Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Someone asked me some time ago, “Why did the Jews reject Mohammed?” Actually, by some accounts, as many as 10,000 Jews in the Arabian Peninsula accepted Mohammed over Moses, and during the Middle Ages, many more converted to Islam sometimes out of choice; but more often than not, they chose Islam out of compulsion because of Islam’s rapid expansion in the medieval world. Simply put: most folks simply want to live a peaceful life without having to live a pariah existence in a dominant culture, which segregates and discriminates against its minorities. The famous historian of “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” historian Edward Gibbon (1737—1794) had these choice words to say about Mohammed’s personality that I believe to be accurate and may help explain why Judaism does not regard him as a prophet.

“The use of fraud and perfidy, of cruelty and injustice, were often subservient to the propagation of the faith; and Mohammed commanded or approved the assassination of the Jews and idolaters who had escaped from the field of battle. By the repetition of such acts, the character of Mohammed must have been gradually stained; and the influence of such pernicious habits would be poorly compensated by the practice of the personal and social virtues which are necessary to maintain the reputation of a prophet among his sectaries and friends.

Of his last years, ambition was the ruling passion; and a politician will suspect, that he secretly smiled (the victorious impostor!) at the enthusiasm of his youth, and the credulity of his proselytes. A philosopher will observe, that their credulity and his success would tend more strongly to fortify the assurance of his divine mission, that his interest and religion were inseparably connected, and that his conscience would be soothed by the persuasion, that he alone was absolved by the Deity from the obligation of positive and moral laws.

If he retained any vestige of his native innocence, the sins of Mohammed may be allowed as an evidence of his sincerity. In the support of truth, the arts of fraud and fiction may be deemed less criminal; and he would have started at the foulness of the means, had he not been satisfied of the importance and justice of the end. Even in a conqueror or a priest, I can surprise a word or action of unaffected humanity; and the decree of Mohammed, that, in the sale of captives, the mothers should never be separated from their children, may suspend, or moderate, the censure of the historian” (The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire [H. H. Milman, Ed.] Bellingham, Part IV).

There is something more important than promoting monotheism, one must promote “ethical monotheism” and this explanation may help explain why the Jews never accepted Mohammed or his Koran. Historically, Jews of the medieval era felt that Mohammed’s fanaticism did not make him worthy of being a biblical prophet to Israel, but as we shall soon see, some Jewish thinkers consider Mohammed a prophet to the gentile world, much like the biblical soothsayer Balaam was in this regard (cf. Numbers 22-24).

Modern Muslim scholars divide the Koran into early and late Suras, the Meccan and Medinan Suras respectively. Most of the tolerant sentiments of Muhammad are to be found in the early, Meccan Suras: The early attitudes found in these Suras reveal a Mohammed who was tolerant and wise. Here are some pithy examples.

cix “Recite: O Unbelievers, I worship not what you worship, and you do not worship what I worship. I shall never worship what you worship. Neither will you worship what I worship. To you your religion, to me my religion l.45 “We well know what the infidels say: but you are not to compel them.”

xliii. 88,89 “And [Muhammad] says, “O Lord, these are people who do not believe.” Bear with them and wish them ‘Peace ‘. In the end they shall know their folly.”

The exceptions are to be found in Sura ii, which is usually considered Medinan i.e. late: ii.256 “There is no compulsion in religion”; (a truly great line in the history of religion).

ii.62”Those who believe [i.e. Muslims] and those who follow the Jewish scriptures, and the Christians and the Sabians, and who believe in God and the Last Day and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.”

Mohammed’s Cynical Use of “Peace Treaties”

Sadly, after Mohammed gained in confidence and increased his political and military power, he changed from being a “persuader to being a legislator and warrior, dictating obedience.” The Medinan chapters such as Suras ix, v, iv, xxii, xlvii, viii, and ii reveal Muhammad at his most belligerent, dogmatic and intolerant. Were an outsider to guess, one might easily suppose that there were two distinctive portrayals of Mohammed, thus suggesting the possibility of two different authors who record two contrasting images of the same man. This is a speculative perspective, but it seems more likely that Mohammed psychologically changed after he conquered his enemies.

As the great contemporary Muslim intellectual and dissident, Ibn Warraq explained in his article that followed September 11, 2001, “The world is divided into two spheres, Dar al‑Islam and Dar al‑Harb. The latter, the Land of Warfare, is a country belonging to infidels which has not been subdued by Islam. The Dar al‑Harb becomes the Dar‑al Islam, the Land of Islam, upon the promulgation of the edicts of Islam.”

Thus the totalitarian nature of Islam is nowhere more apparent than in the concept of Jihad, the Holy War, whose ultimate aim is to conquer the entire world and submit it to the one true faith, to the law of Allah. To Islam alone has been granted the truth: there is no possibility of salvation outside it. Muslims must fight and kill in the name of Allah.

9:5‑6):”Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them”

4.76: “Those who believe fight in the cause of God”

5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot,a or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, unless they repent before you overpower them– in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful.

8:39‑42: “Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s.”

The passages sound like the rantings of a someone who is mentally-disturbed. That would explain why the Jewish community reacted with so much distrust toward him; who wouldn’t? Jews would later endure such treatment at the hand of Martin Luther, whose diatribes against the Jewish community was identical with that rantings of Mohammed.

These are only some of the moral problems the Jewish community had with Mohammed. In addition, when one looks at the Muslim view of Iblis (the Devil), it seems at time as though Islam followed more in the footsteps of the Zoroastrian faith, than it did with Judaism. Ibn Warraq and other scholars of Islam have also noted many of the idolatrous aspects early Islam inherited from the pre‑Islamic Arabs who proceeded them and owes much of its theology from Zoroastrianism.

God Uses Weak People to Achieve His Purpose

That being said, Maimonides still believed that Mohammed (despite his many faults) still served God’s mysterious purpose in spreading monotheism to the world. The Tanakh is full of stories of how God utilizes weak people to achieve His purpose, In another place, Maimonides credits Mohammed with converting the pagan Arabs to monotheism. That was no small accomplishment, but that does not put him in the category of a biblical prophet-at least with respect to Israel. As far as the pagan Arab world was concerned, it seems to be that Mohammed played an important role in the spiritual evolution of humankind.

I would further add that Jews and Muslims have gotten along well reasonably well for much of their respective histories. The Sufi tradition of Islam is a very mystical approach-one which even appealed to many of the greatest Jewish philosophers and mystics of the medieval era. In an age such as ours where there is so much religious dysfunction, it behooves both communities to learn how to respect and better communicate with one another. Islam can be a religion of peace, provided it purges itself of its more dangerous elements, much like Judaism and Christianity had to do in the past; indeed, we still have a lot of work to do within our own faith communities; the job is far from being complete.

One last point needs to be added; Jewish tradition teaches that the age of prophecy ceased with Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi who acted as the last of the prophets, the “divine spirit” ceased to be active in Israel with the death of these men (Tosefta Sotah 13:2; BT Sotah 48b; BT Yoma 9b; BT Sanhedrin 11a).

As the Encyclopedia Judaica points out: “Indeed, the absence of prophecy was regarded as one of the features that characterized the Second Temple period as opposed to the First (JT, Ta’anit 2:1, 65a; BT Yoma 21b). Josephus, too, reflects this same tradition (Apion, 1:39-41). By the middle of the second century B.C.E., the institution was accepted as having lapsed (1 Macc. 9:27; cf. 4:46; 14:41).”

Implications?

Considering the fundamentalist mindset of today’s Al-Qeda, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, Shiites, and other groups, it is clear there is a tendency toward literalism. If using duplicity worked so effectively for Mohammed and his henchmen, why shouldn’t they too, cynically use “peace” as a means of weakening Israel, thus softening them up for the next decisive battle? President Obama does not seem to understand the dark side of Islam that uses deceit as a means of achieving its religious objectives.