The Quarterly Journal of Military History (MHQ)
Summer 2007 ed.
Preface:
While I was home in the Des Moines area I stopped by Borders after catching a movie with some family. As I was perusing the magazine aisle I noticed a magazine with a front cover that read: "Muhammad the ingenious military mind of the first insurgent." My first reaction was a mixture of shock, curiosity, and offense.
Review:
As stated above, I did not begin reading this article with an open mind. I expected it to be offensive article. The cover of the magazine - as well as a picture of the relief in our Supreme Court of the Prophet- portrays Muhammad with a sword in one hand and the Qur'an in the other. Most - a product of our right-handed society, mostly - place his scimitar in his right hand, with the last message of Allah in his left. Minor problem: in Arabic culture placing the Qur'an in Muhammad's left hand is offensive because that is the hand traditionally used to clean oneself after defecation.
The article was not as offensive as I feared it would be. The majority of the article is spent discussing the ingenuity of Muhammad's military stratagem. Gabriel makes the fairly obvious argument that if not for Muhammad's military success, the faith of Islam would have either died a quiet death or remained a regional sect.
Gabriel's article is different from the apologist writings that fill the bookshelves these days. Modern day Islamic scholars deplore the categorization of the spread of Islam via "the sword and the book," as the West is keen to describe Islam's impressive conversion rates over the last thirteen centuries - hence the aforementioned depictions of Muhammad. Far from the apologetic and modern day writers on Islam, Gabriel's article embraces the militaristic elements of Islam's roots and the proliferation of the faith.
Despite the interesting military strategy discussion, I had three problems with the article:
1) The label "insurgent"
- While Gabriel's description of an "insurgency" was educational for me, as I do not have an military training, I do not feel the term is correctly applied to Muhammad. Webster's defines "insurgent" as "person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent" and defines "insurgency" as "the quality or state of being insurgent; specifically : a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency."
I would submit that the so-called "insurgents" in Iraq and Muhammad rise to the level of belligerent. The Qur'aysh (the dominant tribe in control of Mecca during Muhammad's life) viewed Muhammad's military battles to be a matter of war. The Muslims certainly did as
jihad doctrine is based largely on the battles with the Qur'aysh (both in the Qur'an and the Sunna). While al-Qaeda or local terrorist cells, as well as Muhammad, may not be combatants under the command of a state they certainly qualify as "inclined to or exhibiting assertiveness, hostility, or combativeness." Regardless of the modern day parallels, the Qur'aysh weren't a nation state either, merely the strongest and most wealth tribe in Arabia. The term "insurgent" is erroneously applied to Muhammad with respect to actions against other tribes. Moreover, the
umma was the a faith based community with its own government and military elements. One could - and many have - argue that the
umma was a nation.
Parsing definitions aside, the term "insurgent" to the general public is one that carries a negative connotation. I cannot imagine that to state officials or trained military officials the term is positive either. In the end, it is the implied negative representation that was offensive to me.
2) The label "terrorism"
- Much like the negative term "insurgent," the argument that Muhammad used "terrorism" to spread his faith and as the predominant military strategy of his army is again offensive.
"Terrorism seems to be an indispensable element of a successful insurgency, and it was no less so in Muhammad's case. He used terrorism in two basic ways: First, he ensured discipline among his followers by making public examples of traitors and backsliders...Second, Muhammad used terrorism to strike fear in the hearts of his enemies to a large scale."
Acts of treason and military defection punished by death are not limited to Muslim armies. Gabriel references the execution of Jewish tribes - Arabs of Jewish faith - as an example of terrorism against his enemies. However, what Gabriel fails to mention is that the tribes sold out Muhammad to the Qur'aysh - in fact leaving the Muslim army to die - before and during battles. According to Arabic tribal law his reprisal - death of their men for his - is not without precedence. It was less an act of terrorism ("the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion") as it was a matter of retribution. Gabriel also mentions Muhammad's execution of Meccans after he finally conquers the city, however this was limited to "pagans." Converts to Islam or
dhimmi - people of the book; Christians and Jews - would not have been killed. Muhammad and his men probably did kill many Meccans after they overtook the city; I am sure that many died at his command. Does that make him any different than any other military conqueror after years of war? (Fallujah anyone?) If the answer is "no" then either every military leader is a terrorist or Gabriel is singling out Muhammad for his own personal reasons.
Despite Gabriel's claim that the faith Muhammad founded and spread should not be measured by the brutality of its Prophet, the tone of the article and the terminology used does little to bolster Gabriel's claim. The last two sentences of the article are:
"Conservative Sunnis, such as the Wahhabis of Arabia, and modern militant jihadis in Iraq and Pakistan still adhere to the traditional doctrine [of
jihad]. It is among these militant conservative Muslims that the military legacy of Muhammad is most alive today."
It's not much different than telling the populace of the Middle East that the raping and pillaging campaigns of the Vikings and Genghis Khan are most alive today in the United States armed forces. Or compairing our forces to that of the Crusaders as Islamist rhetoric is quick to do.
3) The last section
- Gabriel ends the piece by trying to summarize complex theological and juristic differences with Islam in seven paragraphs. This section does little to clear up the readers questions regarding Shi'ism v. Sunnism, the legitimacy of the doctrine of
jihad, classical v. modern interpretations of the
jihad doctrine, and what constitutes
jus ad bellum and
jus in bello under Shari'a. The last seven paragraphs did nothing more than paint Islam as a religion of blood thirsty torturing heathens. By the end of the article you may believe that Muslim warriors are likely to come out of the closet and kill your children at night for not eating the their vegetables as they complete a nightly raid of your neighborhood.
While Gabriel does acknowledge Muhammad's - and his advisers' - military prowess, he also takes the opportunity to paint Islam as a backwards blood thirsty religion by using terms such as "terrorism," and "insurgent," and by adding convoluted and highly debated theological and legal doctrines into the article. The article is not devoid of merit, but it is also not devoid of polemics.
Irony for the day: Gabriel is the angel that acted as the medium between Muhammad and Allah. The Revelation passed on to Muhammad and contained in the Qur'an are the words of Gabriel.
