Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy

by Jonathan A.C. Brown

I sit writing this in a bed and breakfast in Johannesburg, South Africa, Peter Tosh’s ‘Downpressor Man’ playing on the music-video channel on a small TV. This city is a panoply of diversity. In the malls, people of all races and dress window-shop and wait for tables. Women in full face-veils and men with long beards and turbans stroll by without a passing glance from others. Back in the US, in the wake of the tragic Boston Marathon bombings, the media are still frenzied over distinguishing good, moderate Muslims from evil, extremist ones. No one of consequence ever acknowledges that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ in the American public square are too often not moral qualities or commitments to principle (a principled view might be, for example, ‘The good person respects human life and protects the innocent at all costs; the evil kills and causes suffering ruthlessly’). Rather, they are tribal qualities. ‘Good’ corresponds to ‘works to kill America’s enemies’ (American Muslims who joined the US military to fight in Iraq are thus good), and ‘evil’ means ‘works to kill Americans or their allies or both’ (Iraqi Muslims trying to defend their loved ones from random, dismembering explosions were evil). As for ‘moderate’ and ‘extreme,’ they map onto ‘congruent with mainstream American culture’ (Muslims who drink or don’t cover their hair are thus moderate) versus ‘clashes with mainstream American culture.’