Whether or not it turns out (as I expect it will) that Middle-Eastern Muslim mobs were duped by jihadist radicals -- provoked by an old, fringe video to provide cover for their own planned attacks on Muslim-friendly American forces in Egypt, Libya and Yemen -- those mobs are a worse insult to Muhammad and Islam that anything an ignorant non-Muslim could ever do.
How can we expect non-Muslims to believe that Islam is a religion of peace, when Muslim mobs around the world make liars of us all, Muhammad included?
Those mobs of angry Muslims, even if they believed they were marching for the sake of Muhammad, are ignorant of his legacy. Because a careful and historically accurate study of Muhammad's life confirms he didn't care about his own personal honor at all.
In Mecca, when Islam began, when Muhammad and his followers were weak, they avoided conflict and sought peace through non-violence and passive non-confrontation. Then, he wouldn't even allow his followers to return insult for insult, pointing out that when his detractors twisted his name from Muhammad, meaning "The Praised One" to Mudhamman, which meant "The Loathsome," that God has arranged things so well that his enemies were insulting someone else, other than him!
Some people, both Muslim and not, claim that was only because he didn't have the power to do anything about it, and that his attitude changed as soon as he had the power to respond.
They're wrong. When he marched back to Mecca at the head of a Muslim army that would have let him do anything he still had so little regard for his own personal honor that he almost provoked a Muslim revolt himself.
His followers thought he was going to give them an honorable war, particularly when he made them promise to follow his lead no matter what he did.
Then, he met with the Meccans outside their walls and turned that expectation on it's head.
First off, the Medinians could have simply conquered Mecca in a bloody fight to the death, which was what most of the Medinians wanted to do. Instead, Muhammad met with the Meccans leaders, his enemies, to negotiate a treaty. But then, to make matters worse he let them disrespect him, again and again and appeared to give away everything the Medinians wanted to fight for.
A record of that negotiation recounts:
Muhammad ordered Ali to write down the text of the agreement between the two sides. He dictated to him the following:"Write: In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful."
Suhail, the representative of Quraish, protested at that, and said: "Stop! I do not know the Compassionate, the Merciful!
Write, "In Your Name, our Lord."
"Write, 'In Your Name, our Lord,'" Muhammad told Ali. Then he said, "Write, 'This is what Muhammad the Messenger of Allah had agreed upon with Suhail bin Amru.'"
"Stop," said Suhail. "Had I recognized that you are the Messenger of Allah I would not have fought you. So, write only your name and your father's."
"Write," Muhammad said, "This is on which Muhammad bin Abdullah made peace" and dictated the articles, which stated that: The agreement was essentially a truce between the two parties for a period of 10 years with three primary requirements.
1. To return anyone who embraced Islam without the consent of the Quraish to the Quraish, but allow anyone to leave Islam whether Muhammad approved or not.
2. To allow any Arab tribe to ally with whichever side they preferred.
3. And Muhammad and his followers promised to leave immediately, and could only return the following year for three days, with sheathed swords the entire time.
And he was one of the level-headed ones.
But the following year, when the Medinians returned, and realized that somehow the entire Arab world had begun to unite behind them they realized what Muhammad had actually done. Because the religion Islam had to compete with to win over the hearts and minds of Arabia wasn't Christianity or Judaism, both of which he repeatedly confirmed would have been perfectly good religions, if only the Christians and Jews had followed them, and could still be again. No it was the way the Meccans, the Medinians and the Bedouins together -- regardless of which tribe they belonged to, or which religion they followed -- all worshiped male honor, and sometimes even worshiped masculinity itself.
By signing that agreement with Mecca, Muhammad subverted chauvinistic male self-worship --s omething men struggle with even toda y-- unmasked it for what it was and --for a time-- changed the world.
The last few days in the Middle East have been filled with tragedy, including the loss of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was by all reports a true friend to Libya's freedom and Libya's people alike. His death and the suffering and deaths of others there as well have hurt us all. And I know many of us, both Muslim and not, have decried the ignorance of the men who made the film that started this all in the first place.
But for me, those riots highlight just how little even Muslims --those who should know him the best-- remember about Muhammad, and still want to worship honor despite him, and worship masculinity despite him, and perhaps even worship Muhammad despite Muhammad, God forbid.
After all they have been through, have the Middle East's Muslims finally forgotten how Islam REALLY changed the world in the first place?
I hope and pray not.
Salaam, Shalom and God's Peace be with all those who have suffered, truly we belong to God, and to God we return, Amen.
Follow Dr. David Liepert on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DrDavidLiepert
Pamay Bassey: How to Prevent Violence and Increase Interfaith Dialogue
Kamran Pasha: The Mercy of Prophet Muhammad
Hani Almadhoun: Those Ultra-Conservative Muslims Scare Me Too
Not ALL Hadithi are GOOD Hadith. Many of the things people said about Muhammad then, or say about Muhammad now were/are patently false and politically motivated.
The same thing goes for your claims about the Qur'an's so called "violent commands". Please read http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kamran-pasha/the-mercy-of-prophet-muhammad_b_1879601.html to learn more.
And about the way those followers are behaving, I'll refer you to Asif's comment above, about the dangers of pointing fingers, even though about those rioters I couldn't agree more. That's why my blog is titled Muslim Mobs Insult Muhammad's Legacy.
While I personally wish America made some distinction between hate-speech and free-speech, Muslims shouldn't be mad at the entire country of America over the hatred of a few awful Americans. If we want mainstream Americans to limit other American's freedom to express hatred, it would be better for mainstream Muslims to show a better example and try and find some way to limit other Muslim's right to express hatred too. That's not as easy as it sounds.
However, we can start by saying it's not Muhammad's Islam, and it's just plain wrong.
Jazakallahu Khairan for this article.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/canada-muslim-leader-asks-how-can-we-expect-non-muslims-to-believe-that-islam-is-a-religion-of-peace.html
That's even crazier than thinking Muslims believe the same things as WikiIslam does about Islam!
Don't you think that's a little like claiming anti-Semites are the the best authorities on Judaism and Israel?
I don't know how reliable JihadWatch is, but if the writers for it have studied Islam and Sharia Law, maybe they are an authority on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_fallacy
When people resort to "ad hominem" tactics in response to statements, it indicates that they themselves know that they have no proper response to the statements. Those who have strong arguments don't need to resort to "argumentum ad hominem."
In fact, Spencer's essay consists chiefly of a long quote from an actual fatwa by Shayk Muhammad S. al-Munajjid. It is al-Munajjid's Fatwa Number 22809: "Ruling on one who insults the Prophet:"
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/22809
The fatwa itself, as you can see, provides many direct quotes and references to Islamic sources, which show Muhammad's vengeful cruelty, and refute many statements in your essay. Spencer didn't write the fatwa - an Islamic scholar wrote the fatwa.
In fact, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of similar fatwas containing reviews of Islamic sources regarding Muhammad's treatment of "blasphemers."
In light of the fact that the entire middle east is imploding because of a blasphemous 13 minute youtube clip and also in light of the fact that France is shutting down 20 embassies because Charlie Hebdo plans to run a satirical edition about "Mr Unmentionable," do you possibly think the way Mohammad treated satirical poets and critics may just have a teensy, tiny bit of d*mn relevance?
"Mohammad's Dead Poet Society"
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/dead_poets.htm
Thanks for the excellent link.
My fellow brothers and dear readers, I wish to inform you all that we are in pain at this juncture and don't get prejudiced by any rumour or hate speech. Multiculturalism is our future. We will co exist maintaining our own distinct identities. It will be like unity in diversity.
Obstacles are there to bring change & evolution also.
Reply from abdul r is rather stereotype which we usually read and hear from Muslims. We want liberal, ready to integrate, non religious Muslims with scientific approach.
Other world religions have a tradition of forgiveness and reconciliation. It would be quite shocking to hear a Cristian, Buddist or Jewish religious leader exhort their followers to violence.
What I like about the article is it's about how that's happening in the Middle East, as well as here. You can read it at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/16/multiple-personalities-of_0_n_1888548.html?utm_hp_ref=religion&ir=Canada
I know which side I'm on, and even though as you rightly point out I live in Canada I know I'm having an impact: this article's been reposted on a number of Muslim websites, including AltMuslimah and The American Muslim, both of which share with the Huffington Post a world-wide readership an a world-wide impact.
QUICK PLUG HERE- EVERYBODY SHOULD READ KAMRAN PASHA'S ARTICLE! IT'S WAY BETTER THAN MINE!
In fact, given all that one of the thing that moderate mainstream Muslims here in Canada and around the world don't understand is why the so called critics of radical Islam focus so much of their attention on criticizing us as well instead of being on our side.
Here are two retellings of the same event, one from WikiIslam, one from a Muslim site called the Islamic Search Center.
Read them both, but be aware the story is not a pretty one no matter which version you read.
I'm not endorsing either site, and first let me pre-condemn Zaid's brutality: I think today, our army Docs would likely say he had PTSD.
The question is, does one side choose to misportray the events to support an agenda, or do both sites do it, or neither? You be the judge.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Story_of_Umm_Qirfa
http://www.islamicsearchcenter.com/archive/2010/01/the-story-of-killing-of-umm-qirfa-the-facts-and-the-lies/
Please see below the list of sources from islamic theology where sharia says kill:
1) Umdat al-Salik, o11.10,
2) Ibn Ishaq674-676,
3) Sahahi Bukhari, 5:59:369,
4) Sunnah Abu Dawood 4361
I can also provide you 100's of Fatwas over the century's if you wish. Also this happens to be position of Organisation of Islamic country's (OIC). You need to send your analysis to OIC headquarters.
This is also confirmed by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah in al-Saarim al-Maslool (1/162)
Please kindly focus your attention on these giants of islam and why they are wrong and you are right.
We wish you the best.
I find that both groups leave important bits out, to lead a reader towards a predetermined conclusion.
It sometimes seems to me that as Muslims are striving together to find the future path of our religion, groups like JihadWatch and al Qaeda are on the same side.
- Which, as I am quite sure Mr. Liepert knows very well, is totally false and deceptive.
The Christian religion holds that Jesus was the son of God. Muhammad repeatedly rejected this idea. He also rejected the idea that Jesus was ever actually crucified, or ever died before ascending to heaven. Muhammad repeatedly says that whoever refuses to accept Muhammad as the messenger of Allah will spend eternity in the "blazing fire," and this certainly includes Jews and Christians.
Nowhere in the Qur'an do we find anything resembling even the briefest summary of Jesus' teachings - which were entirely contrary to the merciless jihad ideology of Muhammad.
Surah 5.73:
"They do blaspheme who say
Allah is one of three
In a Trinity: for there is
No god except One God.
If they desist not
From their word (of blasphemy)Â,
Verily a grievous penalty
Will befall the blasphemerÂs
Among them."
Surah 9:30:
"The Jews call Ezra a son
Of God, and the Christians
Call Christ the Son of God.
That is a saying from their mouths:
(In this) they but imitate
What the unbelieverÂs of old
Used to say. Allah's curse
Be on them: how they are deluded
Away from the Truth!"
"This is a HUGE over-reaction.... Don't get me wrong, the clip is horrible.... But, in my opinion the reaction by Muslims has been far worse... To target the USA as a whole for the action of one fringe individual in California is just awful... And in my opinion, NOT what the Prophet would do.
In fact, I am reminded by one Hadith where the prophet had garbage hurled down on him daily by an old woman in Mecca on his way to the Masjid al Haram in Mecca... The Prophet simply went on his way.... Every time....
Then one day when the old woman wasn't there to hurl garbage down he became concerned and made inquiries. It turned out the old woman was sick, so The Prophet made a point of visiting her to let her know he was concerned and to wish her well...
I guess it's my opinion that Muslims should take The Prophet's lead on this and instead of acting irrationally in outrage claiming to defend The Prophet's honor, they should follow the teachings of Muhammed (peace be upon him) and let it slide.
Seriously.
Our Prophet does not in my opinion, need defending.
His record stands for itself, people would be better off sharing stories of how The Prophet always avoided conflict, wherever possible."
Amen.
15:6 They say: "O thou to whom the Message is being revealed! truly thou art mad (or possessed)!
Prophet Muhammed according to the Qur'an verbal attacks was made against him calling him MAD and POSSESSED. Thats why whenever I spell Prophet Muhammed's name, because what they accused him of being MAD, I always change the spelling to Muham-MED rather than Muham-MAD. Its a subtle change in the language to say to those who are masters in language manipulation who sends messages to those who know how to read their language that is being spoken over the heads of the average person, I am saying I know he wasn't MAD.
Also, all of the Messengers who was sent by G'd have always hear of the mockery that people made against them.
The Sacred Qur'an
15:11 But never came a messenger to them but they mocked him.
Lies about Americans by agenda-driven Muslims.
Lies about Muslims and Islam by agenda-driven Americans, and others.
The agenda-driven don't care about facts -- they care about advancing their agenda.
And so, I would suggest, for anyone who is able -- and that includes anyone reading these words, per our collective access to Google -- that we each and all have a responsibility to fact-check, and to not promote any assertions which may be false, or which may have been distorted by those who are driven by their own divisive agendas.