Brief Sketch of the Life of
The Prophet Muhammad
By
Muhammad Ali
The man (Muhammad) who brought about the most thorough transformation of a nation within twenty years; who, alone and unaided, swept away vice and immorality from a whole country where the most strenuous efforts of a powerful missionary nation had hopelessly failed; who by his personal example purified the lives of vast numbers of humanity; could such a man himself be in the grip of sin? An impure man could not consistently preach virtue; how could he take others by the hand, and free them from the bondage of sin, and inspire his very soldiers and generals with sentiments of virtue? Could a man who himself groped in the dark lead others to light? Yet the Prophet - this great deliverer of humanity from the bondage of sin - it is called sinful because at a certain stage in his life he had more wives than one.
Whatever may be the views on polygamy of the modern world, there is not the least doubt that plurality of wives is met with in the lives of the great religious personages who by a consensus of opinion led lives of transcendent purity. Abraham, who is held in reverence by more than half the world up to this day, had more wives than one. Similar was the case with Jacob, Moses and David among the Israelites, and with some of the famous revered sages of the Hindus. Yet it is true that these great sages were not led to a polygamous life by sensual desires. Purity in all respects is the outstanding characteristic of their lives, and this fact alone is sufficient to condemn the attempt to defame them on the basis of their resorting to polygamy. What was their object in doing so, it is difficult to say at the present day, as their histories are generally enveloped in darkness, but as the life of the Prophet can be read in the full light of history, we will take his case in detail.
The life of the Prophet may be divided into four periods so far as his domestic life is concerned. Up to twenty-five he led a celibate life; from twenty-five to fifty-four he lived in a married state with one wife; from fifty-four to sixty he contracted several marriages; and lastly, from sixty till his death he did not contract any new marriage. The most important period to determine whether the Prophet was a slave to his passions is the period of celibacy. If he had not been a complete master of his passions, he could not have led an exceptionally chaste and pure life, which won him the title of al-Amin, to the age of twenty-five in a hot country like Arabia where development must necessarily take place early and passions are generally stronger. His worst enemies could not point to a single blot on his character when challenged later. According to Muir, all authorities agree “in ascribing to the youth of Muhammad a modesty of deportment and purity of manners rare among the people of Mecca.”
Now, youth is the time when passions run riot, and the man who is able to control his passions in youth, and that in celibacy, cannot, possibly, be conceived as falling a prey to lust in his old age. Thus the first period of his life, his celibacy up to twenty-five years of age, is conclusive proof that he could never fall a prey to his passions. It should be noted in this connection that in Arab society at the time there was no moral sanction against an immoral life, so that it cannot be said that he was kept back from an evil course by the moral force of society. Profligacy, on the other hand, was the order of the day; and it was among people who prided themselves on loose sexual relations that the Prophet led a life of transcendent purity, and therefore all the more credit is due to his purity of character.
Even Sir William Muir bears testimony to the purity of his character in his youth: “Our authorities all agree in ascribing to the youth of Muhammad a modesty of deportment and purity of manners rare among the Mecca’s.” And again: “Endowed with a refined mind and delicate taste, reserved and meditative, he lived much within himself, and the pondering of his heart no doubt supplied occupation for leisure hours spent by others of a low stamp in rude sports and profligacy. The fair character and honorable bearings of the unobtrusive youth won the approbation of his fellow-citizens: and by common consent he received the title of al-Amin the Faithful”
Take now the next period, the period of a monogamous married life. When twenty-five years of age, Muhammad married a widow, Khadija, fifteen years his senior, and led a life of the utmost devotion with her till she died, when he was fifty years of age. Polygamy was the rule in Arabia at the time; and the wife had not cause of complaint, nor did she ever grumble, if the husband brought in a second or third wife. The Prophet belonged to the noblest family of the Quaraish and his marriage with Khadija had enriched him; and if he had chosen to marry another wife, it would have been quite easy for him. But he led a monogamous life of the utmost devotion to his wife during all that time. When Khadija died, he married a very elderly lady, Sauda, whose only recommendation for the honor was that she was the widow of a faithful companion of his who had to flee to Abyssinia from the persecution of the Quraish. The main part of his life, from twenty-five to fifty-four, was thus an example for his followers that monogamy was the rule in married life.
Now comes the third period. Of all his wives A’isha was the only one whom he married as a virgin. Her father, Abu Bakr, the closest friend of the Prophet had offered her to him when he suffered the great bereavement of losing both his wife and his uncle Abu Talib. The girl was one possessing exceptional qualities, and both Abu Bakr and the Prophet saw in her the great woman of the future who was best suited to perform the duties of the wife of a teacher who was to be a perfect exemplar for mankind. So the Prophet accepted her; but apparently she had not yet reached the age of puberty, and her marriage was consummated towards the close of the second year of the Flight.
In the second year of the Flight began the series of battles with the Quraish and the other Arab tribes, which appreciably reduced the number of males, the bread-winners of the family. These battles continued up to the eighth year of the Flight, and it was during this time that the Prophet contracted all the marriages which appear objectionable to the modern mind, but which neither friend nor foe looked upon with disapprobation at the time. A Christian writer says:
It would be remembered, however, that most of Muhammad’s marriages may be explained at least as much by his pity for the forlorn condition of the persons concerned, as by other motives. They were almost all of them widows who were not remarkable either for their beauty or their wealth, but quite the reverse.
Let us look the facts straight in the face. The Prophet had now in his house a young and beautiful wife in ‘A’isha. None of the other wives whom he married later compared with her either in youth or beauty. Surely then it was not attraction for beauty that led to these marriages. We have already seen that from his youth till his old age the Prophet remained a complete master of his passions. The man who could live in celibacy up to twenty-five and still have the reputation of a spotless character, who up to fifty-four lived with a single wife and this notwithstanding the fact that polygamy was more the rule than the exception at the time and that a polygamous connection was not in the least objectionable- such a man could not be said to have changed all of a sudden after fifty-five when old age generally soothes the passions even of those who cannot control their passions in youth. No other motive than compassion for the ladies who were given this honor can be attached to these marriages. If there had been any less honorable motive, his choice would have fallen on others than widows, and under the Arab custom a man in his position could have plenty of youthful virgins.
I have said that change for the worse could not come over a man who had led an undoubtedly spotless life until he reached fifty-five. If the beauty of women could not excite his passions in youth and lead him away from the path of rectitude, how could it lead him away in old age? And what were the circumstances in which he lived in Medina during these years? It was not a life of ease and luxury that he was leading at the time; it was a life of hardness, because it was at this very time that he had to carry on a life-or-death struggle with the enemies of Islam. Huge armies came to crush him and the small band of Muslims at Medina. The whole of Arabia was aflame against him. He was not secure for a minute. Battles had to be fought in quick succession. Expeditions had to be arranged and sent. “Prophet of God! We are tired of being in arms day and night,” his companions would say to him; and he had to console them by telling them that the time would come when a traveler would be able to go from one end of the country to the other without having any arms. The Jews and the Christians were his enemies along with the idolaters. His best friends were falling sometimes in battle and sometimes by treachery. It is possible for a man to lead a life of ease and luxury under such circumstances? Even if a man had the mind to lead a life of self-indulgence, which the Prophet according to all available evidence had not, this was not the opportune time for it. In such circumstances of warfare, with enemies within Medina and enemies all around it, with the number of Muslims being insignificantly small in comparison with the enemy, with news of assaults by the overwhelming numbers on all sides, even a profligate’s life would be changed, to say nothing of a man of avowed purity of character, which no temptation could shake, turning into a profligate.
If the Prophet’s days during this period were passed so strenuously, how did he pass the nights? He had a number of lawful wives, but he did not spend his nights in enjoyment with them. There is clearest evidence on record in the Holy Quran as well as Hadith that he passed half, and sometimes even two-thirds, of the night in prayers and in reciting the Holy Quran while standing in prayer. He would stand so long that his feet would get swollen. Could such a man be said to be taking wives for self-indulgence when the minutest details of his life as available to show us conclusively that it was a strenuous life furthest away from indulgence of any kind?
Let us now consider another point. Was any change really witnessed in the latter part of his life when he became the ruler of a state?
In the shepherd of the desert, in the Syrian trader, in the solitary of Mount Hira, in the reformer in the minority of one, in the exile of the Persian Chosroes and the Greek Heraclius, we can still trace a substantial unity. I doubt whether any other man, whose external conditions changed so much, ever himself changed less to meet them: the accidents are changed, the essence seems to me to be the same in all” … Bosworth Smith
Integrity, Sincerity & Changlessness
From the cradle to the grave the Prophet passed through a diversity of circumstances - a diversity which can hardly be met with in the life of a single man. Orphan hood is the extreme of helplessness, while kingship is the height of power. From being an orphan he climbed to the summit of royal glory, but that did not bring about the slightest change in his way of living. He lived on exactly the same kind of humble food, wore the same simple dress, and in all particulars led the same simple life as he led in the state of orphan hood. It is hard to give up the kingly throne and lead the life of a hermit, but it is harder still that one should wield the royal scepter yet at the same time lead a hermit’s life, that one should possess power and wealth yet spend it solely to promote the welfare of others, that one should ever have the most alluring attractions before one’s eyes yet should never for one moment be captivated by them.
When the Prophet actually became the ruler of a state, the furniture of his house was composed of a coarse matting of palm leaves for his bed and an earthen jug for water. Some nights he would go without food. For days no fire would be lighted in his house to prepare food, the whole family living on mere dates. There was no lack of means to live a life of ease and comfort. The public treasury was at his disposal. The well-to-do among his followers, who did not shrink from sacrificing their lives for his sake, would have been only too glad to provide him with every comfort of life, should he choose to avail himself of it. But worldly things carried little weight in his estimation. No mundane craving could ever prevail over him, neither in times of indigence nor of plenty. Just as he spurned wealth, power and beauty which the Quraish offered him when he was yet in a state of utmost helplessness, so did he remain indifferent to them when God granted him all these things out of His grace.
Not only did he himself live the simple life of a laborer, but he did not even allow wealth to have any attraction for his wives. Shortly after their immigration into Medina, the condition of the Muslims had changed, and they carried on a prosperous trade. Their conquests, later on, went further to add to the comforts of life which the Muslims enjoyed. A quite human desire crept into the hearts of the Prophet’s wives that, like other Muslim families, they too should avail themselves of their share of comforts. Accordingly, they approached the Prophet in a body to prevail upon him to allow them their legitimate share of worldly comforts. Thereupon came the Divine injunction:
O Prophet ! Say to thy wives, If you desire this world’s life and its or nature, come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing. And if you desire Allah and His Messenger and the latter abode, then surely Allah has prepared for the doers of good among you a mighty reward. [33:28,29]
Thus they were offered two alternatives. They might either have worldly finery, or remain in the Prophet’s household Should they decide to have the former, they would have plenty of what they wanted, but would forthwith forfeit the honor of being the Prophet’s wives. Is this the reply of a sensual man? Such a man would have done everything to satisfy the whim of the objects of his affection. Nay, he would himself have desired that his wives should wear the most beautiful dress and live in comfort. No doubt the Prophet cherished great love for his wives. He had immense regard for the rights of women and was the champion of their cause. But when his wives came to him with what was apparently a quite legitimate demand to have more finery and ornaments, they were coldly told that if they would have these things they were not fit to live in the Prophet’s house. This shows beyond a shadow of doubt how free the Prophet’s mind was of all base and sensual thoughts. He was prepared to divorce all his wives rather than yield to what he regarded as unworthy of his wives - an inclination towards worldly things. It shows conclusively that the object of his marriages was anything but self-indulgence.
Let us consider once more the historical facts which led the Prophet to take a number of wives within the short space of five years from the third year of Hijra to the seventh, while before that he passed nearly thirty years of his life in a monogamous state. This period coincides exactly with the period during which incessant war was carried on between the Muslims and the non-Muslims. The circle of Muslim brotherhood was at the time very narrow. The perpetual state of war; created disparity between the male and the female elements of society. Husbands having fallen on the field of battle, their widows had to be provided for. But bread and butter were not the only provision needed in such cases. Sex-inclination is implanted in human nature, and the statesman who neglects the sex requirements leads society to moral corruption, ending ultimately in the ruin of the whole nation. A reformer with whom morals were all in all could not content himself with making provision merely for the maintenance of the widows. The Prophet was anxious for their chastity to a far greater extent than their physical needs. It became therefore necessary allow polygamy. This is the reason that he himself took so many women for his wives during the period when war was raging. Nearly all his wives were widows. If self-indulgence were the motive, the choice would not have fallen on widows. It would have been an enviable privilege for any Muslim to be the father-in-law of the Prophet. But the object was a noble one - the protection of the widows of his friends. In polygamy alone lay the safety of the Muslim society.
We now come to the fourth period. With the conquest of Mecca in 8 A.H., internal warfare came practically to an end. Disturbances there were, but, on the whole, peace had been established in the country and normal conditions were restored. From the eighth year of the Flight to the end of his life we again find that the Prophet did not contract any new marriage. What is the evidence of the facts then? The Prophet added to the number of his wives only during the time that he had to live in a state of warfare, when the number of males was reduced and many women would have been left without protection and without a home if the difficulty had not been solved by permitting a limited polygamy. Before the Prophet had to enter on a defensive war, he lived in idle company of a single wife, and when war ended, he contracted no new marriage. This sets all doubts at rest as to the motive of the Prophet. In all the marriages which he contracted during the war, there was some ulterior moral end in view. There arose situations in his life under which he could not consistently, with the moral and religious mission of his life, help taking more wives than one. In that, he only showed compassion to the weaker sex.
Living in a country in which polygamy was the rule, the Prophet had no liking for polygamy. He passed the prime of his life, up to fifty-four years of age, as the husband of a single wife, thus showing that the union of one man and one woman was the rule under normal conditions. But when abnormal conditions arose, he did not, like a sentimentalist, shirk his duty. He saw that the chastity of woman was at stake if polygamy was not allowed, and for the sake of a higher interest he permitted polygamy as an exception to meet exceptional circumstances exactly thus he had to revert to war, though by disposition he was averse to it. Full forty years before the Call, he had been living in a land where the sword was wielded as freely as a stick elsewhere, where fighting and feuds were the order of the day, where men would fly at each other’s throats, like wild animals, where there was no chance of survival for one who could not use the sword, yet not once during these forty years did he deal a blow at an enemy. The same was the case with him for fourteen years after the Call.
That he was peace-loving by nature is shown by the clear injunctions relating to peace in the Holy Quran:
And if they incline to peace, do thou also incline to it and trust in Allah … And if they intend to deceive thee, then surely Allah is sufficient for thee.” [8:61,62]
The Prophet’s acceptance of the truce of Hudaibiya, though its conditions were humiliating for the Muslims, who were ready to lay down their lives one and all rather than accept those terms, is also a clear proof of his peace-loving nature. But when duty called him to take the field to save his community, he did not hesitate to take up the sword against an overwhelming majority. He acted as a sagacious general in all fields of battle and behaved like a brave soldier when opportunity demanded. He knew how to disperse an enemy in time before it had gained sufficient strength to deal a severe blow at the Muslims. And once, in the battle of Hunain, when his army was in flight owing to the severe onslaught of the enemy’s archers, he was all alone advancing towards the enemy forces, till his soldiers rallied round him. By disposition he had no inclination for war, yet circumstances arose which dragged him into the field of battle, and he then displayed the wisdom of a general and the bravery of a soldier. So by disposition he was not inclined to polygamy, living a celibate life of unexampled purity up to twenty-five years of age and a married life of a monogamous husband up to fifty-four, but when duty called him to take more women under his shelter, he answered the call of duty.
Brief as this treatment of the Prophet’s life is, it would be incomplete without a few words as to his manners and morals. When his wife, ‘A’isha, the most privy to his secrets, was questioned about his morals, her reply was, “His morals are the Quran.” In other words, the highest morals that were depicted in the Holy Quran were possessed by him.
Simplicity and sincerity are the keynotes of the Prophet’s character. He would do all sorts of things with his own hands. He would milk his own goats, patch his own clothes and mend his own shoes. In person would he dust the house, and he would tie his camel and look after it personally. No work was too low for him. He worked like a laborer in the construction of the mosque, and again in digging a ditch round Medina. In person would he do shopping, not only for his own house-hold but also for his neighbors or for helpless women. He never despised any work, however humble, notwithstanding the dignity of his position as Prophet and King. He thus demonstrated through personal example that man’s calling does not really determine his nobleness or his meanness.
His actions and movements were characterized by homely simplicity. He did not like his companions to stand up on his arrival. Once he forbade them, saying, “Do not stand up for me as do the non-Arabs;” and added that he was a humble creature of God, eating as others eat and sitting as others sit. When a certain man wanted to kiss his hand, he withdrew it remarking that that was the behavior of the non-Arabs towards their kings. Even if a slave sent him an invitation he accepted it. He would take his meals in the company of all classes of people, even of slaves. When seated among people, there was nothing about him to make him conspicuous.
The Prophet had a deep love for his friends. While shaking hands with them, he would never be the first to withdraw his hand. He met everybody with a smiling face. A report from Jarir ibn ‘Abdullah says that he never saw the Prophet but with a smile on his face. He would talk freely, never putting on artificial reserve to give him an air of superiority. He would take up children in arms and nurse them. He disliked back-biting and forbade his visitors to talk ill of any of his friends. He would ever take the lead in greeting his friends and shaking hands with them.
The Prophet’s generosity even towards his enemies stands unique in the annals of the world. ‘Abdullah ibn Ubayy, the head of the hypocrites, was a sworn enemy of Islam, and his days and nights was spent in plotting mischief against the Muslims. Yet at his death, the Prophet prayed to the Lord to forgive him and even granted his own shirt to enshroud his body. The Mecca’s, who had all along subjected him and his friends to the most barbarous tortures, were not only awarded a general amnesty but were let off even without a reproof,. Twenty long years of persecutions and warfare were absolutely forgiven and forgotten. “The magnanimity with which Muhammad treated a people who had so long hated and rejected him is worthy of all admiration,” says Muir. The fact is that no other example is met with in history of such magnanimous forgiveness of inveterate enemies, who had shed innocent blood, who had shown no pity for helpless men, women and children, who had exerted themselves to their utmost to kill the Prophet and to annihilate the Muslims. The prisoners of war were almost always set free even without demanding a ransom. It was only in the case of the prisoners of Badr that ransom was demanded; after that, hundreds of prisoners and in one case, in the battle with Hawazin, as many as six thousand, were released without taking a pie as ransom. At the battle of Uhud, when he was wounded and fell, down, a comrade asked him to curse his persecutors. His reply was: I have not been sent to curse but as an inviter to good and mercy. O Lord! Guide my people, for they know not.” Once a Bedouin pulled him and threw his wrap round his neck. When asked why he should not be repaid in the same coin, he pleaded that he (the Prophet) never returned evil for evil.
In the administration of justice, the Prophet was scrupulously even-handed. Muslims and non-Muslims, friend and foe, were all alike in his eyes. Even before the Call, his impartiality his honesty and integrity were of household fame and people would bring their disputes to him to settle. At Medina, tie Jews and the idolaters both accepted him as the arbitrator in all their disputes. Notwithstanding the deep-rooted malice of Jews against Islam, when a case between a Jew and a Muslim came up before him, he decreed in favor of the Jew, regardless of the fact that the Muslim, nay, even perhaps the whole of his tribe, might thereby be alienated. In his dealings with his worst enemies he was always true to the Quranic injunction which says:
“Let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety.” [5:8]
On his death-bed, immediately before he breathed his last, he had it publicly announced:
“If I owe anything to anybody, it may be claimed; if I have offended anybody, he may have his revenge.”
In his dealings with others he never placed himself on a higher pedestal. Once while he held the position of a king at Medina, a Jew whom he owed some money came up to him and began to-abuse him. ‘Umar was enraged, but the Prophet rebuked him, saying:
“It would have been meet for thee to have advised both of us -
me, the debtor to repay the debt with gratitude,
and him, the creditor, to demand it in a more becoming manner.”
And he paid the Jew more than his due. On another occasion when he was out in the wood with his friends, the time for preparation of food came. Everybody was allotted a piece of work, he himself going out to pick up fuel. Spiritual and temporal overlord though he was, he would yet do his share of work like an ordinary man. In his treatment of his servants, he observed the same principle of equality. A report from Anas says that during the ten years that he was in the Prophet’s service at Medina, where he ultimately became the master of the whole of Arabia, he was not once scolded by him. He never kept anybody in slavery. As soon as he got a slave, he set him free.
In charity the Prophet was simply unapproached. He never gave a flat refusal to a beggar. He would feed the hungry, himself going without food. He never kept any money in his possession. While on his death-bed, he sent for whatever there was in his house and distributed it among the poor. Even for the dumb creatures of God his heart overflowed with mercy. He spoke of one who drew water from a well to quench the thirst of a dog as having earned paradise with this act of kindness. He spoke of a deceased woman that she was undergoing punishment because she would tie up her cat and keep it hungry. From his earliest days he had a deep sympathy for widows and orphans, the poor and the helpless. He would ever stand by the oppressed. He vindicated the rights of women over men, of slaves over their masters, of the ruled over the rulers, and of the subjects over the king. Negro slaves were accorded the same position of honor as the Quraish leaders. He was the champion of the oppressed and the ill-treated ones. He was very fond of children, and while walking along he would pat and stroke those whom he met on the way. Without fail would he visit the sick to enquire after their health and console them. He would also accompany a funeral.
Humble and meek in the highest degree, he had yet the courage of the bravest of men. Never for a moment did he harbor fear of his enemies. Even when plots to take his life were being hatched in Mecca, he moved about fearlessly day and night. He told all his companions to emigrate from Mecca, himself remaining almost alone among infuriated enemies. With his pursuers at the mouth of the cave in which he had hidden himself, he could yet console his companion, saying, “Allah is with us.” On the field of Uhud when the whole of his army fell into a trap, he shouted aloud, regardless of all danger to his own person, to rally the confused soldiers. In the battle of Hunain when the Muslim rank and file took to flight, he advanced alone towards the enemy, calling aloud, “I am the Prophet.” When one night a raid was suspected, he was the first to reconnoiter the outskirts of Medina, riding his horse without saddling it. On a certain journey, while resting under a tree all alone, an enemy came upon him, and unsheathing his sword shouted out: “Who can save thee now from my hands?” Calmly the Prophet replied, “Allah.” And the next moment the same sword was in the Prophet’s hand who put to his enemy the same question, on which he assumed a tone of abject humility, and the Prophet let him go.
The Prophet’s integrity and sincerity were of universal fame throughout Arabia. His worst enemies had often to confess that he had never told a lie. When he once pledged his word, he kept it under the most trying conditions and even at a heavy lost. He faithfully observed the truce made at Hudaibiya, though he had to refuse shelter to Muslims escaping from the persecution of the Meccans. His biographers are all at one in their admiration of his unflinching fortitude and unswerving steadfastness. Despair and despondency were unknown to him. Hemmed in as he was on all sides by a gloomy prospect and severe opposition, his faith in the ultimate triumph of the truth was never for one moment shaken.
THE TRUTH ALWAYS SHINES FALSEHOOD IS BOUND TO DISAPPEAR FOR IT IS NOT THE TRUTH BUT AN ILLUSION.
Coverage of Muslims and Islam is a bread and butter media commodity. First amendment guarantees and free speech provisions in western countries limit censorship based upon sensitivities of a particular religious group. Favorable coverage and dispassionate, objective editorial regarding Muslims and Islam is not an entitlement in the real world of the free press. Such is usually accomplished through paid advertising. Journalistic integrity competes with ratings and circulation value, and responsible reporting from one perspective is unwarranted media bias from another. Such happens when people think for themselves. Thus, it stands to reason that negative portrayal and contemptuous commentary of Muslims, and Islam in western media is an inextricable certainty of the industry, particularly in light of global events. Although it frequently angers Muslims, and evokes protest and condemnation, it is unlikely to go away. Nevertheless, as Muslims our concern is legitimate and the matter requires attention. The question is what type of attention?
Despite condemnation, various public relations overtures, civil rights actions and legal maneuvers, the anti-Muslim comment has not vanished. When will it end? How can we stop it? The truth is, there is no foreseeable end in sight, and if we continue to employ the same reactionary methods to change public opinion, or quell anti-Muslim statements, the problem will only exacerbate. Part of the conundrum is our reluctance to assume collective accountability for our condition. Another cause of the problem is conspicuous absence of Quranic and Prophetic guidance in our choice of tactics.
Slander, ill treatment, and negative perception of Muslims are not simply public relation challenges requiring conventional image re-tooling. Or a mere civil rights dilemma remedied by protest and letters to the editor, and certainly not just a constitutional infraction requiring a Bill of Rights refresher course. There are numerous geo-political, theological, and socio-environmental factors which determine how Muslims living in the United States are spoken of, spoken to, and treated. Overstating the scale and breadth of ill sentiment toward Muslims in America is counter productive. Disregarding the root causes is irresponsible. Ignoring it completely is a missed opportunity. Expecting positive results while failing to employ an Islamic ethical approach is a fantasy existing only in the quilt of our minds woven together with the threads of wishful thinking.
Ill sentiment and verbal attacks against Islam and some Muslims in the United States does occur. However, considering that there are about 5 million Muslims in America, the ratio of reported incidents of anti Muslim bias reported by CAIR is 40 out every 100,000, which is too low 1 to warrant priority one status.
Countering verbal disparagement with protest is a tactically flawed approach. In this year alone; there has been at least three major incidents (the cartoon satirizing our Prophet , the Pope's repeating a centuries old quotation, and the eight Imams who were unceremoniously escorted off an airplane) of verbal or public insult of Islam, the Prophet or Muslims. In each case there was protest, vociferous indignation, and demands for retraction or apologies. Yet, in each case, indignation yielded no measurable improvement of Muslim image or cessation of anti-Muslim bias or speech. Additionally, the principal sentiment fueling the response was anger. In all but the last incident, response resulted in the loss of innocent life. It is ironic that anger is the very emotion that warrants suppression according to the islamic ethical code.
A greater irony is that in each case, media characterization of Muslim response was replete with words like, "rage", "fury", and "anger". I personally do not recall any headlines that captioned; "Muslims love for their Prophet caused them to... "or the love of Allah fuels protest", or, Muslim expresses their love for Islam by boycotting..." Thus from a strategic perspective, response netted negligible dividend. To consider whatever dialogue that followed as tangible gain is a misleading since doctrinal polemics between Islam and other faiths have existed for over 1400 years. In the game of image politics, celebratory elation when a detractor agrees to your petition to dialogue is a sophisticated and sanitized form of humiliation. It messages a craving for legitimacy. The compulsive rush to defend criticism implies that there is truth in it.
Islamic canonical law does not prescribe recrimination as a response to verbal affront which carry no judicial or legal consequence. Unflattering words are not repelled by the same; on the contrary, evil is only repelled by justice. "Nor can goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: Then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate!" 2 Ibn Abbaas said: "Allah (God) summons the Muslim community to exercise patience when angry, benevolence in the face of ignorance, and pardon when offended. If people did that, Allah would protect them from the Devil" 3. If countering verbal disparagement with protest and reciprocal assault is righteousness, then to do the opposite constitutes unrighteousness. Obviously, such a hypothesis contradicts Prophetic guidance. The example of the Prophet in responding to verbal disparagement against himself, His Lord, or Muslims was to exercise restraint.
The dangerous theological implications of the protest approach seem to escape consideration. Understandably we are frustrated by the incessant degrading, slaughter, and humiliation of Muslims. However, although anger, insult and frustration are causes of moral infraction in Islamic law, they are unacceptable justifications for it. Otherwise, emotion would outrank divine injunction as the primary criterion of good conduct. Such a notion is heresy according to orthodox Muslim theology
Prioritization of anti-Muslim bias as a premiere issue over Muslim intra-religious hostility and sectarianism transposes the divine contractual assignment of Islamic law. It creates a reverse moral assumptive whereas intra-religious sectarianism is an acceptable paradigm while anti Muslim bias is not. The latter is declared intolerable to the degree of public protest, indignant response, and central billing in Friday sermons, while the former warrants no such attention, although it ranks amongst the category of major sins in Islam. Stoicism in the face of verbal invective is virtue while the Muslim slander of Muslim is depravity and Muslim on Muslim killing approaches heresy. "Slander of a Muslim is depravity and killing him is heresy".
Therefore, by what moral rationale do we address anti-Muslim sentiment in the press, which by itself bears no spiritual penalty for Muslims if left unattended, and not devote similar attention to Muslim on Muslim killing and slander which register sin by occurrence, and sin when allowed to continue. "Verily the believers are a single brotherhood therefore make peace between your brethren and fear Allah so ye may receive mercy". 4
Since verbal disparagement against Muslims and Islam is an inevitable occurrence, Islamic spiritual etiquette emphasizes preparing in advance for its contingency and utilizing deflective buffering if and when it happens. "Ye shall certainly be tried and tested in your possessions and in your personal selves; and ye shall certainly Hear much that will grieve you, from those who received the Book before you and from those who worship many gods. But if ye persevere patiently, and guard against evil,-then that will be a determining factor in all affairs!" 5 Hence, no shock or dismay should follow slanderous, negative, or degrading statements about Muslims especially in environments where we are religious minorities, such as the United States. As a rule Muslims should resist grieving over verbal insult, "Let not their speech, then, grieve thee. Verily We know what they hide as well as what they disclose. 6
When verbal and media denigration occurs, there are scriptural analgesics that buffer and counteract psychological, emotional, or spiritual irritation. "And have patience with what they say, and leave them with noble (dignity)". 7 Dignified detachment rekindles spiritual fortitude and prioritizes inner jihad. Self control and spiritual focus does more to convey the noble attributes of Islamic teachings than hypersensitivity and angered reaction to disparagement. It brings forth divine assurance of blessing and guidance which in significantly more rewarding than emotional capitulation to antagonist sentiments. "Those who, when afflicted with calamity say: "To Allah We belong, and to Him is our return. They are those on whom (Descend) blessings from Allah, and Mercy, and they are the ones that receive guidance". 8 Blessings and mercy is better than anguish and consternation.
Frenzied retort to anti-Muslim speech underscores the need for Muslim moral attentiveness, and bolsters the argument for reform. Not reform of Islam as suggested by many, but reform of the Muslim heart so that behavior response conforms to Islamic teachings and pleasing the Creator takes precedence over pleasing the created. If there is truth in the verbal invectives launched against us, then reminder is a timely utility since remembrance benefits the believer. If it is false, with no basis in truth, we praise Allah that we are free of it. Demanding that people not insult or speak ill of Muslims only bolsters animosity. It may occasionally silence the tongue, but it has little effect on the heart of the antagonist. Public criticism when muffled turns into whispers (was'wasa) which though lower in decibel, is exponentially more insidious. Let's leave response to insult to Allah and concentrate on our own salvation. "If good fortune comes to you, it grieves them; and if evil befalls you, they rejoice in it. But if you are patient in adversity and conscious of God, their guile cannot harm you at all: for, verily, Allah encompasses [with His might] all that they do." 9 The sooner we do this, the better. Otherwise we will find ourselves inducted into a war of words in which entry itself assures moral casualty.
Imam Abu Laith Luqman is a free lance writer and Imam. He can be reached at, imamabulaith@yahoo.com.
A Slow Process. Hearing that Muslims conquered territory "from the Atlantic to the borders of China," many people reading about Muslim history often wrongly imagine that this huge region instantly became "Islamic." The rapid conquests led to the idea that Islam spread by the sword, with people forced to become Muslims. In fact, however, the spread of Islam in these vast territories took centuries, and Muslims made up a small minority of the population for a long time. In other words, the expansion of territory under Muslim rule happened very rapidly, but the spread of Islam in those lands was a much slower process. The paragraphs below explain how and when that happened.
"Let there be no compulsion in religion." The Qur’an specifies, "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2: 256). This verse states that no person can ever be forced to accept religion against their will. It tells Muslims never to force people to convert to Islam. Anyone who accepts Islam under pressure might not be sincere, and conversion in name only is useless to them, and harmful to members of the faith community.
Prophet Muhammad set a precedent as the leader of Madinah. Under his leadership, the Muslims practiced tolerance towards those of other religions. They were parties to the Constitution of Madinah and to treaties with the Muslims, discussing religious ideas with the Jews, Christians and polytheists (believers in many gods). The Qur’an records some of the questions that they put to Muhammad about Islam. Later Muslim leaders were required to be tolerant, based on the authority of both the Qur’an (in this and many other verses), and the Sunnah, or example of Muhammad. With few exceptions, Muslim leaders have adhered to it over time.
Becoming Muslim. To accept Islam, a person only has to make the profession of faith (shahada) in front of two or more witnesses. Even after a person has accepted Islam, he or she may take a long time to learn and apply its practices, going through many different stages or levels of understanding and practice over time. As Islam spread among large populations, this process was multiplied across a whole population. Different individuals and social classes may have different understandings of Islam at the same time. Also, many local variations and pre-Islamic customs remained, even after societies had been majority Muslim for a long time. This has been a source of diversity among Muslim cultures and regions.
The Process of Conversion. The Prophet Muhammad preached Islam at Makkah and Madinah in Arabia for about twenty-three years. For the first ten years (612 to 622 CE), he preached publicly at Makkah. After the migration to Madinah he preached only in his own house—which was the first masjid—only to people who came to hear him. Preaching in houses or in the masjid became the pattern in Islam.
The first two khalifahs required most of the inhabitants of Arabia who had been pagans to affirm their loyalty as Muslims. Christian and Jewish communities were allowed to continue practicing their faiths. In Yemen there are still Jewish communities. Outside Arabia, however, the khilafah did not force non-Arabs to become Muslims. Historians are surprised that they did not even encourage them to become Muslims. Only Khalifah ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz (ruled 717–720) made an effort to encourage people to accept Islam, and sent out missionaries to North Africa and other areas. During the early khilafah (632–750), non-Arabs began to accept Islam of their own free will. New Muslims migrated to Muslim garrison cities, to learn about Islam and possibly to get jobs and associate themselves with ruling groups. Whatever their reasons their actions became more common over the years, and expanded the Muslim population. These migrants became associates, or mawali, of Arab tribes. The mawali also tried to convince their relatives and members of their ethnic group to become Muslims. Some migrant Arab and mawali families made important contributions in preserving and spreading Islamic knowledge. They became scholars of Islamic law, history, literature and the sciences. In this way, Islam spread in spite of political rulers, not because of them.
During the years of the Umayyad khalifahs from 661–750 CE, the overwhelming majority of non-Arab population of the Umayyad—which stretched from Morocco to China—were not Muslims. Toward the end of that time, the North African Berbers became the first major non-Arab group to accept Islam.
Within a few centuries, Christianity disappeared almost completely from North Africa—as it did from no other place in the Muslim world. Jews remained as a small minority, with many living in Muslim Spain. Iranians of Central Asia were the second major movement in the spread of Islam, beginning in about 720 CE. Both of these early groups of converts caused problems for the central government. In North Africa, Berbers set up an independent khalifah, breaking the political unity of Islam. In in Central Asia, the revolution arose that replaced the Umayyad with the Abbasid dynasty. After this time, Islam was no longer the religion of a single ethnic group or of one ruling group.
Developing a Muslim culture. In the central lands, the gradual spread of Islam is difficult to trace. Some scholars, such as Richard Bulliet, think that in Egypt, few Egyptians had become Muslims before the year 700, and Islam reached 50 percent of the population in the 900s, three hundred years after the arrival of Islam. By about 1200, Muslims were more than 90 percent of the population. In Syria, Islam spread even more slowly. There, the 50-percent mark was not reached until 1200, nearly six hundred years after the arrival of Islam. Iraq and Iran probably reached a Muslim majority by around 900 CE, like Egypt. In much of Spain and Portugal, Islam became established between 711 and about 1250. After the Reconquista by Spanish Catholics was completed in 1492, and many Muslims and Jews were expelled from Spain, Islam continued to exist until after 1600. Islam may never have been the majority faith during the 700 years of Muslim rule. Spain, Portugal and Sicily are the only places where which Islam has ever been driven out.
In the East, Muslim law treated Zoroastrians, Buddhists, and Hindus just as it treated Jews and Christians. Muslim rulers offered them protection of life, property, and freedom of religious practice in exchange for the payment of a tax, as an alternative to military service. In Sind (India), the Buddhist population seems to have embraced Islam over about two centuries (712–900). Buddhism disappeared entirely. Hinduism in Sind declined much more slowly than Buddhism.
All of the lands described above were territories under Muslim rule. After the decline of unified Muslim rule, Islam spread to lands outside its boundaries. Anatolia
(or Asia Minor), which makes up most of modern Turkey, came after 1071 under the rule of Turkish tribesmen who had become Muslims. Islam spread gradually for centuries after that.
When the Ottoman Turks reached south-eastern Europe in the mid fourteenth century, most Albanians and Bosnians and some Bulgarians became Muslims. Beginning in the fifteenth century, however, Islam did not spread rapidly in this area, perhaps because the population resented or disliked the centralized government of the Ottoman Empire. Strong feelings about religion and ethnicity in the region may also have been a cause.
Continuing Spread. Beginning in 1192, other Muslim Turkish tribesmen conquered parts of India, including the area of present-day Bangladesh. The number of Muslims there gradually increased in India from that time. The people of Bangladesh were Buddhists, and, beginning about 1300, they—like the Buddhists of Sind—rapidly embraced Islam, becoming a Muslim majority in that region. Elsewhere in India, except for Punjab and Kashmir in the north-west, Hinduism remained the religion of the majority.
In South India and Sri Lanka, traders and Sufis, or mystical followers of Islam, spread Islam and carried it to Southeast Asia by 1300 CE. Over the next two centuries in today’s Indonesia—the Spice Islands—Islam spread from Malaysia to Sumatra and reached the Moluccas in eastern Indonesia. Entering a land where Buddhism, Hinduism and traditional faiths of the island people existed, it took several centuries before practice of Islam became established as it was practiced in other Muslim lands. In Central Asia, Islam gradually spread to the original homelands of the Turks and Mongols, until it was the main religion of nearly all Turkic-speaking peoples. Islam spread into Xinjiang, the western part of China, where it was tolerated by the Chinese empire. Much earlier, in the 8th and 9th centuries, a group of ethnic Chinese Han had accepted Islam. These groups continue to practice Islam today. Islam spread to China through the seaports such as Guanzhou, where the earliest Chinese masjid exists.
Africa. Before 1500, Islam spread widely in sub-Saharan Africa. The first town south of the Sahara that became majority Muslim was Gao on the Niger River in Mali before 990, when a ruler accepted Islam. Over the centuries, many rulers followed. By 1040, groups in Senegal became Muslims. From them Islam spread to the region of today’s Senegal, west Mali, and Guinea. After the Soninke of the Kingdom of Ghana became Muslims about 1076, Islam spread along the Niger River. Muslims established the kingdom of Mali in the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries, and Songhai from1465 to 1600. Farther east, Kanem-Bornu near Lake Chad became Muslim after 1100. In West Africa, like Turkestan, India, and Indonesia, it was traders and later Sufis who introduced Islam, and many rulers accepted it first, followed by others. African Muslim scholars became established in the major towns like Timbuktu, and they taught, wrote and practiced Islamic law as judges. By 1500, Islam was established in West Africa throughout the Sahel belt and along the Niger River into today’s Nigeria.
In East Africa, traders had spread Islam down the coast by the tenth century, and it gradually developed further in the following centuries. In the Sudan, south of Egypt, the population of Nubia gradually became Muslim during the fourteenth century, through immigration of Muslim Arab tribesmen and preaching Islam, and because Christian rule became weak in the region. Muslim rule and influence, however, did not extend south of Khartoum, where the Blue and White Niles before 1500 CE.
Strong Governments and the Spread of Islam. By understanding that the expansion of Muslim rule was different from the spread of Islam among populations, we can see an interesting trend. Ironically, Islam has spread most widely and rapidly among the population at times when Muslim rule was weaker and less unified. When Muslim political regimes were weak, decentralized, disunited, or completely absent, Islam as a religion flourished and often spread to non-Muslims. Influence by traders, Sufis and influence of Muslim culture in the cities aided the spread of Islam to new areas. On the other hand, strong states like the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans during the fifteenth century, or the Sultanate of Delhi and the Mogul empire in northern India, had little success in spreading Islam, though they did gain territory. Non-Muslim populations seem to have viewed these powerful Muslim rulers negatively, and so they resisted conversion to Islam. Whoever did embrace Islam in such circumstances, if not for material gain, usually did so because of the efforts of merchants, teachers and traveling Sufi preachers, who were not part of the government. Although the conversion of rulers has often influenced other people in a society to accept Islam, these conversions were not the result of conquests. As in West Africa, East Africa and Southeast Asia, they were far from the ruling centers, but came to know about Islam through the example and teaching of traders and travelers who came in their wake.
Khalid Blankinship, "The Spread of Islam," in World Eras: Rise and Spread of Islam, 622-1500, S. L. Douglass, ed. (Farmington, MI: Gale, 2002), pp. 230-232.
Richard Bulliet, Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period: An Essay in Quantitative History (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1979).
Bulliet, Islam: the View from the Edge (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994)
In The Name of God, The Merciful, The Mercy Giving
On September 12, 2006 in Regensburg, Germany, Pope Benedict XVI uttered the following sentence, referencing a 14th century Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith that he preached.” [1] There have been many explanations of what the Pope meant by this comment, and varying theories proposed as to what his motivation was. It is my contention that the Pope’s comments signaled a tacit endorsement of the evolving anti-Muslim agenda of the radical right.
To begin with, the Pontiff uttered these words in the context of an increasingly polarized world where religious sentiments are being manipulated by demagogues of various stripes to advance their nefarious agendas. That polarization is epitomized by the Danish cartoon controversy, in which offensive caricatures allegedly portraying the Prophet Muhammad, peace upon him, touched off a firestorm of protest throughout the Muslim world. At the height of that controversy, Pope Benedict uttered the following conciliatory remarks:
In the international context we are living at present, the Catholic Church continues convinced that, to foster peace and understanding between peoples and men it is necessary and urgent that religions and their symbols be respected...
He added:
Believers should not be the object of provocations that wound their lives and religious sentiments…
And finally:
The only path that can lead to peace and fraternity is respect for the convictions and religious practices of others. [2]
Being only six months removed from that crisis, it would be difficult to accept that the Pope did not realize the sensitivity of his quoting the emperor’s remarks. This is especially true in light of the above pronouncements. Either the Pope was not being sincere when he made his remarks about religious tolerance and understanding, or he subsequently abandoned the principles they articulate.
It is not coincidental that the Pope’s remarks occurred a day after America commemorated the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001. That anniversary is being seized upon by the radical right to galvanize popular support for the so-called “war on terror.” It is also not coincidental that the underlying tone of the Pope’s remarks dealt with an interpretation of Islam that implies it is a religion of irrational violence. Here the Pope went even further than Mr. Bush, who confined his indictments of violence-prone Muslims to the “Islamic fascists.” [3] In lockstep with the radical right in America and Europe, he implied that Islam itself is an irrational faith, inspired by an irrational god, and instituted by an irrational prophet, who urges the spread of the faith by violence, the epitome of irrationality, as, in the words of the “erudite” emperor, Manuel II:
“Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death.” [4]
Not only is Islam, as implied in the argument the Pope references, irrational, it is also inherently evil, as it brought “things only evil and inhuman.” The charges levied against Islam in the emperor’s statements are the same as those found in the literature and pronouncements associated with the agenda of the radical right. It is on this basis that one may reach the conclusion that the statement was marshaled by the Pope to signal his endorsement of that agenda.
The Pope could have merely stated in the context of his talk that he believes Islam contains some irrational teachings. In today’s political climate he might have been condemned in some quarters for not going far enough. If as he states, the decisive statement in the discussion he references is that “not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature,” he could have merely stated that and spared us the ensuing crisis. Such a statement would have been far more consistent with his call to respect the religions and symbols of others. Furthermore, his argument would not have been weakened in any way.
Instead, he scoured the writings of a rival sect to find a statement that categorically condemns Islam as irrational and violent. The Pope is a trained philosopher, logician, and diplomat and as such, he knows exactly what the implications of the word “only” are in the emperor’s statement: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman…”
“Only” renders the statement categorical, meaning there is nothing good to be found in Islam. As he develops his argument, he also implies there is nothing rational in Islam. Hence, there is no room to negotiate with Muslims, there are no lofty or shared principles or values to appeal to, there is only evil. In a world where good is the desirable ideal, evil must be eliminated. The Pope did not carry his argument to this logical conclusion, but others have done so. Writing on the website of the prominent African American conservative and recent U.S. Senate candidate, Alan Keyes, Todd Warner Huston states:
So, we feel the only true solution is that millions of Muslims must be killed and the sooner the better it will be for the whole world. Not because Jews are somehow perfect or that Muslims just plain "need killing," but because Islam is so patently evil and needs to be defeated! [5]
It is indeed frightening to believe that the Pope would be seeking to legitimize such sentiments. Perhaps he is not, and inadvertently overlooked the implications of his words. However, this is not the first sign of his endorsing American and European radical right-wing ideology. Since assuming the papacy he has stated to a group of European Imams that the only issue he wished to discus with them was “Islamic terrorism.” He has opined that “Islam is not simply a denomination that can be included in the free realm of a pluralistic society.” That it cannot be “assimilated,” nor does it make any “sort of concession to inculturation.” [6] Again, such allegations fill the literature of the radical right.
Many of the Pope’s actions are consistent with his words in this regard. Since assuming control at the Vatican he has demoted Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, an individual known for his open encouragement of dialogue and good relations with Muslims, and he has distanced himself from Cardinal Angelo Sodano, distinguished by his pro-Palestinian views. An individual believed to be one of his closest advisors, Piersandro Vanzan, has co-authored an article in which he states that moderate Islam does not exist. That article, The Islamic Question, was published in a journal, Studium, which has a statutory relationship with the Holy See. [7]
In addition to his comment about moderate Islam, Vanzan makes other statements that are far graver in their implications, and demonstrate just how close official Vatican views are coming to reflect those of the radical right. For example, Vanzan equates Ayman Zawahiri to Hitler. This scare tactic, which President George W. Bush has recently begun to employ, was instituted by the radical right as part of its effort to overstate the “Islamic” threat. Analyzing Zawahiri’s political program, Vanzan states:
This pan-Islamist program might make some smirk, just as many smirked at Hitler before his political ascent. But this is a real program, which is being carried out according to a clear plan, and although it is working slowly, it is producing results. [8]
Benedict has also granted a rare private audience to the controversial anti-immigration feminist writer, Oriana Fallaci, who in her book, The Rage and The Pride, describes Muslims as “retrograde bigots who, instead of contributing to the improvement of humanity, salaam and squawk prayers five times a day.” [9] Fallaci, who recently passed away, has been indicted in Italy on charges of inciting religious hatred in an essay ironically entitled, The Strength of Reason. [10] It would be hoped that she would have given the Pontiff counsel more enlightened than the alarmist diatribe she offered his predecessor, Pope John Paul II. After lauding his role in the collapse of the Soviet Union she comments:
And after such a victory you wink at individuals who are worse than Stalin, you flirt with the same ones who still would like to build mosques inside the Vatican? Most Holy Father…In all respect, you remind me of the German bankers who in the 1930s, hoping to save themselves, lent money to Hitler. And who a few years later ended up in his crematory ovens. [11]
It is discouraging to think that in her counsel to John Paul’s successor, she may well have been preaching to the choir.
Another more subtle of the Pope’s quotations from the emperor’s controversial statements suggests that the Pontiff is more interested in advancing an ideological position than in meticulous scholarship. To strengthen his suggestion that Islam was “spread by the sword,” that expression itself having its own pejorative history, the Pope dismisses the Qur’anic verse that states, There is no compulsion in religion. (2:256)” He blithely does so by referencing “experts” who opine that “this is one of the surahs of the early period, when Mohammed was powerless and under threat.” [12] Apparently, the Pope fails to grasp the oxymoronic nature of his assertion, for if the Prophet, peace upon him, were “powerless and under threat,” how could he possess the ability to coerce anyone to believe? Hence, why would the verse have to be revealed at that particular time? It is well-established that this Qur’anic verse (2:256) is from the sura al-Baqara (the Cow), which was actually revealed during the later Madinan period when the Prophet, upon him be peace, had established his power base. [13] Numerous narrations support its literal meaning, specifically, that no one can be forced to accept Islam.
Like Vanzan when he says that there is “no moderate Islam,” the Pope, wittingly or unwittingly, strips Islam of all nuances. This black and white caricature can then be presented as the foil against which the virtues of God’s reasonable religion of love can be extolled. The reality of the situation is that the Qur’an is a highly nuanced scripture. In it God orders man to fight, not irrationally, but in defense of the poor and oppressed (4:75), to defend against expulsion and unjust occupation (22:39), or in self defense (2:190). However, there are other verses from the same period, such as the one the Pope dismisses, that forbid forced conversion (2:256), urge peace (8:61), reconciliation (49:8-9), and respect and amicable treatment of the non-Muslim “other” (60:8). All of these verses were revealed long after the Prophet, peace upon him, was “still powerless and under threat.”
These verses create a tension that urges human beings to apply their intellect to resolve. This is exactly what Muslims have been doing throughout their history. As a result, Islam is not the black and white, un-nuanced phenomenon many of its contemporary critics wish it to be. It is as complex and involved as the lives and times of the vast array of humans who have lived it in varying societal contexts. To present a brief example, relevant to our discussion, the only true “Jihad” state in Muslim history, the Umayyad dynasty, was essentially non-proselytizing. On the other hand, the most successful periods of proselytizing in Islamic history have not been accompanied by armed campaigns. These and similar historical realities defy simple explanation by a crude allegation that Islam was spread by the sword.
There are other aspects of the quotes chosen by the Pope to make his point that should cause one to ask, “Why this particular quote, and why now?” Specifically, the emperor’s interlocutor, representative of the “irrational” Muslims, is a Persian, in our days known as an Iranian. It is interesting to note that the argument made by the radical right for the exceptional treatment of Iran, in terms of efforts to halt their nuclear program, is that they are irrational Muslims, and as such cannot be trusted with technology that might lead to the development of a nuclear weapon. Is the Pope subtly supporting that opposition? It would not be surprising if this is how the Iranians see it.
Whatever message he may be sending, wittingly or unwittingly, the very nature of the “conversation” between the emperor and his Persian interlocutor, as the Pope presents it, reflects the reality of today’s big power politics. It is a one-way affair, a monologue of civilizations. The emperor lectures, scolds, and pontificates, while the Persian listens. We are given no clue as to the beliefs, principles, or arguments of the Emperor’s interlocutor. Of course, being an “irrational” Muslim, one would not anticipate him possessing any viable arguments, certainly none worthy of quoting in such an “enlightened” discourse.
It should not be surprising that the Turks are upset by the Pontiff’s utilization of the passage in question. Benedict is a vocal opponent of Turkey’s entrance into the European Union on the grounds that her entrance would violate the essentially Christian nature of Europe. Now, on the eve of his scheduled visit to Turkey this November, Benedict uses the emperor’s remarks to subtly remind the Turk’s that their Muslim country was once the heart of Byzantium, and that Istanbul, the seat of Ottoman Muslim authority, was once known as Constantinople. It would be a stretch of the imagination to view this as an accidental oversight by the ambassador of the world’s largest Christian church.
Let us briefly examine the Pontiff’s argument. For Benedict, the origin of Muslim irrationality is what he sees as the Muslim belief in the absolutely transcendent nature of God. The Pope never bothers to examine the relationship between God’s transcendent nature and divine or human reason in the Islamic tradition, even in a cursory fashion. Once again we get a caricature, embodied in his allegation that: “(The great Muslim scholar) Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us.” In the context of the argument the Pope proceeds to develop, Ibn Hazm’s statement is indeed frightening. It implies that neither God’s commandments, nor the actions of such a religion’s adherents could ever be governed by rational parameters. Hence, such a religion has no basis for an objective moral system.
However, even if we accept the quote, attributed to Ibn Hazm, as meaning what Benedict implies that it does, we would have to ask if it captures the full range of Muslim views concerning the relationship between God and ration throughout the lengthy history of the Muslim people? Of course, it does not. The sad reality of such simplistic caricaturing is that it not only neglects the deep influence of Greek philosophy on Muslim philosophy and theology, it also masks the reality of the deep impact that Muslim philosophy and theology would have on Christian thinking during the Middle Ages. The Pope would apparently be quick to condemn that influence, for it would work to dehellenize Christianity, in his view, limiting our knowledge of God to our knowledge of his “voluntas ordinate.”
The influence of Greek thought on Muslim philosophy is so deep that the dominant, classical Islamic philosophical school is usually referred to as Islamic Neo-Platonism. Reason was an integral part of that school. It saw God, or the First Principle, as transcendent, a position not unknown among many Greek philosophers, and the role of reason was undeniable as “the instrument of God in his creation, and the locus of the forms of things, as well as the source of the illumination of the human mind; […]” [14]
In the evolution of Islamic theology, the strict rationalism of the Mu’tazilite school would eventually yield to the more guarded approach of the Ash’aris and Maturidis. These latter schools, which would assume the standard of Islamic orthodoxy, were predicated on the systematic application of reason to resolve a wide array of theological problems. The problem for the orthodox critics of rational philosophy, and the excesses of rational theology, was not ration itself, but the assertion of some Muslim philosophers and theologians that God’s will was bound up with human rationality –a view the Pope endorses in his argument.
This assertion, made by the Pope, could easily lead to what Dr. Sherman Jackson refers to as “the new anthropomorphism.” [15] This term describes a situation where we lord ourselves over God by informing Him of what His religion is. For the Pope the danger lies in identifying God’s will, nay God himself, with anything we may determine to be rational. Here the new anthropomorphism involves lording ourselves over God by placing our ration as the standard that determines the parameters of His power and the nature of His religion.
Benedict’s rationalist formulation creates a deep philosophical dilemma that makes it difficult to accept the existence of evil, while simultaneously acknowledging God’s omnipotence. Avoiding the danger inherent in that position was one of major issues tackled by orthodox Muslim theologians. For them a balance had to be struck between human rationality and the independent power of God. In striking that balance, they always subordinated human rationality to divine revelation. However, they did not eliminate rational categories as considerations to govern our reflections on God’s will and power. To elevate human rationality to equal or surpass God would have been clear idolatry, an unimaginable leap for a Muslim.
Benedict makes that leap by identifying rationality, or logos, with the very essence of God. As he words it, “In the beginning was logos, and the logos is God.” Based on this formulation we can conclude, implicitly, “In the beginning was reason and reason is God.” To Benedict this is a valid interpretation because as he states “Logos means both reason and word.” While this is true linguistically, in the jargon of the Church, historically, the word and not reason “is God.” Benedict’s is a revisionist interpretation.
However, like most revisionist interpretations of established doctrine, this one breaks down when we consider its implications. In this case, by way of example, such an interpretation would lead us to accept that John 1:14 could be legitimately rendered, “And reason became flesh and dwelt among us.” Such an absurdity is the inevitable fruit of an over intellectualized approach to faith, an approach shunned by Jesus himself. However, that approach is begged by the rationalism that the Enlightenment restored by bringing reason to the fore of Western thinking.
However, reason is a two-edged sword. This is implicit in Benedict’s lecture. He situates the rebirth of the Church in the restoration of reason ushered in by the Enlightenment. However, the very forces working against that rational restoration, two of which he identifies as the second and third stages of the Church’s dehellenization, are forces that are also rooted in the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment gives, and it takes away.
Similarly, Benedict’s application of Enlightenment rationalism leads him to conclude that reason is the ultimate truth. However, Nietzsche, starting from the same rationalist point of departure, argued that rationalism can discover no universal values or ultimate truths. Hence, while the Pope uses rationalism to proclaim to an increasingly secular Europe that God yet lives, Nietzsche’s rationalism was one of the greatest catalysts in that secularizing process, and he announced that God is dead. There are those who argue that the rationalism of Nietzsche found its ultimate expression in the fascist ideology of Nazi Germany. We would hope that the rationalism of the Pope does not contribute to a similar end.
Imam Zaid Shakir
5 Ramadan 1427
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] link
[2] link
[3] link
[4] link
[5] link
[6] For a summary of these and related quotes, see Abdal Hakim Murad, “Benedict XVI and Islam: the First Year,” link
[7] link
[8] Op. cit.
[9] Oriania Fallaci, The Rage and The Pride (New York: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., 2002), 85.
[10] link
[11] Ibid., p. 83.
[12] link
[13] The list of Muslim exegetes who affirm that Qur’an 2:256 is a latter Madinan Chapter is exhaustive. I mention here a representative sample. Imam Muhammad ‘Ali Ash-Shawkani, Fath al-Qadir (Beirut: ‘Alam al-Kutub, nd), 1:274-275; Imam Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Adhim (Sidon, Beirut: al-Maktaba al-‘Asriyya, 1996/1416), 272-273; Imam Abu Muhammad al-Husayn al-Baghawi, Ma’alam at-Tanzil (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifa, 1986/1407), 1:240; Imam Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad al-Qurtubi, Al-Jami’ li Ahkam al-Qur’an (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 19/14), 3:280; Imam Abu Bakr Muhammad bin al-‘Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur’an (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, nd), 1:310; Imam Abu Su’ud Muhammad bin Muhammad al-Hanafi, Tafsir Abu Su’ud (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 1999/1419), 1:297; Imam Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti, Ad-Durr al-Manthur (Beirut: Dar Ihya at-Turath al-‘Arabi, 2001/1421), 2:20; Imam Isma’il al-Burusawi, Tafsir Ruh al-Bayan (Beirut: Dar Ihya at-Turath al-‘Arabi, 2001.1421), 1:499; Imam as-Suyuti, Lubab an-Nuqul (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifa, 1997/1418), 53-54. Imam Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jarir at-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan fi Ta’wil al-Qur’an (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 1997/1418), 3:15-18.
[14] Majid Fakhri, A History of Islamic Philosophy (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1983), 31.
[15] Sherman Jackson, Islam and the Blackamerican: Looking Towards the Third Resurrection (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press), 191.
[6:32] And the life of this world is nothing but play and amusement. But far better is the house in the Hereafter for those who are AlMuttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2). Will you not then understand?
[6:70] And leave alone those who take their religion as play and amusement, and are deceived by the life of this world. But remind (them) with it (the Qur'ân) lest a person be given up to destruction for that which he has earned, when he will find for himself no protector or intercessor besides Allâh, and even if he offers every ransom, it will not be accepted from him. Such are they who are given up to destruction because of that which they have earned. For them will be a drink of boiling water and a painful torment because they used to disbelieve.
[47:36] The life of this world is but play and pastime, but if you believe (in the Oneness of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism), and fear Allâh, and avoid evil, He will grant you your wages, and will not ask you your wealth.
[57:20] Know that the life of this world is only play and amusement, pomp and mutual boasting among you, and rivalry in respect of wealth and children, as the likeness of vegetation after rain, thereof the growth is pleasing to the tiller; afterwards it dries up and you see it turning yellow; then it becomes straw. But in the Hereafter (there is) a severe torment (for the disbelievers, evil-doers), and (there is) Forgiveness from Allâh and (His) Good Pleasure (for the believers, good-doers), whereas the life of this world is only a deceiving enjoyment.
