The Truth:
This myth
owes its origin to the need Muslim apologists have to justify Muhammad's attacks on the Quraish, as well as the
more violent passages of the Quran’s second chapter, which was narrated
shortly after Muhammad arrived in Medina following the hijra.
Passages from this chapter
encourage violence within the context of ending “tumult,”
"oppression," and "fitna." Contemporary Muslim
readers usually apply their personal definitions to these terms and assume that
the Muslims in Medina must have been under attack at the time.
Unfortunately, what Muhammad meant by “oppression” is well-defined within the
historical record, and it is quite different from the popular modern-day view.
In fact, it was the Meccans who were generally acting in their own defense during this
time.
Historians do not record any act of aggression
by the Meccan Quraish against the Muslims during the time at which the second sura was
narrated by Muhammad. There were no armies marching against them, nor any plans for such. The Meccans had little influence in this far-away town, and Muslims were
not under
persecution at the time by any stretch of the term, as it is understood
today.
According to the sequence of events in the Sira (biography), the Meccans were quite content
with leaving Muhammad alone following his eviction (even though he had made a
pledge of war against them). Ibn Kathir narrates one of the adversaries as saying, "Once he has gone, we shouldn't care where he ends up or what happens to
him. So long as he is gone, we'll be rid of him and we'll be able to restore our
affairs as they were before." (Vol.2 p.152). And they did... or tried to, anyway.
Muhammad's pride was hurting
from his ouster, and his credibility as Allah's chosen messenger was damaged. He
wanted revenge. He used "revelations" from Allah to convince
his followers
that their eviction from Mecca was grounds for marching back with a
vengeful army (ie. 2:193 – “fitna is worse than slaughter”).
But it was entirely reasonable for the Meccans to evict Muhammad and prevent his
return. In the first place, the prophet of Islam had
declared himself to be an armed revolutionary
against them. What town would invite a sworn enemy back within its own
gates? (Indeed, the Meccans were foolish enough to do exactly that a few
years later and paid for it with the loss of their city and way of life).
The second reason that the Meccans did not want Muhammad anywhere near their
town was that Islam was intolerant of other faiths and demanded sole possession
of the Kaaba, the common worship area. In other words, it wasn’t that the
Meccans had a problem with Muslims circling the Kaaba, it was that Muslims
wanted to bar everyone else from doing so. In fact, after Muhammad eventually returned to capture the city in 630, he ordered the eviction of anyone who refused to convert to Islam
(Quran, 9:18-19).
Against this reality, the words of Sura 2 take on a different meaning:
“And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence
they drove you out, for fitna is worse than slaughter. And fight not with
them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but
if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers…
And fight them until fitna is no more, and
religion is for Allah
(Sura 2:191,
193) Although apologists are fond of claiming that this passage is limited to matters of
self-defense, the historical context does not agree.
Instead the verse is a justification for aggression in the cause of
advancing Islamic rule. As we have pointed out, Muhammad and his Muslims were not under attack by the Meccans. They were not being slaughtered, hence the obvious distinction in the
verse between “persecution” and slaughter.
Sura 47 was also "revealed" at this time... and it is quite revealing:
Verily, those who disbelieve, and hinder (men) from the Path of Allah (i.e. Islam); then
die while they are disbelievers, Allah will not forgive them. So be
not weak and ask
not for peace while you are having the upper hand. (Quran 47:34-35) So, far
from being persecuted, Muslims actually had the upper hand. Many wanted to live in peace, but
Muhammad told them that Allah wanted them to go capture caravans instead (this pertained
to the Battle of Badr). Only two rationales are given: the
unbelief of the disbelievers and that they are "hindering men from the path of
Allah." There is nothing about self-defense or (non-religious) capital crimes
on the part of the intended victims.
The
“persecution” that apologists speak of today meant simply that Muslims living 300 miles away in Medina were
barred from visiting Mecca and entering the “sacred mosque” (the Kaaba). Muhammad
was trying to convince his people that this (non-lethal) policy was
justification for attacking and slaughtering the Meccans in the name of
religion.
Making this rationale all the thinner is the fact that that Muslims in Medina were allowed to conduct pilgrimages to Mecca. Muhammad's bloodlust for revenge was so intense that he even vowed to kill those Quraish who were kind enough to host the Muslim pilgrims:
Sa`d bin Mu`adh came to Mecca with the intention of performing `Umra [the haj], and stayed at the house of Umaiya bin Khalaf Abi Safwan... [an argument later ensues with a third party]... Umaiya kept on saying to Sa`d, "Don't raise your voice." and kept on taking hold of him.
Sa`d became furious and said, (to Umaiya), "Be away from me, for I have heard Muhammad saying that he will kill you." Umaiiya said, "Will he kill me?" Sa`d said, "Yes,." Umaiya said, "By Allah! When Muhammad says a thing, he never tells a lie."(Sahih Bukhari 56:826)
The only possible reason for later marching on Mecca was to
capture the Kaaba and evict the resident non-Muslims (note the Quran says to fight "until religion is for Allah"). Within its true context, the passage is therefore a manifesto for aggressive
warfare against the Meccans, and not a case of the Muslims being under real
persecution so many miles away.
There is obvious irony in the fact that the 'persecution' spoken of by Muhammad
in this verse (to justify slaughter) is exactly what he planned - and did - to his adversaries. To this
day, anyone who is non-Muslim is forbidden to enter the city of Mecca merely on
that basis.
Additional Notes:
Chronology according to Muslim historians:
There is absolutely
no record of Meccan aggression against the
Muslims at Medina in the first three years after their arrival in 622.
Muhammad ordered the first raids against the Meccans a year after the hijra
in February of 623, which eventually proved deadly. There is
no
record of Quraish aggression during this time.
Word of an impending Muslim attack on a particularly rich caravan, prompted
the Meccans to send an army out in defense, where they were goaded into battle
and routed by the Muslims at Badr in March of 624.
The Meccans avenged their loss at Badr (and the hostages that were cruelly
executed by Muhammad) by routing the Muslims at Uhud, near Medina, in March of
625. If their ultimate objective had been to kill Muhammad and his
followers, then they surely would have invaded the defenseless city and defeated
them. They obviously did not have any interest in doing
this.
Muhammad behaved himself with the Meccans for one year, choosing to support
himself instead by evicting local Jewish tribes and confiscating their property.
Then he began attacking caravans in April of 626.
After a year of renewed Muslim aggression, the Meccans responded by sending
an army to Medina a year later in April of 627, where they failed in a siege
that is known as the 'Battle of the Trench.'
As can be seen, the historical record provides absolutely no evidence that
the Muslims at Medina were being oppressed or threatened in any way by the Meccans, and fully supports
the view that it was the latter who were acting in self-defense. The
Meccans had no interest in Muhammad and simply wanted to live in peace and
pursue their commerce. At each turn, the prophet of Islam unnecessarily
harassed them with deadly and provocative actions that eventually forced battles
on several occasions.
|
