Writing for Huffington Post, Amer Aziz submits a response article to my controversial House Homeland Security Committee Hearing on radical Islam, where I engage in a historical discussion on Prophet Muhammad and early Muslims. In typical fashion becoming of Muslims holding onto a crumbling identity under the pressure of free thought, Aziz writes:
However, Shireen Qudosi, a self-proclaimed Muslim reformer, stated during the hearing that the founder-prophet of the religion, Muhammad, had elements to his prophetic life that were ‘warmongering’ and ‘terrorism’. Much as the statement is bizarre and incoherent for someone who claims to be a Muslim, Ms. Qudosi echoed the not unfamiliar narrative— while Muhammad lived in Mecca he kept a peaceful and persevering practice which took a radical and militant turn upon migration to Medina from which contemporary extremist movements draw their ideology and validation.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The military engagements undertaken by the prophet of Islam were firmly grounded in their moral disposition to defend fundamental freedoms and human rights against undue oppression and aggression.
Aziz’s first move is to discredit my faith as a Muslim, a now typical thing to do among leftists Muslims in the wake of Orlando Shooter Omar Mateen, while in the aftermath of 9/11 no one questioned whether Osama bin Laden was a Muslim. Then Azis goes on to ‘enlighten’ readers about how violence in the name of God was to defend “fundamental freedoms and human rights against undue oppression and aggression.”
I would agree with him if we were talking about another man in history. But we’re talking about a Prophet of God. A prophet of God meant as final seal for mankind would have continued the legacy of Christ: non-violence. Prophet Muhammad – who Muslims view as the final perfection of faith – did not and this is where he failed. It would have been better to let Islam die in its infancy than to raise the sword in God’s name. The role of a prophet is to have foresight of legacy he sets in motion. Every radical killing for Islam is following Prophet Muhammad’s first example even when it derails into its extremes. Again, foresight.
People argue, “But what about the Crusades or American soldiers’ fight against Nazis?” These are ignorant examples. We’re talking about prophets and not men who are followers; religion and not nations. There is zero comparison between the two.
A man will do what he wants, but a man of God has a higher duty. It is my firm conviction as a child of God that our Prophet failed that duty in this case.
Today, it is about perspectives, which we can start having if we stop being so defensive and easily offended. Because the goal here is to figure out why radicals justify violence. And this is why. I also find it telling that Aziz and his colleagues have time to defend the Prophet but cannot defend the living, breathing people dying under the sword and in the name of Allah.
Category: MUSLIM REFORM