Qur’an 2:216 Jihad (holy fighting in God's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But God knows, and you know not.
The first mistake in this translation is that this Qur’anic verse actually does not use the word “Jihad”. This verse actually uses the word “Qitaal”, which refers to physical fighting. Fighting is ordained for Muslims in order to defend themselves and their rights, as well as the rights of others. The obligation to physically defend one’s rights, and to establish justice was elaborated on in the previously mentioned article on Jihad. It is sufficient to quote a verse from the Qur’an in this regard:
4:75 And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help."
It is most certainly a duty of all human beings to help each other from oppression and injustice. This is what Islam teaches. Commenting on verse 2:216, Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes:
To fight in the cause of Truth is one of the highest forms of charity. What can you offer that is more precious than your own life? But here again the limitations come in. If you are a mere brawler, or a selfish aggressive person, or a vainglorious bully, you deserve the highest censure. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, Text, Translation and Commentary )
Therefore, the fighting ordained by God in the Qur'an is the fighting to establish justice and security in the land, and this is a duty upon all human beings. We will always hope for peace, but we must realize that without justice, freedom, rights and equity, peace will never be able to survive. Likewise, on verse 2:216, Abdul Majid Daryabadi writes:
War, it has been truly said, is sanctioned by the law of nature – the constitution of man and the constitution of society – and is at times a biological and sociological necessity. Islam, the ideal and practical religion has allowed it, but only in cases of sheer necessity. (Daryabadi, The Glorious Qur’an, emphasis added)
Islam has designated war as the last resort and only in cases of sheer necessity, in order for us to defend the rights of ourselves and others. Also, the picture becomes even more clear when we take into consideration the historical context of the revelation. Abdullah Yusuf Ali goes on to explain the historical context in his commentary on verse 2:217:
The intolerance and persecution of the Pagan clique at Mecca caused untold hardships to the holy Messenger of Islam and his early disciples. They bore all with meekness and long-suffering patience until the holy one permitted them to take up arms in self-defence… (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, Text, Translation and Commentary )
In light of the above quote, it becomes apparent that fighting has been especially ordained in conditions of severe persecution and hardship. Consequently, the Muslims are required to defend themselves from oppression and establish justice. To abstain from helping those under oppression is cowardice. Abdul Majid Daryabadi also explains the historical context of the verse:
Persecuted, harassed, afflicted, poverty-ridden, exiled, and small in number as the Muslims were at the time of the enactment of warfare, it was but natural that they were none too fond of crossing swords with the mighty forces that had conspired for their extirpation. Nothing short of express and emphatic Divine Command could urge them on to the field of battle [in order to defend their rights]. And yet the Islamic jihads are declared to be ‘designed by the Prophet to satisfy his discontented adherents by an accession of plunder!’ (Margoliouth). Such is this European scholar’s love of veracity! Such is his wonderful reading of history! (Daryabadi, The Glorious Qur’an)
The commentary on this verse makes it very clear that Muslims have always understood this verse as the legal right to defend one’s rights from the forces of oppression, but never to transgress limits in defence.
5:33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter
The context of this verse itself will clear any negative perceptions against Islam. One cannot quote verse 5:33 without quoting verse 5:32 (prohibition of murder) and verse 5:34 (command to forgive). Let us examine the verse in its proper context:
5:32-34 ...If any one slew a person - unless it be as punishment for murder or for spreading corruption in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
There are several points to note here. The first is the gravity of the offense. This is punishment for WAGING WAR against the Prophet of God and spreading evil and destruction. In modern terminology this would be considered "terrorism". This is a punishment for such a severe offense, hence the severity of the punishment. As Muhammad Asad writes on this verse:
The present participle la-musrifun indicates their "continuously committing excesses" (i.e., crimes), and is best rendered as "they go on committing" them. In view of the preceding passages, these "excesses" obviously refer to crimes of violence and, in particular, to the ruthless killing of human beings. (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an)
It is quite shocking to see how many Islam-haters will place this verse under the heading of "inciting Muslims to kill and wage war", whereas the verse commands nothing of this sort! In fact, it comes directly after a verse prohibiting murder and likening the unjust murder of a single individual to the slaughter of humanity. The Qur'an purposefully describes the gravity of the sin before describing the punishment. The crime of murder and committing terrorist activities is regarded as such a severe violation in Islam, that a severe retribution has been prescribed. Waging war against God's prophet is tantamount to waging war against Our Creator Himself. It is ironic that Islam-haters will present this verse to justify their claim that Islam supports terrorism, whereas Muslim scholars have always presented this verse as proof that Islam is vehemently opposed to terrorism. For example, the Islamic Fiqh Council of Saudi Arabia writes about this verse:
Obviously, in view of the enormity of such acts of aggression, which are viewed by the Shari'ah (Islamic law) as an act of war against the laws and the creatures of God, there is no stricter punishment anywhere in the manmade laws. (Islamic Fiqh Council of Saudi Arabia, Terrorism – Islam’s viewpoint, Muslim World League Journal, Jumad al-Ula 1423/July 2002 CE)
Is it logical to inform someone about a certain punishment without telling them about the crime? Yet, this is exactly what the enemies of Islam have done to deceive people into thinking Islam is a violent religion. They cite only verse 5:33 without verse 5:32 or verse 5:34, which brings us to our next point. God has prescribed multiple punishments in this verse using the word "or" between them, indicating various alternatives. The punishment depends on the circumstances and severity of the offence. As Muhammad F. Malik writes in his translation of this verse:
The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Rasool and strive to create mischief in the land is death or crucifixion or the cutting off their hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land (based on the gravity of their offence)... (Malik, Al-Qur'an: Guidance for Mankind)
Likewise, Abdullah Yusuf Ali comments:
For the double crime of treason against State, combined with treason against God, as shown by overt crimes, four alternative punishments are mentioned, any one of which is to be applied according to circumstances...except that tortures such as "hanging, drawing, and quartering" in English Law, and piercing of eyes and leaving the unfortunate victim exposed to a tropical sun, which was practiced in Arabia, and all such tortures were abolished. In any case sincere repentance before it was too late was recognized as grounds for mercy. (Yusuf Ali, The English Translation of the Holy Qur’an, emphasis added)
Indeed, the subsequent verse immediately states that this punishment is not for those who repent. For verily, God is Oft-Forgiving and Most Merciful. God's infinite Mercy is truly clear when one considers that God is willing to forgive these ruthless acts of terror that deserve such harsh punishments, so long as the offender sincerely repents to Allah, seeking His Pardon and True Guidance. The Muslim scholars have mentioned that whenever Allah warns us of a punishment, He always shows us a way out, a way to avoid the punishment. Many Muslim jurists also cite this verse in the case of punishment for Hirabah (armed robbery/highway robbery). In such instances, depending on the severity of the offence, the punishment is prescribed. When murder has been committed, then execution is prescribed as the punishment. Depending on the circumstances, the judge may choose a lesser punishment. The banishment mentioned in the verse has been interpreted by some schools of thought as imprisonment. The punishment of crucifixion has been mentioned in the verse, but many Muslim scholars have mentioned that they never have even heard of such punishment ever being prescribed. In fact, Imam Malik, the founder of the Maliki school of thought, when as ked about crucifixion, replied that he had never even heard of a single case in which crucifixion was prescribed as punishment for armed robbery. (see Al-Mudawwanah, vol. XV, p. 99).
In light of this fact, Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa has said:
This observation of Malik's gives me the impression that this punishment was prescribed solely to deter the potential criminal. (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 11, emphasis added)
Concerning the argument that such punishments are barbaric, Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa writes:
Shaykh Muhammad Abu Zahra, in his previously mentioned book [Al-Jarima wal-'Uqba, pp. 6-11], explains the aim of both Islamic law, as well as the sacred Jewish law contained in the Torah, is to achieve public security and peace for the community as well as the retribution for the criminal minority; accordingly, the necessary means for the attainment of this latter end were prescribed both in the Torah and the Qur'an. The second question concerns the law of pardon for offenders who repent and whether the punishment for Hirabah should be considered a dead letter because of this law. To answer this question, one should again bear in mind that this punishment, and indeed all the hudud punishments in the Islamic penal system, are prescribed mainly to protect society from crime. In order to achieve this purpose, Islamic law, while prescribing punishment for criminals, makes it possible for them to be pardoned when they realize the evil of their conduct and desire to mend their ways. This does not contradict the earlier quotation from Abu Zahra. While punishment may be withheld, provision must be made for all the injuries and harm resulting from the criminal's act. In this way, society does not lose anything. On the contrary, it gains a new member who, if he had not been given the chance to repent, forever would have been considered an outlaw. (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 13, emphasis added)
For further information on the Islamic Criminal Law, the reader may refer to the excellent article, Crime and Punishment in Islam. Other scholars explain the Islamic punishments by comparative means.
Shaykh Abdul Majid Daryabadi writes the following on verse 5:33:
Lest some of these penalties may appear 'barbarous' to some hypersensitive Western reader, let him cast a glance on 'drawing and quartering', a penalty of the English Criminal Code maintained as late as the 18th century, inflicted on those found guilty of high treason touching the king's person or government. The person committed was usually drawn on a sledge to the place of execution; there he was hung by the neck from a scaffold, being cut down and disemboweled, while still alive, his head was cut from his body and his corpse divided into four quarters. With the profession of their faith declared as high treason by law many Catholics of England and Ireland suffered this death. 'In this reign of Henry III and Edward I there is abundant evidence that death was the common punishment of felony; and this continued to be the law of the land as to treason and as to all felonies, except petty larceny, down to the year 1826' (Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England, I. p. 458). In contemporary English law, robbery is larceny with violence; and the guilty is liable to penal servitude for life, and in addition, if a male, to be once privately whipped. The elements of the offence are essentially the same under American law (EBr. XIX. p. 346). (Daryabadi, The Glorious Qur’an, emphasis added)
In light of the above mentioned points, we can clearly reject any claims of this verse supporting "violence and warfare" as baseless. The textual context, historical context, legal context, and comparative analysis of this verse all demonstrate that this verse merely enjoins justice in return for grave offences, and by no means can support the lies of the Islam-haters.
Bukhari: Some people from `Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them, so Allah's Apostle (pbuh) allowed them to go to the herd of camels (given as Zakat) and they drank their milk and urine (as medicine) but they killed the shepherd and drove away all the camels. So Allah's Apostle sent (men) in their pursuit to catch them, and they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut, and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron and they were left in the Harra (a stony place at Medina) biting the stones. (Volume 2, Book 24, Number 577)
This narration is often quoted in order to present the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as someone who delivered exceedingly cruel and barbaric punishments.
Let us examine the narration more closely along with other narrations of the same event. The narration states the following:
-Some people from Urayna (or Ukil) tribe came to Madinah after accepting Islam
-They acquired an illness due to the climate, for which the Arabs used to drink milk and urine of camels as medicine
-The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) allowed them to go to the herds of camels for their medicine
-After recovering from their illness, they killed the sheperd and drove away the camels
-The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) ordered their hands and feet cut off, their eyes branded with heated pieces of iron, and they were left in the desert
It is clear that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) prescribed the hands and feet to be cut off in accordance with the Islamic laws concerning hiraabah (armed robbery). What doesn't appear in this narration is the reason for branding their eyes with heated pieces of iron. This is explained in other narrations where it states that this was the punishment because they had done the same thing to the sheperd whom they killed. As Shaykh Abdul Khaliq Hasan Ash-Shareef states about this narration:
It should be made clear that those people who came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) were Muslims and they were sick. The Prophet advised them to go to the herd of camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). When they became healthy, they killed the herder of the Prophet and drove away all the camels that were allocated for sadaqah (charity). When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) came to know about this, he applied the punishment for Hirabah on them. Hiraba means killing people, robbing their money or raping women by an armed group of people. The punishment for Hirabah is mentioned in the Qur’an. Allah says:
“The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His Messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom” (Al-Ma’idah: 33).
As for branding their eyes, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) branded the eyes of the people of `Ukl or `Uraina with iron because they killed the herder and branded his eyes with iron. Imam Ibn Hajar stated the differences of opinions among scholars and he said, “The killing that took place (that is, in reference to the above hadith) was in retaliation and Allah Almighty says,
‘And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you’ (Al-Baqarah: 194).”
All in all, using this story as evidence in favor of the permissibility of torturing people in Islam is refuted by the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) applied the punishment for Hirabah on them and that he did not do so for personal vengeance. (SOURCE, emphasis added)
Likwise, Moiz Amjad writes:
There is only one part of the referred narrative, which raises a question-mark in one's mind. It apparently seems strange that after having implemented the punishment prescribed in the Qur'an for crimes committed against the society, in general, why did the Prophet (pbuh) ordered their eyes to be branded. Most of the narratives do not provide an answer to this question. However, in one of the narratives reported in Ibn Al-Jarood's Al-Muntaqaa, Anas (ra) is reported to have explained the reason for this punishment as well. The companion of the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said:
The Prophet (pbuh) branded their eyes because they had branded the eyes of the herdsmen. (volume 1, Pg. 216)
This explanation adequately clarifies the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) ordered the branding the eyes of the culprits, in compliance with the Qur'anic directive of Qisaas (Al-Baqarah 2: 178, Al-Maaidah 5: 45) for the punishment of murder and inflicting physical injury on someone. In view of the foregoing explanation, I find no reason to consider the incident narrated in the referred narrative to be unauthentic. (SOURCE)
Shaykh Muhammad al-Qannâs, a Professor at Al-Imam University (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia), places the narration in perspective by presenting the views of the various Muslim scholars:
The above mentioned hadîth is narrated in Sahîh al-Bukhârî (6802) and Sahîh Muslim (1671). It reads:
Some people belonging (to the tribe) of `Uraynah came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) at Madînah, but they found its climate uncongenial. So the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to them: If you so like, you may go to the camels that are part of the charity and drink their milk and urine. They did so and were all right. They then fell upon the shepherds and killed them and turned apostates from Islam and drove off the camels of the Prophet (peace be upon him). This news reached Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) and he sent (people) on their track and they were (brought) and handed over to him. He got their hands cut off, and their feet, and put out their eyes, and threw them on the stony ground until they died.
The scholars disagree among themselves on this punishment:
1. Some said: This punishment was in retaliation for their act and the Prophet (peace be upon him) punished them in the same way that they killed the shepherds. It is mentioned in Sahîh Muslim
“The Prophet (peace be upon him) put out their eyes because they put out the eyes of the shepherds”.
The people concerned in studying the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) military career said: They dismembered the shipyards. Ibn al-Qayyim said: “It is extracted from the story of al-`Arâniyîn tribe that the criminal will be subject to the same act similar to the one he perpetrated, when they put out the shepherd’s eyes, he put out their eyes.” [Zâd al-Mâ`âd: (3/286)]
2. Other scholars said what is mentioned in the hadîth is abrogated, according to the prohibition of mutilation.
Accordingly, what took place in this hadîth was abrogated. This was adopted by al-Bukhârî. He narrated from Qatâdah that: “It is been narrated to us from the Prophet (peace be upon him) after that the Prophet (peace be upon him) encouraged charity and prohibited mutilation.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (4192)].
It was narrated by Qatâdah through Muhammad b. Sîrîn that this took place before the revelation on the ruling of punishments. [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (5686)]
Al-Hâzimî said: “This hadîth was abrogated” and he set a chapter “Mutilation and its abrogation”. He said: “A group of people adopted the opinion that these ruling were fixed in the beginning and then were abrogated when Allah sent: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger…” [Sûrah al-Mâ’dah: 33]
[Al-I`tibâr fi al-Nâsikh wa al-Mansûkh, page 196].
It could be that this severe punishment was at the beginning because the Prophet (peace be upon him) knew that some of the tough and hardened Bedouins who live around Madînah would not refrain from attacking others unless they heard of some of these severe punishments. The desert Bedouins living in the surrounding wilderness were warlike tribes used to toughness and to causing harassment. Allah says: “The dwellers of the desert are very hard in unbelief and hypocrisy, and more disposed not to know the limits of what Allah has revealed to His Messenger; and Allah is Knowing, Wise” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 97] (IslamToday fatwa service)
Therefore, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not punish them any more than the harm they inflicted upon the sheperd and the Muslim community. He also sent a strong message to other desert tribes who were accustomed to raiding and attacking nearby villages and tribes. This punishment was done for the security of the Muslim community, living in a very dangerous time with no formal legal system governing the arabian tribes. The situation is incomparable to modern times where governments have strong control over their territories - in arabia there existed a tribalistic anarchy.
As Shaykh Muhammad 'Ata Al Sid Sid Ahmad writes:
When the criminals of 'Urainah betrayed the community of Madinah which had met them with all love and respect -- by torturing and killing the herder of their camels and escaping with the Muslim's camels as their booty -- the Prophet quickly marshalled all his powers, arrested and dealt with them in the severest manner as the law allowed him. (Al-Sid, Islamic Criminal Law: The Hudud; Malaysia, Eagle Trading Sdn. Bhd., 1995, p. 132)
It should also be noted that many critics of the punishments in Islam are themselves believers in an afterlife in which people will be punished for their crimes, often with eternal torment in Hell. Eternal torment is far more servere than any temporary punishment delivered in this life. The punishments prescribed in Islam are intended to purify the offender of their sin in order that they may be saved from a far greater punishment in the next life. It seems that when one defers a punishment to the afterlife, there is a subconcious belief that such a punishment is not as "real" and consequently it is not as bothering to sentence someone to eternal torture in Hell as it is to prescribe a painful punishment here and now. Such thinking is inherently flawed.
Some writers have also claimed that the punishment delivered to the Ukil/Urayna tribe was prescribed for their apostasy. This is clearly rejected by the text of the hadith as well as the consensus of all Muslim jurists. Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa explains this as well:
On the other hand, the prevalent view among Muslim jurists is that the case of this group of 'Ukal and 'Urayna was a case of hiraba (armed robbery) and it was for this crime that they were punished (fn. See Tabari, Tafsir, vol. VI, pp. 132-146; Ibn al-Qayyim, Zad al-Ma'ad, vol. III, p. 78; Ibn Hajar, Fath Al-Bari, where he criticises Bukhari's view). The text itself demonstrates this very clearly. (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 51)
To conclude, this narration refers to an event of Hiraabah (armed robbery), where the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) implemented the law of Qisas (retribution), and the offendors were punished exactly as they had punished the sheperd. The Prophet did not exceed this limit at all in his prescribed punishment, but rather purified the offenders so that the punishment in the next life would be averted.
5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
The first point to be noted is that, in the verse above, the word Awliya is often incorrectly translated as friends (Awliya is the plural and its singular is wali and the concept is walaah). As a result, many people are under the misconception that this verse commands Muslims to distance themselves from Non-Muslims and to avoid friendship with them. This is far from the truth, as we shall see after examining the meaning of the word Awliya. The Qur'an says:
3:122 ...Allah was their WALI (protector), and in Allah should the faithful (Ever) put their trust.
This verse indicates that a wali is one in whom trust is placed for protection, as the Qur'an always declares God the protector, wali, of the righteous. As Dr. Saeed Ismail Sieny concludes his discussion on Walaah by writing:
As we have discovered above, the root of the word "al-walaah" does not include love, support, etc., and that the core meaning rests on guardianship. (Sieny, The Relationship Between Muslims and Non-Muslims; Toronto, Al-Attique Publishers Inc., 2000, p. 102, emphasis added)
And Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi writes:
In the verse you quoted, the word "Awliya" is used. It is a plural and its singular is "wali". The correct translation of the word ""wali"" is not "friend" but it is someone who is very close and intimate. It is also used to mean "guardian, protector, patron, lord and master". In the Qur'an this word is used for God, such as
“Allah is the Protector (or Lord and Master) of those who believe. He takes them out from the depths of darkness to light…” (Al- Baqarah: 257)
There are many other references in the Qur'an that give this meaning. The same word is also sometimes used in the Qur'an for human beings, such as
“And whosoever is killed unjustly, We have granted his next kin "wali" the authority (to seek judgment or punishment in this case)…”(Al-‘Isra' :33)
It becomes clear that the word Awliya cannot be taken as simply referring to friendship, as it contains a much more complex meaning, including dependence and guardianship.
Therefore, a more accurate translation of the verse would be:
5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your protectors: They are but protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
Therefore, the referred verse does not prohibit friendship with Non-Muslims at all. Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi writes:
The Qur'an does not say that non-Muslims cannot be Muslims' friends, nor does it forbid Muslims to be friendly to non-Muslims. There are many non-Muslims who are good friends of Muslim individuals and the Muslim community. There are also many good Muslims who truly and sincerely observe their faith and are very friendly to many non-Muslims at the same time. Islam teaches us that we should be friendly to all people. Islam teaches us that we should deal even with our enemies with justice and fairness. Allah says in the Qur'an in the beginning of the same Surah Al-Ma’dah:
“O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah as witnesses to fair dealings and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just, that is next to piety. Fear Allah, indeed Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do.” (Al-Ma’dah :8)
In another place in the Qur'an, Allah Almighty says:
“Allah forbids you not with regard to those who fight you not for your faith, nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them. For Allah loves those who are just. Allah only forbids you with regard to those who fight you for your faith, and drive you out of your homes and support others in driving you out, from turning to them for protection (or taking them as wali). Those who seek their protection they are indeed wrong- doers.” (Al-Mumtahinah: 8-9)
Moreover, Allah Almighty has described Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, as "a mercy" to the worlds. He was a sign of Allah's Mercy to all, Muslims as well as non-Muslims. In his kindness and fair treatment he did not make any difference between the believers and non-believers. He was kind to the pagans of Makkah and fought them only when they fought him. He made treaties with the Jews of Madinah and honored the treaties until they broke them. He, peace and blessings be upon him, is reported to have received the Christians of Najran with kindness in his Masjid in Madinah. They argued with him about Islam, but he returned them with honor and respect. There are many examples from his life that show that he was the friendliest person to all people. (SOURCE)
And as Muhammad Asad writes:
As regards the meaning of the "alliance" referred to here, see 3:28, and more particularly 4: 139 and the corresponding note, which explains the reference to a believer's loss of his moral identity if he imitates the way of life of, or-in Qur'anic terminology-"allies himself" with, non-Muslims. However, as has been made abundantly clear in 60: 7-9 (and implied in verse 57 of this Surah), this prohibition of a "moral alliance" with non-Muslims does not constitute an injunction against normal, friendly relations with such of them as are well-disposed towards Muslims. It should be borne in mind that the term wall has several shades of meaning: "ally", "friend", "helper", "protector", etc. The choice of the particular term - and sometimes a -combination of two terms-is always dependent on the context. (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an, emphasis added)
The second point to note is that although this verse makes a general statement, the ruling is specific and is to be applied in a context similar to the historical context.
Shaykh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi wrote about this topic extensively in response to a similar question:
[The answer to this is that these verses are not unconditional, to be applied to every Jew, Christian, or non-Muslim. Interpreting them in this manner contradicts the injunctions of the Qur'an which enjoin affection and kindness to the good and peace-loving peoples of every religion, as well as the verses which permit marriage to the women of the People of the Book, with all that Allah says concerning marriage
and He has put love and mercy between you” (30:21)
and the verse concerning the Christians:
And thou wilt find those who say, 'Surely we are Christians,' to be nearest to them (the Muslims in affection...(5:82)
The verses cited above [verse 5:51] were revealed in connection with those people who were hostile to Islam and made war upon the Muslims. Accordingly, it is not permissible for the Muslims to support or assist them - that is, to be their ally- nor to entrust them with secrets at the expense of his own religion and community. This point is explained in other verses, in which Allah, The Most High, says:
They will spare nothing to ruin you; they yearn for what makes you suffer. Hatred has been expressed by their mouths, but what their hearts conceal is still greater. Thus have We made clear to you the revelations (or signs), if you possess understanding. Ah! You love them, but they do not love you…(3:118-119)
This ayah throws light on the character of such people, who conceal great enmity and hatred against the Muslims in their hearts and whose tongues express some of the effects of such hostility. (Al-Qaradawi, Al-Halal Wal Haram Fil Islam; US American Trust Publications, 1994, p. 340, emphasis added)
As Shaykh Qaradawi mentioned, verse 5:11 cannot possibly be taken as a prohibition of friendship since the Qur’an allows Muslim men to marry women from the People of the Book:
5:5 … virtuous women of the believers and the virtuous women of those who received the Scripture before you are lawful for you…
And the Qur’an describes the relationship of marriage to be a relationship with the deepest bond of love:
30:21 And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect.
Also note that the Qur’an says:
60:8-9 Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of [your] religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show “Birr” with them and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice. Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of [your] religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up [others] in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.
The word “birr” is the same word used to describe a Muslim’s relationship with their parents which is considered the most sacred blood relationship in Islam. Therefore, Muslims are clearly commanded to deal with peaceful non-Muslims is a friendly and peaceful manner. The third point is that the specific groups being referred to in this verse were those hostile to Islam, and not all Jews and Christians in general. Concerning the historical context, the verse was revealed during a time when the Muslims were being attacked from many directions, including the Christian Roman empire and the Jews of Madinah. The Muslims had originally made a pact with the Jews of Madinah, but they were betrayed twice. So in this context, the Qur'an was telling the believers to be cautious in dealings with such enemies who oppose Islam, and not to trust them as protectors.
As Jasser Auda writes:
It was revealed in certain historic circumstances, in which there was a war between the infant Islamic state on different occasions on four different fronts: the Romans, the Persians, the pagans of Arabia, and the Jews of Madinah. So, the historic context of the revelation of this verse is a situation of war between Muslims and the People of the Book (Jews, internally in Madinah, and Christians, through a Roman crusade). So, yes, Muslims were not allowed to make friends with the enemies who were fighting them and wishing to eliminate them from the face of the earth. Some Muslims say that since the verse has this historic context, then it is part of history and no longer applies. This is not correct! It is true that the verse has a history behind it, but this does not mean that it is no longer relevant. It is totally relevant but only in a context similar to the historic context. So today Muslims are not to make friends with Jews or Christians (or followers of any other religion for that matter) if they try to kill Muslims, kick them out of their homes, etc. (SOURCE)
The Qur'anic verse is relevant in a similar context to the historical context. A Muslim cannot take Jews or Christians or anyone as protectors if they oppose their religion and its teachings. The Muslims are encouraged to rely on each other for support. Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi writes:
It is obvious that Jews patronize the Jews and Christians patronize the Christians, so why not Muslims patronize Muslims and support their own people. This verse is not telling us to be against Jews or Christians, but it is telling us that we should take care of our own people and we must support each other. In his Tafsir, (Qur’an exegesis) Imam Ibn Kathir has mentioned that some scholars say that this verse (i.e. the one you referred to) was revealed after the Battle of Uhud when Muslims had a set back. At that time, a Muslim from Madinah said, "I am going to live with Jews so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." And another person said, "I am going to live with Christians so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." So Allah revealed this verse reminding the believers that they should not seek the protection from others, but should protect each other. (See Ibn Kathir, Al-Tafsir, vol. 2, p. 68) (SOURCE)
The groups prohibited for Muslims to take as protectors are described in the Qur’an:
The Holy Qur'an, 60:1 O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as protectors,- offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in Allah your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love (and friendship) with them: for I know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path. 60:2 If they were to get the better of you, they would behave to you as enemies, and stretch forth their hands and their tongues against you for evil: and they desire that ye should reject the Truth.
So the Qur'an forbids taking those as protectors who expel the Muslims from their homes and who would betray and attack as soon as the opportunity arises. Those who have no respect for a Muslim’s beliefs and desire that the Muslim leaves their faith - they cannot be taken as protectors. This is the correct interpretation based on the context of the verse.
To conclude, we once again quote Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi:
Muslims are allowed to have non-Muslims as friends as long as they keep their own faith and commitment to Islam pure and strong. You are correct in pointing out that a Muslim man is also allowed to marry a Jewish or Christian woman. It is obvious that one marries someone for love and friendship. If friendship between Muslims and Jews or Christians was forbidden, then why would Islam allow a Muslim man to marry a Jew or Christian woman? It is the duty of Muslims to patronize Muslims. They should not patronize any one who is against their faith or who fights their faith, even if they were their fathers and brothers. Allah says:
“O you who believe! Take not for protectors (Awliya') your fathers and your brothers if they love unbelief above faith. If any of you do so, they are indeed wrong-doers.” (Al-Tawbah : 23)
In a similar way, the Qur'an also tells Muslims that they should never patronize the non-Muslims against other Muslims. However, if some Muslims do wrong to some non-Muslims, it is Muslim’s duty to help the non-Muslims and save them from oppression . The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said that he himself will defend a Dhimmi living among Muslims to whom injustice is done by Muslims. But Islam also teaches that Muslims should not seek the patronage of non-Muslims against other Muslims. They should try to solve their problems among themselves. (SOURCE)
Islam is a religion of peace and compassion, therefore it requires its adherents to act in the best possible manner to other human beings. Verse 5:51 does not refer to friends, but protectors, and the historical context reveals that this verse prohibits Muslims from seeking the protection and allegiance of those who are hostile to the Islamic faith. It is not a reference to all Non-Muslims, as the scholars of Islam have clarified.
Last edited by Bittersteel; 06-20-2006 at 10:49 AM.
We will now examine some of the frequently misquoted narrations (ahadith) from Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). With regards to the narrations, the vast majority of narrations circulated amongst Islam-haters are unauthentic, fabricated and contain mistranslations (as many of them were translated by non-muslims). Muslims only accept the Sahih ahadith as authentic. The collection of narrations known as Sahih Bukhari and also Sahih Muslim are the largest collection of authentic ahadith, and can be trusted, while other collections do not enjoy the same status in Islam. Therefore, it this article we will only examine the authentic narrations, on the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam-Haters often will quote from works such as Ibn Ishaq or At-Tabari, and other works which contain many mistranslations and unauthentic narrations. Arguments based on such narrations can be rejected outright without the need for further investigation. The second point to note with regards to the narrations is that most of those which are perceived negatively are simply those which encourage Jihad. Since Jihad is misunderstood by many to be a "holy war" against non-muslims, any narration that encourages Jihad is automatically perceived in a negative light. The truth of course is that Jihad is not a negative concept. Jihad refers to fighting against oppression and injustice and fighting to uphold peace, justice, and security in the land. This has been re-iterated throughout this article. If we understand that Jihad is intended to help humanity, then we can understand the narrations about Jihad properly. The Jihad that was encouraged by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was Jihad to extinguish the suffering, enslavement, and oppression of human beings. First we shall address the following quote often presented:
Bukhari: Jihad (holy fighting) in God's Cause (with full force of weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its Pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, God is made superior and He becomes the only God who may be worshiped. By Jihad Islam is propagated and made superior. By abandoning Jihad (may God protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position. Their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, and Muslim rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape this duty dies as a hypocrite.
Islam-haters deceptively write Bukhari before the above quote in order to convey the impression that this narration is part of the collection of narrations from Prophet Muhammad in Sahih Bukhari. However this is not the case. Anyone who opens a copy of Sahih Bukhari will find this note written in as a footnote. This note does not appear in any Arabic copies, therefore, this is not the saying of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), nor even the saying of Imam Bukhari, but simply the commentary of the translator, Muhammad Muhsin Khan. This is his opinion and not a saying of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). This quote is often used to depict Jihad as a military campaign to destroy or oppress people of other beliefs. Having already defined Jihad in the light of the Qur'an and Sunnah, we can reject such a notion as completely false.
Bukhari: A man came to God's Apostle and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward". He replied, "I do not find such a deed. Can you, while the Muslim fighter has gone out for Jihad, enter a mosque to perform prayers without ceasing and fast forever?" The man said, "No one can do that." (Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44)
Many narrations used by enemies of Islam are similar to the one presented above. All these narrations emphasize the importance of Jihad in Islam. The purpose of Jihad is emphasized clearly in the Qur'an:
4:75 And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help
We can understand the Jihad the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) encouraged if we examine the historical situation at that time. Muhammad Husayn Haykal notes the following in his biography of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):
Fighting was permitted in Islam, and carried out by Muhammad and his companions, in order to stop their being persecuted for their faith and to have all the freedom they needed to call men to it. Later, when we see the details and the proofs of this, it will become clear that in all these alliances Muhammad's purpose was the consolidation of the defence of Madinah. The objective was to remove Madinah beyond any design the Quraysh might have against its Muslim inhabitants. Muhammad could not have forgotten that the Makkans once sought to extradite the Muslims from Abyssinia... ...This peaceful show of strength by Islam does not at all mean that Islam, at that time, forbade fighting in defence of personal life and of religion, or to put a stop to persecution. Indeed, Islam did not. Rather, it imposed such defence as a sacred duty. What it did really mean at that time, as it does today or will ever do, was to condemn any war of aggression. "Do not commit any aggression," God commands. He counsels, "God does not love the aggressors."[Qur'an, 2:190] (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad; US North American Trust Publications, 1976, p.206, 208 emphasis added)
Therefore, Islam, being a system which aims for the betterment of humanity, imposes fighting against oppression and injustice as a religious duty. This is the reason for the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) which encourage his followers to fight for the sake of God.
Bukhari: God's Apostle said on the day of the conquest of Mecca, "There is no migration now, only Jihad and good intentions. And when you are called for Jihad, you should come out at once." (Volume 4, Book 53, Number 412)
The reason is very clear why the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) has mentioned this. When the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) entered Makkah, the city of those who had persecuted him and his followers a decade before, he forgave those who persecuted him. It was this mercy that allowed the entire city to willingly embrace Islam. Muhammad Husayn Haykal writes about the Prophet's entry into Makkah:
The Prophet camped on a height opposite the mountain of Hind and in the proximity of the graves of Abu Talib and Khadijah. He was asked whether he wanted to rest in his old house in Makkah and answered, "No! They have leveled it." The Prophet then retired to his tent grateful to God for this glorious and victorious return, and for bringing to its knees the cruel city which had tortured and banished him. For a moment, he turned his gaze toward the valley of Makkah as well as to the surrounding hills. He recalled that in those hills he often found refuge from the persecution of Quraysh... ...Mounting his she camel, al Qaswa', he rode toward the Ka'bah where he circumambulated the House without dismounting. He then dismounted and called upon `Uthman ibn Talhah to open the Ka'bah for him. Muhammad stood at the door surrounded by the many worshippers who had found their way to the holy House. He delivered a speech to the people present in which he said, quoting the Qur'an... ..."O men, We have created you from male and female and constituted you into peoples and tribes that you might know and cooperate with one another. In the eye of God, highest among you is the most virtuous. God is omniscient and all wise." [Qur'an, 49:13] He continued: "0 Men of Quraysh, what do you think I am about to do with you?" "Everything good," they answered, "for you are a noble brother and a noble nephew of ours." Muhammad went on: "Rise, then, and go. For you are free." With this word, Muhammad gave a general amnesty to all Quraysh and all the Makkans. The Prophet's General Amnesty Oh, the beauty of pardon and forgiveness on the part of the mighty and powerful! How great is the soul of Muhammad which rose above hatred and above revenge, which denied every human feeling and ascended to heights of nobility man had never reached before! There were the Quraysh among whom were people whom Muhammad well knew had plotted to kill him, had persecuted him, and inflicted upon him and his companions all kinds of injury and harm, who fought him at Badr and at Uhud, who blockaded him in the Campaign of al Khandaq, who incited the Arab tribes to rise against him, and who would even then tear him apart if only they had the power. There, the whole of Quraysh stood totally under Muhammad's hand, indeed under his feet, totally subject to his command. Indeed, their very life depended upon the first word emerging from his lips. All these thousands of men, of Muslims in battle array, stood on the ready waiting for that one word to wipe out the whole of Makkah and its people within minutes. Muhammad, however, was no less than Muhammad! He was no less than the Prophet of God! No alienation, antagonism, or hostility could find any permanent abode in his heart. His heart was absolutely free of injustice, of malice, of tyranny or false pride. In the most decisive moment, God gave him power over his enemy. But Muhammad chose to forgive, thereby giving to all mankind and all the generations the most perfect example of goodness, of truthfulness, of nobility and magnanimity. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad ]; US North American Trust Publications, 1976, pp. 406-408)
At this point, Islam had become the major authority in the Arabian Peninsula and was established as a full state. With this many followers it was clear that in the face of danger, migration was no longer an option for such a large nation as no Muslim could turn their back on a fellow believer. Rather it was imperative that they all recognize the need for standing united in defending against the inevitable attacks from the armies of Persians and Romans.
Bukhari: Allah's Apostle said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords." (Volume 4, Book 52, Number 73)
This narration is quoted by some in order to depict Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as someone who glorified violence and killing. However, if the full saying is quoted in context, that image is immediately banished. The full saying is found in another narration:
...Allah's Apostle in one of his military expeditions against the enemy, waited till the sun declined and then he got up amongst the people saying, "O people! Do not wish to meet the enemy, and ask Allah for safety, but when you face the enemy, be patient, and remember that Paradise is under the shades of swords." Then he said, "O Allah, the Revealer of the Holy Book, and the Mover of the clouds and the Defeater of the clans, defeat them, and grant us victory over them."(Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 266l)
This narration makes it abundantly clear that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught his followers to hate violence and never desire conflict with the enemy. However, in the event of a battle, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) encouraged his companions to be patient and informed them of the reward promised by God to those who die fighting oppression and injustice. This saying should be presented in its full context so that the reader may see that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a man who desired peace and patiently endured the struggles thrust upon him by his enemies.
As Dr. Jamal Badawi mentioned about this narration:
The hadith deals with the situation where Muslims are forced to the battlefield as the last resort to defend themselves in which case the use of the sword may be necessary and martyrdom (self-sacrifice) is rewarded with Paradise. (SOURCE)
The Prophet said "I swear by the One in Whose hand is my soul, O Quraysh, that I am bringing you slaughter!" (Musnad Ahmad # 7036, Ibn Hisham 1:289)
Although this narration does not appear in Sahih Muslim or Bukhari, it has been narrated in some other collections and accepted by scholars. To understand this narration, we must examine the historical context in which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) made the statement.
Shaykh Safiur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri mentions this narration in his biography of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in the following context:
Al-Bukhari, on the authority of Ibn Mas‘ud, narrated that once when the Prophet [pbuh] was prostrating himself while praying in Al-Ka‘bah, Abu Jahl asked his companions to bring the dirty foetus of a she-camel and place it on his back. ‘Uqbah bin Abi Mu‘ait was the unfortunate man who hastened to do this ignoble act. A peal of laughter rose amongst the infidels. In the meanwhile, Fatimah, the daughter of the Prophet [pbuh], happened to pass that way. She removed the filth from her father’s back. The Prophet [pbuh] invoked the wrath of Allâh upon them, especially upon Abu Jahl, ‘Utbah bin Rabi‘a, Shaibah bin Rabi‘a, Al-Waleed bin ‘Utbah, Omaiyah bin Khalaf and ‘Uqbah bin Mu‘ait. It is recorded that all of them were killed in the battle of Badr. [Bukhari 1/37] Scandal-mongering and backbiting were also amongst the means of oppression that the chiefs of Makkah, in general, and Omaiyah bin Khalaf, in particular, resorted to in their overall process of evil-doing. In this regard, Allâh says: "Woe to every slanderer and backbiter." [Al-Qur'an 104:1] ‘Uqbah bin Al-Mu‘ait once attended an audience of the Prophet [pbuh] and listened to him preaching Islam. A close friend of his, Ubai bin Khalaf, heard of this. He could not tolerate any act of this sort, so he reproached ‘Uqbah and ordered him to spit in the Prophet’s holy face, and he shamelessly did it. Ubai did not spare any thinkable way to malign the Prophet [pbuh] ; he even ground old decomposed bones and blew the powder on him... The Tyrants’ Decision to kill the Prophet [pbuh] Now that all the schemes and conspiracies of Quraysh had failed, they resorted to their old practices of persecution and inflicting tortures on the Muslims in a more serious and brutal manner than ever before. They also began to nurse the idea of killing the Prophet [pbuh]. In fact, contrary to their expectations, this new method and this very idea served indirectly to consolidate the Call to Islam and support it with the conversion of two staunch and mighty heroes of Makkah, i.e. Hamzah bin ‘Abdul-Muttalib and ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab[R]. ‘Utaibah bin Abi Lahab once approached the Prophet [pbuh] and most defiantly and brazenly shouted at him, "I disbelieve in: "By the star when it goes down." [53:1] and in "Then he (Gabriel) approached and came closer." [53:8] In other words: "I do not believe in any of the Qur’ân." He then started to deal highhandedly with Muhammad [pbuh] and laid violent hand on him, tore his shirt and spat into his face but his saliva missed the Holy face of the Prophet [pbuh]. Thereupon, the Prophet [pbuh] invoked Allâh’s wrath on ‘Utaibah and supplicated: "O Allâh! Set one of Your dogs on him." Allâh responded positively to Muhammad’s supplication, and it happened in the following manner: Once ‘Utaibah with some of his compatriots from Quraysh set out for Syria and took accommodation in Az-Zarqa’. There a lion approached the group to the great fear of ‘Utbah, who at once recalled Muhammad’s words in supplication, and said: "Woe to my brother! This lion will surely devour me just as Muhammad [pbuh] supplicated. He has really killed me in Syria while he is in Makkah." The lion did really rush like lightning, snatched ‘Utbah from amongst his people and crushed his head. [Tafheem-ul-Qur'an 6/522; Quoted from Al-Isti'ab, Al-Isaba, Dala'il An-Nubuwwah, etc] It is also reported that a wretched idolater from Quraysh, named ‘Uqbah bin ‘Abi Mu‘ait once trod on the Prophet’s neck while he was prostrating himself in prayer until his eyes protruded. [Mukhtasar Seerat Ar-Rasool p.113]... ...the tyrants of Quraysh would not be admonished, contrariwise, the idea of killing the Prophet [pbuh] was still being nourished in their iniquitous hearts. On the authority of ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin Al-‘As, some people of Quraysh were in a place called Al-Hijr complaining that they had been too patient with the Prophet [pbuh] , who suddenly appeared and began his usual circumambulation. They started to wink at him and utter sarcastic remarks but he remained silent for two times, then on the third, he stopped and addressed the infidels saying: "O people of Quraysh! Hearken, I swear by Allâh in Whose Hand is my soul, that you will one day be slaughtered to pieces." As soon as the Prophet [pbuh] uttered his word of slaughter, they all stood aghast and switched off to a new style of language smacking of fear and even horror trying to soothe his anger and comfort him saying: "You can leave Abul Qasim, for you have never been foolish." [Ibn Hisham 1/289] ‘Urwa bin Az-Zubair narrated: I asked Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin Al-‘As to tell me of the worst thing that the pagans did to the Prophet [pbuh] . He said: "While the Prophet [pbuh] was praying in Al-Hijr of Al-Ka‘bah, ‘Uqbah bin Al-Mu‘ait came and put his garment around the Prophet’s neck and throttled him violently. Abu Bakr came and caught him by his shoulder and pushed him away from the Prophet [pbuh] and said: "Do you want to kill a man just because he says, My Lord is Allâh?" [Bukhari 1/544] (Al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum; Riyadh-Saudi Arabia, Dar-us-Salam Publications, 1996; pp. 94 & 105-108, emphasis added)
It becomes clear that this statement was uttered by a man subjected to abuse and persecution. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said this after being repeatedly tormented while trying to worship his creator in peace. Not only was he tortured, but his followers also suffered immense torture. Professor K. S. Ramakrishna Rao summarizes some of the tortures the early Muslims faced:
Read the history of the early converts to Islam, and every heart would melt at the sight of the brutal treatment of innocent Muslim men and women. Sumayya, an innocent women, is cruelly torn into pieces with spears, An example is made of " Yassir whose legs are tied to two camels and the beast were are driven in opposite directions", Khabbab bin Arth is made lie down on the bed of burning coal with the brutal legs of their merciless tyrant on his breast so that he may not move and this makes even the fat beneath his skin melt." "Khabban bin Adi is put to death in a cruel manner by mutilation and cutting off his flesh piece-meal." In the midst of his tortures, being asked weather he did not wish Muhammad in his place while he was in his house with his family, the sufferer cried out that he was gladly prepared to sacrifice himself his family and children and why was it that these sons and daughters of Islam not only surrendered to their prophet their allegiance but also made a gift of their hearts and souls to their master ? Is not the intense faith and conviction on part of immediate followers of Muhammad, the noblest testimony to his sincerity and to his utter self-absorption in his appointed task ? (Ramakrishna Rao, Islam and Modern Age)
Therefore, Prophet Muhammad's comment (peace be upon) was a warning. It was a warning to the Quraysh to desist from their crimes or face the punishment of their Lord. It should be noted that this was always the function of God's Messengers and Prophets throughout the history of humanity on Earth. They were sent by God to guide people back to the worship of their Creator, towards good deeds and acts of compassion and away from evil deeds and sins. The Prophets warned their people to desist from their crimes before the punishment of God would come. An example would be the nation of Pharaoh who enslaved the Children of Israel and sought to kill Prophet Moses (peace be upon him). For their crimes, God caused them to drown in the sea. Dr. Ja'far Sheikh Idris comments on the destruction of nations by mentioning the following:
Decline or destruction is therefore the ultimate and inevitable destiny of any ungrateful nation, any nation which rebels against God and follows the path of immorality. But this ultimate destruction is brought about in accordance with principles. Here are some of them. a. Destruction or chastisement does not befall a nation until it is sufficiently warned. This warning can come to them through the medium of a Messenger from God:
"And never did Thy Lord destroy the townships, till He had raised up in their mother-town a messenger reciting unto them our revelations. And never did we destroy the townships unless the folk thereof were evil doers." (Qu'ran:xxvii,59) "Never did We destroy a population, but had its warners------by way of reminder; and We never are unjust." (Qur'an xxvi,208-209)
Or they may be caused to know in some other way that they are guilty and should therefore expect to be punished. (The Process of Islamization, Part 4 © 1977 The Muslim Students' Association of the US and Canada Fourth Printing - January 1983)
So the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was performing his duty of warning the Quraysh of an impending punishment from God if they did not desist from their crimes and sins. In the end, most of the Quraysh did repent and embraced Islam, thus the punishment was averted from them.
Bukhari: Allah's Apostle said, "I have been made victorious with Terror" (Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220)
The full narration reads as follows:
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with ru'b (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them). (Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220)
By using the word 'Terror' for ru'b, the Islam-hater intends to convey the following definition of terror:
Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
However, the word ru'b does not have that meaning at all. It refers to fright and anxiety. In fact, we can derive a better understanding of ru'b by examing other ahadith:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) saod: "I was given victory through Ru`b: the enemy becomes filled with Ru`b even though they are the distance of a month's journey away from me." (Ahmad #20337)
The meaning is thus obvious that when the enemies' attempts to detroy the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) failed, they began to fear him as he grew in strength in Arabia and gained more followers. They feared and hated the religion he brought which preached equality and morality and would remove them from their position of corrupt tyrants who enslaved the poor and the non-arabs. It was fear of the mysterious power which granted Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his followers such rapid success. This fear was not the fear that resulted from past combat, as many Islam-haters would have us believe, rather it was a type of fear which prevented further combat. As Jalal Abualrub notes:
Ru`b ', means, ‘Fear': Here is a list of some of the Islamic resources explaining, ‘Ru`b', as, ‘Fear', and, ‘Awe': Fat`h al-Bari bi Shar`h Sahih al-Bukhari ; Tu`hfat al-A`hwadhi bi Shar'h Jami' at-Tirmidhi ; and, Shar`h Sunan an-Nasaii . These books were written by Muslim Scholars explaining Hadeeths contained in, Sahih al-Bukhari , and the Sunan collections of Imams at-Tirmidhi and an-Nasaii, respectively.... ...Al-Waqidi said in his, Maghazi , that Juwairiyah Bint al-Harith said, “ We were at the Muraisii` area when the Messenger of Allah marched forth towards us. I heard my father say, ‘There has come to us a gathering that we cannot resist.' I saw men and horses in such numbers that I cannot describe. After I became Muslim and the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, married me I looked at the Muslims and found their numbers to be less than what I had thought. I knew that this was Ru`b that Allah, the Exalted, throws in the hearts of the polytheists.' ” There are many similar examples in which the enemies of Islam, who, just like the Muraisii` people, had gathered armies to attack Madinah and the Prophet, scattered throughout the desert in fear when they heard that the Prophet had gathered an army to resist their treacherous attacks. Many lives were saved through Allah throwing fear in the hearts of the enemies of Muhammad, peace be upon them, because his enemies feared him, fled and did not meet him in battle. Thus, ‘fear', in the Hadeeth...saved Muslims and many of their enemies the hardship of battle and warfare. (Abualrub, The Prophet of Mercy, emphasis added)
hence, the fear that the disbelievers had of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) can justly be compared to the fear a thief or murderer would have of a police officer. In fact, a Police officer would desire that criminals fear the law in order to maintain a safe and secure society. Some crtitics also claim that this narration proves that the motivation of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was money due to the phrase, "the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and placed in my hand". Of course they omit the phrase before that - "While I was asleep". Jalal Abualrub comments on this deceptive tactic as follows:
By doing so, it would appear that the Prophet, peace be upon him, was seeking or wishing to acquire other people's wealth for himself. Contrary to this false illusion, this was a vision that the Prophet saw which contained glad tidings for the generations of Muslims to come. This is why in the same Hadeeth, Abu Hurairah added, as al-Bukhari and Muslim reported from him, “ Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them). (Abualrub, The Prophet of Mercy)
There are thousands of narrations which confirm that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) lived a simple life in poverty despite the power and strength he acquired as a leader. Here are a few of such narrations:
Narrated 'Aisha: The family of Muhammad had never eaten their fill of wheat bread for three successive days since they had migrated to Medina till the death of the Prophet. (Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 461) Narrated 'Aisha: The family of Muhammad did not eat two meals on one day, but one of the two was of dates. (Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 462) Narrated 'Aisha: The bed mattress of the Prophet was made of a leather case stuffed with palm fibres. (Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 463) Narrated Qatada: We used to go to Anas bin Malik and see his baker standing (preparing the bread). Anas said, "Eat. I have not known that the Prophet ever saw a thin well-baked loaf of bread till he died, and he never saw a roasted sheep with his eyes." (Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 464) Narrated 'Aisha: A complete month would pass by during which we would not make a fire (for cooking), and our food used to be only dates and water unless we were given a present of some meat. (Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 465)
In truth, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) never desired anything of the worldly pleasures. His mission was solely to please his Lord and spread the true message across the land, calling people to morality, justice and peace achieved through submission to God.
All these misquotations and narrations and their refutations were taken from here.
Now I would be adding more misquotes from other sources.Please feel free to add more.
for Non-Muslims too ,if you find a verse which indicates violence in Islam feel free to post them and let us examine them.
Last edited by Bittersteel; 06-20-2006 at 11:08 AM.
Misquoted verse:[4:101] "... For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies."
[4:101] When you travel, during war, you commit no error by shortening your Contact Prayers (Salat), if you fear that the disbelievers may attack you. Surely, the disbelievers are your ardent enemies.
8:12-13] ... I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips off them. This because they contend against God and his apostle. ...
[8:12-13] Recall that your Lord inspired the angels: "I am with you; so support those who believed. I will throw terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved. You may strike them above the necks, and you may strike even every finger." This is what they have justly incurred by fighting GOD and His messenger. For those who fight against GOD and His messenger, GOD's retribution is severe.
*8:12-16 All wars are governed by the basic rule in 60:8-9.
9:5] "... fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) ..."
[9:4-5] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous. Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. ...
[9:14] "Fight them, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame ..."
[9:13-14] Would you not fight people who violated their treaties, tried to banish the messenger, and they are the ones who started the war in the first place? Are you afraid of them? GOD is the One you are supposed to fear, if you are believers. You shall fight them, for GOD will punish them at your hands, humiliate them, grant you victory over them, and cool the chests of the believers.
Last edited by Bittersteel; 06-20-2006 at 11:35 AM.
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks