Questioning Dave's thesis

Submitted by Prashant (United States), Jan 25, 2022 at 18:03

Dear Dr Pipes,

You called reader Dave's view expressed in the above letter a revisionist view of the early Islamic history. I also did not agree with what Dave said. Continuing with my policy of polite but firm criticism of Islamic politics and religion, I must raise my objection to Dave's view on multiple grounds:

First, Dave seems to imply that Muhammad was a leader who unified people. Dave wrote, "Logically, no narrow-minded religious fanatic could have accomplished what Muhammad achieved through cooperation and inspiring leadership." I think if I were alive in Muhammad's time, I would never make a treaty with him. Never! Muhammad's treaties were invariably made with unsuspecting people to buy time for Muhammad. There is no treaty that Muhammad made that he did not break at the time most convenient to him. The massacre of Banu Quraysh orchestrated by Muhammad is the prime example and is referred to in multiple historical sources including Islamic sources. Muhammad was not a bridge builder.

Second, to Blame the Abbasids for what Islam did after Muhammad died is incorrect. Abbasids seem to have followed Muhammad's examples and do not seem to have invented new methods. The fundamental principle that it is OK to kill those who you do not agree with was supported and propagated by Muhammad. Islamic violence was franchised to far flung groups almost within Muhammad's lifetime. The Abbasid revolution did not take place till 750 CE. Muslims had breached the borders of Jerusalem, Sindh, and Spain by 710 CE. When we look at history sometimes we miss the point that events of 750 could not have cased the events of 710. WW I could not have been caused by WW II.

Third, saying that UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco are bucking the trend and, somehow, are abandoning the Islamic methods is hoping too much and being very naive. I have not heard even a feeble call from Muslims anywhere to make any Islamic nation a secular democracy. The second of my third principle asks people to judge Islam by common secular standards and not by Islamic standards covers exactly this point. Just because UAE signs a treaty with Israel or allows a Hindu temple to be built, it does not become a modern nation. In fact, when UAE does these things, it does exactly what Muhammad did: to the last dotted i and crossed t!!!

We need to tell the Muslims that they do not form a legitimate nation until they draw a line between the church and state and the world expects decent and acceptable behavior from them.

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".