Monotheism Between Martyrdom and Intolerance

Islam

      Bilal the Abyssinian was a Companion of the Prophet Muhammad and Islam's first Muezzin. His tomb -if we are to believe popular tradition- is located in Bab al-Saghir's ancient Cemetery in Damascus, the alleged resting place of several holy men and women, including the first Omayyad Caliph Muawiya, Om Habiba the daughter of Abu Sufian and one of Muhammad's numerous wives, Fatima the daughter of Imam Hussein, etc. There exists, needless to say, no shortage of ancient mausoleums in and around Damascus; heck, I personally paid a visit to Abel's tomb many years ago (Abel was of course Adam's son & was slain by his brother Cain).

      Whether or not those graveyards host the remains they claim to, whether or not those men or women ever set foot in Damascus, if they existed at all, is not the subject of this essay. Various Muslim countries may dispute the honor of possessing the tomb of this or that saint; the Wahhabi may reject the whole concept of necropolis and frown at visiting the deceased; but the existence of those people, their lives, their achievements, are never in doubt. Their biographies have meticulously been collected, “authenticated”, commented, and adopted by hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide from time immemorial.

      Bilal was one of Islam's first Martyrs (so was Ammar ibn Yasser and his ilk but that's another story). Every Muslim knows how he eagerly adopted the Mohammedan Faith when the Believers were a tiny minority and how much he suffered for it. Bilal was a slave of the cruel Umayya ibn Khalaf, one of Islam's deadliest enemies (along with abu Jahl, abu Lahab and many others) and a member of a powerful Qurayshite clan. The ruthless Umayya was hellbent on reclaiming his renegade slave to the old pagan faith and to that purpose, he'd put the faithful Bilal to all kinds of torture, such as having the Martyr lie down on burning desert sand with a heavy stone placed on his chest as to bring him to the verge of suffocation. Bilal had adamantly refused to renounce the one-and-only True Faith, of course and somehow survived the greatest ordeal of his life to the great relief of the Community of the Faithful. He went on to become Islam's first Muezzin (caller to prayer) and his beautiful voice is the stuff of legends.

      The Forces of Darkness met their first defeat at the hands of the Muslims in the Battle of Badr. It was to be a day of reckoning for Umayya ibn Khalaf who was made prisoner by Abdul Rahman ibn Awf, a Companion of the Prophet Muhammad and one of the Ten Promised Paradise. Bilal sighted his old nemesis Umayya, helpless and defeated, and lost no time killing him despite the vociferous protestations of ibn Awaf, who captured Umayya and promised him protection.

      Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Bilal and Umayya did exist and that the above narrative is truthful (for the sake of this post the veracity of the above narrative or the lack thereof are irrelevant since Muslims treat it as bona fide history of which they are proud); I find this anecdote particularly illuminating. The beastly Umayya may have tortured Bilal but HE DID NOT KILL HIM when he could have easily done so with zero accountability. On the contrary, it was Bilal who needlessly butchered a captured (and henceforth harmless) Umayya; worse, he committed the deed despite the fact that Umayya was under the protection of another Companion of the Prophet, just like himself.

      To the Muslim Community, the Martyr was Bilal the executioner, not the victim he slayed! This is almost as comical as the martyrdom of Bassel al Assad, though in the latter case there was no good guy versus bad guy, merely a tragic car accident transformed by obsequious flatterers into an occasion to shed crocodile tears as their ancestors did under the French and before that the Ottomans.

      Bilal's was by no means a unique example. An even more egregious insult to common sense was the treatment the Muslims visited on the Jews of Medina, exiled, murdered, or enslaved to the last man and woman and yet perversely accused of “plotting” against the Muslim Community in cahoot with “Pagan” Quraysh. Even were this to be true, that is some of them did indeed conspire against Muhammad, would that justify such a brutal and collective punishment (Saad ibn Muaz notoriously advised Muhammad to kill Qurayza's men and enslave the women and the children and the Prophet -with the eager collaboration of Allah- concurred)? Once again, one can't but marvel at the ease with which credulous Muslims have always accepted at face value that the Jews of Medina were the villains of the story and amply deserved their grim fate and much more.

      There exists no shortage of such tales throughout history, of course, and they're by no means restricted to Christianity or Islam. There is a major difference, however: the Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Mongols, Turks, European Powers, may commit atrocities on a large (sometimes genocidal) scale but criticizing them and denouncing their crimes is perfectly permissible, if not encouraged. This is true particularly for events that are ancient history (many choose to refrain from condemning powerful nations or leaders who could silence and kill their opponents). It is acceptable to point to the butcheries of, say, Alexander the Great in Tyre; exposing Genghis Khan for the mass murderer he was is perfectly alright, Hitler remains the favorite super villain of many.

      Highlighting misdeeds of prophets and their companions, objectively pointing to the crimes committed by organized religion, subjecting pious criminals to the same scrutiny one does secular leaders, are an altogether different story. Do that at your own risk and blame no one but yourself for the consequences.

      As would say George Orwell, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. At least as far as Monotheism and its bogus Martyrs go.