Is Islam a religion of peace?
by Jeff Morton

This is an interesting proposition.  What would make Islam a religion of peace? – acts of peace and commandments from Allah that there be peace, I suppose.  How many acts or revelations would be required for Islam to be proclaimed peaceful?  One?  100?  Does the religion promote freedom of choice?  We might define peace in that way.

Likewise, if there is only one act of violence or one commandment or decree for Muslims to act violently, does that make Islam a religion of violence?  Or do we need 100 decrees?  Does the religion prohibit freedom of choice?  We might define violence in that way.

I think you can see how difficult this might be.  As a Christian, I guess it’s my job to convince you Islam is NOT a religion of peace; that it is a religion of violence.  And my worthy opponent is going to do just the opposite: convince you of Islam’s inherent peacefulness.

Rather than trying to convince you about Islam itself, I’m going to take a different tact.  No, I’m not changing the proposition nor am I evading the question; however, it seems to me the two of us may never agree on what it is that makes a religion peaceful or violent.

I am only going to look at the life, ministry and actions of the founder of Islam – the prophet of Islam.  Muhammad ibn Abdullah is proclaimed by 1.3 billion Muslims as the final prophet of the final religion – a religion that is Allah’s best religion and the only one acceptable to Allah.  POI is said to be the best Muslim, the best example of Islam, the best prophet, the best father, the best husband, the best friend; in fact, he is seen as the best of everything!

 
I believe that if I can show you the POI believed in, taught, practiced, and advocated violence against non-Muslims, then the conclusion to our debate must be that Islam is NOT a religion of peace. 

I will not cite from the Qur’an, for the most part.  Why?  It’s not my scripture.  I don’t want to force an interpretation that is based on my own preconceived notions.  It seems not only rude but unworthy for Christians to tell Muslims what the Qur’an says and how they ought to interpret it.  I know I am affronted when a Muslim tells me what the gospel says – and he’s completely wrong.  For instance, there are some Muslims who have told me that the name of the Creator, Allah, is found in the Bible.  Of course I’m very surprised when they insist the Hebrew word Allelujah means “Praise Allah!”  Just as this is rude, unworthy and flat out wrong, so it’s often the case when we Christians jump into the Qur’an to tell Muslims what their own book should mean.  Therefore, I will try not to do that tonight.

I do know that you’ll hear many verses from the Qur’an – but not from me.  I also know one of the verses you’ll hear more than once is sura 2 aya 256, “There is no compulsion in religion.”

If I’m not using the Q, what then is my POI?  I will almost exclusively cite from the Biography of the Prophet of Islam, Sirat Rasul Allah.  The author of this biography is Muhammad ibn Ishaq, a scholar whose work was written at least 100 years after the death of the prophet of Islam; and his editor of some 100 years later is Ibn Hisham.  I will refer to this biography as the Sirat.

So, if I am to prove to you tonight that Islam is NOT a religion of peace, but a religion of violence, I believe I have to show you two things.

First, I must make it clear that Muhammad is indeed the vital link between Muslims and Islam.  In other words, I must clearly articulate the central role and example that Muhammad fills for every Muslim.  If Muhammad is at the heart and soul of Islam, then his actions must be examined and evaluated, and the result of this evaluation will be a clear view of the religion of Islam.

Second, not only must I show you that for Muslims Muhammad was the best Muslim and the example for all to follow, I must present clear, unbiased evidence that POI acted violently, not just once or twice, but consistently.  I will do this by simply quoting references from the Sirat.

Okay, enough introduction.  Let me get on with it.

How important is Muhammad to Islam?

Right away I’m going to break my rule about citing from the Qur’an.  But I know I’m safe here, since all I’ll do is cite it.  Its meaning is quite clear and I am sure my worthy opponent with agree with me that it tells us about the centrality and example Allah has given us in the person of the POI:

(Q33:21) Ye have indeed in the Apostle of Allah a beautiful pattern of (conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day and who engages much in the praise of Allah.

Let me read it again . . . and listen for the words “beautiful pattern of conduct”. . .

These are the words of Allah, and Allah tells us that the POI’s conduct is not just a pattern, but it is a beautiful pattern.  And if the Muslim hopes to make it through the Day of Judgment, it is this beautiful example Muslims ought to simulate.

And in a fatwa from “Sheikh M. S. Al-Munajjid, a prominent Saudi Islamic lecturer”, after spend some time discussing the reliability of all the prophets of Allah, i.e., Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc., he says this,

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is the one who will attain Al-Maqam Al-Mahmud (the Praised Position in the Hereafter) in Paradise, which will be given to one person only, and that person will be our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). . . . But the Shari`ah of our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is the most perfect, the best, the most complete; it abrogates all laws that came before it. http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544802

But the sheikh is a modern scholar.  What do the more ancient scholars of Islam say about the POI? 

In a tradition narrated by Abu Hazim b. Dinar, the POI said the following after he finished his prayers, “I have done this so that you may follow me and learn to pray.” (al-Bukhari)

In another tradition, this one narrated by Jabir ibn Abdullah, the POI told al-Khattab, that if Moses were alive, he would have followed the POI (al-Tirmidhi).

It is undeniably true that Muhammad is the central figure of Islam.  His ways are the ways of Islam.  His sunna, his path, and his law have given physical shape and texture to the divine will of Allah.  I have shown you the words of Allah and the words from both modern and ancient Islamic scholars to this effect.  POI is the central figure of Islam.

My second point is to show you that the actions of Muhammad were not consistently peaceful.  Remember, in order to win this debate I have to do two things.  I have already shown that Muhammad is the example for all Muslims; he is a beautiful example of conduct.   His behavior IS Islam.  Now I must show you that his actions were habitually violent.  So, let’s go back to the Sirat.

First, here is a summary statement that appears near the end of the Sirat: (659) POI “took part personally in twenty seven raids. . . . [and] He actually fought in nine engagements.”

Folks, if Muhammad is the premiere example of a Muslim, the advocate of Islam, the prophet of Allah, and he personally took part in 27 raids . . . the conclusion is simple.

Islam is NOT a religion of peace.  Islam is a religion of violence because Muhammad was a man of violence.  The question for tonight – Is Islam a religion of peace? – is answered with this fact.  The debate is over.  The POI planned at least 65 battles, raids, and expeditions (I know because I counted them!); furthermore, he personally engaged in 41% of them.  The Islam of the POI, the Islam that is the real Islam, was perpetuated by violence – by battles, by raids, and by expeditions.

I suppose one could argue that just because the POI planned and led raids, sent out expeditions, and fought in battles, that this doesn’t prove his actions are violent.      

BUT – consider the following examples of assassination attempts and his own understanding of violence:

·       First, Muhammad sent out assassins to kill his opponents.

o    (673-5) Abu Sufyan = The POI sent `Amr ibn Umayya to lead an assassination attempt on Abu Sufyan, perhaps the chief enemy of POI.  Ibn Umayya and his companion began their assassination attempt by first going to the Ka’aba.  They were recognized, but escaped to the hills.  While fleeing capture, ibn Umayya killed a man who was sleeping, apparently because he said, “I won’t be a Muslim as long as I live, nor heed to their religion give.”  After this incident, ibn Umayya and his companion happened upon two men they thought were spies.  Ibn Umayya killed one of them and took the other to POI.  When POI heard the story of ibn Umayya, he blessed him.  BTW, later, Abu Sufyan became a Muslim.

Perhaps my worthy opponent will tell us Abu Sufyan deserved to die as the chief opponent of POI.  But that only goes to prove my point that POI was a man of violence and revenge.

o   (675-6) Death of `Asma , daughter of Marwan = She was not happy with the death of Abu `Afak and displayed her displeasure in verse.  The POI said, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?”  `Umayr ibn `Adiy al-Khatmi killed her that night in her house.  The prophet told him, “You have helped Allah and his apostle.”  The next day the five sons of `Asma “became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.”

Perhaps my worthy opponent will tell us that `Asma was a traitor; we kill traitors don’t we?  Sure, but regardless the reason she died, one cannot deny she was killed at the command of POI.  Islam is a religion of violence.

o   (675) Death of Abu `Afak = he was unhappy when the POI killed al-Harith ibn Suwayd ibn Samit.  He displayed his displeasure in a poem.  The prophet of Islam said, “Who will deal with this rascal for me?”  Salim ibn `Umayr went and killed him.

Imagine being killed because you insulted POI with poetry.  This is Islam; this is shari’a.  This is the Islam of POI.

·       Not only did the POI send out assassins, secondly, he understood that violence was at the heart and soul Islam.

o   (157)  When `Umar and Hamza became Muslims, they protected the prophet of Islam from harm and Ibn Ishaq records the thoughts of M’s companions: “they knew that they (`Umar and Hamza) would protect the apostle, and that they would get justice from their enemies through them.”

When the POI began his ministry in Mecca, he was a warner, calling people to monotheism and out of polytheism.  He was told his response to those who persecuted him was to turn the other cheek.  He was not to fight let alone defend himself.  But as more converts came into Islam, new revelation came that the Muslims could indeed defend themselves.

·        The POI not only sent out assassins, he not only understood Islam would be justified and spread by violence, thirdly, here is a sampling of some of the raids and expeditions he planned and/or led:

o   (286) POI came back from raiding al-`Usharaya, then Al-Firhri came and raided Medina’s camels, so POI went after him, but failed to catch him.

o   (286) POI sent al-Asadi and they attacked a caravan during the sacred month when there wasn’t to be any fighting.  Fortunately a revelation came to the POI that excused the killing that took place in a sacred month.

o   (289ff) POI said about Abu Sufyan’s caravan coming from Syria, “This is the Quraysh caravan containing their property.  Go out to attack it, perhaps God will give it as a prey.”  During the fighting, POI said, “By God in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, no man will be slain this day fighting against them with steadfast courage advancing not retreating but God will cause him to enter Paradise.”

o   (485) POI attacked Bani Lihyan in order to avenge the death of some of his men

o   (486) POI attacked Dhu Qarad (in order to get his camels back)

o   (510) POI marched against Khaybar; he asked for a Muslim to fight the Jew, Marhad.  Muhammad ibn Maslama killed him.

o   (589) POI fought men of Thaqif; when the town lost, POI cut down their vineyards.

o   (665) POI sent `Abdullah b. Rawaha to kill al-Yusayr b. Rizam (a Jew) in a raid.

o   (671) POI sent ibn Abu Hadrad al-Aslami to al-Ghaba.  The interesting thing about this is that POI sent al-Aslami on a raid so that he would be able to pay the dowry of 200 dirhams for his wife.  A raid, not for the sake of Islam, but for the sake of dowry!

What more can be said?  I believe these instances of assassination attempts, raids, expeditions, and battles all reveal the consistent and habitual actions of POI.  He was a man of violence.  Islam, therefore, is a religion of violence.

CONCLUSION

Let me wrap this up.  For my worthy opponent to win this debate he will have to do two things.

First, he’ll need to show us that the POI is NOT the premiere example for all Muslims to follow.  He must prove to us that there is not an intimate and vital link between POI and how one understands Islam.  Frankly, if he does this, I will be amazed.  One cannot deny POI’s preeminence and remain a Muslim.  The POI is at the very heart and soul of Islam; he is the DNA of Islam.

Secondly, he will have to show that the POI was not a man of raids, expeditions, assassinations, and warfare.  He will have to show us the POI was a man whose life and ministry was not characterized by violence. 

Remember, I have not cited the Qur’an for my evidence.  I don’t need to.  In fact, regardless of what the Qur’an says – regardless how many peace verses there may be – and there aren’t that many – regardless what evidence from the Qur’an my worthy opponent cites – the actions of Muhammad speak louder than any of these words.

I have twisted no facts.  I have falsified no evidence.  In fact, I have only used Islamic sources to show you that the prophet of Islam was an advocate of violence in his religion. 

So, I believe he has one of several options in dealing with his own sources.

1.  He can ignore the Sirat and not comment on it at all.

2.  He may try to show that I have misinterpreted it or misunderstood it.  This is virtually impossible since I provided little to no comment on the writings of Ibn Ishaq.

3.  He may decide to dismiss the Sirat as unworthy, unreliable, untrustworthy.  Frankly, I’ve yet to meet a Muslim who believes the Sirat is not trustworthy.  In fact, to believe so would most definitely put that Muslim outside orthodox Islam.

4.  He may try to reinterpret these facts as I have presented them.  He would have to say something like these actions of POI are exceptions or they apply only to the prophet and not to Muslims in general.  If he does that, if he gives new interpretations to these events, stepping out of the bounds of orthodox Islam and into the nether world of subjectivity, making texts say whatever one needs them to say.

I will be waiting patiently to see how my opponent deals with the overwhelming evidence that POI, who delivered Allah’s final religion to mankind, was a violent man who propagated Islam provocatively and violently.  Therefore, it stands as a true statement that Islam is a religion of violence.