|
TheReligionofPeace.com Presents:
The
Myth:
Muhammad only
Waged War in Self-Defense
The Truth:
The myth that warfare is only justified in Islam
under the condition of self-defense is disproved by the account of the
Battle of Badr, in which Muhammad sent his men
out to raid caravans, then deliberately provoked a battle with the Meccan army
sent out to defend them. The case for aggressive warfare is also supported
by the fate of the three Jewish tribes of Medina, who were cleansed because they
had rejected Muhammad’s claims of prophethood (and because the Muslims wanted
their possessions).
Consider the fate of the Banu Mustaliq, an Arab
tribe: "The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani
Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being
watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women
and children were taken as captives" (Bukhari
46:717)
Although there are many reliable accounts from
the Hadith and Sira that mention the Mustaliq grazing cattle, not one mentions
Muhammad making any effort at peacemaking. In this case, Muhammad's men raped the women (with
his approval) after slaughtering the men (Sahih Muslim
3371). What does raping a female captive have to do with self-defense?
In many situations, Muhammad waged war for the purpose
of revenge, such as the attack on the Lihyan, in which the people were clearly
not prepared for war and saved themselves only by fleeing into the hills (Ibn
Ishaq/Hisham 718). Muhammad also attacked the people of Taif as soon as he had
the opportunity to avenge their rejection of him (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 280 & 872).
Also disproving the myth that Muhammad only
fought in self-defense is the account of his first attack on the Christians.
There was no compelling reason for him to send an army to Muta (in Syria, where
they met with disaster at the hands of the Byzantines). Had this been a
matter of self-defense, then the enemy would surely have followed the routed
army back to Arabia, but this was not the case (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 791).
Near the end of his life, the prophet of Islam
directed military campaigns for the mere purpose of spreading Islamic rule. He
knew that some cities would resist and others would not. He left instructions to
his people for dealing with each case:
The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: If you come to
a township (which has surrendered without a formal war) and stay therein, you
have a share (that will be in the form of an award) in (the properties obtained
from) it. If a township disobeys Allah and His Messenger (and actually
fights against the Muslims) one-fifth of the booty seized therefrom is for Allah
and His Apostle and the rest is for you. (Sahih Muslim
4346)
As can be seen, those who were not at war with
the Muslims are to be subjugated anyway, and their property seized. The only
distinguishing factor is the extent of Muslim entitlement following the victory.
Military campaigns to extend Islamic domination
include the raid on Tabuk, which was a second incursion into the Christian
territory of Syria, in which Muhammad forced the local populace to pay him
tribute after ambushing and killing local civilians to assert his authority (Ibn
Ishaq/Hisham 903). Another example would be the “convert or die” mandate given to
an Arab tribe, the Banu al-Harith: Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the
Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he
attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them, and if they
declined he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them, and sent out
riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam, saying, “If you accept
Islam you will be safe.” So the men accepted Islam as they were invited. (Ibn
Ishaq/Hisham 959)
Obviously self-defense was not a factor in any of
these cases (even though some Muslims are prone to embellish the record with
imaginary details not found therein). As with the capture of Mecca in 630,
these early Muslims had clear military superiority and the target of their
aggression was in no position to defend itself.
In fact, the first part of the 9th Sura, the most bellicose chapter of the
Qur’an, was revealed shortly after the Muslims had established military
dominance in Mecca. Consider one of the more violent verses:
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever
ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every
stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and
practice regular charity, then open the way for them (9:5)
The words, “when the forbidden months are past,” precludes the possibility that
this was a matter of self-defense. The Muslims had already been given the divine
right to fight during the sacred months, and it is simply implausible
that they would have suffered attacks over a four month period without defending
themselves. That they were not under attack is consistent with the historical context, in which the
Haj
period was a traditional time of peace and tolerance throughout Arabia.
Although not under attack from the pagans, Muhammad ordered his men to chase and
kill the unbelievers following the Haj. The pagans who agreed to become Muslim (ie.
practice the pillars of Islam, zakat and salat) would be allowed to live
following their conversion. Verse
9:29 offers a separate rule for Jews and
Christians, allowing them to keep their religion as long as they pay protection
money to Muslims and acknowledge the inferiority of their faith. Should they
resist, then they should be killed.
One of the best documented examples of Muslim aggression during the lifetime of
Muhammad is the attack on the peaceful community of Khaybar. This followed the
treaty of Hudaibiya between the Muslims and Meccans, which called for a period
of peace between the two groups. The treaty was controversial with Muslims, not
only because it contradicted Allah’s prior mandate to “drive out” the Meccans with
violent force (2:191), but also because Muhammad agreed not to be recognized as
a prophet in the document (Muslim
4401).
Muhammad decided that it was prudent to attack the Jews at Khaybar in order to regain
the trust of his people and placate their grumbling with military victory and (especially)
the stolen wealth that followed. This is embarrassing to modern-day Muslim apologists,
who try to justify the siege by imagining that the sleepy farming community,
located about 100 miles outside of Medina, posed some sort of necessary threat.
Unfortunately for contemporary apologists, not only is there no supporting
evidence that the Muslims were under attack by the Khaybar, there are at least
three historical references that flatly contradict any notion of self-defense on
the part of Muhammad. The first is a description of the initial attack by
Ibn Ishaq/Hisham: We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and
baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, “Muhammad with his
force,” and turned tail and fled… The apostle seized the property piece by
piece… (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)
The people of Khaybar were not attacking Muhammad. They were farming their land
with shovels and buckets, not even knowing that they were supposed to be at war. This is further confirmed in the same text: When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning. If he heard a call
to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked. We came to Khaybar by
night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not
hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)
Muhammad attacked only after waiting to see if the people of Khaybar issued a
morning call to prayer. This would have no possible relevance had they already
been at war with him.
Perhaps the best proof that Muhammad was not acting in self-defense is the fact
that his own people did not understand why they were marching to war. His
son-in-law, who was in charge of the military expedition, had to ask for
justification: Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until
Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look
about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I
fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until
they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is
his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim
5917)
The question Ali posed would have been unnecessary had the Muslims been under
attack by the Khaybar or if the answer to the question were obvious. As it is,
Muhammad’s reply underscores the ostensible purpose of the campaign, which was
to force the Jews into acknowledging the superiority of Islam.
Muhammad’s men easily captured Khaybar and divided up the loot. The prophet of
Islam tortured the community’s treasurer to extract information, then had him killed (Ibn
Ishaq/Hisham 764).
Muhammad then took the man’s widow, Saffiya, as his wife after trading
two other captured women to one of his lieutenants (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 758). The
surviving Jews were allowed to stay on their land provided that they gave their
Muslim masters an ample share of their crops.
Therefore, the rule of aggression in Islam, from the example set by Muhammad,
is that it is proportional to the power held by Muslims, and not the
persecution that they are under. The rare verses of peace in the Qur'an
were "revealed" in Mecca, when true oppression existed (in
some cases). The verses of
violence that are revealed later correspond to Muslim military might even as any
persecution of Muslims had largely dried up.
The Myths
of Muhammad Index
TheReligionofPeace.com Home Page |