Mohammed: Military Leader vs Peace Promoter

September 16, 2006 12:02 PM

Genuine question: Given that Mohammed was a succesful military leader who led armies to kill many thousands, at what point did he switch approach and promote peace?

I have read books that state that Mohammed was a military leader and I have also heard that Mohammed is someone to be highly respected and that he promotes peace in his teaching.

Did he have a sudden transformation and if so what was the situation that led to this?

This is a genuine question, based on my own lack of knowedge as I currently can't reconcile the comments that Mohammed promotes peace with my understanding that he was a great military leader.

posted by pettins to religion & philosophy (10 comments total)

Mohammed was actually a merchant before he had his revelations. He became both a spiritual man and a conqueror afterwards. I gather that the idea behind all the expansion was to create a sphere for the gentler aspects of Islam to flourish.
posted by Iridic at 12:30 PM on September 16, 2006

1) We know nothing for certain about Mohammed's life; the "biographies" are stories compiled long after his death by people who never knew him.

2) It is not a contradiction to favor peace and yet feel compelled by circumstances to make war; in fact, that's a basic part of the human condition.

3) The Qur'an, like all substantial religious documents I know of, is messy and full of bits that don't appear to cohere very well on a superficial examination. (This, of course, provides employment for generations of exegetes who cleverly explain how it all does fit together if you examine it subtly enough.)
posted by languagehat at 12:33 PM on September 16, 2006

And, as Iridic says, the idea is that once everyone is united by Islam, there will be universal peace.
posted by languagehat at 12:34 PM on September 16, 2006

LIke most monotheistic prophets, Mohammed's notion of peace was a "deferred" peace. There will be peace AFTER everyone is converted (by 'any means necessary').

Its the old means-ends problem. Is your ethics ends-oriented or means-oriented?
posted by jak68 at 12:38 PM on September 16, 2006

"Islam, A short history" by Karen Armstrong, a ex-nun and respected authority on world religions, helped me to understand how Islam fits into history. Highly recommended
posted by lois1950 at 1:14 PM on September 16, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

As a side note, since I had a similar discussion earlier today, the conversion by the sword is not a blanket proscription. The "People of the Book," those with their own holy scriptures, didn't need to be converted. Pretty much any Monotheistic faith with a holy book applied (Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, etc) or did't apply depending on what circumstances required. Seems to allow for general peace once the pagan elements were subdued and *some* version of a "true faith" allowed to flourish worldwide.
posted by absalom at 1:26 PM on September 16, 2006

While I'm not familiar with a specific time or event that prompted Mohammed to become more pacifistic, it would almost certainly have happened after his return to Mecca. The content of many of his revelations corresponded to current events in his life, such as the revelation that accusations of adultery require four eyewitnesses to be proven, which immediately followed rumors that his favorite wife, Aisha, had cheated on him. Mohammed's military leadership mostly occurred during his time as the ruler of Medina; after taking Mecca, his personal military activities became much reduced... Islam's vast territorial conquests didn't really begin until after his death. So I'd guess that any major shift from militarism to pacifism occurred after his return to Mecca.
posted by gsteff at 2:25 PM on September 16, 2006

As a side note, since I had a similar discussion earlier today, the conversion by the sword is not a blanket proscription.

It still happened. A lot. Not always. But often enough.

The dhimmis were given a kind of limited peace and circumscribed rights. Not anything like real equality or respect. (I will note that by the standards of the time, it wasn't a bad deal.)

I remember reading about two executions that took place after the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople. An Eastern Orthodox man was executed for converting to Catholicism. A Jewish man was executed for converting to Christianity. The judges made it clear that the only conversions allowed under their interpretation of Islamic law were those from other religions to Islam.
posted by jason's_planet at 6:36 PM on September 16, 2006

The dhimmis were given a kind of limited peace and circumscribed rights.
and if you werent dhimmi, 'all bets were off'. Islam in africa south asia and east asia mostly encountered non-dhimmis. It wasnt pretty. And wasnt much different than the worst elements of christian conversion history.
posted by jak68 at 7:55 PM on September 16, 2006

Yet, look at how many of the Sephardim (Spanish Jews, who were tossed out with prejudice by Isabelle and Ferdinand) went to the Ottoman Empire.

The actual status of dhimmis varied greatly, depending on place and time. On the whole, I'd say that dhimmis seemed to do better than Jews in medieval Europe.

More on topic, Muhammad ticked off some powerful people when he started converting folks. This led to general sand kicking, which led to fisticuffs, which led to the obvious conclusion that a prophet that was completely peaceful was likely to be a dead prophet of no use to God.

Early Islamic history is complex (well, duh), but well-worth reading about. Wikipedia actually does a pretty decent job. You could do worse than to read a few articles in their Islamic portal before checking out Anderson and the other authors recommended here.

Don't miss the Sunni-Shia split.
posted by QIbHom at 8:30 PM on September 16, 2006