|
31 Dec 2011 By Juan Cole I recently agreed to debate the following thesis
with Robert Spencer of JihadWatch: Islam is more violent than other religions,
specifically Judaism and Christianity. This is the main theme in Spencer's book The
Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the
Crusades). It is even the title of one of his
books: Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and
Islam Isn't. More than this, it reflects the
fundamental difference between he and I: whereas I
accept the violent and intolerant aspect inherent in
all religious traditions, Spencer specifically targets
Islam. Under this heading, I was willing to debate the
following sub-thesis: The Islamic prophet was more violent and warlike
than Jewish and Christian prophets. This was the argument Spencer brought forth in
chapter 1 of his book, entitled "Muhammad: Prophet of
War." On p.3, Spencer writes: [F]or the religious man or woman on the streets
of Chicago, Rome, Jerusalem, Damascus, Calcutta, and
Bangkok, the words of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad,
Krishna, and Buddha mean something far greater than
any individual's reading of them. And even to the
less-than-devout reader, the words of these great
religious teachers are clearly not equal in their
meaning. On p.4, Spencer promises to compare Muhammad to
prophets and founders of other religious traditions in
order "to emphasize the fallacy of those who claim
that Islam and Christianity–and all other religious
traditions, for that matter–are basically equal in
their ability to inspire good or evil." In other
words: Muhammad was the most violent of them all, and
thus inspires greater evil. But, is it true? I've already written multiple articles related to
this topic, but now I will directly refute chapter 1
of Robert Spencer's book ("Muhammad: Prophet of War"),
which is Spencer's biography of Muhammad. I will
present a balanced, neutral, and academic picture of
Muhammad–in between the Islamophobic narrative of
Spencer on the one hand and the understandably biased
Muslim apologist view on the other. Once Muhammad's life is understood thus, I will
compare it to the lives of other
prophets–Moses, Joshua, Samson, Saul, David, Jesus,
etc.–to see if Muhammad was truly the most violent of
them all. * * * * * Robert Spencer's biography of Muhammad is extremely
misleading. This becomes apparent from the get-go.
The very first section of Spencer's biography of
Muhammad begins on p.5, entitled "Muhammad the
raider." Spencer's opening words are: Muhammad the raider Muhammad already had experience as a warrior
before he assumed the role of prophet. He had
participated in two local wars between his Quraysh
tribe and their neighboring rivals Banu Hawazin. What Spencer leaves out from this talking
point–"Muhammad already had experience as warrior
before he assumed the role of prophet"!–is quite
telling. He is referring to what is known in Islamic history
as Harb al-Fijar (the Sacrilegious War), a
series of conflicts that took place when Muhammad was
a teenager. The spark that ignited the war was the
unsettled murder of a member of one tribe, which lead
to a blood feud. Due to "entangling alliances," many
different tribes in the area found themselves at war
with each other. Like most of Muhammad's life, the details of this
event are contested. This dispute is not simply one
between modern-day Muslim apologists and Islamophobes,
but rather one that traces its way back to the
earliest biographers of the Prophet. In specific, Muhammad's level of participation in
these wars is disputed. On the one hand, Shia
biographers reject the idea that Muhammad partook in
them at all. Meanwhile, Sunni biographers write that
Muhammad simply accompanied his uncle but did not
directly fight in these wars. He only took on a very
limited support role: picking up enemy arrows from the
battlefield. At the most, he fired off a few arrows,
but did not kill anyone. Not only was Muhammad's role severely limited, but
even this he would later express regret over.
Muhammad later recounted: "I had witnessed that war
with my uncle and shot a few arrows therein. How I
wish I had never done so!" [1] Spencer conveniently
omits this very important fact, one that mitigates
Muhammad's participation in the war, especially in
regards to his views about war and peace. Like World War I, the Sacrilegious War was sparked
over a murder and resulted in great turmoil due to
"entangling alliances." Once hostilities ceased, many
of the tribes decided to convene a sort of "League of
Nations" to prevent future wars. The Arabian tribes
assembled at the house of a man named Abdullah bin
Judan and "forged the League of the Virtuous [Hilf
al-Fudul]. The major aims of the League were to
prevent wars from breaking out and to protect the weak
and the defenseless from their enemies." [2] Members
would "henceforth and forever stand on the side of the
victim of injustice," instead of simply siding based
on tribal loyalty. [3] It was hoped that such an
arrangement would prevent the blood feuds that were
common in that time. Muhammad took part in the signing of the League of
the Virtuous, and it left its indelible mark on him.
He would later say: "I witnessed in the house of
Abdullah bin Judan a pact made that I wouldn't have
exchanged for the choicest of herds; and if it had
been suggested after Islam, I would have responded
positively to it." [4] ("The choicest herd" is the
ancient equivalent of saying: "I wouldn't trade it in
even for a Ferrari.") Muhammad said further: "If
further such pacts be made for the cause of the
oppressed and I be called, I would certainly respond."
[5] The ideals of the League of the Virtuous–of
standing for justice regardless of family or tribal
loyalty–finds its way into the Quran: O you who believe, stand firmly for justice,
witnesses before God, even if it be against your own
selves, your parents or relatives, or whether it be
against rich or poor. (4:135) Throughout his career, Muhammad opposed tribal
warfare and blood feuds. Meanwhile, the Quran
instructed the believers to defend the oppressed by
fighting the oppressors: What reason could you have for not fighting in
God's cause–for those men, women and children who
are oppressed and cry out, "Our Lord, rescue us from
this town whose people are oppressors! By Your
Grace, give us a protector and a savior!" (4:75) The Sacrilegious War and the League of the Virtuous
played a pivotal role in Muhammad's views on matters
of war and peace–but not in the way that
Spencer implies it to (i.e. "he was born a warrior!").
Instead, Muhammad became a "veteran against the war"
and greatly supported the idea of a League of the
Virtuous, a body intended to bring peace on earth–one
that would end violence, bloodshed, and war. By omitting key details, Spencer willfully misleads
the reader. This is just within the first three lines
of his biography of Muhammad. As we shall see, the
deception just gets worse. To be continued… Danios was the Brass Crescent Award Honorary
Mention for Best Writer in 2010 and the Brass Crescent
Award Winner for Best Writer in 2011. Footnotes:
|
Add Comments