The records indicate that Muslims had been conquering Egyptian Christians and taking their children since the early days of Islam. Amr ibn al-As, one of Muhammad’s companions, brutally swept through Northern Egypt in AD 640, just eight years after Muhammad’s death. John of Nikiu, a bishop in the Nile delta, records one such conquest: “[W]hen with great toil and exertion they had cast down the walls of the city, they forthwith made themselves masters of it, and put to the sword thousands of its inhabitants and soldiers, and they gained an enormous booty, and took the women and children captive and divided them amongst themselves, and they made that city a desolation.”8
Reading through John’s chronicles, I found that this was one of Amr’s more merciful conquests. He records the capture of Nakius, a city left defenseless when its soldiers fled the oncoming Muslim army. John tells us how Amr treated the undefended Christians: “Amr and the Muslim army . . . made their entry into Nakius and took possession. Finding no soldiers, they proceeded to put to the sword all whom they found in the streets and in the churches, men, women, and infants. They showed mercy to none. After they had captured this city, they marched against other localities and sacked them and put all they found to the sword . . . Let us now cease, for it is impossible to recount the iniquities perpetrated by the Muslims after their capture of the island of Nakius.”9
This was just one of many massacres the bishop records of Amr ibn al-As, the friend of Muhammad. History records similar Muslim attacks on Christian lands from the mid-600s through the year 1095 and well beyond. By the time the Byzantine emperor asked for the pope’s help, two-thirds of the Christian world had been captured by Muslims.
This is why Crusade scholar Thomas Madden says, “The crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West’s belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world.”10 When we read the full context of Pope Urban II’s plea to European Christians for the First Crusade, this becomes abundantly clear:
Your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them . . . and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends.11
Further context is also enlightening. The pope ordered no slaughter of Jews, and as some crusaders were massacring Jews in the Rhineland, other Christians were protesting and doing all they could to protect them. The Archbishop Ruthard of Mainz tried to shelter Jews at his personal residence until he was overcome by Count Emicho. The bishops of Speyer and Worms similarly tried to protect the Jews as best they could. The crusaders who were killing Jews were defying their Christian leaders and brothers, and their actions ought not be imputed to all of Christendom.
REVISITING THE NARRATIVE OF THE CRUSADES
This is at least one reason why not all Christians in the First Crusade should be painted with the same brush. Historical understanding requires a more careful approach, and when we start analyzing the Crusades from a nuanced perspective, even more becomes clear. For example, we ought not see the Crusades as simply “Christians versus Muslims” or vice versa. Christians and Muslims were far too divided for such a monolithic view. Christians were not united among themselves, which is why it ultimately took hundreds of years for the Western Christians to come to the aid of the Byzantine Christians.
Muslims were even less united, which is the primary reason the crusaders were able to conquer Jerusalem in 1099. The Seljuq sultan had just died in 1092, and multiple family members were vying for power. The Fatimid dynasty, a Shia caliphate based in Egypt, took advantage of this internal division to wrest control of Jerusalem from the Seljuq Empire in 1098, just one year before the Crusade. The Fatimids themselves had just come out of a civil war, and they were still in turmoil from the deaths of their caliph and his grand vizier in 1094. Their inveterate enemies, the Abbasid Muslims, had just lost their caliph in 1094 as well, and these factors all combined to leave the terribly divided Muslim lands prone to attack. This is why Crusade scholar Jonathan Riley-Smith says, “Although none of the crusaders knew it, they were marching toward a door that had swung wide open.”12
Clearly, there were many competing interests vying for power in the region. Medieval historian Christopher Tyerman tells us, “The appearance of the western armies of the First Crusade in 1097–8 merely added one more foreign military presence to an area already crowded with competing rules from outside the region.”13 The crusaders were just one interest among many. In fact, they were among the less relevant ones, since they were essentially defeated when Saladin retook Jerusalem in 1187.
Perhaps that is why Muslims more or less forgot the Crusades until the end of the nineteenth century. According to Riley-Smith, “The Muslims looked back on the Crusades with indifference and complacency. In their eyes, they had been the outright winners . . . The first history of the Crusades in Arabic, which had appeared in 1865, had been a Christian one.” Christians had to invent an Arabic word for the Crusades, as Muslims apparently did not give much thought to them until the turn of the twentieth century.14
Considering the historical realities, the common Muslim perspective of the Crusades—the perspective I inherited—is a modern invention. The narrative of an offensive Crusade against peaceful Muslims, along with the overtones of Ridley Scott’s The Kingdom of Heaven and John Esposito’s “five centuries of peaceful coexistence,” turn out to be fanciful slants based on motivations other than history. The reality is that the Crusades were launched in defense of the Byzantine Empire after two-thirds of the Christian world had been conquered by centuries of Muslim attacks. Muslims understood this and held no grudge against crusaders until modern times, when postcolonial narratives came into vogue.
LEARNING FROM JIHAD AND THE CRUSADES
Given the facts, did crusaders commit inexcusable atrocities? Absolutely. Did mujahideen commit inexcusable atrocities? Absolutely. In no way do I intend to excuse those who committed these crimes. All the same, I do not think a religion ought to be judged on the basis of some of its followers. The actions of some Christians do not necessarily say anything about Christianity, and the actions of some Muslims do not necessarily say anything about Islam. As I concluded while still a Muslim, what matters are the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Muhammad.
But it is a step too far to say that neither crusaders nor mujahideen have anything to do with their religions. As it turns out, both Jesus and Muhammad had a lot to say about violence, and the crusaders and the mujahideen were listening.
CHAPTER 18
COMPARING THE TRADITIONS OF THE FOUNDERS
In 2009, David Wood and I received invitations to the Islamic Society of North America’s annual convention, themed “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” and held over the Fourth of July weekend in Washington, DC. We registered to attend, eager to hear the messages and mingle with the Muslim attendees. We watched lectures on the history of the Quran and the status of women in Islam, we met with acclaimed Muslim scholars, and we even interviewed one of the conference organizers. Although we thought there was a great deal of misinformation, there is no doubt that the organizers and speakers were very hospitable and sincere about their messages.
Many of my Muslim childhood friends and acquaintances were at the conference, and I made awkward attempts at reconnecting with them. Two such friends, both former members of the Ahmadiyya sect who had become Sunni Muslims, were willing to join David and me for dinner after the conference. Talking over halal Chinese food,
the four of us discussed a full range of topics, but what sticks out in my mind is our conversation about apostasy.
“What do you think,” I asked one of my friends, “about the punishment for leaving Islam?” I was curious because my friend, a former Ahmadi, had come from the most peaceful sect of Islam, whereas the Sunni Muslim punishment for apostasy is a violent death.
“There’s no question here,” he began. “The Prophet (SAW) made it abundantly clear that apostates must be killed for leaving Islam.”1 His serious tone gave no hint of ambivalence.
“I agree that he did,” David piped in, “but come on! You can’t really think that people should be killed for their beliefs? I mean, this is the twenty-first century. People believe in freedom of worship.”
My friend did not budge. “Leaving other religions is fine, but people should be killed for leaving Islam. Yes, there is freedom of worship here in America. Since it is illegal to kill apostates, American Muslims are bound by the law of the land and cannot kill former Muslims. But in Muslim countries, apostates can and should be killed.”
I could not believe what my friend was saying. I had to challenge him just a little more to see how serious he was. “So if we were in a Muslim country right now, would you kill me?”
Matter-of-factly, without malice or sarcasm, he responded, “Yes, I would kill you right now. It is the command of the Prophet (SAW).”
There was pin-drop silence at the table as everyone waited for me to respond. “Well then,” I laughed, “I praise God we’re not in a Muslim country! God bless America!” The blunt attempt at humor moved the conversation along, but his words remain emblazoned in my mind.
PEACEFUL MUSLIMS, APOSTASY, AND THE EXAMPLE OF MUHAMMAD
The contrast between my friend’s view and the conference’s theme was jarring. All weekend long, the conference was trying to prove that Islam is compatible with American values and Western freedoms, but here was a fervent young Muslim who was saying that American law was the only thing keeping him from killing me for my beliefs. How can we understand the disparity?
My friend did what Muslims have traditionally done: He turned to the example of Muhammad for sharia. The hadith are full of references to Muhammad’s killing apostates and ordering them to be killed.2 Therefore, there is little question for the Muslim who follows Muhammad as his exemplar: Apostates ought to be killed. The evidence is so solid that all major schools of Sunni Islam and Shia Islam teach the law of apostasy, disagreeing only about the details and circumstances.
Of course, killing people for their beliefs is an assault on the sensibilities of Western morality, including the sensibilities of many Muslims in the West. So in adapting their understanding of Islam to fit Western notions of morality, they often argue that Islam could never teach such a thing. Unfortunately, quite the opposite is true: Islam always has. From a historical perspective, denying the punishment of apostasy is a modern phenomenon, as is insistence on a predominantly peaceful Islam.3
Some Muslims point out that the Quran does not command the killing of the apostates, and arguably they are correct. But Islam is not a sola scriptura faith; it has always used hadith to supplement the Quran. Anyone who prays the five daily prayers would have to admit this, because not only are the words for the prayers not given in the Quran, even the number of daily prayers is not mentioned. The Quran mentions only three daily prayers, and it does not delineate the words or postures for any of them. Although there are legitimate “Quran-only” Muslims, they have always been an extreme minority in Islam. Most Muslims who argue against the law of apostasy using a Quran-only approach are using reasoning that would radically alter their Islamic practice if applied consistently.
Along similar lines, some peaceful Muslims argue against the law of apostasy based on Quranic verses such as 2.256, which says, “There is no compulsion in religion.” In order to say this, though, they are also disavowing Muhammad’s example. Muhammad did not interpret that verse in that manner, as his actions in hadith repeatedly show. That is why, classically, Muslim theologians have listed 2.256 among the abrogated verses we discussed in the previous chapter.4 Ibn Kathir, for example, says 2.256 was abrogated by 9.29, which tells Muslims to fight Jews and Christians.5 Popular Muslim scholars have vociferously defended these traditional interpretations throughout the twentieth century.
Of course, I hope peaceful Muslims gain the majority voice in the international Islamic community and sway Islamic practice in their favor. Far from being insincere, most Muslims who advocate a peaceful practice of Islam truly believe it is a religion of peace. At my mosque, that is exactly what we were taught and what we repeated to others. But in order to follow a peaceful Islam, one has to ignore or reject vast swaths of traditions from Muhammad’s life as well as virtually the entire history of Islamic jurisprudence.
My friend in DC used to be a part of the same peaceful mosque my family attended, and he was taught by the same peaceful imams. Ultimately, he left that version of Islam and embraced a more violent one in the name of following Muhammad’s true teachings. Muslims who most consistently follow the records of Muhammad’s life believe in an Islam that would not satisfy Western notions of peace. These are the majority of Muslims throughout history.
MUHAMMAD AND JIHAD
The Economist published an article titled “The Persistence of History” on August 22, 2015. The first image of the article is chilling: dozens of burka-clad Nigerian teenage girls kidnapped from their school in Chibok by Boko Haram. The article goes on to speak of thousands of Yazidi women captured by ISIS, the Islamic State. In Dabiq, ISIS’s professionally produced magazine, ISIS argues that these women are spoils of war and that sex slavery is a practice sanctioned by the Quran.
Does Islam allow sex slavery? We must do as my friend in Washington, DC, did, and as Muslims have always done, to answer questions like this: turn to the hadith. When we turn to the example of Muhammad’s life, we find multiple accounts of Muhammad not just allowing sex slavery but also encouraging Muslims who were hesitant to use their newly captured women for sexual intercourse.6 Whether they were hesitant because they were afraid the women would become pregnant or because their husbands were still alive, according to the hadith, Muhammad encouraged them. The hadith say that this is the very reason why 4.24 of the Quran was revealed, so that men would not be hesitant to have sex with female captives whose husbands were still alive. These accounts of Muhammad’s life influenced Muslims throughout the classical age of Islam and delineated their rules of war. These are the accounts to which ISIS appeals now.
Of course, many Muslims disagree with ISIS’s practice, but their reasons are enlightening. An open letter sent by 140 Muslim scholars to ISIS reads, “After a century of Muslim consensus on the prohibition of slavery, you have violated this; you have taken women as concubines.”7 They argue that Muhammad looked favorably on releasing slaves, which may very well be true, but they do not go so far as to say that Muhammad did not allow sex slavery. That is simply not what the records show, and ISIS knows it. Unfortunately for these 140 Muslim scholars and for the rest of the world, ISIS is interested not in the consensus of Muslim scholars one hundred years ago but in the example of Muhammad in the seventh century.
ISIS takes not only females captive but also boys. The world was recently horrified by accounts of captured boys being made to remove their clothing and facing execution if they were found to have pubic hair. But once again, this practice was based on Muhammad’s treatment of the Qurayza Jews. Muhammad had commanded that, except in night raids, children could not be killed in war. So when a group of people were taken captive, such as the Qurayza Jews, the boys were separated from men by the growth of pubic hair, and the men were executed.8 ISIS was simply lifting this account from Muhammad’s life and applying it to their own circumstances.
Of course, this allowance of Muhammad also explains why the Seljuq Turks and virtually all other Muslim dynasties had no qualms about capturing boys and making them slave warriors. Muham
mad himself enslaved Jewish boys, perhaps a merciful act in light of the fact that their fathers were all beheaded that day.
So jihad, in its classical practice and in those manifestations considered “Islamist” or “radical” today, is often an attempt to simply follow Muhammad. Those who argue for more peaceful practices of Islam have to do one of three things: deny the example of Muhammad’s life altogether, like the Quran-only Muslims; proclaim Muhammad’s teachings defunct, like the 140 Muslim scholars; or disavow select portions of Muhammad’s life as recorded in history, like the average Muslim.
JESUS AND THE CRUSADES
Following Jesus results in a very different notion of warfare. Jesus never led an army; far from it, he never even sanctioned violence. When it comes to Jesus’ clearest dictum on fighting, there is no missing his message: “Put your sword back in its place . . . for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matt. 26:52 NIV). Even in matters of self-defense, his teaching is so utterly peaceful that it seems to come from another world: “I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles” (Matt. 5:39–41 NIV). This works in tandem with the otherworldly way Jesus tells his followers to treat their enemies: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt. 5:44 NIV).
Jesus’ teachings were so peaceful that they posed a problem for early Christians who felt obligated to defend the oppressed with violence. Because Jesus made no clear allowance for war, such Christians developed an elaborate notion of “just war” starting with Augustine at the turn of the fifth century. Delineating stringent conditions of war, Augustine argued that fighting could be within the will of God, but it remained a necessary evil and something that required penance.
No God but One: Allah or Jesus?: A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam and Christianity Page 12