|
TheReligionofPeace.com Presents:
The Muslims were
under Persecution The Truth: The only reason that this myth arose is the need for Muslim apologists to justify the more violent passages of the Qur’an’s second chapter, which was “revealed” shortly after Muhammad arrived in Medina. Passages from this chapter encourage believers to violence within the context of ending “tumult,” “oppression,” and “persecution.” Because of this, contemporary Muslim readers usually apply their personal definitions to these terms and assume that the Muslims in Medina must have been under attack at the time. Unfortunately, what Muhammad meant by “persecution” is well-defined within the historical record, and it is quite different from the popular modern-day view. In fact, it was the Meccans who were acting in their own defense during this time. It is an established fact that the Muslims in Medina were not under attack from Mecca when the second sura was written (following the hijra). There were no armies marching against them, nor any plans for such. The Meccans had no influence in this far-away town, and no Muslims were under persecution at the time by any stretch of the term as it is popularly understood today. According to the Sira (biography), the Meccans were quite content with leaving Muhammad alone following his eviction (even though he had made a pledge of war against them). Common sense tells us that had the Muslims been under actual attack then it would not have been necessary to inspire them to war. If someone has broken into your home and is in the process of savaging your family, you do really need a formal command from Allah telling you to act in self-defense? Muhammad was attempting to redefine persecution in order to convince the Muslims that they were under it. He wanted them to believe that the mere fact that the Meccans had evicted them to Medina and prevented their return was grounds for marching back with a vengeful army (ie. 2:193 – “persecution is worse than slaughter”). But it was entirely reasonable for the Meccans to evict Muhammad and prevent his return. In the first place, the prophet of Islam had declared himself to be an armed revolutionary against them. What town would invite a sworn enemy back within its own gates? (Indeed, the Meccans were foolish enough to do exactly that a few years later and paid for it with the loss of their city and way of life). The second reason that the Meccans did not want Muhammad anywhere near their town was that Islam was intolerant of other faiths and demanded sole possession of the Kaaba, the common worship area. In other words, it wasn’t that the Meccans had a problem with Muslims circling the Kaaba, it was that Muslims wanted to bar everyone else from doing so. This is confirmed in the Quran (Sura 9:18-19), which evicted anyone from Mecca who refused to convert to Islam following his capture of the city in 630.
Against this reality, the words of Sura 2 take on a different meaning: As we have pointed out, Muhammad and his Muslims were not under attack by the Meccans. They were not being slaughtered, hence the obvious distinction in the
verse between “persecution” and slaughter. “Persecution,” as we pointed out, means that Muslims living 300 miles away in Medina were simply
barred from visiting Mecca and thus entering the “sacred mosque” (the Kaaba). Muhammad was trying to convince his people that this (non-lethal) policy was
justification for attacking and slaughtering the Meccans in the name of
religion. The only possible reason for marching on Mecca at the time would have been to
capture the Kaaba and evict the pagans (note “until religion is for Allah”). Within its true context, the passage is therefore a manifesto for aggressive
warfare against the Meccans, not a case of the Muslims being under real
persecution so many miles away. |
