Going Back To The Source
The Washington Times published a review of Robert Spencer’s new book: The Truth About Muhammad. Andrew Bostom is very positive about Robert’s book and makes it sound like a very interesting and informative read: even when one does not agree with the Robert’s conclusions as to how to best deal with Islam and more specifically and perhaps better said, integration.
Andrew explains that Robert Spencer went as far back as possible to analyse the behavior / life of Muhammad, to be able to pain an as accurate picture as humanly possible.
A salient feature of “The Truth About Muhammad” is its exclusive reliance on pious Muslim sources: the earliest (and most respected) Muslim biographers of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq (died 773), Ibn Sa’d (845), and the great historian al-Tabari (923); the “gold-standard” canonical hadith collections of Bukhari (870), and Muslim (875); and the Koran itself.
As Mr. Spencer notes, these are the same sources contemporary Muslim biographers have relied upon, both respected scholars (such as the late Martin Lings, aka Abu Bakr Siray Ad-Din), and popularizers (Javeed Akhter, Yahiya Emerick).He concludes with a series of logical, unflinching recommendations for non-Muslim governments, all of which hinge, ultimately, upon an honest recognition of Muhammad’s bellicose example: Stop insisting that Islam is a religion of peace; initiate a full-scale Manhattan Project to find new energy sources; make Western aid contingent upon renunciation of the jihad ideology; call upon American Muslim advocacy groups to work against the jihad ideology; revise immigration policies with the jihad ideology in view.
Read the entire review for yourself. Of this I am convinced: we need to think about this subject and explore it as much as we possibly can. We need to be honest and open about our conclusions: it will inspire a highly necessary debate.
If one looks at Muhammad’s life, one cannot – as I see it – possibly insist that he was a man of peace. He was much more, or less, than that. He led armies, many people of other religions died due to his orders / actions, he condoned (/ ordered) the stoning of women, etc.
Note: this does not mean that there are not ‘peaceful Muslims’. I know ‘peaceful Muslims’ myself. It does mean, however, that certain problems might prove to be more systematical than we might expect and / or that the problems will continue to play an important role in the world for many, many years, even decades.
21 Responses to “Going Back To The Source”
You are still full of it. Yes you have a forum to express yourself about the United States, but, you do not vote in our elections, so your comments are only the opinion of a non-U.S.American citizen. Why don’t you spend your efforts on closing shops in the “Red Light District”!
Sarum. All you do is leave insults. This is your final warning. I won’t leave one again. We don’t welcome this kind of comment on this site. Please read the posting agreement at the bottom of the comments section.
I guess the problem I have with demonizing Muhammad is that you could write the same thing and come to the same conclusion about the leaders of the Christian Church 1500 years ago. Although the teachings of Jesus are teachings of peace they have been largely ignored by the Christian church from the very begining in favor of the violence and intolerance of the Old Testament.
Ron Beasley,
The “leaders of the Christian Church” are not theologically important in the way Muhammad is to the Muslims. The leaders of the Christian church can be acknowledged as fallible just like the early leaders of Islam can be. A more accurate comparison would be to compare Muhammad to Jesus, not to some latter day leaders of their respective religions.
Here’s a first. I have to say that Tommy nailed it in terms of the difference between an early leader of Christianity and Muhammed. In addition while we have our Biblical literalists a literal belief in every word of the Koran is the only acceptable practice in Islam.
Thanks Jim.
Tommy and Jim S.: you are both spot on / exactly right.
I would also add: look at the way each faith currently puts its beliefs into practice. Yes, the Christian (Catholic) Church was guilty of systematic violence and it employed force for conversion to enforce its beliefs during the Middle Ages. But which group currently shows evidence of belief in conversion at the point of a sword? The Catholic Church has formally disavowed these practices and has apologized for past transgressions. The West allows religious freedom, including freedom for Muslims to worship according to their beliefs. Do Muslim countries allow the same for Christians? No.
Lebanon
Rudi: great example. Indeed, Lebanon is another example of a country where Muslim extremists have, to a degree at least -> namely in the South -> have taken over controll and by doing so have attacked a sovereign nation and, thus, started a war.
The source of the problem: Muslim extremists.
Great example Rudi, thanks for that.
C.S. you are completely right. The sad thing is, that the moral equivalence brigade does not get that. Why not? Because it might mean that they have to actually admit that a serious problem exists. Not just ‘a’ problem, but a systematic problem.
Someone I’ve come across in my recent readings is Hans Kung. Although he’s come at odds with the Catholic hierarchy, I greatly admire his work to create a global ethical platform that can be accepted by all people of all religions as well as those with secular moral precepts. I think that it is going to be imperative that the world community accept such a platform to define what religion truly is, and whether or not any particular faction deserves to be protected as a religious movement. Those that embrace violence, that don’t systemically condemn it, should not be protected.
I had similar thoughts right after 9/11 in regard to terrorism; I remember thinking that there was an urgent need for the world community to define what terrorism is, so that the international community could uniformly condemn it. Of course we see that this has not happened, as in the recent Israel/Lebanon confrontation.
No Michael I used Lebanon as an example of an example of religious tolerance. The Hezbelloh problem is also a problem of class and power. The Sunnis, Druiz and Christian politicians have neglected the Shiite south.
Rudi,
I think you have a point on that but isn’t Lebanon more the exception that proves the rule?
Yes – Exception
Egypt – Coptic Church
Kuwait – Womens vote
Turkey – EU membership
The Muslims don’t have it cornered.
Rudi,
Of course, religious intolerance occurs within all faith groups; I don’t pretend that it has been completely vanquished from Christianity either. There is always a component of religion that asks believers to become evangelizers, or even when not promoted this way, believers feel the need to evangelize to show others “the way”. And, there’s also often a xenophobic mindset that causes a faith group to fear outside influence. I just see these things taking a stronger form of intolerance in the culture of Islam than in other cultures during the present era, particularly in the demands for religious freedom for Muslims in the West while there’s little reciprocity for Christians in Muslim lands. There are notable exceptions to that and certainly there are many individual Muslims who don’t wish to promote intolerance, but that doesn’t make the problem less real.
CS – Sarum used the low road, but the anti-Muslim rhetoric in the West is getting old. The threat in the US is smaller than in the EU because we actually allow the Arabs to assimilate. The EU has uses Arabs as migrant workers and denies the continents racism. Barring the extremes of Debbie Schussel and MM, we even allow infiltrators into politics and the armed forces. The threat is real but is being exploited just like David Kou shows us.
Rudi,
In theory I agree with you on the assimilation issue; I can’t really speak to your assertions about Europe because I only have second/third hand knowledge of the situation there. But I don’t see that allowing immigrants to assimilate necessarily means that we shouldn’t criticize customs of some parts of their culture that are not compatible with ours. Immigrants should be free to keep all facets of their culture which are not in contradiction to the laws of the land in which they seek refuge and opportunity, but they need to decide to reject any aspect that is not compatible. Otherwise I see no moral reason that the host country should receive them (and yes, I get your point that you believe Europe has received them in order to use them as a labor pool).
Why be angry at someone for simply stating historical facts regarding mohammed? We need to hear the truth, not historical revisionism and PC claptrap about what a man of peace mohammed was, in order to placate and pacify the world’s muslims.
CS What is unique about the US is the melting pot theory. Our US culture isn’t just Western Europe Anglo-Saxon. Immigrants from all corners of the world have contributed words and customs to the US experience. This is also regionalized, Tex-Mex in the SW and you call it in NYC. The midwest is Nordic and German with pockets of everything else. The Pat Buchanan idea of a WHITE culture is BS.
Rudi,
I agree with you on that and I think Buchanan is idiotic with his isolationist and bigoted ideas. And I had the same thought when I responded about your comments on Europe; I suspect that their reactions to immigrants is more wary because they don’t have the extensive history of assimilation as the US does. With each wave of immigration in the US, you have some people who are fearful but I think the majority accepts them and knows that in time the newcomers will be part of the mix (personally I think that if we would create good immigration laws and enforce them, it would quell the fears that people in the US currently have about Mexican/Latin American immigration- the illegal issue makes it harder for the average American to accept the influx). In Europe, the prevailing attitude is more likely to be like the Pat Buchanans of our country; I just can’t say if this is definitely the case because I’m not in Europe to directly observe what is happening there.