by Karen Armstrong
Ever since the Crusades, people in the west have seen the prophet Muhammad
as a sinister figure. During the 12th century, Christians were fighting
brutal holy wars against Muslims, even though Jesus had told his followers
to love their enemies, not to exterminate them. The scholar monks of Europe
stigmatised Muhammad as a cruel warlord who established the false religion
of Islam by the sword. They also, with ill-concealed envy, berated him as a
lecher and sexual pervert at a time when the popes were attempting to impose
celibacy on the reluctant clergy. Our Islamophobia became entwined with our
chronic anti-Semitism; Jews and Muslims, the victims of the crusaders,
became the shadow self of Europe, the enemies of decent civilisation and the
opposite of "us".
Our suspicion of Islam is alive and well. Indeed, understandably perhaps, it
has hardened as a result of terrorist atrocities apparently committed in its
name. Yet despite the religious rhetoric, these terrorists are motivated by
politics rather than religion. Like "fundamentalists" in other traditions,
their ideology is deliberately and defiantly unorthodox. Until the 1950s, no
major Muslim thinker had made holy war a central pillar of Islam. The Muslim
ideologues Abu ala Mawdudi (1903-79) and Sayyid Qutb (1906-66), among the
first to do so, knew they were proposing a controversial innovation. They
believed it was justified by the current political emergency.
The criminal activities of terrorists have given the old
western prejudice a new lease of life. People often seem eager to believe
the worst about Muhammad, are reluctant to put his life in its historical
perspective and assume the Jewish and Christian traditions lack the flaws
they attribute to Islam. . . .
FULL TEXT
Isma'il Raji al Faruqi, "Islam
and other religions," American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, 1985