| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Here is another review that has appeared today of my new book The Truth About Muhammad. This one is an erudite and generous perspective from Serge Trifkovic in Human Events. Trifkovic, of course, is the author of two essential books, Sword of the Prophet and Defeating Jihad.
At least since Georgi Plekhanov’s influential essay “The Role of the Individual in History” (1898), the proponents of the Great Man model—initiated in Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” and famously elaborated by Carlyle—have been on the defensive. For some decades now, the Western academe has been dominated by the upholders of the primacy of the relationships and conflicts between social forces in determining the course of history. Most chairs that count are held by Emeriti who see history as a linear struggle between social classes and their key fractions. Over the past generation the “proletarian” has been replaced by "RaceGenderSexuality" and the “capitalist” by the non-self-hating straight white male, but the dogma that history is determined by social forces has survived the fall of the Wall.Robert Spencer’s “The Truth About Muhammad” (Regnery, a HUMAN EVENTS sister company) was not written in order to disprove the gnostic notion that history has a comprehensible pattern, a determinate logic and a finite number of possible resolutions or outcomes. But that is, indirectly, what the book achieves. This brief and readable summary of the life and times of the prophet of Islam, derived from eminently orthodox Muslim sources, reveals the centrality of Muhammad not only to Islam-as-religion but also to Islam as a totalitarian ideology, Islam as a geopolitical project, and Islam as a normative moral and legal system devoid of any “natural” foundation.
If we look at the ancient world in the half-millennium after Rome passed her zenith under Trajan and Hadrian, we can discern no “objective” reason why the Arabs should have been more successful than any number of other nomadic warriors—the Cimmerians, or Scythians, or Huns, or Parthians—in making not only spectacular but also enduring conquests, conquests that were not ephemeral but capable of producing imperial edifices and breeding imperial ambitions of breathtaking audacity. They were all crude nomads in search of water and pasture and plunder. They all shared the low labor requirements of pastoralism, leaving most men instantly available for war. Various attempts at a socio-economic explanation of the Arab phenomenon have been made, notably by the late Geoffrey de Ste Croix, but they were but ex post facto rationalizations that undoubtedly would have been applied with equal force to the Thousand-Year Hun Empire had it happened.It did not, but the Arab one did, and Muhammad— “victorious through terror” —made all the difference. His kinsmen and tribesmen were prone to war by custom and nature, accustomed to living by pillage and the exploitation of settled populations. Theirs was an “expansionism denuded of any concrete objective, brutal, and born of a necessity in its past” (Ibn Warraq), but Muhammad provided a powerful ideological justification for those wars—a justification that was religious in form, global in scope and totalitarian in nature. In the space of a decade, the “warner in the face of a terrific punishment” morphed into a vengeful warlord, slayer of prisoners, murderer of political opponents and exterminator of Jews (chapters 6-9), his every move duly condoned by “revelations” from on high. From Muhammad’s second year in Medina on, Islam combined the dualism of a universal religion and a universal state, and jihad became its instrument for carrying out the faith’s ultimate objective by turning all people into believers. As Spencer explains, Muhammad postulated the fundamental illegitimacy of the existence of non-Islam, and mandates permanent “rejection of the Other” —to use a fashionable term—by every bona fide Muslim as a divine obligation. To a Muslim, Jihad does not necessarily mean permanent fighting, but it does mean a permanent state of war.
Even the cornerstone statement, “there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet,” goes beyond a declaration of monotheism and implies the radical division of the world into two camps. Antagonism toward non-Muslim religions, societies and cultures is certainly not the trait shared by all Muslims, but it is an attitude mandated by Muhammad to all true Muslims and prevalent among most to this day. Thanks to its founder, Islam has emerged as a quasi-religious ideology of cultural and political imperialism that absolutizes the conflict with other than itself, and knows no natural limits to itself.
Muhammad’s actions and words presented by Spencer are frankly shocking by the standards of our time, and punishable by its laws that range from genocide, crimes against humanity and murder to enslavement, rape and child molestation. But even in the context of 7th-Century Arabia, Muhammad’s deeds were often considered repugnant. He had to resort to “revelations” as a means of justifying his actions and suppressing the prevalent moral code of his own society. Attacking caravans in the holy month, taking up arms against one’s kinsmen, slaughtering prisoners, reserving a lion’s share of the booty, murdering people without provocation, violating treaties and indulging one’s sensual passions were also at odds with the moral standards of his Arab contemporaries. Only the ultimate authority could sanction it, and Allah duly obliged him. As an Edwardian author put it in the blunt language allowed in his time, the problem with Muhammad is not that he was a Bedouin, but that he was a morally degenerate Bedouin.
Evidence of His Followers
The title of Spencer’s book is inevitably a misnomer: Its author is well aware that “the truth” about Muhammad is more than we really know about the historical man, and “traditions” are not history. The “truth” that matters to us all, however, and the reason this book is important, is not what verifiably came to pass between 570 and 632 AD in Western Arabia, but what one-fifth of humanity believes to have happened. Ernest Renan’s famous assertion that Islam was “born in the full light of history” (p. 20) is incorrect: “The full light” is but the reflected glimmer of medieval Muslim scholars, men who were believers and, therefore, of necessity, apologists. But the construct completed some two centuries after Muhammad’s death is held by all true Muslims to be not only true but universally and eternally valid as a perfect model of virtue for all time.
As Spencer points out, on its own admission, Islam stands or falls with the person of Muhammad, a deeply flawed man by the standards of his own society, as well as those of the Old and New Testaments, both of which he acknowledged as divine revelation, and even by the new law, of which he claimed to be the divinely appointed medium and custodian. Fourteen centuries later, the problem of Islam, and the problem of the rest of the world with Islam, is not the remarkable career of Muhammad per se, undoubtedly a “great man” in terms of his impact on human history. It is the religion’s claim that the words and acts of its prophet provide the universally valid standard of morality as such, for all time and all men.
Our judgment on Muhammad rests on evidence of his followers and faithful admirers, and those who go into paroxysms of rage over Pope Benedict’s lectures or Danish cartoons can scarcely complain if, even on such evidence, the verdict of the civilized world goes against their prophet. That verdict, once it is passed—and thanks to the courageous people such as Robert Spencer it will be passed—will make the gentle mockery of Muhammad in those cartoons appear as inappropriate tomorrow as it would be inappropriate today to lampoon Hitler for his out-of-wedlock liaison with Fräulein Braun or for his inability to control flatulence.
Dr. Trifkovic is foreign affairs editor of "Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture" and author, most recently, of "Defeating Jihad: How the war on terror may yet be won, in spite of ourselves" (Boston: Regina, 2006).
Posted by Robert at October 30, 2006 10:23 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Thanks to its founder, Islam has emerged as a quasi-religious ideology of cultural and political imperialism that absolutizes the conflict with other than itself, and knows no natural limits to itself.
There it is in a nutshell. And if Islam ever does take over the world it will turn upon itself in the neverending quest for spiritual purity.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 30, 2006 11:17 AM
Serge Trifkovic elucidates the effect of mohammedan influence in this youtube video:
Current Conflicts, and Terrorism Serge Trifkovic
at October 30, 2006 11:38 AM
"Theirs was an “expansionism denuded of any concrete objective, brutal, and born of a necessity in its past” (Ibn Warraq), but Muhammad provided a powerful ideological justification for those wars—a justification that was religious in form, global in scope and totalitarian in nature."
Given the privatization of meaning inherent in postmodern liberalism and relativism, will there be a "powerful ideological justification" for the west's defense?
Posted by: Clive at October 30, 2006 11:49 AM
Mo was indeed lucky not to live in today's world. Had he expounded his drivel nowadays he'd be in a cell next to David Berkowitz, who claimed his neighbor's dog told him to kill a bunch of people back in the 1970's in New York.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 30, 2006 11:49 AM
A light thought; The Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun sold big.
Somebody (not me) is going to write The Leadership Secrets of the Prophet Mohammed. Say what you want but the guy was a good organizer. And imagine the possibilities; daughters-in-law, hands, feet, and sheep just for starters. The book interviews would make for good Cable TV ratings.
Posted by: limes at October 30, 2006 12:37 PM
Does anyone recall where I can find that static map showing the global hotspots where Islam is in conflict with its host, or its immediate neighbors? I clicked on this fascinating map from a link someone had posted here on JW (or DW), not more than two or three weeks ago, but unfortunately I failed to bookmark it.
Thanks.
Posted by: Gabriel_the_American at October 30, 2006 12:52 PM
Gabriel_the_American:
You want the bloody borders map here: http://chromatism.net/bloodyborders/
Posted by: a10billr at October 30, 2006 1:10 PM
Clearly every Mohammedan, that is, every person who believes that the life example of Mohammed is one of perfection, to be emulated in the modern world, is a security threat to the civilized world. He is a self-declared enemy of freedom.
Every aspect of our foreign affairs, from immigration, to foreign aid, to trade arrangements, to diplomatic protocols, should be tied to explicit and public rejection of Mohammedanism.
No Mohammedan should be permitted to immigrate here, to study here, or even to visit here, however briefly. No Mohammedan should be permitted to hold public office, no matter how lowly such an office. Absolutely, no Mohammedan should be permitted within our military, police, or other security services.
Any government that embodies Mohammedan law (basically, sharia) in its constitution or other formal legal structures, should be cut off from every form of aid, technology transfer, or humanitarian assistance--absolutely.
Any Mohammedan government that pursues weapons of mass destruction should be ferociously attacked in purely punitive pre-emptive raids, without apology. There should be no subsequent western "nation building" or reconstruction attempts whatsover for such regimes.
Any Mohammedan government that attacks, or provides a base for attacks, on civilization, should be made to pay a tangible price, in permanent loss of territory or reparations. If nothing else, they should suffer severe physical and economic loss from punitive counter-attacks.
Our foreign broadcasts should be beaming continuous counter-propaganda, explaining to the Mohammedan world why, within historical, religious, and ideological context, we reject this ideology totally, and urging them to come to their senses and to join civlization.
In these broadcasts, we must explain to them in no uncertain terms that if they won't reform, if they will not reject the amoral Mohammedan pattern, they will just have to live with their own choices. We are not going to support them, or pity them, or respect them.
at October 30, 2006 1:18 PM
Mo was indeed lucky not to live in today's world. Had he expounded his drivel nowadays he'd be in a cell next to David Berkowitz, who claimed his neighbor's dog told him to kill a bunch of people back in the 1970's in New York.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS
I'd say he's more in the mold of a Charlie Manson, but that might be splitting hairs.
Is anyone sending a copy of this book to the White House at all? Might be worth a tax deduction...
Posted by: germaninamerica at October 30, 2006 1:25 PM
Islam is a perverted form of Judaism processed and regurgitated by that "wild ass of a man" Mohammad (may his name be erased).
Islam happened because Isaac's retarded, half-brother Ishmael decided, two thousands years later than Isaac, to form his own religion.
Islam plundered all the ritual, the Pharisaaic idiocy, the superiority complex (Jew vs. Gentile) and the geopolitical underpinnings. It left behind all the mysticism, all the inspiration, all the wisdom.
Worse, because Mohammad positioned himself as greater and more authoritative than Jesus it is not only absurd, it's dangerous. "Beware one who comes after me," said the true and greatest Prophet Jesus.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl at October 30, 2006 2:27 PM
"Even the cornerstone statement, “there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet,” goes beyond a declaration of monotheism and implies the radical division of the world into two camps."
The stark contradiction to say Catholicism's
declaration of the faithful
"We BELIEVE in one God"
Why reasonable, supposedly learned people, cannot or will not acknowledge this basic difference in ideologies mystifies me..
Aplogists point to fringe Christian and Jewish extrmists when trying to place blame on both sides in this clash of civilizations..
But the facts are the JDL and the Covenant the Sword and the Arm, (CSA) ARE small minorities in their respective religions, where as Muhammadism is practiced by most Muslims....
Posted by: CapnBob at October 30, 2006 2:59 PM
“victorious through terror” = demonic
Posted by: The Goobs at October 30, 2006 4:23 PM
Why reasonable, supposedly learned people, cannot or will not acknowledge this basic difference in ideologies mystifies me.....
I feel that way about Dimmicrats.
Posted by: The Goobs at October 30, 2006 4:25 PM
Thanks for the map link.
Posted by: Gabriel_the_American at October 30, 2006 5:26 PM
But even in the context of 7th-Century Arabia, Muhammad’s deeds were often considered repugnant. He had to resort to “revelations” as a means of justifying his actions and suppressing the prevalent moral code of his own society. Attacking caravans in the holy month, taking up arms against one’s kinsmen, slaughtering prisoners, reserving a lion’s share of the booty, murdering people without provocation, violating treaties and indulging one’s sensual passions were also at odds with the moral standards of his Arab contemporaries. Only the ultimate authority could sanction it, and Allah duly obliged him...
..............
I think this is a very important point. You often hear Mohammed being excused because he lived in a brutal time (although even in this case it is questionable whether he sould be considerd a model of conduct). The fact is, though, that in many cases Mohammed was *much worse* than even his brutal contemporaries.
Over and over again in the Koran he urges Muslims to attack their neighbors, and threatens them both physically and with the fires of Hell if they do not do so.
He lambastes some local Jews for not acting stringently enough with a pair of adulterers. The Jews are going to publicly shame them, admonish them, and send them on their way. Mohammed *insists* that they be stoned to death.
He not only attacks an unarmed caravan, but does so during an ancient pagan Arab holy period when such acts are forbidden by custom. In addition, he has his men falsely dress as pilgrims, so that the people of the caravan will believe they are peaceful until it is too late.
The pagan Arabs practiced adoption, much as we do today--where the adopted child is considered to have the same rights and receive the same love as a biological child. This was especially important in the violent world the Arabs lived in --lots of orphans. Mohammed forbade treating adopted children as heirs, and infamously married his own adopted son's wife after forcing him to divorce her.
Is *anything* in the Koran an improvement over what preceeded it? The only thing I could find was an admonishment that the faithful not kill unwanted female children by live burial, a sickening pagan Arab custom. Even here, though--these sorts of acts were already considered completely unacceptable by his Jewish and Christian neighbors.
I could go on and on--his breaking treaties with his neighbors, ordering the murder of a nursing mother who was critical of his brutality, allowing deceit in dealings with all non-believers, murdering rivals so that he could "marry" their suddenly available widows, forcing conversions at swordpoint--very ugly stuff, and in many cases worse than anything his neighbors were doing at the time.
Posted by: gravenimage at October 30, 2006 9:59 PM
That is true, Islam was a moral leap back even in the 6th century...
1.Muhammad is the inventor of holy war - no one before him used religion on a large scale to justify murder of another ethnic group (true, there are some passages in the Old Testament about the Hebrews moving into Israel and there were religious wars in later Christianity, but neither Christians nor Jews of 6th century practiced holy war). His demand that all other groups accept Islam is a clever way to have a pernament excuse for war, religious beliefs tend to be deeply and emotionally held, and tied to culture, family, and not easily discarded.
2. Muhammad had some sort of psychological disorder. Burkas were not worn in the Roman Empire in the 6th century and I doubt that they were widespread even among arabs. If you look at Greek vases circa 6th century B.C., or Egyptian murals in pyramids from even earlier, you can see that, while the women do not wear miniskirts, even in ancient societies women wanted to dress up to look good, and men also wanted women to dress up to look good. This is completely natural. But Muhammad was not simply a womanizer, he was a nut. He not only felt compelled to have sex with many different women, but he also felt he had to own them pernamently, even making them wear burkas so other men can' see them. Islam takes the bizarre behavioural psychological disorder of a deeply disturbed individual and makes it its' moral norm.
3. Muhammad, unlike the dominant religions of his time such as 6th century Christianity and Judaism, set up a dual moral code as how to act to members and non-memembers. While the Jews have Old Testament admonitions to not oppress the aliens living among them and Christians have the Good Samaritan, Islam has dhimmitude. While other religions are based on the principle "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", Islam is based largely on "do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you". For example, you have to get state permission in Turkey to build or renovate a church. Yet the biggest mosque in Istanbul is a former church (Hagia Sofia). You think the muslims got permission to turn it into a mosque?
4. The "moral" code of Islam is fraudelent and intellectually dishonest. For example, religions have different attitudes toward extramarital sex. But religions of the 6th century such as Christianity of that time that disapproved of extramarital sex were consistent in their disapproval. But Muhammad claimed to be against extramarital sex, but yet considered it legitimate in cases where the partner was a kidnapped woman. So two wrongs in Islam make a right.
at October 30, 2006 11:41 PM
Robert's latest book is a terrific book & so say all of us (OK almost all) on this site.
Getting positive endorsements from fellow peers like Andrew Bostom, Brigitte Gabriel & Serge Trifkovic is no doubt a deserved compliment, but at the end of the day it's a case of preaching to the converted.
It's disheartening to see the heads of so many others in the MSM entrenched so deeply in the sand.
Posted by: powell_was_right at October 31, 2006 6:39 AM
For some decades now, the Western academe has been dominated by the upholders of the primacy of the relationships and conflicts between social forces in determining the course of history. Most chairs that count are held by Emeriti who see history as a linear struggle between social classes and their key fractions.
Serge knows a Marxist when he sees one.
And he also understands the alignment between them and the Moslems.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at October 31, 2006 7:31 AM
Serge T,
the Parthians were not barbarian nomads. They were the rulers of civilized Persia. Otherwise I agree in general with your assertions. By the way, Joseph Schumpeter worked out a sociology of Arab imperialism more than 50 years. Even Ibn Khaldun worked on that.
For Schumpeter, see:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/11/sociology-of-arab-imperialism.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/11/sociology-of-arab-imperialism_16.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/11/sociology-of-arab-imperialism-part.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/11/sociology-of-arab-imperialism_20.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/11/sociology-of-arab-imperialism_24.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/11/sociology-of-arab-imperialism_28.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/11/sociology-of-arab-imperial_113322064172217787.html
Actually, the great-man-theory vs sociological-causes theory can go on being debated for a very long time. But Islam is definitely very deeply marked by the pre-Islamic Arab culture of raiding and looting, anarchy, etc.
Yankeedoodle is wrong to see Islam as a version of Judaism. Islam took some items from Christianity too. But the resemblance is superficial. So they fast on Ramadan and we fast on Yom Kippur. That's superficial to me, and not only because Ramadan is just a daytime fast, not a full 24 hours [actually more like 25 in practice]. Then, Islam considers Jesus a prophet and reveres Mary, so they say. Does that make Islam a version of Christianity???
Posted by: Eliyahu at October 31, 2006 4:34 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)