James
Arlandson, Ph.D., is recognized in academic circles as an expert in
philosophy and world religions, especially the religion of Islam and
the history of its founder, Muhammad.
Seeds of Jihad – Part 2
By
James Arlandson
Some
of Muhammad's actions and policy show areas that his later followers
misinterpret and misapply, since sometimes his actions and policies
– rooted so deeply in Arab custom but missing in the Founder of
another religion – seem excessive to Western outsiders. These
ambiguities are the seeds of future jihads, which radicals are now
waging and which will make reform of Islam from within difficult for
moderate Muslims.
(4)
Tension between Muhammad and the Jews simmered until he became
powerful enough to apply various Arab customs to their opposition.
This
tension and eventual ruptures went through five stages after
Muhammad emigrated from Mecca to Medina in 622.
First, while Muhammad was settling down in Medina and his position
there was not secure, he tried to convince the Jews that his
revelations were the continuation of Judaism (and Christianity), the
religion of the People of the Book. Before he left Mecca, he faced
Jerusalem in prayer. The early Muslims in Medina seem to have
observed the fast for the Day of Atonement, and their special Friday
worship was a response to the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath from
Friday evening to Saturday evening.
The
Jews, however, who were divided into three important clans (Qaynuqa',
an-Nadir, and Qurayzah, also spelled Quraizah), saw things a little
differently. Muhammad was not educated in the Torah, though he seems
to have known some of the stories and laws. He describes himself as
'unlettered' (Qur'an 7:158), which probably means that he was not a
scholar, not that he could not read or write. So it was not hard for
the educated Jews to point out some differences or contradictions
between his revelations and their Hebrew Bible.
Second, these disagreements meant that Muhammad would have to strike
out on a new path and reinterpret matters in light of Abraham's
religion. He claimed that Abraham was not a Jew and that the text of
the Hebrew Bible was corrupt (and so was the New Testament); his
religion was therefore the better and purer representation of
Abraham. So if some of the claims of all three religions were
contradictory, then the fault lay in the first two religions, not
his.
Third, Muhammad expelled the clan of Qaynuqa' in April 624 (or a
month or two later) after his victory at the Battle of Badr in
March, a battle which made his position in Medina more secure. It is
unclear what his motives were: a quarrel in the market place? Or the
Jewish refusal to become Muslims? Jewish opposition to his policies
and religion? In any case, he besieged the Jews' strongholds for
fifteen days, after which they surrendered. He gave them three days
to collect the debts owed to them and to get out of Medina.
The
fourth stage is much too complicated to be described here, but
Muhammad's motives for exiling the Jewish clan of an-Nadir seem to
be founded on blood feuds and the payment of blood, which
compensates for loss of life. In August 625 he went to the Jewish
settlement near Medina to ask for some blood-money that he and they
had to pay, but the Jews were reluctant, even though by apparent
agreement with a tribe they were required to contribute to the
payment. They asked him to stay until they prepared a dinner, but
after a short time he left because he got a revelation that they
were going to assassinate him.
Or
perhaps the real reason for exiling the clan lay in Muhammad's
recent loss in the Battle of Uhud in March (which traditional
Muslims say he did not lose, with some grounds), and in a failed
raiding expedition in June, so his position weakened somewhat in
Medina.
Whatever the motive, Muhammad besieged an-Nadir in their strongholds
for some days until he set about destroying their date palms, their
livelihood, so they capitulated to his first demand for blood-money.
However, he upped the penalty – they must get nothing from their
palms. Their livelihood destroyed, they departed to the city of
Kaybar, a hundred or so miles to the north, where they had estates.
In
May-June 628, Muhammad conquered Kaybar because an-Nadir was
inciting Arabs to oppose him. The result: the Jews could cultivate
their lands, but they must hand over half of their produce to their
new Muslims owners, the 1,600 jihadists who participated in the
conquest.
Finally, it was after the Battle of the Trench in March 627, named
after a trench that the Muslims dug north of Medina, that Muhammad
imposed the ultimate penalty on the men in the Jewish clan,
Qurayzah, his third and final Jewish rivals. This clan was supposed
to remain neutral in the Battle, but they seem to have intrigued
with the Meccans and to have been on the verge of attacking Muhammad
from the rear. They were judged guilty by one of their Medinan
Muslim allies, though Muhammad could have shown mercy, exiled them
(as indeed they requested), or executed only a few.
The
sentence: Death by decapitation for around 600 men, and enslavement
for the women and children. Muhammad was wise enough to have six
clans execute two Jews each in order to stop any blood-feuds. The
rest of the executions were probably carried out by Muhammad's
fellow Emigrants from Mecca.
According to apologist* Maulana Muhammad Ali's translation, the
Prophet says in Qur'an 33:25-26 the following about the Battle of
the Trench and his treatment of Qurayzah:
25
And Allah turned back the disbelievers [Meccans] in their rage—they
gained no advantage. And Allah sufficed the believers in fighting.
And Allah is ever Strong, Mighty. 26 And He drove down those of the
People of the Book [Qurayzah] who backed them from their fortresses,
and He cast awe into their hearts; some you killed and you took
captive some. 25 And He made you heirs to their land and their
dwelling and their properties . . . . Allah is ever Possessor of
power over all things.
These
verses show three things: (1) Allah helped the Muslims in warfare
against a much-larger foe; (2) Allah permitted the enslavement and
execution of Jews; (3) Allah permitted Muhammad to take their
property on the basis of conquest and His possession of all things.
However, in all five of these conflicts, traditional Muslims believe
that Muhammad never attacked first, but when treaties and agreements
were broken or when he or his followers suffered persecution and
betrayal, only then would he retaliate or punish. Muslims seem to
know this almost a priori. The logic:
(1)
Muhammad was a Perfect Prophet.
(2) No perfect Prophets ever violate God's command prohibiting
aggression (2:190-193).
(3) Therefore, Muhammad never violated God's command prohibiting
aggression.
So
the official story goes. Yet, does traditional Muslim belief and
logic follow history? Does the Qur'an say wherever jihad is
mentioned not to be the aggressor? That is debatable.
In
addition, even though for clarity the conflicts between Muhammad and
the Jews have been sketched out in stages, some scholars conclude
that Muhammad never had a systematic master plan to eliminate the
Jews in Medina, one large clan at a time. After all, he let them
live in peace for several years and made agreements with them. He
seems to have reacted to fluid circumstances.
The
questions center on the severity of his punishments. But some
Islamologists answer that in this he was simply following Arab
custom, which allowed various means of dealing with enemies,
including enslavement or death. Now, though, the latter two means
have been enshrined in the Qur'an (33:21-27).
However, even if we concede that Muhammad did not have a master
plan, that he was always non-aggressive, and that his motives to
retaliate were always justified, then this still lands Islam in
countless moral difficulties because the interpretation and
application of his sunna (or 'path') is far from clear. Muhammad
says in Qur'an 16:126, according to Haleem's new translation for
Oxford University Press, the following:
If
you people have to respond to an attack, make your response
proportionate, but it is better to be steadfast.
That
is the ideal. What about the real? In that verse Muhammad is
situated in Mecca and undergoing persecution. Maulana's commentary
on the verse says Muhammad is prophesying a time when he will
'dominate' his persecutors. His comment only shows the difficulty
for later Muslims to interpret the Prophet's words and actions.
It
seems Muhammad did not always remain only steadfast, but took his
(just) revenge. How did he gauge a proportionate response? Is
'domination' equal to persecution? Is inciting or intriguing with an
enemy, as an-Nadir and Qurayzah did, proportionate to exile, mass
execution, or the conquest of a city? What would the 600 or so male
Jews of Qurayzah say? Who decides? The tribal chief with the most
powerful army?
More
profoundly, granted that everyone is part and parcel of his or her
own culture, should a Holy Prophet practice the questionable customs
of his culture like execution or enslavement? In the same context as
the Qurayzah passage, Muhammad proclaims that he is the example to
follow:
Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah [Muhammad] an excellent
exemplar for him who hopes in Allah . . . .
(33:21)
Astonishingly, this verse exhorts Muslims to follow Muhammad's
excellent example in precisely the most controversial of historical
Arab customs: enslavement and execution. This custom has now risen
to the status of the eternal word of God; ambiguities have been
planted in it. Could his words and sunna be the seeds of future
strife between Muslims and Jews today?
Comparing religions can bring perspective. Muhammad's praxis in
regards to the Jews stands in stark contrast with the praxis of
Jesus. He encountered opposition from a few leading Jews, which
finally culminated in his crucifixion, but he never ordered his
disciples, say, to attack his persecutors and eventual executioners.
In fact, he told his disciples to put up their swords in the Garden
of Gethsemane on the night he was betrayed and arrested (Matt
26:51-54). If there ever were justification to defend the Lord by
force, that was it, yet he refused because he had embarked on a
heavenly mission.
If a
present-day adherent of Christianity commits an act of violence, he
can be denounced as not truly following Jesus because he never
practiced violence, so the ambiguities or seeds do not exist in his
message, which was spread by peaceful proclamation. And if the
listeners in the First Century were not persuaded, or even
persecuted his disciples, the preachers were not supposed to
retaliate in kind, but shake the dust off their feet and move on to
the next village.
In
contrast, ambiguities or seeds have been planted in Muhammad's
policies and theology, which, for the radicals, have grown up to be
their jihad, as they (mis)interpret and (mis)apply his theology and
policies according to their own perceptions of the world.
Terrorist arithmetic is simple: their perception + their
interpretation = application of violence.
Here
are the radicals' perceptions of the world: they feel persecuted.
Sacred Saudi Arabia is being defiled by infidels. 'Christian' troops
have invaded Iraq. A dance club in Bali is too worldly. Jews are
'occupying' the land that they 'owned first.' The Christian West,
not Islam, dominates a large part of the world. After all, God
helped Muhammad against a much-larger Meccan enemy and eventually
against the entire Arabian Peninsula. If God
endorses Islam,
it should expand endlessly, but it is not.
These perceptions and their interpretation of Muhammad's policies
and his Qur'an, as discussed in this article and in
Part (1),
justify them, in their eyes, to retaliate and to eliminate the
infidels and the opposition to the growth and purity of the True
Religion.
But
how do they now apply their perceptions and interpretation, as they
seek to walk in Muhammad's path, in the imitatio Muhammadi?**
To
judge from their intercepted messages and their acts of violence,
these questions have crossed their minds:
How
best to retaliate and eliminate? How best to measure a proportionate
response to the Great Satan and his global reach? How best to
eliminate oppressive Jews in Israel? How should radicals stop the
growth of the inferior religion, Christianity, as represented by the
West? Fly jets into buildings? Decapitate innocent workers in Iraq
or Saudi Arabia? Blow up a dance club in Bali? Strap a bomb on a
'dumped,' confused Palestinian teenager to blow up a pizza parlor in
Jerusalem? Detonate a dirty bomb? Deploy a nuclear weapon against
Israel or the US?
Granted, the terrorists take Muhammad's theology and policies to
extremes, but his ambiguous theology and policies are seeds that
show how difficult it will be for moderate Muslim reformers to cut
back the overgrowth of violence. But reform is the ultimate and
longest-lasting solution to Islamic terrorism, no matter how hard it
may be to accomplish.
*In
theological usage 'apologist' means 'defender.'
**The
phrase, literally the 'imitation of Muhammad,' means 'to follow the
Prophet's example in every detail.' See Annemarie Schimmel, Islam:
An Introduction, p. 54.
James
M. Arlandson may be reached at
jamesmarlandson@hotmail.com
Jim
Arlandson (Ph.D.) teaches introductory philosophy and world
religions at a college in southern California. He has published a
book, Women, Class, and Society in Early Christianity
(Hendrickson, 1997)
|