Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

you can produce many quotes lifted from Islamophobic websites that misleadingly quote Islamic scholars.

It is highly amusing that you can't defend the Bible against the evidence that it contains inserted contradictory verses

But hey - I'm not one to censor people's wish to repeat themselves, so I thank you once again for starting a thread that shows that the Quran does contradict the discredited view of Islam proposed by Orientalists.

If you have another manual of Islamic law endorsed by al-Azhar university that contradicts the manual I quoted from, please post it and we can see why there is a contradiction in Islamic law.

If you have another manual of Islamic law endorsed by al-Azhar university that contradicts the manual I quoted from, please post it and we can see why there is a contradiction in Islamic law.

event horizon wrote:I agree with you that your interpretation of the Koran contradicts my interpretation of the Koran.

Now, if you do a search here, you'll find that I have explained why these aren't contradictions.

shafique wrote:

event horizon wrote:I agree with you that your interpretation of the Koran contradicts my interpretation of the Koran.

Cool. Can't say fairer than that.

Others can make up their own minds which interpretation they choose to believe (including your view that the consensus view is that Muslims share your interpretation).

Cheers,
Shafique

I'll leave it to you to explain, since you possess a deep understanding of the Arabic language, why scholars of the Koran are wrong and you are right.

Opponents of Islam claim that Islam is not a religion of peace, that it is in fact a religion of violence, terrorism, and a faith that advocates wars against those who do not believe in this religion. One of the most common text they bring up to support their claim is that of Surah 9:29 (Surah Taubah). They claim this verse advocates violence, and war, against all those who do not believe in Islam, hence they conclude that Islam is an intolerant religion. Before refuting their claims, and their gross ignorance, let us first quote this passage:

YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

To begin with, let us expose the Christian double standard, why do they firstly assume that fight has to completely mean physical only? Fighting those who do not believe in Islam can done in many other forms other than a physical fight or conflict, fighting someone can be done with the tongue, you refute and crush the persons lies, and you preach the truth to them until they repent of their ways and come to the truth. There is not a single objection any Christian or other can bring against this point, because they have deceptively interpreted this verse to mean physical altercation only, in fact what will Christians say to this verse from their Bible:

Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword

Christians will interpret this verse saying that sword doesn't actually mean a physical sword, rather it is metaphorical language referring to the tongue, that by the tongue Christians shall spread the truth and crush the lies that have been propagated by satan. Therefore I must ask why don't Christians leave this interpretation open to the Quran as well? Why do they immediately assume that Surah 9:29 must ONLY refer to physical altercation? If a Christian objects to my claim that Surah 9:29 can also mean fighting unbelievers by the tongue, then it also throws out their own interpretation of Matthew 10:34 which means they no longer have any argument! So it is up to the Christian, if they want to argue honestly, or if they want to argue deceptively using double standards in interpretation.

Now let us examine the historical context of this verse, since Christians never want to take anything into context, they just quote and scream victory. We shall quote Maududi's excellent commentary of the verse's background and context:

Historical Background
Now let us consider the historical background of the Surah. The series of events that have been discussed in this Surah took place after the Peace Treaty of Hudaibiyah. By that time, one-third of Arabia had come under the sway of Islam which had established itself as a powerful, well organized and civilized Islamic State. This Treaty afforded further opportunities to Islam to spread its influence in the comparatively peaceful atmosphere created by it. After this Treaty, two events took place, which led to very important results:

Conquest of Arabia
The first was the Conquest of Arabia. The Holy Prophet was able to send missions among different clans for the propagation of Islam. The result was that during the short period of two years, it became such a great power that it made the old order of ignorance' feel helpless before it. So much so that the zealous elements from among the Quraish were so exasperated that they broke the Treaty in order to encounter Islam in a decisive combat. But the Holy Prophet took prompt action after the breach so as not to allow them any opportunity to gather enough force for this. He made a sudden invasion on Makkah in the month of Ramadan in A. H. 8 and conquered it. Though this conquest broke the backbone of the order of ignorance, it made still another attack on Islam in the battle-field of Hunain, which proved to be its death-knell. The clans of Hawazin Thaqif, Naur, Jushm and others gathered their entire forces in the battle field in order to crush the reformative Revolution, but they utterly failed in their evil designs. The defeat of 'ignorance' at Hunain paved the way for making the whole of Arabia the 'Abode of Islam' (Dar-ul-Islam). The result was that hardly a year had Passed after the Battle of Hunain, when the major portion of Arabia came within the fold of Islam and only a few upholders of the old order remained scattered over some corners of the country.

The second event that contributed towards making Islam a formidable power was the Campaign of Tabuk, which was necessitated by the provocative activities of the Christians living within or near the boundaries of the Roman Empire to the north of Arabia. Accordingly, the Holy Prophet, with an army of thirty thousand marched boldly towards the Roman Empire but the Romans evaded the encounter. The result was that the power of the Holy Prophet and Islam increased manifold and deputations from all corners of Arabia began to wait upon him on his return from Tabuk in order to offer their allegiance to Islam and obedience to him. The Holy Quran has described this triumph in Surah AN-NASR: "When the succour of Allah came and victory was attained and you saw people entering the fold of Islam in large numbers... Campaign to Tabuk

The Campaign to Tabuk was the result of conflict with the Roman Empire, that had started even before the conquest of Makkah. One of the missions sent after the Treaty of Hudaibiyah to different parts of Arabia visited the clans which lived in the northern areas adjacent to Syria. The majority of these people were Christians, who were under the influence of the Roman Empire. Contrary to all the principles of the commonly accepted international law, they killed fifteen members of the delegation near a place known as Zat-u-Talah (or Zat-i-Itlah). Only Ka'ab bin Umair Ghifari, the head of the delegation, succeeded in escaping and reporting the sad incident. Besides this, Shurahbll bin Amr, the Christian governor of Busra, who was directly under the Roman Caesar, had also put to death Haritli bin Umair, the ambassador of the Holy Prophet, who had been sent to him on a similar minion.

These events convinced the Holy Prophet that a strong action should be taken in order to make the territory adjacent to the Roman Empire safe and secure for the Muslims. Accordingly, in the month of Jamadi-ul-Ula A. H. 8, he sent an army of three thousand towards the Syrian border. When this army reached near Ma'an, the Muslims learnt that Shurahbil was marching with an army of one hundred thousand to fight-with them and that the Caesar, who himself was at Hims, had sent another army consisting of one hundred thousand soldiers under his brother Theodore. But in spite of such fearful news, the brave small band of the Muslims marched on fearlessly and encountered the big army of Shurahbil at M'utah. And the result of the encounter in which the Muslims were fighting against fearful odds (the ratio of the two armies was 1:33), as very favorable, for the enemy utterly failed to defeat them. This proved very helpful for the propagation of Islam. As a result, those Arabs who were living in a state of semi. independence in Syria and near Syria and the clans of Najd near Iraq, who were under the influence of the Iranian Empire, turned towards Islam and embraced it in thousands. For example, the people of Bani Sulaim (whose chief was Abbas bin Mirdas Sulaimi), Ashja'a, Ghatafan, Zubyan, Fazarah, etc., came into the fold of Islam at the same time. Above all, Farvah bin 'Amral Juzami, who was the commander of the Arab armies of the Roman Empire, embraced Islam during that time, and underwent the trial of his Faith in a way that filled the whole territory with wonder. When the Caesar came to know that Farvah had embraced Islam, he ordered that he should be arrested and brought to his court. Then the Caesar said to him, "You will have to choose one of the two things. Either give up your Islam and win your liberty and your former rank, or remain a Muslim and face death." He calmly chose Islam and sacrificed his life in the way of the Truth.

No wonder that such events as these made the Caesar realize the nature of the danger that was threatening his Empire from Arabia. Accordingly, in 9 A. H. he began to make military preparations to avenge the insult he had suffered at M'utah. The Ghassanid and other Arab chiefs also began to muster armies under him. When the Holy Prophet, who always kept himself well-informed even of the minutest things that could affect the Islamic Movement favorably or adversely, came to know of these preparations, he at once under- stood their meaning. Therefore, without the least hesitation he decided to fight against the great power of the Caesar. He knew that the show of the slightest weakness would result in the utter failure of the Movement which was facing three great dangers at that time. First the dying power of 'ignorance' that had almost been crushed in the battle-field of Hunain might revive again. Secondly, the Hypocrites of Al: Madinah, who were always on the look-out for such an opportunity, might make full use of this to do the greatest possible harm to it. For they had already made preparations for this and had, through a monk called Abu Amir, sent secret messages of their evil designs to the Christian king of Ghassan and the Caesar himself. Besides this, they had also built a mosque near Al-Madinah for holding secret meetings for this purpose. The third danger was of an attack by the Caesar himself, who had already defeated Iran, the other great power of that period, and filled with awe the adjacent territories.

It is obvious that if all these three elements had been given an opportunity of taking a concerted action against the Muslims, Islam would have lost the fight it had almost won. That is why in this case the Holy Prophet made an open declaration for making preparations for the Campaign against the Roman Empire, which was one of the two greatest empires of the world of that period. The declaration was made though all the apparent circumstances were against such a decision: for there was famine in the country and the long awaited crops were about to ripen: the burning heat of the scorching summer season of Arabia was at, its height and there was not enough money for preparations in general, and for equipment and conveyance in particular. But in spite of these handicaps, when the Messenger of Allah realized the urgency of the occasion, he took this step which was to decide whether the Mission of the Truth was - - going to survive or perish. The very fact that he made an open declaration for making preparations for such a campaign to Syria against the Roman Empire showed how important it was, for this was contrary to his previous practice. Usually he took every precaution not to reveal beforehand the direction to which he was going nor the name of the enemy whom he was going to attack; nay, he did not move out of Al- Madinah even in the direction of the campaign.

All the parties in Arabia fully realized the grave consequences of this critical decision. The remnants of the lovers of the old order of 'ignorance' were anxiously waiting for the result of the Campaign, for they had pinned all their hopes on the defeat of Islam by the Romans. The 'hypocrites' also considered it to be their last chance of crushing the power of Islam by internal rebellion, if the Muslims suffered a defeat in Syria. They had, therefore, made full use of the Mosque built by them for hatching plots and had employed all their devices to render the Campaign a failure. On the other side, the true Believers also realized fully that the fate of the Movement for which they had been exerting their utmost for the last 22 years was now hanging in the balance. If they showed courage on that critical occasion, the doors of the whole outer world would be thrown open for the Movement to spread. But if they showed weakness or cowardice, then all the work they had done in Arabia would -end in smoke.

That is why these lovers of Islam began to make enthusiastic preparations for the Campaign. Everyone of them tried to surpass the other in making contributions for the provision of equipment for it. Hadrat Uthman and Hadrat Abdur Rehman bin Auf presented large sums of money for this purpose. Hadrat Umar contributed half of the earnings of his life and Hadrat Abu Bakr the entire earnings of his life. The indigent Companions did not lag behind and presented whatever they could earn by the sweat of their labor and the women parted with their ornaments. Thousands of volunteers, who were filled with the desire of sacrificing their lives for Islam, came to the Holy Prophet and requested that arrangements for weapons and conveyance be made for them so that they should join the expedition. Those who could not be provided with these shed tears of sorrow; the scene was so pathetic that it made the Holy Prophet sad because of his inability to arm them. In short, the occasion became the touchstone for discriminating a true believer from a hypocrite. For, to lag behind in the Campaign meant that the very relationship of a person to Islam was doubtful. Accordingly, whenever a person lagged behind during the journey to Tabuk, the Holy Prophet, on being informed, would spontaneously say, "Leave him alone. If there be any good in him, Allah will again join him with you, and if there be no good in him, then thank Allah that He relieved you of his evil company".

In short, the Holy Prophet marched out towards Syria in Rajab A. H. 9, with thirty thousand fighters for the cause of Islam. The conditions in which the expedition was undertaken may be judged from the fact that the number of camels with them was so small that many of them were obliged to walk on foot and to wait for their turns for several had to ride at a time on each camel. To add to this, there was the burning heat of the desert and the acute shortage of water. But they were richly rewarded for their firm resolve and sincere adherence to the cause and for their perseverance in the face of those great difficulties and obstacles.

When they arrived at Tabuk, they learnt that the Caesar and his allies had withdrawn their troops from the frontier and there was no enemy to fight with. Thus they won a moral victory that increased their prestige manifold and, that too, without shedding a drop of blood.

In this connection, it is pertinent to point out that the general impression given by the historians of the campaigns of the Holy Prophet about the Campaign of Tabuk is not correct. They relate the event in a way as if the news of the mustering of the Roman armies near the Arabian frontier was itself false. The fact is that the Caesar had begun to muster his armies, but the Holy Prophet forestalled him and arrived on the scene before he could make full preparations for the invasion. Therefore, believing that "discretion is the better part of valor," he withdrew his armies from the frontier. For he had not forgotten that the three thousand fighters for the cause of Islam had rendered helpless his army one hundred thousand strong at M'utah. He could not, therefore, even with an army of two hundred thousand, dare to fight against an army of thirty thousand, and that, too, under the leadership of the Holy Prophet himself.

When the Holy Prophet found that the Caesar had withdrawn his forces from the frontier, he considered thee question whether it would be worthwhile to march into the Syrian territory or to halt at Tabuk and turn his moral victory to political and strategical advantage. He decided on the latter course and made a halt for twenty days at Tabuk. During this time, he brought pressure on the small states that lay between the Roman Empire and the Islamic State and were at that time under the influence of the Romans, and subdued and made them the tributaries of the Islamic State. For instance, some Christian chiefs Ukaidir bin Abdul Malik Kindi of Dumatul Jaiidal, Yuhanna bin D'obah of Allah, and the chiefs of Maqna, Jarba' and Azruh also submitted and agreed to pay Jizyah to the Islamic State of Al- Madinah. As a result of this, the boundaries of the Islamic State were extended right up to the Roman Empire, and the majority of the Arab clans, who were being used by the Caesar against Arabia, became the allies of the Muslims against the Romans.

Above all, this moral victory of Tabuk afforded a golden opportunity to the Muslims to strengthen their hold on Arabia before entering into a long conflict with the Romans. For it broke the back of those who had still been expecting that the old order of 'ignorance' might revive in the near future, whether they were the open upholders of shirk or the hypocrites who were hiding their shirk under the garb of Islam. The majority of such people were compelled by the force of circumstances to enter into the fold of Islam and, at least, make it possible for their descendants to become true Muslims. After this a mere impotent minority of the upholders of the old order was left in the field, but it could not stand in the way of the Islamic Revolution for the perfection of which Allah had sent His Messenger.

So as you can see, it was a direct act of war by the neighbouring Christians that resulted with this verse, they killed innocent Muslim messengers who were simply passing a letter from the prophet Muhammad to them, and back then it was an international ruling and law that simple messengers carrying messages to other rulers would not be targeted or killed.

Secondly, during the war, Caesar killed an Arab commander for the Roman empire Favrah for converting to Islam, he was given an ultimatum to either leave Islam or die, he choose Islam and hence was martyred, this act shows the Romans evil hatred towards the Muslim nation that they would kill you for being Muslim!

So what do our Christian friends expect? Do they expect the Muslims to simply sit down and let this happen? God revealed this verse so that the Muslims could defend themselves against the onslaught of one of the worlds greatest empire at the time which were the Romans, Allah gave the Muslims permission to attack them, as they say, the best defence is an offence. The Muslims were forced to act, the Muslims did not start the war, the Christians did, and they lost, the Muslims managed to take control of several areas which were held by the Romans, and these new captured lands were now part of the Islamic state and the inhabitants would have to pay the jizyah. If Christians have a problem with this, then they should have never started the war with the Muslims, as they say, don't start something you cant finnish, Muslims are not mere European Pagans who Christians could pick on, the Muslims had God on their side so the Christians picked on the wrong people to make war with.

Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri in his work of Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum
(THE SEALED NECTAR) Memoirs of the Noble Prophet [pbuh] writes:

The invasion and the conquest of Makkah was considered a decisive one between the truth and the error. As a result of which, the Arabs had no more doubt in Muhammad's mission. Thus we see that things went contrary to the pagans' expectations. People started to embrace Islam, the religion of All⨬ in great numbers. This is manifested clearly in the chapter ? The delegations, of this book. It can also be deduced out of the enormous number of people who shared in the Hajjatul-Wad⦣145; (Farewell Pilgrimage). All domestic troubles came to an end. Muslims, eventually felt at ease and started setting up the teachings of All⨦#146;s Laws and intensifying the Call to Islam.


The underlying Reasons
The Byzantine power, which was considered the greatest military force on earth at that time, showed an unjustifiable opposition towards Muslims. As we have already mentioned, their opposition started at killing the ambassador of the Messenger of All⨠[pbuh], Al-Harith bin ?Umair Al-Azdi, by Sharhabeel bin ?Amr Al-Ghassani. The ambassador was then carrying a message from the Prophet [pbuh] to the ruler of Busra. We have also stated that the Prophet consequently dispatched a brigade under the command of Zaid bin Haritha, who had a fierce fight against the Byzantines at Mu'tah. Although Muslim forces could not have revenge on those haughty overproud tyrants, the confrontation itself had a great impression on the Arabs, all over Arabia.

Caesar ? who could neither ignore the great benefit that Mu'tah Battle had brought to Muslims, nor could he disregard the Arab tribes' expectations of independence, and their hopes of getting free from his influence and reign, nor he could ignore their alliance to the Muslims ? realizing all that, Caesar was aware of the progressive danger threatening his borders, especially Ash-Sham-fronts which were neighbouring Arab lands. So he concluded that demolition of the Muslims power had grown an urgent necessity. This decision of his should, in his opinion, be achieved before the Muslims become too powerful to conquer, and raise troubles and unrest in the adjacent Arab territories.

To meet these exigencies, Caesar mustered a huge army of the Byzantines and pro-Roman Ghassanide tribes to launch a decisive bloody battle against the Muslims.

General News about the Byzantines and Ghassanide Preparations for War
No sooner news about the Byzantine's preparations for a decisive invasion against Muslims reached Madinah than fear spread among them. They started to envisage the Byzantine invasion in the least sound they could hear. This could be clearly worked out of what had happened to ?Umar bin Al-Khattab one day.

The Prophet [pbuh] had taken an oath to stay off his wives for a month in the ninth year of Al-Hijra. Therefore, he deserted them and kept off in a private place. At the beginning, the Companions of the Messenger of All⨠were puzzled and could not work out the reason for such behaviour. They thought the Prophet [pbuh] had divorced them and that was why he was grieved, disturbed and upset. In ?Umar's version of the very story he says: "I used to have a Helper friend who often informed me about what happened if I weren't present, and in return I always informed him of what had taken place during his absence. They both lived in the high part of Madinah. Both of them used to call at the Prophet alternatively during that time of suspense. Then one day I heard my friend, knock at the door saying: "Open up! Open up!" I asked wondering, "What's the matter? Has the Ghassanide come?" "No it is more serious than that. The Messenger of All⨠[pbuh] has deserted his wives." [Sahih Al-Bukhari 2/730]

In another version, ?Umar said, "We talked about Ghassanide preparations to invade us. When it was his turn to convey the news to me, he went down and returned in the evening. He knocked at the door violently and said ?Is he sleeping?' I was terrified but I went out to meet him. ?Something serious had taken place.' He said. ?Has the Ghassaindes arrived?' Said I. ?No,' he said, ?it is greater and more serious. The Messenger of All⨍ [pbuh] has divorced his wives.'" [Sahih Al-Bukhari 1/334]

This state of too much alertness manifests clearly the seriousness of the situation that Muslims began to experience. The seriousness of the situation was confirmed to a large degree by the hypocrites behaviour, when news about the Byzantines' preparations reached Madinah. The fact that the Messenger of All⨍ [pbuh] won all the battles he fought, and that no power on earth could make him terrified, and that he had always proved to be able to overcome all the obstacles that stood in his way - did not prevent the hypocrites, who concealed evil in their hearts, from expecting an affliction to fall upon the Muslims and Islam.

They used to harbour evil and ill-intentions against the whole process of Islam and the Muslims. On grounds of illusory hopes of destroying this great religious edifice, they erected a hotbed of conspiracy and intrigue in the form of a mosque ? Masjid-e-Darar (the mosque of harm). They approached the Prophet [pbuh] with the request that he should come and consecrate the place by praying in it himself. As he was at the moment about to start for Tabuk, he deferred compliance with their request till his return. Meanwhile he came to know through Divine Revelation that it was not a Mosque for devotion and prayer but a meeting place for the anti-Islamic elements. On his return, therefore, the Prophet [pbuh] sent a party to demolish the new structure.

Particular News about the Byzantine and Ghassanide Preparations for War
A magnified image of the prominent danger threatening the Muslims life was carried to them by the Nabateans who brought oil from Ash-Sham to Madinah. They carried news about Heraclius' preparations and equipment of an enormous army counting over forty thousand fighters besides Lukham, Judham and other tribes allied to the Byzantines. They said that its vanguard had already reached Al-Balq⦣146;. Thus was the grave situation standing in ambush for the Muslims. The general situation was aggravated seriously by other adverse factors of too much hot weather, drought and the rough and rugged distance they had to cover in case they decided to encounter the imminent danger.

The Messenger of All⨦#146;s [pbuh] concept and estimation of the situation and its development was more precise and accurate than all others. He thought that if he tarried or dealt passively with the situation in such a way that might enable the Byzantines to paddle through the Islamic controlled provinces or to go as far as Madinah, this would ? amid these circumstances ? leave the most awful impression on Islam as well as on the Muslims' military credibility.

The pre-Islamic beliefs and traditions (Al-Jahiliyah) which were at that time dying because of the strong decisive blow that they had already had at Hunain, could have had a way to come back to life once again in such an environment. The hypocrites who were conspiring against the Muslims so that they might stab them in the back whereas Byzantines would attack them from the front. If such a thing came to light and they succeeded in their evil attempts, the Prophet and his Companions' efforts to spread Islam would collapse and their profits which were the consequences of successive and constant fights and invasions would be invalidated. The Messenger of All⨠[pbuh] realised all that very well. So ? in spite of the hardships and drought that Muslims were suffering from ? the Prophet [pbuh] was determined that the Muslims should invade the Byzantines and fight a decisive battle at their own borders. He was determined not to tarry at all in order to thwart any Roman attempt to approach the land of Islam.

When the Messenger of All⨠[pbuh] had made up his mind and took his final decision, he ordered his Companions to get ready for war and sent for the Makkans and the other Arab tribes asking for their assistance.

Contrary to his habit of concealing his real intention of the invasion by means of declaring a false one, he announced openly his intention of meeting the Byzantines and fighting them. He cleared the situation to his people so that they would get ready, and urged them to fight in the way of All⨮ On this occasion a part of Surat Bara'a (Chapter 9 ? The Repentance) was sent down by All⨬ urging them to steadfastness and stamina.

On the other hand, the Messenger of All⨠[pbuh] cherished them to pay charities and to spend the best of their fortunes in the way of All⨮

No sooner had the Muslims heard the voice of the Messenger of All⨠[pbuh] calling them to fight the Byzantines than they rushed to comply with his orders. With great speed they started getting ready for war. Tribes and phratries from here and there began pouring in Madinah. Almost all the Muslims responded positively. Only those who had weakness at their hearts favoured to stay behind. They were only three people. Even the needy and the poor who could not afford a ride came to the Messenger of All⨠[pbuh] asking for one so that they would be able to share in the fight against the Byzantines. But when he said:

"...?I can find no mounts for you' they turned back while their eyes overflowing with tears of grief that they could not find anything to spend (for Jihad)." [Al-Qur'an 9:92]

The Muslims raced to spend out money and to pay charities to provide this invasion. ?Uthman, for instance, who had already rigged two hundred, saddled camels to travel to Ash-Sham, presented them all with two hundred ounces (of gold) as charity. He also fetched a thousand dinars and cast them all into the lap of the Messenger of All⨠[pbuh], who turned them over and said: "From this day on nothing will harm ?Uthman regardless of what he does." [Jami' At-Tirmidhi 2/211 (The virtues of 'Uthman)] Again and again ?Uthman gave till his charity toped to nine hundred camels and a hundred horses, besides the money he paid.

Abdur Rahman bin ?Awf, on his side, paid two hundred silver ounces, whereas Abu Bakr paid the whole money he had and left nothing but All⨠and His Messenger as a fortune for his family. ?Umar paid half his fortune. Al-?Abbas gifted a lot of money. Talhah, Sa?d bin ?Ubadah and Muhammad bin Maslamah, gave money for the welfare of the invasion. ?Asim bin ?Adi, on his turn, offered ninety camel-burdens of dates. People raced to pay little and much charities alike. One of them gave the only half bushel (or the only bushel) he owned. Women shared in this competition by giving the things they owned; such as musk, armlets, anklets, ear-rings and rings. No one abstained from spending out money, or was too mean to grant money or anything except the hypocrites:

"Those who defame such of the believers who give charity (in All⨦#146;s cause) voluntarily, and those who could not find to give charity (in All⨦#146;s cause) except what is available to them, so they mock at them (believers)." [Al-Qur'an 9:79]

The Muslim Army is leaving for Tabuk
Upon accomplishing the equipment of the army, the Messenger of All⨠[pbuh] ordained that Muhammad bin Maslamah Al-Ansari should be appointed over Madinah ? in another version Siba? bin ?Arftah. To ?Ali bin Abu Talib he entrusted his family's safety and affairs and ordered him to stay with them. This move made the hypocrites undervalue ?Ali, so he followed the Messenger of All⨠[pbuh] and caught up with him. But the Prophet made ?Ali turn back to Madinah after saying: "Would it not suffice you to be my successor in the way that Aaron (Harun) was to Moses'?" Then he proceeded saying: "But no Prophet succeeds me."

On Thursday, the Messenger of All⨠[pbuh] marched northwards to Tabuk. The army that numbered thirty thousand fighters was a great one, when compared with the previous armies of Islam. Muslims had never marched with such a great number before.

Despite all the gifts of wealth and mounts the army was not perfectly equipped. The shortage of provisions and mounts was so serious that eighteen men mounted one camel alternatively. As for provisions, members of the army at times had to eat the leaves of trees till their lips got swollen. Some others had to slaughter camels ? though they were so dear ? so that they could drink the water of their stomach; that is why that army was called "The army of distress".

On their way to Tabuk, the army of Islam passed by Al-Hijr ? which was the native land of Thamud who cut out (huge) rocks in the valley; that is "Al-Qura Valley" of today. They watered from its well but later the Messenger of All⨠[pbuh] told them not to drink of that water, nor perform the ablution with it. The dough they made, he asked them to feed their camels with. He forbade them to eat anything whatsoever of it. As an alternative he told them to water from that well which Prophet Salih's she-camel used to water from.

On the authority of Ibn ?Umar: "Upon passing by Al-Hijr the Prophet [pbuh] said:

"Do not enter the houses of those who erred themselves lest what had happened to them would afflict you, but if you had to do such a thing let it be associated with weeping."

Then he raised his head up and accelerated his strides till he passed the valley out." [Sahih Al-Bukhari 2/637]

Shortage of water and the army's need to it made them complain to the Messenger of All⨠[pbuh] about that. So he supplicated All⨬ who sent a rainful cloud. It rained and so all people drank and supplied themselves with their need of water.

When they drew near Tabuk, the Prophet said: "If All⨠will, tomorrow you will arrive at Tabuk spring. You will not get there before daytime. So whoever reaches it should not touch its water; but wait till I come." Mu?adh said: "When we reached the spring it used to gush forth some water. We found that two men had already preceded us to it. The Messenger of All⨍ [pbuh] asked them: ?Have you touched its water?' They replied: ?Yes'. He said what All⨠inspired him to say, then he scooped up little water of that spring, thin stream which gathered together, he washed his face and hand with it and poured it back into it; consequently plenty of water spouted out of it so people watered. ?Mu?adh', said the Messenger of All⨬ ?if you were doomed to live long life you will see in here fields full of vegetation.'" [Sahih Muslim 2/246]

On the way to Tabuk, or as soon as they reached Tabuk, the Messenger of All⨠[pbuh] said: ?Severe wind will blow tonight, so none of you should stand up. Whoever has a camel should tie it up.' Later on when the strong wind blew, one of the men stood up and the wind carried him away to Tai' Mountain. [ibid. Sahih Muslim 2/246]

All the way long the Messenger of All⨠[pbuh] was intent on the performance of the combined prayer of noon and the afternoon; and so did he with sunset and evening prayers. His prayers for both were either pre-time or post-time prayers.

The Army of Islam at Tabuk
Arriving at Tabuk and camping there, the Muslim army was ready to face the enemy. There, the Messenger of All⨠[pbuh] delivered an eloquent speech that included the most inclusive words. In that speech he urged the Muslims to seek the welfare of this world and the world to come. He warned and cherished them and gave them good tidings. By doing that he cherished those who were broken in spirits, and blocked up the gap of shortage and mess they were suffering from due to lack of supplies, food and other substances.

Upon learning of the Muslims' march, the Byzantines and their allies were so terrified that none of them dared set out to fight. On the contrary they scattered inside their territory. It brought, in itself, a good credit to the Muslim forces. That had gained military reputation in the mid and remote lands of Arabian Peninsula. The great and serious political profits that the Muslim forces had obtained, were far better than the ones they could have acquired if the two armies had been engaged in military confrontation.

The Head of Ailah, Yahna bin Rawbah came to the Messenger of All⨠[pbuh], made peace with him and paid him the tribute (Al-Jizya). Both of Jarba' and Adhruh peoples paid him tribute, as well. So the Messenger of All⨠[pbuh] gave each a guarantee letter, similar to Yahna's, in which he says:

"In the Name of All⨬ the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

This is a guarantee of protection from All⨠and Muhammad the Prophet, the Messenger of All⨬ to Yahna bin Rawbah and the people of Ailah; their ships, their caravans on land and sea shall have the custody of All⨠and the Prophet Muhammad, he and whosoever are with him of Ash-Sham people and those of the sea. Whosoever contravenes this treaty, his wealth shall not save him; it shall be the fair prize of him that takes it. Now it should not be lawful to hinder the men from any springs which they have been in the habit of frequenting, nor from any journeys they desire to make, whether by sea or by land."

The Messenger of All⨠[pbuh] dispatched Khalid bin Al-Waleed at the head of four hundred and fifty horsemen to ?Ukaidir Dumat Al-Jandal and said to him: "You will see him hunting oryxes." So when Khalid drew near his castle and was as far as an eye-sight range, he saw the oryxes coming out rubbing their horns against the castle gate. As it was a moony night Khalid could see Ukaidir come out to hunt them, so he captured him ? though he was surrounded by his men ? and brought him back to the Messenger of All⨠[pbuh], who spared his life and made peace with him for the payment of two thousand camels, eight hundred heads of cattle, four hundred armours and four hundred lances. He obliged him to recognize the duty of paying tribute and charged him with collecting it from Dumat, Tabuk, Ailah and Taima'.

The tribes, who used to ally the Byzantines, became quite certain that their dependence oinn their former masters came to an end. Therefore they turned into being pro-Muslims. The Islamic state had therefore enlarged its borders to an extent that it, touched the Byzantines' and their agents' borders. So we see that the Byzantine agents role was over.

Returning to Madinah
The Muslim army returned from Tabuk victoriously, undeceived or wronged. That was because All⨠had sufficed them the evils of fight.

On the way back and at a mountain road, twelve hypocrites sought the Prophet's life and that was while he was passing along that mountain road with only Ammar holding the rein of his she-camel and Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman driving it, at the time that people had already gone down into the bottom of the valley.

The hypocrites seized that opportunity to seek the Prophet's life. As the Messenger of All⨠[pbuh] and his two companions were moving along, they heard thrusts of people coming towards him from behind with their faces veiled. Hudhaifa, who was sent by the Prophet to see what was going on, saw them and stroke their mounts' faces with a crook in his hand and All⨠cast fear into their hearts. They fled away and overtook their people.

However, Hudhaifa named them to the Messenger of All⨠[pbuh] and informed him of their intentions. So that was why Hudhaifa was called the "confidant" of the Messenger of All⨠[pbuh]. About this event All⨬ the Exalted says:

"And they resolved that (plot to murder Prophet Muhammad [pbuh]) which they were unable to carry out." [Al-Qur'an 9:74]

When his headquarters, Madinah, began to loom at the horizon, the Prophet [pbuh] said: "This is a cheerful sight. This is Uhud, which is a mountain, we like it and it likes us." When the Madinese learnt of their arrival they set out to meet the army. Women, youths, youngsters and small children went out of town to celebrate their home-return wholeheartedly singing:

"The full moon shone down upon us, through the traits of Al-Wada? Mountain.
Thanks is due to us, as long as a supplicator invokes to All⨮."

The Messenger of All⨠[pbuh] 's march to Tabuk was in Rajab and his return in Ramadan. So we see that this Ghazwah took fifty days, twenty days of which were spent in Tabuk and the others on the way to and fro. Tabuk Invasion was the last one made by the Prophet [pbuh].

The Invasion of Tabuk and its Far-Reaching Ramifications
The effect of this invasion is great as regards extending and confirming the Muslims' influence and domination on the Arabian Peninsula. It was quite obvious to everybody that no power but Islam's would live long among the Arabs. The remainders of Jahiliyin and hypocrites ? who used to conspire steadily against the Muslims and who perpetually relied on Byzantine power when they were in need of support or help ? these people lost their expectations and desires of ever reclaiming their ex-influence. Realizing that there was no way out and that they were to submit to the fait accompli, they gave up their attempts.

From that time on, hypocrites were no longer treated leniently or even gently by the Muslims. All⨠not only bade Muslims to treat them severely but He also forbade them to take their gift charities or perform prayer on their dead, or ask All⨦#146;s forgiveness for them or even visit their tombs. All⨠bade the Muslims to demolish the mosque, which they verily appointed and used as a hiding place where they might practise their plots, conspiracy and deceit. Some Qur'⮩c verses were sent down disclosing them publicly and utterly so that everybody in Madinah got to know their reality.

The great impact that this invasion produced could be perceived in of the great number of delegations who came successively to meet the Messenger of All⨠[pbuh]. Naturally, deputations used to come to meet him at the end of an invasion particularly after Makkah Conquest [Ibn Hisham 2/515-537; Za'd Al-Ma'ad 3/2-13; Sahih Al-Bukhari 2/633,635-637, 1/252, 414; Fath Al-Bari 8/110-126; Mukhtasar Seerat Ar-Rasool p.391-407] but they were not as many as these nor were they as frequent as they were then in the wake of Tabuk event. It was certainly the greatest.

The Qur'⮩c Verses Relating to this Invasion
Many a verse of Bara'a (Tauba) Chapter handling the event of Tabuk were revealed. Some verses were revealed before the march, while others after setting out for Tabuk, i.e. in the context of the battle. Some other verses were also revealed on the Prophet's arrival in Madinah. All of which covered the incidents that featured this invasion: the immanent circumstances of the battle, exposure of the hypocrites, the prerogatives and special rank earmarked for the strivers in the cause of All⨬ acceptance of the repentance of the truthful believers who slackened and those who hung back, etc.

This all refutes the assertions made by Christians and anti-Islamic's, the Muslims were forced to act, and they did, Christians only attack this verse because they're angry that they lost the wars. And it also seems that Christians think its okay for their people to kill and having the intention to destroy the Islamic nation, but when Muslims react we become criminals and an intolerant faith! How convenient!

And indeed Allah Knows best!
www.muslim-responses.com

09/24/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- Since the days when Roman emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.

Constantine the Great, who became emperor in the year 306 - exactly 1700 years ago - encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the emperor accept his superiority.

The struggle between the emperors and the popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some emperors dismissed or expelled a pope, some popes dismissed or excommunicated an emperor. One of the emperors, Henry IV, "walked to Canossa", standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope's castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.

But there were times when emperors and popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week's speech by the Pope, which aroused a worldwide storm, went well with Bush's crusade against "Islamofascism", in the context of the "clash of civilizations".

In his lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God's actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.

As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this "war of civilizations".

In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the Prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?

To support his case, the Pope quoted - of all people - a Byzantine emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had - or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt) - with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:


Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.


These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? (b) Are they true? (c) Why did the present Pope quote them?

When Manuel II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.

At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. On 29 May 1453, only a few years after Manuel's death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul), fell to the Turks, putting an end to the empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.

During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.

In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim "Axis of Evil". Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.

Is there any truth in Manuel's argument?

The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur'an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, Verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant Verse 257) which says: "There must be no coercion in matters of faith."

How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the Prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur'an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes - Christian, Jewish and others - in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.

Jesus said: "You will recognize them by their fruits." The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: how did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to "spread the faith by the sword"?

Well, they just did not.

For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.

True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favourites of the government and enjoy the fruits.

In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith - and they were the forefathers of most of today's Palestinians.

There no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the "spreading of the faith by the sword"?

What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics reconquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi ("Spanish") Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.

Why? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the "peoples of the book". In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll tax, but were exempted from military service - a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion - because it entailed the loss of taxes.

Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith.

The story about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.

Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?

There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of "Islamofascism" and the "global war on terror" - when "terrorism" has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush's handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world's oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers' expedition becomes a Crusade.

The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?

Uri Avnery is an Israeli author and activist. He is the head of the Israeli peace movement, "Gush Shalom". http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en

“Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loves not aggressors.” Al-Qur’an 2:190

“And those who, when great wrong is done to them, defend themselves.” Al-Qur’an 42:39

Violence is the use of force to subdue others that may include killing. Violence may be morally legitimate in the eyes of a majority of people when killing animals and birds for self-protection or for food. However, in the religions of Jainism and some sects of Buddhism and Hinduism even killing of animals and insects is not legitimate.

At the human level, violence may be divided into three major types: (1) Violence committed by an army against another army; in this case it is called a battle or war, (2) Violence organized by the civilians against tyranny and oppression or to replace one political system with another; in this case the conflict may be called terrorism, civil war or a war of liberation or freedom or revolution depending who is talking, and (3) Violence committed by individuals or a small group of people for personal gain or revenge; in this case it is called murder, robbery or vendetta, respectively.

Commonly, the meaning of the term “Islam” is given as peace and also submission. It is, therefore, obvious that “Violence in Islam” is an oxymoron; a meaningless phrase. The contemporary Muslim world situation appears to make the question, “violence in Islam?”, a relevant one. Anti-Islam forces, such as, Christian Fundamentalists, Zionists of all colors and shades, Russians, Serbs, Hindu Fundamentalists and others love to refer to the cherry-picked Qur’an verses to point out that Islam means terrorism and violence, not peace. Unfortunately, the ignorant masses of the West have been raised since their school days in believing that Islam is terrorism and violence. In addition, the pro-Zionist media loves to please the Islam haters, particularly, Israel through reinforcing this belief and for keeping Islam unpopular in the West in order to prevent its propagation. As the Zionists see that an increasing Muslim voting population in the West as a threat to the existence of the Israeli entity, they would rather eliminate the presence of Islam in the West, particularly, the U.S.

Before quoting relevant Qur’an verses cherry picked by the critics of Islam and the Qur’an and explaining them it would be appropriate to explain some of the Arabic terms on the topic frequently mistranslated, misused and misinterpreted by the Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

MUSLIMS: Those who believe in a Messenger / Prophet of Allah and follow his teachings; accordingly, followers of all prophets since the time of Abraham were Muslims, followers of Muhammad included. The plural of Muslim is Muslimoon and Muslimeen (case dependent).

MUNAFIQ (sing.): Technically a Munafiq is a Muslim but due to the absence of real faith in Islam, Allah considers him to be a hypocrite. Qur'an has hundreds of verses about Munafiqoon or Munafiqeen (case based plu.) because they are the cause of most danger to Islam and Muslims, much more than the worst non-Muslim enemies of Islam. This is true in our time also. All those "Muslims" who are helping the enemies of Islam for waging war on Islam and Muslim societies are certainly hypocrites.

BANI ISRAEL (YAHUD): All people who followed the Prophets from Jacob to the last Prophet before Jesus.

NASARA: This term is used for Christians only. Some scholars think that the term is derived from Nazareth but others think that it is derived from the Arabic word for helper.

AHL AL-KITAB: this means people of the Book, Christians and Jews both or depending upon the context, Jews only or Christians only.

MUSHRIK (sing.) Mushrikoon or Mushrikeen (case based plural): Literally the term applies to anyone who associate partners in the divinity of Only God, Allah. In the Qur’an Mushrik has been used particularly referring to the idol worshippers of Arabia who lived at the time of the Prophet. Most of them converted to Islam but a few converted to Christianity; no more Mushrikoon are living in the Arabian Peninsula except for expatriate workes. In our time Hindu, Buddhists and any other people who worship an idol god would fall under this category.

KAAFIR (sing.) Kaafiroon or Kaafireen (plu.): These are non-Muslims who rejected Islam after knowing and understanding Islam from authentic sources. See Qur'an verses 2:6-7 about them. I would like to translate the term as "Islam-rejecters" but the ignorant translate it as "infidels". Unfortunately, ignorant translators use the term infidel for Mushrik as well as Kaafir whereas these are very different terms.

JAAHIL (sing.) Juhla or Jahiloon or Jahileen (plu.): As a Qur’anic term jaahil means those ignorant people who are unaware of Islamic teachings and they didn’t have a chance to accept or reject Islam. Once a person rejects Islam after knowing its teachings and understanding from authentic sources, this person would be a Kaafir. Literally jaahil is any uninformed or uneducated person including Muslims who did not make efforts to know the teachings of the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet. Some learned Muslims have the opinion that a Kaafir may also be a Jaahil; the case in point may be Abul Hakam Amr ibn Al-Hisham knew the message of Islam yet he rejected it and the Prophet called him Abu Jahal, the father of ignorance.

JIHAD. This term is frequently mistranslated as “holy war”. In Islam there is no such thing as holy war because all wars are filthy, however, some wars are unavoidable. The Christian term, “justifiable war” is also applied in Islam. Literally, Jihad means to strive or to struggle. For a better treatment of the topic see my article JIHAD EXPLAINED posted at www.iiie.net.

MUJAHID. Mujahid (sing.)is the one who is struggling for righteousness, truth, justice and equity for mankind beginning with himself and for his family. The plural of Mujahid is Mujihidoon and Mujahideen (case dependent). A person fighting in a war or a battle for the sake of righteousness, truth, justice, equity and to establish Islamic system is also a Mujahid.

QITAL and HARB. Qital means fighting or a battle and Harb means war, which is the terms to be used for real war.

WALI (sing.) Awlia’ (plu.): Commonly the term Wali is translated as “friend” that gives rise to misunderstanding about the message of the Qur’an. Depending upon the context it may mean a friend but more often it means a protector or protecting friend or an ally, which is a lot more than a simple friend.

Qur’an verse 9:5.

Since the 9-11 terror in New York, the most cited Qur’an verse is 9:5 in support of false allegation of murder of non-Muslims and forcing them to convert to Islam when they refuse contradicts another Qur’an verse saying that there is no compulsion or coercion in Islam (2:256). The meaning of this one verse may best be understood and appreciated when the reader has full background of the context of revelation and what the message was given as a whole. Surah (chapter) 9 has two names, At-Tauba and Al-Bara’, meaning the repentance and freedom from obligation (disavowal), respectively. Verses 1-37 of Surah 9 were revealed as a block and verses 1 to 16 make up the context of the verse 5. Let me quote the translation of all 16 verses from Zafar Ishaq Ansari’s Towards Understanding the Qur’an, Vol. 3, pp 187-195.

“(1) This is a declaration of disavowal by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad) to those who associate others with Allah in His divinity (mushrikeen) and with whom you have made treaties. (2) You may go about freely in the land, for four months, but know well that you will not be able to frustrate Allah, and that Allah will bring disgrace upon those who deny the truth (kafireen). (3) This is a public proclamation by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad) to all men on the day of the Great Pilgrimage (Al-Hajj Al-Akbar): Allah is free from all obligations to those who associate others with Allah in His divinity (mushrikeen); and so is His Messenger. If you repent, it shall be for your own good; but if you turn away, then know well that you will not be able to frustrate Allah. So give glad tidings of a painful chastisement to those who disbelieve (those who reject this call). (4) In exception to those who associate others with Allah in His divinity (mushrikeen) are those with whom you have made treaties and who have not violated their treaties nor have backed up anyone against you. Fulfill your treaties with them till the end of their term. Surely Allah loves the pious (muttaqeen). (5) But when the sacred months (Al-Ashhar ul-Hurum) expire, slay those who associate others with Allah in His divinity (mushrikeen) wherever you find them; seize them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them. But if they repent and establish the Prayer (As-Salat) and pay Zakah, leave them alone. Surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Ever Merciful. (6) And if any of those who associate others with Allah in His divinity (mushrikeen) seeks asylum, grant him asylum that he may hear the Word of Allah, and then escort him to safety for they are people bereft of all understanding. (7) How can there be a covenant with those who associate others with Allah in His divinity (mushrikeen) on the part of Allah and His Messenger except those with whom you made a covenant near the Sacred Mosque (Al-Masjid Al-Haram)? Behave straight with them so long as they behave straight with you for Allah loves the God-fearing (muttaqeen). (8] How can there be any covenant with the rest who associate others with Allah in His divinity (mushrikeen) for were they to prevail against you, they will respect neither kinship nor agreement. They seek to please you with their tongues while their hearts are averse to you, and most of them are wicked (faasiqoon). (9) They have sold the revelations of Allah for a paltry price and have firmly hindered people from His path. Evil indeed is what they have done. (10) They neither have any respect for kinship nor for agreement in respect of the believers. Such are indeed transgressors (mu’tadoon). (11) But if they repent and establish Prayer (Salat) and give Zakah they are your brothers in faith. Thus do We expound our revelations to those who know (ya’lamoon). (12) But if they break their pledges after making them and attack your faith, make war on the leaders of unbelief (A’immatul Kufr) that they may desist, for they have no regard for their pledged words. (13) Will you not fight against those who broke their pledges and did all they could to drive the Messenger away and initiated hostilities against you? Do you fear them? Surely Allah has greater right that you should fear Him, if you are true believers. (14) Make war on them, Allah will chastise them through you and will humiliate them. He will grant you victory over them, and will soothe the bosoms of those who believe; (15) and will remove rage from their hearts, and will enable whomsoever He wills to repent. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. (16) Do you imagine that you will be spared without being subjected to any test? Know well that Allah has not yet determined who strove hard (in His cause), and has not taken any others besides His Messenger and the believers as His trusted allies? Allah is well aware of all that you do.” The Qur’an 9:1-16.

No Compulsion or Coercion 2:256. The Qur’an verses are clear in commanding the believes that there is no coercion or compulsion in Islam to convert. The history of 14 centuries is the proof that Muslims had no systematic compulsion to convert people to Islam. One verse translation is given below:

“(256) There is no coercion or compulsion in the Deen (religion, way of life). The right way now stands clearly distinguished from the wrong. Hence he who rejects the evil ones (Taghut, non-god power acting as god) and believes in Allah has indeed taken hold of the firm, unbreakable handle, and Allah (Whom he has held for support) is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.” The Qur’an 2:256

Muslims have honored this commandment and they have been careful in not forcing people to convert to Islam. The best examples are Spain, India, East Europe where Muslims entered with armies and conquered them yet these countries remained non-Muslim majority. On the other hand, in Sub-Sahara Africa, Indonesia and Malaysia where Islamic armies never entered, these countries became Muslim majority countries. In our time in the 21st century, no Muslim army has entered in North America or Europe yet millions of people are converting to Islam by their own will.

Some of the principles of understanding the Qur’an are: a verse (ayah) should be read (a) in the context of the surrounding verses, not in isolation, (b) in the context of its revelation, which may be found in the Hadith collections, and (c) in the context of the whole Qur’an. A fourth requirement frequently presented is to see the words, terms and phrases used and as understood by the companions of the Prophet and following two generations (Salaf). It simply means reading various commentaries of the Qur’an of the classical period and finding how they understood and explained a given verse or a passage. Not knowing Arabic is not an excuse because in the 20th century a few commentaries of the Qur’an in English language have appeared and these writers have summed up the earlier commentators; some of them are Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Towards Understanding the Qur’an referred to above, Muhammad Asad and Abdullah Yusuf Ali. There are two translations and commentaries in the works, one by Dr. Irfan Ahmad Khan to be published from India and the other by Dr. Ahmad Zaki Hammad to be published from Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt. Some parts of the both works have been published.

Another aspect of understanding the Qur’an verses is the time frame for application of their meaning. A verse or a passage may have special meaning for a particular time of the revelation and it does not apply after the time has passed. Or a verse or a passage may also have a generalized meaning for all times to come since its revelation.

Those who quote Qur’an verses with the objective of criticizing it and Islam do not meet any of the above given requirements yet they interpret verses according to their whims and fancy. These people have no objectivity but malice and prejudice.

In the above quoted passage of 9:1-16 in the verses 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7 the term used is mushrikeen meaning this is not about any other people than the idolaters (mushrikeen) of Makkah. Another point to note is that the address is towards those who violated the peace treaty with the Prophet Muhammad. This theme repeats in all the verses up to 9:16. Naturally, Allah, in the Qur’an, is instructing the Prophet Muhammad to free himself from the peace treaty obligation, known as the Treaty of Hudaybiah; he made in the year 6 AH for a ten-year period. But the idolaters of Quraysh violated the treaty in the second year and raided a tribe who was an ally of the Prophet. The verse gives specific instruction to fight those who violated the treaty and killed allies of the Prophet. The meaning of the verse does not extend to other non-Muslims except under the exact similar conditions. Those who have never been allies of the Muslims have no treaty to violate, therefore, there should be no war with such countries or people unless they have aggressive designs against the Muslims.

In the verse 9:5 there is a mention of “Al-Ashhar ul-Hurum” meaning the months of prohibition, sometimes translated as sacred months, which are Rajab, Dhul Qe’dah, Dhul Hijjah and Muharram, the 7th, 11th, 12th and 1st months of the Arabic lunar calendar. The month of Rajab was reserved for Umrah or lesser Hajj and the other three months were considered the months for Hajj the greater pilgrimage to Makkah. During these months Arabs used to celebrate peace for the safety of the return travel to Makkah and any war or looting was considered prohibited. However, they found a back door to violate these months of safety and invented the custom of Nasi. Under this invention they could exchange a real prohibited month with another non-prohibited month and could go on looting and war and surprise the weaker travelers. Islam kept the custom of prohibited months but abrogated the custom of Nasi.

Qur’an verse 9:29.

“Those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day – even though they were given the scriptures, and who do not hold as unlawful that which Allah and His Messenger have declared to be unlawful, and who do not follow the true religion (Deen Al-Haque) – fight against them until they pay tribute (Al-Jizyah, protection tax or exemption tax) out of their hands and are utterly subdued.”

This verse (9:29) is also a part of the revelation 9:1-37 and it has the same background as 9:5, which has already been discussed above. However, in this verse there is inclusion of the “people of the Book” meaning the Christians and the Jews who were also living under the rule established by the Prophet Muhammad. Superficially, it appears that this verse disregards an earlier revealed verse 2:256 (discussed above) ordering that there is no compulsion in Islam. The reader has no other choice but to ask, if the verse 2:256 has been abrogated by the verse 9:29, if not, interpretation of this verse will not allow forcing people to accept Islam or be killed. All Islamic scholars agree that 9:29 is not an abrogating verse and 2:256 stands valid. By the time 9:29 was revealed Zakat on all Muslims had become obligatory for those who had enough wealth to levy this “wealth purifying tax”. Zakat may be translated as wealth purifying tax or growth tax because the payment of Zakat makes wealth grow. Muslims were already paying Zakat, in addition to Sadaqa (charity) and Infaq (required donations), for various causes but there was no such tax on non-Muslims. The verse 9:29 makes tax obligatory upon all non-Muslims except the clergy, very old and poor without adequate income. In fact, the very poor and very old began receiving maintenance money from the general welfare fund of the Muslim treasury by the orders of the Caliph Umar ibn Al-Khattab.

Verse 9:29 requires non-Muslim population of the Muslim-run state to either accept Islam or pay Jizyah or fight till death. The fourth option, given without saying, is to migrate to another land. Jizyah was a tax much lower than the Zakat paid by the Muslims and its payment gave non-Muslims equal citizenship rights with the Muslims besides exempting them from military service. This is the reason Jizyah has been translated as protection tax (giving full citizenship rights except becoming head of the state) and exemption tax (giving exemption from military service which was not given to the Muslims). Payment of Jizyah is a symbol of accepting to live under Islamic law; this is what it means to be subdued. This is the same as the taxes all Americans have to pay.

A non-Muslim cannot become head of the Islamic state because Islamic state is an ideological state and a person who does not believe in the Islamic ideology has no right to head it. An analogy is the U.S., which is ideologically a capitalist state; naturally, a communists or an Islamist will not be allowed to head it.

For those non-Muslims who maintain friendly relations with Muslims Qur’an command in the Verse 4:90 in the following translation:

(90 in part) “… If they leave you alone and do not fight against you and offer you peace, then Allah does not permit you to harm them.”

This is a clear teaching of Islam that those who do not invade Muslim society and show friendly and peaceful attitudes, Muslims are ordered to respond likewise.

Islam prohibits aggression against those who have not attacked the Muslims. This point takes us to the verses 2:190-194.

Qur’an verses 2:190-194. The translation of these verses is given below;

“(190) Fight (qaatiloo) against those who fight against you in the way of Allah, but do not transgress, for Allah does not love transgressors (mu’tadeen). (191) Kill them whenever you confront them and drive them out from where they drove you out. (For though killing is sinful) wrongful persecution is even worse than killing. Do not fight against them near the Masjid Al-Haram (in Makkah) unless they fight against you; but if they fight against you kill them, for that is the reward of such disbelievers (kafireen). (192) Then if they desist, know well that Allah is Forgiving, Most Merciful. (193) Keep on fighting against them until mischief ends and the way prescribed by Allah prevails. But if they desist, then know that hostility is only against the transgressors (Adh-Dhalimeen). (194) The sacred month for the sacred month; sanctities should be respected alike (by all concerned). Thus, if someone has attacked you, attack him just as he attacked you, and fear Allah and remain conscious that Allah is with those who guard against violating the bounds set by Him.”

The Qur’an 2:190-194.

In the verses 190-191 given above it is obvious that Allah is commanding the Muslims, in the Qur’an, to fight against those who began the fight but do not do anything more than necessary to repel the attack because Allah does not like transgression, that is, going beyond one’s limits. The verse 192 puts further emphasis on driving the invaders out of your homes, your property and maybe out of your country to remove their occupation.

Verse 193 emphasizes that mischief and persecution is worse than killing, therefore, it is the responsibility of the Muslims to remove mischief and persecution and work to bring justice and equity according to the rules of Islam.

Verse 194 refers to the sacred or the months of prohibitions of war; the command is to honor the months but if the adversaries violate them the Muslims are allowed to respond in kind. Similarly, if the opponents attack, the Muslims are allowed to respond in kind but not to violate the limits or the use of excessive force. The use of excessive force is a pagan concept as the U.S. is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Qur’an 5:33-34. Another verse that is frequently quoted for attacking the Qur’an is 5:33 but it should be read with 5:34. The translation is given below:

“(33) Those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and go about the earth spreading mischief – indeed their recompense is that they either be put to death, or be crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off from the opposite sides or be banished from the land (or imprisonment). Such shall be their degradation in this world; and a mighty chastisement lies in store for them in the World to Come (34) except for those who repent before you have overpowered them. Know well that Allah is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate.”

These two verses were revealed in response to the treatment of one or more “Muslims” who reverted back to his/their previous religion and became terrorists and highway robbers looting trade caravans. In addition they began encouraging the enemies of the Prophet Muhammad and Muslims to attack and destroy the city-state of Madinah. Allah’s order came to fight them and subdue them followed by killing or crucifying them or cutting hands and feet from opposite sides or imprisoning them. If they submit themselves before being subdued forcefully and ask for forgiveness then forgive them. Their asking forgiveness includes their voluntary returning to Islam. Obviously, these verses are not about non-Muslims or forcing them to convert to Islam.

Such a treatment will be meted out to all apostates who combine treason with apostasy. Also, the same fate is due to highway robbers and terrorists who commit heinous crimes after peace, justice and equity has been established under Islamic rule. In the absence of Islamic rule neither peace is possible nor justice and equity but a tyranny of one kind or the other. In the contemporary Muslim world (2004 CE) there is not a single “Islamic” country having Islamic rule but there are over fifty Muslim majority countries having tyrannical rules and most of them are puppets of either the European or American powers. Naturally, there is no peace, no justice and no equity but chaos, murder, persecution, exploitation, looting of the people’s money and tyranny. These countries are ruled by the criminals supported and protected by the enemies of Islam who are rulers in Europe and America.

Qur’an 4:74-76. These verses are part of the section 4:71-76 but I will skip first three verses, as they are simple to understand. The translation is given below:

(74) Let those who seek the life of the Next World in exchange for the life of this world fight (yuqatil) in the way of Allah. We shall grant a mighty reward to whoever fights in the way of Allah, whether he is slain or comes out victorious. (75) How is it that you do not fight (la tuqatiloona) in the way of Allah and in support of the helpless – men, women and children – who pray: “Our Rabb (Cherisher, Provider), bring us out of this land and whose people are oppressors and appoint for us from Yourself a helper.” (76) Those who have faith fight (yuqatiloona) in the way of Allah, while those who disbelieve (kafaroo, reject Islam) fight in the way of Taghut (Satan, any non-God). Fight, then, against the followers of Satan (Shaytan). Surely, Satan’s strategy is weak. The Qur’an 4:74-76. [Note that the word Jihad or its derivatives have not been used in these verses. The words for fight are derived from the root qatala.]

The background of these verses is the Battle of Uhud that took place in the year 3 AH in the vicinity of Madinah. One year before the Battle of Uhud, the Makkan pagans had brought a well-equipped army of 1,000 in the with the plan of annihilating the Prophet and his followers. But the Prophet intercepted them 60 miles south of Madinah in the company of 313 companions; this was a very poorly equipped band of Muslims. The Prophet and his companions were victorious and all major leaders of the pagan Quraysh were killed and they lost 70 soldiers. The Makkans returned defeated but swore to come back to destroy the Prophet, his mission and his city-state of Madinah. In the following year, in 3 AH Makkans came back with a better equipped army of 3,000 and the Prophet was able to gather a band of only 700 and the battle took place near Madinah at the foot of Mt. Uhud. Both sides suffered heavy losses and there was no clear victory for either side. Makkans returned to Makkah without achieving their goal of annihilation of the Prophet and his mission, yet this emboldened the Makkans. This followed two years of hard persecution and torture of Muslims living outside of Madinah, whether in Makkah or in other villages where pagans ruled. Prophet Muhammad had to send intelligence and guard missions all around to find who was conspiring and who was planning another aggression against Madinah and the Muslims.

The verse 4:71-76 were revealed in the above given background and they should be understood within this context. The verse 4:71 instructs the Muslims to stay ready for defense because they may not know who and when will attack small city-state of Madinah. The verse 4:72-73 talks about the condition of hypocrites who do not want to fight because they love this worldly life more than the life of hereafter, however, they do want the war booty when victory comes. The verse 4:74 assures sincere Muslims that if they die in the battle they will surely enter paradise but if they come back victorious, that would be good for them, too. Either way whether they survive the war or die in the war, they are assured of great reward from Allah. The verse 4:75 motivates the Muslims to stand up to defeat the oppressors and tyrants who have no conscience but the greed of this world and power. The oppressed people cry for Allah’s help and it comes in the form of sincere Muslims who stand up in support of these people.

The verse 4:76 declares that sincere Muslims fight to make Allah’s rule supreme and to establish peace, justice and equity, whereas, those who fight for land, country, nationalism, patriotism, loot, murder, revenge, wealth and other worldly motives, fight for the Taghut, anyone other than Allah, that is, for the sake of the Satan. Those who fight for the sake of Satan, sometimes may appear to be winning in achieving their worldly goals but they are losers in the long term and certainly, in the life hereafter they will end up in the hell-fire.

It is obvious that Allah condemns aggression totally and condemns any war in pursuit of worldly reasons. Whereas Allah approves and motivates a war of defense and to protect the weak who are persecuted and oppressed. In this early 21st century there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who are oppressed and persecuted by the West and its agents as rulers of the Third World countries.

Qur’an 22:39-40. During the Prophet’s life in Makkah for over thirteen years he was forbidden to respond to violent offenses against him or his followers. The command of Allah was to tie down their hands; it was total pacifism. The only thing his followers were allowed to do was to leave the town and take refuge in Habashah (Ethiopia). This restriction was lifted in Madinah when an Islamic city-state was established with its own free government under the Prophet, its own economy and volunteer defense forces. Order came in the following words in translation:

“(39) Permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged – and, verily Allah indeed has the power to help them; (40) those who have been driven from their homes unjustly only because they said: Our Rabb (Sustainer, Cherisher) is Allah. For had it not been for Allah repelling some men by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft mentioned, would assuredly been destroyed. Surely, Allah helps him who helps Allah. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty.” The Qur’an 22:39-40

The meanings of these two verses are simple enough not requiring any explanation. It is worthy to note that Islam is the only Deen (life system) that protected non-Muslims’ right to freedom of religion. Only during the last century we find that American and European Secularism is less intolerant than the ancient European Catholicism in allowing limited freedom of religion, however, some countries are not allowing Muslim women’s right to wear head scarf in public. Islam allowed Christian, Jewish, Hindu and other religions to live according to their own legal system and establish their own courts and Muslim governments recognized legal decisions of such courts. Modern Secularism is oppressive in this area and Muslims are not allowed to live by the Islamic Shari’ah within their communities in the West. Secular oppression has gone beyond their own boundaries and demanding puppet rulers of the Muslim majority countries to abolish Shari’ah and puppet dictators are complying, which is leading to violent protests by the Muslim activists.

47:4-6. These verses were revealed shortly after the verses 22:39-40 given above lifting the ban on armed resistance against the invaders and aggressors.

(4) “Therefore, when you meet those who disbelieved (kafaroo) (in the battle) smite their necks and, when you have thoroughly subdued them, then take prisoners of war and bind them firmly. After the war lays down her burdens, then you have the choice whether you show them favor or accept ransom. Thus are you commanded. If Allah wanted, He Himself could have punished them; but He adopted this way so that He may test some of you by means of others. As for those who are slain in the cause of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost. (5) Soon He will guide them, improve their condition (6) and admit them to the paradise which He has made known to them.” The Qur’an 47: 4-6.

Aggression against the Muslim society of Madinah was already in progress, therefore, further instructions were given regarding defensive strategy. Allah instructed the Muslims to stand firm and fight hard taking prisoners only when necessary. These prisoners may be forgiven and released or accept ransom and release them. Allah promised Paradise for those who defend their faith.

Friendship or protection?

Another Qur’an verse that is used for attack on Islam is 5:51, which may be translated as:

“O you who (claim to) believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your allies (or as your protectors, awlia’). They are the allies (protectors, awlia’) of each other. And among you he who takes them for allies (protectors), shall be regarded as one of them. Allah does not guide the transgressors.”

Frequently, the term wali is translated as “friend” and the meaning of the verse changes completely. When wali is translated to mean “friend” the verse appears to convey the message that Islam prohibits making friends from the Christians and the Jews. This belies the history of over fourteen centuries of Islam. From 638 to 1917 Muslims and Jews have been each others friends and sometimes protectors. During the period of the Inquisition in Spain, Muslims and Jews suffered together and protected each other. Whenever there were pogroms of the Jews in Europe, they fled to North African Muslim ruled countries or to the East where the Turks ruled and they found sympathy, friendship, welcome and rehabilitation. Similarly, Christians and Muslims have been living together in peace all over the Arab world, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and other countries. One example of the Christian-Muslim harmony is that the Orthodox Church had its headquarter in Constantinople before 1453 when Muhammad II conquered it for the Ottoman Empire. Constantinople was the seat of the Orthodox Church and it remained throughout the Turkish rule and it continues to be the seat of the Orthodox Church. However, I consider the verse 5:51 a prophecy and a warning to the Muslims of the 20th century onward. European powers when they left the colonies they always gave upper hand to the non-Muslim minorities leaving Muslims weak; this was the situation in India, North Africa, Sub-Sahara Africa and other parts of the world. Arabs trusted the British that after defeat of the Turks, they will become independent but they were betrayed. Instead of independence of the Arabs, puppet monarchies and Israel were established on their lands. Betrayal and more betrayal, all around. Pakistan signed the Baghdad Pact (which was renamed as CENTO after the exit of Iraq from the treaty) and joined SEATO in the 1950s in support of the U.S. efforts against communism, allowed American bases on its land and became a nuclear target of the Soviet Union. On the contrary, the U.S. conspired with India against Pakistan. When India attacked Pakistan in 1965 and again in 1971, the U.S. betrayed and helped India for the breaking up of Pakistan. Secularism is paganism, when one trusts the secularists they experience betrayal just the way the Prophet faced betrayal of the pagans of Arabia fourteen centuries ago.

The other side of the coin is with whom among non-Muslims are worthy of friendship? See the Qur’an verses 60:8-9:

“(8] Allah forbids you not those who warred not against you on account of religion (Al-Deen) and drove you not out from your homes that you should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loves the just dealers.” (9) Allah forbids you only those who warred against you on account of religion (Al-Deen) and have driven you out from your homes and helped to drive you out, that you make friends of them. Whosoever makes friends of them such are wrong- doers.”

The verses 60:8-9 were revealed in the background of the pagans of Makkah who had driven out the Prophet and his companions out and they took refuge in Madinah. Similar things were happening to many new Muslims who were being evicted by their own people on account of their new faith.

Should the Muslims trust pagans of the West? I think NOT! Pay heed to the Qur’an’s warning. Personally, I have no problem making friends, sympathizing with my neighbors and colleagues, having dinner with them, going on a picnic or camping with them. I have met a lot of very decent Christians and Jews and they are worthy of friendship and trust. The verse of the Qur’an 5:51 is not talking about friendship at a personal level but signing pacts at the national level. The experience of the Muslim countries during the last 90 years shows that the pagan secular nations of Jewish and Christian background are not worthy of trust. These nations will not miss any opportunity of betrayal for destroying Islam and Muslims.

The Toilet Paper of the West.

All Muslim puppet rulers of the West in the Muslim majority countries are actually traitors to their own people. These traitors work like toilet paper rolls or tissue paper well kept before use. Once toilet paper has been used, it is flushed down the toilet. I have seen in Pakistan many such traitors have been flushed down the toilet; a few names are: Liaqat Ali Khan, Iskander Mirza, Gen. Ayub Khan, Gen. Yahya Khan, Gen. Ziaul Hal, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Shareef, Mujeebur Rahman and the next to be flushed is Gen. Pervez Musharraf. In other countries we find Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Ahmad Chalabi; now waiting to be flushed down the toilet are Hamid Karzai, Iad Allawi, Ghazi Al-Yawar and a number of other puppets, dictators in the Muslim majority countries.

The Sanctity of Life in the Qur’an. The critics of Islam never mention the Qur’an verses dealing with the sanctity of life. See the Qur’an verses 6:151, 17:33, 25:68 and 5:32 sanctify of life and taking life is one of the greatest sin after Shirk, associating partners with Allah irrespective of race, color, national origin, religion or gender.

Conclusion. War in Islam was permitted to the Prophet Muhammad only after fifteen years of trying to live in peace against all aggression. Only when anti-Islam forces decided to totally annihilate Islam, were the Muslims permitted to fight back. The situation remains the same even in our time at the beginning of the 21st century CE. Over 50 years ago Muslims have been living as colonial subjects of the West for over two centuries. As they are coming out of the submissive posture of colonial days and desire to live according to Islamic principles, the West, led by the U.S., is trying to re-impose its hegemony over the Muslim world. The Muslims are left with no choice but fight back. The West must learn to let the Muslim world resolve her problems her own way rather than imposing her hegemony over the Muslims through puppets like Pervez Musharraf, Hosni Mubarak, Abdullah II of Jordan, Qaddafi and other disposable toilet paper like them.

Question is asked if Islam is so peaceful then why the violence by the Muslims? Is it not that the Qur’an is inspiring them to violence? Please note that an explanation of the psyche of some Muslims is not justification; therefore, following explanation should not be considered as justification. In the absence of an Islamic government, which is prevented from establishment under the pressure of the West, led by the U.S., some Muslims feel that they are free to take the law into their own hands. If there were an Islamic government establishing peace, justice and equity, any violent activity would be declared “terrorism” under the verse 5:33-34, discussed above, and a majority of the Muslims would agree for apprehending such miscreants. In the present situation of Western anti-Islam hegemony, an overwhelming majority of the Muslims are supporting violence against the aggressors and their puppets and this violence is expected to increase until the West gets out of the Muslim lands. Naturally the bombings of Churches and Synagogues have nothing to do with religious intolerance but it is political because Muslim activist perceive that every Westerner is an spy and these “places of worship” are their hiding places under the cover of religion just as mosques in Iraq are likewise are suspected of by the U.S, forces and being bombed. Some mosques are considered to be the hiding places of the Muslim puppets of the West and being bombed. Even Western journalists are considered to be the covert operators of the Western governments and not safe from such attacks. The conclusion is that all the violence by the Muslim activists is political not religious. This is no different from FBI invading mosques in the U.S., arresting Muslims and sending them to black holes without any legal recourse. There are thousands of Muslims around the world being held in the black holes by the U.S. government without any legal recourse. This violated universal principle that one is innocent until proven guilty but for the Muslims it has been reversed, a Muslim arrested by the U.S. is guilty of “crime” unknown to the arrested person or his relatives or friends until he proves himself innocent. He is not even allowed to have an attorney. This is the system of injustice invented by the “Secular” Americans yet the U.S. wants the Muslims to love this kind of Secularism!

It is enlightening that the Quran has a self-correcting mechanism where if someone tries to infer a wrong teaching upon selected verses, the other verses of the Quran stand in contradiction to this erroneous view.

This is reinforced by the fact he has to go outside of the Quran to make his argument stick

but I'm sure you agree with eh and I that he is right to claim the Quran contradicts his view that Islam teaches that all Jews and Christians should be fought.

It is enlightening that the Quran has a self-correcting mechanism where if someone tries to infer a wrong teaching upon selected verses, the other verses of the Quran stand in contradiction to this erroneous view.

event horizon wrote:One must choose which interpretation of the Koran to believe

8:39 - And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.

Koran 2:193 - Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is God's; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.