Frontpage Interview's guest today is Prof. Khaleel Mohammed, Assistant Professor at the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University.
Thursday, June 03, 2004


FP: Prof. Mohammed welcome to Frontpage Interview.



Mohammed: You do me a great honor. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to introduce my views to your readers. As you know, I am interested in a moderate Islam, one that is inclusive and is concerned about all human rights. My mission is to help reclaim the beauty that once was practiced in Islam, a message not currently in fashion amongst more traditional or fundamentalist Muslims.



FP: You are yourself a Muslim and yet, quite unconventionally amongst Islamic clerics and scholars, you teach that the Koran says Israel belongs to the Jews. Can you educate us on this Islamic teaching?



Mohammed: The Qur'an adumbrates several principles that hover around a common theme: God does not love injustice and will assist those who are wrongly treated. And it focuses so much on this that the person most mentioned in the Qur'an is Moses -- who is presented as God's revolutionary, and who leads a people despised and tormented for no other reason than that they worshipped God, out of the land of bondage to the Promised Holy Land.



The Qur'an in Chapter 5: 20-21 states quite clearly: Moses said to his people: O my people! Remember the bounty of God upon you when He bestowed prophets upon you , and made you kings and gave you that which had not been given to anyone before you amongst the nations. O my people! Enter the Holy Land which God has written for you, and do not turn tail, otherwise you will be losers."



The Quran goes on to say why the Israelites were not allowed to enter the land for forty years...but the thrust of my analysis is where Moses says that the Holy Land is that which God has "written" for the Israelites. In both Jewish and Islamic understandings of the term "written", there is the meaning of finality, decisiveness and immutability. And so we have the Written Torah (unchangeable) and the Oral Torah (which represents change to suit times). And in the Qur'an we have "Written upon you is the fast"--to show that this is something that is decreed, and which none can change. So the simple fact is then, from a faith-based point of view: If God has "written" Israel for the people of Moses, who can change this?

The Qur'an refers to the exiles, but leaves it open for return...saying to the Jews that if they keep their promise to God, then God will keep the divine promise to them. WE may argue that the present state of Israel was not created in the most peaceful means, and that many were displaced--for me, this is not the issue. The issue is that when the Muslims entered that land in the seventh century, they were well aware of its rightful owners, and when they failed to act according to divine mandate (at least as perceived by followers of all Abrahamic faiths), they aided and abetted in a crime. And the present situation shows the fruits of that action--wherein innocent Palestinians and Israelis are being killed on a daily basis.


I also draw your attention to the fact that the medieval exegetes of Qur'an--without any exception known to me--recognized Israel as belonging to the Jews, their birthright given to them. Indeed, two of Islam's most famous exegetes explained "written" from Quran 5:21 thus:


Ibn Kathir (d. 774/1373) said: “That which God has written for you” i.e. That which God has promised to you by the words of your father Israel that it is the inheritance of those among you who believe” . Muhammad al-Shawkani (d. 1250/1834) interprets Kataba to mean “that which God has allotted and predestined for you in His primordial knowledge, deeming it as a place of residence for you” (1992, 2:41).

The idea that Israel does not belong to the Jews is a modern one, probably based on the Mideast rejection of European colonialism etc, but certainly not having anything to do with the Qur'an. The unfortunate fact is that most Muslims do NOT read the Qur’an and interpret it on the basis of its own words; rather they let imams and preachers do that for them.


FP: You say that when the Muslims entered the sacred land in the seventh century, “they aided and abetted in a crime.” Can you expand on this a bit? How honest is contemporary Islam with this fact?



Mohammed: How did the Jews lose their right to live in the Holy Land? All reliable reports show that it was by the looting and burning that followed from 70-135 C.E. When the Muslims entered the place in 638, liberating it from the Byzantines, they knew full well to whom it rightfully belonged. But we find that Muslim chroniclers state that the Muslim caliph accepting the surrender of the Byzantine Christian representative, Sophronius, on certain terms, one of them being that the Jews would not be permitted to enter the city. I personally have a hard time accepting this story, and aspects of its historicity because as modern scholarship has shown, Muslim reports about that time were recorded long after the fact and are not as reliable as once thought. And we know too that when the first Crusaders took possession of the place in 1096-1099, they slaughtered Jews and Muslims. If Umar had indeed signed such a treaty, what were Jews doing there?


By aiding and abetting in a crime, I refer to when Abdul Malik built the mosque there, and had false traditions ascribed to Muhammad wherein the Prophet is supposed to have said that a man should set out for a journey only for three mosques, the ones in Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem. Now how could the prophet have said this when ALL Muslims agree that when the Qur’an states "this day I have completed for you your religion" (Q5:3), that Jerusalem was not within Muslim geography? The completion means just that...with the Arabic Qur'an for the Arab peoples, and the aspect of conquest of foreign territory NOT an injunction of Qur’anic Islam.

When the Muslims conquered Jerusalem, it should have been left open for the rightful owners to return. It is possible that Jewish beliefs of the time only allowed such return under a Messiah--but that should not have influenced Muslim action. And in contrast to the report of Sophronius above, there are also reports showing that Umar in fact opened the city to the Jews. If this be the case, then the later Muslim occupation and building a mosque on the site of the Temple was something that was not sanctioned by The Qur’an. How honest is contemporary Islam with this? Given the situation in the Middle East, politiking etc stands in the way of honesty.



FP: You lecture at universities exposing these politically incorrect facts. As a result, you have been frequently denounced by Muslim groups. Tell us about their criticism/harassment of you.



Mohammed: The criticism of my work is that I am out of line with the geo-political movement towards fundamentalism. What your readers must understand is that fundamentalism is rapidly becoming mainstream. Moderation is not. A perfect example is in Akbar AHmed's "Islam Under Siege," where he points out that the Taliban are no longer a fringe group in Pakistan; many Pakistanis are finding themselves drawn to their teachings.



Right here in the US, I present a problem to those at mosques who use social pressure to coerce others into accepting their extremism. On the personal level with my family: when my wife, after years of research, decided that she no longer felt that the head covering was mandatory, and chose to venture forth without it, many of the Muslim "sisters" she greeted refused to respond--without even checking on her interpretation. Many Muslims stand against me for no other reason than I say that Israel has a right to exist.

Overall, the criticism of me follows a strange pattern: they are upset that I should give any legitimacy to Israel, assuming that in doing so, I am denying the rights of Palestinians. My answer that I in no way deny that Palestinians have rights. But this is generally not considered by those that criticize my position: because for them, it is either all or nothing.



At a recent lecture in Santa Cruz, Muslim groups put up posters saying that I claim that the Qu'ran says bad things about Jews. In fact this was a gross misrepresentation of facts: I admit that the Qur'an has verses that are polemic, but my view is that the Qur'an in fact respects the Jews (which explains Moses being so often mentioned)...but that it is the oral traditions of Islam (the hadith) that demonizes the Jews. For many Muslims, this is a hard pill to swallow because for almost 12 centuries, they have been taught that acceptance of oral traditions are a creedal element of Islam.


Often, they try to argue with selective quotes from the Qur'an--and here they lose out, because when it comes to exegesis, I have spent years studying that. And then there is the "challenge" aspect...at Santa Cruz they said that they wanted to debate. I agreed on one condition: that such debate be in public. They did not show up. In fact, the few Muslims who were present and had the patience to listen to me, could not find how I had misinterpreted or misrepresented Islam.


In Montreal, I was accused of being racist when I said that 95% of contemporary Muslims are exposed to anti-Semitic teachings. My answer, which the Montreal Gazette refused to print, was that every Muslim had to answer a simple question. Honestly. What is the interpretation of the final two verses of the first chapter of the Quran? "Guide us to the straight path--the path of those upon whom you have bestowed your bounty, not those who have incurred your wrath, nor those who are astray."



This verse has nothing about Jews or Christians...yet, almost every person learns that those who have incurred divine wrath are the Jews, and those who are astray are Christians. What is more problematic is that the average person learns this chapter and its interpretation between the ages of 5-8. And we know that things learned at this stage of life become ingrained, almost to the point of being in one's DNA, if I may put it that way.



I felt that my answer was self-evident. Do you know what the result was? Some of my closest colleagues DENIED that they had been taught this. This was more painful to me than the rejection of some Muslim leaders--for I always ask that if we deny things publicly, at least in private we admit the truth. And when in privacy, my fellow Muslims could not bring themselves to admit that which was obvious to anyone, that was in itself testimony as to how low we have sunk.

Yet, on the issue of criticism and harassment--I must state that it is only in the form of argument, without threats of any physical nature. Whatever problem my fellow Muslims have with my views, they are aware that I am a Muslim. I do not deny my religion, and therefore we can argue. Here at San Diego State University where I teach, the local MSA attempted to have me disciplined for having accused them of anti-Semitism and homophobia. They did not pursue the issue--an astute decision for they would have looked very foolish. Their answer was that they too are Semites, (the writers of the letter were by the way not even Arabs), and that they could not be homophobic since their neighbors are gays and lesbians!



FP: If Islam is going to have a reformation, from what roots will it originate?



Mohammed: The reformation will come from Muslims based in the West, and the voices of women will be loud and pivotal in that reformation. Let us look at some names that are as yet unknown to many, but names that have done so much for changing Islamic thought...names of people who may disagree vehemently with each other, but names of people who, for all their difference have done much to purge Islam of the male chauvinism that has afflicted it for centuries: Fatima Mernissi, Azizah al Hibri, Amina Wadud Muhsin, Irshad Manji, Rifat Hasan, Asma Jahangir. Not that all reform minded people are women: there is Khalid Abou al Fadl, Abdallah al-Naim, Sa'd al din Ibrahim etc. Note that they are, with one exception, all now in the West, and that they have all had a western education.


FP: Prof. Mohammed, it was an honor to speak with you and we would like to thank you for being such a brave voice within the Islamic community, where honest dialogue, unfortunately, is often stifled. We encourage you to keep fighting for a moderate Islam that is compatible with Western democracy -- and we hope your voice will have an increasing impact.



So to finish this interview, why don’t you briefly sum up for our readers -- and for many Muslims who will hopefully read this interview – how Islam actually teaches that Israel belongs to the Jews and that Muslims are obligated, by the Qur’an itself, to accept its existence.



Mohammed: The Qur'an states at the very beginning of the second chapter "this is a book wherein there is no doubt, a guide for the God-conscious." Its contents are therefore to be seen by every Muslim as being divinely ordained, and to be followed. The verses on Israel as in 5:20-21 are not there just to be read; they are there to be followed. In Islam also, there is the elemental maxim "Calamity must be removed" (al darar yuzal). Muslms must face up to reality--in the years since Israel has been established, the focus of the region has been to seek to have it removed. And they have been unsuccessful, and there seems to be no hope for success. The pragmatic, proactive thing to do would be to come to grips with reality: Israel is there to stay, and it can exist in a state of peaceful coexistence, or in a stage of bellicosity. The Qur'an tells Muslims that God will not change their position until they change it themselves--and this is a classic example for putting that edict into effect. Only when MUSLIMS themselves accept Israel will they be following their Qur'an. Israel will negotiate from a position of guaranteed security, and while there may be tension from time to time, at least peace will be the norm.



FP: Prof. Mohammed, thank you for joining us today.



Mohammed: It was my pleasure, thank you for having me here.

uh oh...fatwa pon Dara

I wonder how many fatwa's was issued for his rass.

nice interview

quote:

Originally posted by raymond:
uh oh...fatwa pon Dara

at least he has a religious degree or eduction to base his opinions/facts. Where as many based their opinions or use few incidents and not the entire picture to express their sentiments.

Dara work should be a must read for some of the idiots who are calling for the destruction of the State of Israel.

Guyana belongs to the PPP!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Pink Panther:

quote:

Originally posted by raymond:
uh oh...fatwa pon Dara

at least he has a religious degree or eduction to base his opinions/facts. Where as many based their opinions or use few incidents and not the entire picture to express their sentiments.

Was Moses a Jew?

The quran goes to say a lot of things that are just a pack of lies. If one put any believe in the assumption that Mohamed did not write it, then it becomes even more a questionable source of religious reference. Right now I believe that Playboy has more facts penned in it. And the writers are known.

quote:

Originally posted by Terry Ishmael:
Was Moses a Jew?

He sure wasn't Christian or muslim.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.T:

quote:

Originally posted by Terry Ishmael:
Was Moses a Jew?

He sure wasn't Christian or muslim.

So was he a Jew?

quote:

Originally posted by Terry Ishmael:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.T:

quote:

Originally posted by Terry Ishmael:
Was Moses a Jew?

He sure wasn't Christian or muslim.

So was he a Jew?

Hindu??

quote:

Was Moses a Jew?

He was what he was if he ever existed.

after much thought considering this issue and the eschatological model of dispensationalism I have to reject the idea that Palestine belongs to the Jews. The Old Testament Covenant was abrogated in A.D 70 with the destruction of the Temple. Judaism today in light of the Old Testament and New Testament is absolute idolatrous nonsense. The Partial Preterist Post Millennial view is much more credible.

In other words, Jews/Judaism is simply a manufactured ethno religious construct that was created merely as a vehicle for the self preservation of the group. It's no different than pan africanism, but unlike pan africanism being a defensive mechanism against the racism perpetuated by the west, Judaism on the other hand morphs into a purely offensive virus that thrives on ethnocentrism.

Present day Jewish claim to Palestine has no basis in history, religion, philosophy and LAW. It is out right theft, plunder and discrimination that is going on against the Palestinian people. Basic morality and ethics prove this.

That being said, since dispossession of the Jews from present day Palestine will be impractical, it follows that the only solution ought to be a one state with shared governance with all Palestinians that were dispossessed of their lands given an opportunity to return plus the market value of property lost. All this should be paid for by the Jews and the U.S.A.

Shared governance should be in the form of a bicameral system like the one in Switzerland.

quote:

Originally posted by BONUS:
after much thought considering this issue and the eschatological model of dispensationalism I have to reject the idea that Palestine belongs to the Jews. The Old Testament Covenant was abrogated in A.D 70 with the destruction of the Temple. Judaism today in light of the Old Testament and New Testament is absolute idolatrous nonsense. The Partial Preterist Post Millennial view is much more credible.

In other words, Jews/Judaism is simply a manufactured ethno religious construct that was created merely as a vehicle for the self preservation of the group. It's no different than pan africanism, but unlike pan africanism being a defensive mechanism against the racism perpetuated by the west, Judaism on the other hand morphs into a purely offensive virus that thrives on ethnocentrism.

Present day Jewish claim to Palestine has no basis in history, religion, philosophy and LAW. It is out right theft, plunder and discrimination that is going on against the Palestinian people. Basic morality and ethics prove this.

That being said, since dispossession of the Jews from present day Palestine will be impractical, it follows that the only solution ought to be a one state with shared governance with all Palestinians that were dispossessed of their lands given an opportunity to return plus the market value of property lost. All this should be paid for by the Jews and the U.S.A.

Shared governance should be in the form of a bicameral system like the one in Switzerland.

It is this sort of nonsense that you just prated that caused the shoah. The jews have a right to their belief and their religion and it is the mother of both Islam and Xity. There ought to be no talk of abrogation. At least they claim their scripture is from God...and this is supported by the other scriptures that came after it, albeit it selectively.
The Christian testament is much disputed about regarding what was canonical and extra canonical..but that is besides the point. It says of itself that it was written by men--not jesus himself..and it therefore is like the hadith to muslims. On that basis, Judaism certainly has its right. God never in any scripture claims to have annuled the covenant. The issue is not one of right and governance, but how to obtain such right.

quote:

Originally posted by duckers:

quote:

Was Moses a Jew?

He was what he was if he ever existed.

Moses was a madrasi..his last name was nagamootoo and he was a berbician.
Pharoah was a farmer who was noted for selling rotten bigan to figgy.
Miriam was a vendor in rose hall market
Aaron was a canecutter who beat his wife every payday.
Mohammaed used to sell clothes in big market.
There..we have all the main playas.
Jesus is a gardener that does Freak's lawn.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dara shikoh,

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.T:
The quran goes to say a lot of things that are just a pack of lies. If one put any believe in the assumption that Mohamed did not write it, then it becomes even more a questionable source of religious reference. Right now I believe that Playboy has more facts penned in it. And the writers are known.

Considering that you read playboy for your religious references, there is no fear of your intellect arising to the level of sapient humans.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.T:

quote:

Originally posted by Terry Ishmael:
Was Moses a Jew?

He sure wasn't Christian or muslim.

For a factoid creator you sure did not answer the question. or is that part of your religious worldview? Not answering straight questions/

Dara Shikoh

Interesting handle. I take it that you have studied the Mugal era. Been to the Agra Fort as yet?

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:


It is this sort of nonsense that you just prated that caused the shoah. The jews have a right to their belief and their religion and it is the mother of both Islam and Xity. There ought to be no talk of abrogation. At least they claim their scripture is from God...and this is supported by the other scriptures that came after it, albeit it selectively.
The Christian testament is much disputed about regarding what was canonical and extra canonical..but that is besides the point. It says of itself that it was written by men--not jesus himself..and it therefore is like the hadith to muslims. On that basis, Judaism certainly has its right. God never in any scripture claims to have annuled the covenant. The issue is not one of right and governance, but how to obtain such right.

Jews have a right to their belief, what they do not have right to, is the imposition of these beliefs against basic principles of ethics and morality.

Hitler dispossessed them of their property which was against basic principles of ethics and morality. The Jews dispossess the Palestinians of their property which is against basic principles of ethics and morality.

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.T:
The quran goes to say a lot of things that are just a pack of lies. If one put any believe in the assumption that Mohamed did not write it, then it becomes even more a questionable source of religious reference. Right now I believe that Playboy has more facts penned in it. And the writers are known.

Considering that you read playboy for your religious references, there is no fear of your intellect arising to the level of sapient humans.