The Covenants Of The Prophet Muḥammadﷺ with Dr Ibrahim Mohamed Zein and Ahmed El-Wakil

Ibrahim Zein and Ahmed El-Wakil:
*THE COVENANTS OF THE PROPHET MUḤAMMAD: From Shared Historical Memory to Peaceful Co-existence by Ibrahim Mohamed Zein and Ahmed El-Wakil www.routledge.com/The-Covenan...
*The Ṣiffīn Arbitration Agreement and statecraft in early Islamic political documents, Oxford Journal of Islamic Studies (2022): academic.oup.com/jis/article/...
*On the Origins of the Hijrī Calendar: A Multi-Faceted Perspective Based on the Covenants of the Prophet and Specific Date Verification, Religions (2021): www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/1/42
*Remembering the Covenants of the Prophet Muḥammad: Shared Historical Memory of Good Governance and Peaceful Co-existence, Al-Shajarah (2020): journals.iium.edu.my/shajarah...
Ahmed El-Wakil:
*"Whoever Harms a Dhimmī I Shall Be His Foe on the Day of Judgment”: An Investigation into an Authentic Prophetic Tradition and Its Origins from the Covenants, Religions: www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/9/516
*Searching for the Covenants: Identifying Authentic Documents of the Prophet Based on Scribal Conventions and Textual Analysis, MA Diss. (2017). Supervisor: Dr. Louay Fatoohi; Internal Examiner: Prof. Ibrahim Zein: hbku.academia.edu/AhmedElWakil
Other scholars:
Interfaith Actor Reception of Islamic Covenants: How ‘New’ Religious Knowledge Influences Views on Interreligious Relations in Islam, by Halim Rane, Religions. (2022): www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/13/9/873
Covenants of the Prophet and the Problems of Transmission: An Analysis of a Manuscript Copied by Fāris al-Shidyāq, by John Andrew Morrow, Religions (2021): www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/9/751
An Historical Evaluation of the Covenants of the Prophet Muḥammad and ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib in the Matenadaran, by Gayane Mkrtumyan, Religions (2021): www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/2/138
Websites:
Dr. John Andrew Morrow’s official website: johnandrewmorrow.com/
‘Umar’s Covenant with the Christians of Jerusalem: lastprophet.info/treaty-for-quds

[@kathleencove]

I’ve been researching the historical living conditions of the dhimmi communities lately, and honestly, Islam is such a merciful and just and compassionate faith. I know there are historical outliers of persecution and treachery, in every faith, but the overwhelming majority of history in Islam is a history of peace and prosperity and humanity, and so much culture. I really wish more people understood this. Thank you for sharing your insights 🙏

[@jcmedia6546]

This study of the [Covenants of Prophet Muhammed] is arguably, at the core of the Islamic message centred upon ethical as well as theological concerns of not only Muslims, but also people of other Revealed Faiths. It is however, depressing, that it has taken such a long time, for muslim scholars to finally address - a sadly neglected teaching of the Prophet and to get the full generous support of a very important platform i.e Blogging Theology! Thank you!!

[@TheMrZek]

​@@seekthetruthandthetruthwil2388 'Skeptic School'

[@doneracer5994]

@@seekthetruthandthetruthwil2388 It seems to me that the Islam "covenants' they are talking about are few and far between with far too many loopholes. For example. the one about not taxing monks and priests-- Is this location-specific? What about Roman Catholic AND Orthodox? What about Protestant Pastors? GOD's Biblical Covenants were short, specific and given to Biblical Prophets by GOD Himself- not through an unnamed angel IDd by the wife of any prophet.

[@doneracer5994]

@@seekthetruthandthetruthwil2388 I suspect Islam has an entirely different definition of "covenant' than the Biblical word 'Covenant'. While 'covenant' in Islam can refer to contracts between people, the Biblical word 'Covenant' overwhelmingly refers to a contract between Almighty GOD and His prophets, on behalf of His people. 'Covenant' and 'Testament' mean the same, since they both refer to contracts between GOD and His people-- first, the Israelites (His chosen people) in the Old Testament, and then Christians (His children) in the Hew Testament.

[@MJB0110]

Gentlemen thank you for sharing interesting research from multiple sources that confirms the etiquette of the Noble messenger (PBUH) to the other faiths around him. Another lesson for Moslems and non Moslems in todays world. Salaams.

[@mukhamadsuhermanto2764]

Thank you all for you tremendous work

[@User98627]

👍🏼

[@ayyazsiddique5381]

JazakALLAHukhairan

[@mohammedkhan3338]

Jazak Allah Khairan! This is a great work for the present and future generations. Thanks

[@budidayaberuk6144]

Alhamdulillah, more knowledge pertaining the wisdom of the Prophet SAW. Thank you brother paul and the distinguished guests for your important work.

[@jke13]

Great video and undertaking of this interesting topic with objectivity, humility and grace which is at the heart of the Islamic message. May Allah bless you and your channel Amiin

[@saadikw240]

The prophet was sent as a mercy to mankind hence these covenants from the prophet and his followers

[@hasananyabwile3538]

Very important especially for the millions of Muslims who live under the rule of non-Muslims Governments.

[@rainman7769]

Isaiah 21:13 (KJV) The burden upon Arabia. In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye travelling companies of Dedanim. Det, 18.18. John 16.5 All prophesies and more shows that the last arab prophet from Qedar on of the Ismael sons. Which ends in the prophet Muhammad upon peace on him.

[@doneracer5994]

@@seekthetruthandthetruthwil2388 Apparently your question is being intentionally ignored, but I wonder about something similar. If there is an Islamic paradise, then where in the Quran does it say that Allah revealed paradise to anyone, such as a prophet like Moses, Abraham or such? To the best of my knowledge, the Only One Who explained afterlife in detail in the Holy Bible is Jesus Christ. And there is NOTHING in the Quran about Allah first telling anybody about paradise.

[@user-uf3wt7kw1s]

مرحبا بأستاذنا الجليل

[@muhammadtiarsyah6387]

Assalamu'alaikum.semoga saudaraku moeslim semua di manapun berada sehat selalu.aamiin

[@islamicreel281]

الحمد للہ I purchased this book. It's a costly for me.

[@vinansyahvexel7132]

Amazing channel.. always supporting from Indonesia

[@BUY_YOUTUBE_VIEWS_500]

This content is incredibly helpful, thank you. 🙏

[@teenaakhir9105]

Fascinating presentation brothers... JZK...Amazed to know how revered and preserved even the copies of the original manuscripts were in the Christendom..I think it fair to say the "prophethood" of our beloved Rasulullah SAW is widely accepted by by the early Christian ..Subhanallah..❄️👍💯

[@doneracer5994]

Teena Akhir- No. Neither Catholics nor Protestants accept Muhammad as a prophet of GOD. None was needed after Jesus came to earth and not only prophesied but fulfilled all Old Testament prophesies.

[@Gog3453]

The covenant of the prophet (as) is the minhaj (Islam Iman and Ihsan) of the Salaf

[@Gog3453]

@@seekthetruthandthetruthwil2388 then know the minhaj (Islam Iman and Ihsan) of the Salaf so that you may know the Sunnah

[@Gog3453]

@@seekthetruthandthetruthwil2388 YES IT DO. you just don’t understand the significance of your question

[@Gog3453]

@@seekthetruthandthetruthwil2388 Allah can’t be contained nor can anything contain Allah

[@Al-Bruni]

If the content on the slide at about 13:35 is accurate, it proves that Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan RA became Muslim years before Fath-ul-Makkah, and was a Muhajir.

[@HussainFahmy]

[@user-tg1xb9qp9x]

حبذا لو كانت هناك ترجمة للغة العربية للڤيديوهات

[@RayOfHope8]

❤❤❤❤🌹🌹🌹🌹

[@mostaphiofthekingjuba8204]

👍🏽❤

[@CG-zi5ku]

If the arabic word 'deen' is more accurately translated to 'way of life' rather than just 'religion'' it brings an even more comprehensive meaning to the verse: ''la ikraha fid-deen" - let there be no compulsion in any way of life. So people must be free to choose to live however they want - which is a pillar of modern-day secular liberalism - and it makes perfect sense; truth stands out from falsehood, whoever wants to believe let them believe, whoever wants to disbelieve let them disbelieve.

[@Biko357]

Secular liberalism is not just that tho, secular liberalism and islam are completely two opposing totalitarian forces, as Shabir Akhtar put it "they both compete to be considered as the culmination of history" P. S I think Islam only tolerates religions, some ideologies however, such as LGBTQ for example would never be tolerated and that's 100% a good thing.

[@CG-zi5ku]

@@Biko357 But nobody wants to live under any totalitarian ideology controlled by any particular religion which, obviously will restrict the other religons to varying degrees. I'm sure everyone, even Muslims should rather prefer living under a secular liberal totalitarian state that guarantees religious freedoms. Imagine how many Muslim sects and groups would get banned if say, Salafis where in control of some totalitarian state.

[@grnzrn]

Yea, its pretty similar to modern-day secular liberalism. With a nuance. In a secular system the other religions can still build houses of prayer. And they can express their religious beliefs freely (with restrictions regarding the wearing of religious symbols in some state institutions in some countries). And of course polytheists and atheists are not getting exiled or murdered. And they dont have to pay a special tax. Oh and the christians are not at risk of getting their children kidnapped and turned into eunuchs if they cant afford to pay the special tax, which happened regularly in the ottoman empire. And nobody gets enslaved. But besides that its pretty much the same.

[@Biko357]

@@grnzrn Exceptions are not the rule, for example. some secular countries don't even tolerate a woman wearing a head scarf, does that mean that secular liberalism by default doesn't allow expressing ones religious beliefs freely?

[@imranqqq7307]

It is absolutely clear from historical sources that ALL the early Muslims understood the verse to mean the choice of way of life/deen, i.e. Muslim, Christian, pagan, etc. Once you affirm that choice, choose to be a Muslim, you cannot pick and choose which aspects/rules/parts of the religion are "right for you." A secular liberal state does not enforce Islamic public rules, and is therefore unIslamic.

[@stevenv6463]

I thought the covenants would be like the divine covenants, as in the hadith about salah being the covenant between God and the believer. It reminds me of the biblical context and the Adamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants.

[@Solemn_G]

More evidence of the superiority of the Shari'ah.

[@hmehdi2644]

1:00:59 Indeed Muawiyeh according to majority references only entered Islam during the year of Liberation (Fath) of Mecca, ie 8 after Hijra. The years for the 2 documents claiming the scribe to be Muawiyeh were 2 and 4 after Hijra. Something went wrong with the copy of the documents.

[@B1ackC3t]

So the conclusion goes like this: "Im not those men. Im Salahudin. Salahudin"

[@alihalili8778]

?

[@sycorez]

​@@alihalili8778 A line from a movie where Salahudin responds with this line when the other mentioned what the Christians did when they took Jerusalem from the Muslims.

[@bungamentari]

Kingdom of Heaven movie

[@zahidsha433]

I commented on a video around 8 years ago using my other account on the authenticity of the document that was presented to a news reporter by the people at Mt. Sinai. The link is here. kzbin.info/www/bejne/q2G2pIWjeJuCa80 I am glad there is more scrutiny in this area.

[@zahidsha433]

@zahidshafi3766 8 years ago This is not the script that was used during the era of Prophet Muhammad. The script in the letter is from a much later period. Also Prophet Muhammad could not read nor write instead he would have his companions scribe as he dictated and then would sign his letters using his ring as a stamp. Check out the letters he sent to the heads of states during his time and you will see a clear difference in the writing styles and his signature. The writing style of the arabs back during his era was much more primitive than the video above.

[@zahidsha433]

@zahidshafi3766 7 years ago Sorry guys, I don't follow my whims and desires when it comes to someone saying something is from the Prophet (SAW). That is the whole point of the science of Hadith. If something was attributed to Prophet Muhammad, then it must be VERIFIED. One may ask, what is the verification process in the science of hadith? It is A. That the source of the information is legit, i.e. the source has never told a lie, never forgotten anything, always had a clear and sharp memory. B. That there are more than one source to the incident or story in question, so that it may be corroborated and of course the other sources must also pass the previous verification. C. That the story makes sense, i.e. if I say that I met President Eisenhower, you know that would be false because I wasn't alive before he passed away or if I said that I met with the President of North Korea, you know that it would be false because we live on different sides of the world and U.S. citizens should never go there. So with that said, let's take this video through that same litmus test. Is the source legit? This is coming from CBS which has many instances of lying in news reports and telling facts that are wrong which later are redacted or just left as is. As for the people of St. Catherine, they have shown a letter that is verifiably not the letter they are talking about and it is not mentioned in the video that the actual letter is somewhere else and this is just a copy. I believe that this is misleading and they should be forthcoming about that information if that is the case. I don't think this can pass the first verification process, but let's move on to the next. Are there more than once source to the story of the letter? At the moment I have not found anything that has corroborated their claim if anyone can find it, that would be great. Finally does it make sense? There was no mention of when the delegation met with Prophet Muhammad, but the description states that it was in the 2nd year of the Islamic calendar which does not coincide well with the events of that time. During the 2nd year after Hijrah, the Muslims were still a new community but were just getting ready to go into the Battle of Badr. There were no conquests happening at the time. The earliest that a form of jizya was collected was after the Battle of Khyber, which was the first official conquest. This happened around the 7th year after the Hijrah. How could it be possible that a delegation from SINAI, which he has no jurisdiction in would ask for his protection on the 2nd year of Hijrah and for the details of the protection go into so much detail as to forgo jizya? That in itself is clear that it wouldn't make sense, but another reason is that by default holy places of Jews and Christians were always under the protection of Prophet Muhammad and monks and holy people of those institutes were always exempt from jizya. I apologize for the wall of text, but as you guys can see, I take it very seriously when someone says something is from the Prophet Muhammad. Whenever something like this is posted you should always think twice before agreeing or disagreeing with something because you can never be too safe. I will end with this quote from the Quran from Surah Hujirat, "O you who believe! if an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you have done." Always verify your source and error in the side of caution.

[@abubakarahmed5072]

What stands out in this presentation, is the complete christian-centric nature of the entire argument. Meanwhile , the Qur'an instructs us exactly how to treat this kind of information coming from those who say: "Allahh has taken an intermediary as a son." They are called liars in the Qur'an!. Why do they not take these words into consideration? Also disturbing is the almost complete lack of Qur'anic reference used. Isn't the Qur'an, for Muslims, supposed to be the ultimate measure of truth (even the truthfulness of the narrations). The Qur'an is reduced to the position of an afterthought, while it should be central to our reasoning and analysis. I know I will probably get some push-back for saying this, just be careful not to argue against the accuracy and completeness of the Qur'an. That is not my saying. Its in the Qur'an! We don't need humans sources to complete the words of Allahh. According to the guests themselves, in their methodology (historical critical methodology they call it), "ways of understanding", and the "case for the covenants", no Qur'anic reference is cited and analyzed in detail, only in passing. Of course if you are going to deal with the Qur'an, then you have to take ALL of it without cherry-picking. Maybe that's too much to deal with for them, but its absolutely critical. They freely admit these documents are "copies of copies", and almost all sources are christian, with the few Muslim sources described by christian sources as: "supporters of churches and monasteries, praisers of the our faith, and honorers of our Lords priests and holy ones." Timestamp - 40:30 They freely admit to the dependence on "Political documents" without a critical analysis of the political circumstances, motivations and obvious biases as a result. Timestamp - 41:33 They brush aside obvious evidence for forgery and manipulation by some of the so called companions for political gains. Timestamp - 59:44 They use big words like "ipsissima verba", with no reference to the locution of the Qur'an. Forgetting that the linguistic discernment belongs to Allahh. Our beloved (SAW) would never forget this, and the narrations are filled with Qur'anic locution (the ones that can be authenticated with relatively high likelihood based on the Qur'an), but most of our scholars are completely oblivious of this. They, like the guests above, prefer strictly 'historical', man made sources based on chain of transmission, and references to the biblical narrative, rather than the words of Allahh in the Qur'an. I find Ibrahim Mohamed Zein, although totally wrong, to be the more honest of the 3, as he at least raises some question marks on some of the claims of authenticity, and shies away from a definitive conclusion.

[@CG-zi5ku]

You claim Allah/God the Most High calls Christians 'liars' ? Not so, Quran verse goes along the lines: 'they speak nothing but a lie.' There's a big difference. Someone can spread a lie without neccessarily knowing it is a lie, actually believing that lie to be true - so they would not be liars per se. Quran honours Christians despite informing them about their big mistake; at the end of the day Christians are 'People of the Book' and believers in the One God the Most High and Creator of Everything.

[@abubakarahmed5072]

@@CG-zi5ku Liars may appear to be a harsh word. The choice of words and structure of sentence in the aya you quoted is highly suggestive of this. I concede that one can unknowingly spread lies, but the subject here is the priestly and political class who clearly had ulterior motives to lie, not your average Christian who is also being deceived by these class of people.

[@CG-zi5ku]

@@abubakarahmed5072 Quran verse 16:105 goes along the lines: "No one fabricates lies except those who disbelieve in Allah’s revelations, and it is they who are the ˹true˺ liars." There's the liar who invents the lie, and those who fall for the lie.

[@abubakarahmed5072]

@@CG-zi5ku I agree with your last statement. I also believe this aya and the one you quoted from Surah kahf are referencing the same people, or the same kind of people, clearly. Those who claim Allahh has taken a son as an intermediary are not passive believers. They are making a claim. In fact, they fit the description in this aya you quoted perfectly, I.e. they don't believe in the ayaat of Allahh, if they did, they wouldnt make such claims. So I don't think my statement was out of place. This aya appears to support it.

[@CG-zi5ku]

@@abubakarahmed5072 Christians are not liars. When they say 'Jesus is the son of God' they believe it to be true. To be a liar you have to say something you know is not true. Whoever made up that idea was the liar those who fell for it the victim.