Khalid Al Walid, The Drawn Sword of Allah (2/2)

In Part 1, we have revised the analysis sketched about Khalid.  He was not dismissed because of lavish handout to his followers, as my friend painted, but because Umar did not want him to be revered excessively by the people. 

His misery after being dismissed was not due to the little stipend received, which was below his standard to live comfortably, having been born into an aristocratic family, as A.I. Akram seemed to suggest.  It was because he was stripped of what he was: a born general meant to lead the war and lived an active, not a passive life.

It would not be too wrong to postulate that a man like Khalid was specially chosen by God himself to appear at the age his service was most wanted.  If Islam did not burst into the scene, Khalid would have been a nobody.  If Khalid did not lead the war, first against the apostasy, then against the Persians and the Romans, Islam would perhaps not spread as fast it did.  The twain were meant for each other.

It was not for sports that the Prophet gave him the title the Drawn Sword of Allah.

In this part, we shall analyze, in passing, what was really going on between Umar and Khalid.

Prior to Khalid's death, Umar realized his mistake and wanted to reinstitute Khalid into the service, but the latter died somewhat prematurely, at the age of 50 according to most accounts. The news of Khalid's death broke the heart of the people in Madinah and the womenfolk wailed.

Now, wailing for the dead was forbidden by the Prophet and Umar was about to whip those women who wailed. But before he took that action, Umar was seized by grief himself, seeing the wailing women, not only among the Makhzom clan where Khalid belonged, but other women as well, including his daughter Hafsah, the widow of the Prophet, one of the Mothers of Believers.

So, instead of whipping them, he said: "Let the women of the Banu Makhzom say what they will about Abu Sulaiman (Khalid), for they do not lie. Let the weepers weep over the likes of Abu Sulaiman."

After Khalid was long gone, one day in the company of his companions, someone mentioned about Khalid, and Umar said: "By God, he was Islam's shield against the enemies, his heart was pure from every animosity". Ali, who was there, reportedly said: "Then why did you dismiss him from military services?" Umar replied flatly: "I was wrong".

Yes, Umar admitted that he was wrong.

That of course did not make Umar any less great, for he was not an angel, free from making mistake. For instance, he also dismissed Abu Hurairah from governorship of Bahrain upon finding that the latter had become quite rich while in the service. He asked Abu Hurairah where the latter got his wealth from, to which Abu Hurairah replied from horse breeding and gifts he received while in the office.

Umar whipped Abu Hurairah, stripped him of his governorship and asked the latter to return all his wealth to the baitul mal (literally the house of wealth, but more appropriately the state treasury). Abu Hurairah did as told. When Umar wanted to reappoint him as the governor, Abu Hurairah refused. When asked why, he simply replied: "So that my honor would not be besmirched, my wealth taken and my back beaten."

Furthermore, according to one of the famous contemporary authors, Hussein Haykal, on Umar's deathbed, among the names he mentioned would have been chosen as his successors, was Khalid. The strict, highly principled and scrupulous man like Umar would not have chosen someone whom he thought unfit for the office of the caliphate.

As we know, Umar was austere, strict, and stern, but he was a just leader. He did not lack the warmth and compassion, especially to the poor and the weaklings. He was feared, but not hated. His close companions would often complain that he was too strict, especially at the beginning of his caliphate, but they all respected him highly, because if he was strict with others, he was more so with himself. He did not ask others what he himself was not willing to do.

But to his family members, he went an extra mile in his strictness. None of his close family members was appointed to important position, although many of them were more than qualified. He practised what may be called "reversed cronyism."  If one happened to be his family member, or a close relative, then he would be the least favored by Umar.

Khalid happened to be his cousin. Al Walid, the father of Khalid, was the brother of Umar's mother. Those who viewed Khalid as Umar's rival, including A.I. Akram, was missing the point. Khalid never aspired to be the caliph. He simply wanted to do what he did best, as a military general.

Umar too did not aspire to be the caliph. When Abu Bakar felt that his time was ending, he had asked all leading companions about the idea of making Umar his successor. They all agreed that Umar was the best man for the job.

When Abu Bakar called Umar and made known of his intention, Umar flatly turned down the offer. The stern Umar, however, could not match the mild but decisive Abu Bakar. His choice, which had been decided upon the consultation with leading companions, was non-negotiable, and Abu Bakar was in no mood for negotiation, so he asked Umar to take the sword hanging on the wall and brought it to him.

"What do you need it for?" Umar asked.

"So that I can kill you for disobeying my order." Said Abu Bakar in all seriousness, and continued, "you had forced me to take this job and put me into all the trouble, but when my time is over, you refuse to shoulder similar responsibility."

And that settled it. Umar got the job he did not want.

Knowing the character of both men, there was no place for rivalry between the two. Each tried to do his best within his own capacity. One as a caliph, and the other as a general.

The only fault between the two was that they were cousins. That relationship would have been a plus point for others, but Umar was unlike any other. Neither was Khalid.

It took a while for Khalid to appreciate what his cousin had done to him.  Though he harbored no hard feeling towards his cousin, he was greatly disappointed with the latter's decision.  After much thought thereafter, for he had all the time in the world to think, since he no longer led an active life at the battlefield, Khalid came to realize that his cousin had to do what he had to do.

On his deathbed, he bequeathed all his properties and his family to the care of Umar, his cousin.  That should be enough to measure the kind of man Khalid was.

On his part, the day when the news of the Khalid's death reached him, Umar was so grief stricken that he muttered a word: "Have women ever stopped mourning for anyone like Khalid?"

Well, he too was mourning like those women, except that he did it quietly.  Mourning quietly, as we know, is more melancholic than mourning in public, openly.  That should tell how he felt about his cousin. 

These are the things we need to understand when we talk about the leading companions, especially those of Khalid and Umar's stature.  As the Prophet said, the leading companions are like stars guiding our path in this world.   Our views about them, therefore, have to be worthy of their merit.

I rest my case.

Khalid Al Walid, The Drawn Sword of Allah (1/2)

A good friend of mine texted me that he had commented on my piece, the Ten Promised Paradise, and wanted to see whether I have anything to say about it. 

Seeing what he wrote, I quickly called him and asked where he got his sources.  He told me he got it from "Sword of Allah" written by A.I. Akram, an ex-general of Pakistani army.

His source does not appear to be the problem, but my friend might have misperceived a thing or two.  Other than some passages here and there which appear presumptuous, mostly from the author's own narration and analysis, the book treats the subject rather fairly.   In any case, Akram's expertise is in warfare, not in literary critic, historical analysis, or the science of tradition (ilm hadith). 

For the sake of brevity, I shall not reproduce what my friend wrote.  If you like, you can check it yourself at the link above, or here.   Thanks to him, however, I have an excuse to write briefly about the celebrated general Khalid Al Walid, the Drawn Sword of Allah.

The first thing to note about Khalid is that he was a great general who never lost the battle, but he was not a saint.  He was not a hafiz (one who memorizes Quran) like Ibnu Masud, nor a scholar like Ibnu Abbas, nor a zahid  (one who leads austere life, living like a pauper) like Abu Dzar or Abu Darda, nor a saint warrior like Abu Ubaydah Ibnu Jarrah. 

He enjoyed lawful comfort, good food, good clothes.  But these are not forbidden and were likewise enjoyed by many great companions, including Uthman Affan, Abdul Rahman Auf, Sa'd Abi Waqqas and many others.

He was born an aristocrat, being the son of the wealthy man, Al Walid, the leader of Makhzom clan.  But he did not live like an aristocrat after his conversion to Islam.  His aristocracy background was not a minus point.  Muhammad the Prophet too was born an aristocrat, and was raised by Abdul Muttalib, and then by Abu Talib, both the aristocrats of Hashim clan. 

Khalid was rather lavish in his spending on his soldiers, but he did not go beyond what was within his right.  He wanted his soldiers to be motivated, not only by the promise of Paradise, but also by what was lawful by those taking part in jihad.  He couldn't be faulted for that, for the Prophet himself did the same at times. 

Those who died as martyrs in the battle would be blessed with Paradise, but those who remained alive should not be denied of what were lawful to them.   A great leader knows how to motivate and to reward his followers. 

But Khalid was also a man who had his own mind.  Upon being cautioned by Abu Bakar that he should not spend on his soldiers except by the latter's command, he wrote back to Abu Bakar: "Either you leave me to do my job, or you will do it yourself." 

Abu Bakar acquiesed to that.  After all, Khalid's lavish spending on his soldiers was based on Abu Bakar and Umar's standard.  It is chicken feet according to our standard.  Our current leaders tend to spend lavishly in every sense of the word, and often illegitimately, on their supporters. 

But Umar, due to his strictness and austerity, wanted none of that.  So he dismissed Khalid twice.  First was as soon as he took over the caliphate from Abu Bakar.  This was not a dismissal, but of demotion, putting Khalid under the command of Abu Ubaydah Ibnu Jarrah.  Khalid continued to be field commander, and Abu Ubaydah always consulted him for important warfare strategies. 

The second was a total dismissal.  This was what our friend alluded to in his comment.  The charge was his lavish spending on his soldiers, especially on the poet Ash'ath. 

It was an unwise move on the part of Khalid.  His oversight so to speak.  To spend on soldiers was one thing, but on a poet was a different matter altogether.  Yet, Khalid did not do it illegitimately, for he spent it with his own money, not out of public treasury. 

Since it was his own money, which he secured through lawful means, mostly through the spoils of war, many companions challenged the fairness of Umar's decision.  On his part, Umar had to defend himself when challenged by the companions on his sacking of Khalid.

This is what Umar said and I quote it directly from the book written by A.I. Akram:

"I have not dismissed Khalid because of my anger or because of any dishonesty on his part, but because people glorified him and were misled.  I feared that people would rely on him.  I want them to know that it is Allah who does all things; and there should be no mischief in the land." (pg. 536)

The author went on saying that by this admission, Umar had unwittingly paid Khalid "the highest compliment that any general could hope to earn: that his men regarded him as a god!"

My friend must have overlooked the right quotation and must have written based on his misperception.

Interestingly, Khalid himself did not challenge Umar's decision, other than saying that the latter had not been kind to him.  He accepted the decision gracefully, although deep in his heart, it was nothing but a death sentence.  What good would a born general be if he is not allowed to fight in war. 

The decision had rendered him a useless man, because he was not good at anything else.  He was not a merchant who can occupy his time with trade, nor a scholar who can disseminate knowledge and take pleasure being alone, lost in thoughts.  He was a born soldier.  He was born to lead soldiers in war.  Take that from him, the meaning of his life is lost.

Bidding farewell to his troops, he said: "The Amirul Mukminin appointed me as the Governor in Syria until things started to become smooth and sweet, then he dismissed me."

A man stood up and said: "Be patient, O' Commander, for it is the time for fitnah."

If you need translation, that is a suggestion for mutiny, for rebellion.  But Khalid merely replied: "So long as the son of Al Khattab is alive, there is no room for fitnah." 

If you need another translation, that reply is akin to the famous saying of Michael Corleone in Mario Puzo's The Godfather: "It is nothing personal, only business." 

The only difference is that, when Michael started to say it, then somebody is about to be killed.  In the case of Khalid, however, it means it was within Umar's right as the Caliph of the day to dismiss his subordinate on whatever ground he saw fit. 

What he had with Umar was professional difference.  He would not want to serve under Umar if he could not do it his way.  But, if due to the differences, Umar dismissed him, he was not the one to challenge the decision either.  It was nothing personal, only business, for Khalid continued to respect Umar, and so was Umar about Khalid. 

That was the quintessential Khalid.  He was always a man of his own mind. 

As for what my friend wrote, about Khalid being struck with the plague after coming back from Madinah, after registering his displeasure to the caliph, that was a misreading from some passages in the book by Akram.  Khalid did not get afflicted with the plague, because Madinah was not afflicted with one.  The plague was at Amawas, in Palestine. 

Abu Ubaydah was afflicted with that plague, along with many Khalid's children and his soldiers who served the army there.   He lost his beloved children and soldiers because of the plague, while he himself was free from it, for he was not there when the plague struck. 

As for Khalid not being able to do much with little stipend given to him, that was the opinion of the author, A.I. Akram.  Other writers, such as Hussein Haykal and Ali Muhammad Shallabi, did not put it that way.  Khalid was no longer a governor or a general.  He did not need too much money because he needed only to spend on himself and his family.

If one cares to know what Umar really felt about Khalid, let's see what happens a few years later. 

That we shall cover in Part 2.


End of Part 1

Imam Mahdi: Do We Know What We Are Waiting For?

Some of my readers would like me to write about Imam Mahdi.

At the outset, I must say that it is not exactly the subject I feel comfortable writing.  Not because I have nothing to say about it.  Not also because the subject is too controversial to my liking.  But because the subject itself is problematic.

As I see it, if we indulge too much in the subject, we risk falling into heresy.  Yet, if we ignore it altogether, we would put ourselves in peril.  What is needed is therefore a proper perspective, a balanced view on the matter.

Now, the first thing we need to understand about the subject of Imam Mahdi is that it falls under the Islamic Eschatology and Messianic Movement categories.

This big word, eschatology, simply refers to the matters concerning the end of the world, which, by implication, also means the end of mankind.  Messianic movement, on the other hand, deals with the issue of the Savior (Messiah) who will come towards the end of the world.  Both concepts come together.

The basic idea is this. 

Towards the end of the time, just before the Judgment Day (Qiyamah), the world will be filled with wrong doing, injustice and tyranny.  The Great Beast (Dajjal) and Gog and Magog (Yajuj and Ma’juj), among others, will appear and bring total corruption to the face of the earth.

Then Imam Mahdi will appear, followed by the second coming of Isa Al Masih (Jesus Christ), who will put the earth in total order and justice.  Soon after, the Last Hour or the Day of Judgment will take place.  Then everything will be destroyed.

Let’s ask ourselves: Is this something we should be eagerly waiting?  Is there a purpose in waiting for everything, including ourselves, to be destroyed? 

The second thing we need to do is to separate between the eschatological and the messianic issues.  The eschatological issue is fine.  We need to know the signs of the end of the world.  Not knowing those signs would put us in grave danger, should we live in that era.

Yet, we should not be too overzealous about those signs.  For instance, among the signs signaling the end of the world are the appearances of the Great Beast or Dajjal and the God Magog or Yajuj Ma’juj. 

As to these, some people say that they already appear.  They are Americans, these people say.  A few decades ago, they were Russians as well. 

Well, in case we read history, a thousand years ago these signs already came.  They were known as the Crusaders.  And eight hundred years ago, they were known as Mongolians, under the ferocious Genghis Khan.  But the world has not ended, has it?  If it has, I won’t be writing this piece, and you won’t be reading it as well.

Still, we need to be mindful of those signs.  Just don’t be too over zealous about them.  As long as we adhere faithfully to the Quran and the Sunnah, we should be saved.  After all, the real danger of the Great Beast and the Gog Magog is not that they will eat us alive, but they will turn us into disbelievers. 

If they merely eat us alive but our souls are still intact, there is no real harm in that.  But if they turn us into disbelievers, then our souls will be damned forever.  Then again, are we not to protect our faith with or without their appearances? 

The question is rhetorical, of course.

The more problematic issue is the Messianic Movement.  The messianic movement exists in many faiths, not only in Islam.  The Jews also have it, as do the Christians and many other religions.

In case you are not familiar with the term, the messianic movement has to do with the coming of the Messiah.  Messiah is English for Al Masih Arabic and Mashiach Hebrew.  Literally it means the anointed.  What it really means is the savior, or the deliverer.  When the Messiah comes, he will save the world and deliver mankind from corruption, injustice and falsehood.

In Islam and Christianity, he will be Jesus in his Second Coming.  Imam Mahdi is also towards some extent a Messiah, or at least a precursor to the coming of the Messiah.  In Judaism and other faiths, the concept is more complex.  Let’s not bother ourselves with this complexity.

But there are two problems with the messianic movement which we must be mindful about. 

First, throughout history, there have been too many false messiahs.  Some of the more familiar ones are Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Sayyid Ali Muhammad. 

We are more familiar with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, because he had created the well known Qadiani or Ahmadiyah Movement, but who is Sayyid Ali Muhammad?  He is the founder of what is known as the Bahai faith.  Like Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, he also claimed himself to be Al Mahdi. 

Both of these figures happen to have many followers, and their influences continue until these very days.  There are many others less well known messianic movements led by the false Mahdi.  All those who follow these false Mahdi ended up having their faith at stake.

The Christians, too, have their own versions.  Among the famous ones are the Peoples Temple and the Branch Davidian movements.  These are the recent Christian messianic movements that ended in disaster.

The Peoples Temple messianic movement was led by Reverend Jim Jones, who claimed himself to be the Messiah.  He along with about 1,000 of his followers committed mass suicide in the Guyana jungle in 1978, apparently because there was no point of living anymore, since the world is ending. 

The Branch Davidian movement, meanwhile, had a crossfire with the FBI after the siege lasting for 50 days in the city of Waco, Texas.  The siege ended with many deaths on both sides.  This event occurred more recently, about two decades ago.  In 1993 to be more precise.

The above is the first danger of over zealousness with Imam Mahdi or the Messianic Movement.  If we are not careful with our faith, we can fall into the trap of false Imam Mahdi or false Messiah. 

The second danger is the opposite of the first, namely, when the true Messiah finally comes, he is ignored and disbelieved.  This already happened in history.  The Jews were waiting for their Messiah.  But when he came, their scholars, leaders and many common folks among them not only rejected him, but they plotted to kill him as well. 

Killing him they did, or at least they thought they had killed him through crucifixion, with the help of the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate. In case you are wondering whom I was referring to, that Messiah was none other than Jesus Christ or Isa Al Masih.

There was also another occurrence, and this affected the Jews as well.  In the Seerah, we know that the Jews in Madinah and Sham were waiting for the new Prophet (or new Messiah if you like).  When Muhammad the Prophet really came, we know what happened.  Only a handful followed him.

For the reasons explained above, I personally feel that we should approach the issue of Imam Mahdi with an objective mind: neither irrational, nor “too rational” either. 

Some well known rational scholars, including the much celebrated Muhammad Iqbal, do not believe in the concept of Imam Mahdi.  Iqbal thought that it has no basis in the Quran and the traditions.  To him, it is an Iranian or a Shiite concept.

Al Maudoodi, on the other hand, regards him merely as a reformer or a revivalist (mujaddid), who will be raised every 100 years to reform what had been deformed by bida’ah (innovation).  The concept of mujaddid is unanimously agreed by all scholars.  Disagreement is only on who is the Islamic Reformer in any given century.

This modernistic or rationalistic thinking does not seem to be surprising, because the concept of Imam Mahdi is most fertile among the Shiites.  They are obsessed with that.  If we are to believe what the Shiites say, there have been too many Imam Mahdi already.  And the Shiite concept about Imam Mahdi is far more complex than what the Sunni believes.  But let’s put those differences aside.

Be as it may, since many leading scholars, including the much celebrated Ibnu Khaldun, believe that the traditions (ahadith) about Imam Mahdi are well grounded, albeit with Shiite leaning, it is therefore not wise to reject it altogether.  While Imam Bukhari and Muslim, the twain who compiled the most authentic traditions, did not record anything about Imam Mahdi per se, Imam Abu Dawood, Ahmad and Tirmidzi did. 

Personally, I would suggest that we take a balanced view about this matter.  We should not be too overzealous about it, but should not disregard the issue completely either.  The first is to guard ourselves against the false messiahs, and the second is to guard ourselves against disbelieving in him, should he come during our times.

In the final analysis, if we faithfully adhere to the Quran and the Sunnah, I suppose it does not matter one way or another, because we already have the trustworthy criteria to judge between the truth and the falsehood.  Thus, anyone claiming himself to be Imam Mahdi but his teaching contradicts the Quran and the Sunnah, then he is a fake. 

On the other hand, anyone whose teaching and practice are grounded in the Quran and the Sunnah, we should follow him, even though there is no honorific title Al Mahdi given to his name.

Have I Gone Astray? Help!!!

I launched my blog two months ago. 

Well, a little less actually, since the first posting was on December 12, 2011. 

From the beginning, I have been receiving encouraging remarks, mostly given in private, either through email, sms or in person.  These compliments made all the hard work felt worth it. 

Quite a handful, however, said that the blog is way too heavy and too serious for them.  I shrugged it off, saying that the blog is meant to be serious.  It is a commentary you see.  How can a commentary, or tafsir, be light.

One English teacher, a daughter of my good friend, said that it is a nice cut and paste work.  Hah?????  Is my writing that bad?  Have I failed to write coherently, as the cut and paste work generally is?  Or, does she think that I don’t know all those stuff I wrote?

Some asked me whether I have my sources.  What sources?  I couldn’t write all those things without having references.  This is a blog, my dear.  I am not going to burden myself and my readers with bibliography.  I am not doing a Ph.D. thesis, you see.

In short, I chew all those feedback but then spitted them out, without digesting them.  They all seem like natural comments to me. 

But last night, while having a talk over a dinner with my colleague, who used to work with me some years back, but is now separated by the South China Sea, for I am in Malaya (as the West Malaysia used to be called), and he is in North Borneo (as Sabah used to be called), I felt rather disturbed. 

He is a follower of my blog.  He has been reading it religiously.  "It is quite a task to read your blog," he said.  "I have to scroll up and down to keep track of the idea.  Maybe because of the subject matter, or perhaps due to my English command, but that’s not how I want to read a blog," he continued. 

It is rather boring, too academic, and feels like reading a textbook.  That was the gist of his comment. 

No one has told me that my blog is boring, or too academic, or reads like a textbook.  I can brush off all other comments.  But this comment I cannot ignore. 

You see, I can laugh it off if people say that it is heavy, for Seerah and History are not joking matters.  But when someone says that it is boring and too academic, then I feel concerned.  Yes, I care about my blog.  More so because he is one of those who religiously follows my writings.    

Well, I didn’t lose sleep because of that comment.  It is not a sin to write a boring blog.  A futile exercise, perhaps, but can still be remedied.  Besides, the pageviews keep increasing.  Hence, all is not lost…not yet.

In the morning, I got another surprise.  A facebook friend of mine dropped a message: About your blog, I haven’t ventured into it yet…too heavy a reading, he he he….

In case you are wondering, I didn’t expect that kind of comment from her.  She is an academician, you see, a lecturer at one of the universities.  If my blog is too heavy a reading for a person of her standing, then what chance do I have with the less academically inclined folks?

Now my dear readers, if you read this far, please take a moment of your time to answer this question: Is my blog too heavy a reading for you?  If you don’t find it heavy, do you think that it is a little too heavy for most people?

If you don’t mind and have some ideas, please suggest how I can make it readable, enjoyable and fun without compromising the substance.

I thank you all in advance. 

P.S.: If you have something to say in Malay, can too.

Is Jesus A Jew (2/2)

In Part 1, we have seen that due to their errant behavior of making the gold into a cow statue and declaring it to be their god, the Israelites were made to wander in the wilderness for 40 years.  This happened while Moses went to the Mount Tur to receive further guidance from Allah. 

Being the descendants of Jacob, the Israelites worshipped one true God, but there were elements in their society who were affected by the religion of their masters, the Egyptians.  How they could easily fall into idolatry is somewhat surprising, but we need not analyze it here.  Probably only a minority among them who really fell into disbelief, while many who joined the party of Samiri did it for excitement or for fun, considering the dreaded life they were experiencing after escaping the slavery in Egypt. 

Needless to say, that was not the first of their errant behaviors, and was not the last.  From time to time, they fell into disbelief, showed weak faith, or displayed the kind of behavior unfit for the Chosen People, as they fancied themselves to be, even to these days.  For instance, when Moses asked them to fight against their enemy, they replied: “You go ahead.  If you win, we will join you.  If you lose, at least some of us would still be alive.” 

For those errant behaviors, the land promised to them was beyond their reach for about three centuries.  It was around 1050 BC or about 250 years after they left Egypt that they managed to gain some ground.  Under their first king, King Saul, who hailed from the tribe of Benjamin, Joseph’s full brother, they defeated the dominant nation who controlled Canaan at that time, the Philistines. 

It was a young soldier in King Saul’s army, a shepherd by the name of David, who changed the course of the event.  David rose to replace Saul when the latter died.  Under his leadership, he unified all the tribes and established a unified Kingdom of Israel.  King David, of course, was none other than the Prophet Dawood.  When King David died, he was replaced by his son, Solomon.  Under his leadership, the Kingdom flourished ever further.  King Solomon, of course, was none other than the Prophet Sulaiman.

Fantastic tales made it look as if King Solomon was the ruler of the world.  The reality was somewhat different.  King Solomon was powerful, no doubt.  He was a man of wisdom.  God gave him many special abilities, such as communicating with animals or using the genie race (jinn) as his slaves, but he was no land conqueror like Genghis Khan.  He was rich, powerful and very influential, but conquering other nations was not his hobby.  His kingdom was only slightly larger than the current Israel and Palestine combined. 

Yet, while the size of his kingdom was relatively small, he was powerful and influential because of his diplomatic relation with other empires at that time.  Due to his wisdom and justice, he was respected and revered not only by his people, but by other kings as well. It seems likely that other empires paid tribute to him. It was partly because of these diplomatic relations and political alliances that he had many wives.  Three hundred wives and seven hundred concubines it was said, making the total about one thousand.

But when he died circa 930 BC, the United Kingdom of Israel broke into two.  The northern part of the Kingdom, home to ten of the twelve tribes of Israel, refused to accept the sovereignty of Solomon’s successor.  They seceded and established an independent Kingdom known as the Kingdom of Israel, taking the original name of the kingdom.  The southern part, ruled by Solomon’s descendants, was known as the Kingdom of Judah, since Solomon, the son of David, was from the tribe of Judah.

Unlike the Kingdom of Judah, which recognized that the monarchy had to be from the line of Judah, the Kingdom of Israel recognized no such thing.  Succession of power depended on who was more acceptable to the ten tribes.  For that reason, it became less stable due to internal strife for power as well as foreign threats, including the threat from her sister kingdom in the south. 

By 722 BC, it was conquered and annihilated by the Assyrians, after slightly more than 200 years in existence.  It was said that all those ten tribes were captured and brought in captivity in Assyria, and thereafter lost without a trace, and hence known as the Ten Lost Tribes.  It is possible that many of them were enslaved and lost into oblivion, but the more likely scenario is that many of them escaped and lived in the Southern Kingdom, the Kingdom of Judah.  In any case, the Kingdom of Israel was no more.  There was only the Kingdom of Judah.

The Kingdom of Judah too was annihilated in 586 BC by the Babylonian King, Nebuchadnezzar, and the Temple of Solomon, completed in 960 BC, was razed to the ground.  The Israelites were once again became the people without the kingdom, but this time their condition was worse.  They were scattered all over, no longer forming a cohesive group, unlike the time when they had the empire, or even when they escaped out of Egypt. 

In 332 BC, Alexander the Great conquered that land, but there was no mention that Alexander had either conquered Israel of Judah.  This tells us that no such kingdom existed at that time.  The Children of Israel did exist, but they were without kingdom of note.

They rose again in 167 BC and established a dynasty known as Hasmonean Dynasty, led by their leader, Judah Maccabee.  But this was not a powerful or unified kingdom like the time of David and Solomon.  This dynasty was at last conquered by the Romans under Pompey, a Roman general who was at first the ally but later the rival of Julius Caesar.

The Romans called the area Judea and the people there the Jews.  It was during the Romans’ occupation that Jesus was born.  By then, the term Israelite was no longer in vogue.  This group of people was simply known as Jews.

So, was Jesus a Jew?  You bet he was. 

One may argue: Since you put it that way, then Jesus may be called a Jew.  But, if we want to be more specific, is he a Jew (that is, from the line of Judah) or is he a Levite (that is, from the line of Levi)?

Well, I don’t really see the need to be specific in that way.

But, one may further argue, the Quran says that he is a sister of Aaron and from the family of Imran.  This means that he is a Levite rather than a Judah.

Considering that both Levi and Judah, along with the other eight brothers, were accomplices in the crime of trying to get rid of Joseph, I fail to see the significance of Jesus being the descendant of any of them.  At the same time, considering that from both lines appeared great prophets and kings, being the descendant of either would be a great honor in itself.  But Jesus is honored not so much because of his ancestors, but because of himself.  We shall talk more about him in later entry.

The End

Is Jesus A Jew (1/2)

One of my readers who goes by the name Maal wrote the following comment in Is Jesus Prophet Isa:

Wasn't Jesus/Isa an Israelite (Bani Israel) as his lineage was through Levi/Lawi on to Jacob/Yaqub (a.k.a Israel)? He would have been a Jew only if it was through Judah/Yahuda.

My short reply on the above question is already sufficient, but I thought a little history on these people and the usage of the term would help. 

But first, it has to be mentioned that the term Jew is being used to refer to many things.  Sometimes it refers to people, such as the Jews of America, the Jews of Israel, and the Jews of Russia.  Sometimes to behavior, and this is often used derogatorily, such as “you would be screwed if you deal with a Jewish merchant.” 

At other times, it refers to culture, a culture which is distinct from other culture, in the sense that the Jews always maintain their unique cultural identity.  In this sense, the Chinese are observed to have more or less similar characteristic, which lead them to be labeled as the Jews of the East.  It also refers to religion, for the Jews as people and Judaism as religion are inseparable.   You can be a Malay, a Chinese, an Arab, an Indian, and be a Muslim or a Christian at the same time, but you must be a Jew too if you want to convert to Judaism.

As you can see, the term is not used for one thing only, but for multiple usages.  There are many more to the above, but let’s limit to that for now.

Why such multiplicity of meanings and usages?  The reason is historical.

The Jews belong to ancient people, said to be the descendants of Abraham, through his grandson Jacob, known as Israel.  Abraham was said to have lived around 4,000 years ago.  Jacob probably lived around 3,800 years ago, thereabout.  He had 12 sons.  The most well known ones are Joseph, Levi and Judah.

Joseph is famous because he was also a prophet, and because he had an interesting life.  We have already narrated his story in Surah Yusuf: The Story That Brings Comfort. As for Levi (Lawi) and Judah (Yahuda), they are not famous because of themselves, but made famous by their descendants.  Levi is the ancestor of Prophet Moses, Aaron and most of the Israelite prophets.  The priestly caste among the Israelites belongs to Levi tribe.  Judah is famous because his descendants later on became the kings for the Israelites, starting from David and Solomon.  It was also from his name that the word Jew came into existence.

From the story of Joseph, we know that Jacob had twelve sons.  Some of you might have thought that he got these sons from only one wife, because I did not narrate it there.  Actually, he got these twelve sons from four wives.  It is said that he had 17 children altogether, the other five being daughters. 

What is interesting about his wives is that two of them were sisters, and the other two were bond maids of each of these sisters.  These two sisters who were his wives were his cousins, for they were the daughters of his uncle Laban, who was the brother of his mother Rebecca.  What is more interesting is that, if the Biblical story is accurate, he wanted to marry only one of them, Rachel, the younger and more beautiful sister, but ended up marrying the elder sister, Leah. 

Well, he got tricked so to speak, by his own uncle no less.  Angry for not getting what he coveted in the first place, he went to complain to his uncle, who simply replied that it is improper for him to give the younger one when the elder is still unmarried.  If you want Rachel, his uncle said, you have to continue working for me for another seven years.  Jacob was already serving his uncle for seven years, which was a condition for him to marry Rachel, but instead was given Leah.  In any case, since it was Rachel whom Jacob desired, he had to serve his uncle for another seven years, making it altogether 14 years.

When Jacob married his cousins, it is interesting to note that he got to marry their bond maids as well.  Thus, instead of having only one wife, he got four.  As many men would say, it is not a bad deal indeed, in spite of having to wait for seven more years. 

If one thinks that the story of Joseph is interesting, the story of his father is even more so, for it was full of intrigues.  We may write about him one day, God willing.

For the moment, let’s stick with the matter in hand. 

As we have also seen in the story of Joseph, Jacob had migrated to Egypt from Canaan.  He brought all his family members, 70 of them.  They lived as respectable citizens in Egypt because Joseph was the leading minister there.  Two or three generations later, the memory of Joseph faded from the minds of the Egyptians.  Some said the dynasty had also changed.

The new dynasty, whose king was known as Pharaoh, did not look at the descendants of Jacob kindly.  This dynasty was also affected by grandiosity.  They liked to build majestic monuments, mega projects.  To do that, they needed many slaves.  So they enslaved the descendants of Jacob as well, whom they called Habiru, probably their variation of what we know as Hebrew, or Ibrani in Arabic.  It seems possible that during that time, the name Israelite was not yet in common use.  The name of Jacob’s distant ancestor, Eber, from which came Hebrew, was used instead.  But since the Quran used the term Israelites, we might as well go by that name. 

In bondage, the Israelites were looking for the deliverer.  God answered their call by sending Moses.  Moses brought them out of Egypt, crossing the sea and encamped in the Sinai Desert.  Their final destination was Canaan (current Israel and Palestine, and part of Jordan), the Land of Promise, the land of their forefathers.  It was in this land that Abraham finally resided, and it was in this land that Jacob lived before he brought his whole family to Egypt.  And it was also in this land that both Abraham and Jacob were buried.

As was inspired to him, Moses went to Mount Tur, searching for new revelation, seeking guidance from God as to what to do next.  He left his people under the charge of his elder brother, Aaron (Prophet Harun).  Once in the desert, the Israelites felt the pain of living in the harsh desert. 

In Egypt, they were in bondage, yet food was not only aplenty, but had many varieties as well.  In the desert, they felt hungry.  Moses was also not around to give them guidance as to what they should worship.  They were the descendants of Jacob, and it was the God of Jacob that they worshipped.  But in Egypt, they observed that the Egyptians worshipped idols.  In this state of confusion, a man by the name Samiri, who was wealthy and was reluctance to leave Egypt, agitated the masses and blamed Moses for causing all the difficulties they were experiencing.  Without Moses, Aaron was too weak to prevent Samiri from making mischief.

It didn’t take long before many of them fell into disbelief.  Taking all the gold they brought from Egypt, they smelt it and shaped it in the form of a cow.  This is our god, Samiri and his goons shouted.  Perhaps looking for excitement, or perhaps because many of them had weak faith, they joined the party of Samiri and had the days of their lives—dancing, drinking and did all sort of things.  Aaron and others who had stronger faith looked at them in agony, but were helpless to prevent the orgy.

When Moses finally came back, he was shocked to see his people whom he had just delivered from the bondage in Egypt.  Legend has it that Moses threw the stone engraving the Ten Commandments, and the earth split and swallowed the offenders.  Quran commentators say that for this terrible behavior, the Israelites were made to wander in the wilderness for 40 years.  They were allowed to survive by feeding only on the “manna” and “salwa”, which, according to commentators, were quail and mushroom.

For that behavior and many others, which we do not need to narrate here, their final destiny to the Promised Land was made to delay by almost three centuries.  It was only by the year 1050 BC, or thereabout, that they finally managed to have a king and started to grow powerful.

End of Part 1

Namesake: Is Jesus Prophet Isa?

Let me say up front that I did not plan to write this piece.  I have four drafts ready to be posted, and a few others under construction.  And I was planning to publish a different entry.

Out of the blue, however, a good friend of mine, a distant relative of the Prophet (for he belongs to the Sayyid clan) texted me that I shouldn't use Jesus to mean Isa.  I replied that I write my blog in English, and since in English the Prophet Isa is commonly written as Jesus, I simply employ conventional usage.  Likewise I write Joseph instead of Yusuf, or Jacob instead of Yaakob, or Abraham instead of Ibrahim.

He contested that I can use all those Anglicized names for other prophets, but not for Jesus.  Jesus is not Isa, he said.  I tried to explain again, saying that it is just a matter of nomenclature, a linguistic usage.  Still he was adamant with his stand.

Seeing that he was adamant, I asked what had led him to that conclusion.  He explained that there had been a debate in his community mosque and they all decided that Jesus is Jesus, and Isa is Isa.  I replied that if such an issue can become a concern in his community, perhaps it is also an issue to others, and I told him that perhaps I should write about this namesake thing in my blog. 

Well, this good friend of mine is not a Sayyid for nothing.  Instead of being persistent with his stand, he thanked me for listening to his concern and said I should put this issue into perspective. 

Now, let's get straight to the issue in hand: Is Jesus the Prophet Isa?

Well, strictly speaking, neither of those.  When he was born, he was neither called Jesus, nor Isa.  Rather, he was called Yehoshua.  Jesus is English; Isa is Arabic.   He was a Jew, you see.  On the eight day of his birth, he was circumcised and given the name Yehoshua in his language, Aramaic, a Hebrew dialect.

But, is Jesus the Prophet Isa?

Well, yes and no.

From a linguistic point of view, it is just how his name is pronounced or written in English.  Thus, Jesus is definitely Isa, when the same person is being referred. 

But, if you talk about Jesus of Christianity and Jesus of Islam, they are not quite the same.  For one thing, Jesus in Islam is only human.  In Christianity, however, he is both God and human.  If you want to go a little deeper, Jesus is 100% God and 100% human, but if you sum up the two, the total is not 200%, but still 100%.  It is like God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.  They are all one.  Three distinct personalities but of the same essense.

Be careful with the word you use: the same essence, mind you.  Not similar essence.  If you say similar essence, you are a heretic.  The technical word is homoousios (homo=same; ousios=essence); not homoiousios (homoi=similar). 

Well, this is going too far.  We reserve this complex subject for later entries.  The point is, from a purely linguistic point of view, be it Jesus, Isa or Yehoshua (or Yahshua), these names are all referred to the same person.  A rose in any other names, Shakespeare observes, smells as sweet.  

The more practical question is this: Can the Muslims call Jesus to mean Isa?

Now, if you happen to believe that Jesus is the corruption of Greek G-zeus (Latinized as Iesus or Iesous), where Zeus is the Greek's King of gods, then the use of this name does not seem to be appropriate.  But this is only a theory (please go here if you are interested).  The fact is that the name Jesus has been used for ages, in scholarly works no less, both by Muslims, Christians, and others.  When the name Jesus is used, they mean what the Muslims call the Prophet Isa.

If there is no definite prohibition from the scholars on the usage, and given that the name Jesus has been used for ages and has become a norm, what is so wrong about that?  If we use different name, it might confuse some people, or at least become oblivious to some.

Besides, why are we allowed to use Abraham for Ibrahim, Jacob for Yaakob, Moses for Musa, Lot for Lut, etc.? 

One may reply: because when those names are used, they are being referred to the same people, but when Jesus is used, he is not being referred to Isa.  Fine, but what if we say that when Jesus is used, we mean Isa, and we use Jesus only because it is customary in English to go by that name?

One may respond: it is offensive because the Christians believe that Jesus is not only a human, but also a God.  Hence, Jesus of the Christianity is definitely not the same as Isa of Islam.  Point taken, but if we go along the line of offensiveness, is it not offensive for Muslims when in the Bible the Prophet Lot is said to have committed adultery with his daughters?  Prophet Lut committed adultery with his daughters?  God forbid. 

Or that the King Solomon had fallen into idolatry.  Prophet Sulaiman (King Solomon) is an idolater?  God forbid.

Or that the Partriach Abraham had tricked his wife Sarah and his son Isaac during the sacrifice.  Prophet Ibrahim tricked his wife and his son?  Didn't he explain the dream to both of them?  Were not both of them willingly submitted?  And who are these Sarah and Isaac?  It was Hagar and Ishmael, for God's sake.

Well, I can go on, but I think you have got the point.  Even if you don't, I have made mine.

I will continue to use Jesus to mean Isa, or any of those as the occasion arises, because I happen to write in English in this blog.  I know a good friend of mine can take it, because he is gracious enough to see where I am coming from, although there might be others who disagree with my usage.

Unless, of course, if one can show me that it is definitively prohibited, in which case I will cease and desist.