Juan Cole’s book about Muhammad is a work of fantasy. “Cole offers an ambitiously revisionist picture of the father of Islam, replacing the idea of a militant leader with one of a peacemaker who wanted only to preach his monotheism freely and even sought ‘multicultural’ harmony.”
Great, except Muhammad wasn’t really a seeker after “multicultural” harmony at all. He preached and established a society in which non-Muslims had an inferior second-class status. But even if this were true, how does Cole explain why so very many Muslims around the world misunderstand the founder of their own religion, and think of him more as a “militant leader” rather than one who “sought ‘multicultural’ harmony”?
Discover what the earliest Islamic texts say that Muhammad said and did, and see just how far he was from a seeker after “multicultural harmony,” in the first chapter of The History of Jihad, and more fully in The Truth About Muhammad.
What the Muslim “reformer” Mustafa Akyol says is also interesting: he says Cole is “demonstrably right in concluding that Islamic orthodoxy deviated from its foundations by ‘abrogating’ the peaceful and tolerant verses of the Quran.”
But this idea goes back to the second Islamic century. Muhammad’s earliest biographer, an eighth-century Muslim named Ibn Ishaq, explains the progression of Qur’anic revelation about warfare. First, he explains, Allah allowed Muslims to wage defensive warfare. But that was not Allah’s last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur’anic verse: “Then God sent down to him: ‘Fight them so that there be no more seduction,’ i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. ‘And the religion is God’s’, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.” The Qur’an verse Ibn Ishaq quotes here (2:193) commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until “the religion is God’s” — that is, until Allah alone is worshipped. Ibn Ishaq gives no hint that that command died with the seventh century.
So Akyol would have us believe that “Islamic orthodoxy” went wrong in the eighth century and hasn’t been right since. Now at last Mustafa Akyol has come along to give us the true Islam, and not a moment too soon.
“11 New Books We Recommend This Week,” New York Times, January 3, 2019:
MUHAMMAD: Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empires, by Juan Cole. (Nation, $28.) Cole offers an ambitiously revisionist picture of the father of Islam, replacing the idea of a militant leader with one of a peacemaker who wanted only to preach his monotheism freely and even sought “multicultural” harmony. Writing in the Book Review, Mustafa Akyol calls it “eruditely informative” and says Cole is “demonstrably right in concluding that Islamic orthodoxy deviated from its foundations by ‘abrogating’ the peaceful and tolerant verses of the Quran.”
Paula zajac says
Great, we need this to muddy the water some more.
mortimer says
Juan Cole is clearly ABSURD and FALSIFIER of the actual hadithic and Sira records.
Nothing can be further from those books than his AIR-BRUSHED GLAMOR PORTRAIT of the HIDEOUSLY EVIL MOHAMMED.
Islamic scholar Dr. D.S. Margoliouth sum,ed up Muhammad in a paragraph that may seem shocking. But once you’ve completed your journey through Islam’s earliest scriptures, these words will appear tame:
“The character attributed to Muhammad in the biography of Ibn Ishaq is exceedingly unfavorable. In order to gain his ends Muhammad recoils from no expedient, and he approves of similar unscrupulousness on the part of his adherents, when exercised in his interest. He organizes assassinations and wholesale massacres. His career as the tyrant of Medina is that of a robber chief whose political economy consists of securing and dividing plunder. He is himself an unbridled libertine [morally or sexually unrestrained] and encourages the same passion in his followers. For whatever he does he is prepared to plead the express authorization of his deity. It is, however, impossible to find any Islamic religious doctrine which he is not prepared to abandon in order to secure a political end. At different points in his career he abandons the unity of God and his claim to the title of Prophet. This is a disagreeable picture for the founder of a religion, and it cannot be pleaded that it is a picture drawn by an enemy.”
Walter Sieruk says
On the topic of a reformation within Islam, a very different yet possible valid and true view on this had been explain by the Christian, Nabeel Qureshi ,who was in the past was a Muslim .He wrote in his book which is entitled ANSWERING JIHAD wrote about the suggestion “that Islam needs a reformation .What they may not realize is that radical Islam is the Islamic reformation. This might sound shocking, but consider: Just as the Protestant Reformation was an attempt to raze centuries of Catholic tradition and return to the canonical text, so radical Islam is an attempt to raze centuries of traditions of various schools of Islamic thought and return to the canonical text of the Quran and Muhammad’s life. This desire to return to the original form of Islam can be seen not only in the words of Sayyid Qutb, but also in his method. He focused almost entirely on references to the Quran. it is true also of the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS today, whose publications and proclamations are punctuated by references to the Quran and Hadith literature. Radical Muslim organizations are explicit in their aim to reform Islam.” page 75. Further on pages 79,80 the author makes his case clear by writing that “Radical Islam is the Islamic reformation . The endeavor to modernize Islam and make it relevant to the twenty -first century is called progressive Islam. Progressive Muslim thought leaders, though few in number and limited in influence are present and are working to recreate Islam’s religious framework from within. Indeed, that is what it would take for Islam to become devoted to peace – not reformation but reimagination. “
Terry Gain says
“What the Muslim “reformer” Mustafa Akyol says is also interesting: he says Cole is “demonstrably right in concluding that Islamic orthodoxy deviated from its foundations by ‘abrogating’ the peaceful and tolerant verses of the Quran.”
………….
Well at least we have an admission that the peaceful verses were abrogated. Next issue for Muslim apologists: why did Allah allow the peaceful verses to be abrogated?
melek-ric says
Yes – Allah did more than allow the peaceful verses to be abrogated, he actually did the abrogating and introduced the concept of Naskh via specific and emphatic verses in the Koran. According to Islamic exegeses Muhammed didn’t create the concept, nor did any successor or later scholar. Abrogation is straight from Allah and therefore foundational to Islamic doctrine.
Juan Cole has based his theory either on a fundamental misreading of the Koran and the Sira or on a purposeful distortion of the Islamic scriptures.
mortimer says
Juan Cole is actually saying that the KORAN DOES NOT SAY WHAT IT SAYS … Juan Cole is RE-WRITING the Koran so it suits his taste.
Geoffrey Britain says
So Allah is the Qur’ans’ author NOT Muhammad. Eliminating Islam’s doctrine of abrogation gives us an Allah full of contradictions. One who one day says this and the next, just the opposite. How perfect is that? Obviously not very. And if Allah is imperfect then how can Muhammad be “the perfect example”?
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
Koran 2:106 says he’s wrong.
mortimer says
The only way that Juan Cole’s thesis can be a semblance of truth is if it CONFORMS to GNOSTIC THEORY of Islam put forth especially by modern German Islamologists. They claim that the original Arabian prophet (whom the Koran calls AHMAD) was a Gnostic heretical Christian. That is why the first parts of the Koran are tolerant of those who practice righteousness. The later parts of the Koran written in Medina are of a totally different character causing many scholars to doubt that it is by the same author(s).
Juan Cole can only be right if HE HAS ABANDONED ISLAM and sees UR-ISLAM as Gnosticism.
No Fear says
I agree.
mortimer says
SO, Dr COLE, where is this ORIGINAL KORAN that is LOST??? You are actually implying that modern Islam is based on a book that no longer exists.
Since you cannot find this supposed original Koran (… just a sec … I thought Mohammed never wrote it down…) you are merely SPECULATING that it existed.
Islam says that Abu Bakr then Uthman collected the Koran, but in a letter Abd al Malik says HE collected the Koran. Why would Abd al Malik say that?
Joe says
There are Korans from before the time of Christ, but they are fragments. We have Korans, that are whole, from several hundreds years before Mohammed. In addition, we know who wrote the Koran. They are pieces of spiritual writings from around the world such as a Jewish scribe and a Byzantine emperor. Both of these passages are still in the Koran.
We should tell Muslims to go back to the Koran of Mohammed which is the 8th century Koran. The assimilation, the part that everyone hates, was put into the Koran in the 10th century which is when the Hadiths were wrote. In fact, the Koran was edited by the same group that wrote the Hadiths in the 10th century. The Koran was edited to its violent form by a warlord in the 10th century. The Muslims are starting to understand that, but advocating that position inside of a Muslim country is dangerous.
All the evidence indicates that Abraham was a Muslim when he lived in Petra. So by their definition in the current Koran, Abraham was an apostate. For example, the rocks were in Petra before they were taken to Mecca. The qiblas of the ancient Mosques in India, that were built before Mohammed, point to Petra. Petra has a structure, indicated by satellite, that is similar to the pilgrimage site in Mecca. It seems that Petra was the center of Islam before Mecca was built in 640. After Mecca was built, all the qiblas point to it.
gravenimage says
Islamic “reformer”: “Islamic orthodoxy deviated from its foundations by abrogating the peaceful verses of the Quran”
………………………
Okaaaaay…but isn’t the fact that this abrogation is in the Qur’an itself make his claims here a bit sticky?
KWJ says
According to Ibn Ishaq (actually his student Hisham’s revised account) when Muhammad started his preaching he was causing trouble, insulted the Meccans’ gods and their ancestors, to the point that some wanted to kill him. Muhammad was offered some sweet deal if he would stop preaching and causing disharmony in the community. He deciddd on bigger ambitions so they quarreled back and forth. In the Qur’an Muhammad tells you what they were saying about him, but not what he was saying to them. Then his men attacked a caravan and killed a man during the “sacred days” and Muhammad ended up absolving his men with the excuse that people on Mecca were being deprived of Islam and that is worse than killing the innocent man. Muhammad only had a handful of followers at this point so people weren’t interested.
It’s worse that he couldn’t keep preaching and causing division in Mecca than killing an innocent person during a highway robbery. I think the “nice” words were to sound like the Bible/OT nice words, but it’s evident from their sources that violence, list and greed were lurking beneath the surface until they were larger in number, and Robert explains all the rest.
Muhammad is Islam. In the Hadith his youngest wife Aisha says “Muhammad’s character is the Qur’an.” So, the 7th century businessman had big ambitions and Paradise was very enticing. He did quite well, but all the world is not yet under the chokehold of Islam so jihad continues in hopes of fulfilling Muhammad’s goal. It’s simple.
Then the Qur’an is not “perfect” if abrogated verses are a deviation, and the Qur’an itself says Allah replaced some verses with better ones (unfortunately not nice ones). Then that would mean people are reading an imperfect book and the Qur’an and Hadith writers deserve death because Sharia law says you can’t deny any verse of the Qur’an or anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, nor add a verse that doesn’t belong to it. (Reliance of the Traveler, pp 597-98, 08.7) Btw, the 5th one “reviling the religion of Islam” is probably why the Democrats’ resolution 569 adds “bigotry towards as part of hate speech and mirrors UN resolution 16/18 adopted by the Human Rights Council.
Islam’s history, Muhammad, the warfare and Arabia is interesting, it’s just that it’s expansionary, imperialistic, and unfortunately not just academic fun, and thus it must be repelled.
Robert’s ‘History of Jihad’ helps explain why.
Walter Sieruk says
The idea and quest to attempt have a “reformation of Islam” trying to do so is a waste of time and effort. This is because “reforming Islam” is not actually possible, it’s an action of futility. For It should be noted that Islam can’t be changed from violent and deadly to non –violent and peaceful because the very core essence of Islam is that of violence and killing. As found in the Quran 9:121, 5:33, 9:5, 111, 47:4. The very best that may be realistically hopped for would be a watered-down type of Islam is mild and non-violent.
This is in contrast to hard core Quran based Islam which is the violent and murderous Islam practice Muslim jihad terror organizations, as ISIS ,Al Qaeda , Hezbollah ,Hamas and so forth .
To put this in another way, the Bible informs its reader “What is crooked cannot be made straight, and what is lacking cannot be numbered.” Ecclesiastes 1 :15. [N.K.J.N.] Therefore this verse may be understood when applying it to the idea of folly of “reforming Islam” As in, “What is crooked cannot be made straight in. “The violent nature can’t be straightened to be made non-violent” and “what is lacking cannot be numbered” may be understood as “Such a violent and hate-filled religion is lacking in love and compassion and thus can’t be numbered or counted as a truly peaceful religion.”