If only there were two Muhammads

Submitted by prashant (United States), Jul 28, 2013 at 18:17

Dear Dr Pipes:

I read your 1999 article "Lessons from the Prophet Muhammad's Diplomacy". It describes the politics, diplomacy and connivance between two feuding parties. If a historian were to decribe the interactions between the communists and the West around the Vietnam war, those descriptions will not be very different from the descriptions of Muhammad's interactions with his foes in Medina. We can investigate it eternity and one day determine if Muhammad fought in defence with humility or fought for aggression with connivance but in either case, these descriptions look more a study in military science and less a religious discourse.

I wish history can study Muhammad as a military general (just as we study Napoleon) and not a religious leader. Even if he was a defensive general, he was a general never-the-less. As the commander of his forces, he must have been responsible for brutal attacks and deaths.

Our lives will be a lot better of there were two different Muhammads: one the general and other the religious leader. Then, we will be able to study the latter in theological seminaries and the former in military schools. This dichotomization of Muhammad is necessary so his military actions can be critiques without the burden of appending his name with a PBUH.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".