nature. This is an inter-ethnic strife and nationalist politicians who utilises religions for their own nefarious ends.

Take my country for instance: Many people outside Malaysia assumes that Malaysia is Malay and Muslims. Yet, Malays are only 50% of the population despite lending its name to the country (and thereby allowing some ultra-nationalistic Malay to claim the country as ‘their’s’). The higher birth rate of Malays allow its proportion to increase from 40% during independence to 50% today but this led to much racial tensions between the Malay minority and the non-Malay populations.

Now, Malays are defined in the constitution as Muslims, ie, they are ethnically Malays as long as they remain Muslims and Malay-speaking. So, it is easy to see how one’s religious identity get rolled up into the racial identity, making the whole issue even more volatile. Throw in a further 20% of the population who are indigenuos Malay-speaking but non-Malay (originally) non-Muslim peoples, who has since become target for Muslim conversion efforts. With Muslim conversion, numbers of Malays in the population increases, helping consolidation of Malay political power.

This is only a very simplified explanation of what is going on. In such a heady mix, do you think there is space for rational, fact-based, history-informed discussion of inter-religious dialogue?

Indonesia, on the other hand, has been less religiously identified. But the inter-ethnic fissure remains wide. Chinese who makes up 2-4% of the population were perceived to control the economy. So, for decades, the Chinese (many of whom were Christians) get by by supressing their Chinese identity and adopting Indonesian names. The fall of Suharto in the late 90s liberalised the situation for the Chinese but now there is a backlash. The problem for those seeking to backlash is that the non-Chinese population is not homogeneous ethnically. So the rallying cry becomes Islam.

Again, would you expect rational discussions of doctrines in such an environment?

The world is rather different from the compartmentalised Christian religious thinking int he West. In most places of the world, religion is part of one’s identity and not one’s opinion/experience of the divinity. Even the Shia-Sunni divide is no mirror of the Catholic-Protestant differences. It is mixed in with the Arab-Farsi rivalry that dates back millenia.

Will be happy to explain this further as I think it is important for Westerners to not see the rest of the world through Western mentalities. I am not saying that nothing that works in the West will apply here but Western solutions require very heavy adaptation for them to work here - so much adaptation that they no longer resemble the solutions in the West.

Great info there Jim.

Now for your perusal see this from Prof Morrow : "The sad fact is that most of the high-ranking authorities of Islam have never studied them themselves. Likewise, knowledge of the Covenants of the Prophet is virtually absent among contemporary Europeans. If we flash back one hundred years, virtually every single educated Muslim would have known about the Covenants of the Prophet. "

What do say about the above?

From : lastprophet.info/the-covenants-of-the-prophet-muhamma.

How do you think the Muftis will react? Regardless when Prof Morrow denies he’s an elitist?

MJ

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

ericc;14295750]To Muslims and all interested in religious harmony and world peace:

Recently I came across an article by Dr. John Andrew Morrow. lafzmagazine.com/the-covenants-of-the-prophet-muhammad-with-the-christians-of-the-world/

Based upon his research, apparently during Prophet Mohammed’s time, he signed several covenants with Christians giving them protection. Dr John Andrew Morrow identified and located 6 covenants with the Christians:

1. Covenant with the Monks of Mount Sinai
2. Covenant with the Christians of the World (1630)
3. Covenant with the Christians of the World (1538)
4. Covenant with the Christians of Persia
5. Covenant with the Christians of Najran
6. Covenant with the Assyrian Christians

covenantsinitiative.com/

I take these covenants within their historical undertakings, I can see how they applied to the Christian communities who lived and existed within these territories, long before the prophet of Islam conquered their territories.

The Muslim covenants express a duly respected treaty towards their conquered subjects regarding economics, commerce and liberty to practice their religions, within the confines of their own community. These covenants do not allow the freedom of Christians to preach and teach their Christian faith to unbelievers, and practice their faith in public.

The Covenants you listed, place the Prophets of Islam over the Christians as their secular power and social ruler over them. But not as their religious leader. Yet these covenants protect and allow the Christians to exist under the secular rule of Islam.

What I find interesting, is that the covenants express a divine will of Allah and places a punishment or banishment by Muslims who violate the covenant.

The Covenants cannot apply to today’s Christians who do not live under Islamic secular/religious rule and power. When most Christians living today under Islamic secular/religious laws find themselves under extreme persecution or in violation of these covenants.

I** can see Islam reflecting upon these covenants towards (conquered) Christians, when Islam conquers a Christian territory, in order to establish a conditional peace. Yet to those Christians who live outside of Islamic secular/religious rule, these covenants you mention do not apply. We would be considered enemies of Islam or infidels. While the conquered Christians under Islamic secular/religious power are considered “People of the book”, which the Quran’s show some favor.**

I admire your post, because it reveals a true reality of today in Islam.

Peace be with you

 

[jimkhong]

From : lastprophet.info/the-covenants-of-the-prophet-muhamma.

How do you think the Muftis will react? Regardless when Prof Morrow denies he’s an elitist?

MJ

Why bother to go so far as to dig up ancient documents? Look below at the Quran verse still being analysed/taught/read/recited today.
Sura 22:40:

Those who have been driven from their homes unjustly only because they said: Our Lord is Allah - For had it not been for Allah’s repelling some men by means of others, cloisters and churches and oratories and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft mentioned, would assuredly have been pulled down. Verily Allah helpeth one who helpeth Him. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty

If there is anti-Christian feelings despite this verse which Muslims scholars consensus interpret to be Allah’s injunction to protect monasteries and churches, I don’t rate the chances of ancient documents.

Most Muslims do not read the scriptures/history, especially religious history in the same critical manner that Christians do. While we read the Bible ourselves with guidance of the Magisterium where it touches on the depository of faith, Muslims are not supposed to read the Quran without the interpretation of the Mufti or (where the local Mufti does not have the governmental authority) the guidance of an ulama. Muslim authorities in Malaysia for instance have proscribed groups for (among others) reading & intepreting the Quran without their authority. The authority of the mufti/ulama can run into minor interpretation of the scriptures in the smallest minutiae of life.

Many Muslims then repeat what they have been told by their mufti much like Catholics in the good ole days . And as there is no separation in Islam between religion and secular life/politics/identity/state, it is difficult to separate these intepretation/guidance from non-doctrinal considerations. So many Muslims religious understanding is indirectly informed the social and political forces of the day.

Only a few have an independent doctrinal analysis of what they have read in the Quran.

So, I really won’t bother arguing doctrines with most Muslims. More so when they have different views on evidence, logic and starting points. I don’t mind exchanging views so that I can understand how they think, which is important for some of the things I do. But arguing the true path of salvation is a waste of time to me. You are not going to get much more than a self sense of reassurance of one’s correctness of views.

 

[famdigy]

Seeing/reading the discrimination/destruction of minority Christians in the Middle East and South East Asia, my question to Muslims whether these covenants are:

1. Genuine
2. Still in force and
3. Compel Muslims round the world to comply.

In the interest of world peace, these would be powerful weapons against those who misuse or abuse the Muslim religion by selective reading of the Qaran to kill and destroy People of the Book.

Ericc, the covenants are genuine but the true Islam of prophet Muhammad (sawws) was hijacked and replaced with an imposter version very early in the Religion’s infancy.

let me explain.

At the end of the farewell pilgrimage, Prophet Muhammad announced that Authority both worldly and religious has been passed to his son in-law Ali (as), some of the companions close to the prophet opposed that idea and hatched a plan to assassinate him and take authority for themselves. In the days after the farewell pilgrimage, his wife Aisha administered a fatal dose of poison to him by order of her father and Muhammad’s friend, Abu Bakr. The prophet progressively became ill until he passed away.

While Ali (as) was busy preparing the Prophet’s body for burial, his hypocrite companions led by Abu Bakr and Omar had a secret meeting at a place called Saqifa Bani Sa’ida (rooftop of Bani Sa’ida). There they executed the next phase of their Coup d’état and elected Abu Bakr, as the next leader of the Muslims after Muhammad (sawws)

Abu Bakr’s new government was drastically different than that of Prophet Muhammad (sawws) leading many tribes to question, doubt, and reject his authority. Those who opposed Abu Bakr were dealt with in the most savage and barbaric ways. This entire period was called the Apostasy wars as Abu Bakr labeled anyone who opposed him an apostate.

In order to justify and give religious cover for his brutality, Abu Bakr enlisted the help of Aisha his daughter, and other conspirators to fabricate false stories of savage and barbaric actions and attributed them to the prophet. i.e. burning people alive, poking their eyes out while alive, etc…

Abu Bakr’s brand of Islam became the officially government sanctioned version of Islam and would later be known as Sunni Islam as it is today. Sunni is a derivative of the word Sunnah (Tradition) short for Ahl Al-Sunnah Wal Jama’ah (the people of the tradition of Muhammad and united consensus). The term Sunni is meant to describe a person who follows the Sunnah or tradition of Prohet Muhammad. Many Shia find this term offensive because Sunnis are following the tradition of Abu Bakr and so we call them Bakris. Sometimes we call them Adversaries or opponents because they are opponents of Muhammad and the true message of Islam.

When you look at Sunni (Bakri) Sources for history and theology you will find a lot of contradictions in the Prophet’s behavior where he is sometimes portrayed as benevolent and kind and other times a tyrant and war monger. Also, in many places around the world i.e. Iraq and Egypt where Christian minorities have been marginalized, attacked, and had their rights usurped, it is perpetrated by Bakris. That’s not to say all Sunnis are bad but there is no question their religious texts teaches violence, barbarity, and savagery.

Ofcourse the Prophet Muhammad (sawws) knew this would happen to his people and his religion and so he gave us ample warnings. In one instance he said “my nation will be divided into 73 sects, all of them will be in Hell except for one” He assigned Ali (as) as the custodian of his religion and message who passed it on to his sons Hassan and Hussain (as) who passed it on to their children and asked us to hold onto them, the Quran and the members of his household, the Ahl Al-Bayt (household of the Prophet) as they are the custodians of Muhammad’s (sawws) knowledge and message and would protect us from going astray.

The followers of the Ahl Al-Bayt (household of the prophet) were known as the Partisans of Ali (Shiat Ali), today they are simply known as Shia. Sometimes also called 12er Shia, Imami Shia, and Ja’fari Shia.

So yes, those covenants are genuine, and honoured by followers of the Ahl Al-Bayt but no so much by the Bakris.

P.S. if you are wondering why I inserted (sawws) after mentioning the prophet’s name, it’s because of verse 33:56 in the Quran "Surely Allah and His angels bless the Prophet; O you who believe! call for (Divine) blessings on him and salute him with a (becoming) salutation.

when this verse was revealed people asked him “how do we salute you with a becoming salutation?” he answered “Say, Oh Allah, Bless Muhammad and the household of Muhammad, as you have blessed Abraham and the household of Abraham…”
SAWWS is an arabic translation of Peace Be Upon Him and His Household

 

[MartinJordan]

Why bother to go so far as to dig up ancient documents? Look below at the Quran verse still being analysed/taught/read/recited today.

OIC. (I was not aware of the Quranic verse). In that case, that’s a good question.

If there is anti-Christian feelings despite this verse which Muslims scholars consensus interpret to be Allah’s injunction to protect monasteries and churches, I don’t rate the chances of ancient documents.

Agreed.

Most Muslims do not read the scriptures/history, especially religious history in the same critical manner that Christians do.

Prof Morrow therefore is in the minority, who seemed convinced Islam called him, because he has a issue with the Bible and extra books. To me he’s throwing Traditional Christianity under the bus. While saying Traditional Muslims are unaware of the “convenant”).

While we read the Bible ourselves with guidance of the Magisterium where it touches on the depository of faith, Muslims are not supposed to read the Quran without the interpretation of the Mufti or (where the local Mufti does not have the governmental authority) the guidance of an ulama.

Where do you think Prof Morrow fits in here? Is he telling Ulama’s that he is an authority in this convenant?

Muslim authorities in Malaysia for instance have proscribed groups for (among others) reading & intepreting the Quran without their authority. The authority of the mufti/ulama can run into minor interpretation of the scriptures in the smallest minutiae of life.

Many Muslims then repeat what they have been told by their mufti much like Catholics in the good ole days . And as there is no separation in Islam between religion and secular life/politics/identity/state, it is difficult to separate these intepretation/guidance from non-doctrinal considerations. So many Muslims religious understanding is indirectly informed the social and political forces of the day.

Only a few have an independent doctrinal analysis of what they have read in the Quran.

Noted.

So, I really won’t bother arguing doctrines with most Muslims. More so when they have different views on evidence, logic and starting points. I don’t mind exchanging views so that I can understand how they think, which is important for some of the things I do. But arguing the true path of salvation is a waste of time to me. You are not going to get much more than a self sense of reassurance of one’s correctness of views.

Prof Morrow was a Catholic (albeit a teen when he converted). Maybe he wasn’t Baptised and never had taken the Eurcharist because I think he didn’t use evidence, logic nor starting points about Catholicism teachings.

MJ

 

[jimkhong]

Where do you think Prof Morrow fits in here? Is he telling Ulama’s that he is an authority in this convenant?

In Muslim societies there is no authority like Catholic Church with the Magisterium and all the panoply to support it. The only authority in Islam is the Quran, which is unquestionable. The Quran is intended to be read and studied by the ulama. The ulama are Quranic scholars who are generally treated as guardians of Quranic teachings and traditions.

While there is a generally a hierarchy of scholarship, ranging from your humble village imam (Sunni)/mullah (Shia) to the professor in the Al Azhar University, there is no single central authority for accreditation or commissioning. Anyone can be an ulama and anyone can claim anything (until he/she gets excommunicated by other ulama/mullah or the mufti/ayatollah). In that sense there is free competition for ideas within the Muslim clergy much like among independent pentecostal churches.

Ulamas generally specialises, with most specialising in intepretating the Sharia (sometimes they are called muftis), usually within specific schools of jurisprudence. Others specialises in scriptures, Quranic or Hadiths. They differ from government sanctioned muftis, who are appointed or recognised by the secular government to be responsible (or some lesser role) in interpreting or administering Islam within the territorial boundaries. Such Muftis/Grand Muftis are actually a recent innovation used by the Ottoman Sultan to conquer Jerusalem - that’s another story.

So where does the good professor fits in here? First, in Islam there is no specialisation I know of regarding ancient covenants (if there is, can someone enlighten me?). So if he has a specialisation in that field, he wouldn’t be recognised as an ulama as such a field has no bearing on Islam. Unless he claims authority on Sharia/Quranic/Sunna interpretation of Islamic governmental polity or inter-communal relationships using his knowledge of the covenants to demonstrate how Mohammad applied those Sharia/Quranic/Sunni principles.

I strongly doubt if such ancient covenants will have a significant impact on Muslims today. If changing socio-political environment leads to a change of mindset among the Muslim majority worldwide (not just a localised minority currently) that Christians ought to be actively protected at the same level as Muslims, then maybe these covenants can help provide evidence to back up their altered conclusions. Even then, these covenants require the non-Muslims to accept the authority of the Muslim conquerors with all the restrictions that go with it (eg., non-Muslims cannot be ministers unless there is no qualified Muslims). So, it is a far cry from modern concepts of all citizens of a state to have equal standing in terms of rights and responsibilities.

Prof Morrow was a Catholic (albeit a teen when he converted). Maybe he wasn’t Baptised and never had taken the Eurcharist because I think he didn’t use evidence, logic nor starting points about Catholicism teachings.

I wouldn’t want to comment about how God chooses to reach out to other people. I have met many who left the Catholic faith and undeniably found God. I will therefore stand by Church teachings on this matter.

 

[jimkhong]

The followers of the Ahl Al-Bayt (household of the prophet) were known as the Partisans of Ali (Shiat Ali), today they are simply known as Shia. Sometimes also called 12er Shia, Imami Shia, and Ja’fari Shia.

And the Sunnis have a different story about the genesis of Shia Islam.

Your split is much more acrimonious and longer-lasting than the Catholic-Protestant divide. Even with the guidance of one whose injunction is to love as He has loved us, it took us some 5 centuries for a Pope and a woman archbishop to pray together for atonement.

May I pray that the al-Rahman al-Rahim may lead your two communities to show mercy and compassion to each other? The world will be a better place I hope.

 

[famdigy]

In Muslim societies there is no authority like Catholic Church with the Magisterium and all the panoply to support it. The only authority in Islam is the Quran, which is unquestionable. The Quran is intended to be read and studied by the ulama. The ulama are Quranic scholars who are generally treated as guardians of Quranic teachings and traditions.

This is only true for the Sunni narrative. In Shia societies we have a central authority that is the Imam, the successor of the Prophet Muhammad. 12 imams in total begining with Imam Ali (as) through the12th imam being Imam Mahdi (as). In the Imams’ absence, as is with Imam Mahdi (as), the Maraji Al-Taqlid have the authority to make legal decisions. In Iraq the Marja’ al-Taqlid is Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Al-Sistani. In 2014/15 ISIS took over northern Iraq and began expansion to the south even threatening to reach the majority shia cities of Karbala and Kufa. Sayyid Sistani issued a Fatwa asking all abled bodied men to pick up arms and defend the countries against the ISIS advance. This fatwa resulted in the forming of the Popular Mobilization Units who pushed back ISIS and are now on the offensive in Mosul. It’s important to note the PMU under the spiritual guidance of Sayyid Sistani helped to restore Christian Churches and artifacts to their rightful owners.

the Marja Al-Taqlid is more than just scholarship, he is an authoritative figure in Shia societies. He is not self appointed but rather recognized by a body of other Maraji (plural).

I strongly doubt if such ancient covenants will have a significant impact on Muslims today.

It does in Iraq, especially within the PMU who also have Christian brigades as members.

 

[famdigy]

And the Sunnis have a different story about the genesis of Shia Islam.

Your split is much more acrimonious and longer-lasting than the Catholic-Protestant divide. Even with the guidance of one whose injunction is to love as He has loved us, it took us some 5 centuries for a Pope and a woman archbishop to pray together for atonement.

May I pray that the al-Rahman al-Rahim may lead your two communities to show mercy and compassion to each other? The world will be a better place I hope.

The Sunnis blame the Shia for all of their misfortunes. To be fair, this is not a case of two communities fighting one another. Shias are generally peaceful and co-exist with anyone. It is members of the Sunni majority who are highly antagonistic against the Shia.

Just last week, we commemorated Arbaeen (40 days after the death of Imam Hussain (as)). 30 Million Shia pilgrims participated in the Arbaeen March of 80-100 KMs. During this time a Sunni Suicide bomber drove a truck into pilgrims and killed 80 people, women and children. The year before sunni extremists distributed poisoned water and food to pilgrims. In other places around the world, Sunni extremists have bombed shia worship centres full of worshipers, women, elderly, and children.

ISIS is a Sunni group, Al-Qaeda is a Sunni group, Abu-Sayyaf, Al-Shabab, Boko Haram, all Sunni groups. The London subway bombers, Lee Rigby killer, the fort hood shooter, Ohio State University knife attacker just yesterday, are all Sunni individuals.

Sunni Islam today is modeled after its founders Abu Bakr and Omar and is one of the most dangerous ideologies in the world, they claim to be the official branch of Islam and have distorted many facts about Islam. The radicals within this ideology see everyone who is not on their side as an infidel. We the Shia are the top of their list. You will often hear them say “the worst enemies of Islam are not the Jews or Christians, Shias are worse than Christians and Jews”

 

[jimkhong]

This is only true for the Sunni narrative. In Shia societies we have a central authority that is the Imam, the successor of the Prophet Muhammad. 12 imams in total begining with Imam Ali (as) through the12th imam being Imam Mahdi (as). In the Imams’ absence, as is with Imam Mahdi (as), the Maraji Al-Taqlid have the authority to make legal decisions. In Iraq the Marja’ al-Taqlid is Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Al-Sistani. In 2014/15 ISIS took over northern Iraq and began expansion to the south even threatening to reach the majority shia cities of Karbala and Kufa. Sayyid Sistani issued a Fatwa asking all abled bodied men to pick up arms and defend the countries against the ISIS advance. This fatwa resulted in the forming of the Popular Mobilization Units who pushed back ISIS and are now on the offensive in Mosul. It’s important to note the PMU under the spiritual guidance of Sayyid Sistani helped to restore Christian Churches and artifacts to their rightful owners.

the Marja Al-Taqlid is more than just scholarship, he is an authoritative figure in Shia societies. He is not self appointed but rather recognized by a body of other Maraji (plural).

Thank you Famdigy. I stand corrected. I was planning to include a statement that the structure of authority differs in Shia & Ibadi Islam as well as with marginal Islamic groups like the Ismaili. For some reason I forgot.

I would still like to caution that the Shia setup is not as centralised as the Catholic Church. It is probably closer to the Baptist system with a Methodist-style bishop oversight. Ayatollahs (similar to Sunni muftis) get themselves a certification and there is some sort of electoral system in most places to elect grand ayatollahs with central authority from among the accredited grand ayatollahs.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, Famdigy.

With regards to Sistani’s fatwa, I find that as with all Muslim fatwas, adherence is not automatically obligatory (you don’t get excommunicated for not following it), being very much dependent on acceptance of the umat to which it is directed. Of course Sistani’s position helps in this case.