Ayahs that Seem Conflicting

Forgive me for being impatient, but it is always these controversial issues like this that really get to me, so I aplogize for this deeply but can someone please answer my question here?

format_quote Originally Posted by Hijrah

My question is though is if Muhammad (Peace and Blessings of Allah Be Upon Him) had fought the arabian idolators (of Makkah) when that ultimatum was given for them to leave the land, accept Islam or fight what would he have done later on if they refused and eventually surrendered.

They did refuse and they did eventually surrender at the conquest of Makkah. Some people still refused. Read the story of Safwan ibn Umayyah. He was the most hostile opponent of Islam, the one who instigated multiple plots to assasinate the Prophet Muhammad saws, and the one responsible for much of the suffering of the Muslims. When Makkah was conquered he tried to fight back with a few others, but he failed and so he fled intending to leave arabia. His former friend 'Umayr ibn Wahb came to the Prophet asked the Prophet saws for a guarantee of safety for safwan so he could have an opportunity to come and repent. The prophet saws granted that. Umayr asked for a sign to show safwan as proof that the Prophet saws had granted him safety. At that, the Prophet saws took off his very own turban and handed it to 'Umayr.

When 'Umayr caught up with Safwan and convinced him to come back, Safwan returned to Makkah. The Prophet saws confirmed that he had been granted safety and invited him to accept Islam. Safwan refused and asked for 2 months time to decide. To his surprise, the Prophet saws gave him four months, double what he had requested.

Later, after Hunain, Safwan was amazed to see a tremendous valley filled with cattle which was part of the booty the Muslims had acquired. When the Prophet Muhammad pbuh saw him, he gave him all of it. Safwan exclaimed, "Only a soul of a prophet would be content to give in this manner!" and the former archenemy of the muslims declared his acceptance of Islam and his love for the Messenger of Allah. Such mercy, forgiveness and generosity we find in the Prophet's actions are unparallel with anything from human history.

And why is it that at first before the order to expel all the unbelievers from the Arabian Peninsula, why was there an order to fight all the ARAB mushrikeen and at first the Jews and Christians of that area had an option of paying the jizyah for the remainder of their stay over there...?

The order of expulsion was the final culminating order from the initial directives.

http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...sconceptions#9

In this section of your misconceptions article, you mention:

Therefore, the context of the verse within the Surah makes it clear that this refers to those who are persistent in their hostilities and attacks against Muslims, and it is applied in battle only.

However, isn't it true that after the treaties for those other pagan tribes mentioned in 9:4 and 9:7 were over, they would be subject to the same ruling as Ayah 9:5? I have read that in many authentic tafsir books.

Yes but it doesn't conflict with what I said at all, since it is after the treaty expires. At that point tribes from all over arabia sent delegations to the Muslims and that was the point when the rule of Islam was consolidated in arabia; it was not forced upon any tribe. Read up on the history; like I said before read the biography by Adil Salahi and all your confusion will dissolve.

you mean around the time that the Prophet wanted all the kuffaar expelled from Arabia?

assalam-u-alaikum,
my question still being though, as for those mushriks who had a 4 month respite after surah bara'ah, would they ALL have been killed if lets say, they didn't accept Islam or leave the land?

format_quote Originally Posted by Hijrah

you mean around the time that the Prophet wanted all the kuffaar expelled from Arabia?

and also if the the rule of Islam was consolidated in arabia, wouldn't the same ruling as in ayah 9:5 be subject to the jews and the christians because they were to be expelled anyway? was the order of expulsion before the other pagan arab tribes treaties expired?

insha'allah, I shall read Salahi's book though...

bro,
Just read the book because you are asking questions that don't make any sense.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hijrah

my question still being though, as for those mushriks who had a 4 month respite after surah bara'ah, would they ALL have been killed if lets say, they didn't accept Islam or leave the land?

No, read 9:6. After the period of amnesty, remaining hostile forces would be confronted, but instead they accepted Islam and joined the Muslims.

and also if the the rule of Islam was consolidated in arabia, wouldn't the same ruling as in ayah 9:5 be subject to the jews and the christians because they were to be expelled anyway?

All remaining hostile forces would be confronted after the period of amnesty. Read from CMVAN:

Shaykh Sami al-Majid also makes some very interesting points in his discussion on this verse:

If we look at the verses in Sûrah al-Tawbah immediately before and after the one under discussion, the context of the verse becomes clear. A few verses before the one we are discussing, Allah says: “There is a declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the pagans with whom you have contracted mutual alliances. Go then, for four months, to and fro throughout the land. But know that you cannot frustrate Allah that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 1-2]
In these verses we see that the pagans were granted a four month amnesty with an indication that when the four months were over, fighting would resume. However, a following verse exempts some of them from the resumption of hostilities. It reads:
“Except for those pagans with whom you have entered into a covenant and who then do not break their covenant at all nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill your engagements with them until the end of their term, for Allah loves the righteous.” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 4]
So when Allah says: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them and beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” we must know that it is not general, since the verse above has qualified it to refer to the pagan Arabs who were actually at war with the Prophet (peace be upon him) and those who broke their covenants of peace. This is further emphasized a few verses later where Allah says:
“Will you not fight people who broke their covenants and plotted to expel the Messenger and attacked you first?” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 13] (SOURCE)

was the order of expulsion before the other pagan arab tribes treaties expired?

This wasn't a sudden verdict, it was an on-going process to consolidate the rule of Islam in the peninsula.

you answered most of my questions even though shaikh sami al-majid's part over there was referring to the other mushrik's not the jews and the christians...as for the order of expulsion I was referring to how the Prophet gave the order himself of how no two religions should be present together in Arabia, only Islam. and that's what I meant by the 'order of expulsion' and the 'kuffar being expelled from Arabia.' My question still being that when this was the case, wouldn't everyone be confronted if they refused to leave the land?

I apologize for not being clear enough, but I hope that explains my previous questions.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hijrah

My question still being that when this was the case, wouldn't everyone be confronted if they refused to leave the land?

No; this was a plan to consolidate the rules of Islam in the region, not a verdict after which Islam was forced upon anyone. As Shaykh 'Abdul-Muhsin ibn Nâsir Âl 'Ubaykân points out:

Another point is that there were non-believers who lived in Saudi Arabia during the Caliphs' times. Muslim men married non-Muslim women and lived together in the region. I even found fatwas for Sheikh Mohammad Ibn Uthaimeen who supported this notion. A third point is that this issue is the business of the country's guardians rather than the people. The Caliph Abu Bakr did not have the Jews removed from Medina during his time, nor did he ask Omar Ibn Al-Khattab to do so either. A fourth point is that even if non-believers are to leave the region, it does not mean violating their properties or permitting their bloodshed. Furthermore, having them leave the region is related to what is best and it is not an indefinite general predicament. (SOURCE)

And those tribes that were fought were those who showed aggression to the Muslims. I have explained this again and again in detail. You seem to be under the misconception that when the Prophet made this statement, all of a sudden the muslims rushed outside and fell upon the peaceful non-muslim tribes living in their midst and forced them to either accept Islam or be killed!! Such a notion completely contradicts the reality of what happened and how Islam was spread and how the non-muslims were dealt with.

EDIT: DELETE hehe

And they gave us their strongest oaths, without it being asked from them, of the broadening of their understanding and the certainty of their conscience, that they no longer held the slightest doubt that the one who says: "Yaa Rasoolallaah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa-sallam)", or: "Yabna 'Abbaas", or: "Yaa 'Abdal-Qaadir", or other than them from the creations, seeking by that to avert an evil or bring a good from anything that Allaah ta'aalaa alone is capable of doing, such as healing the sick, or granting victory over the enemy, or guarding from a misfortune, or the like: that he is a mushrik guilty of major shirk, whose blood may be shed and whose wealth is lawful, even if he believes that the ultimate controller of the universe is Allaah ta'aalaa alone but he turned to the creations with du'aa', seeking intercession from them, and drawing closer to them, in order to fulfill his need from Allaah by virtue of their "secret" and by their interceding with Him for them while they are in the barzakh;

http://islamlife.com/news.php?readmore=139

In the bold, is it referring to apostasy or is that general or something like that?

It is apostasy because it is shirk which takes a person out of the fold of islam

No, read 9:6. After the period of amnesty, remaining hostile forces would be confronted, but instead they accepted Islam and joined the Muslims.

what would happen after the mushriks were confronted, and the Muslims were victorious though, what would be done with the rest of them?!

format_quote Originally Posted by Hijrah

what would happen after the mushriks were confronted, and the Muslims were victorious though, what would be done with the rest of them?!

Individuals would be granted asylum as mentioned in ayat 9:6. Only forces that remained hostile were fought. Remember the story of Safwan ibn Umayyah.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

Individuals would be granted asylum as mentioned in ayat 9:6. Only forces that remained hostile were fought. Remember the story of Safwan ibn Umayyah.

Correct me if I'm mistaken but looking at the major tafseer books, is it not true that 9:6 was referring to those mushriks who happened to be passing through the Muslim lands, they would then get temporary asylum, hear the Qur'aan and then get escorted back to where they came from?! But you're saying that even after the fight was over the rest of the mushriks would be granted asylum, and that's how they would have been dealt with. Where is the evidence for that?! Is there a scholar who actually believed this?!

I am talking about the reality of what happened as attested to by ALL the scholars of Islam. After fighting the hostile polytheists tribes and meeting with delegations from other tribes, all the region came under the rule of Islam. Individuals who came and refrained from showing any hostility to the Muslims would not be harmed, but would be granted asylum to hear the message of Islam.

But you're saying that even after the fight was over the rest of the mushriks

Which mushriks are you talking about? From which tribe? Where were these ubiquitous mushriks after all the tribes in the region came under Islam?! Please - Don't just speak from your imagination, give me solid facts if you want my answer. Read about what actually happened and then you won't be asking hypotheticals that don't make sense.

alright, I'm done, I'll leave this subject which is in reality, trivial, may Allaah blesss you and your family akhee ansar-al-adl