Of Confirmations and Contradictions

Today I read an article from the Kenya Times where one Hassan Kulundu wrote an interesting piece regarding Ramadahn, Islam and the Pope. What struck me about this article was it's clear contradictions and confirmations of many criticisms I have leveled at Islam as a doctrine. First let me address his position regarding the Pope:

he Holy Father, in an address to students and members of faculty at a university in his native Germany, cited the sentiments of a medieval Christianised ruler that cast aspersion on the mission and message of Islam’s messenger of Allah, Muhammad (Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him)...The point here is whether Muslims should accept Pope Benedict’s apology as sincere. The answer is yes, and there are various teachings that encourage Muslims to accept such apology as sincere by calling upon them to judge men by their utterances. These teachings are enshrined in the principle that a person may be convicted for what he declares with his mouth, not for what he is believed to hold in his heart.

Let us examine this statement here. The author discusses that Many Muslims are offended by the Pope's remarks. Siting the example of Mohammed he encourages his readership to forgive the Pope. On the surface, and possibly in regards to doctrine, this is a fair statement. But the author fails to challenge the actual offense. It has often been said that the truth (and the speaker of said truth) is often hated by the person whose error is highlighted by said truth. Indeed it is said the truth is an offense. If the Pope had spoken the truth then the feelings of offense are unwarranted and no apology is needed. In fact I would say that the person who is offended by the truth owes the truth sayer an apology for getting upset at them.

Having said that then let us return the the particular passage in question. It wasn't the Pope that made the comment that all Mohammed brought was "evil and inhuman". Rather it was emperor Manuel II Paleologos. Now had the Pope said something along the lines of "I think Islam is evil and inhuman as stated by Manuel II Paleologos..." then by all means Muslims could be upset at him because he would be aligning himself with the quote in question. But that is not what was said, instead the Pope clearly stated that the remark was brusque and went on to focus on the latter part of the quote regarding conversion by the sword.

Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul,"

As such then we find the focus of the quote was on the in-humaness of conversion by the sword. Thus the issue of whether the Pope was casting "aspersion" on the "mission and message of Mohammed" lies squarely on whether Mohammed, in practice accepted conquest as a means of conversion. In regards to this point Hassan Kulundu provides us with a clear example of this point. He writes:

Hadhrat Usama relates that: “We once went on a military expedition unaccompanied by the Holy Prophet and mounted an attack on the al-Huruqat region of the Juhaina tribe. I encountered a man and when I got the better of him, he recited the Kalima, “There is none worthy of worship, except Allah”– but I still killed him.

This pricked my conscience and when I returned to Medina, I related the incident to the Holy Prophet, who replied; Oh Usama! Did you kill him despite reciting La ilaha illAllah?” I submitted, yes O Messenger of Allah!– but he recited La ilaha illAllah due to his fear of the weapons and for fear of getting killed.” But the Holy Prophet exclaimed, “Why? Did you cut open his chest to look at his heart so that you could ascertain whether he had recited it due to fear or whether it was a heartfelt recital?” Thereafter the Holy Prophet said, “On the day of Judgement, what would be your response to La ilaha illAllah?” I submitted, O Messenger of Allah! Please pray forgiveness (istighfar) for me.” But he continued to repeat his remark time and again– so much so that I wished that I had not become a Muslim prior to that day so as to escape that occasion of being the recipient of such displeasure of the Holy Prophet.”

A very interesting story indeed. Does anyone see anything missing here? No? Well if we examine the story related here, we find that Usama was out waging war against a tribe. Let me frame this for you: Usama a Muslim was waging war against a non-believing (presumably "pagan") "tribe". From the story it is clear that had the members of the tribe simply recited La Ilaha IllAllah (or his acceptance of Islam) all hostilities would have ended since the prophet Mohammed made it clear that killing the one who did, was wrong. Hence we have a religious conflict in which force of Arms was used against a non-believing population by which conversion was the only means to escape death. No where in this story do we have Mohammed say to Usama:

"Dude, why were you waging war against this tribe?"

or

"Dude did they attack you?"

Or anything that remotely suggests that Mohammed was in any way bothered by warfare (in stark contrast to......say....Jesus another venerated Prophet of Islam who in other "Holy Books" is quoted as saying that those who live by the sword would die by it a clear condemnation of violence, even in self defense). Therefore it is clear here that Mohammed had no qualms with warfare and clearly no qualms about the use of warfare as a means of religious conversion. Since we know this then the quotation used by the Pope is accurate in terms of its discussion of islam being propagated (in any part) By means of violence. Hence the Pope cast no "aspersions" on the mission and message" of Mohammed. Therefore the Pope had nothing to apologize for and Muslims have absolutely no grounds for being offended. Thus the entire article is an exercise in contradiction. Instead of teaching Muslims who took offense at the Pope's remarks regarding Islam and Mohammed he should be schooling them on history.

Another point I want to discuss here is the issue of God and gender. as I discussed in my critique of Ahmedinejad's speech God cannot be a he or she since by assigning a gender to God necessarily limits God who is supposed to be omnipotent. So we find Hassan Kulundu making this statement:

And while Muslims leave the matter to Allah Himself, they should continue to seek refuge in Allah, praise Him and invoke His blessings on his noble Prophet. They should exalt the Messenger of Allah’s status through deep prayer and sacrifice especially during this holy month of Ramadhan. And as much as they seek to protect the course of Islam and its noble Prophet against its enemies, they should understand that Allah is capable of protecting His religion and Prophet better than any human being can do. They should therefore not go to extremes in protecting Islam and the Holy Prophet as if though Allah is not capable (God forbid).

I stated in the previous critique that:

It is not accidental at all that in the absence of a gender neutral term, the male signifier is used.

Indeed the near universal use of "He" in discussions of Allah is a clear indicator that regardless to Allah's "many attributes" the patriarchal societies in which Islam was formed and in which it is often practiced makes it clear that in terms of practice I would put a hard $100 that most of the adherents imaging Allah as a male (regardless to bans on depictions).

Overall I think the article went a long way to highlight the clear contradictions between what is claimed and what is actually the case in regards to Mohammed and violence. Of course if one is stuck in doctrine these items are not so clear.

Technorati Tags: critique, Islam, Pope Benedict, Religion