Propaganda Attacks Against Islam
Posted by Parsin on June 1, 2008
Muhammad and America/ part 2/3
Analysis of Some of the Propaganda Attacks Against Islam
2. The Morality of Mohammad
The second point that the writer mentions in criticism of Islam, and one which in his opinion has been ignored in this religion is the morality of Mohammad and lack of affection, sympathy and ethics on his part. In his view, Mohammad was a very rough individual who under the cover of the sward had enhanced his way and in this endeavor ransacked commercial caravans and assassinated his critics. The writer has cited verses in defense of his claim and says that the guarantee of salvation for mankind signed by Jesus, is acquired in Islam through Jihad and wars. He says:
Islam offers no morality in Mohammad, but we find purity in Christ. Jesus didn’t kill people. He didn’t pirate caravans. Rather than dismiss women, he honored them. And, most of all, he rose from the dead.
With respect to the above the following points are worthy of consideration:
2.1) It is true that in the Qur’an there are many verses with regards to war and jihad, and that Mojahedeen who have sacrificed their belongings and their lives in the way God has put before them have been regarded as the most virtuous persons, and have been promised the eternal heaven, but these verses are defensive verses and are totally within the framework of divine orders (not for extending and expanding the borders of Islamic countries.) These verses are exclusively for facing the offenders and even then only to the extend of averting the offense and pushing the offender back to its own territory. Even though the Muslims, like the followers of other faiths in history, have engaged in territorial wars, in the divine book which is the basis of judgement of religious thought, in no way is there allowance for war based on belief.
Attention to historical facts would also make us aware of the truth of the matter. To discuss the idea of monotheism in the Arabian Peninsula during the age of ignorance when idolatry and infanticide were the order of the day, by a young orphan from the Quraish tribe, would certainly not have been without reaction, bigotry, and tribal and religious fanaticism. According to history, Mohammad (peace be upon him (PBUH)) ’s opponents, from the tribe of Quraish to the primitive tribes and the Jews living around Medina, did not in any way refrain from trying to totally eradicate and suppress this idea and its followers.
Yes, the Prophet of Islam has lead many wars but all of these wars have been for the purpose of defending the human beings, life, property and the principles of a minority whose only guilt was the worship of a single God (instead of idols). Which equitable and learned scholar can deny the injuries, tortures and executions, and protracted plots and the many other offenses against the Muslims that resulted in Muslims migrating and leaving their lands?
Now, at the beginning of the third millennium and the twenty first century, in the midst of the growth of the public opinion in the most advanced civilization having claims to science and freedom, we see that enduring such thoughts is hard for the liberally minded persons. Then how is it that we expect the Prophet of Islam or any other prophet not to have resorted to using a sward? If Jesus the son of Mary did not fight in wars, it is because he died at a young age and did not have a chance to initiate and lead a political sect so that for their protection he would have had to fight another army. Didn’t Moses and the prophets after him to the time of David and Solomon have extended wars for the protection of their religious sects? And didn’t the followers of Jesus start defensive wars for the protection of their faith, and even start world wars and regional wars?
2.2) With regards to attacks on commercial caravans, to which have been rare references in history during the early years of Muslim migration form Mecca to Medina, one has to consider this reality with a just and equitable mind. Muslims who already had their possessions confiscated due to boycotts and arrests of their members around Mecca, and as a result were under increasing pressure and torture, were forced to escape Mecca at night in order to save their own lives and left the rest of their belongings at the mercy of the plunders and pillages of the Quraish tribe.
If these people whose lands had been confiscated and who had been separated from their spouses and children and belongings for fear of their lives, came across a caravan in another land, carrying goods belonging to the offenders, did they not have the right to repossess some of what had been and still was their rightful belongings? Is this steeling at the most opportune time or is it reclaiming one’s right? Do you know that the battle of “Badr,” the first battle of the Muslims, took place because of such actions and the Prophet of Islam only gave permission to the migrants of Mecca (who had lost their possessions) to join the army and he did not allow the helpers from Medina to take part in the battle even though help was badly needed? Doesn’t this action by itself qualify the attacks on the caravans?
Nor do the assassinations of the ideological and political critics of which the prophet has been accused have any truth to them. Yes, in some non-factual cases such reports have been recorded in history, but none has been solely because of criticism or political and religious opposition. The most famous case is that of a person who misused the trust that the prophet had placed in him for helping to take care of the camels belonging to the people by first killing the camel care taker and stealing and selling the camels, and then seeking refuge with the enemy of Islam, thereby establishing a stance against the prophet of Islam. Is it possible to annul the punishment of a crime and the legal pursuit of the killer in the world today? Why does one consider this to be the assassination of the political critics and ignore this universal right? Only three or four cases of this type have been reported during the conquest of Mecca. Even though the prophet had recommended punishment for the criminals before the conquest of Mecca, all but one person, even the murderer of Hamzah the prophet’s uncle, were forgiven 3.
And finally with regards to roughness and lack of ethics (!) on the part of the prophet whom according to the Qur’an, was a commiserate for the people of the world, and who was extremely kind, gentle and merciful and was commissioned to complete the ethical values of the human beings, we recommend the writer to study the articles written by unbiased Christian writers.