Faith & Reason: The Prophet Mohamed an Arabian Imperialist? Faith & Reason: Shabbir Akhtar;Modern Fears of Islamic Expansionism Are Ill-Founded. History Offers More Cause to Fear Domination by Christian Than by Muslim Powers

By Akhtar, Shabbir | The Independent (London, England), July 4, 1998 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Faith & Reason: The Prophet Mohamed an Arabian Imperialist? Faith & Reason: Shabbir Akhtar;Modern Fears of Islamic Expansionism Are Ill-Founded. History Offers More Cause to Fear Domination by Christian Than by Muslim Powers


Akhtar, Shabbir, The Independent (London, England)


DURING THE past week Muslims in cities as varied as Jakarta and Bradford have been celebrating the birthday of the Prophet Mohamed. Though he was an Arab, he is seen by Muslims as simply the "Messenger of God" to all nations. But how do non- Muslims regard him?

In 1992, during the 500th anniversary of the fall of Muslim Spain, a Catholic friend said to me: "The Arabs had no right to be in Spain anyway. Like their Prophet, they were imperialists." I was brought up as a Pakistani Muslim and had never thought of Islam as an Arab religion or of the Prophet Mohamed as an Arabian imperialist, even though I had always resented the openly racist attitudes displayed by virtually all Arabs towards non-Arab Muslims.

But it is an accusation Muslims need to address if they hope to settle the imperialist question: if Muslims deplore the Western experiment with power as completely treasonable to the cause of Jesus of Nazareth, how can they justify their own conquest of the world in the name of Allah?

No one sees the Buddha or Jesus as imperialists. Mohamed, however, did lead armies if only in self-defence. His alleged political delinquencies have always shocked Jews and Christians. Virtually all Muslims, however, even in this ideologically self-conscious age, still proudly call him "the warrior-prophet". Only Westernised liberal Muslims seem embarrassed by the Prophet's military record.

The Koran does authorise conquest of the whole world though not enforced conversion. Man is appointed as God's deputy (khalifah) on earth but he is to assume rulership on condition that he himself accepts rulership under God. The right to be an imperialist in the created order is conditional on the duty to be a servant of God and other human beings. The wars in the time of the Prophet were all defensive; most of the conflicts during the reigns of the four caliphs were however for universal conquest. This extension of the witness to the greatness of God beyond the strict confines of the Arabian peninsula is seen these days as in need of apology.

According to official Islamic apology, the ruler receives the right to be a ruler on condition that he remains accountable as a servant. The Koran is always there to remind him both of his double status and of the fact that authority is graciously bestowed, not acquired by force or inheritance. In principle, Islamic rule, when free of worldly ambition, is meant to stand robust witness for a style of sovereignty in which the pride of rulership is founded on the humility of service. Where one dominates, one brings submission (which is the literal meaning of Islam) too.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Faith & Reason: The Prophet Mohamed an Arabian Imperialist? Faith & Reason: Shabbir Akhtar;Modern Fears of Islamic Expansionism Are Ill-Founded. History Offers More Cause to Fear Domination by Christian Than by Muslim Powers
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?