A Muslim is somebody who believes that a man called Muhammad… passed on certain revelations and instructions directly from God Himself. By logic, a non-Muslim is somebody who does not accept that Muhammad was any such prophet, and thereby rejects his teachings as not having come from God… If, contrary to Muhammad’s claims (assuming he has been represented correctly), we do not believe that he was any such prophet from God, what do we truly think of the man?
The answer must be one of three possibilities: either Muhammad was a liar, or he was deluded, or he was mad. These are the only possible conclusions of the intellectually honest non-Muslim. Let us ponder one of the three possibilities – that Muhammad was a liar. Would it be unreasonable then to posit that a man willing to deceive many thousands of people, perhaps out of hunger for power or self-aggrandisement, could be labelled as ‘evil’? If so, on what basis do we object to an extremely negative portrayal (either graphic or prose) of such an ‘evildoer’?
Whether or not such a portrayal may appear ‘gratuitous’ or provoke widespread anger, it would nonetheless be a justifiable expression of dissent. Therefore, to place legal sanctions on any such piece of literature is to necessarily outlaw opposition to, and disagreement with, Islam to a logical denouement; this suggests we are implicitly calling for the abolition of the right to proclaim oneself a non-Muslim in clear and in certain terms. That is, one may still be a nominal ‘non-Muslim’ free of harassment, but one cannot explain and defend one’s position in any significant detail without committing the act of blasphemy.
– from On the Right to Give Offence by Steve Edwards quoted today by David Thompson
A fine example of logical thinking.
A cogent argument, and food for thought.
There is however a fourth logical possibility, namely that the non-Muslim believes that Muhammad never existed, but that position implies that Muslims have been misled (or are lying). Is that more or less offensive than implying that Muhammad must have been lying, deluded or mad?
There’s also a fifth logical possibility, namely that the non-Muslim believes that Muhammad has been misrepresented (at least regarding to claims that he imparted the word of God to us). This has the same implications as the possibility above though.
I disagree. I think it’s weak logically. “Liar, deluded or mad?” Those are really three mutually exclusive choices, are they? And there are no others?
If you don’t believe Mohammed literally received the word of God, it by no means follows that he himself didn’t believe that his writings were divinely inspired in the burst of creativity that he must have felt. It strikes me as extremely unlikely that he set out to mislead people for purely cynical earthly reasons.
How very odd to see the idiotic Josh MacDowell’s trilemma argument used wrt Muslims.
How very interesting it would be to simply replace the word Muslim with the word Christian, the word Mohammed with the word Jesus.
Were we living in more Christian times, doubltessly riots would break out and people would be beheaded. I believe you brits know a bit about this, yes? Think back, it will come to you…
Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it…
no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
“How very interesting it would be to simply replace the word Muslim with the word Christian, the word Mohammed with the word Jesus.”
You’d get atheists. And guess what, we’ve got lots, particularly on this site.
“Were we living in more Christian times, doubltessly riots would break out and people would be beheaded. ”
That would be “more Christian times, specifically at least two hundred years ago, i.e. pre-Enlightenment”.
So no relevance to the position of Christianity today then.
“Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it…”
Quite. What is happening in this post is quite specifically a call to remember what happens when you let religious fundamentalism get its hands on any power whatsoever.
Shirley Knott we are not now living in more Christian times, hence the disproportional volume of outrage from Christians when said religion’s sore points are touched upon. I do not think examples are required. There are exceptions to this as the Greek artist who drew a pot smoking surfing Jesus has learnt but for the most part Christians/Jews do not loose the plot or drum up the need for endless debate and new legislation when their religion is offended. Water of a ducks back so to speak.
Mohammed may or may not have been lying, deluded or mad – indeed he may have been quite sincere and I’m sure he thought he was, AND that he believed every word he said.
However, this does NOT excuse evil clever scheming madmen, both as socialists inside the West and also as tactical freebooting ne’er-do-wells outside it, both of whom hate the sad but inevitable fact of their utter marginalisation by the fruits of liberal Western history – in their deeds which attempt to bring us down.
Anglo-Saxon mythology is full, insofar as it still exists, of stories showing how “if you can’t beat us, join us!” (And share in all that we have…) Ask Alfred the Great about the Danes. Tragically, some pre-capitalist barbarisms do not yet know how to take the offered hand of fellowship.
Not only will Islam prove unltimately to be a backholding, disastrous and bloodstained delusion, but its evolution is still at an immature stage; it is about equivalent to a wayward and obstinate four-year-old. (I have the very one, I know….) Contradicted, it screams yet louder, throws its toys, and tries to assault you, its elder and better. It’s very sad, not least for the opportunities for individual creativity denied to (about?) 1.4 billion people (unless they keep very, very quiet about it, or work secularly in the West.)
Errm, whilst being an atheist myself, I don’t think the “can only be lying deluded or mad” argument really holds much water”. If there was a God it is of course entirely possible that he did indeed have a chat with Mohammed/Buddha/guru Narnak etc, but A, chose not to tell them everything, or B, was just having a laugh.
Well said David Davis.
Julie Burchill, of all people, wrote an article a while back talking of her faith. She is a Christian believer of what used to be called “muscular christianity”
She said that she couldn’t give a monkeys what anyone says about God and Jesus. Basically they can blaspheme their bollocks off and it’s all water off a ducks back to her. She believes and that’s it. She doesn’t want respect for her views. She is comfortable in the belief itself.
Not so Islam. It is not a grown up religion, as you said David. I seriously doubt that it will ever grow up. But I’m damned if these “children” who demand that I respect their fairy tales on pain of legal penalties or instant death, will get me to change my mind one iota.
If Allah wants a convert, he can bloody well turn up at my gaff in person, not send a swivel eyed beardy with a sword and an inferiority complex a mile wide.
And of course the most important options is missed: “don’t know”. Why do we keep getting this assumption that if don’t believe X, we have to believe Y?
Shirley Knott – Your vision of rioting christians offended at the formula are interesting but not in the way you think. In fact, christians, at least serious ones, use that very formulation about Christ and have been doing so for a very long time. It is our defense against people who say “I admire Jesus’ teachings but don’t believe he’s the Christ”. He’s Christ or he’s a fool, liar, or madman. You cannot take his teachings seriously as they are taught in the Bible and come to any respect for the man other than as Christ.
Thank you for playing, you are not a winner. Try again.
It is of course possible to be mad, delusional and a liar. Tony Blair is a living example.
TM Lutas,
“Fool, liar or mad” – I think that’s a little harsh. He could just have been a little deluded but basically a reasonable bloke. And deluded in a way that was hardly uncommon at the time. Jewish reformers, messiahs and whatnot were ten a penny at the. There is a great deal of evidence that Jesus existed and to the fact he was a preacher and crucified but… beyond that… Well, there’s the Gospels and they’re hardly written from an unbiased perspective.
I’m not saying that’s what I believe. I’m more with Chris H on that.
RAB,
Big Al didn’t even show himself to Mo himself so unfortunately I’ll have to dispatch Abdul-al Beary bin Scimitar round to your gaff.
He sent the angel Jibriel instead and you know what? Jibriel only ever appered when Mo was on his tod. And that over the course of 23 years. Funny that. Oh, and the hadith records how Mo felt before and after these visions and it sounds a bit like they could’ve been epileptic seizures. Doestevsky was epileptic and he had religious visions too. Of course Mo might just have been bombed out of his gourd on ‘shrooms. The only time I’ve seen anyone have a religious vision he’d just plowed through 60 quids worth of skunk on a two day bender. He was sectioned the day after. Drooling, cackling to himself, seeing things and raving about “GodMagicMan”. Completely mad as a tricycle.
I dunno though, I wouldn’t mind some of that shit St John the Devine was on. That must’ve been seriously good shit.
I’m not being dismissive there. Perhaps God does work through recreational chemistry and Holy Fools.
By the way how do Christians view the whole Jibriel=Gabriel, God=Allah and Jesus=Isa thing?
ISA?
I thought that was an investment scheme?
Oh got ya now!
Jesus saves
Yahweh invests!
Damn! meant to add-
Allah picks his nose.
The Koran was actually put together by Mohammed’s followers sometime after his death. It may contain fanciful additions.
Read H. G. Well’s “Outline of History” for a realistic assessment of what Mohammad actually did in his lifetime, and what happened to his movement after he died. It’s nothing at all like Christ’s life; it’s more reminiscent of Lenin.
Fanciful additions?
Ever read it?
“Deluded” seems like a strong statement. “Mistaken” would be a better option.
Take, for example, the Dalai Lama. He believes that he is the 14th incarnation of a helper spirit named Avalokiteshvara. This claim is not accepted by anyone outside of Buddhism, I would think, and probably not even by most Buddhists. I certainly doubt it. Yet, the Dalai Lama is neither deluded, mad, nor a liar. He’s simply mistaken.
I think it is highly likely that Mohammed was cynically manipulating his people for his own ends, this is a man who made a living out of banditry and who had his opponents killed. His “revelations”, that always seemed to suit Mohammed’s position, sound to me more like a script from “Goodness Gracious Me” (the guru sketch) than God talking. Mohammed is, I believe, more akin to David Koresh or Jim Jones than Jesus. And they were, in my opinion, mad.
Ah but DocBud…
Muhammed did a lot better out of it than Koresh or Jones. I suspect he was more bad than mad. Although obviously it’s very difficult sitting typing this via wireless internet in the C21st to get into the mindset of a C7th illiterate Arabian kiddy fiddler with a totally delinquent take on assorted scriptures. The convenience of Muhammed’s revelations to his situation at the time does, though, tend to suggest there was at least some method in his madness. In this he reminds me somewhat of Hitler.
Regardless of whether the quote captures all possibilities for what non-muslims believe about Mohammed, the simple fact is that I should have a right to state why I am not a muslim, even if that answer is seen as disrespectful.
Personally, I take Plato’s critique of Homer to heart. We should not suppose that the gods act as poorly as we mortals. Same for god’s self-proclaimed messengers. Given how much Mohammed raped, pillaged, and plundered in his lifetime, I cannot fathom him being any kind of messenger from God. If this offends anyone, tough.
Uhh … happycynic … I think you do.
Assuming you’re living in England, before you find yourself living under Iranian (I guess they’re the big scary Islamic power, now, with their 200k man army, and their “maybe in a decade” nuke) rule, they would have to storm Iraq, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Austrian, and Germany.
They would have to do all this with no access to any significant industrial plant. Or by throwing copies of the plans for the-nuke-they-might-have-in-10-years. Of course, once they had conquered Germany, they should be able to use the German industrial plant to build some decent weapons, once they figure out how to use it … it’s not like they’re Hitler, and have access to lots of engineers or anything , and then they’ll be able to go after England.
Of course after that, it’s just a hop over the pond to America.
I’m terrified. Really, I am. My fingers shake as I type.
About being “deluded”:
Both Christ and Mohamed lived in the “demon haunted age”, and lacked anything like our current understanding of physical laws. These days, someone would have to be very deluded indeed, to the point of insanity, to think they were either God or in direct, personal, prophetic communication with him. But back then, those were not unreasonable positions to take. Extreme, perhaps, but within the then current understanding of how the universe and the human mind (or soul) operated.
I am, myself, a deep skeptic. I think both Christ and Mohamed were extraordinary thinkers, but not divine. However, I find that I cannot hold it against them that they interpreted the profound emotions that must have gripped them as their insights flooded in as coming from God. It was the only model available to them at the time, deeply embedded in both their cultures. It would have been very difficult for them not to believe in their own divinity.
(Just to make it clear, I think Mohamed’s insights were far more toxic that Christ’s. Simply because I believe they shared similar emotional experiences does not mean I hold their views to be morally equivalent.)
Simple: I don’t think they were.
I don’t know if there was a Muhammad as we talk about him today, if he had visions in a cave, or where those visions came from. Even if there was an illiterate guy who thought he took a bunch of notes while Gabriel was talking, I’m doubtful. I might be wrong and it happened exactly as Muhammad reported. Or Muhammad might have been having peyote visions. Or he might have been looking for a way to tap nine-year-old girls without their fathers responding the way Western fathers would. I just don’t know.
To be fair, I’m not as certain as I could be that there was a carpenter-turned-rabbi who was conceived by God, born to a virgin and tortured to death at the age of 33 either as punishment for walking around a remote corner of the Roman Empire and suggesting that people should try being nicer to each other. I may believe it, but I can’t prove it.
It is not unreasonable to suggest the possibility that the Koran we now have is the accurate transcription of the memorised version used at the time of Mohammed. Does not make it any more “divine” or “perfect”.
“Fool, liar or mad”: I do not think it is irrational to put forward these three options.
Mohammed went to great pains with very complex circular “proofs” to make sure the idea that the Koran was divine and he had a divine verbatim rendition in his head.
Mohammed was no fool – a very intelligent person, a charismatic person on many occasions it could be said.
As to being mad? Well, he himself went through a phase when he considered his first “revelations” as being the devil trying to possess him, and he was raving and wailing in fear and distress. This passed. Could the madness have fully taken hold and his mind beyond caring/perception of the madness?
Of course he could be lying about the revelation, but to do so would seem to imply more systematic delusion – he kept it up for so long and so comprehensively. Even if he began as a liar, I think he would end up as a delusional – the liar believed himself. Blair is a bit like that, I think!
If Mohammed was not “fool, liar or mad/delusional” whilst not being a prophet, can someone attempt to explain such a systematic, decades long, interwoven and persistent fabrication in other terms? The creation is by no means benign – it has deep insecurity, blame shifting, psychological projection and self-justification. I am no psychologist, but is that not the mark of a paranoid schizophrenic?
Don’t forget the Satanic Verses which got poor old Salman into such hot water.
Mo said Allah had told him about his three daughters, who had been popular deities in the local moon worshipping religion in the Greater Mecca Metropolitan Region. This went down well at first with the local moon worshippers. Then Mo remembered that there is no God but Allah, and that he was his messenger. How could Allah have these daughters? Problem. Solution: Satan had hacked into his line to Allah, and given him a bum steer. It seems the line should have been that these moon bitches were nothing to do with Allah after all. Happy days, and a nice bit of damage limitation. Coca Cola should have thought of that one when they launched New Coke: “The Devil told us to do it.”
Sunfish,
Thanks. I asked a theologically (very) poorly framed question. My take is that the standard apologist position that Muslims and Christians worship the same God makes no sense because the two camps believe rather different things about that God. Same for Jesus. It just seems a sort of wishy-washy ecumenical idea and I do wonder how many Christians buy into it.
John K,
the further scandal of this incident is that if some of the Qu’ran came from Iblis/Shaitan (Islamic theology is bit iffy on the identity of the Evil One) then could there perhaps have been other times when the bad guy had a word in Mo’s shell-like?
Roger,
I always took it that Muhammed’s outstanding ability was essentially political in that he united the querolous tribes behind him – primarily through booty and the promise of more booty.
Thanks. I asked a theologically (very) poorly framed question. My take is that the standard apologist position that Muslims and Christians worship the same God makes no sense because the two camps believe rather different things about that God.
This is true, but most Christians think that Jews and Christians worship the same god, although they believe very different things about him. I don’t see why the theological differences between Christians and Muslims count any more than the theological differences between Christians and Jews.
Rich Paul – you have wrote comments like the one above before, been replied to (and not by me), and then just ignored the reply.
I will have a go this time – but I doubt that my words will sink in any more than the words of other people before me.
Radical Muslims do not have to invade Europe from without – because they are already here (and their numbers increase daily – as the children and grandchildren of immigrants tend to be far more radical in their Islam than the immigrants themsleves were – also most converts to Islam are attracted to its radical forms).
As for the United States. Again invasion from without is hardly needed as there are (for example) half a million Muslims in the L.A. area alone (there have already been terrorist plots from Muslims in the United States – but the mainstream media ignores these plots when they are uncovered).
What percentage of these Muslims are radicals? I do not know.
There is also the following problem:
A Christian who murders in the name of his religion is not acting like Jesus.
But a Muslim who kills in the name of his religion is acting like Mohammed.
So tolerant Christians have the life and teachings of Jesus on their side in their disputes with intolerant Christians.
Tolerant Muslims (and yes there are many) have no such advantage in their disputes with intolerant Muslims.
“Radical” Islam (both Sunni and Shia) may be, in its attitudes to violence and to nonMuslims, simply Islam as Mohammed understood it.
So in hoping for moderate tolerant Islam, we may be asking Muslims to ignore not only the teachings of Mohammed but his life as well.
For Mohammed was a killer, an enslaver, and a rapist (amongst other things).
It should also be stressed that these crimes were not committed before Mohammed founded his religion (it is not an example of sinner turing to God), these crimes were committed after Mohammed founded his religion – indeed they were committed as part of his religious campaign.
This is a problem.
Although, to be fair, it is even more of a problem for George Bush and those who agree with his policy of democracy for Muslim majority countries, than it is for Rich Paul.
The Bush policy does not depend on the majority of Muslims being wise or noble. Most people in existing non Muslim country democracies are neither wise or noble.
But the Bush policy does depend on the majority of Muslims not trying to be like Mohammed (i.e. not being depraved criminals) – on their holding neither this man’s teachings or his life as a moral guide.
And, of course, neither Mr Bush nor anyone else associated with the policy can actually say any of the above.
I no longer believe Edwards’ argument is as cogent as I first thought. However I do think he was onto something. These two posts of mine explain further.
Paul, you claim Muhammad was a rapist. What evidence is there for this?
Nick,
I think I mis-read the question. Is the Muslim “Allah” the same god as the Christian “God?” Probably, although relatively few Christians see God as being someone who would consider Muhammad’s behavior acceptable. At any rate, I don’t think most Christians consider Islam to be the true religion (we’d be clanging our noses into the pavement five times a day and forsaking beer otherwise, in spite of what Jesus’s first miracle actually was) and Islam doesn’t recognize Jesus as actually being divine, meaning that even if we’re talking about the same God we have some very different (and probably irreconcilable) notions about Him. Reuniting the CofE and the CofRome would be child’s play compared to this.
There’s a pretty big gap between when God was telling Israel to wander around in a desert and smite people, and when Jesus delivered the sermon on the mount. Maybe the same God, but hardly the same message. (Perhaps it’s God who evolved?)
I could sit here and chop logic like this all night, but I hear the weight stack followed by a midnight walk with the dog calling to me, and Jesuits are better at theological nitpicking and hairsplitting than I am.
Taking captive Jewish and Christian women as his sex slaves and marrying a six year old (though not having sex with her until she was nine) pretty much cover the bases for me.
Interesting to see that an someone used one of C.S. Lewis’s arguments on the divinity of Christ to debunk Mo’s claims.
Interesting to see that someone used one of C.S. Lewis’s arguments on the divinity of Christ to debunk Mo’s claims.
Sunfish,
I’m sure most atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Buddhists, Pastafarians (sic) and all the rest would agree that big Mo was an unmitigated bastard if they were presented with the evidence of his life without being told it was the life story of the founder of a religion. I mean you’d run him in for it and get a five-star holiday from the overtime you spent on the charge sheet…
But, most people are blind to this because he founded a religion and all religious sort of people are good.
I may be an agnostic but the God I don’t know about is much closer to the God of Christianity than the God that sanctions this .
So, in short, when Bush or Blair or the Archbishop of Canterbury talk about “worshipping the same God” or “Religion of Peace” or what-not they’re they’re either deluded, lying or mad.
That’s just my viewpoint, mind.
John K’s comment is based not upon Christian slurs but upon Islamic texts. Whether Muhammed actually did these things is small potatoes to me compared to the fact that 1.x billion muslims believe them and regard (as also taught in their scripture) that Muhammed’s example should be emulated. In Iranian law the female age of consent is nine.
John K writes:
Does it for me too! Is this something documented in the standard biographies of Muhammad? How strong is the historical evidence that he did this?
James: why does it matter?
I think that it matters Alisa.
As I believe that God is good (and as I am not a “voluntarist” in the sense that Calvinists and others are – i.e. I do not define “good” as whatever God does or orders), if someone tells me that he brings a message from God, and then this person does lots of wicked things – well I tend to discount his claims.
“Give me book titles” which is really what I think James is asking for.
Ouch – I can not remember the exact titles or authors names (even though I have read them – now there is evidence of my mental decay).
Going on to sites like Jihad Watch (and or Robert Spenser’s site) should take James to the relevant texts.
Attacks on such texts tend to be that they are the “case for the prosecution” that they do not put weight on the good parts of M’s teachings (and so on). But such attacks do not deny that M. did the things the “case for the prosecution” claim he did.
If you let a waste (sewage? or just food?) pond sit, it develops a crust. The crust, while unbroken, locks in the stench. The perpetual Muslim equivalent of the Reformation consists of throwing rocks.
Paul, of course it matters – to the believers. The original post and this thread generally are from the non-believer (non – Muslim) perspective. To me as a non- Muslim, it does not really matter whether M. really did or say any of the things attributed to him, what matters is that Muslims believe he did. (I think Nick was making a similar point).
Paul,
You are correct, I was looking for book titles. I’ll check out Jihad Watch and Robert Spencer’s sites, thanks.
I asked about this mainly out of ignorance of/curiosity as to what the literature says about Muhammad’s life, however it also impacts on the issue at hand.
If the historical record shows that Muhammad did these things then a law against insulting Islam would entail not being allowed to disseminate this fact.
If one is not a Muslim (at least in part) on the grounds that Muhammad did these things, then such a law also prevents you from explaining your non-Muslimhood.
Alisa,
I take your point is that what matters is what Muslims believe Muhammad did, given their reverence for him and the idea many hold that his example should be emulated.
Do Muslims believe that Muhammad kept captured women as sex slaves and that he had sex with a nine yr old? Is this part of the accepted (i.e. amongst Muslims) biography of his life?
James: good question. I think it is in the Quran, although I have to admit relying on hearsay, as I have not bothered to read the thing myself, only small bits of it. The point about the legal angle is also a good one.
Indeed, they are the case for those who would expose Muhammad as a prick. I don’t see a problem.
Imagine this guy. He cures Hepatitis, but they don’t call him Tom the Healer. He ended the War of the Roses, but they don’t call him Tom the Peacemaker. Oh, no. He makes me able to spend half an hour with my ex without wanting to kick puppies, but he ain’t Tom the therapist. No way. You see, when a person gets caught having relations with livestock EVEN ONCE, he’s Tom the Pig****er forevermore.
It’s the same principle: tap nine-year-old ass even once, and he’s done. He could have the cure for AIDS and a hidden treasure map to the hidden masters of a dozen unwritten Beatles hits, and it woudn’t matter.
I’m going to end this post here, because I have about ten pages that I could write about the Islamic ban on alcohol originating from the Sharia notions of how women dress because men can’t control themselves, and I spend too much time on teh internets already.
James and others,
The biographies of Mo considered most authoritative are Ibn Ishaq’s “Sirat Rasul Allah” (Life of the prophet of God) and volumes six and seven of al Tabari’s epic history of the world “Ta’rikh al-rusul wa’l-muluk” (History of Prophets and Kings). These draw heavily from the compendiums of the haddith, the sayings of the prophet and his companions and successors. There are six authorised collections accepted as authentic by Sunni Muslims, some others accepted by Shia, and scores of others that are regarded as dubious or made up. (Incidentally, that one about the lesser and greater jihad that the apologists like to quote – that Jihad is a peaceful inner struggle – is from one of these dubious sources.) The authorised collections are by Bukhari, Muslim, al-Sughra, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and Ibn al-Muwatta. Bukhari and Muslim have extensive sections on warfare.
Ibn Ishaq is available at the faithfreedom site, I recommend starting there. Or you can get Robert Spencer’s book The Truth About Mohammed if you want to cut through all the background trivia and get the collected dirt. There are translations of the haddith collections on the web too, but they’re massive and mostly unreadable so I’d suggest using the web databases just to chase up references to start with.
Incidentally, for the period after Mo’s death, I recommend Muir’s book on the Caliphate. I think it’s based on al-Tabari mainly. Be sure to read the bits about Khalid bin Walid – the River of Blood story is one of my favourites.
Regarding free speech including the right to offend, there is a story from Mo’s early life in al-Tabari that has always seemed most relevant to me. Mo was just starting to preach against the other Gods, and their followers were angry and wanted him stopped. They came to see his uncle Abu Talib and said “Abu Talib, you are our elder and our chief, so give us justice against your nephew and order him to desist from reviling our Gods, and we will leave him to his god.” However, Mo would not desist, and even though Abu Talib was not a Muslim and held to the old Gods, he would not stop Mo preaching or hand him over to the mob. It was only after Abu Talib died that Mo was driven out of Mecca by the Arab traditionalists’ persecution, and granted asylum by the Jews of Medina.
I’ve always wanted to see the look on one of those Muslim spokesmen’s faces after a long rant about the Motoons or Salman Rushdie when the interviewer asked them about it, but unfortunately, ignorance of Islam is so prevalent in the West that I have little hope.
I would just (cheekily) add a little short-cut to Pa’s erudition for the very simple reason that I somehow doubt most folk could stomach all that nonsense…
So try this.
Robert Spencer deserves a knighthood for this. It’s only fair, Iqbal Sacranie got one. Money quote from Sir Iqbal, “Death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for him… his mind must be tormented for the rest of his life unless he asks for forgiveness to Almighty Allah.” And that was about his fellow Englishman and (later also knighted) Sir Salman Rushdie. I propose a joust and I would be more than happy to be Sir Salmon’s esquire. I really liked Midnight’s Children.
Anyway, do check out Robert Spencer’s Qu’ran blog. It’s fascinating the same way air-crash investigation can be. He adds more every Sunday and it is essential reading for every pagan, Christian or Jew. It should be for every muslim too but I’m not holding my breath on that one.
Oh, yes, and to answer the specific questions – according to various haddith, Mo did indeed marry a six year old and consummate it when she was nine, but this was not unusual for the times. (Or indeed much later – in the play Romeo and Juliet, Juliet was 13 years old. When average life expectancy is about 30, you tend to marry young.) The issue with Aisha’s marriage is that Mo being the “perfect example” means that the practice has to be continued even today. It’s legal to marry a girl at any age, but penetration is only allowed after her first period. There are reports of a practice known as mufa’khathat or “thighing” being allowed prior to that, but I’ve never nailed down any reliable Islamic authority for it (it’s not in Reliance of the Traveller, for example, although there is a bit in m5.1/m5.4 that at a stretch could be interpreted as not forbidding it) so I’m suspicious that it might be internet libel.
And regarding sex-slaves, the Qur’aanic phrase for a slave is “what your right hand owns” Q4:3 for example. Strictly, it says you can marry slave girls, and you do not have to guard your private parts from them. Maududi’s interpretation of that was that sex was permitted with slave girls even without marriage, and this was how it was interpreted in practice both in the prophet’s time and afterwards. There is also a haddith, in Bukhari I think, about how a group of high-status women had been captured for ransom where the rules said they weren’t to be raped, but the troops were feeling horny, and asked Mo whether it was OK so long as they practiced coitus interuptus – they were worried that this constituted a form of birth control, which was forbidden. Mo said it was allowed because only Allah could control who was born and who was not, but it was better if they didn’t.
Women and children captured in Jihad automatically became slaves (see Reliance of the Traveller o9.13), and the licence to slave was one of the reasons Jihad became so popular – it was a very lucrative business, and having a harem of slave girls considered a sign of high status.
Mo’s 11th wife Safiyya was originally the daughter of the chieftain of a Jewish tribe Mo slaughtered on one of his raids, and when the women were captured she was given to Mo as part of the Booty (ghanima). He freed her, married her, and consummated the marriage within the week. Mo also had a slave girl called Maryam Qibtiya (a Coptic Christian) given to him by the governor of Egypt, who gave him a son Ibrahim who died in infancy. Although it is disputed by some, I’m not aware of any report that they were ever married.
Pa Annoyed, many thanks for the info.
I’m resolved now to obtain Spencer’s “The Truth About Mohammed” plus Karen Armstrong’s biography of Mohammed in order to have a more sympathetic portrayal to compare with.
One thing occurs to me right now though. If you wish to understand Mohammed as an historical figure then it makes sense to place his actions in the context of the times he lived in.
I can understand a historian perhaps regarding Mohammed as having advanced Arabic civilisation, compared to what went before, via the founding of Islam, even if he doesn’t approve of many of the things Muhammad did.
Many great historical figures, including people who are admired today in the West, did things we would regard as abhorrent/wrong by today’s standards but which were all too common, or even admired, in their day.
Many people admire Jefferson, for example, but would not regard Jefferson’s keeping of slaves as an example to emulate. We admire such a person for having advanced the world in some way, e.g. articulating a liberating set of political principles, or otherwise being a catalyst in a progressive change, not for every single thing they ever did.
The problem comes with Mohammed as a religious/mythological figure. My understanding is that Muslims revere him and regard him as the most perfect human being who lived and as an example to be emulated.
If you hold that belief, it seems to me that you are liable to regard every single thing he did as at least permissable, if not something to actively emulate or even regard as a religious obligation!
The approach of placing his actions in a historical context might not even occur to such a person, let alone persuade them that in today’s world those actions are not desirable or not permitted.
I’m not saying this is how all, or even most Muslims think. But, alongwith treating the Quran as the literal word of God, it explains Muslim fundamentalism and the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda.
James,
You’re welcome. Although if you’re after a more sympathetic treatment to compare Robert Spencer with, I’d recommend a Muslim source like Ibn Ishaq, rather than Karen Armstrong – it would at least have the benefit of accuracy. However, it’s not for me to say.
A Muslim historian would of course regard Mo as having advanced civilisation principally by revealing Islam. Other innovations were made, and were arguably in equal measure good and bad depending whose point of view you were looking from, but much of what we regard as the advances of Islamic civilisation didn’t appear until they started incorporating other lands – Persian, Indian, Christian. If you read between the lines in their history, and imagine the events from the point of view of non-Muslims of the times, it’s highly questionable whether their predecessors (or for that matter those they invaded) were as uncivilised as all that. The Arab pagans also need to be seen in the context of their times, and the Muslims are not unbiased and impartial historians regarding them.
I think that it’s not invalid to judge the past by our own standards to some degree. You cannot say they should have known better because the historical fact is they couldn’t, but you can still say if something is right or wrong. Moral relativism is a bit of a sore topic around here. But I agree with you that our present and most pressing problem is how Muslims interpret it now. To be honest, most Muslims don’t know all that much more about Islam than unbelievers do – it’s probably the main reason for the relative lack of trouble. But those who do rarely dare to go against it to any great extent, and the orthodoxy is not at all what Westerners are normally shown. Nevertheless, it’s important for Westerners to know. For that you have to dig into not just the biography of the prophet, but the interpretation and law built up later.
The best book I’ve found on Sharia law is “Umdat al Salik” (Reliance of the Traveller) by al Misri. It’s cheap, available translated into English from Amazon and all good Islamic bookshops, is endorsed by the top authorities in the Islamic world like Al Azhar University in Egypt as being accurate and current, and is pretty comprehensive in dealing with nearly every aspect of Sharia law. It’s not censored for Western eyes, so includes all the juicy stuff on the rules for Jihad, marriage, executions, apostasy, dhimmi restrictions, and so on, as well as long boring sections on stuff like exactly when, where, and how to pray, and which of the following you’re allowed to eat: hyena, crocodile, fox, porcupine, cat, ostrich, frog, horse, or locusts. (Can you guess?!) However, it’s very well organised so that you can find things very easily, and is moderately readable. If you ever consider arguing with Muslims or their apologists, then while they can easily dismiss anything Robert Spencer says as distortion and Islamophobia, they have a much harder job doing it with al Misri. I’ve had some fun doing that. 🙂
I think it’s worth at least skimming through a few sections of the free stuff I’ve mentioned on the web just to get the flavour – if you don’t like it you don’t have to stick at it. There’s much more out there I could point you to, too, if you find it interesting. Entirely up to you though.
The problem with M.is not that he did bad things – but that he said that God told he they were good things, and he based a religion on this.
Jefferson never wrote stuff in defence of slavery, nor did he say that God had told him that it was a good thing – nor did he create a religion that has vast number of followers.
Jesus did not wage wars of conquest.
Buddha did not wage wars of conquest.
The Sikh gurus did not wage wars of conquest (although some were military minded men who stressed the arts of organized self defence – especially against the Islamic invaders who, it has been argued, Sikhism was partly created to oppose).
Even Moses (a leader of a people in the desert) did not wage wars of conquest (although Joshua did).
But Mohammed did wage wars of conquest – indeed this is what his religion was about, this is why people joined him (for the loot, the slaves and the power – AND to be told that some of their worst deeds were really good deeds pleasing to God).
This is a problem. All religions have evil followers (including Christianity – very evil indeed). But major religions do not tend to have evil founders.
Not that any of the above can be said publically by Western leaders of course.
People often talk about how things can be corrupted, but it is possible for the reverse to happen – for something to start off bad and then, over the centuries, produce lots of good things and be followed by many good people.
But there is always the danger that some people will demand that this religion and way of life “return to its roots” (or whatever) – fine if those roots are nice, but not if they are not.
“Even Moses (a leader of a people in the desert) did not wage wars of conquest”
Numbers 31:1-18? 33:50-56?
I know what you mean, and agree to a degree, yet I think you might be cheating slightly with Moses. But yes, he fell somewhat short of Mohammed in the area of violent empire building.
Pa Annoyed,
Many thanks for the additional info. Ibn Ishaq I shall look up once I’ve got through Spencer and Armstrong (which I now have – it seems both books cite Ishaq).
Thanks also for the recommendation on Shariah law. I’ve been meaning to find a good source on that topic for a while now.
Paul,
I take your point about Jefferson, Christ et al vs Muhammed.
James.
I hope the reading is both useful and enjoyable.
Pa Annoyed.
I take your point.