Disconnect between Muhammad's message and example
Reader comment on item: Analysis: Does the Islamic State Really Have 'Nothing to Do with Islam'?
in response to reader comment: The same kind of argument could be made about fundamentalist,literalist Christians

Submitted by Jim Ashby, Dec 17, 2014 02:45

Muhammad preached some things that were "liberal" in his day. He advised that female circumcision should be less severe ("Sunna" circumcision, limited to the clitoris). Though his dhimma contracts with Christians represented oppression of them, dhimma actually improved conditions for Jews in areas where they were previously persecuted. Muhammad often advocated kindness and charity for widows and orphans and beggars. By all accounts, he treated his wives well and they sometimes got the better of him. And though Muhammad admonished women to dress modestly, the traditional burqa goes way beyond what he recommended. He also claimed that there should be no coercion in religion.

But when contrasted with his actual deeds, a pragmatic attitude is revealed in which the ends justify the means. Crimes against Allah were punished more severely than crimes between men. Disrespecting Allah, Islam, the Quran or Muhammad was "making war on Allah". It was "making mischief in the land" and all the excuse needed to warrant death and mayhem in response. Under his orders and leadership, caravans, villages and towns were raided for camels and booty, and hostages for ransom or sale as slaves. Young women were kept or sold as sex slaves. Despite claiming there should be no coercion in religion, entire towns converted to Islam rather than fight or die. Poets who mocked Muhammad were executed. Muhammad, as Islam's leader, is responsible for all these unholy acts performed in Allah's name.

Literalist interpretation of the Quran is demanded by the Quran itself. By declaring itself clear, complete and perfect, it's resistant to moderate interpretation. What are Muslims to do? Cherry-pick perfection? Improve upon perfection? The Quran's militaristic suwar imply violence is justified by self-defense or defending Islam against those who make war on Allah. But the justification is so broad that anything can be used as an excuse for violence. It's possible to interpret the Quran literally and maintain a reasonable level of tolerance. But it's far to easy not to.

If you combine the licence for totalitarianism, intolerance, violence and jihad found in the Quran with the example of Muhammad's booty-loving and bloody exploits, ISIS has ample excuse for their atrocities. But if you choose to emphasize peace and tolerance, you can find justification in the Quran and in what Muhammad preached.

If not for the disconnect between what Muhammad preached and what he practiced, jihadis and terrorists would have far less warrant for the atrocities we continue to see.

Note: IPT will moderate reader comments. We reserve the right to edit or remove any comment we determine to be inappropriate. This includes, but is not limited to, comments that include swearing, name calling, or offensive language involving race, religion or ethnicity. All comments must include an email address for verification.