What is “real Islam” or “true Islam”?
Questions like this are often asked
following a notable Muslim terrorism event. Indeed, this is one of the
most crucial questions of our time. Dedicated Muslims are among the most
cruel and destructive forces in the world today. (The people of Syria, Iraq,
and the millions of Muslim, Christian, and Yazidi, refugees agree with
me. So do the people throughout the rest of the world who are subject to
consistent terrorist attacks.) Muslims will spend months or years
planning, preparing, and then executing a large-scale terrorist action.
They will achieve their goals and kill dozens, hundreds, or even thousands, of
men, women, and children. Often, fellow Muslims are their primary
targets. Remaining in a state of ignorance or confusion about Islam
inhibits concrete steps from being taken to address the root of the problem and
creates destructive opportunities for those Muslims dedicated to using
violence. Confused, the rest of the world continues to wonder, “Is the
terrorists’ Islam real Islam?
This brief article focuses on
identifying real Islam. The question, “What is real Islam?” must be
answered before the next question, “Is the terrorist’s Islam real Islam?” can
be answered. We need to identify real Islam. Unfortunately,
many people, including Christians, argue that “real Islam” cannot be
identified.
Identifying Real Islam
Identifying “real Islam” is not a
difficult endeavor. This is simple theology, not rocket science.
“What is real Islam?” The answer:
“Real Islam is Muhammad’s Islam.”
“Real Islam is Muhammad’s Islam” is
true for the following reasons:
1) Muhammad was
the most perfect Muslim who ever lived. Would anyone argue that there
were other Muslims who were better Muslims than Muhammad?
2) Only
Muhammad spoke the Quran. Allah had chosen him as his vessel to bring his
message to the world. He was indeed Allah’s special messenger and special
prophet. He was Allah’s voice to mankind.
3) The Quran
commands Muslims to not only obey Muhammad, but to also imitate his life, in
both belief and practice, (Sura 33:21).
4) 99% of the
“sahih hadith” (authentic traditions), which are foundational to Islamic
jurisprudence and theology, are linked to Muhammad. (This is the chain of
tradition transmission, “isnaad”).
5) Muhammad
forbade that subsequent Muslims change his practice of Islam (bid’ah). He
condemned those “innovators” to hell for attempting to alter and distort the
Islam that he taught and practiced.1, 2
These facts preclude anyone from deviating from Muhammad’s Islam and making up
his own personal Islam “depending on how he interprets it.” The personal
interpretation option is not available. It should be understood by any
teacher and any student of Islam that “real Islam is Muhammad’s Islam.”
REAL ISLAM
How do we define “Muhammad’s Islam?”
Muhammad’s Islam is mandated in the
Quran, portrayed in the sira and hadith, and codified by the Islamic books of
law and theology. The men who compiled the sira and hadith devoted the
majority of their adult lives to the study of Muhammad and Islam. Many
lived during Islam’s geo-political power heyday and they did not need to play
to a Western audience’s proclivities, preferences, and appetites.
Instead, they wrote confidently and strongly; they told it like it was.
No apology was needed.
Although there are multiple Qurans in
existence, and there are thousands of “sahih” hadith that contradict each
other, and there are multiple contradictory stories in the sira, and the four
major Sunni schools of Islamic law do not agree on every principle, it is still
possible to confidently draw and define “real Islam” which allows for minor
variations. Those minor variations are not the issue. Muhammad
actually allowed for minor variations within his faith, (take prayer or Quranic
recitation for example), so real Islam allows for minor variations as
well. Throughout Muhammad’s life Islamic variations occurred but they
were minor and did not contradict his teachings and commands.
The Quran, hadith, and sira, give us a
composite, and detailed, description of Muhammad’s teachings and actions, and they
provide the context behind his words and deeds. We are not operating in a
vacuum. With these we can define real Islam. We are not wrestling
with a Zen “kōan,” we do not have to approach this topic like a Sherlock
Holmes’s mystery, we are not starting from scratch. We have substantial
material in our hands; we only need to study and understand it. The study
of these texts gives us Muhammad’s Islam.
Muhammad’s Islam
A man is known by, and defined by his
actions. If these correspond to his words or teaching, then we can paint
a harmonious picture of a man who not only talked the talk, but also walked the
walk. Muhammad talked and he walked his talk. His actions were in
agreement with his teachings. He did what he said he was going to do and
he performed what he expected others to perform.
The first 13 years of his “prophetic” career
occurred in Mecca, where he was very weak and persecuted. Had he been
violent his opponents would have had just cause to kill him. Consequently
Allah told him not to use force, (Quran 10:99). After 13 years in Mecca
he fled for his life to Medina. However, just before he fled to join his
armed followers in Medina, Allah commanded him to use violence to spread
Islam’s rule.
In Medina, he quickly used violence and
the trail of blood behind him grew ever wider. Muhammad grew in power and he
liked it. As time when on, the scale of attacks against non-Muslims grew
in magnitude.
As the pre-eminent Muslim, Muhammad did
many things, some good, some evil. He prayed often, in poverty he shared
his food, in hard times he shared his money. He worked side by side with
his followers. I believe he loved his followers and I know that they
loved him. They would not only willingly die for him, they would gladly
kill for him. In doing so, they earned Muhammad’s praise.
Real Islam, Muhammad’s Islam, requires
legitimate good works. That is commendable. However, it also
requires oppressive, aggressive, violence. That is Satanic, dark, and
evil. Of course there is good, but we are focusing on the bad, negative,
violent facts of real Islam.
There is no shortage of articles on the
web about Muhammad’s acts of oppression and violence. He was a slave
trader, he allowed his men to rape captured slaves, he robbed and plundered others,
he had his opponents tortured, assassinated, and massacred. Here are some
suggested websites and articles where you can read about Muhammad’s evil and
violence in Islam:
Better yet, read the hadith and sira for yourself! All of Muhammad’s vile
actions detailed by the sites and articles above are drawn from the hadith and
sira. Torturing for money? Check. Rape of female slaves?
Check. Extortion, robbery, murder, massacre? Check. Sex with
children? Check. All of that comes from the Quran, sira and hadith,
but the sira and hadith provide the contextual details.
Jesus taught that the thief comes to
kill, steal, and destroy; Muhammad killed, stole, and destroyed. Satan
demanded worship; Muhammad demanded that all people worship his Allah and
recognize his prophethood upon penalty of death.3 Until his dying day,
Muhammad did not let up on spreading his power by force and destroying those
who rejected his claim of prophethood. That was real Islam in action back
then, and it is real Islam in action today.
Bear this historical fact in mind: the
pattern of Islam that followed Muhammad’s death is repeated over and over again
within the Islamic world today. The early Muslims had their first internal
violent power struggle the day after Muhammad died. Once the new king was
identified, (Abu Bakr), he then used his power to attack and kill people who
wanted to leave Islam, (The Wars of Apostasy). Today, throughout the Muslim
world, similar internal power struggles continue. Violence is often
used. Once settled, the Muslims then turn their attention against the
non-Muslims. Islam is a religion of power, power of one Muslim man over
other Muslims, the power of Muslim husbands over their wives, and the power of
Muslims over non-Muslims.
Muhammad taught that his followers were
to believe in him as prophet and obey him as Allah’s voice to mankind.
Therefore, “Real Islam” is believing what Muhammad believed, obeying Muhammad
as Allah’s voice to mankind, and doing the things Muhammad did and
commanded. All of this is documented in the Quran, hadith, and sira.
THE ARGUMENT BEHIND OF “REAL ISLAM
CANNOT BE DEFINED”
Many people today, Muslim or
non-Muslim, will argue that “real Islam” cannot be defined. I once heard
one notable Christian lecturer, (who had never read the sira!), comment that
Islam is how you interpret it. He was speaking in reference to
contradictory Quranic passages on peace and violence. His argument was
that real Islam is in the eyes of the interpreter.
A Muslim writer states this argument
clearly:
“Strictly speaking, it is no more
correct to say that Islam is peaceful than to proclaim that it is violent. The
texts and traditions on which any faith’s practice is based are open to multiple
interpretations, and, as these interpretations pile up over the course of
history, it becomes almost impossible to assert the existence [of] a unique
orthodoxy.4
There are variations on this argument’s theme, but that is their root.
The Muslim writer is exaggerating of course, and his argument is
circular. He allows for Pee Wee Herman’s “interpretation” to be as valid
as his own. Fortunately, doctors and mechanics aren’t as simple minded.
That argument contains two essential
flaws. The first is that anyone can interpret anything to suit their
particular tastes and preferences multiple ways at any given point in time.
I address this aspect, in part, in my
article Real Islam, Violence, and Sheila
Musaji. This argument claims that there are many different, even
contradicting, interpretations of Islam. Various Muslims live their lives
in accordance to their personal interpretations. Accordingly, today there
are homosexual Muslims, Muslims who drink alcohol, and Muslims who practice
syncretism.
This argument turns the well
documented, well established, and historically strong faith of Islam into cheap
clay, or Play-Doh. Anyone, at any time, can mold it into the form that
tickles his fancy. Fundamentalist today, but tomorrow he pounds the clay
flat and creates a completely different Islam, say one that accepts Krishna as
a deity. This argument would allow for a homosexual Mormon, who believes
in many gods, who believes Jesus is the son of God, who believes in prophets
post-Muhammad, who eats pork and drinks wine, claim to be a Muslim because he
also believes Muhammad was a prophet. He just interprets Islam’s sacred
writings differently. Those who make the “personal interpretation”
argument, like Mrs. Musaji, would have to accept him as a legitimate Muslim.
The second flaw is that the “personal
interpretation” allows for “innovation,” (bid’ah), in Islam. The
argument’s standard phrase is something like this: “Modern scholars say that
Islamic theology allows for Islam to be re-interpreted.” “Innovation,”
something Muhammad never intended, but rather opposed and cursed, then occurs.
(See this article for a brief
discussion of “innovation” in Islam.) Here are some references that show
that Muhammad clearly rejected innovation:
And (know) that this is My path, the
right one therefore follow it, and follow not (other) ways, for they will lead
you away from His way; this He has enjoined you with that you may guard
(against evil).5
Narrated Abu Hazim from Sahl bin Sa'd:
… There will come to me some people
whom I will recognize, and they will recognize me, but a barrier will be placed
between me and them." Abu Hazim added: An-Nu'man bin Abi 'Aiyash, on
hearing me, said. "Did you hear this from Sahl?" I said,
"Yes." He said, " I bear witness that I heard Abu Said Al-Khudri
saying the same, adding that the Prophet said: 'I will say: They are of me
(i.e. my followers). It will be said, 'You do not know what they
innovated (new things) in the religion after you left'. I will say, 'Far
removed, far removed (from mercy), those who changed (their religion) after
me.”6
One key aspect, or variation, of this argument focuses on Islam’s use of
violence, and it needs to be addressed. The argument goes something like
this: “Islamic violence was only needed to defend and establish their
community. Today it is no longer needed.” The problem with this
argument is that Muhammad intended for his community to conquer the world, by
force if necessary:
Then the Apostle of Allah returned from
Tabuk without an encounter…. The Muslims began to sell their arms, saying that Jihad
had come to an end. This (report) reached the Apostle of Allah, who
stopped them from it and said: A party of my people will continue
fighting for truth till the emergence of Antichrist.7
Muhammad wanted, and intended, for his followers to continue in violent jihad
until the last day. That jihad was just like the jihad he carried out,
and the jihad his followers performed after he died: kill unbelievers unless
they accept Islam. Their mantra was “Accept Islam and you will be safe.”
Muhammad foresaw that his followers
would deviate from Allah’s commands, and he foresaw that they would want to
stop fighting and leave his vision, his goal, his directive, unfulfilled.
That is why he condemned innovators, and that is why he commanded his followers
to continue violent jihad. He wanted his Islam, real Islam, to be
practiced forever in the life of his community.
CONCLUSION
Real Islam is Muhammad’s Islam.
We define Muhammad’s Islam by what he taught and what he did. These
actions and teachings are documented in the Islamic source materials, the
Quran, hadith, and sira. They’ve been compiled by the historic schools of
Islamic theology and jurisprudence. Variations exist, but they are minor.
From those Islamic source materials we know
that:
Real Islam commands jihad.
Real Islam practices slavery.
Real Islam kills those who oppose it.
Real Islam kills or oppresses those who reject Muhammad and Islam’s Allah.
Real Islam classifies women as inferior humans.
There is no mystery here. There are no strong counter-arguments.
Real Islam is Muhammad’s Islam, and as such, it contains good and bad
precepts. We’re focusing on the bad because real Islam is ultimately a
poison in humanity’s blood.
We so urgently need to correctly
identify and understand real Islam, and recognize that the terrorists’ Islam is
genuine Islam. Otherwise we will never be able to formulate a working
strategy or response towards the problem of Islamic terrorism. As long as
we treat it / them as merely an aberration and not genuine Islam, we will never
confront the root of the problem, and millions of dollars (and lives of
soldiers and civilians) invested in proposed solutions to this problem will be
wasted. If the doctor misidentifies the cause of the sickness, his
remedy will at best be palliative, and the sickness will return. Indeed
today many of our politicians and pundits perform like witch doctors in their
efforts to address terrorism. Genuine Islam is at war with anything
non-Islamic, with the non-Muslims. No one can ever win a war when they
can’t identify their enemy.
Therefore, in conclusion, I say general
Muslims as such are not our enemies. They are the first victims of this
violent ideology. We do not call for attack on and oppression of Muslims,
but for a correct identification of the problem and then for effort in devising
an appropriate approach to solve the problem. Not anti-Muslim bigotry,
not hatred of Muslims, (see my related Islamophobia article), but
solid opposition to the bad teachings of real Islam.
(NOTE: By the way, the answer to the 2nd question,
“Is the Islam of the terrorist’s real Islam?” is yes. See my three part series,
“Is ISIS Islamic?” that evaluates
ISIS’s Islam with Muhammad’s Islam.
Footnotes
1 Muslim, Abu’l-Husain, “Sahih
Muslim”, International Islamic Publishing House, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1971,
translated by A. Siddiqi, number 3601
2 Bukhari, Muhammad, “Sahih
Bukhari”, Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, India, 1987, translated by M. Khan, volume
8, number 747
6 Sahih Bukhari, volume 8, #585
7 Ibn Sa'd, "Kitab al-Tabaqat
al-Kabir," translated by S. Haq, Pakistan Historical Society, Vol. 2, page
206
IHS
