Uswa Hasana: Difference between revisions

Modern historians tend to approach the study of particular historical periods, governments and personages from a perspective of historical and cultural relativism. So when in the course of study it comes to light that for instance Julius Caesar sold the women and children of the Gaules he defeated into slavery and paraded his enemy Vercingetorix  like an animal through Rome before executing him (likely by strangulation), although not necessarily endorsing these actions historians will tend to offer context such as explaining that such actions were not at all unusual for other people at the time. On the other hand, when a leader such as Adolf Hitler ordered his soldiers entering the Soviet Union to specifically ignore international treaties on the treatment of prisoners of war in order to brutalize and murder as many "sub-humans" as possible or to set up industrial killing camps with the objective of physically annihilating entire ethnic groups, a idea new to the entire history of mankind, historians tend to pass judgement on these actions as being worse for breaking the contemporary norms of the times these leaders lived in, exceeding even their contemporaries' expectations of human cruelty and viciousness.  

When historians turn to the historical narratives of Muhammad offered in the Sira, tafsir and hadith traditions, many actions such as Muhammad massacring and enslaving the [[Banu Qurayza]], taking [[Safia]] as a slave-wife after executing her husband, or ordering the execution of Meccan poets who had written verses against him once he conquered Mecca are contextualized by noting that these actions were in keeping with the mores and expectations of warfare and statecraft in the Late Antique/early medieval Middle East. This is more often than not perfectly true--contemporary Arabs potentates, the Romans in Byzantium and the Sassanid Persians had no concept of "human rights", "freedom of speech", or "freedom of religion" inter alia and routinely committed what would today be called crimes against humanity against minority religious groups such as the Manicheans, flaying the flesh from their bones and crucifying them, killing prisoners of war when ransom was not received, and both empires were heavily dependent on slave labor, including the practice of creating eunuchs through forced castration.  

Muhammad repeatedly told his followers to follow his [[Sunnah]] (example) and in the [[Qur'an]] we see that [[Allah]] even asserts his morality as being “sublime” ({{Quran|68|4}}), therefore Muhammad cannot be seen as simply a product of his time. To orthodox Muslim eyes, admitting to a cultural relativism vis-a-vis the prophet would be blasphemy. Amongst other effects it would essentially invalidate the majority of Islamic [[fiqh]] which very often takes as its starting point the actions and attitudes of the prophet regarding a given question. From an orthodox Islamic perspective, this is simply unthinkable. The Qur'an itself though delivered by the prophet was created by god and is beyond the constraints of time, just as likewise the actions of the prophet were in every way divinely ordained and sanctioned. It is not simply 'inspired' but the very words of Allah, uttered through the lips of his final messenger who pleased his lord in every way. Hence, Muhammad's actions are (and always will be) morally acceptable to orthodox Muslim.