Liar, Liar! A Response to a Person of the Lie
***Author’s Note: I originally wrote the
following article almost 10 years ago in response to an anti-Islamic article
that appeared on a discussion forum and had forgotten about it until I happened
to see it in my hard drive. I have
decided to post it on the blog with some emendations.***
“Fain would they extinguish
Allah's light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow but that His light
should be perfected, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).”
-
The Holy Quran, Surah At-Tawba, 9:32
It has become a habit of the Islamophobes
to churn out new claims about Islam, some of them quite comical and some just
down-right insane. This article is a
response to a commentary which appeared on the anti-Islamic website “Annaqed” that
rightfully belongs in the latter category.[1] The theory which is propounded by one Louis
Palme seeks to associate Islam (and especially the Prophet Muhammad) with the “People of the Lie”, a concept first introduced by
the late Dr. M. Scott Peck (d. 2005), a respected American psychiatrist, in his
best-selling book “People of the Lie: The Hope for
Healing Human Evil”. Any person
who has read Dr. Peck’s book will find the preposterousness of this theory to
be quite obvious, but of course, we will not simply dismiss Palme’s article as
the work of a crackpot without first analyzing it. Rather, we will entertain this theory and see
if it holds any merit…and then conclude rightfully that it is indeed the
work of a crackpot, inshaAllah! The
format of the article will be as follows: a direct quote of Palme’s claims (in
blue) followed by our response.
Palme:
“Almost 25 years ago,[2] the noted American psychologist Dr. M. Scott Peck wrote
a book in which he attempted to characterize human evil. The book was titled
People of the Lie, and it is still available for sale in stores and on-line.
While he made brief allusions to the German Nazis and other extremist
ideologies, Dr. Peck did not connect human evil with Islamic doctrine. However,
using his perspectives on human evil, it is easy to see evil in many
pronouncements by Muhammad and the Quran.”
Response: The first thing which should jump out at the
reader is the fact that Dr. Peck was talking about evil in the context of his
daily experiences as a psychiatrist counseling his patients, who were not
Muslims. The second point to make is
that Palme admits that Dr. Peck made no association of his concept with Islam
or Muslims![3] Thus, the reader may ask why he is wasting
his time by writing this article. Well,
we don’t have the slightest idea. Palme
has simply reinterpreted an idea which was not his own, mixed it with his own
ideas and prejudices, and churned out a pathetic theory with which to demonize
Islam and Muslims (which, as we will see, is not in line with the reality of
the situation, inshaAllah). Perhaps Palme
should actually try to understand what Dr. Peck was trying to do and take his
advice:
“…we should judge others
only with great care, and that such carefulness begins with
self-judgement. […] The battle to heal human evil always begins
at home. And self-purification will
always be our greatest weapon.”[4]
Palme:
“This essay is an attempt to identify those
links between human evil and Islam. In doing so, the reader must be forewarned
that the focus on evil unavoidably skirts the commendable aspects of Islam.
Just as the outlines of animal or human figures associated with stellar
constellations do not incorporate all of the visible stars, this focus on
Islamic evil highlights only the “broad outlines” of Islamic doctrine that are
relevant, and so it is not an all-inclusive photograph.”
Response: In other words, with this disclaimer, Palme admitted
that he would only present the “evidence” which he felt was “relevant” to his
diatribe and would skillfully manipulate this “evidence” to fit his
interpretation (I use the word “skillfully” very loosely, as will be seen). Whatever evidence which may not agree with his
views will be kept safely hidden from his readers. His motive, then, is not to “expose” the
“evil” of Islam (because there is no such evil), but to create the illusion
that it is evil. He wants to do this because
his motivation is his rampant Islamophobia, which he does not want to make public. Ironically, Palme fits the description of an
evil person as described by Dr. Peck, who wrote that:
“[t]he evil always hide
their motives with lies”).[5]
Palme:
“That said, the principal texts quoted below
(left-justified) are from People of the Lie, and the indented texts are
primarily from the Quran, Bukhari’s collection of Hadith, and the biographies
of Muhammad by Ishaq and al-Tabari.”
Response: Regarding the works of Ibn Ishaq and
al-Tabari, it should be noted that neither sources are considered to be
reliable by Islamic scholars, as well as many non-Muslim scholars as well. Many of the stories collected in the works of
Ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari are considered to be based on questionable sources,
while others are considered to be forgeries.
This does not mean that both Ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari were unreliable
scholars, because their intentions in the respective works in question were not
to separate truth from fiction, but to collect all the stories which had been
circulating for many years. Referring to
al-Tabari, for example, M.S.M Saifullah et al. state that:
“…al-Tabari has simply
refused accountability by avoiding the task of historical criticism. Therefore,
any spurious accounts are not to be attributed to him.”[6]
Therefore, in collecting the various reports and narrations, al-Tabari
did not intend to discuss the truth or falsehood of those collections, but
rather to simply transmit the information which he received from others. What this means is that the stories contained
in the volumes of al-Tabari’s work should not be immediately taken to be
unadulterated fact but should rather be scrutinized.[7]
Palme: Quran quotations are from N. J. Dawood’s translation. Other
sources are identified as needed. The ellipses are merely to keep the length of
the essay as short as possible without distorting the original meaning of the
texts. The quotations from Dr. Peck’s book have been re-arranged slightly to keep
similar themes together. It will be left to the reader to assess the relevance
and the significance of each quotation relative to tenants of Islam.
Response: Here we see the deceptive tactics Palme
uses. He is already vouching for the
“authenticity” of his evidence, trying to avoid any suspicions about his
less-than scholarly attempts to quote Islamic scripture. The use of “ellipses” is a common tactic used
by bigots to malign Islam and Muslims and to hide the truth. Unfortunately for Palme, the truth will come
out, inshaAllah.
Palme:
“Basic Premises Regarding Evil
Evil is in opposition to life. It is that which opposes the life force. It has,
in short, to do with killing. Specifically, it has to do with murder – namely,
unnecessary killing, killing that is not required for biological survival. (p.
42)
Allah has purchased from the faithful their lives and worldly goods and in
return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for the cause of Allah,
slay and be slain. . . . Rejoice then in the bargain you have made. (Surah
9:111)”
Response: Ah, fantastic. Finally, we come to the good stuff. Most reasonable people would agree that Dr.
Peck hit it right on the nail when he said that “evil
is in opposition to life” and that acts like murder which are not
required for “biological survival” are
unequivocally evil. Unfortunately, Palme
completely missed the nail. He presents
a verse from the Holy Quran which says that those who slay in the “cause of Allah” will be in Paradise, but he does
not provide the Quranic justification for such an act (probably because he
knows there is one which refutes his false claim, but wants to keep it hidden
from his readers). Let us educate Palme
and show to the reader what Islam says about life and murder (emphasis ours):
“On that account: We ordained
for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it
be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be
as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if
he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our
messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to
commit excesses in the land.”[8]
“Say: "Come, I will
rehearse what Allah hath (really) prohibited you from": Join not anything
as equal with Him; be good to your parents; kill not your children on
a plea of want;- We provide sustenance for you and for them;- come
not nigh to shameful deeds. Whether open or secret; take not life,
which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law:
thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom. And come not nigh to the orphan's property,
except to improve it, until he attain the age of full strength; give measure
and weight with (full) justice;- no burden do We place on any soul, but that
which it can bear;- whenever ye speak, speak justly, even if a near relative is
concerned; and fulfil the covenant of Allah: thus doth He command you, that ye
may remember. Verily, this is My way,
leading straight: follow it: follow not (other) paths: they will scatter you
about from His (great) path: thus doth He command you. that ye may be
righteous.”[9]
“Kill not your
children for fear of want: We shall provide sustenance for them as
well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin. Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a
shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils). Nor take life - which Allah has made
sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have
given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let
him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the
Law). Come not nigh to the orphan's
property except to improve it, until he attains the age of full strength; and
fulfil (every) engagement, for (every) engagement will be enquired into (on the
Day of Reckoning). Give full measure
when ye measure, and weigh with a balance that is straight: that is the most
fitting and the most advantageous in the final determination.”[10]
(25:68-71) “Those who invoke
not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as Allah has made
sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; - and any
that does this (not only) meets punishment.
(But) the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to him, and he
will dwell therein in ignominy,- Unless he repents, believes, and works
righteous deeds, for Allah will change the evil of such persons into good, and
Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful, And whoever repents and does good has
truly turned to Allah with an (acceptable) conversion;-”[11]
SubhanAllah, what
a beautiful message Islam truly is! According
to the Quran, taking life unnecessarily or not “in
the course of justice” is an abomination, and is grouped with the abomination
of worshipping false gods (the sin of shirk).
Over and over, Allah commanded the Muslims to protect life, and to only
take life in the interest of justice. 2This
is in perfect harmony with Dr. Peck’s observation that murder is evil in that
it is “unnecessary” and not needed for “biological survival”. If one is being persecuted, harassed and
threatened with death for believing in Islam and finds that his fellow
believers are being killed for their faith, would it not be “necessary” for
that person to resist, with force if necessary?
The truth of the matter is that Islam only commands violence in response
to violence (“in the course of justice”) and
considers anything else to be an abomination.
Islam is pro-life. Therefore, it
is not evil according to Dr. Peck’s definition.
Palme:
“Evil is also that which kills spirit. There
are various essential attributes of life – particularly human life – such as
sentience, mobility, awareness, growth, autonomy, and will. It is possible to
kill or attempt to kill one of these attributes without actually destroying the
body. (p. 42)
Say, “I was commanded to be
the first to submit. . .” Say, “I will never disobey my Lord, for I fear the
torment of a fateful day.” . .If Allah afflicts you with evil, none can remove
it but He. . . He reigns supreme over His servants [Pickthall: ‘slaves’].
(Surah 6:15-18)”
Response: What is Palme’s point? How is following Allah and obeying Him akin
to killing the “essential attributes of life”
especially since Allah has made life sacred?
The point of the verses in question is to teach mankind that Allah is supreme
and that obedience to Him is meritorious.
The one who is obedient to Allah is one who is righteous and conducts
him or herself in a righteous way. Where
is the “evil” in this?
It
is interesting to note that Dr. Peck made no secret of his faith in
Christianity, referring to Jesus Christ as his “Lord”. He also made the following observation, which
Palme fails to mention:
“[a]ll adults who are
mentally healthy submit themselves one way or another to something higher than
themselves, be it God or truth or love or some other ideal. They do what God wants them to do rather than
what they would desire.”[12]
Had Palme
actually considered the whole of Peck’s message, instead of lazily cherry-picking
certain passages, he would not be making such silly mistakes and he would not
have come up with his biased theory about Islam.
Palme:
“If one wants to seek out evil people, the
simplest way to do so is to trace them from their victims (p. 107 n.)
Muslims were the first victims of Islam. Many times I have observed in my
travels that fanaticism comes from a small number of dangerous men who maintain
others in the practice of this religion by terror. To liberate the Muslim from
his religion is the best service that one can render him.
(French philosopher Ernest Renan, 1823 – 1892)”
Response: Palme is getting desperate. This latest assertion is known as an “argumentum ad verecundiam” or an “appeal to
authority” fallacy, which is defined as an attempt:
“…to demonstrate the truth
of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may
have no expertise in the given area.”[13]
Palme seeks to
secure his position by quoting a French philosopher from the 19th
century and his opinions about Islam.
Was Ernest Renan an authority on Islam or religion in general? Certainly, he had his opinions regarding
religion, but did that make him an authority on how we should classify a
particular religion? Clearly, Renan’s
opinions about Islam and Muslims are irrelevant, and hold no intellectual
influence. We can simply move on to the
next argument, but why not consider if Renan was right? Let us examine the evidence.
Before
Islam, the Arabs were an isolated group of uneducated, ever-warring
desert-dwellers. The cycle of tribal
vendettas and female infanticide was widespread and never-ending. Cruelty to orphans, widows, slaves and
animals were the norms of the society.
After Islam, on the other hand, the cycle of tribal warfare had ended. The Arabs were united under one banner
(instead of hundreds of banners marking their loyalties to their tribes and
nothing else). An age of knowledge had
blossomed by the 9th century CE and spanned from China to Spain,
providing the world with such brilliant minds as al-Khwarizmi, Ibn al-Haytam,
Ibn Rushd (Averroes), Ibn Hayyan (Geber), Ibn Sina (Avicenna), al-Mas’udi,
al-Biruni, and al-Zahrawi. Of course,
there are many more that have not been mentioned here, and they were all
followers of Islam. I guess Renan (or
Palme) did not know about the age of knowledge which was started by Muslims who
took their inspiration for living their lives from Islam![14] Muslims were not the “victims” of Islam. Rather, they were saved by Islam. Their daughters were saved from being buried
alive as infants because the society they lived in considered having a female
child a great “dishonor”. The orphans
and widows were saved from exploitation, from having their rightful property
and wealth devoured by greedy men who had no claim to it. The women were saved from having “…no human or legal rights” and being “…mere chattels”.[15] Even animals were saved from being
overworked, from being lacerated and having their flesh ripped-off to be cooked
and eaten while they were alive.[16] Islam prohibited all these acts of cruelties
which would have been experienced by the very people who had become Muslims if
they had continued to cling to the societal customs of pagan Arabia, and yet
Renan and his protégé believe that they were the “victims” of Islam? Truly, this is a comical claim!
Now,
if Palme is still not sure, perhaps the testimony of Muslims themselves will
help. When a party of the early Muslims
fled to Abyssinia to escape the Meccan persecution, they were brought before
the king of Abyssinia, An-Najashi. When
they were asked to explain why they should not be sent back to Arabia, one of
the Muslims, Ja’far ibn Abu Talib, offered an emotional plea. Islamic scholar Jalal Abualrub recounts
Ja’far’s words as follows (emphasis in the original):
“[He]…addressed the king on
behalf of the Muslims, by saying, ‘Oh, King!
Before, we were a people of Jahiliyyah (ignorance), worshipping
idols, eating the meat of dead animals, committing vice, cutting relations with
kith and kin and treating our neighbors badly, and the strong among us used to
overwhelm the weak. These evil
conditions persisted with us until Allah sent us a Messenger from amongst
ourselves…He called us to Allah…He also commanded us to be truthful when we
speak, give back a trust to its rightful owner, keep relations with kindred,
and be good neighbors. He also commanded
us to avoid all types of vice, bloodshed, sins of all kinds, saying falsehood,
eating (unlawfully using) up the orphan’s property, and spreading false
accusations against chaste women. […] He commanded us to pray, give charity and
fast.’”[17]
The views of
Muslims like Ja’far ibn Abu Talib and those that came after him serve as evidence
against the personal opinions of Renan.
After all, who better to proffer the impact of Islam than Muslims? Commenting on these and other views by
Muslims, the historian Hugh Kennedy states that:
“[t]hey show how the early
Muslims remembered Muhammad leading them out of poverty and internal
divisions. They stress the importance of
his descent from Quraysh and of his new religion, which most of them accepted,
if not with enthusiasm, at least peacefully.”[18]
Finally, in contrast to the
opinionated rambling of Renan, the orientalist scholar W. Montgomery Watt
provided a more balanced view of the positive impact of Islam. When discussing the impact of Muhammad (peace
be upon him), Watt concluded that:
“[t]hrough him-or, on the
orthodox Muslim view, through the revelations made to him-the Arab world was a
given a framework of ideas within which the resolution of its social tensions
became possible. The provision of such a
framework involved insight into the fundamental causes of the social malaise of
the time, and the genius to express this insight in a form which would stir the
hearer to the depths of his being.”[19]
Thus, Muslims are
not the “victims” of Islam. Rather, we
have been saved by Islam and do not need fake and false pity from the likes of
Ernest Renan or Louis Palme!
Palme:
“The feeling that a healthy person often
experiences in relationship with evil is revulsion. The feeling of revulsion
may be almost instant if the evil encountered is blatant. . . Evil is revolting
because it is dangerous. It will contaminate or otherwise destroy a person who
remains too long in its presence. (p. 65)
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a
thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you.
Allah knows, but you know not. (Surah 2:216)”
Response: Those who “disliked” fighting did not do so
because they “reviled” it but because they feared the consequences of it (i.e.
dying during battle or being defeated and subjugated by a more powerful
enemy). The 13th-century CE
scholar Ibn Kathir commented that the words “…though
you dislike it” refer to the difficulties encountered in war and that:
“[i]ndeed, fighting is as
the Ayah describes it, as it includes being killed, wounded, striving against
the enemies and enduring the hardship of travel.”[20]
So, there was no
revulsion because it was perceived to be “evil”. Moreover, the Holy Quran expounds on the
injunction to fight:
“And why should ye not fight
in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and
oppressed)? Men, women, and children, whose cry is: ‘Our Lord! Rescue us from
this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will
protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!’”[21]
It is clear,
then, that “fighting in the cause of Allah”
meant fighting for the weak and oppressed, not for riches or to cause harm to
innocent people. There was a condition
to fight. Oppression was the condition
and as such, Allah commanded the Muslims to rise up against their oppressors
and defeat them. Those who were lacking
in faith feared being sent to fight.
They feared losing their lives or their wealth or being defeated and subjugated. They feared that Allah would not help them,
and as such, they were in reality hypocrites.
Thus, one could describe them as “people of
the lie”, because they only acted as if they were righteous, but in their
hearts, they were the opposite.
Palme:
“How can they be evil and not designated as
criminals? . . . They are criminals in that they commit “crimes” against life
and liveliness. But except in rare instances – such as the case of a Hitler
[and Muhammad] – when they might achieve extraordinary degrees of political
power that remove them from ordinary restraints, their “crimes” are so subtle
and covert that that they cannot clearly be designated as crimes. (p. 69)”
Response: Palme’s little addition “…and Muhammad” is a case of his obvious lack of
intellectual honesty. He is simply
manipulating and reinterpreting someone else’s observations and literally
inserting his own beliefs and views, all in a vain attempt to justify his
irrational hatred of Islam. Those of us
who know the truth about the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) know that
when he had power, he used it magnanimously, as in the case of the Conquest of
Mecca in the year 630 CE. The famous
scholar of religion, Karen Armstrong, offers a detailed summary of the event of
the conquest:
“He had no desire to begin
bloody reprisals. Nobody was made to
accept Islam nor do they seem to have felt any pressure to do so. Muhammad did not want to coerce the people
but to effect a reconciliation. […] He stood in front of the house of al-Llah and
begged them [the Meccans] to accept the new order, the unity of the umma, and
to lay aside the haughty pride and self-sufficiency of paganism which could
create only division and injustice. He
ended with a verse from the Quran, which Muslims later interpreted as a
condemnation of racism, a vice from which Islam has been relatively free…”[22]
In the wake of
his ascension to absolute power, Muhammad (peace be upon him) could have chosen
to bring down upon his enemies a catastrophe of bloodshed and vengeance which
would have consumed all of Mecca. Yet in
this position of absolute power, why did he choose to declare an amnesty? Arab custom dictated that he should destroy
all people in the city. After all, the
pagans would have done the same had they succeeded in conquering Medina during
the Battle of the Trench. Why was he
merciful, if he was so “evil”? Palme should
reflect on this question with an open mind, free of his ignorance and bias. It is a shame that ignorant non-Muslims like
Palme demonize such a great man due simply to their own prejudices and
hatred. As Watt stated:
“Of all the world’s great
men none has been so much maligned as Muhammad.”[23]
Palme:
“Erich Fromm . . broadened his definition of
necrophilia to include the desire of certain people to control others – to make
them controllable, to foster their dependency, to discourage their capacity to
think for themselves, to diminish their unpredictability and originality, to
keep them in line. [The aim of a necrophilic character type ] is to avoid the
inconvenience of life by transforming others into obedient automatons, robbing
them of their humanity. (p. 43)
If anyone introduces an innovation or gives shelter to a man who introduces an
innovation (in religion), he is cursed by Allah, by His angels, and by all the
people. (A quotation of Muhammad narrated by Ali ibn Abu Talib in the hadith
collection of Abu Dawud)
The best speech is that embodied in the Book of Allah, and the best guidance is
the guidance given by Muhammad. The most evil affairs are their innovations;
and every innovation is an error. (A quotation of Muhammad narrated by Jabir
ibn Abdullah in the hadith collection of Muslim).”
Response: Palme is doing a bad job of connecting the
dots. He does not support his argument
well. Simply quoting two sources without
offering a hypothesis as to the association between them does not suit well for
a professionally-written article. What
does discouraging innovative actions (“bidah”) have to do with controlling
others? Every religion has a code of
decorum, rituals and practices which are to be maintained by successive
generations. It has nothing to do with
control. The only part of a person’s
life which should not be innovated was his religious life, because religion was
ordained by Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He). Other aspects of a person’s life, could
certainly be innovated, as long as the innovation was lawful. For instance, as humanity has progressed, it has
made new innovations in the areas of medicine and technology. This innovation is fueled by the intelligence
of humans and their ability to learn.
Islam does not prohibit these types of innovations. However, innovations such as performing one’s
prayers in a way different from what has been taught bring about no benefit for
the community. These types of
innovations would only serve to bring about divisions among the faithful and
not the unity which is the core of Islam.
It is for this reason that religious innovations are prohibited. This concept is perfectly demonstrated in the
following hadith:
“Rafi' b. Khadij reported
that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) came to Medina and the people had been
grafting the trees. He said: What are you doing? They said: We are grafting
them, whereupon he said: It may perhaps be good for you if you do not do that,
so they abandoned this practice (and the date-palms) began to yield less fruit.
They made a mention of it (to the Holy Prophet), whereupon he said: I am a
human being, so when I command you about a thing pertaining to religion, do
accept it, and when I command you about a thing out of my personal opinion,
keep it in mind that I am a human being.”[24]
Thus, innovating
in matters of religion is prohibited, but innovating in non-religious matters
is allowed.
Palme:
“It is not their sins per se that
characterize evil people; rather, it is the subtlety and persistence and
consistency of their sins. This is because the central defect of the evil is
not the sin but the refusal to acknowledge it. (p. 69)
Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries
and the slave-girls whom Allah has given you as booty; the daughters of your
paternal and maternal uncles and of your paternal and maternal aunts who fled
with you; and any believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet and whom the
Prophet wishes to take in marriage. This privilege is yours alone, being
granted to no other believer . . .We grant you this privilege so that none may
blame you. (Surah 33:50-51)
[Note: Muhammad is reported to have had 20 wives and a number of captured
concubines.]”
Response: This is another example of Palme’s
dishonesty. He deliberately fails to
mention verse 52, as it offers some insight which refutes his ludicrous
claim. It states:
“It is not lawful for thee
(to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even
though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as
handmaidens): and Allah doth watch over all things.”[25]
If Muhammad
(peace be upon him) found it so difficult to “acknowledge” this “sinful”
behavior, why would he have prohibited himself from having more wives (assuming
that he wrote those verses)?
We
must point out, however, that this was not a “sin” at all. Polygamy was not a sexual vice as it served a
greater purpose and was a practical measure.
For a statesman like Muhammad (peace be upon him), the ability to marry more
than once allowed him to make alliances with other leaders. This was a common practice. It also allowed him to help widows who were
in need of care. In fact, the permissibility
of polygamy was made after a major battle in which many Muslim men had died,
leaving behind many widows and daughters.
In order to care for so many women, the most practical solution was
polygamy. Armstrong observes that:
“There were also pressing
practical problems that had to be solved.
Each one of the sixty-five Muslims who had died at Uhud had left behind
wives and families who had to be provided for and it seems that after the
defeat the revelation came down to Muhammad that allowed the Muslims to take
four wives […]
There was probably a
shortage of men in Arabia, which left a surplus of unmarried women who were
often badly exploited. The Quran is most
concerned about this problem and resorted to polygamy as a way of dealing with
it. This would enable all the girls who
had been orphaned to be married, but it insisted that a man could take more
than one wife only if he promised to administer their property equitably.”[26]
Clearly, there
were practical reasons for polygamy. It
was not done for the sake of “sinful lust” but to solve a problem which the
community faced. And indeed, had
Muhammad (peace be upon him) wanted to give himself limitless ability to marry
more women, he would not have put a prohibition on himself! Palme very deceitfully expunged verse 52,
which only exposes the hypocrisy and deceit within him. I am sure Dr. Peck would have disapproved of
such deceitful behavior, which is characteristic of the “people of the lie”!
Palme:
“If evil people cannot be defined by the
illegality of their deeds or the magnitude of their sins, then how are we to
define them? The answer is by the consistency of their sins. While usually
subtle, their destructiveness is remarkably consistent. This is because those
who have “crossed the line” are characterized by their absolute refusal to
tolerate the sense of their own sinfulness. (p. 71)
And when Zayd [Muhammad’s adopted son] divorced his wife [after Muhammad envied
her] We [Allah] gave her to you [Muhammad] in marriage, so that it should
become legitimate for true believers to wed the wives of their adopted sons if
they divorced them. Allah’s will must needs be done. No blame shall be attached
to the Prophet for doing what is sanctioned for him by Allah. (Surah 33:37-38)
Had there not been a previous sanction from Allah, you would have been sternly
punished for what you have taken [in spoils]. Enjoy therefore the good and
lawful things which you have gained in war, and fear Allah. (Surah 8:69)”
Response: Let us present a narration from the Hadith
literature which will show Palme’s complete ignorance on this matter which is a
favorite of the Islamophobes:
“Narrated Anas: Zayd bin Haritha came to the Prophet complaining
about his wife. The Prophet kept on saying (to him), "Be afraid of Allah
and keep your wife." Aisha said, "If Allah's Apostle were to conceal anything
(of the Quran he would have concealed this Verse." Zainab used to boast
before the wives of the Prophet and used to say, "You were given in
marriage by your families, while I was married (to the Prophet) by Allah from
over seven Heavens." And Thabit recited, "The Verse:-- 'But (O
Muhammad) you did hide in your heart that which Allah was about to make
manifest, you did fear the people,' (33.37) was revealed in connection with
Zainab and Zayd bin Haritha."[27]
Clearly, the Prophet (peace be
upon him) wanted Zayd to work out the problems he was having in his marriage
with Zainab. Had the Prophet wanted
Zainab for himself and was jealous of Zayd, he would have immediately taken the
opportunity to tell Zayd to divorce her, so he could have her for himself, and
yet, we see that he actually advised Zayd to “keep
[his] wife.” He did not need to
bring a divine revelation to “excuse” his “intentions” as he had a golden
opportunity to get what he wanted. Where
is the “sin” in this? The purpose of the
verse was to break the custom in Arab society of equating one’s adopted son
with one’s biological son. In Islam,
adoption does not make one a biological relative (and thus eligible for
inheritance). Therefore, the Prophet’s
marriage to Zainab, the divorced wife of Zayd, the adopted son of the Prophet,
was a lesson to the Muslims that biological relations do not exist between the
adopter and the adoptee. Once again,
there was a practical purpose in the Prophet’s actions. Had the Prophet wanted to take Zainab for
himself, he already had the power to do so, as shown by Zayd’s readiness to
divorce her so she could marry the Prophet.
Regarding
Sura 8:68-69 (Palme did not realize that he was quoting two verses), we have
already established that war was only allowed to counter oppression, and thus,
the spoils of war were only legal when the Muslims were in a state of war with
a hostile nation. And of course, we know
that whatever portion of the spoils which the Prophet took, he never kept for
himself. Rather, he selflessly gave it
away.
Palme: “The reader will
be struck by the extraordinary willfulness of evil people. . . There is a
remarkable power in the manner in which they attempt to control others. . .
Perhaps the evil are born so inherently strong-willed that it is impossible for
them to ever to submit their will. (p. 78-79)
In the name of Allah, the Merciful and Compassionate. From Muhammad, the
Messenger of Allah, to Kisra [Greek: Chosroes] the ruler of Persia. Peace be
upon whoever follows right guidance, believes in Allah and His Messenger, and
testifies that there is no god but Allah alone, Who has no partner, and that
Muhammad is His servant and His messenger. I summon you with the Summons of
Allah; for I am the Messenger of Allah to all mankind, to warn whoever is
alive, and that the word may be fulfilled against the unbelievers. Submit
yourself, and you shall be safe. If you refuse, the sin of the Magians
[Zoroastrians who were conquered] will be upon you. (Letter from Muhammad.
Later, when Muhammad learned that Kisra tore up the letter in defiance,
Muhammad said, “His kingdom has been torn up.” -- from Al-Tabari, Vol. VIII,
No. 1573)”
Response: Palme asserts that the phrase “sin of the Magians” was an implicit threat of
conquest. The question is on what basis
does he claim that this phrase was a threat?
A similar letter was sent to Heraclius, the emperor of Byzantium and a
similar statement was made:
“I am writing this invitation to call you to Islam. If you
become a Muslim you will be safe - and God will double your reward, but if you
reject this invitation of Islam you will bear the sin of having misguided your
subjects.”[28]
So, the “sin” of Heraclius is
the one of misguiding his subjects, since Islam would not be allowed to reach
his subjects. Similarly, Khosrau was
warned that by opposing Islam, he would be misguiding his Zoroastrian subjects.
Additionally,
there is another event in the Prophet’s life that completely refutes Palme’s
silly accusation. Shortly after the
Battle of the Trench, in which the Prophet (peace be upon him) inflicted a
humiliating defeat upon the pagan Meccans and their allies, he made a peace
treaty with them. This treaty is known
as the Treaty of Hudaibiyah. During the
negotiations, the pagan negotiator Suhayl ibn Amr objected to the addition of certain
phrases in the draft version that had been drawn up by the Muslims. Here is the exchange between Suhayl and the
Prophet:
“The Quraysh then sent Suhayl ibn Amr. When the
Messenger(sallallahu alaiyhi wassallam) of Allah saw him coming, he remarked,
'It is clear that they want peace since they have sent this man.' He told his
Companions to prepare a draft agreement.
He called for Ali ibn Abi Talib and told him, 'Write: In the
name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate.'
'By Allah,' Suhayl said, 'we do not know who this
"Merciful" is. Rather write, "in Your name, O Allah" as you
used to write.'
The Muslims said, 'By Allah, we will only write, "in the
name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate." ' The Prophet said,
'Write, "In Your name, O Allah." '
Then he said, 'Write, "This is what Muhammad, the
Messenger(sallallahu alaiyhi wassallam) of Allah has agreed."'
'By Allah,' retorted Suhayl, 'if we accepted that you were the
Messenger (sallallahu alaiyhi wassallam) of Allah, we would not have prevented
you from reaching the House of Allah nor fought you. Rather write,
"Muhammad ibn Abdullah."'
The Prophet said, 'I am the Messenger (sallallahu alaiyhi
wassallam) of Allah even though you do not believe me. Write, "Muhammad
ibn Abdullah." '
He asked Ali to erase what he had written but Ali Said, 'By
Allah no, I will not erase it.'
The Messenger(sallallahu alaiyhi wassallam) of Allah said, 'Show
me the place,' and he erased it himself. Then he said, 'This is what the
Messenger (sallallahu alaiyhi wassallam) of Allah agrees provided that you give
us leave to perform tawaf of the Ka'bah.'
Suhayl Said, 'By Allah, we will not allow the Arabs to say that
we submitted to pressure. It will have to be next year.'”[29]
It should be noticed how the
Prophet was willing to compromise with his enemies in the interest of peace,
even going to the extent of accepting their demands on editing the treaty to
remove any reference to Muhammad’s status as the Messenger of Allah, which was
the whole reason the Meccans were in a conflict with Muhammad (peace be upon
him) in the first place! Where then is
the “attempt to control others”?!
Palme: The evil in this
world is committed by the spiritual fat cats, by the Pharisees of our own day,
the self-righteous who think they are without sin because they are unwilling to
suffer the discomfort of significant self-examination. . . . They are
remarkably greedy people. [T]he most basic sin is laziness. [I]t may be pride –
because all sins are repairable except the sin of believing one is without sin.
(p. 72)
Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been given five things which were not given to
any amongst the Prophets before me. These are: 1) Allah made me victorious by
awe (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey; 2)
The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a
thing to perform tayammum (purification with dirt when water isn’t available).
Therefore my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due; 3) The
booty has been made halal (lawful) for me (and was not made so for anyone
else); 4) Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation exclusively but I have
been sent to all mankind; and 5) I have been given the right of intercession (on
the Day of Resurrection).” (Bukhari Vol. 1, No. 429)
Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing
the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror, and while I
was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put
in my hand.” (Bukhari, Vol. 4, No. 220)”
Response: Palme does not quote Hadith number 220 in its
entirety. Let us do that for him:
“Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions
bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast
in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the
treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira
added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out
those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).”[30]
Notice that the Hadith scholars
had explained the meaning of the phrase “victorious with terror” as meaning
that terror was cast into the enemy during battle and then the enemy was defeated. We have already established that these
enemies were those who had oppressed the Muslims and had threatened their
existence. Notice also that the
“treasures” the Prophet spoke of had been of no benefit to him, but to his
people. Where, then, is the
“greed”?
We also
know that he was the most generous of men and taught his followers to be
generous, as his followers attested:
“Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas: “Allah’s Apostle was the most generous
of all the people, and he used to reach the peak in generosity in the month of
Ramadan when Gabriel met him. Gabriel used to meet him every night of Ramadan
to teach him the Qur’an. Allah’s Apostle was the most generous person, even
more generous than the strong uncontrollable wind (in readiness and haste to do
charitable deeds).”[31]
“Narrated Abu Huraira: "Allah's Apostle said, the
example of a miser and a generous person is like that of two persons wearing
iron cloaks from the breast up to the neck. When the generous person spends,
the iron cloak enlarges and spreads over his skin so much so that it covers his
fingertips and obliterates his tracks. As for the miser, as soon as he thinks
of spending, every ring of the iron cloak sticks to its place (against his
body) and he tries to expand it, but it does not expand. The Prophet pointed
with his hand towards his throat.”[32]
“Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: "I went to the Prophet in the
mosque (the sub-narrator Mas'ar thought that Jabir had said, "In the forenoon.")
He ordered me to pray two Rakat. He owed me some money and he repaid it to me
and gave more than what was due to me.”[33]
We
also discover from the Ahadith literature that the Prophet was not proud or
arrogant and actually taught that pride and arrogance were abominations in the
sight of God:
“Narrated Haritha bin Wahb:Al-Khuzai: The Prophet said,
"Shall I inform you about the people of Paradise? They comprise every
obscure, unimportant, humble person, and if he takes Allah's Oath that he will
do that thing, Allah will fulfill his oath (by doing that). Shall I inform you
about the people of the Fire? They comprise every cruel, violent, proud and
conceited person." Anas bin Malik said, ‘Any of the female slaves of
Medina could take hold of the hand of Allah's Apostle and take him wherever she
wished.’”[34]
“It is narrated on the
authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)
observed: Three (are the persons) with whom Allah would neither speak, nor
would He absolve them on the Day of Resurrection. Abu Mu'awiya added: He would
not look at them and there is grievous torment for them: the aged adulterer,
the liar king and the proud destitute.”[35]
Muhammad (peace
be upon him) himself refused to live a haughty, proud and luxurious life. He lived very simply, not exactly the way one
would expect a man consumed by pride and greed to live:
“Narrated Amr bin Al-Harith: When Allah's Apostle died, he did not
leave any Dirham or Dinar (i.e. money), a slave or a slave woman or anything
else except his white mule, his arms and a piece of land which he had given in
charity.”[36]
“Narrated 'Aisha: The bed mattress of the Prophet was made of a
leather case stuffed with palm fibres.”[37]
“Anas ibn Maalik said: No
person was dearer to them [the Sahaba] than the Prophet (peace and blessings of
Allah be upon him), but when they saw him they did not stand up for him because
they knew that he disliked that.”[38]
The evidence is
overwhelmingly in favor of the fact that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was
not proud, boastful, arrogant or greedy.
Yet again, we see the shameful way that people like arrogant and
ignorant people like Palme so brazenly slander the greatest man who ever lived
and accuse him of being “proud” or “evil” when clearly that was not the
case. Palme needs to do a little
self-reflection and acknowledge the evil within himself before shamelessly
attacking someone else. Dr. Peck made
that amply clear as shown above.
Palme:
Because their willfulness is so
extraordinary – and always accompanied by a lust for power – I suspect that the
evil are more likely than most to politically aggrandize themselves. Yet at the
same time, being unsubmitted, their extreme willfulness is likely to lead them
to political debacles. (p. 177)
[When Muhammad was on his deathbed, he had made no provision for his successor.
He died midday on Monday. Rather than bury him immediately, as was the custom,
his noble companions debated the succession issue, which was basically between
Abu Bakr his father-in-law and Ali, his son-in-law. They also disputed the
burial site. Finally, in the middle of the night on Wednesday, Muhammad was
secretly buried by Ali right below his bed. Abu Bakr hadn’t even been told. Abu
Bakr’s faction believed that successors should be chosen by the community and
is called Sunni, and Ali’s faction believed succession should follow the family
line is called Shi’ite (partisans to Ali). This “political” dispute was never
satisfactorily resolved, and it festers to this day often in bloody
confrontations. (See Ishaq, pp. 682-688)]
Response: It already been clearly shown that Palme is a
very deceptive person, who has no interest in exploring the truth but only to manipulate
it. The above description of the state
of the Muslims after the Prophet’s death is complete nonsense. I am perplexed as to how he has procured this
information. An analysis of Ibn Ishaq’s
account of the Prophet’s death and the subsequent events as recorded in the
“Sirat Rasul-Allah” will yield no comparison between Palme’s atrocious attempts
at paraphrasing and the actual account. For
example, he claims that Abu Bakr was not even aware of the Prophet’s burial,
but according to Ibn Ishaq, it was Abu Bakr’s idea to bury the Prophet under
his bed![39]
Regarding the issue of succession,
while there were disagreements, the process of electing Abu Bakr (may Allah be
pleased with him) was not as chaotic as Palme makes it out to be. Indeed, while Ali (may Allah be pleased with
him) was a pious follower of Muhammad (peace be upon him), the majority of the
people voted for Abu Bakr, who was the Prophet’s closest friend.[40] Thus, there was nothing controversial about
his ascension to the role of Caliph.
Palme:
Scapegoating – Projecting Evil Onto Others
A predominant characteristic, however, of the behavior of those I call evil is
scapegoating. Because in their hearts they consider themselves above reproach,
they must lash out at anyone who does reproach them. They sacrifice others to
preserve their self-image of perfection. . . Scapegoating works through a
mechanism psychiatrists call projection. . . Since they must deny their own
evil, they must perceive others as bad. They project their own evil onto the
world. They never think of themselves as evil; on the other hand, they
consequently see much evil in others. (p. 73-74)
Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends
with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of
their number. (Surah 5:51)
Say: ‘People of the Book [Jews], is it not that you hate us only because we
believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us and to others before, and
because most of you are evil doers?’
Say: ‘Shall I tell you who will receive a worse reward from Allah? Those whom
Allah has cursed and with whom He has been angry, transforming them into apes
and swine, and those who serve the devil. (Surah 5:59)
Response: Yes, Palme, one should not project evil onto
others. Perhaps you should take this
advice into consideration. Sura 5:51 was
revealed shortly after some hypocrites feared that the Muslims would be
defeated by the pagans and thus rushed to seek the aid of the Jews and
Christians, instead of relying on their faith in God. God admonished them for being faithless and
urged the believers to seek protection from Him alone. Verse 52 reveals the context of the verse,
which again was war:
“And thou seest those in
whose heart is a disease race toward them, saying: We fear lest a change of
fortune befall us. And it may happen that Allah will vouchsafe (unto thee) the
victory, or a commandment from His presence. Then will they repent them of
their secret thoughts.”[41]
In
any case, while the Quran does admonish some among the Jews and Christians for
being sinners, it also praises many of them for being upright, a fact that Palme
does not want his readers to know. But as
was mentioned in the early part of this article, the truth will come out, no
matter how hard Palme may try to keep it hidden:
“But because of their breach
of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change
the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that
was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on
(new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah
loveth those who are kind.”[42]
“Strongest among men in
enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among
them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are
Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who
have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.”[43]
“Of the people of Moses there
is a section who guide and do justice in the light of truth. We divided them into twelve tribes or
nations. We directed Moses by inspiration, when his (thirsty) people asked him
for water: "Strike the rock with thy staff": out of it there gushed
forth twelve springs: Each group knew its own place for water. We gave them the
shade of clouds, and sent down to them manna and quails, (saying): "Eat of
the good things We have provided for you": (but they rebelled); to Us they
did no harm, but they harmed their own souls.”[44]
The reader can
see how much of the truth Palme has kept hidden. Time after time, he has perverted the truth
in order to deceive his readers. It is
quite clear that Palme shares many of the characteristics of the “people of the lie”.
Palme:
As has been noted, it is characteristic of
those who are evil to judge others as evil. Unable to acknowledge their own
imperfections, they must explain away their flaws by blaming others. And, if
necessary, they will even destroy others in the name of righteousness. (p. 255)
When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them.
Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. . . . For the
idolaters are ignorant men. Allah and His apostle repose no trust in idolaters
. . .How can you trust them?. . . Most of them are evil-doers. . . Evil is what
they do. . . .They were the first to attack you. (Surah 9:5-13)
Response: It is easy to see through Palme’s
lies. The simplest way to do that is to
check his “paraphrase” of the Quran. He
has quoted Surah At-Tawba, a favorite of the Islamophobes who have quoted it ad
nauseum, but always out of context. The
relevant verses state the following:
“A (declaration) of immunity
from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have
contracted mutual alliances:- Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and
forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot
frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those
who reject Him. And an announcement from
Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great
Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with
the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know
ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who
reject Faith. (But the treaties are) not
dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who
have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So
fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth
the righteous. But when the forbidden
months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize
them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but
if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity,
then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for
asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort
him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without
knowledge. How can there be a league,
before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made
a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye
true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous. How (can there be such a league), seeing that
if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of
kinship or of covenant? With (fair words from) their mouths they entice you,
but their hearts are averse from you; and most of them are rebellious and
wicked. The Signs of Allah have they
sold for a miserable price, and (many) have they hindered from His way: evil
indeed are the deeds they have done. In
a Believer they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is
they who have transgressed all bounds.
But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise
regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the
Signs in detail, for those who understand.
But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for
your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to
them: that thus they may be restrained.
Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the
Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye
fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!”[45]
One can see
that, when read in context, there is nothing at all controversial or disturbing
in these verses. Muhammad (peace be upon
him) and his followers were fighting for their lives, and they were perfectly
justified in fighting their oppressors. Palme
is a liar, plain and simple. To learn about
Islam from someone of his pathetic credentials would be like learning how to be
a nuclear safety inspector from Homer Simpson![46]
We can see from the above verses
that the command to fight was only against those pagans who had violated the
Treaty of Hudaybiyah. Even so, the
Prophet was commanded to offer asylum and safety to any of the pagans who
sought it, despite the fact that they were the ones who violated the treaty! If Palme thinks that they were not to blame
for their treachery, then he needs to explain why he thinks so instead of
making absurd accusations and pointing fingers at others.
Palme: Never
have We sent a single prophet or apostle before with whose wishes Satan did not
tamper. But Allah abrogates the interjections of Satan and confirms His own
revelations. Allah is all-knowing and wise. He makes Satan’s interjections a
temptation for those whose hearts are diseased and hardened . . . (Surah 22:47)
[Note: this statement is in reference to the mention of the Arab pagan godesses
Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat in Surah 53:20 (actually preceding Surah 22
chronologically), for which Muhammad was widely criticized.]
Response: The verse Palme quoted from Sura 22 is not
verse 47, but verse 52. As for the
so-called “Satanic Verses” myth, it has been rejected both in the past and the
present by all Muslim scholars as a forgery.
Even non-Muslim scholars tend to agree.
For example, John Burton acknowledged the lack of historical truth in
the story by observing that:
“[t]here existed therefore
a compelling theoretical motive for the invention of these infamous hadiths. If
it be felt that this has now been demonstrated, there should be no further
difficulty in suggesting that those hadiths have no historical basis.”[47]
Furthermore, Sura 22 (Al-Hajj) was revealed around the year 1 AH (c. 622
AD), whereas Sura 53 (An-Najm) was revealed almost six years earlier.[48] So, Palme is correct in asserting that Sura
53 preceded Sura 22. However, one can
see the obvious discrepancy in the “theory” that Sura 22:47 was revealed in
relation to Sura 53:20. Why would Allah (Glorified
and Exalted be He) have waited six years to send down a response to Satan’s
alleged “interruption” of the revelation?
If that had been the case, the Muslims would have been calling upon the three
pagan goddesses for more than half a decade until the alleged
“abrogation”! Of course, there is no
evidence to suggest this ever happened. As
Saifullah et al., state:
“The story which we have
summarized in the beginning suggests that Muhammad(P) did not realize his fault
until God admonished him six years later and that the matter was rectified
perhaps another two and a half years after. In the meantime the Muslims were
supposedly asking Allat, Manat and Uzza for intercession! Had the genuine state
of affairs truly been this ridiculous, it would have been impossible for
Muhammad(P) to have maintained such a loyal following.”[49]
People like Palme fail to pick up on these important details. Perhaps it is due to ignorance or more
likely, it is due to their evil hatred of Islam, since all of this information
is easily accessible and they simply refuse to research Islam in an honest and
fair manner. There is no logical or
historical reason to accept the story of the “Satanic Verses”, but many
non-Muslims continue to be infatuated by the story, as they have brainwashed
themselves into insisting that it must have been true so that they can demonize
the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Palme:
Concern Over Public Image and Respectability
Utterly dedicated to preserving their self-image of perfection, [the evil] are
unceasingly engaged in the effort to maintain the appearance of moral purity.
They worry about this a great deal. They are acutely sensitive to social norms
and what others might think of them. . . While they seem to lack any motivation
to be good, they intensely desire to appear good. Their “goodness” is all on a
level of pretense. It is, in effect, a lie. This is why they are the “people of
the lie.” Yet the self-deceit would be unnecessary if the evil had no sense of
right and wrong. We lie only when we are attempting to cover up something we
know to be illicit. (p. 75-76)
Allah has now revealed the best of scriptures, a Book uniform in style
proclaiming promises and warnings. . . A Quran in the Arabic tongue, free from
any flaw, that they may guard themselves against evil. (Surah 39:22-27)
If We abrogate a verse or
cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or one similar.
Did you not know that Allah has power over all things? (Surah 2:106)
[When Muhammad and his
followers were driven out of Mecca, they migrated to Medina. They were
destitute, and there was little work for them to support themselves. As was
sometimes practiced by the Bedoins of that era, they resorted to robbing
merchant caravans that passed through the desert. Caravans dealt with this
menace by having armed escorts. However, during the religious pilgrimage month,
all tribes foreswore violence, so security was relaxed. On the last day of the
sacred month of Rajab in 624, Muhammad’s raiding party came across a Quraysh
caravan. They knew that if they didn’t attack it that evening it would pass on
into safety by the next day. After conferring among themselves, the raiders
decided to attack anyway, killing one Quraysh, capturing two and stealing the
shipment of raisins, leather, and other merchandise. When the raiders returned
to Muhammad and reported to him what they had done, his first response was, “I
did not order you to fight in the sacred month.” (This was actually the first
successful raid by the Muslims.) When the raiders tried to share 20 percent of
their booty with Muhammad as was required, he impounded the entire ‘take’ as
well as the captives. Bear in mind that the concern was not about robbing or
killing, but rather the scandal of doing it in the sacred month. Some followers
rationalized that perhaps the raiders got the date of their raid wrong. But the
temptation of the spoils was too much for Muhammad. Soon, he “received” a
message from Allah, Surah 2:217 – “Idolatry is worse than carnage” --,
sanctifying the attack. (From The History of Al-Tabari, Vol. VII, para.
1274-79)]
Response: We know that the raids began as a response to
the Meccan seizures of all property which had been left behind by the Muslims
when they had fled to Medina in order to escape persecution. Armstrong notes that:
“Muhammad had arrived in
Medina in September 622 as a refugee who had narrowly escaped death. He would continue to be in mortal danger for
the next five years, and during this time the umma faced the possibility of
extermination. In the West we often
imagine Muhammad as a warlord, brandishing his sword in order to impose Islam
on a reluctant world by force of arms.
The reality was quite different.
Muhammad and the first Muslims were fighting for their lives and they
had also undertaken a project in which violence was inevitable.”[50]
Therefore, the
raids were not of a criminal nature.
They were justified as the Meccans had illegally seized property which
was not rightfully theirs and had continued their persecution of the Muslims.
Concerning
the raid during the month of Rajab, we know that Muhammad (peace be upon him)
had actually refused to take any portion of the spoils, as Armstrong observes:
“Muhammad, therefore,
repudiated the raid and refused to accept any booty. […] Abdallah and his
companions were deeply depressed when Muhammad repudiated the raid… Muhammad
had a duty to console them and, yet again feeling his way forward, he used the
incident to take his theology of the just war one step forward. Yes, it had been wrong to fight in the holy
months, but there were worse crimes than that [hence the revelation of the
verse accepting the raid]. […] This
revelation eased the situation: the Jews continued to fulminate but the Helpers
and the raiding-party were both reassured.
Muhammad was able to divide the spoils among the Emigrants and he began
negotiations with the Quraysh for an exchange of prisoners…”[51]
Yet again, Palme
is caught manipulating the facts in order to peddle his ridiculous
theories.
Palme:
Intolerance of Criticism
The evil hate the light – the light of goodness that shows them up, the light
of scrutiny that exposes them, the light of truth that penetrates their
deception. (p. 77)
[The biographies of Muhammad by Ishaq and al-Tabari contain accounts of several
poets in Medina who were murdered because their poems criticizing Muhammad. They
include Ka’b b. al-Ashraf, Abu Afak (a 120 year old Jew), Asma bint Marwan (a
mother of five who was stabbed at night with a child asleep on her breast), and
two slave women.]
Response: The account of the alleged assassination of
Asma bint Marwan is a forgery. Brother
Hesham Azmy observes in his excellent article “True
Stories or Forgeries? The Killing of Abu
'Afak and Asma' bint Marwan?” that the story is attributed to the
scholars Ibn Sa'd, Ibn 'Adiyy and Ibn 'Asaker, but Ibn 'Adiyy mentioned that:
“...this isnad is not narrated on authority of Mujalid but by
Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj and they all accuse Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj of forging
it.”[52]
The
story of Abu Afak’s assassination is also considered a forgery, as brother Azmy
notes that:
“…references of the Sîrah do not provide such information.
Actually, we are told that this story has no isnâd at all; neither Ibn Ishâq
(or his disciple Ibn Hîsham) nor Al-Waqîdî (or his disciple Ibn Sa'd) had
provided such a thing! In this case, the story is rated by hadîth scholars as
"...of no basis", indicating that it has reached the lowest degree of
criticism regarding its isnâd. This is in fact a proper scientific position
because we cannot accept such a problematic story without evidence.”[53]
Clearly, these reports were of a
dubious nature and it is therefore not incumbent upon Muslims or any student of
history to regard them as truthful.
Unfortunately, ignorant people like Palme continue to refer to these
myths as if they are facts.
Coming
to the account of Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf’s assassination, which is the only one
Palme mentions that is historically verifiable, let us see whether his scathing
attacks against not only the Prophet but also Muslims should be considered as “…the light of goodness…the light of scrutiny” or
if they should be considered as sickening and dangerous propaganda. Armstrong describes the situation concerning
the poet Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf and what made him a target for the Muslims
(emphasis ours):
“Immediately
after the victory [at Badr]…Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf, a Jewish poet of the Bani
Nadir, went directly to Mecca and started to compose inflammatory verses, urging
the Quraysh to march against Muhammad and avenge their dead. […]
Ka’b’s verses made it very
clear to the Quraysh that not all the people of Medina stood stoutly behind
Muhammad. […] Poetry was central to the
political life of Arabia and Ka’b’s songs helped to rouse the Quraysh from the
torpor of depression and grief into which they had been thrown by the defeat
[at Badr].”[54]
The power of poetry was a force
to be reckoned with in 7th century Arabia, and Ka’b was no
exception. Contrary to the myth, Ka’b
was not simply writing satirical verses about the Prophet; he was instigating
his enemies to make war on him and to destroy his people. Had his intentions proved successful, the Quraysh
and their Jewish allies would have ganged up on and laid waste to the Muslim
community, massacring every person, women and children included. And yet, Palme regards Ka’b’s poetry to be “the light of goodness”! This would be like saying that Hitler’s “Mein
Kampf” was a humanitarian manifesto!
Both statements are false, of course.
Palme: The evil are “the
people of the lie,” deceiving others as they also build layer upon layer of
self-deception. [W]hile evil people are still to be feared, they are also to be
pitied. Forever fleeing the light of self-exposure and the voice of their own
conscience, they are the most frightened of human beings. (p. 66-67)
You must not speak ill of God’s apostle, nor shall you ever wed his wives after
him; this would be a grave offense in the sight of Allah. (Surah 33:54)
Response: The verse in Sura 33 is verse 53, not verse
54.[55] It is talking about “annoying” the Prophet or
causing him undue difficulty or duress. Furthermore,
Ibn Kathir mentioned that the verse was revealed in a specific context:
“Ibn Abi Hatim recorded
that Ibn `Abbas said concerning the Ayah [33:53]… "This was revealed
concerning a man who wanted to marry one of the wives of the Prophet after he died.
A man said to Sufyan, `Was it `A'ishah'? He said, `That is what they said.'''
This was also stated by Muqatil bin Hayyan and `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin
Aslam. He also reported with his chain of narration from As-Suddi that the one
who wanted to do this was Talhah bin `Ubaydullah, may Allah be pleased with him,
until this Ayah was revealed forbidding that. Hence the scholars were unanimous
in stating that it was forbidden for anyone to marry any of the women who were
married to the Messenger of Allah at the time when he died, because they are
his wives in this world and in the Hereafter, and they are the Mothers of the
believers, as stated previously.”[56]
So,
the verse was actually revealed concerning the status of his wives after his
death. They were his wives in the
earthly life as well as the afterlife.
In addition, his wives were the “Mothers of the Believers” and more than that, they all commanded great respect from the
Muslim community. Had they remarried
after the Prophet’s death, the Muslim community would have been divided along
the lines of allegiance to the wives of the Prophet, spawning dynasties and
rivalries. A political situation of that
caliber would have been disastrous for the Muslim world. We already know the political power the wives
of the Prophet had the potential to command, as in the case of Aisha’s
rebellion against Ali for failing to bring the murderers of Uthman to justice
(may Allah be pleased with them all).
Now multiply the effects of that event by 10-fold, and we can see the
potential danger for disaster. It was
for this reason, a quite practical reason, that it was forbidden for the
Muslims to wed any of the Prophet’s wives after his death. This view that “dynasties and cabals” could
divide the Muslim community is confirmed by Armstrong.[57]
Palme: We can see, then, that
their narcissism makes the evil dangerous not only because it motivates them to
scapegoat others but also because it deprives them of the restraint that
results from empathy or respect for others. As it gives them the motive for
murder, so it also renders them insensitive to the act of killing. (p. 136)
I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads,
strike off the very tips of their fingers! (Surah 8:12)
Those that make war against Allah and His apostle and spread disorder in the land
shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on
alternate sides, or be banished from the country. . . As for the man or woman
who is guilty of theft, cut off their hands to punish them for their crimes.
That is the punishment enjoined by Allah. (Surah 5:33-38)
When the apostle heard what [Asma bint Marwan] has said [criticizing him], he
said, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” ‘Umar b. ‘Adiy al-Khatmi who was
with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In
the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he said,
“You have helped Allah and His apostle, O ‘Umayr!” When he asked if he would
have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, “Two goats won’t butt
their heads about her,” so ‘Umayr went back to his his people. (Ishaq, para
996)
Response: We have already shown the evidence to dismiss
the account of the alleged assassination of Asma bint Marwan, so there is no
need to dwell on the subject any further.
Concerning the alleged “insensitivity” to killing, we have already
established that Islam values life and considers it sacred. The only time that it is permitted to take
life is in the “course of justice”, whether
it is in executing a criminal or in fighting a defensive war. Both of the verses which Palme quotes above
refer to the context of war, which as we have seen, was only allowed in
response to oppression. Moreover, Sura 8
makes it clear that overtures of peace must be accepted by the Prophet and the
Muslim community, as long as there is no sign of any treachery of deceit in the
overtures:
“But if the enemy incline
towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He
is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).
Should they intend to deceive thee,- verily Allah sufficeth thee: He it
is That hath strengthened thee with His aid and with (the company of) the
Believers;”[58]
It is not
surprising that Palme, like most anti-Muslim bigots, invariably avoided
mentioning this verse, as it serves to inconveniently refute his hatred. How typical of one of the “people of the lie”!
Palme:
The evil flee both self-examination and any
situation in which they might be closely examined by others. (p. 150)
Believers, do not behave presumptuously in the presence of Allah and His
apostle. Believers do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet, or
shout aloud when speaking to him as you do to one another, lest your labors
should come to nothing without your knowledge. Those who speak softly in the
presence of Allah’s apostle are the men whose hearts Allah has tested for
piety. Forgiveness and rich reward await them . . . Believers, if an evil-doer
brings you a piece of news inquire first into its truth, lest you should wrong
others unwittingly and then regret the action. Know that Allah’s apostle is
among you. If he obeyed you in many matters, you would surely come to grief. .
. Believers, avoid immoderate suspicion, for in some cases suspicion is a
crime. (Surah 49:1-12)
Response: So, what is the problem? All these verses say is to speak softly in
the presence of the Prophet, to confirm any news that may reach them (so as to
avoid spreading false news about others), and to avoid casting suspicion on
others. What does Palme find so offensive
about these instructions? They have
nothing to do with “self-examination”. In
fact, “self-examination” is a cornerstone of the Islamic faith. The Holy Quran states:
“Allah does not change a
people's lot unless they change what is in their hearts.”[59]
Palme:
Intellectual Deviousness
The evil always hide their motives with lies. (p. 105)
It was not you, but Allah, who slew them. It was not you who smote them: Allah smote
them so that He might richly reward the faithful. (Surah 8:17)
Response: Once again, what is the problem? This verse says that Allah (Glorified and
Exalted be He) destroyed the enemies of Islam for their evil deeds, and that
the Muslims should realize that and not be boastful that it was they who,
through their own strength and power, subdued a powerful enemy. It urges them to avoid boasting of their
military prowess because victory came to them because Allah (Glorified and
Exalted be He) had decreed it. How is
that akin to “intellectual deviousness”?
Palme:
Magical thinking can take on a variety of
forms, but basically it is a belief that thoughts in and of themselves may
cause events to occur. (p. 36)
May the hands of Abu-Lahab [Muhammad’s uncle and one of his staunchest
opponents] perish! May he himself perish! Nothing shall his wealth and gains
avail him. He shall be burnt in a flaming fire [a pun on Abu-Lahab which means
‘father of flame’], and his wife, laden with firewood, shall have a rope of
fibre around her neck! (Surah 111:1-5)
Response: This surah was revealed in response to Abu
Lahab’s incessant abuses and hatred hurled at his nephew and Muslims in general. It is said that when the Prophet called some
people of the Quraysh to come listen to him, Abu Lahab angrily invoked death
upon him for doing so. It is also said
that when Abu Lahab was told of the Day of Judgment, he claimed that he would
use his wealth and children to “buy” his salvation (hence the verse “…his
wealth and gains will not avail him”).
So, it was revealed as a direct response to Abu Lahab’s incessant rants
against his nephew and Islam. It had
become clear that he would do anything in his power to destroy the new
religion, including taking up arms against it.
It was mostly due to his pride in his rank and power that he refused to
acknowledge his nephew’s religion. The
scholar Maududi related a story narrated by Ibn Zayd which shows Abu Lahab’s
arrogance and egotism:
“According to Ibn Zaid, one
day Abu Lahab asked the Holy Prophet: "If I were to accept your religion,
what would I get?" The Holy Prophet replied: "You would get what the
other believers would get." He said: "Is there no preference or
distinction for me?" The Holy Prophet replied: "What else do you
want?" Thereupon he said: "May this religion perish in which I and
all other people should be equal and alike!"”[60]
So, the verse
was a condemnation of Abu Lahab’s sinful pride and vehement opposition to
Islam.[61] It predicted his doom and implicitly stated
that he would never accept Islam, which he didn’t. How does this qualify as “magical thinking”?
Palme:
I know now that one of the characteristics
of evil is its desire to confuse. (p. 179)
[The People of the Book] did not kill [Jesus], nor did they crucify him, but
they thought they did (or literally, ‘he was made to resemble another for
them’). Those that disagreed about him were in doubt concerning him; they knew
nothing about him that was not sheer conjecture; they did not slay him for
certain. God lifted him up to Himself. . . (Surah 4:157)
Response: So, now Palme wants to discuss the differing
views about Jesus’ alleged death? Just
because something is widely believed for many centuries does not mean that it
is true. To claim that the truth of a
claim can be deduced from whether it is widely accepted or not is known as an “argumentum ad numerum”, similar to saying that since many people
believed that the earth was the center of the universe, than it must have been
true.[62] Would Palme regard Ja’far al-Sadiq or
Copernicus as “evil” people for “[desiring]
to confuse” with their proposals that the sun was the body around which all other
objects revolved?[63]
In any case, the
crucifixion of Jesus was not an open and shut case. Many Gnostics from the early Christian era
believed that he had not being crucified.
For example, the apocryphal text “The Apocalypse of Peter” described how Jesus
(peace be upon him) stood next to the cross as another was crucified in his
place:
“When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized
by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom
they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing
on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are
striking?"
The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad
and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet
they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to
shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me.”[64]
Additionally, as
we have explained elsewhere, the Quran does not deny that a crucifixion did
take place and that there was an attempt on the life of Jesus (peace be upon
him). As we stated in our article “The Crucifixion of Jesus in the Bible and the Quran: A
Critical Examination”:
“…the Quran does not deny
that a crucifixion occurred. It simply
denies that Isa (peace be upon him) was the crucified person. In other words, the Quran states that the
prophet was miraculously saved from his enemies who wished to do him harm. As such, we would not expect secular sources
to acknowledge this miracle. They were,
as were the attempted murderers of Isa (peace be upon him), simply assuming
that he was crucified because that is what everyone seemed to believe, despite
all the contradictions and inconsistencies of the story.”[65]
Finally, Palme needs to explain why a
supposed “impostor” would needlessly try to confuse people by complicating the
issue of the crucifixion of Jesus (peace be upon him) when it was in his best
interests not to? Surely, an impostor
would have simply gone along with the widely-accepted belief that Jesus had
been crucified, would he not? Why confuse
potential converts by making needlessly complicated revisions to supposed historic
fact?
Palme:
The postponement of sacred months is a
grossly impious practice, in which the unbelievers are misguided. They allow it
one year and forbid it in the next, so that they may make up for the months
which Allah has sanctified, thus making lawful what Allah has forbidden. Their
foul acts seem fair to them: Allah does not guide the unbelievers. [This was a
condemnation of intercalculation, a needed adjustment to reconcile the 354 day
Islamic lunar year with the 365 day solar year.] (Surah 9:37)
Response: First, Sura 9:36 says that there are twelve
months in a year, with four of them being sacred (Dhul-Qa`dah, Dhul-Hijjah and
Muharram in succession, and Rajab). The
reason for this is explained by Ibn Kathir:
“The four
Sacred Months were made four, three in succession and one alone, so that the
Hajj and `Umrah are performed with ease. Dhul-Qa`dah, the month before the Hajj
month, was made sacred because they refrained from fighting during that month.
Dhul-Hijjah, the next month, was made sacred because it is the month of Hajj,
during which they performed Hajj rituals. Muharram, which comes next, was made
sacred so that they are able to go back to their areas in safety [after
performing Hajj]. Rajab, in the middle of the lunar year, was made sacred so
that those coming from the farthest areas of Arabia are able to perform `Umrah
and visit the House and then go back to their areas safely.”[66]
So, there was a
practical reason for making those specific months sacred, as well as spiritual
reasons.
Concerning
Sura 9:37, the idolaters were the ones causing “confusion” in that they changed
the sanctity of a given month on a year-round basis. For instance, in a given year, they would
make Muharram sacred and not Safar, but the year after, they would sanctify
Safar and not Muharram. Thus, it was
they who were causing confusion! By
keeping the sanctity of the months consistent from year to year, Islam actually
served to eliminate confusion and also to provide ease and convenience to
pilgrims.
Palme:
Satan does not understand science. Science
is an anti-narcissistic phenomenon. Deceiver of itself as of others, Satan
cannot understand why any beings would not want to deceive themselves [with
myths of their own making]. (p. 208-209)
Tell how We [Allah] sent you [Muhammad] a band of jinn [intelligent, usually
invisible, creatures who can choose between good and evil] who, when they came
and listened to the Quran, said to each other: “Hush! Hush!” As soon as it was
ended they betook themselves to their people and gave them a warning. “Our
people,” they said, “we have just been listening to a scripture revealed since
the time of Moses, confirming previous scriptures and directing to the truth
and to a straight path. Our people, answer the call of God’s summoner and
believe in Him!” (Surah 46:29)
Response: Palme is once again injecting his own
pathetic biases into Peck’s discussion.
It is hard to see how Peck would have regarded belief in the jinn as a
“myth”, and yet accept the existence of Satan as a reality. Indeed, Dr. Peck clearly had religious
beliefs; ones which die-hard atheists might say were “superstitions” or
“myths”. In fact, Peck not only believed
in the existence of Satan, he also believed in demonic possession![67] Andrew Billen, a correspondent for “TimesOnline”,
who had a chance to meet with Dr. Peck shortly before his death, described Dr.
Peck’s religious views as follows:
“But injecting God into the
psychological equation is, as he knows, a most unusual thing for a psychiatrist
to do, and it is probably only his fame that prevented him being drummed out of
the profession. But as a block to being taken seriously, his faith evaporates
beside his certainties about Satan as a real and specific entity straight out
of the Book of Revelation, a fallen angel, jealous of man’s superiority to the
angels and out to take over the good. In his more optimistic moments, Peck
refers to the defeat of evil as a ‘mop-up’ operation, the main battles having
already been won by Christ, but this does not mean the remaining ones will not
be hard fought.”[68]
Would a belief
in a being known as Satan, a “fallen angel” to some and a “jinn” to others
disqualify one from any position in science?
Dr. Peck believed in Satan, and yet he was a brilliant psychiatrist. Would Palme care to explain why believing in
the existence of Satan is not akin to believing in “myths” but believing in the
existence of jinn is? Did Peck’s belief
in Satan actually expose an aspect of self-deception within the good
doctor?
Conclusion
Within
this exhaustive exposé, the readers will have noticed the reprehensible
incompetence of Louis Palme in his article “Muhammad
and the People of the Lie”. His
article lacks any substance or originality, as well as any efficient
development of a thesis. All he has done
is cherry-pick some quotes in a droning fashion from Dr. Peck’s book and the
Islamic sources which he feels apply to Dr. Peck’s points, but ultimately fails
to develop any sound ideas. He does not
comment on what his hypotheses are, and thus the majority of his article is not
even his own words! Had he written a
paper of this mediocre caliber at the college or graduate level, he would have
surely failed. Moreover, his implicit
associations between Dr. Peck’s ideas on evil and certain Islamic doctrines or
events which concerned the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) lacked any comparable
links. More often than not, he
completely misconstrued the doctrines or events in question, a blunder which he
attempted to vouch for in the introduction to his article (a characteristic of
the “people of the lie” as observed by Dr.
Peck). It can be said with relative
certainty, then, that his attempts to divert evil onto Islam actually back-fired
as he unwittingly exposed the evil within himself. In other words, we can say that he is a
walking adaptation of “the people of the lie”
(hence the title of this response). So,
not only was his article not professionally written, and not only did it fail to
establish or support any of his laughable hypotheses regarding Islam, it actually
exposed the evil within him. His article
is nothing more than a pathetic diatribe by just another run-of-the-mill
ignorant Islamophobe.
And Allah knows
best!
[2] Palme’s article was
written in 2007, almost 25 years after Dr. Peck published his famous book.
[3] Indeed, Peck was
certainly familiar with Islamic teachings, as he states that he was briefly
interested in “Islamic mysticism” before formally converting to Christianity
(see note 63).
[4] M. Scott Peck, People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing
Human Evil (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983), p. 10.
[7] Unfortunately, it is
not surprising that uneducated anti-Islamic bigots like Louis Palme so
enthusiastically and lazily refer to the works of Ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari
without exercising the requisite academic caution, as real scholars actually
do!
[8] Surah Al-Maeda, 5:32
(Yusuf Ali Translation).
[9] Surah Al-Anaam, 6:151-153.
[10] Surah Al-Israa,
17:31-35.
[11] Surah Al-Furqan,
25:68-71.
[12] Peck, op. cit.,
p. 78.
[14] Renan was actually
aware of these great Muslim minds, including Ibn Rushd (Averrhoes), and was
also aware of their contributions to human civilization, although perhaps not
in the way he thought! As Karen
Armstrong explains:
“…Renan
hailed Ibn Rushd…as a free spirit, an early champion of rationalism against
blind faith. But in fact, Ibn Rushd was
a devout Muslim and qadi judge of Shariah law” (Islam: A Short History (New
York: Random House, 2002), pp. 84-85).
It
must be embarrassing for Palme to learn Renan’s views regarding Ibn Rushd after
having just supported Renan’s view that Muslims like Ibn Rushd were the first
“victims” of Islam!
[15] Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet
(New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1992), p. 60.
[17] Jalal Abualrub, 50 Righteous and Humane Concepts Brought by
Muhammad, The Prophet of Mercy (Madinah Publishers and Distributers, 2007),
p. 173.
[18] Hugh Kennedy, The
Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In
(Da Capo Press, 2007), p. 48.
Professor
Kennedy referred to some of the testimonies of Muslims during the age of the
Arab conquests, as related by Tabari, and though he expressed skepticism
regarding whether these “speeches were actually
made as described”, he still found them historically “interesting” as they showed the attitude of
Muslims themselves towards the positive impact Islam had on their lives.
[19] W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad:
Prophet and Statesman (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), pp. 236-237.
And
in his final assessment, though Watt found some of Muhammad’s ideas to be
incorrect (perhaps from a western point of view), he was still able to praise
the great prophet:
“…by God’s
grace he has been enabled to provide millions of men with a better religion
than they had before they testified that there is no god but God and that
Muhammad is the messenger of God” (p. 240).
[21] Surah An-Nisaa, 4:75.
[22] Armstrong, Muhammad:
A Biography of the Prophet, op. cit., p. 243.
[23] Watt, op. cit.,
p. 231.
[24] Sahih Muslim, 30:5831.
[25] Surah Al-Ahzaab, 33:52.
[26] Armstrong, Muhammad:
A Biography of the Prophet, op. cit., p. 190.
[30] Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:220
[36] Sahih Bukhari, 4:51:2
[40] Karen Armstrong, Islam:
A Short History, op. cit., p. 25.
[41] Surah Al-Maeda, 5:52.
[42] Surah Al-Maeda, 5:13.
[43] Surah Al-Maeda, 5:82.
[44] Surah Al-Araaf,
7:159-160.
[45] Surah At-Tawba, 9:1-13.
[46] Those who don’t get the
joke should watch “The Simpsons”.
[50] Armstrong, Muhammad:
A Biography of the Prophet, op. cit., pp. 167-168.
[54] Armstrong, Muhammad:
A Biography of the Prophet, op. cit., pp. 183-183.
[55] The reader will notice
numerous such errors by Palme, as we have already shown. It is perhaps a testament to Palme’s shoddy
scholarship (as well as that of the website “Annaqed”) that his article has
been online for almost 10 years and has never been edited to correct the silly
mistakes he has made in quoting the Holy Quran!
[57] Armstrong, Muhammad:
A Biography of the Prophet, op. cit., p. 238.
[58] Surah Al-Anfaal,
8:61-62.
Thus,
the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was willing to negotiate with the
Meccans after the Battle of the Trench, even when they demanded certain
revisions to the treaty draft, as discussed above.
[59] Surah Ar-Ra’d, 13:11.
[61] Maududi also relates a
story of Abu Lahab’s sickening behavior upon learning that his nephew’s son,
Abdullah, had died. Maududi states:
“Abu Lahab's wickedness can
be judged from the fact that when after the death of the Holy Prophet's son
Hadrat Qasim, his second son, Hadrat Abdullah, also died, this man instead of
joining with his nephew in his bereavement, hastened to the Quraish chiefs joyfully
to give them the news that Muhammad (upon whom be Allah's peace and blessings)
had become childless that night.”
It
is a little known fact that many Muslim scholars proposed a heliocentric model
of the solar system, in contrast to the more popular geocentric model.
[67] Peck, op. cit.,
pp. 182-184.
Dr.
Peck, a respected psychiatrist, devoted a whole chapter in his book to the
discussion of Satan, possession and exorcism.
Thus, it is difficult indeed to see what Palme’s point even is!
[68] Unfortunately, this
article is no longer available online. However,
an even more interesting (and extant) article discusses Peck’s actual
involvement in two exorcisms here:
Also
of interest is Dr. Peck’s discussion of his brief involvement in Sufism, which
only further destroys Palme’s tirade about the supposed “evil” of Islam. Unlike Palme, Dr. Peck actually spent some
time studying the Islamic faith, and though he unfortunately left it to become
a Christian, one would expect that he would have had mentioned some of the
“evil” aspects of Islam in his book if he had been able to identify them! He certainly had hands-on experience, unlike
Palme! But alas for poor Mr. Palme, no
such discussion was made by Dr. Peck.