“Respectable” Racism
Posted by The Platform | Posted in Universal Values | Posted on 31-01-2010
38
By Hilary Aked
In the run up to 2010, what direction was Britain moving in and how can we progress in the next decade of the 21st century?
In October 2009, the BBC allowed Nick Griffin of the BNP to claim on television that ‘Islam is an evil religion’. Judging from the rather muted reaction this comment received, it was as if this wasn’t a particularly outrageous statement to make.
About a month after this, on November 5th 2009 three Muslim students from City University in London were badly hurt in a violent attack by a mob of about 30 people armed with metal poles and bricks. The attackers are said to have shouted ‘get the Muslims’ and ‘terrorists’.
More recently, in Switzerland, a vote to ban minarets was a wake-up call to many, highlighting just how mainstream discriminatory attitudes towards Islam had become and how often it was being unfairly singled out.
An incident at the London School of Economics in December 2009 recently offended many people, especially Muslims, after student sports players chose to paint their faces black and dress up like inmates of Guantanamo Bay – in orange jumpsuits – at a Christmas party. Their defence was that it was just ‘a bit of fun’ and was not intended to be ‘racist, religiously insensitive or demeaning’ as it was later branded by the Student Union president. But not many people were laughing.
Unfortunately, Islamophobia is clearly on the rise in Britain. And whether it is severe prejudice, or mere thoughtlessness, if we don’t challenge it, it will become accepted as a social norm.
It is in everyone’s interest that we do better to tolerate, respect and co-exist with other races, religions and ideologies. This is not only so we can hold on to the benefits of a multicultural, multi-faith society. It’s also because racism (such as attacks on Muslims – or anyone else) increasingly feeds its twin barbarism: terrorism (in the name of Islam – or anything else).
On Christmas 2009 day a former UCL student is accused of attempting to commit mass murder by blowing up a plane in Detroit.
A flurry of media reports suggesting that he may have been ‘radicalised’ whilst at university in London followed. Although there is no evidence of this, some newspapers presented the fact that he had organised events on the War on Terror as some sort of early warning sign. The absurdity of this is staggering and dangerous.
It is clear that ‘extremist’ is such a vaguely defined conceptual term that in some minds any Muslim with an opinion, especially one critical of Britain or America’s foreign policy, is suspect. This mentality threatens to curtail freedom of speech by intimidation and silence of dissent, and turn into a McCarthyist witch-hunt against left-wing Muslims. A distinction has to be drawn between voicing anger at the suffering caused by the violence of Western governments and espousing violence as a response.
There are reasons to be fearful that more Islamophobic attacks will follow this attempted act of terrorism by one grossly misguided individual.
But the disturbing polarisation that seems to be starting to occur can be reversed in the next ten years. No one wants a continued destructive cycle of racism, terrorism, alienation, injustice and bloodshed.
The government’s Preventing Violet Extremism programme is counter-productive, itself stigmatising Muslims and exacerbating the sense of disaffection some feel by treating their religion as the problem, and ignoring the bigger picture.
It also feeds Islamophobia, and groups like ‘Stop the Islamisation of Europe’ – who openly boast of their Islamophobia with their slogan ‘Racism is the lowest form of human stupidity, but Islamophobia is the height of common sense’.
The media also bears some responsibility for the climate of heightened racism. The City University attacks in London were, according to witnesses, carried out by both black and white youths. It is patently obvious that this was a specifically anti-Muslim hate-crime, yet it was reported only as ‘racially motivated’. But much worse are the newspapers who, since 9/11, have become obsessed with the word ‘Muslim’ treating it as carrying some automatic connotations – mostly negative. The implicit message is: here is a group of people the rest of us should be worried about.
It is vital that the media don’t use their power irresponsibly. Equal prominence must be given to a story where a Muslim is an innocent victim, not a guilty party. Despite the dramatic, tragic and shocking circumstances, the case of Marwa el-Sherbini – stabbed to death in Dresden, Germany – was not widely reported upon, seemingly because it did not fit the dominant narrative of ‘Muslims as baddies’.
Vilification of Muslims as uniformly ‘extremist’, dangerous, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, irrational and violent panders to the BNP’s lie that Muslims do not ‘fit’ in British society and this view cannot be allowed to creep any further into the mainstream.
Opposing violent fanaticism can only be effective if we fight racism and discrimination at the same time. Suspicion of all Muslims is a symptom of the tendency to make lazy generalisations. If a handful of terrorists succeed in making us so very terrified that we turn on innocent people in Muslim communities, we will be wilfully participating in our mutual self-destruction by tearing up the trust and respect that are so hard to recover.
This decade we should demand some sophistication from the government, an end to hysterical stereotyping in our media, and universal recognition that no form of racism – including Islamophobia – is respectable.
Hilary Aked read English Language and Literature at the University of Oxford and then went on to complete a Masters degree in Development Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. She is currently editor of ‘London Student,’ the student newspaper of the University of London. The newspaper is the largest of its kind in Europe, serving as the voice of 120,000 students.
Great piece
I agree.
What is there to agree? That muslims are responsible for the suicide bombings, and not the religion?
There is only one group of people to blame for Islamophobia – Muslims.
Across the world Muslims have declared war on non-Muslims. In every Muslim country non-Muslim minorites are persecuted mercilessly by the Muslim majority. This is especially so in Egypt where the Copts are being genocidally oppressed.
All this is done within a cloud of secrecy. No reports are made in the Western media. Don’t whine about government policies feeding Anglophobia. The truth is, not one MP has questioned the actions of the Egyptian, Turkish, Malaysian, Indonesian, Pakistani etc etc Governments over their official Kuffarphobia policies.
Islam, by its very nature is divisive and discriminatory. It enshrines lower order status on non-Muslims.
There is nothing meritorious about Islam.
Haha, I don’t know if I should bother by pretending to take this seriously but here it goes, in simplified bullet point form:
1- Well done on backing up your fantasies with absolutely no evidence
2- Read a bit of history and you will see that Muslims were far more tolerant of Non-Muslims than Christian Europe was of non-Christians. (E.G. the second man to the Sultan of late medieval Morocco was a Jew, Saladin’s physician was Maimonides an important Jewish philosopher. two among numerous examples) – Attitudes towards the other are always subject to change regardless of religion.
2.5- What’s hilarious is that your doing exactly the same thing you are condemning.
3- Nothing meritorious? Not even the massive advancements of science, philosophy and mathematics which the Muslim world transmitted to Europe’s renaissance? I suggest you visit the science Museum for the 1001 Muslim inventions exhibition.
I agree
Stephen Gash: it’s ironic – your comments are a perfect example of the stupid Islamophobic rhetoric so common today. Yuk. Too much to hope that you’re actually being cleverly satirical I suppose?
Fantastic article Hilary, thanks for saying it as it is!
Stephen Gash- “Across the world Muslims have declared war on non-Muslims.”
Really? Where? The only declaration of war that I’ve seen in the last 10 years is ‘the war on terror’ – which is, by the way, an abstract entity. But with a very non-abstract result. On Muslim nations. Whose ‘wonderful’ dictators and leaders were supported by the West.
“No reports are made in the Western media.” That says more about Western universal values than Muslim ones.
Forget ‘kuffarphobia’ – countries like Egypt are starving their own nations and neighboring nations such as the Gazans, whether Muslim or non-Muslim. They are violating human rights and that needs to be addressed before anything. I can’t comment on the Coptic Christians as I haven’t studied in any detail.
“Islam, by its very nature is divisive and discriminatory.”
An empty point and sweeping statement. What’s “by it’s very nature?” Within Islamic law? Or the way Muslim-majority countries act? There is a huge difference. Anyone who has studied Islam for 5 minutes will know that it transformed Arabia from what was a backward system of values into equality of the greatest kind. 1400 years ago it managed to tell people that there was no superiority in gender, race or wealth. I cannot think of another contemporary example at the time to achieve such milestones in thought.
“A distinction has to be drawn between voicing anger at the suffering caused by the violence of Western governments and espousing violence as a response.”
Okay, here are a few examples of UCL speakers espousing violence:
This ummah needs a ruler who will stand up for Islam. Who will unite us behind Qur’an. Who will follow the words of the prophet and who will send an army. The army of Egypt is not the army of Egypt. The army of Iran is not the army of Iran. The army of Jordan is not the army of Jordan. These are the armies of Islam. These are the armies of the Muslim ummah. These are the armies that have to move. Takbir! Takbir! Takbir!
…
Yes, give your charity, may Allah accept it. Yes, make duaa (prayer) for the Palestinians, may Allah accept it. But you have to call, you have to demand, you have to march, that the Muslim armies, they have to disobey their orders. The Muslim armies in Egypt, Jordan and Syria, they have to disobey their presidents and these puppets of the West. They have to move across the borders. They have to liberate Gaza. They have to liberate Palestine, the whole of the land again. Takbir! Takbir! Takbir!
And another:
So when we see the examples of our brothers and sisters, fighting in Chechnya, Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir, Afghanistan, then we know where the example lies. When we see Hezbollah defeating the armies of Israel, we know what the solution is, and where the victory lies. We know that it is incumbent upon all of us to support the jihad of our brothers and sisters in these countries when they are facing the oppression of the West. Allahu Akbar!
And another:
If I could use my Palestinian citizenship, it would be to vote Ismail Haniyeh and Hamas back in again in Gaza. Victory to intifada 3! Victory to Hamas!
There’s lots more. Violence being espoused. It is not McCarthyist to point this out.
Omri,
You quoted “A distinction has to be drawn between voicing anger at the suffering caused by the violence of Western governments and espousing violence as a response.” Then proceeded to quote what some UCL speakers allegedly said. (can you prove that they said those things?)
Even if they were accurate, this does not refute Hillary’s quote in any way. Furthermore this does not prove in that UCL is a “breeding ground” for terrorism – where are the reactions to these quotes? did they invite the speaker/s again? was this part of a lecture/speech or overheard? – Because someone at UCL professed such views it does not follow that UCL is now a breeding ground for terrorism.
Finally what does a Nigerian poet know about London’s Muslim students? Is he a sociologist? What gives him the authority to judge the condition of London’s Muslim students?
Could you be a bit more thorough in forming your accusations next time please?
Violence is condemned. UCL speakers should stop in their hate speech.
Wole soyinka NIGERIAN Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka has launched an astonishing attack on England, accusing the country of nurturing fundamentalism.
Soyinka was interviewed by New York website the Daily Beast at the Jaipur Literature Festival.
He was asked what he made of his country’s placement on a watch-list of states deemed to be incubators of Islamist terrorism, following the attempted Christmas Day bombing by Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab.
Poet, playwright and activist Soyinka replied: “That was an irrational, knee-jerk reaction by the Americans. The man did not get radicalised in Nigeria. It happened in England, where he went to university.
“England is a cesspit. England is the breeding ground of fundamentalist Muslims. Its social logic is to allow all religions to preach openly. But this is illogic, because none of the other religions preach apocalyptic violence. And yet England allows it. Remember, that country was the breeding ground for communism, too. Karl Marx did all his work in libraries there.”
Soyinka went on to blame post-colonial angst for Britain’s tolerance: “This is part of the character of Great Britain. Colonialism bred an innate arrogance, but when you undertake that sort of imperial adventure, that arrogance gives way to a feeling of accommodativeness. You take pride in your openness.”
In 1986, Soyinka, now 75, was the first African to win the Nobel Prize for Literature. Soyinka’s dim view of Britain is more poignant as he studied and started his career here.
He studied English Literature at Leeds and also worked as a playreader at the Royal Court in London. Both the Government and UCL have been keen to refute the idea that Umar Farouk was radicalised in London.
Well, reading your last two posts, I will adress some of the points you made. With regards to the quotes you listed apparently taken from UCL, I whole-heartedly agree with the frist two extracts about the Umma of Islam, and there being no distinction is Islam regarding race. How this could ever be conceived of as a negative concept is beyond me. We are all equal as humans EXCEPT in piety. The extracts clearly implicitly address Israel which is nothing short of a fundamental, fanatical Zionist state. You seem to confuse the concept of ‘violence’ and ‘resistance’. It is entirely the right of the surrounding Arab countries to resist the expansionist land-grabbings of Israel. The part about the governments acting as puppets clearly goes without saying; tell me, when was the last time the great USA allowed Egypt the right to have a democratic vote? Worried that animal Hosni Mubarak wouldn’t get re-elected (a loose term considering he was never elected in the first instance)?
The part about Hezbollah is also poignantly accurate. Israel occupied the South of Lebanon (despite the endless UN resolutions passed) and Hezbollah acted as a legitimate ‘resistance’ group in the face of UN impotence. You have been so ready to band around the term ‘Jihad’ in specific contexts, as if it encompassed every form of armed struggle, yet it has left you failing to appreciate its true meaning. The nuances of ‘Jihad’ are many, but the greatest form of Jihad is actually a person’s ‘internal’ struggle for piety; hardly the notion portrayed by the media.
The quote about the Palestinian citizenship, well to say the least, wreaks of hypocrisy. I fully support the right of the Palestinians to self-determination; i.e. they may choose who they wish to govern them. Of course though, the Western notion of Palestinians has always been coloured with a consideration of them as sub-human, and certainly not worthy of self-governance.
With regards to Wole Soyinka, if he had been so kind as to speak of the massacre of 250+ (the figure keeps rising – I hear its hard to keep a count of bodies when they’ve been thrown into wells) Muslims only last week in Nigeria, by Christians, we may have had a more balanced account from him. Intelligent though I’m sure he is, I actually burst out laughing when I read ‘none of the other religions preach apocalyptic violence’……Eh??
Some (of what could be a million) examples on that point; the Jewish settlers of Israel who enjoy virtual immunity to any kind of law in Israel, and hence have spread like a cancer all over the land of Palestinians. Also, let’s speak of the example sweeped under the carpet of history; the genocide of indigenous populations of the Americas (the greatest genocide ever committed in history) – all in the name of Christianity. Or what about closer to home – the BNP – who preach a form of ethnic cleansing in order to retain the ‘Christian roots’ of this country. No one in their right mind ever bands the BNP as ‘Christian extremists’; you never judge a whole religion on the actions of a few. Clearly with Muslims though, that kind of attitude wouldn’t sell stories.
Violence is violence. Resistance is resistance. Some resistance is violence. If you espouse violent resistence, you espouse violence, and labelling it as resistance does not mean you are not espousing violence.
There are plenty of students and student groups espousing violence in the UK. They might call it resistance, but that changes nothing.
Hi All
Yesterday I posted if there was anyone here who doesn’t believe in a 2 state solution for I/P and it appears to have been deleted, why??
(In the same post I also told Gash to stop his moronic whining)
Cheers
TCH
Dear User,
Please refer to our User Guidelines: http://www.the-platform.org.uk/user-guidelines/
Thank you for participating in The Platform debates!
Regards
What do you say to that Stephen? It seems like your Islamophobic rant was supported over a verbal attack some might say justified verbal attack against you…
Hilary Aked wrote that we need to demand that:
“no form of racism – including Islamophobia – is respectable”
This does a disservice to clarity and understanding by insisting that Islam, a religio-political ideology, is somehow an immutable charicteristic on the same order as race. Although many people will often associate Islam with Arabs or south-eastern Asians, the fact is that there are Muslims of every race, just as there are many non-Muslim Arabs and a majortiy of non-Muslim south-east Asians.
The term ‘Islamophobia’ itself really serves to obscure the issue, because of the way it is used to conflate two very different attitudes, one of which deserves the term, and one of which does not.
There may indeed be some people who believe that under the shirt of every Muslim there is likely as not to be a suicide belt, or that if not today, then tomorrow. This is clearly an irrational fear, and deserves the term ‘Islamophobia’–irrational fear of Muslims. Not racism mind, but still ‘Islamophobia.’ If it were the belief that under the shirt of every ARAB etc., then that would be racism, but that is very different from every MUSLIM.
Now any of those notions are very different from coming to the conclusion that Islam–as preached by Mohammed, spelled out in the Koran and ahadith, and interpreted by virtually all Islamic authorities throughout history, and by most Islamic authorities worldwide today, is–at best–a totalitarian political philosophy with a spiritual dimension, one that demands that it’s followers attack, persecute, and oppress the hated infidel.
This not to claim that most people who identify as Muslims–at least not in the west–follow anything close to the ideology that Mohammed intended and that most Islamic scholars worldwide preach. It is even possible that many sincerely believe that their religion is one of peace, through wishful thinking or lack of aquaintance with the core teachings.
But if one is to truly understand what causes terrorism in the modern world, he needs to see it as its practicioners see it–as the latest incarnation of the jihad that has been waged against non-Muslims since 622. Indeed, the current ‘Muslim World’ is only the result of the conquest and genocidal occupation of what was once the heartland of Christainity.
Muslims who wish to reform their religion to make it peaceful and tolerant have my full support, and my prayers. They face an uphill battle within their own religion, because they need to go against the direct words of Mohammed, and supposedly, Allah–those same words that are quoted in virtually every terrorist communique.
The only real way to banish fear and suspicion of Muslims is not to complain about ‘Islamophobia.’ It is for Muslims to work to stop those trying to kill or conquer us in the name of Islam.
You’re right in that Islam does not belong to race – that’s evident from its universal values of equality. But it becomes akin to a form of racism when people begin to make major generalisations and false claims about the religion, and when the media instills fear and anxiety surrounding Islam and Muslims.
It’s ridiculous to assert that Islam is totalitarian, especially in the first instance – anyone who cares to pick up the Quran and read it front to back will know immediately that the Quran discusses worship first and foremost – and the forms of worship include social etiquette (smiling in the face of a passer-by, giving charity, etc) and standing up in the face of injustice. We were created to rub shoulders with society and humanity, not to be hidden hermits. As such, social and political instruction are dimensions of faith. Not the other way around.
“one that demands that it’s followers attack, persecute, and oppress the hated infidel”. I regret to inform you that you’ve fallen into the very same game that an ‘extremist’ or terrorist taking advantage of words would use. Statements such as this are too common and hugely false. “persecute” – hmmm maybe you can enlighten us with an example? it is Mohammed who stopped persecution of innocent people at a most brutal period in Arabia, again, not the other way around.
You show a terrible translation of Arabic, zero understanding of context (textual and historical), and as a person of some academic knowledge, are embarrassing yourself with such an empty conclusion. While your here, do a bit of research on what ‘jihad’ really means. You might surprise yourself.
Let me cut to the chase, and be very clear here: Muslims are not apologetic for the teachings of their faith, nor of the teachings of the Quran, nor of the actions of Mohammed. Nor will they be “moderate” by British-media standards, whereby they deny what their religion instructs and preach peacefulness as a disguise. Whether you like it or not, the fact is, for Muslims, all the actions of Mohammed were flawless and valid.
This is because all actions at the beginning of Islam were absolutely just, progressive, revolutionary, contrary to your belief. The changes Mohammed made were astounding. Equality which the west only managed to discover in the last century, were implemented over 1400 years ago. I’ll leave you to do the reading.
- But even to the simplest mind, times do differ (something that the Quranic and hadeeth texts recognise and draw upon) and the beginnings of Islam differ from the requirements of the modern context. There’s no reformation. There’s no uphill struggle. There is an implementation of the universal values of God, Islam and Mohammed, in the context of the contemporary age – values which will will spread dazzlingly when they are rooted in any society they are brought into.
Amongst these- peace and justice at its best.
Bejeweled –
First off, I’m certainly glad that we can agree that Islam is not a race. Whether or not ‘Islamophobia’ is morally equivalent to racism is a separate issue. As I stated above, my point is that the irrational fear of all Muslims is, but that disagreement with the teachings of Islam is not, nor is critical examination of them or even lampooning of them. That is all part of free society and is not something to be condemned, much less likened to racism.
Is your argument that Islam is not totalitarian in the first instance or that it is not totalitarian at all? If the former, I will certainly decline to press the point, as long as we have accepted that Islam is not just a religion on the order of Christianity—where you are commanded to render unto Caesar those things which are Caesar’s and unto God those things which are God’s. Instead it is also a political ideology which demands the governing of territory, not just the hearts of the believers. That covers the ‘political’ aspect. The ‘totalitarian’ aspect is explained in detail below.
This of course is the way Islam calls for the subjugation and persecution of unbelievers. An example of this from the life of Mohammed would be his ethnic cleansing—by expulsion, slaughter, or enslavement—of the Jews of Medina. Or, you do not even need to go into such extreme examples. You could look at the regular raids carried out against non-Muslim caravans (legitimate because they were not Muslim) and the theft and enslavement—partially for the material benefit of Mohammed—that that entailed. This of course was perfectly normal for a 7th century warlord. Indeed, many of the other great men of history did far worse things. However, none of them are held up as perfect and timeless examples by a major religion. Significantly, the characters in the Bible—even the God of the Bible—are presented as fallible figures. Other mass-murdering heroes from classical antiquity and elsewhere have of course never been presented as anything other than imperfect men. That is what is so dangerous about the place of Mohammed in Islamic belief: the infallibility and timelessness of the example of a man who was a brutal—and in large part because of that, highly successful—warlord. Certainly no one would fail to place him among the great conquerors of history, but then no one is, at least in the modern western world, trying to follow the example of Gengis Khan to the letter. Anyone attempting to do this would be rightly recognized as a dangerous individual.
Of course, it is not just from the raw example of Mohammed that we can conclude that Islam mandates—and has inspired people to carry out—persecution of infidels. It is of course made explicit in Koran 9:29 that non-Muslims living under Islamic rule should “feel themselves subdued.”
According to ibn Kathir, this general Koranic commandment was translated into explicit and specific rules by the Caliph Umar in the contract of dhimmitude he forced on the Christian communities he had conquered. These range from the mandate of distinctive and humiliating dress and haircuts, to the required subservience they must have in their dealings with Muslims, through to prohibitions on preaching their religion, building Churches, or even repairing extant ones.
Again, it would be silly to bring this up if it were confined to the early periods of Islamic history, and Muslims had not acted on it since then. However, even in the 17th century, Christians were being forced to convert to Islam because they could not pay the jizya. As ibn Khaldun put it in the 14th century, “It is [for them to choose between] conversion to Islam, payment of the poll tax, or death. It is disingenuous in the extreme to claim that for the poor, this does not, and did not, translate to “conversion or death.”
This subjugation of the dhimmi is not a relic of the past. Just look at the oppression of non-Muslims across the Muslim world today. Much of this oppression is enshrined in the laws of the respective countries, but it all is found in orthodox Islamic teaching right back to the Koran. And it highlights that whatever equality is found in Islam—and we don’t even need to go into the ideas of women being property which it contains—that equality is very much equality between Muslims. There is no sense in Islam that non-Muslims are equal to Muslims. Equal to dogs and pigs maybe, as they teach in Saudi schools today and in British madrassas that use Saudi textbooks, but not equal to Muslims.
As to the meaning of jihad, the spiritual meaning does not lessen the fact of the existence of a very physical one in addition to that. This is confirmed in a manual of Islamic law certified not in the 12th century but in 1991 by Al-Azhar University. In this manual, Umdat-al-Salik, the ‘lesser jihad’ is defined as “warfare against non-Muslims.” Its lesser importance relative to spiritual jihad in no way lessens its absolute importance. After all, Koran 9:111 says that those most certain to get to paradise are those who “slay and are slain” for Allah.
Any attempt to say that ‘Jihad is only defensive’ will need to take into account the opinion recently articulated by the mufti Ebrahim Desai who argued, in accordance with long-time Islamic orthodoxy, that any hindrance to the propagation of Islam counts as persecution and thus an attack. After all, “persecution is worse than killing” (Koran 2.214).
Again, let me be very clear, for I cannot make this clear enough. I am not advocating the teachings here as being exemplary of the way I want Muslims to practice their religion. I LIKE the imprecise, nominal Islam that does not accord with the violent teachings of Mohammed and centuries of orthodox Islamic thought. I don’t want to be persecuted and killed. What I am saying here is that if we are going to achieve any understanding of the problems our society faces when it comes to Islamic terrorism, hate preaching, or the growing fear and suspicion of Muslims, we will need to confront the fact that the terrorists are not some radical nutcases that are completely out of tune with Islamic thought, but rather that they grow out of the very heart of Islamic orthodoxy.
Just a point to clear up: It is true that I do not speak Arabic. In this I am in the company of the majority of Muslims worldwide. I rely for understanding of the Koran on translations by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, N.J. Dawood, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, and J.M. Rodwell. If you have a favourite, or take exception to any of these, please do let me know, and why.
Cheers
Matt,
Your argument makes absolutely no sense. You can’t distinguish between “Islam” and “Muslims” because it is only what Muslims are and do that defines Islam. So on the one hand you have the example of “peaceful” Muslims and claim that they do not represent “true” Islam. On the other hand you seem to suggest that the “true” model of a Muslim is that of a terrorist.
Now if the vast majority of our scholars, living in the east and west are in agreement that killing innocent non believers, oppressing people and being unjust in general is impermissible in Islam, I ask who are you to come along and define our religion for us? One look at the Bible would allow me to do the same.
At one point in the Old testament a number of children are killed for mocking the prophet Elisha, infidels are ordered to be killed, stoned etc etc. From this I too could assert all that you have about a
Islam and apply it to Judaism or Christianity. But this is not how any normal person goes about these things. Religions are what their believers who practice them are, not what YOU want them to be. Therefore distinguishing between Islam and Muslims is nonsensical.
When you say “This not to claim that most people who identify as Muslims–at least not in the west–follow anything close to the ideology that Mohammed intended and that most Islamic scholars worldwide preach” You are simply underlining the fact that you choose to see Islam in a way that does not adhere to reality.
“This does a disservice to clarity and understanding by insisting that Islam, a religio-political ideology, is somehow an immutable charicteristic on the same order as race.”
A number of problems right from the get go, firstly describing Islam as a religio-political ideology is completely ridiculous. every religion is “political” in that they aim to order the society of its followers in some way. However, if you meant that there is one idea of leadership within Islam you are also incorrect since many diverging ideas on leadership exist among Muslims.
Secondly, Muslims are racialised in much of the media. The very fact that you generalize the way you do proves this as you say things like “at least not in the west”. Implicitly then, Islam belongs in “eastern” people. And in these generalisations you contradict your own distinction of Islam and Muslim by breaking down the distinction between race and religion in the way you write.
“Indeed, the current ‘Muslim World’ is only the result of the conquest and genocidal occupation of what was once the heartland of Christainity.”
And how was Christianity spread? Byzantium and the Carolingians sent rose petals to the Saxons, Balkans and the Russians did they? People have been persecuted in the name of Christianity ever since Christianity became a political power with the Emperor Constantine.
Also it is well known that the early Muslims did not forcefully convert Non-Muslims within their empire, true they had to pay a poll tax but this also exempted them from duties such as military service. Most conversions to Islam occured willingly with a process of Arabising culture in the 9th century throughout the Muslim world well after the early conquests. We can tell because there are records of increasing name changes in this period from non-Muslim to Muslim. It obviously was not genocidal. Read up on history before you post?
It is also obvious that you have no idea about the sociology of conflict. Conflicts do not occur in any circumstance on the basis of religious ideology alone. It is mainly circumstances, social, economic and political which favour one interpretation over another. I would encourage you to read up on a few social theories.
Finally and most importantly, you have absolutely no evidence backing up your post. If you are talking about ahadith and Qur’an I highly doubt that you are a scholar in these vast areas, so why should anyone take you seriously when you say “they face an uphill battle within their own religion”.
You yourself admitted that our scholars and religious authorities don’t interpret Islam the way you do, and we believe this to be true Islam. So what uphill battle are we facing? What do we need to change if you yourself admit that we don’t practice Islam the way you said Islam “Really” is. Honestly your post seems more and more confused every time I read it.
If those words are true why is it so easy for so many of us to be peaceful without doubting that we are following our religion properly? (Thats a rhetorical question, you are in no position to answer it anyway)
E+
You will find some of your points addressed above, in particular those about the equivalence of the Bible, what I mean by referring to Islam as a political ideology, and why I say that reformist Muslims have an uphill battle within the faith—because the ideology of Islamic terrorists springs out of over almost 1400 years of Islamic orthodoxy. However you do raise a number of separate points.
You have cut right to the heart of a very important definitional issue. I agree with you that Islam encompasses what Muslims do and believe in addition to what they are taught to believe by their religious leaders and sacred texts. I reject the idea propagated both by the terrorists and by a number of leading anti-Islamic activists, including Mr. Gash, that the only people who are truly Muslims are the extremists, and that everyone else is an apostate. What I am talking about here therefore is the prevailing prescriptive Islamic orthodoxy derived from the sacred texts and the teachings of religious authorities. You are correct that I have no place saying what is ‘true Islam’ and what is not. All I can do is refer to the Koran, Mohammed, and leading Islamic scholars. I hope you will agree that those are acceptable authorities on what constitutes Islamic teachings.
I completely reject the suggestion that I have somehow ‘racialised’ Muslims in my writing, and fail to understand how the sentence of mine that you quote, “This is not to claim that most people who identify as Muslims—at least not in the west—follow anything close to the ideology that Mohammed intended and that most Islamic scholars worldwide preach,” does this in any way. There is no implication here that, “Islam belongs in eastern people,” as you claim. The point here is that Muslims living in the west, whether black or white or Asian or anything else, are more likely to be influenced by western, post-Christian values which would serve to dissuade them from believing in the full teachings of Mohammed. As you can see, this has nothing to do with race.
I refer to the Islamic conquests as genocidal because they fit the definition of a cultural genocide. Now this term is contentious, and I am not a huge fan of it myself, so maybe we can go beyond the term and just discuss what actually happened. You seem to be aware of it. When Muslims conquered lands from the Byzantine or Sassanid empires, they formed a small ruling elite of Muslims, over a vast populace of Christians, Zoroastrians, Pagans, and Jews. Through the laws of dhimmitude, the Muslim rulers broke down these communities, subjecting them to such persecution that the only way for them to have any hope of a decent life was to convert to Islam or leave the empire. That is what is behind the ‘Arabisation’ and the name changes that you glibly gloss over. This is what I mean by genocide, but we can leave that term aside if you think it is unhelpful.
The key difference in the spread of Christianity was that when it came to Islam, the conquest came first, and then the other religions were reduced while under Muslim political rule. The initial spread of Christianity, especially in the Levant where it arose and spread for 300 years before becoming attached to a political system, was indeed through missionary work and preaching. Even later in northern Europe political allegiance usually followed religious conversion. Obviously, this is not to gloss over the horrible persecution carried out in the name of Christianity, and I personally am no fan of the religion, but the key fact is that for hundreds of years after its formation, Christianity was a peaceful faith. The doctrine of holy war was not inherent in it from the beginning, but rather had to be crudely grafted on, unlike in Islam, and in the post-Christian west that doctrine has been dropped. But those who preach warfare in the name of Islam can go right back to the teachings of Mohammed to find support for their position. Not only can they—they do. As I mentioned, it is hard to find a terrorist document, whether that is from Osama bin Laden, or Omar Bakri Mohammed, or Hamas, or anything like that, that does not cite Mohammed and the Koran. This is what I mean by progressive Muslims having an uphill battle.
Surely it is difficult for a progressive Muslim to argue in favour of religious freedom, a key component of any free society, since Mohammed himself said, “Whoever changes his Islamic religon, kill him?” Nothing stops individual Muslims from ignoring this murderous command, but how is a person supposed to argue against killing apostates if he does not reject the belief in Mohammed’s infallibility?
Matt,
I might respond fully later but just some quick notes. (might because I don’t think you have sufficiently answered what I have said)
You simply cannot use the term genocide, don’t try to justify it saying by claiming it is a problematic term. It simply cannot be used here, you said it ignoring the facts.
You have still not clarified your position in terms of defining Islam. It seems that all it comes down to for you is a difference in interpretation but for some reason which I cannot see you think your interpretation is the correct one.
In reference to apostates there are a number of approaches to the issue may be found among Muslims, many traditional scholars do not believe in the death penalty for such actions. For example some Muslim philosophers denied the resurrection which in “orthodoxy” may render them unbelievers but they were never killed and often were able to proclaim this in public Majalis (debates) (Jews and Christians also attended these Majalis).
Examples such as Andalucia, Syria, Egypt or Baghdad will show you that diverse religious communities flourished and benefited from each other under Islam. Where is your evidence for this forced conversion? What I meant by Arabisation was a process of cultural flourishing. Different religious communities borrowing philosophy, art and science from each other which occurred in Arabic. (It was the Arab Christians who helped translate philosophical works from Greek to Arabic) You are simply being selective in your use of history and playing on areas which I left vague due to the length of my posts. In any case, an overview of history will definitely serve to subvert your claim that Islam was oppressive to its minority religions – There were periods of persecution but there were also periods of immensely positive interactions which you cannot deny and there was never a mass movement to convert the non-Muslim by force.
Missionary work in the west was often accompanied by a threat of invasion, there is evidence of this in Charlemagne’s “missionary work” among the Saxons. Islam too was spread by missionaries in many cases such as in Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia. And There is no evidence of forced conversions in Arabia but a gradual process which takes place alongside the cultural flourishing of Islamic civilization.
You claim to have not racialise Again you made the distinction between east and west which serves to racialise the issue. Just because I live in the west doesn’t mean I am any different to eastern Muslims. You are creating imaginary boundaries between east and west which simply don’t exist, the way we practice Islam here is no different to the way it is practiced “there”
So what does your argument really boil down to? A distortion of history and a different interpretation of Islam that Muslims themselves don’t believe in. In that case there really is no problem with Islam since the Islam you claim to believe in does not exist.
I do believe that I adressed all of your points, although some of them are, as I notes, discussed not in my reply to you but in my reply to Bejeweled.
I did offer to retreat from term gencide if you are unwilling to accept the usage in regards to a cultural genocide-the wiping out of a people’s culture, language and identity without the neccesity of mass killing to achive it. You can argue–and I do as well, that this is not morally equivalent to an extermination genocide. But in the evocation of the obliteration of a people, in this case all the people unlucky enough to fall under Islamic rule, the usage is apt. When talking about coerced conversion I am not talking about the physical and immediate threat of death but rather the creation of a society where those who did not convert faced criping social and economic disabilities. You are the one who suggested I look at sociology; now I suggest you do the same. You are of course correct that at times the severity of the oppression lapsed. But a revival of religious fervour always brought it back. That is what we are witnessing now with the growig threat of Islamic terrorism. Not an extremist movement, but a revivalist one.
As to apostasy, surely you will concede that the manner in which Muslims treat people engagin in theological debates, while professing loyalty to the religion, is entirely unrelated to the way people who vocally renounce the religion are treated. Yet the freedom to change religion, including to leave Islam, is a fundamental part of a free society. Is that something in which we are in agreement on? The freedom to renounce Islam is a fundamental component of a free and good society, the type of society we all (I hope) want to live in?
Again with the ‘racialising.’ Is it innapropriate to suggest that the attitudes of Muslims in a predominantly non-Muslim, economically developed society are likely to be different to those of Muslims in predominantly Muslim, underdeveloped society? That is what I suggest when I distinguish Muslims in the west. Again, the only racial aspect is what you, not I, bring into it.
Matt,
You havent listen to a word I’ve said. You did not specifiy cultural genocide when you first mentioned it. Don’t try to hide your attempts at distorting history.
As for cultural genocide all the evidence I have supplied shows that Jews and Christians under Islam underwent cultural renaissances. Instead you keep claiming genocide with absolutely no evidence to back it up. You can keep screaming genocide but isnt worth a thing as you obviously cannot provide counter evidence to mine. All you do is claim one view of history which cannot be supported and I will leave everyone to decide which version is more convincing mine or yours.
The racialising point was in reference to the way you write. You can claim you did not attempt to do so yet you keep grappling with a notion of east and west as if the west cannot accept islam as you see it. I am simply destroying this illusion by showing you that in theology and practice we are exactly the same everywhere. This is just one of the ways you try to distinguish between different types of “Islams” and create the illusion that you are not Islamophobic by disagreeing with one type of Islam. But you contradict yourself by making this islam “true” and others false. But you seem to have backtracked on that now and attacked Islam directly, showing the true nature of Islamophobia. You can try to rationalise it but as we have seen it does not work.
Now you’ve moved on to history and theology, a battle you are obviously losing, completely ignoring the evidence of cultural interaction and flourishing between Jews Christians and Muslims. This was a time of religious fervor and creativity manifesting in art and science. many philosophers, poets and scientists came from conquered lands and contributed creatively to the cultural movement of Islam and it is impossible for people who were forced into an ideology to contribute creatively to it. They did not face crippling measures against them and it was not “unlivable”. Stop changing your argument first it was genocide then forced conversion and now crippling measures. Please be consistent.
Also your idea of a revival is ridiculous. Every muslim knows people likeBin Laden depart from tradition by not going through proper Islamic training and being generally unable to interpret texts properly. The tradition and extremists are completely different and the latter are denounced constantly as an eligible school of thought.
And with that point you again show a further inconsistency. You claimed that orthodox Islam was not extremist at first but now it is??
Yes please read some social theories. Religion is hardly ever pin pointed as the cause of violence by any respectable sociologist. And no what you asked me to look up is history not sociology. And in that respect I have offered you a very broad range of evidence from history which I dont expect you to acknowledge.
I do not want to continue debating with you if you are simply going to change your argument or if you keep claiming something which cannot be proven. If I am to just keep going on and on about true Islamic history and you simply dont’ listen to me I will leave it here and let everyone else decide which argument is more convincing.
Having quickly glossed through your comment Matt- disagreeing with you whole heartedly on most issues but not being able to devote much time in answering you- I wish only to correct the very typical mistakes you made in your last paragraph.
First of all; the majority of muslims do not believe that the prophet Mohammed was infallible. It’s a belief primarily held by Shi’ites and on the whole rejected by Sunni’s.
Angels fly. It is no feat for them. Similarly, for a man with the attributes of an angel, flying would be no special feat. Sunni Muslims argue the uniqueness of the prophet lay primarily in the fact that he achieved all he did whilst being very much human (as mentioned numerous times in the Holy Quran). He flew without wings, to quote the West-life song.
Secondly, and again, very typically; you constantly refer to the word apostate without a proper understanding of the context in which it was initially used. Following the death of the prophet, the word came to mean something entirely different to what it meant originally. Apostasy has a lot more to do with political than religious treason. During the early Islamic period, apostates were those who fought alongside the muslims but then decided to switch sides. It was thus possible for a non muslim tribesman to be an apostate. More than understandably, it was ordered that such apostates be assassinated upon site. Think of it as treason.
It was only years later that muslims began associating the word with those who left the Islamic belief, perhaps wrongly so. I refer you to the famous Quranic line; “There is no compulsion in religion”.
I was also horrified to see that you mentioned Hamas in the same line as Bin Laden and Omar Bakri, but fear if I start responding, this battle won’t finish for a very long time.
Kind regards.
P.S. Keep going E+
Am I to believe then that when Bejewelled says that, “whether you like it or not, for Muslims all the actions of Mohammed were flawless and valid,” he is not representing the belief of all major schools of Islamic thought, Sunni and Sh’iite, based on Koran 33:21 which calls Mohammed an ‘excellen example’ or a ‘noble pattern’ (depending on whether you prefer an archaising translation) for the believers?
And are not all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence in accord that the penalty for apostasy remains death? This is certainly what the people tried for apostasy across the Arab world have been told (note that this is not ‘racialising.’ I only have information on this for Arab countries to hand at the moment.)
As a further point, any look at the line that, ‘there is no compulsion in religion needs to take into account both the historical and textual context-which clearly demonstrates that while there was no compulsion to accept the Islamic religion, there was clearly compulsion to accept Muslim political dominance. Technically, even convert or die leaves you with another option beside the religion. This is not just speculation-that choice was actually part of the process for janissary ‘recruitment.’
“‘there is no compulsion in religion needs to take into account both the historical and textual context”
So context matters in this case but not in any examples you give. Hypocrisy.
All this is an inconsistent veil for your own irrational opposition to Islam.
Ulysses – all Muslims agree that Mohammed is sinless and infallible. This is the first I hear of this.
The difference occurs with the prophets prior to Mohammed, e.g. Moses, Jesus, etc, where Shias consider them sinless (which is not to say that they didn’t make a misjudgement or a mistake, just to say that their mistake wasn’t the level of sin), whereas Sunnis say they were fallible. And though Mohammed is ultimately a creation of God, as we all are, it still stands that he was sinless by choice, an amazing person by his own virtue, long before he was appointed Prophet of our time.
Either way, Mohammed is deeply respected across the board, and I will come to your arguments in a moment Matt.
(Moral of the story: this sectarian difference is really besides the point).
Also another aspect I remembered. The Christians of Iraq/Syria/Egypt actually welcomed the Muslims.
The head of the Church of Iraq states that the Muslims free them from the oppression of the church at constantinople (These are the nestorian and monophosyte churches) Heres the reference:
Andrae, Tor. In the Garden of Myrtles. Translated by Brigitta Sharpe. University of New York Press: Albany, 1987 in the introduction somewhere.
Bejewlled,
There is a strand of thought within Sunnism which says the prophet (PBU) is fallible but I agree it is really besides the point
Sorry that should read un-eligible in reference to extremism
Matt,
In reference to janissary recruitment. A large portion had joined willingly because it was very successful and lucrative (they were highly paid). There was a slave trade however between Constantinople/Turkish areas and the caliphate but this is generally seen as a departure from Islamic teachings since slaves cannot be acquired by trade, and it was not permissible to have Muslim slaves. Jews and Christians were exempted from the army as I have already stated. They also were not to be enslaved.
Christian empires had slaves as well, like in
Constantinople. In any case we can’t think of medieval slavery as we do of modern slavery. Slavery in those times was not based on race and was not an oppressive business. Mainly it was quite a sought after occupation as many slaves actually ascended to the throne in both Muslim and Christian empires. Also it was only the elite who could afford it in both Christian and Muslim empires so slaves were not put in a destitute environment they were more like servants and played important roles in aristocratic family life which is illustrated in numerous historical accounts.
Again read up before you make such remarks
Ah ok i see you’ve used Umar’s laws. Firstly that is not the prophet and does not hold authority for some sects of Islam. and you have been claiming the prophet himself imposed this on the non-Muslims. Well done on contradicting yourself
Also it is widely agreed that these measures outlined by umar were never really in place and doubts have been expressed about when they originated.
You quoted Ibn Khaldun and the Jizya. This does not amount to evidence of consistent discrimination against Christians throughout the Muslim world. In addition it doesn’t prove that this was a result of religious fervor it is more likely to be a political cause justified by religion.
Also the Jizya was not defined as a payment of money in the prophet’s time, this is a later development. It could even be a symbolic gesture of trading goods such as fabrics in the prophet’s time.
This is just to show you that I will put forward answers and not neglect the “evidence” which doesnt actually prove your argument at all
*justified by the use of religion.
I am not implying that it was justified because even under Islamic law you cannot kill a non-Muslim who does not pay the Jizya.
[Matt] Unfortunately, you’ve failed to acknowledge all the points I put above. But anyway, I’ll try my best to address yours one by one:
I think in a nutshell, what you’re trying to say is that criticism of Islam is okay and being Islamophobic is valid? – while criticism is welcome, it should be initiated with respect and reason, be it Islam or otherwise. You’ll find most Islamophobic attacks are initiated by ignorant people who fear and hate Islam and don’t know the first thing about it. Their spite is no different to racism.
Then there’s people like yourself, who are heavily influenced by western and Christian accounts of Islam. Your words echo exactly those in ‘The History of the Turks’ written around 1617- can be found in British Library. A hilarious book with wonderfully spiteful and fantasized ideas and exaggerations, with no evidence of historical accounts. People like you do not only criticise your own version of Islam, but in your apparent justifications are normalising the spite, as part of being a ‘free’ society. That is where we need to be careful here.
My argument is that it is not totalitarian at all. I really do not intend to go into a comparison with Christianity, we’ve already seen what Christian empires have done to the world, and I’ve read enough about how medieval Christianity entered the UK. Such comparisons are redundant.
You then go on to a list a whole load of arguments based on your own historical understanding and NOT on the accounts of the historians from the same century as Mohammed.
– “subjugation and persecution of unbelievers.” ‘Unbelievers’ or kuffar represent quite a specific group of people at the time of the Prophet, and the verses are clearly directed at the prophet (it is for us to extract values of the stories and implement them in our lives). In Arabia, these ‘disbelievers’ were oppressors, killers of baby girls, promiscuous and indulgent by culture. This is what Mohammed came to revolutionise. It is these disbelievers whom God instructed the prophet to stand up to. ‘Persecution and subjucation’ are again sweeping statements.
-”An example of this from the life of Mohammed would be his ethnic cleansing” What a joke. You really need to read up what Mohammed did to unite the racial differences of his time. ***Recommendation: Karen Armstrong ‘Prophet of Our Time’.
- “—by expulsion, slaughter, or enslavement—of the Jews of Medina.” Where did you get this from? I haven’t studied the Jews of Medina and cannot comment on this, maybe E+ can enlighten us on the de-fantasized historical perspective.
- “regular raids carried out against non-Muslim caravans”. – This statement is so distorted that I don’t even know what you are referring to. *** Recommendation: ‘The Message’, 1976 (Film).
- “However, none of them are held up as perfect and timeless examples by a major religion.” Well that says something about the figures you are referring to and the lesser influence they have had on modern society.
-” the infallibility and timelessness of the example of a man who was a brutal—and in large part because of that, highly successful—warlord.” You are regurgitating an opinion here, and it means nothing. Mohammed lived for 40 years in Mecca before he became Prophet- he was nicknamed the “sadiq al ameen”, i.e. “most trustworthy, most reliable”. People absolutely adored him wherever he went.
…But when he was appointed Prophet the oppressors of Mecca didn’t appreciate his astounding influence. Even the Quran recognises his initial status amongst the people, i.e. “O people, we have sent to you a Prophet from AMONGST YOURSELVES”.
As for Quran 9.29: Again refers to the disbelievers, a specific group of people – and says that these people do not forbid what God has forbidden, i.e. they allow those atrocities and acts, some of which I have listed above, including murder, oppression, indulgence. “feel themselves subdued.” -doesn’t say that on my translations. Says that one should stand up to them.
I personally don’t agree with all Caliph Umar’s ways of ruling the Islamic state, nor have I studied this period in a huge amount of detail, so cannot say that all that took place then was right. This applies to all so-called Islamic states after Mohammed’s death.
-”in the 17th century, Christians were being forced to convert to Islam because they could not pay the jizya.” Which countries were these? How can you tell if they converted via force? As for Christians from the UK, their stories started a whole plethora of English literature about pirates and conversion, because so many of them were traveling, converting, and choosing to live in Turkey. King James didn’t fancy that much in the early part of the century. And some of the “Turk plays” (that’s the genre) were created to counteract this conversion. They’re a real fun read. *** Recommendation: Mary Wortley Montagu, The Turkish embassy letters: short book, she was the first woman, wife of an English ambassador, to report back about Ottomon Turkey in print. There is a fascinating and enlightening page about the treatment of the Jews in Turkey.
-” Much of this oppression is enshrined in the laws of the respective countries, but it all is found in orthodox Islamic teaching right back to the Koran.” Ignorant justifications for some negative actions can be found in the Quran- it can be twisted, just how every text can be twisted. But I’ve said this before, oppression is what Islam fought against, and this value is contained in every nuance of the Arabic Quran, so it is contradictory to press on with this assertion.
-”and we don’t even need to go into the ideas of women being property which it contains—that equality is very much equality between Muslims.” You’ve evidently also bought into the whole ludicrous ‘women’ argument, which is really getting pathetic now. People who have studied women in Islam will understand the beauty of gender equality implemented by God. Not really the place for this debate now.
The equality is on the level of gender, race, religion etc. Being a believer has its superiority, but no one can judge what a believer is, except that they do good deeds in this life. Besides which, the origin of all world religions are from God and this is acknowledged. Therefore they are not depicted as inferior religions by origin, it is the actions of people which defines them.
State obligations such as lesser jihad, capital punishments, can only be carried out within a perfect-like Islamic state (none of which exist today). Jihad against ‘disbelievers’, again a very specific term, cannot be waged whenever one fancies. It is actually very unlikely to happen officially, until the return of Jesus on earth, where it will be done for ultimate justice, not for the fun of war.
And by the way- punishments are for preventative purposes, not for punishment and there are a huge number of conditions for them to be carried out. E.g. over 40 conditions for cutting a hand for stealing, allowing way for motives, and eventually repentance. In Mohammed’s time, punishments were hardly used.
Hate to break it to you again, but we’re following Islam and its values as they are laid out. Just going to paste what I already said before, and you ignored: But even to the simplest mind, times do differ (something that the Quranic and hadeeth texts recognise and draw upon) and the beginnings of Islam differ from the requirements of the modern context. … an implementation of the universal values of God, Islam and Mohammed, in the context of the contemporary age.
-back to your words, “we will need to confront the fact that the terrorists are not some radical nutcases that are completely out of tune with Islamic thought, but rather that they grow out of the very heart of Islamic orthodoxy.”
Those radical nutcases are just the same as you. They have taken things out of context, show no understanding of historical accounts, and no undertaking of contemporary requirements.
Muslims’ uphill struggle today is conveying the true and beautiful message of Mohammed to the mainstream world. Their uphill struggle is working against the afore-mentioned nutcases, and working against people like yourself. Both who have their own undoubtedly negative motives.
Yes I do know what he means when he speaks of the Jews of Madinah. And it is completely ridiculous.
Firstly the Jews that were attacked initiated the violence by going back on the constitution they drew up with the prophet in the first place (which granted them freedom of religion) – Matt look up the constitution of madinah.
This particular group of Jews betrayed their alliance with the coalition of madinah and the prophet naturally responded to their attacks.
It is mentioned that some 400 jews were taken prisoner and killed as the result of this war. but whether this is true is not certain anyway. It is not in the texts of Islam but in one of the seeras apparently which is not a central aspect of our religion anyway. Again Matt attempts to distort history.
Sorry, I was wrong in claiming most Sunni’s reject the idea that the prophet was infallible. There are various opinions: from Infallible to Infallible-only-on-religious-matters to not-Infallible, with strong arguments for each. That part of my comment was in response to Matts assertion that it’s difficult for muslims to reject the notion that the prophet was infallible.
Ultimately, I agree with E+ and Bejeweled in that expanding on this point would take us a little off track. There’s no point in starting a Sunni-Shia battle on this blog. Matt would love it for a start.