✍ Zikra Anam
It was a question that Western (and some Eastern) Muslim leaders kept repeating in the wake of 9/11, when Muslims were being picked up in their neighbourhoods, strip-searched at airports, and questioned at borders. It served as their slogan, their shield, and their last-ditch effort to show the “civilized” world that they were not, in reality, ruthless barbarians. They claimed that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was more monk than statesman, more yoga teacher than warrior, and that he was benevolent, patient, tolerant, and forgiving without end. Thus, the calming question, “What would Muhammadﷺ do?” appeared at the end of each Friday sermon, ecumenical meal, and panel discussion.
At present, one of the most horrific humanitarian catastrophes in modern history is currently plaguing the world. Families are being split apart, children starved, entire neighbourhoods are being left to rubble, and countless innocent lives are being lost in Gaza.
Unexpectedly, the “good” Muslims – the moderates, the liberals, the indefatigable promoters of interfaith gathering – forget their favourite question. No one wants to inquire about Muhammad’sﷺ actions in the event of a genocide. Then why not? Because it’s too easy to figure out and too uncomfortable!
It is a profoundly moral dilemma that challenges people, leaders, and society to consider their roles in the face of injustice. It is not just a spiritual one. However, in many groups, it is considered taboo to even raise this topic. Discussions that are fundamental to Islamic beliefs and universal human ethics have been stifled by political sensitivities, fear of retaliation, and the weight of global power dynamics.
In the midst of this destruction, many Muslims and those who want justice are still troubled by the question: What would Prophet Muhammad ﷺ do if he were alive today?
Muhammad ﷺ : A Mascot for Pacifism
Let’s review the background. It’s not only about 9/11 but every massacre and massacre-style buildings attack that was against the Muslim community and ironically Muslims are allegedly accused for these. Some of them are listed below:
Colonial Era Massacres (18th-20th Century)
- French in Algeria (1830s-1900s)
- British Empire in India (1857)
Srebrenica Massacre (1995, Bosnia), Gujrat Riots (2002, India), Rohingya Massacre (2016-Present, Myanmar), Uyghur Persecution (2014-Present, China), Christchurch Mosque Attack (2019, New Zealand), Central African Republic Conflict 2012-Present), Indian Partition Massacres (1947), Chechnya Wars (1990s-2000s), Sabra and Shatila Massacre (1982, Lebanon), Bodo-Muslim Violence (2012, Assam), Delhi Pogrom (2020).
Despite being spectator of mass killing of their own people both Western and Eastern Muslim authorities rushed to carry out what could be referred to as the “Great Pacification of the Prophet.” A pacifist saint, Muhammadﷺ was no longer the man who organised armies, negotiated treaties, protected his people, and used force to quell aggression. He had a high level of tolerance for insults. He was frequently quoted for his ability to forgive adversaries. His focus on jihad al-nafs, or internal conflict, became the “only” jihad that merited discussion.
The goal was transparent: to convince the Muslim public that our Prophet’s legacy is to build a moral character and make them suspicious and apologetic in order to assert their identity. So that Muslims could never know that morality is not only about to speak softly and gently to others.
After investing a long time for brainwashing, a saccharine slogan served to the Muslim community: What would Prophet Muhammad ﷺ do?
Not all of it was dishonest. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ did, in fact, emphasise internal reform, exhibit patience, and extend forgiveness. The narrative, however, was very selective. And it was quite political. Muslims faced tremendous pressure to demonstrate their allegiance, to purify their faith, and to portray Islam as a peaceful spiritual pastime rather than a political force during the “War on Terror.”
The disappearing query
Let’s fast forward twenty years. The bombs hit Gaza. Refugee camps, schools, and hospitals are destroyed. A population that is confined like cattle is denied food, water, and medical care. The word “genocide” is first uttered in hushed tones and then loudly. Muslims everywhere look on in dismay, anger, and horror.
Even still, the liberal Muslims who used to be so quick to respond with the question, “What would Muhammad ﷺ do?” are suddenly silent.
There’s a reason for the stillness. It’s a calculated silence. Because Muhammad’s ﷺ actions in the face of genocide are well known. Furthermore, it is incompatible with the pacifist rebranding.
The uneasy response
When his people were being destroyed, the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ did not advocate for Twitter activity or patience. He didn’t hide behind his prayer mat and bide his time till divine justice was served. He was prepared. He provided defence. His disciples were obligated to resist. He ﷺ said, “I have been made victorious with awe cast into the hearts of enemies”. (Bukhari: 2977)
The Qur’an itself makes the duty explicit:
وَمَا لَـكُمۡ لَا تُقَاتِلُوۡنَ فِىۡ سَبِيۡلِ اللّٰهِ وَالۡمُسۡتَضۡعَفِيۡنَ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ وَالنِّسَآءِ وَالۡوِلۡدَانِ الَّذِيۡنَ يَقُوۡلُوۡنَ رَبَّنَاۤ اَخۡرِجۡنَا مِنۡ هٰذِهِ الۡـقَرۡيَةِ الظَّالِمِ اَهۡلُهَا ۚ وَاجۡعَلْ لَّـنَا مِنۡ لَّدُنۡكَ وَلِيًّا
“What is the matter with you that you do not fight in the cause of God and for those oppressed men, women, and children who cry out, ‘Lord, rescue us from this town of oppressors!’” (Qur’an 4:75).
This is not a fringe or unusual reading. In Islamic tradition, defensive jihad is required when a community is in danger of extinction. For Muhammad ﷺ , protecting the weak was not a choice, it was not a metaphor, and it most definitely could not be reduced to psychological platitudes about “resisting your lower self.” Concrete was used. It was armed. It couldn’t be negotiated.
Therefore, the answer to the question, “What would Muhammad ﷺ do?” in the face of Gaza, would be glaringly obvious: he would organise a protection army and make defence a responsibility. He wouldn’t cry about “messaging” or worry about what liberal white people might say. He would not contract with the State Department to handle morality. Between the slaughterer and the slaughtered, he would stand.
And that is precisely why the question is not being asked.
The liberal-Muslim paradox
This is the predicament of the “good” Muslim, actually liberal-Muslim, in real. They have made substantial investments on the pacifist Muhammad ﷺ story for the past 20 years. They have convinced their governments, their co-workers, and their neighbours that the Prophet ﷺ was essentially a bearded life coach, that jihad is merely a personal detox retreat, and that Islam is peace.
It’s either a misunderstanding or deliberately hiding the truth that Islam is all about Justice not folded-hand peace, though Peace is aligned with Justice. Peace comes with Justice.
Saying now that “Muhammad ﷺ would actually call for armed defence of Palestinians” runs the risk of destroying twenty years of meticulously constructed branding. They run the risk of losing the support of the very Western civilizations they have gone to great lengths to appease. It runs the risk of being associated with the “bad” Muslims – the radicals, the militants, the people who will always be labelled barbarians.
Therefore, it is best to remain mute. It is preferable to condemn “violence on both sides,” make vacuous statements about peace, and withdraw into the cosiness of interfaith dinners. Those “useful idiot” imams who dare to tell the uncomfortable truth should be ridiculed or marginalised. Even when Gaza burns, it’s better to maintain your dignity.
Choosing piety as politics
Of course, the irony is obvious. Upon seeing blasphemous events in the world. The “good” Muslims quickly reminded us that Muhammad ﷺ did not take offence. He pardoned his adversaries. He never supported violence by mobs. And I must say they are quite right but not all time.
However, in the case of genocide? The Prophet ﷺ is abruptly absent when families are destroyed in their homes, when children are rescued from the wreckage, and when a besieged people call for assistance. Press releases and conferences are suddenly devoid of the selective piety that once pervaded them. The Prophet ﷺ , who was formerly shown as a symbol of moderation, is now kept in the attic because it is too shameful to be seen.
This is beyond cowardice. It is complicity. One’s own religious heritage must be abridged to meet the standards of respectability because of the profound internalisation of Western hegemony. It is to minimise Muhammad ﷺ rather than address the full complexities of his legacy, first as a holy pacifist and then as a taboo that causes quiet.
The actual taboo
Therefore, this is not the question that should be avoided: “What would Muhammadﷺ do?” However, “What makes liberal Muslims hesitant to inquire?” The response is not complimentary. They fear because they are aware of the reality: Muhammadﷺ would not stand by and watch as genocide occurred. He’d do something. He’d fight. His supporters would be required to stand up for the downtrodden.
Additionally, interfaith luncheons do not favour such response. Security authorities are not comforted by this. The liberal order does not seem good. Thus, the question has been buried. previously used as a tactic to gain Western acceptability, the Prophet ﷺ is now hushed by the same Muslims who previously found it impossible to stop mentioning him.
Conclusion
If you go deep down in the question that “What would Muhammad ﷺ do”? You will find that was never meant for Muhammad ﷺ . It was for dirty politics.
The same inquiry would reveal a reality that is too risky for “good” Muslims to speak now in Gaza: that their Prophet ﷺ was not only forgiving but also combative when justice called for it.
Thus, the quiet says a thousand words. The so-called “good” Muslims are caught up in their own story. They are so devoted to the pacifist prophet that they are unable to summon the true one at this time. Respectability has been prioritised above accountability, and approval over integrity.
But history is cruel. When asked, “What did you do during the genocide in Gaza?” by future generations. “We asked what Muhammad ﷺ would do” is not something that the “good” Muslims can claim. They dared not. And their loudest response will be that silence.
