lbn Abdun Quotes
It is forbidden to sell a coat that once belonged to a leper, or to a Jew or Christian, unless the buyer is informed of its origin; likewise if this garment once belonged to a debauched person
His quotations are very important because he wrote many of the Islamic legal opinions that governed Muslim Spain and influenced the Arabs of North Africa. This quotation is an excellent insight to the “tolerance” that Islam has had for Christians and Jews. These “People of the Book” The Prophet had instructed were not to be required to convert to Islam—as others were. They could worship provided that they pay a special tax. However the Prophet’s disciples went much further in establishing the way the “tolerance” was to function. Essentially, the Muslim society in general was to scorn the People of the Book and restrict their rights and freedom in many ways. In addition the attitude was to be very negative. In this famous quotation, the Christians and Jews were so lowly esteemed that Muslims had to be warned about the previous owner—the same as if the coat had belonged to a leper. Ironically, at the same time Jews were appointed to some of the highest positions in Andalus government, so these attitudes were not universally held. See {623775}.
lbn Abdun. ?-1134, Spanish Islamic Andalusian Maliki Jurist, Judicial Opinion, ~1100
Sourced by: Eigen's Political and Historical Quotations
He was referring to Joseph ibn Naghrela, the son of Samuel ibn Naghrela ({623786} & {623774}) The father had been the vizier the King and the son was appointed Secretary to the Muslim King. He was one of the Muslims who were jealous that Jews should have influential positions in a Muslim society.
Many Muslims did not want science and technology to fall into the hands of the heathens. Even today America limits the information and technological products that can be exported to the Islamic nations. At the time it was the case that some Christian and Jewish Scholars translated Islamic scientific treatises and promoted them under their own name, but most of the translations were published and labeled as such .The reason was that at that time Europe was emerging from the Dark Ages and was scientifically relatively ignorant whereas the Muslims had the best scientists and mathematicians in the world. It was more prestigious and credible to attribute science material to Muslims. At the same time, a good bit of the Islamic science texts were translations of the great Greek scientists and some Muslims offered it as their own. Most however translated the Greek works and labeled it as such. Ibn Abdun quotations are very important because he wrote many of the Islamic legal opinions that governed Muslim Spain and influenced the Arabs of North Africa.
His quotations are very important because he wrote many of the Islamic legal opinions that governed Muslim Spain and influenced the Arabs of North Africa. This is yet another example of the classic antipathy that many Muslims have for People of the Book—Christians and Jews.
This sura has been in great controversy throughout the Muslim Empires. In part it separates many of the Arab cultures from the Ottomans. The latter had an organized meritocracy whereby Jews, Christians and other “heathens” of exceptional talent were sought out for advisory and leadership positions. In part this was justified as requiring that the Caliph and the Sultans had the power of life and death over their key appointees, hence they had to be slaves and other suras prohibited Muslims holding other Muslims in slavery. Even in modern times some Muslim countries have had key non-Islamic appointees and others would not. In historical practice, the Ottoman Empire utilized far more Christians and Jews that those societies involved Muslims until relatively recent historical times.
The Koran is even more discriminatory regarding Jewish & Christian clerics: {584380}.
This sura has unfortunately been used by some Serbians and other Christians to justify ethnic cleansing against Muslims.
See {617160} for a similar legal opinion. The concern was that poor Muslims may desert their faith when they see how well-dressed the tolerated people, Christians and Jews, are. They might conclude that Christianity or Judaism is better at making people wealthy than was Islam. See {617162} for a Koranic support of the idea. The Western view of this is generally, that is what the marketplace of ideas is all about. In 21st century America, Jews and Mormons on the average were the wealthiest religious groups. The logic of al-Ramli is that Mormons and Jews—each only 6 percent of the population—should not be allowed to show their wealth, lest Roman Catholics for example—25 percent of the population—will convert from Catholicism to the other two religions. From a democratic point of view, the response should be, we so be it. That is their choice. But America is the living proof that the assumption of conversion and loss of faith is per se wrong. The Mormons and Jews are visibly more successful, yet there are very few Roman Catholics leaving their church and converting to the two wealthier religions. There are some, but not at any greater rate than people convert from “wealthier” religions.
See {617157} for a similar legal opinion. The concern was that poor Muslims may desert their faith when they see how well housed the tolerated people, Christians and Jews, are. They might conclude that Christianity or Judaism is better at making people wealthy than was Islam. See {617162} for a Koranic support of the idea. The Western view of this is generally, that is what the marketplace of ideas is all about. In 21st century America, Jews and Mormons on the average were the wealthiest religious groups. The logic of al-Ramli is that Mormons and Jews—each only 6 percent of the population—should not be allowed to show their wealth, lest Roman Catholics for example—25 percent of the population—will convert from Catholicism to the other two religions. From a democratic point of view, the response should be, we so be it. That is their choice. But America is the living proof that the assumption of conversion and loss of faith is per se wrong. The Mormons and Jews are visibly more successful, yet there are very few Roman Catholics leaving their church and converting to the two wealthier religions. There are some, but not at any greater rate than people convert from “wealthier” religions.
At the time, the Muslim discrimination, terrible as it was, was not as bad as Christian discrimination against any non-Christians where death was very common. For many Muslims, the older historical values and practices are desirable if not mandatory today, while many others are modernists like most Christians who reject the Christian practices and morality of the past,
Toleration is a relative term. The Muslim Moors made Christians (and Jews) pay a special tax. At times they were forced to wear special clothing so that they could be readily identified. And they could not build churches larger or taller than the smallest mosque in the community. At times, their occupations were restricted but at other times Christians and Jews were appointed to the highest positions like Vizier. The Inquisition, in contrast, forced all Muslims (and Jews) to leave the country without any of their property or money or be tortured and killed—usually by burning at the stake unless of course that they converted to Christianity.
It is this verse that for some Muslims justifies terrorism against non-Muslims. See {584354} for a specific example. There are similar provisions in the Old Testament which a few extremely conservative Jews and Christians have used to advocate for blasphemy being a capital crime. Note that if an unbeliever repents and becomes a Muslim, he should be spared.
In Christian Europe anti-Semitism was rampant until the end of WWII. Innocent Jews were tortured and massacred. Many Islamic lands were much more tolerant and humane; many Jews not only flocked to them but thrived. Great Jewish Rabbis and philosophers did much creative work in Islamic lands—especially Andalusia which was then a Muslim nation. So many Muslims who deplored the Holocaust were puzzled when the United Nations placed the Jewish Homeland in the Middle East. Why not have Israel in Germany? However the Jews had a kingdom encompassing Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and much else of the Middle East centuries before Arabs ever came to the area and Islam existed. The Jews had conquered; then others did, and then the Ottoman Turks. Everyone with a claim on Palestine has taken it from some other people and then has had it taken from them by others. But there is a type of argument that the historically worst anti-Semites should provide the land for Israel.
Ethnic cleansing was a basic component of early Islam. The contemporary seeming hysteria over American troops in Arab nations, has in addition to the usual problems of soldiers from another land this background. The same is true about the presence of Israel. From some points of view, the presence of Christians and Jew in the Middle East is wrong per se because it undermines the work and intention of the Prophet.
The “People of the Book” are the Jews and the Christians who believe in the Old Testament book of God which Muslims recognize. Others who would not accept Islam would be killed, but if Jews and Christians are submissive and fell so, they may pay a special additional tax, the Jizyah.
The place of non-Muslims in an Islamic country, if any, has been a point of great anxiety among Christians, Jews, Bhais, and others. These have been persecuted and expelled from numerous Islamic countries while in others such as modern Turkey there is no problem. This particular cleric is seen as more “modern” and “liberal” than most. Even he has little concept of equality and freedom of religion.
It is often said that Judaism, Christianity and Islam share the origin in Abraham. However, orthodox Muslims use this passage of the Koran to arguer that Abraham had nothing to do with Judaism or Christianity. The time line of Abraham—according to biblical time c. 4000 BC argues more for his Judaic origins, but Western religion has his sons splitting into the great faiths. Muhammed uttered these lines roughly 600 years after the birth of Christ.
Although this verse illustrates the particular enmity that some orthodox Muslims have for Christians and Jews, philosophically the hostility it not unlike that some orthodox Christians had (and still have) for Jews. The theory was that among the more primitive people a certain “ignorance” was tolerable, but “People of the Book” were not ignorant but actually rejected the word of Muhammed or in the case of the Jews vis a vis the Christians, they rejected the word of Christ. The hate message is preached within some Christian circles about Jews and Muslims today, but the overt, visible, statement in the midst of the holiest of Scripture makes the Koranic version even more socially and ethically difficult in a pluralistic society.
