Bassam Zawadi on Violence in Islam

Muslims often claim that their religion only allows violence when Islam is being threatened. It is important to note, however, that, as far as Islam is concerned, a “threat” doesn’t need to be an invading army. Insults against Muhammad, criticisms against Islam, hindering the preaching of Islam—all of this qualifies as an attack against Islam, and Muslims are called upon to react violently.

Interestingly enough, Bassam has admitted some of this in his comments. Responding to a question about Muslims invading foreign lands, Bassam said:

“As for invasions by islamic armies. They invaded lands whose rulers were oppressing them. They invaded lands that put a barrier between the preaching of Islam to the people, its like putting a barrier between the doctor and patient.”

So according to Bassam, it is okay for Muslims to invade a land (i.e. to use violence), if the country is interfering with the preaching of Islam. I pointed out to Bassam that, if Christians used his line of reasoning, they could invade Malaysia, or many other Muslim countries, which interfere with the preaching of the Gospel.

Bassam’s response was amazingly accurate and insightful. He said:

“Well, no it wouldn't be right for you because your religion does not teach that this is something that you should do if such a situation arises. Our religion does. Therefore, it would be wrong for you since your religion doesn't teach it and your doing this from your own line of reasoning.”

As Sunil pointed out, Bassam has admitted that, while Islam allows violence in such a situation, Christianity does not. And it is amazing to read such an honest reply. Notice what Bassam has acknowledged here. If a country refuses to allow Muslim preachers to enter the land and preach to non-Muslims, followers of Muhammad are called upon to declare war and conquer the land! This can hardly be viewed as a defensive war.

My point here is simply that when Muslims claim that they may only kill in self-defense, their definition of “self-defense” is much broader than people might expect. Any interference with the message of Islam, whether the offenders have used physical force or not, is grounds for violence. I have to agree with Bassam, however, that Christians may not resort to such tactics.

Preaching to Muslims in Malaysia

Preaching to Muslims is illegal in parts of Malaysia, but recently the Muslim government increased the punishment for anyone who would try to convert Muslims to another religion:

Malaysian State Stiffens Penalties to Stifle Muslim Conversions

This reminds me of an earlier post by Umm Yaqub, which asks why Muslims are scared to let Bibles into Saudi Arabia.

If Islam is clearly true, why are Muslims so desperate to keep people from hearing alternatives?

Rediscovering Our Backbones

Here's a good article on the latest Rushdie affair, free speech, and the results of constantly backing down from Muslim extremists:

Rediscovering Our Backbones

Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I just started reading Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ali is a former Muslim who grew up in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, and Kenya, and is now famous for her fierce criticism of Islam. While I’m sure I will disagree with many of her ultimate conclusions regarding religion and morality, the book is providing me with an excellent firsthand account of life in the Muslim world.

In Chapter Three, Ali and her family move from Somalia (largely Muslim, but not too strict) to Saudi Arabia (the heart of the Muslim world). The transition is quite interesting. Ali, her brother Mahad, and her sister Haweya enter a school with Saudi children. Ali recalls:

All the girls at madrassah [school for learning the Qur’an] were white; I thought of them as white, and myself, for the first time, as black. They called Haweya and I Abid, which meant slaves. Being called a slave—the racial prejudice this term conveyed—was a big part of what I hated in Saudi Arabia. (p. 42)

This racism against Ali and her family, however, was nothing compared to the Saudis’ hatred of Jews:

In Saudi Arabia, everything bad was the fault of the Jews. When the air conditioner broke or suddenly the tap stopped running, the Saudi women next door used to say the Jews did it. The children next door were taught to pray for the health of their parents and the destruction of the Jews. (p. 47)

Ali says that she and her family loved visiting the Grand Mosque, where everyone was kind to one another. Yet the situation was quite different outside the mosque:

[A]s soon as we left the mosque, Saudi Arabia meant intense heat and filth and cruelty. People had their heads cut off in public squares. Adults spoke of it. It was a normal, routine thing: after the Friday noon prayer you could go home for lunch, or you could go and watch the executions. Hands were cut off. Men were flogged. Women were stoned. (p. 43)

At home, Ali began to notice the harsh treatment of Saudi women:

Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly beaten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their screams resounded across the courtyards: “No! Please! By Allah!” (p. 47)

This mistreatment, and other horrors she witnessed in the course of her life, have fueled her passion for reform in the Muslim world.

I’m only on Chapter Five, but the book is great so far. I’m looking forward to reading about her encounter with the West, and her struggles with Islam.

Muslim Official on Suicide Bombings

Recently, Yunis al-Astal, a Palestinian member of parliament, issued the following ominous threat on televsion:

"… The most important message is that our enemies should know that there is no place for them on the land of Palestine. Each and every boy and man, and each and every girl and woman, is a potential martyrdom-seeker. The enemy should know that we are prepared to wear explosive belts, and to throw ourselves in the midst of the enemy, in order to make them taste the evil consequences of their deeds. They should know that they have no other choice – either they leave or they will die, even if it takes a long time."

Source

Did Muhammad Copy from Earlier Sources?

In the "comments" section of a previous post, Bassam said that just because two texts contain the same stories, it doesn't mean that one writer copied from other sources. Bassam is correct that similarity doesn't absolutely prove copying. However, the evidence may certainly point in that direction. For instance, if a teenager hands in a paper to a teacher that is remarkably similar to that of another student, the teacher will infer copying based on the extent of the similarity.

If Muhammad were truly a prophet, then the angel Gabriel may indeed have revealed stories that are found in earlier sources. But a problem arises when some of the sources contain apparently fictional material. That is, if we have good reasons for thinking that a story was invented by a creative writer in the second or fifth century, and then we find the same story in the Qur'an, this strongly implies that Muhammad incorporated a fictional tale into the Qur'an.

Muslims, of course, will say that the story is true, and that the earlier source reporting the same story is correct. While this is possible, it requires a tremendous leap of faith on the part of Muslims. As the following video shows, the problem for Muslims who want to defend Muhammad is quite severe:

Islam vs. Salman Rushdie . . . Again

Salman Rushdie, author of the infamous Satanic Verses, is now "Sir" Salman Rushdie. Several people were killed in response to his book, which was published nearly two decades ago. Muslims are now reacting to the knighthood of the author with threats of violence. A Canadian article reports that a Pakistani government official has said:

"The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. (But) If someone exploded a bomb on his body, he would be right to do so unless the British government apologizes and withdraws the sir title.”

Government officials aren’t the only ones calling for Rushdie’s execution, however. According to the article, “In the eastern city of Multan, Muslim students burned effigies of the Queen and Rushdie. About 100 students carrying banners condemning the author also chanted, ‘Kill him! Kill him!’”

For more on this issue, the following articles may be consulted:

“Pakistan Minister Says Salman Rushdie’s Knighthood Justifies Suicide Attacks”

“Behead All Those Who Insult Islam”

“Pakistan Says Rushdie Knighthood May Spark Terrorism”

Testimony of a Convert to Islam (and a Response to Nabeel Qureshi)

Nabeel’s testimony about his conversion to Christianity may be read here. Recently, a convert to Islam named Allison wrote a response to Nabeel, which she sent to me. Since Westerners need to understand why people convert to Islam, I have posted Allison’s response.

************

Dear Nabeel,

I am a Christian who became Muslim, so it is with great surprise and no small disappointment that I read your article.

When I was twelve years old, I attended church and heard a sermon on the "death of Jesus" (peace be upon him) on the cross. He asks for fish after his death. Why? Because he is dead? No, because he is alive and hungry. Read the whole chapter on John in the New Testament. At the age of twelve, I felt sure that Jesus was alive. This is also why Doubting Thomas is rebuked for doubting Jesus (a.s.), because Jesus was, in fact, alive.

How did Jesus, peace be upon him, greet everyone? He said "Peace." What religion says "Peace be unto you!" Islam, of course.

When I finally met Muslims, I was impressed by the fact that they always gave respect to Jesus, by following his name with "Alai Salam". It is a prayer for peace on his soul. How can Christianity be superior when the Muslims are the ones saying prayers for Jesus and the Christians don't say anything so respectful or prayerful...

I also became a Muslim based on one simple fact. Muslims pray five times a day. That is a very high standard. Christians attend church once a week. The math shows you who should be closer to God, because Allah has higher expectations for Muslims. If you bathe in a river five times a day versus once a week, who would be spiritually cleaner?

Jesus (a.s.) prayed like Muslims. Read the sermon on the mount. He presses his forehead to the earth. Who prays like that? We Muslims do. Christians do not.

Jesus (a.s.) did not eat pork. We know that because he was a Jew. Christians eat pork and their own language suggests that pork eaters are greedy people. The English language includes these expressions: "You hog!" "Don't be a hog" "Don't hog the road." "What a big pig" and "What a swine!" These are expressions of ultimate disgust. Are you eating pork now that you are a Christian?

You said in your article that you couldn't say that Mohamed (a.s.) "was bad." It seems that your Christian "friends" are pushing you to say that, but because you were Muslim, you couldn't give that disrespect. Thank God, you defended the Holy Prophet by saying that no prophets are bad. I hope you can see that the Christians would like you to say that Jesus (a.s.) is a superior prophet of God. Think about this. God can do whatever He likes. Consequently, you should ask yourself why there are more Hadith about the Holy Prophet than we have about Jesus (a.s.) And, most importantly, we have the Holy Prophet's example as a husband. Because of Christianity's lack of Jesus' (a.s.) example as a husband, the have monasticism, which resulted in all the gay priests committing atrocities with girls and boys.

The Holy Quran offers us very exact and beautiful prayers. (Moses: rabbay inee lay ma unzulta elaya min haran fakir: I am in need of whatever help you might send down to me.) Christians say that they follow the teachings of Moses (a.s.), but they don't have his prayers. What better way to follow him? It is indeed a very humble prayer.

I am sorry. I have three children and I have no more time to respond. I could say a lot more, but if you are not convinced by these arguments, I doubt anyone can persuade you to anything different.

Allah says "Certainly, Allah wrongs not men at all, but men wrong their own souls." (10:45) When I read that, I fell in love with the Holy Quran, because I am an honest person. I don't believe that Allah will dump my sins on the back of Jesus on the day of Judgement. That would be unfair.

You are free to do whatever you want.

My credo is "Love for All, Hatred for None." There is no superior motto in the world. It is sad that you could turn your back on The Promised Messiah (a.s.) AND the Holy Prophet (a.s.) and miss the highest spiritual leadership of this age. But Allah gave you the freedom to choose, so that He could test you and see what you chose.

My seven year old daughter is a waqfe nau. She saw the cross on your website. She said "La whola wula quita ila bila hila lee ulazeem" There is One God and only One God."

Keep praying for the truth. Sometimes you have to be very patient. I have had so many dreams about the truth of the Promised Messiah and the Holy Prophet that I could write a book, but I don't have time to share them with you. However, I will tell you that Allah showed me in a dream that there is still some gold in the bible, but it was less than a half--about a third--not the 95% that your friend David claims. The trick for the Christians is sticking to that one third!

Sincerely,

Allison

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

A Muslim man who raped a Muslim woman as punishment for reading the Bible has been sentenced to five years in prison. The woman has converted to Christianity. Read the article here.

Can a Person Be Both a Christian and a Muslim?

Either Jesus died on the cross, or he didn't die on the cross. There is no in-between. Either Jesus is divine, or he is not. Either God is triune, or he is something else.

While some Christian teachings are compatible with Muslim teachings (since Muhammad borrowed extensively from Christian and Jewish traditions), there are some fundamental differences as well. Yet interestingly, an Episcopal priest named Ann Redding claims that she is both a Christian and a Muslim.

She says, "I am both Muslim and Christian, just like I'm both an American of African descent and a woman. I'm 100 percent both."

There is, however, a tremendous difference between being an African-American woman and being a Muslim Christian. The former entails no logical contradictions. The latter entails many. For instance, to be a Muslim Christian, one would have to hold both that Jesus died on the cross and that he didn't die on the cross. One would have to throw logic completely out the window.

Indeed, Redding admits that she's basing her position on feeling: "It wasn't about intellect," she said. "All I know is the calling of my heart to Islam was very much something about my identity and who I am supposed to be."

Although feelings have a purpose, God gave us our intellects for good reasons--one of which is to spot contradictions. Sincere Christians and sincere Muslims should therefore find this article shocking:

"I Am Both Muslim and Christian."

Temporary Marriage in Iran

To combat the problem of premarital sex in Iran, leaders are reinstituting the practice of Muta, or temporary marriage, in accordance with the teachings of Muhammad. (The early Muslim sources are not consistent on this issue.) You can read about the movement in Iran in this article from Fox News:

Marriage In Iran: 'Til Death, or Contract Expiration, Do Us Part

For a detailed examination of Muta in Islam, click here.

Hit them becomes tap them symbolically?!?

I read David's article below, titled "The Qur'an, Surah 4:34". Doing nothing more than providing some translations and a link, I figured nothing could really be said against it -- he really didn't say anything except quote translations of the Qur'an.

But lo! A Muslim friend responds, telling him to read the actual interpretation of the Quran. Taking a break from my studies, I decided to read this article. What we find is the same methodology that Muslims almost always employ in attemtping to circumvent the obvious: 1 - A labyrinthine reinterpretation of a clear verse, 2 - Examples that might support the reinterpreted view but do not exclude the clear view, 3 - An utter exclusion of evidence that goes contrary to the reinterpreted view, and my favorite part, 4 - An accusation that Christians are prejudiced diabolical Islamophobes, "hell-bent" on using improper methodology to prove their insidious agenda.

1 - The words which say "beat them" are reinterpreted as meaning "tap them lightly, symbolically showing your disproval." Interestingly, Allah saw fit to use the words "hit them" instead of "tap them". But to show that this modern reinterpretation is correct, our Muslim friends give us some supporting examples from the Quran and Islamic history. Let's look at that in point 2.

2 - The prophet Job is mentioned in the Quran as having been self-forced into a position of hitting his wife, and in order to fulfill this requirement, he hit her with some basil. The author of the article says that this is the only verse in the Quran "that categorically refers to what some people wanna label as 'wife beating'." Although I thought the verse that mentions beating wives is also talking about wife beating, apparently this is not the case.

Then, records are used to show what hitting someone without hurting them is like in modern times - Job used grass, but the author of this Muslim article refers to a tradition in which it's okay to hit with a stick used for a toothbrush (siwak).

Another tradition is quoted in which Muhammad says: "there shall be no infliction of harm on oneself or others." The author then goes on to use this gratuitously, as if to say "we cannot harm anyone at all, and that includes women!" but he ingores the fact that this hadith requires context (which he did not provide) and he is clearly using it in a false way (for the infliction of harm on others is allowed in Islam if justifiable, e.g. wars, executions, punishments, etc. Therefore, in Islam, there must be justifiable exceptions to the "do not inflict harm" rule, and wife-hitting could fall into it).

Finally, the author uses quotes from Muhammad which say "If (the women commit a manifest indecency), then refuse to share their beds and hit them without indecent violence". This is used as evidence by our Muslim friend that Muhammad does not condone hitting women! It might say "don't be excessive in your physical punishment" but nowhere does it say "do not use physical punishment." In fact, it clearly says "hitting them is okay, indecent violence is not."

These are the examples that this article uses to show that Islam does not condone physical violence against women. More often than not, they show that it is okay to hit women! Yes, don't hurt them too much, but hit them if necessary. Clearly, the defense's claim that hitting women is not allowed falls extremely short.

3 - But what about all the evidence that supports the view that Islam allows for physical violence against women?

- According to Sahih Muslim, Muhammad hit his wife Aisha, causing her pain! Aisha herself was the authority of this hadith. I always agree with Muslims about Muhammad's sincerity; he practiced what he preached, and this is no exception.

- According to Sunan Abu Dawud, when men complained to Muhammad about their wives, Muhammad allowed them to hit the women. These women came in the morning to Muhammad complaining about their abusive husbands, whom Muhammad proclaimed to be "not the best men among the Muslims". Why did he not just say hit them with basil leaves, or tap them symbolically? Must have slipped his mind.

- According to Tabari and Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad said in his farewell address that it's okay to hit your women, just don't be excessively violent, for women are like domestic animals, given to the men by God (to be taken care of, I'm guessing).

Really, the list goes on and on. The obvious evidence seems to be utterly ignored. Instead of dealing with the evidence, many Muslims use bad examples to try to prove their point. When this does not work, they will often move on to pointing fingers and calling names.

4 - Is it true that Christians are biased Islamophobes? In the article that was referred to by our Muslim friend, Christians are accused of being prejudiced, having a diabolical agenda, and using improper methodology. Let me say it (for the hundredth time): I am not an Islamophobe! If Islam can be shown to be true, I will accept it. But far from proclaiming the truth, we see Muslims reinterpreting the obvious, providing bad arguments, and ignoring the deluge of evidence against them. How can I determine Islam to be true when its defense entirely ignores the obvious?

Fact: Muhammad hit his wife!!! This is according to one of the top two sources of hadith! Do not call this hadith weak, for Imam Muslim himself did not do so! How are we supposed to properly interpret history if Muslims keep throwing out all the history that goes against their preformed conclusions? According to one of the best historical records, Muhammad hit his young wife. According to other books in the Sahih Sitah (the six most authentic books of Islamic tradition) Muhammad allowed many of his men to hit their wives, though he said it was not the best thing to do, and he admonished Muslims right before his death that it's okay for them to hit their wives if the wives are committing open indecency, and that wives are like domestic animals given by God. The early tradition screams the truth: physical violence is allowed in Islam.

My Muslim friends! Defend your religion as it is, not as you want it to be! The stance that should be defended by Muslims is: "Limited physical violence against women is not immoral." You might have a shot at that one. Or you could even say: "Though Islam allows limited physical aggression against women, this does not mean it has a low view of women. This is the way Allah has ordered the world, and it is not wrong." But to say that Islam forbids any violence against women is, yet again, ignoring the obvious, and it's this kind of flawed methodology that led me away from Islam.

Let me say it again, in another way: I never thought that Islam's provision for hitting women was evidence to leave Islam; maybe that is the way Allah intended it, and who am I to say otherwise? I thought "If God says 'If your women have been unchaste, you have the option to hit them, but only lightly' then maybe that's best." It didn't budge me at all. What caused me to wonder was the fact that defenders of Islam were denying the obvious truth: that hitting women is indeed allowed. I soon began to see bad methodology everywhere. It became clear to me, then, that I had to focus on a proper method of investigating the truth.

When I began accepting the truth for what it was, that which had been obvious to me became flawed, and what was hard to believe became the only thing I could believe. The truth set me free.

The Qur'an, Surah 4:34

Surah 4:34 is a troubling passage which commands Muslim men to beat their rebellious wives. Since the passage speaks for itself, I will simply include four translations of the verse, so that readers may know that the meaning isn’t lost in translation. (Note that Ali adds the word "lightly" to water down the text.)

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret what Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great. (Pickthall)

Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme. (Dawood)

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (Yusuf Ali)

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. (M.H. Shakir)

Click here for more on this topic.

A Fatwah Free-for-All in the Muslim World

A fatwah declaring "that the Islamic restriction on unmarried men and women being together could be lifted at work if the woman breast-fed her male colleagues five times"? This article from the International Herald Tribune discusses a crisis in Islamic law.

The Rules of Jihad

This article appeared in today's issue of the International Herald Tribune:

"A Look at the Playbook for Islamic Militants"

"I Beg Your Question?"

What I'm about to say applies to many, though not all, Muslims. Disclaimer done.

Having left Islam for Christianity, I constantly receive emails from Muslims urging me to return to Islam. I appreciate the concern that these Muslim friends are displaying for my soul, but I do see a very prominent and recurring theme in these emails. They usually state something along these lines:

"How could you leave the truth for Christianity?!"
"Astaghfar -- how did you, a Muslim boy trained in Islam, leave it for falsehood?"

Now, the people who write these emails are usually responding to my testimony (here) which is full of the reasons why I left Islam. But still, when they email me, they ask me how I could have left Islam for falsehood, as if Christianity were ipso facto false.

Do not be misled - their question is very straightforward and telling: "How could you leave the truth for falsehood?" If this were a statement of disagreement with my conclusions about Islam and Christianity, they'd say so: "How could you believe that Jesus rose from the dead?" or "How can you subscribe to the idea that God would die for our sins?" However, this is not what is asked - such arguments are generally ignored wholesale. Rather, they simply assert that I left the truth for falsehood, insinuating that I left Islam without contemplating the issue of its truth, as if I were blindly attracted to Christian claims and doctrine.

What is often ignored, though, is that I arrived at the conclusion that the truth claims of Islam are not as grounded in evidence as are the truth claims of Christianity. That's why I became a Christian. Even after reading my entire testimony, Muslims will often fail to consider even the possibility that Christianity is true and Islam is false. It's as if, to the Muslim, Christianity can be nothing but falsehood and Islam can be nothing but the truth.

I think it's obvious, but for the record: if we are discussing whether Islam or Christianity is the truth, asking me how I could leave the truth for falsehood is begging the question.

The purpose of this post, though, is not to rant. It's to point out the deep-seated presupposition most Muslims have when studying Islam and Christianity: that Islam is true and that Christianity is false. To the average Muslim, this is not a conclusion but a given. To the average Muslim, then, Islamic apologetics is an exercise of proving a given, something as established as the laws of mathematics, and frustrations mount when someone else starts claiming that 2+2 does not equal 4 after all.

I know because I was there.

To the Christian, let me assure you: there is a breaking point. At some point, your Muslim friend will realize that this very fundamental given is causing him to reinterpret every piece of evidence laid before him. Until that point, his denials will mount and his defiance will grow. You will probably only succeed in making him more Muslim. But when that breaking point is reached and he realizes that his given might not be a given after all, you will see a man who will be faced with the option of truly accepting God. If he does, it will be a beautiful thing, because it will cost him everything: his support, his family, possibly even his job or his life. But this is beautiful because his purpose in life will be serving the Truth.

To the Muslim who may be reading this, humor me for a moment. Can Jesus be God? Your answer is most likely "Surely not!" But note that your response presupposes something: that Islam is true. That God would never become a man is an Islamic idea - taking a simple theistic viewpoint, there is no problem with a divine incarnation whatsoever.

What about the Trinity? Is it possible that God can be three-in-one? Your answer: "That doesn't make any sense - in order to have one God, God must be completely and absolutely indivisible!" But note that your response presupposes something: that Islam's view of monotheism is true. That God cannot be a trinity is an Islamic idea - taking a simple theistic viewpoint, there is no problem if God has revealed that He is more incomprehensible than any other thing we know. If God says He is one, but that there is diversity in His unity, then there's nothing inherently wrong with that unless you already assume Islam is true.

Let us continue with our investigation of the truth, the Muslim on his path and the Christian on his. But let us do it with the knowledge of this underlying presupposition that has been ingrained into the very fiber of almost every Muslim. Is Islam the truth? Make sure you have not assumed an answer while investigating this vital question.

-Nabeel

**P.S. I understand we all have biases, and Christians are not exempt. We should all work past our biases and none of us entirely can. But what I have tried to point out in this post is that the Muslim bias towards their beliefs often goes far beyond a simple bias and comes a lot closer to circular reasoning, and this phenomenon should not be ignored.**

Muslim Music Video

There's something troubling about this Muslim music video. I can't put my finger on it. Any suggestions?

Islam: Religion of Fear?

Muslims tell me their religion is true. They will shout in a crowd that God is great! I've been there when the flags were burned and the fists were shaken. I've seen the power of a mob. I've heard the quiet beliefs of an individual.

So....why then are they scared of letting Bibles into, say, Saudi Arabia? Or Iran? If they are so sure they are right and powerful, why be afraid?

Um Yaquub

Muhammad: History vs. Walt Disney

Recently, I was in North Carolina for a conference on Islam. In my hotel room, I decided to watch the news. I had never seen Glenn Beck’s show, but since he was talking about Islam, I listened as I ironed my shirt for the next day. Glenn was discussing some brutal acts perpetrated earlier that day in the name of Islam. He had a Muslim guest on his show, and, to my surprise, Glenn informed the viewers that Muhammad, far from being violent, had actually come to put an end to the brutal practices of the pagans in Arabia. Glenn’s Muslim guest heartily agreed, and the two went back and forth praising the gentle Muhammad and declaring that Muslims who perpetrate acts of violence are acting contrary to the teachings of their prophet.

Shortly after I returned home, I heard a feminist professor tell her students that most of the objectionable Muslim teachings about women arose long after the time of Muhammad. The prophet of Islam, as it turns out, was a great benefactor to women. Later Muslim leaders, however, used their power to place women in bondage. Surely Muhammad would be appalled at the treatment of Muslim women in the world today.

Thus, according to Glenn Beck, Muhammad came to end the brutal tactics employed by militant Muslims in our world. Similarly, according to the feminist professor, Muhammad came to liberate women, only to have his advances hijacked by disgruntled leaders.

Those of you who have studied any of the early Muslim sources are, of course, wondering where Glenn and the professor got their information. Glenn told his viewers that he was getting his information from a book by Karen Armstrong (one of the West’s leading proponents of the “Walt Disney” version of Muhammad). The professor, I assume, got her information from Muslim friends and acquaintances, or from poorly researched books or articles. Whatever the source of this information, one thing is clear: these claims have nothing to do with the Muhammad of history.

Muhammad ordered his followers to assassinate people who insulted him or criticized Islam—even women and the elderly. Apostates were to be executed. Muslims beheaded hundreds of Jews for trying to defend themselves against the spread of Islam. In the early Muslim literature, we even read about Muhammad commanding his followers to burn out the eyes of some apostates who had murdered a shepherd. The Muslims cut off the hands and feet of the apostates and left them in the sun to die of dehydration. This is just a sample of the actions and teachings of Muhammad. (Click here for more on violence in Islam.)

As for Muhammad’s view of women, we have to be honest. According to Muhammad, women are intellectually deficient and therefore less reliable than men. The majority of people in hell will be women, since women are so ungrateful to their husbands. A Muslim man is permitted to beat his wife if he fears rebellion. Muslims are even allowed to have sex with their female captives. (The manner in which this practice was carried out is shocking. After defeating a tribe, Muhammad allowed his followers to have sex with female captives whose husbands and fathers had just been slaughtered. Needless to say, such sexual intercourse would hardly have been consensual. Click here for more on Muhammad and women.)

Given the facts of history, along with the current actions of Muslims in the world today, I find it simply amazing that a (Christian) talk-show host and a feminist professor can so confidently proclaim such historically inaccurate descriptions of Muhammad. I find it even more amazing that very few of Muhammad’s modern defenders (whether Muslim or non-Muslim) go to the earliest sources to verify their claims. It’s as if people have lost all concern for accuracy and have decided to believe whatever makes them feel best. (I think we see the same trend when it comes to Jesus.)