WHAT ALEX KRONEMER ISN’T TELLING YOU!
REPROOF TO KRONEMER’S ARTICLE “WAS MUHAMMAD A TERRORIST?”
by Silas
Matthew 7:15-20
"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize
them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.” --- Jesus, warning His disciples of future false
prophets and deceivers.
“It is
as easy to deceive one’s self without perceiving it, as it is difficult to
deceive other without their finding it out. --- Francois Rochefoucauld (1630–80).
Recently, Alex Kronemer wrote an
article published on Beliefnet entitled “Was Muhammad a Terrorist?” , found
here:
http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/114/story_11460_1.html&boardID=46505
Kronemer presents many historical
anecdotes related to Muhammad’s actions.
Reportedly Kronemer received a Master’s degree from Harvard Divinity
School and one would assume that he would present accurate details from Islamic
sources. Tragically this is not the case. I challenge Kronemer’s presentation of the
historical Muhammad and Islam. I say it
is false. I maintain that Kronemer did
not tell the truth, and I cannot accept ignorance as an excuse from someone who
has studied the field.
Last year, Muslims murdered some 3000
Americans. Their evil actions also
caused thousands of injuries, cost working people their jobs, and stained our
lives. Muslims all over the world
cheered these actions. Further, many
Muslims have promised to continue to murder Americans. Further, Muslims all over the world are
murdering people for Islam’s sake. You
can find them murdering in Indonesia – bombing tourists in Bali, or destroying
churches, you can find them in India, murdering Hindu people by burning them on
trains or attacking them in shops, you can find them in Jordan - murdering an American ambassador, you can
find them acting as snipers in Washington DC.
Certainly you know I could go on and on and on. Violence is integral to Islam.
So let me ask you some questions: If Islam is a religion of violence, and if Muhammad
indeed justified terrorist actions, shouldn’t we be made aware? Isn’t the price of ignorance about Islam too
high to pay now? Should we continue to
let our guard down if indeed Islam is a legitimate motivation behind the Muslim
terrorist actions? What do you think
Muslim terrorists would do next if we are deceived about Islam and allow them
to operate?
During the last year there has been
copious discussion about Islam and it’s role in motivating the terrorists. Some say Islam is a legitimate motivation of
the terrorists, some say it is not. Let’s
face it, they all cannot be right.
Shouldn’t we seek to understand this from the point of view of the
terrorists themselves? Is it fair and
honest to dismiss their claims as incorrect because they do not match up well
with an ignorant, American, “politically correct” viewpoint?
First and foremost we MUST examine
Islam from it’s own historical sources.
Aren’t the consequences of being asleep while potential mortal
danger lurks just a few hours away horrendous? And would not
closing our eyes be highly irresponsible?
I will forth-rightly say from the
outset that there is a large group of Muslims functioning exactly like a
propaganda machine. They may be
sincerely ignorant Muslims, or, they may be deceptive and trying to mislead the
public. However, one thing is
certain: they are not telling the whole
truth about Muhammad and Islam. A
half-truth is still a deception and a lie.
Despite the continuing rivers of blood flowing all over the world, they
want to calm our fears that Islam is not a violent religion and that Muhammad
was not a terrorist, rather he was a bringer of peace. I challenge this and I say that Islam is a
violent religion and that Muhammad was indeed a man of brutal violence. I say, let the historical record speak for
itself. I say Muslims will strike
our nation again and once again bring a great amount of devastation to our
country. I say that much of the
American public and academia is naive and gullible, and that those that defend
Islam or try to portray it in only a positive light are misleading us and
causing us to not be adequately prepared for their next deadly strike. As Daniel Pipes states:
November 2002
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/498
AMERICANS STRUGGLING to make sense of the war declared on them in the name of jihad, whether they are policymakers, journalists, or citizens, have every reason to be deeply confused as to who their enemy is and what his goals are. Even people who think they know that jihad means holy war are susceptible to the combined efforts of scholars and Islamists brandishing notions like "resisting apartheid or working for women's rights." The result is to becloud reality, obstructing the possibility of achieving a clear, honest understanding of what and whom we are fighting, and why.
In his article, Kronemer deliberately
made significant errors and omissions.
He was forthright on some important points, deceptive on others, and
outright wrong on still others . I
cannot assume that he is merely ignorant of the historical facts – after all,
he does have a Harvard degree in theology, and, in other articles he quotes
from and references various Islamic sources, the same ones I intend to
quote. Islam allows for lying for 3
reasons, one of them being for war --- perhaps Kronemer believes he is
justified in his half-truths because this is a war or jihad for him and he is
seeking to present a benign, whitewashed version of Islam to an ignorant
American audience, and an ignorant team at Beliefnet.
I do not want to sound too
strident. But I was amazed at
Kronemer’s inaccuracy. And, I am
troubled that someone could so carelessly make these kind of errors and
omissions. I don’t know his motives for
putting out such shoddy work. But I
intend to expose his mistakes and call him to account for them.
Let’s review the facts from the
Islamic sources. Let the historical
record, written by Muslim scholars and historians, speak for itself.
Below are the quotes from Kronemer and
I’ll comment on these as needed. I’ll
present actual quotes and references that present the historical record.
My comments will be
in black, Kronemer’s in green, and source
quotations in blue.
1) Kronemer wrote:
By today's
standards, Muhammad engaged in an appalling amount of violence--but he brought
peace to the Holy Land.
My Comment (1):
The first part of
the sentence is correct, but, the second part is misleading and false. I agree - Muhammad was a very violent man,
but he did not bring peace to the Holy Land.
The Holy Land refers to ancient Palestine or Israel, i.e. the land of
the Jews. Muhammad died (632 AD) before
his armies had attacked and conquered Jerusalem (637). So, he did not bring peace, he was
dead. Further, the forced conquest
of people is not bringing peace, but subjection. There is a big difference between living in peace and living
under the rule of harsh foreign power.
Ask the East Timorese people how they felt living under Indonesia’s
rule. Living under an oppressive regime
is not living in peace. For example,
the fourth “Rightly-Guided” Caliph of Islam, Ali, had people executed because
they were once Muslims and later realized how wrong Islam was so they left it. Below is the historical account of Ali’s
murdering of the ex-Muslim Christians taken from the Muslim Historian, Tabari,
volume 17.
Among them were many Christians who
had accepted Islam, but when dissension had developed in Islam had said, “By
God, our religion from which we have departed is better and more correct than
that which these people follow. Their
religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and
seizing properties.” And they returned
to their former religion. Al-Khirrit
met them and said to them, “Woe unto you!
Do you know the precept of Ali regarding any Christian who accepts Islam
and then reverts to Christianity? By
God he will not hear anything they say, he will not consider any excuse, he
will not accept any repentance, and he will not summon them to it. His precept regarding them is immediate
cutting off of the head when he gets hold of them.” (page 187, 188).
“I was in the army that Ali Abi Talib sent against the Banu Najiyah….
Our commander said to one of these groups, “What are you?” and they replied, “We are a Christian people
who do not consider any religion to be better than ours, and we hold fast to
it.” Our commander said to them, “Be
off with you.” He said to another band,
“What are you?” And they said, “We were
Christians, but we accepted Islam, and we hold fast to our Islam.” He said to them, “Be off with you!” Then he said to the third group, “What are
you?” and they said, “We are a people
who were Christians. We accepted Islam
but we do not think, that any religion is better than our previous one.” He said to them, “Accept Islam!” but they
refused. He said to his men, “When I
rub my head three times attack them and kill the fighting men and make captive
the dependants.” (page 188).
But
there was an old man among them, a Christian called al-Rumahis b. Mansur, who
said, By God, the only error I have made since attaining reason was abandoning
my religion, the religion of truth for yours, the religion of wickedness. No by God, I will not leave my religion and
I will not accept yours so long as I live.”
Maqil brought him forward and cut off his head.” (page 191).
“As
for the Christians, we made them captive and led them off so that they might be
a warning for those of the protected peoples who come after them not to refuse
the jizyah (extortion tax), and not to make bold against our religion and
community, for the protected people are of little account and lowly in
status. (page 192)
Notice the status of the Jews and
Christians living under Islam’s rule = “of little account
and lowly in status.” Brutalizing
and killing the Christians and Jews, or any non-Muslim, is normal under Islam’s
domain.
Two questions
for Kronemer:
(Q1) Is this your idea of peace – attacking and
conquering a people, subjecting them to the rules and brutalities of a foreign
religion, and forcing them to live as second class citizens (dhimmies)?
(Q2) Do you agree with Ali murdering the
ex-Muslim Christians, was it the right thing to do?
2) Kronemer wrote:
The
accepted practice in the Biblical period when times were hard was to steal from
neighboring communities. Moses and Muhammad both did this, though Muhammad
limited the raids to only Meccan caravans.
My comment (2a):
Here
Kronemer misleads the readership via the statement: “the Biblical period”. He
uses this undefined term throughout his article. Doesn’t the “Biblical Period”
cover some 4000 years? Which part of
the Biblical period is Kronemer referring to?
Certainly Jesus did not teach His followers to go out and steal from
others. Jesus taught to give, not
steal. As Kronemer admits, Muhammad was
a thief. Stealing as Muhammad did would
not be accepted by Jesus, it would be unacceptable to Him.
(Q3) Question for Kronemer: Are you implying that Muslims today follow in Muhammad’s footsteps
and are allowed to attack and plunder others during “tough” times?
(b), though Muhammad limited the raids to only Meccan caravans.
My comment: (2b)
Another
inaccurate statement by Kronemer.
Muhammad raided and attacked various tribes during his stay in
Medina. For example he attacked the
Banu Mustaliq. Below is a reference
concerning the attack and the division of the spoils of war - female captives
and the subsequent rape of those female slaves.
FROM SAHIH
BUKHARI - VOLUME 9, #506:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that
during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females
and intended to have sexual relations with them without impregnating them. So they asked the prophet about coitus
interruptus. The prophet said, "It
is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to
create till the Day of Resurrection".
Qaza'a said, "I heard Abu Said
saying that the prophet said, ‘No soul is ordained to be created but Allah
will create it.’" (also
ref. Bukhari 5:459).
For a thorough examination of the allowance to rape female
slaves in Islam see:
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/femalecaptives.htm
(Q4) Question for Kronemer: Do you approve of Muhammad attacking Arab
tribes, enslaving the people, breaking up families, and allowing female slaves
to be raped?
3) Kronemer wrote:
Three times the Meccans sent large armies to
killed Muhammad and slaughter the small but growing Muslim community.
My comment (3)
Another inaccurate statement by
Kronemer. The first time the Meccans
sent an army to fight Muhammad was occasioned by Muhammad’s attack on one of
their caravans. Previously Muslims had
attacked a Meccan caravan, robbed them, and killed some of the caravan
attendees. It was Muhammad’s robbery
and killing that started them off at war after Muhammad fled to Medina. Prior to that the Quraysh were not fighting
Muhammad at Medina. Later, another
caravan had completed a trading visit to Syria and was returning to Mecca. Muhammad heard that they had substantial
monies with them so he set out to attack this caravan and plunder it as
well. Instead of trying to build up his
communities ability to provide for itself, Muhammad the thief set out to rob
others. However, the Meccans heard of
Muhammad’s attempt to rob them so they sent out their men to defend their
possessions. Below is the account from
Tabari, Volume 7, page 29:
Abu Sufyan came
from Syria at the head of nearly seventy horsemen from all the clans of
Quraysh. They had been trading in Syria
and they all came together with their money and their merchandise. The Messenger of God and his companions were
informed about them. This was after
fighting had broken out between them and people had been killed, including Ibn
al-Hadrami at Nakhlah, and some of Quraysh had been taken captive, including
one of the sons of al-Mughirah and their mawla, Ibn Kaysan. Those responsible were Abd Allah b. Hajsh
and Waqid, the confederate of the Banu Adi b. Ka’b, together with other
companions of the Messenger of God who he had sent out with Abu Allah b.
Jahsh. This incident had provoked (a
state of) war between the Messenger of God and Quraysh and was the beginning of
the fighting in which they inflicted casualties upon one another; it took place
before Abu Sufyan ad his companions had set our for Syria.
Subsequently Abu Sufyan and the horse
men of Quraysh who were with him returned from Syria, following the coastal
road. When the Messenger of God heard
about them eh called together his companions and told them of the wealth they
had with them and the fewness of heir numbers.
The Muslims set out with no other object that Abu Sufyan and the horsemen
with him. They did not thing that these
were anything but easy booty and did not suppose that there would be a great
battle when they met them. It is
concerning this that God revealed, “And ye longed that other tan the armed one
might be yours.”
When Abu Sufyan heard that the
companions of the messenger of God were on their way to intercept him, he sent
to Quraysh saying, “Muhammad and his companions are going to intercept your
caravan, so protect your merchandise….”
Continued comment
(3b):
Do you see how Kronemer has misled
his readers? First of all, the battle
between the Meccans and Muslims started because Muhammad attacked the Meccan
caravans and robbed them. Second, the
reason the Meccans sent out their troops the first time was because they were
defending their property.
(Q5) Question for Kronemer: Was
it acceptable to you for Muhammad to attack other people’s, and kill them,
because of his desire to steal their possessions (as you previously admitted)?
4) Kronemer wrote:
There
is also the slaughter of the of a Jewish Tribe. There were many Arab Tribes in
Medina who followed Judaism. Most signed a mutual support agreement with
Muhammad, but some rejected Muhammad’s leadership and did not. Two of these
tribes were eventually exiled, while 700 men of another tribe, who agreed to
help the Meccans in one of their battles with Muhammad, were all executed when
the Meccans failed and fled the field of battle. They were all beheaded and
thrown into a pit.
My comment (4a):
The Jews of Medina did not willingly
join a “mutual support agreement.”
Rather the “Treaty of Medina” was an edict that Muhammad issued against
them. All of these tribes were under
Muhammad’s edict. See “"Muhammad
and the Jews of Medina", by A. Wensinck, for an examination of this. Regarding this edict, Wensinck writes on
page 70, (comments in black text are
mine)
The constitution was no treaty
concluded between muhajirun (Muhammad’s followers from Mecca), Ansar (Muhammad’s followers from Medina), and the Jews. It was an edict defining the
relation of the three parties; above
them was Allah, i.e. Muhammad. It is
evidence of his great authority that, after a short stay in Medina, he, the
stranger, could lay down the law for all segments of the population.
Additionally, Kronemer leaves out the
details of the expulsion of the two Jewish tribes. In one case Muhammad attacked the Jews because of a personal
conflict between various Muslims and Jews.
Muhammad used this conflict as a pretense to attack the entire tribe of
Jews. Later he was going to massacre
all the Jewish adult and teen males, but, a pagan stepped in and demanded that
Muhammad not murder them all. In a fit
of rage, Muhammad relented. Below is
the story recorded by Ibn Sa’d:
“Kitab
al Tabaqat al Kabir”, vol 2, page 32:
They shut themselves up in their
fortress, so he (Prophet) strongly besieged them, till Allah cast fear in their
hearts. They submitted to the orders of
the Apostle of Allah, that their property would be for the Prophet while they
would take their women and children with them.
Then under his orders their hands were tied behind their backs. The Apostle of Allah appointed al-Mudhir Ibn
Qadamah al-Slimi, of the Banu al-Silm, the tribe of Sa’d Ibn Khaythamah to tie
their hands behind their backs. Abd
Allah Ibn Ubayyi had a talk with the Apostle of Allah about them and entreated
him (to release them). Thereupon he
(Prophet) said: Leave them, may Allah
curse them and curse him who is with them!
He abandoned the idea of their killing and ordered them to be banished
from Madinah.
In the second case of the Jews,
Muhammad attacked the other Jewish tribe based upon a “warning from heaven”
that some Jews were plotting to kill him.
As a result, Muhammad attacked this tribe and expelled them.
For more details concerning
Muhammad’s duplicitous dealings with Jews and other Arab tribes, see
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/jihad.htm
(Q6) Question for Kronemer: Do you accept the attack upon and expulsion
of an entire tribe of people from their homes and land justified based upon a
vision or the actions of a few?
My comment (4b)
Kronemer fails to note that the Jews that
“agreed” to help the Meccans never took part in the battle and they never
allowed the Meccans and their allies, to use their land as a base against the
Muslims. These Jews remained on their
own land and did not attack the Muslims, but they had entered into dealings
with Muhammad’s enemies. I assume they
had seen how Muhammad had brutally treated other Jews and they were exploring
their options. Muhammad attacked these
non-combatant Jews after the Meccans and their allies gave up the siege. Kronemer also omits that many of these men
who were beheaded were in their early teens.
Additionally, Kronemer omits that if the Jews became Muslim, then they
would be spared (compulsion) – all 700, save 4, refused to accept a religion
they knew was false. Finally, Kronemer
omits that Muhammad then enslaved the surviving women and children, taking one
of the women as his concubine. Some of
these slaves were sold in various slave markets so that Muhammad could buy
horse and weapons for more war.
(Q7) Question for Kronemer: Do you consider the enforced edict and
subsequent massacre of the Jews, the enslavement of the women and children, and
the compulsion to accept Islam to be acceptable?
5) Kronemer wrote:
Though
such words and actions, or those of Moses, may horrify our modern
sensibilities, in the context of the Biblical period it was not only accepted,
but also commonplace. In an earlier battle that the Meccans won, they mutilated
faces of the fallen and the Meccan women danced on the Muslim corpses
My comment (5)
Again Kronemer misleads his readers,
with his “Biblical period.” Wouldn’t it
be more accurate to detail which period he is talking about? Jesus did not engage in Muhammad’s style of
violence. Muhammad’s actions would not
be accepted by or commonplace among Christians in their “Biblical period.”
Kronemer apparently thinks in some scheme of "progression of morality over time"
and people of earlier times are excused in their cruelty because they couldn't know
better yet. Note: Muhammad lived 600 years AFTER Jesus. If anything at all,
Muhammad methods and teaching are a huge step backwards.
Kronemer notes how the Meccans
desecrated the bodies of the Muslims.
Yet, Kronemer does not note that in an earlier battle, Muhammad had the
Muslims threw the dead bodies of the Meccans down a well. Muhammad then gloated over the dead bodies
and actually claimed to talk with and mock these dead Meccans. Here is the reference from Bukhari’s
Collection of Hadith.
5.314:
Narrated Abu Talha:
On the day of
Badr, the Prophet ordered that the corpses of twenty four leaders
of Quraish should be thrown into one of the dirty dry wells
of Badr. (It was a habit of the Prophet that whenever he conquered some people,
he used to stay at the battle-field for three nights. So, on the third day of
the battle of Badr, he ordered that his she-camel be saddled, then he set out,
and his companions followed him saying among themselves." "Definitely
he (i.e. the Prophet) is proceeding for some great purpose." When he
halted at the edge of the well, he addressed the corpses of the Quraish
infidels by their names and their fathers' names, "O so-and-so, son of
so-and-so and O so-and-so, son of so-and-so! Would it have pleased you if you
had obeyed Allah and His Apostle? We have found true what our Lord promised us.
Have you too found true what your Lord promised you? "'Umar said,
"O Allah's Apostle! You are speaking to bodies that have no souls!"
Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hand Muhammad's soul is, you do not
hear, what I say better than they do." (Qatada said, "Allah brought
them to life (again) to let them hear him, to reprimand them and slight them
and take revenge over them and caused them to feel remorseful and
regretful.")
And, another comment on
the desecration of the bodies. Two
generations later, as the Muslims were slaughtering each other in various civil
wars, Muhammad’s grandson was killed in battle and his body was trampled by
horses under order from one Muslim ruler, and his head was desecrated by the
Muslim Caliph Yazid. See the link below
for details.
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/rf6_yazid_husayn.htm
(Q8) Questions
for Kronemer: What is different about Muhammad’s
brutalities, the subsequent Muslim times, and their behavior and this “Biblical
period” that you mention?
(Q9) Do you
believe that God brought these dead people, while they were down in a well,
back to life in order to be mocked by Muhammad?
6) Kronemer wrote:
The
Biblical period ended in an event that happened toward the end of this period
of fighting between Muhammad and the Meccans.
My comment (6)
Why is Kronemer unable to state accurately which “Biblical
Period” he is talking about? Jesus
lived some 600 years prior to Muhammad.
There were Christians living in Mecca during the time Muhammad lived
there. According to the Christian
perspective the “Biblical period” is still in effect.
7) Kronemer wrote:
It is
difficult today to register their utter shock and surprise when instead
Muhammad granted everyone amnesty and forgiveness for past sins.
My comment (7)
The statement above
is the most inaccurate and misleading statement made by Kronemer in his
article. I’ve never encountered any
Muslim, even the most ardent defender of Muhammad, who had stated anything so
erroneous. Let’s examine the historical
record.
Did Muhammad grant amnesty and
forgive the sins of all the Meccans?
Let’s see.
The quote is from Ibn Sa’d’s “Kitab
al-Tabaqat al-Kabir (The Book of the Major Classes) Vol. 2, page 168.
"The apostle of Allah entered
through Adhakhir, [into
Mecca], and prohibited
fighting. He ordered six men and four
women to be killed, they were (1) Ikrimah Ibn Abi Jahl, (2) Habbar Ibn al-Aswad,
(3) Abd Allah Ibn Sa'd Ibn Abi Sarh, (4) Miqyas Ibn Sababah al-Laythi, (5)
al-Huwayrith Ibn Nuqaydh, (6) Abd Abbah Ibn Hilal Ibn Khatal al-Adrami, (7)
Hind Bint Utbah, (8) Sarah, the mawlat (enfranchised girl) of Amr Ibn Hashim,
(9) Fartana and (10) Qaribah.
Here I count 10 people that Muhammad
ordered to be killed without mercy.
Note that three of them were slave girls! Their crime you ask? They
previously made fun of Muhammad. I
guess hurting his feelings was a crime that deserved death. Additionally, there were some Meccans who did resist the Islamic
conquest and they defended themselves against his conquest and fought the
Muslim army.
Quoting from
"The Life of Muhammad", A Guillaume's a translation of Ibn Hisham's
"Sirat Rasul Allah", from page 550: [words in brackets [ ] are mine]
The apostle had
instructed his commanders when they entered Mecca only to fight those who
resisted them except a small number who were to be killed even if they were
found beneath the curtains of the Ka’ba. Among them was `Abdullah b. Sa’d,
brother of the B. `Amir b. Lu'ayy. The reason he ordered him to be killed was
that he had been a Muslim and used to write down revelation; then he
apostatized and returned to Quraysh [Mecca] and fled to `Uthman b. `Affan whose
foster brother he was. [Uthman was one of Muhammad's closest friends, and later
became the Caliph of Islam].
The latter hid him until he brought him to the apostle after the situation in
Mecca was tranquil, and asked that he might be granted immunity. They allege
that the apostle remained silent for a long time till finally he said yes, [granting `Abdullah
immunity from the execution order]. When `Uthman had left he [Muhammad] said to his companions who were sitting around him, "I kept silent
so that one of you might get up and strike off his head!" One of the Ansar
[Muhammad's
helpers from Medina]
said, then why didn't you give me a sign, O apostle of God?" He [Muhammad] answered that a prophet does not kill by
pointing.
Ibn Sa’d
corroborates Ibn Ishaq and says on page 174:
A person of
al-Ansar had taken a vow to kill Ibn Abi Sarh [the already mentioned Abdallah]
if he saw him. `Uthman whose foster brother he (Ibn Abi Sarh) was, came and
interceded for him with the prophet. The Ansari was waiting for the signal of
the prophet to kill him. `Uthman interceded and he [Muhammad] let him go. The apostle of Allah said to
the Ansari, "Why did you not fulfill your vow?" He said, "O
apostle of Allah! I had my hand on the hilt of the sword waiting for your signal
to kill him." The prophet said signaling would have been a breach of
faith. "It does not behave the prophet to make signal."
Does it sound like Muhammad forgave
Sarh? Muhammad stared at Sarh, hoping
that one of his followers would kill Sarh.
But since his followers could not read Muhammad’s mind, and Muhammad’s
vanity prohibited him from telling them to kill him, Sarh lived. That does not sound like forgiveness to me,
does it to you?
Further, the Meccans were obligated
to become Muslims. Ibn Sa’d records on
page 168,
The Apostle
of Allah forced his entry into Makkah.
Then the people embraced Islam willingly or unwillingly.
Muhammad’s “forgiveness” was not without requirement. The Meccans had to become Muslims and submit
to Muhammad’s rule. This certainly is
not what Kronemer is telling his audience.
Another important point needs to be
made about Muhammad’s conquest. It was
self-serving on Muhammad’s behalf to not destroy the Meccan people. Having forced their submission, he now had for
himself more resources at his disposal.
These resources fueled his later attempts at attacking and conquering
other Arab tribes.
Questions for
Kronemer:
(Q10) Do you agree to Muhammad’s order to kill slave
girls for making fun of him?
(Q11) After Sarh left Muhammad’s presence, Muhammad
railed at his followers for not cutting Sarh’s head off! Does that sound like forgiveness?
(8) Kronemer wrote:
But
more than that, he announced that a new era was beginning in the Land of
Abraham. No more tribal warfare. No more exploitation of the weak and
vulnerable. The rule of law finally began to take hold in the land. Tribal
barriers began to break down, allowing the people to combine resources. at and
science became possible, and Islamic Civilization grew.
More balderdash from Kronemer. Kronemer implies that once Muhammad came,
conquered all the various Arab tribes, and united them in Islam that they were
one big happy family. “Islam is a
religion of peace” he would say. I say,
“When has it ever been a religion of peace?”
Let’s look at the historical record.
Immediately after Muhammad’s death,
many Arab tribes wanted to leave Islam or stop being forced to pay the
religious taxes levied against them.
There were several wars fought between the new Islamic Caliph, Abu Bakr,
and these various tribes. Umar sent his
armies out to attack and conquer other peoples. Later, during Uthman’s caliphate, things in the Islamic empire
were so bad that three separate tribes of Muslims rose in rebellion and moved
against Uthman. Uthman ended up being
murdered by these Muslims! What is more
shocking is that one of the ringleaders of the rebellion was the son of Abu
Bakr, the second of the so-called “Rightly Guided” Caliphs.
From the “History of Al-Tabari”, volume 15, “The Crisis of the Early Caliphate”…[4]
In this year (654), those who were alienated from Uthman b.
Affan wrote to one another planning to gather together in order to confront him
with those matters concerning which they were angry at him. (page 131).
Muhammad
b. Abi Bakr (Abu Bakr’s son), came with thirteen men and went up to
Uthman. He seized his beard and shook
it until I heard his teeth chattering.
Muhammad b. Abi Bakr said, “Muawiyah was no help to you, nor was Ibn Amir,
nor your letters.” Uthman said, “Let go
of my beard, son of my brother! Let go
of my beard!” Then I saw Ibn Abi Bakr
signaling with his eye to one of the rebels.
He came over to him with a broad iron headed arrow and stabbed him in
the head with it…. They gathered round him and killed him.” (pages 190, 191).
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/rf3_uthman_murder.htm
After Uthman died, Ali, Muhammad’s
son-in-law became the Caliph. He was
immediately challenged by two of Muhammad’s closest “companions”, Talha and
az-Zubayr, and by Muhammad’s child bride Aisha, and shortly thereafter by
Muwawiyah, (the son of Muhammad’s former chief enemy, Abu Sufyan, who was
forced to convert to Islam upon the point of a sword).
From Tabari, volume 16:
As they were
thus engaged, news suddenly arrived that the Meccans were going in a completely
different direction. So Ali stood up
among them to address them on the subject and said... “Talhah and al-Zubayr and
the Mother of the Faithful [Aisha] have
certainly joined together in discontent with my rule and have called on the
people to set things right… (page 34).
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/rf4_ali_aisha.htm
Eventually, Ali was murdered by other
Muslims. He fought several wars against
other Muslims, and as previously noted, he murdered ex-Muslims as well. After Ali died, the civil wars continued. See the articles below for a short review
of the wars, strife, and bloodshed found throughout the early Islamic
peoples. There were few months, if any,
that they were not killing each other, or killing those that wanted to leave
Islam.
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/rf5_ali_muawiya.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/rf6_yazid_husayn.htm
Don’t believe Kronemer’s statement
for a second. The Islamic family is
not one big happy family. Rather, they
most often functioned like a large organized crime gang, beset with petty
strife, murder, lust, deception, and so on.
Please read the records for yourself – Tabari’s History is available in
most any bookstore.
It is true that Islamic scientists
did contribute to the world’s wealth of science. But, it was after the Muslims had borrowed science from the great
Persian, Hindu, and Roman cultures, that they began to make those significant
contributions. Sadly, even the impetus
of the knowledge of these other cultures could not long sustain the societal
decay inherent within Islam. Today, we
see the backwardness, the corruption, the oppression of real Islam, Muhammad’s
Islam, at work.
(9) Kronemer wrote:
Today,
as the voices of conflict on both the Christian and Muslim sides grow louder,
Muhammad may present an example that might benefit the world. Humanity took one
giant step for the better when one man in a position of religious authority
stood on the shoulders of giants like Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, and instead of
the expected recriminations, uttered words of forgiveness and reconciliation.
Was
Muhammad a terrorist? He would have made a different choice when he entered
Mecca if he were, and the Biblical period would not have come to an end.
My comment (9)
It is not only the
Christians that are having conflict with the Muslims. So are the Hindus, in India.
So are the Buddhists in China, so are the animists in Sudan, so are the Jews. Wherever Muslims are, there is going to be
conflict with that that is non-Muslim.
Muhammad was not a good example.
Rather, he was a man with mixed emotions and mixed strengths and
weaknesses. He was not purely Satanic,
nor was he full of goodness. Humanity
took a step backwards when Muhammad rose to power. Muhammad was a man of violence, and, contrary to what Kronemer
asserts, he did use violence against those that refused his rule, or who had
simply hurt his feelings.
Below are some of
Muhammad’s statements. Ask yourself if
these are the words of a benevolent man.
MUHAMMAD:
"May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship
at the graves of the prophets." Bukhari, Vol. 1, #427
[Muhammad had been poisoned
years earlier by a Jewish woman whose husband was killed by the Muslims and the poison
had slowly worked its effect. He said this while dying in the arms of his wife Aisha].
Bukhari,
2.133:
Narrated
Masruq:
One day
I went to Ibn Mas'ud who said,
"When Quraish delayed in embracing Islam, the Prophet I invoked Allah to
curse them, so they were afflicted with a (famine) year because of which many
of them died and they ate the carcasses…
Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number
3178:
'Aisha (Allah be
pleased with her) reported: When we came to Medina, and it was an unhealthy,
uncongenial place, Abu Bakr fell sick and Bilal also fell sick; and when
Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) saw the illness of his Companions he
said: O Allah, make Medina as congenial to us as you made Mecca congenial or
more than that; make it conducive to health, and bless us in its sa' and in its
mudd, and transfer its fever to al-juhfa. [Here
Muhammad is asking that the fever be placed upon non-Muslims].
Sahih Muslim
#6930:
…that he
(Allah's Messenger) said: You will attack Arabia and Allah will enable you to
conquer it, then you would attack Persia and He would make you to Conquer it.
Then you would attack Rome and Allah will enable you to conquer it, …
Sahih
Muslim #6981:
Ibn 'Umar
reported Allah's Messenger as saying: You will fight against the Jews and you
will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew
(hiding himself behind me) ; kill him.
I could go on and on about the
violent, hateful, attitudes and actions of Muhammad. But, do a little independent research for yourself and you can
easily discover the facts. You should
not need anyone to do your thinking for you.
Read and study the history of Islam, written by Tabari himself. Think things through carefully. Determine if Muhammad is a man to whom you
want to entrust your eternity. I don’t.
Earlier, I implied that Kronemer is
not telling the whole truth, he has omitted several important historical
records. Further, in some cases,
Kronemer is practically inventing, or re-writing Islamic history to make it
palatable to an ignorant and naive Western audience. Kronemer is trying to tell us that Islam is a religion of peace
and Muhammad was a forgiving, benevolent leader. The historical record and current record show that Islam is at
war with everything that is not subject to its rule. Muslims have repeatedly struck us in the past, present, and they
will again in the future. I’m sure that
the Muslim terrorists who flew the planes into the NY towers would have told
you that Islam was a religion of peace, and Muhammad was a benevolent, merciful
leader. Those Muslims followed in
Muhammad’s footsteps.
Jesus predicted that false prophets
would come:
Matthew 7:15 -
20 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize
them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17
Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A
good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.”
Muhammad’s fruit is bad fruit. As I said before he was a man with mixed
character. However, once he attained
power, he turned it upon those that opposed him. He was not the benevolent, merciful leader that Kronemer tries to
portray. Muhammad was one of the false
prophets Jesus warned us of.
I appeal to Kronemer and to anyone
else to re-examine the historical record.
I ask Kronemer to correct his errors.
Further, I ask him to re-evaluate Muhammad in the light of those Islamic
records and, compare Muhammad to Jesus.
Jesus is superior to Muhammad, Jesus is the person we should be
following.
This prayer is written for anyone. This includes Muslims who are seeking the truth and who want to know God in a personal way.
“Lord Jesus, I believe in You. I believe that You are the Son of God and the Lord. I believe that You died for my sins and were
raised from the dead. I confess that I
am a sinner and I ask You to come into my heart, cleanse me from my sins, and
forgive me for my sins. I turn to
follow and obey You – I put my faith in you.
I now receive You as Messiah and Lord and totally commit my life to
You.”
Amen.
Articles by Silas
Answering Islam Home Page