The Truth About Muhammad

Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion

Robert Spencer

• Publisher: Regnery
• Year: 2006
• ISBN:
  9781596980471
• Topic: Política y relaciones internacionales
• Subtopic: Radicalismo

Muhammad: a frank look at his influential (and violent) life and teachings
In The Truth about Muhammad, New York Times bestselling author and Islam expert Robert Spencer offers an honest and telling portrait of the founder of Islam-perhaps the first such portrait in half a century-unbounded by fear and political correctness, unflinching, and willing to face the hard facts about Muhammad's life that continue to affect our world today.From Muhammad's first "revelation" from Allah (which filled him with terror that he was demonpossessed) to his deathbed (from which he called down curses upon Jews and Christians), it's all here-told with extensive documentation from the sources that Muslims themselves consider most reliable about Muhammad.Spencer details Muhammad's development from a preacher of hellfire and damnation into a political and military leader who expanded his rule by force of arms, promising his warriors luridly physical delights in Paradise if they were killed in his cause. He explains how the Qur'an's teaching on warfare against unbelievers developed-with constant war to establish the hegemony of Islamic law as the last stage.Spencer also gives the truth about Muhammad's convenient "revelations" justifying his own licentiousness; his joy in the brutal murders of his enemies; and above all, his clear marching orders to his followers to convert non-Muslims to Islam-or force them to live as inferiors under Islamic rule.In The Truth about Muhammad, you'll learn- The truth about Muhammad's multiple marriages (including one to a nine-year-old) - How Muhammad set legal standards that make it virtually impossible to prove rape in Islamic countries - How Muhammad's example justifies jihad and terrorism - The real "Satanic verses" incident (not the Salman Rushdie version) that remains a scandal to Muslims - How Muhammad's faulty knowledge of Judaism and Christianity has influenced Islamic theology--and colored Muslim relations with Jews and Christians to this day.Recognizing the true nature of Islam, Spencer argues, is essential for judging the prospects for largescale Islamic reform, the effective prosecution of the War on Terror, the democracy project in Afghanistan and Iraq, and immigration and border control to protect the United States from terrorism.All of which makes it crucial for every citizen (and policymaker) who loves freedom to read and ponder The Truth about Muhammad

CHAPTER ONE

Why a biography of Muhammad is relevant today

How the “Islam is peace” mantra still controls American policy

Muslim presentations of Muhammad: are they talking about the same man?

Why it matters what Muhammad was like

Why this book is dangerous

Is Islam a religion of peace? Why it matters

FIVE YEARS INTO THE WAR ON TERROR, IT IS STILL COMMONPLACE to hear Islam called a religion of peace. It is now also common to hear that term used derisively or ironically, in light of continued acts of violence committed in the name of Islam. A tiny minority of extremists has supposedly hijacked the religion, but jihadist Muslims won elections in the Palestinian Authority and elsewhere. The new, American-backed Iraqi and Afghan constitutions have enshrined sharia, Islamic law, (which includes the death penalty for Christian converts), as the highest law of the land. And the vast majority of peaceful Muslims show no signs of resisting or condemning the global Islamic jihad that is being fought in their name.

Mounting evidence that jihadist violence is actually quite popular among Muslims worldwide has not made Western officials reconsider their views of Islam. On April 10, 2006, President George Bush took questions from graduate students at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C. One student prefaced a question with a series of assertions about Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam:

Morning, Mr. President. I have a more general question about the United States’ work to democratize the rest of the world. Many have viewed the United States’ effort to democratize the world—especially nations in the Middle East—as an imposition or invasion on their sovereign rights. Considering that it was, in fact, the Prophet Muhammed who established the first known constitution in the world—I’m referring to the constitution he wrote for the city of Medina—and that his life and the principles outlined in his constitution, such as the championing of the welfare of women, children and the poor, living as an equal among his people, dissolving disputes between the warring clans in Arabia, giving any man or woman in parliament the right to vote, and guaranteeing respect for all religions, ironically parallel those principles that we hold most precious in our own Constitution, I’m wondering how might your recently formed Iraq Study Group under the U.S. Institute for Peace explore these striking similarities to forge a new relationship with Iraqis and educate Americans about the democratic principles inherent in Islam?

The president responded generously, taking for granted the veracity of this portrait of Muhammad:

I’m not saying to countries, you’ve got to look like us or act like us, but I am saying, you know, give your people a chance to be free. And I think it’s necessary for America to take the lead on this issue. I think it is—I think it is vital for our future that we encourage liberty, and in this case, the Middle East. And as you said, it doesn’t necessarily run contrary to what the Prophet Muhammad said.¹

Dueling Muhammads

It is exceedingly curious that so few Muslim countries, in which Muhammad is generally revered, encourage liberty and democracy and grant women legal equity. Yet the idea of Muhammad as a champion of these values was not original to the president’s questioner. The Muslim writer Farida Khanam portrays him as meek, mild, and full of love and compassion:

His heart was filled with intense love for all humankind irrespective of caste, creed, or color. Once he advised his Companions to regard all people as their brothers and sisters. He added: “You are all Adam’s offspring and Adam was born of clay.”

All this tells us what kind of awareness Muhammad wanted to instill in humans. His mission was to bring people abreast of the reality that all people—despite that they come from different countries and are seemingly different from one another in regards to their color, language, dress, and culture—are interconnected. Hence a proper relationship can only be established between all humans if they were to regard one another as sisters and brothers. Only then will proper feelings of love and respect prevail throughout the world.²

Islamic apologists and contemporary academics have echoed the same ideas. Muhammad “was, by all accounts,” says Islamic scholar Carl Ernst, “a charismatic person known for his integrity.”³ Safi-ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, whose biography of Muhammad, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar), won first prize in an international Muhammad biography competition held in Mecca in 1979, wrote that “the Prophet combined both perfection of creation and perfection of manners.... The Prophet is the most just, the most decent, the most truthful at speech, and the honestest [sic] of all.”⁴

In a similar vein, Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization that says it wants “to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, and empower American Muslims,” urged Muslims during the Muhammad cartoon riots, which erupted internationally in early 2006, to imitate the Prophet’s example:⁵

You do not do evil to those who do evil to you, but you deal with them with forgiveness and kindness (Sahih Al-Bukhari). That description of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad is a summary of how he reacted to personal attacks and abuse. Islamic traditions include a number of instances of the Prophet having the opportunity to strike back at those who attacked him, but refraining from doing so.... As Muslims, we need to take a step back and ask ourselves, “What would the Prophet Muhammad do?”⁶

But the international riots and murders committed over these cartoons—universally explained by the perpetrators as revenge for the alleged insult to Muhammad—suggested that Hooper’s view was by no means universally accepted among Muslims.

Some Muslims even invoked Muhammad’s example in exactly the opposite direction of Hooper’s plea for restraint. Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, an open supporter of Osama bin Laden who preached jihad in Britain for many years before finally leaving the country in the wake of the July 7, 2005, jihad bombings in London, declared that Muhammad himself would want the cartoonists dead: “The insult has been established now by everybody, Muslim and non-Muslim, and everybody condemns the cartoonist and condemns the cartoon. However, in Islam, God said, and the messenger Mohammed said, whoever insults a prophet, he must be punished and executed. This man should be put on trial and if it is proven to be executed” (emphasis added).⁷ The English jihadist group Al-Ghurabaa, the successor to Bakri’s Al-Muhajiroun organization, published a similar statement, referring to incidents in Muhammad’s life to justify its position:

At the time of the Messenger Muhammad (saw)⁸ there were individuals like these who dishonoured and insulted him upon whom the Islamic judgement was executed. Such people were not tolerated in the past and throughout the history of Islam were dealt with according to the Shariah [Islamic law]. Shortly after these incidents the people began to realize that insulting the Messenger of Allah (saw) was not something to be taken lightly and doing so could get you killed, a concept that many seem to have forgotten today.⁹

In April 2006, the Mujahadeen Council, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, announced that it had murdered a Christian in Mosul because “this impure crusader offended our noble prophet Mohammed.”¹⁰ Mukhlas, a perpetrator of the 2002 Bali jihadist bombings, sounded a similar note:

You who still have a shred of faith in your hearts, have you forgotten that to kill infidels and the enemies of Islam is a deed that has a reward above no other. . . . Aren’t you aware that the model for us all, the Prophet Mohammed and the four rightful caliphs, undertook to murder infidels as one of their primary activities, and that the Prophet waged jihad operations 77 times in the first 10 years as head of the Muslim community in Medina?¹¹

Most Western scholars of Islam would assert that Mukhlas does not understand his religion and mischaracterizes its prophet. Karen Armstrong, in her hagiographical Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, notes that the September 11 hijackers “had Muhammad in mind, when they boarded the doomed aircraft. ‘Be optimistic,’ they were told in the documents that were allegedly found in their luggage, ‘the Prophet was always optimistic.’” However, Armstrong continues, “the very idea that Muhammad would have found anything to be optimistic about in the carnage committed in his name on September 11 is an obscenity, because, as I try to show in these pages, Muhammad spent most of his life trying to stop that kind of indiscriminate slaughter. . . . Muhammad eventually abjured violence and pursued a daring, inspired policy of non-violence that was worthy of Gandhi.”¹²

Why Muhammad matters

So what was Muhammad really like? The question becomes more pressing every day—for if he was indeed a man of peace, one may reasonably hope that his example would become the linchpin of reform efforts in the Islamic world that would eventually roll back the influence of jihad terrorists. If he really championed democracy and equality of the sexes, one could profitably invoke his example among Muslims, who revere him as the highest example of human behavior, to work for these ideals in the Islamic world. But if the jihad terrorists are correct in invoking his example to justify their deeds, then Islamic reformers will need to initiate a respectful but searching re-evaluation of the place Muhammad occupies within Islam—a vastly more difficult undertaking.

Western non-Muslims need to know the answer so that we can plan public policy accordingly. The common distinction drawn between “Islam” and “Islamism,” which is accepted without question by the vast majority of public policy analysts, opinion-makers, lawmakers, and diplomats, rests on the idea that there is a core, a kernel, or perhaps an original form of Islam that did not teach warfare against non-Muslims; “Islamism” is widely reputed to be a Muslim imitation of fascism and communism that has little or nothing to do with the actual teachings of Islam. When seventeen Muslims were arrested in Canada in June 2006 on suspicion of plotting jihad terror attacks against the Canadian Parliament building and other landmarks, the Ottawa Citizen hastened to reassert liberal pieties:

In 2001, they brought their war against the West to two great American cities. Next were Spain and England. In Holland, they butchered a filmmaker on the street. Australians got theirs in Bali. It’s surprising it took them so long to turn to Canada.

Let’s be clear about who we mean by “they.” We mean Islamists. Not Muslims, but Islamists. A Muslim is one who practices Islam, a great religion. An Islamist is one for whom Islam is not just a religion, but a political ideology.

Islamists seek to establish pure Islamic societies governed according to the harshest interpretation of Islam. Islamism has apocalyptic echoes of another millennial ideology, fascism (think of the Thousand Year Reich). Islamism is totalitarian, utopian, violent—and like fascism it is expansionist.¹³

Likewise, after the 2005 jihadist bombings in London, British prime minister Tony Blair declared: “We know that these people act in the name of Islam but we also know that the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims both here and abroad are decent and law-abiding people who abhor this kind of terrorism every bit as much as we do.”¹⁴

Britain, like the states of continental Europe, has staked a great deal on this assumption—most notably, its immigration policies. Of course, even if the jihadists are right about Muhammad that does not mean that all or even most Muslims will not be law-abiding and opposed to terrorism. In Islam, as in every religious tradition, there is a spectrum of belief, knowledge, and fervor. One cannot be sure from anyone’s self-identification as a Muslim how much he knows about the Qur’an and the life of Muhammad. This is true particularly because Islam is an essentially Arabic religion; Muslims must learn the daily prayers and the Qur’an in Arabic, which is the language of Allah. To pray to him in another tongue is unacceptable. Since most Muslims t...