So that they may hear the Word of Allah

Re: Human Rights for War Victims & America’s Muslims

Sura 9, Verse 6

“And if anyone of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah [i.e. the Qur’an]”

“Then deliver him to a place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.”

The meaning is that all non-Muslims (even pagans) were treated with a basic level of human dignity, not forced to beg for mercy when the Muslim army was in the superior position, nor if a true Islamic government were in power today or had power over ordinary non-Muslims (nonviolent civilians and non-combatants) who do not bear arms or threaten the government or the peace and security of the Muslims (or people) within the Islamic state.

It wasn’t permitted to kill people just because they were non-believers or pagans.

Furthermore, it was considered a bigger problem (for the state) than killing a Muslim (due to some conflict with him) to kill a non-believer who was under the protection of the Muslim government, and had (as above) a guarantee of safety of the emir al Moumineen (or Caliph).

It is also taught that any Muslim could give protection to any non-believer and that person’s life and property became sacrosanct (impermissible); there could be no shedding of such a person’s wealth, or any mistreatment (as per the prophet’s statement that any Muslim could give protection and the ummah would be obliged to protect that person, no matter how insignificant that Muslim is in the eyes of the people in his community regardless of his wealth or position, social status or any similar considerations.

To conclude, this means that non-believers are not to be killed merely for non-belief or their preferred religion, if they are not joining in fighting the Muslims, either in the Islamic state, or if they are given protection (in the days of Muhammad, it was in the form of a letter to which a seal was affixed). In those days the Muslims respected such things.

In Peace or War, the rights are guaranteed, they cannot be annulled by the dictates of extremists, nor does the Qur’an permit hypocrisy or two-faces; there is no permission in Islamic literature or teachings to lie to people to hurt them or to cause rifts in society or permission to deceive to curtail civil rights. It is permissible for the military leaders to plan and otherwise do what is necessary (by falsifying reports by people or otherwise to try to hide the Muslims’ true intentions (direction of a campaign, dates for actions, as military strategy), which is nothing to do with the average Muslims character or truthfulness. Some people (enemies of Islam) pretend that Muslims are permitted to lie about their religion, or to mislead people in every big or small discussion and so on, which is a part of the non-Muslims’ strategy of false propaganda against Islam and Muslims.

This protection was extended to anyone who asked, and meant that he agreed that he wouldn’t fight the Muslims inside the Islamic state, or scheme to attack Muslims by helping others from without the Islamic state, and so on. It is not true either that the protection in Sura 9, Verse 6 (above) was only for those people who were willing to listen to the Quran to convert; it means that the Muslims made some attempt to teach Islam to them and then they were allowed to remain free and could do as they pleased (as per their living, beliefs and worship (with some limitations placed on non-Muslims, such as no open worship or displays of religious symbols (e.g. a cross) or preaching of religion (contrary to what Islam teaches) This didn’t limit their free discussions with Muslims or other Christians and/or people who shared a similar faith, however). Non-Muslims could be punished for crimes which were well known to have proscribed punishments in those days, e.g. murder, adultery, fornication, stealing, drunkenness and so on.

It is to be noted that Muslims were not permitted to spy on each other or others, and spying wasn’t a permissible way to ascertain whether a person was breaking any laws or not; whether this would be the same today in light of the dangers faced by societies by terrorists, it is possible that some scholars might have a different opinion about whether or not the government would be permitted in unusual or special cases where there is a need, to spy on the people, vis a vis tapping their phones or monitoring their activities.

The demand by non-Muslims in their own countries that they be permitted to enter mosques and monitor activities isn’t unreasonable, and there is no problem in Islam with allowing non-Muslims to enter the masjid if there is some need; they could remain in the back and do their jobs, e.g. listen to the Khutba (religious talk of the Imam) and ascertain whether Muslims in some mosques are teaching extremism (ideas or encouragement to terrorist actions) which would be illegal; it isn’t a question really of whether Muslims give permission to this or not as we know that they are in fact being monitored, but the fact that this is brought up by some non-Muslims as a thing which would cause Muslims discomfort or pain is suggesting that Muslims in general have a problem with the greater society or telling what they really believe, whereas as Americans in favor of freedom point out, Muslims have been polled as to their beliefs, they have spoken out, they are engaged, and particularly in America where there are good numbers of Muslim Americans who are integrated - they are born Americans, they have degrees, they are more educated than a majority of Americans and almost as educated as Jewish Americans (according to polls, as speakers point out), they believe in the “American dream” more than most Americans.



Muslim Brotherhood Might Be Islamic, But I Don't Know

Morsi in Egypt is head of the Muslim Brotherhood; Installing a Government with US Support for Extremism, according to Analyst.


I watched this YouTube video, which is on my own Channel, so you can watch for yourself. It’s a very interesting and probably true analysis.

But I beg to differ with the analyst’s equating of Egyptian or even Turkish Muslim Brotherhood with “Islamic”; how Islamic they will be, as in Turkey, it seems quite "Islamic", in terms of what we’ve seen about support for Muslim women’s right to wear the hiijab; before the Muslim MP was refused and evicted out of the Parliament for wearing her Islamic headscarf, which should not be the case in either a democratic free country, or an Islamic free country, like Turkey. I hope Turkey will be a good example for the world, as it grapples with so many problems, one must wait patiently; it is true T. Erdogan is a devout Muslim, but how will he continue to solve Turkey’s problems like the serious issue of Kurds and a Kurdish homeland? I believe in Islamic history there is plenty of food to nourish minds with the islamically correct thing to do, when you have different cultures or religions living together; hopefully peace and justice will prevail; sometimes the eyes want more, but the stomach is full. Will the country be able to meet all the peoples’ needs and wants, too, so that there can be harmony within Turkish society, and with its neighbours? Sometimes, reality proves too difficult to overcome with love and prayer, or even fairly elected government. Sometimes, it is almost impossible to meet everyone’s needs and their wants, too!



I disagree that Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood should be called “Islamic” by the analyst, because we will have to wait and see what happens; it’s too early to tell if it will be really Islamic or something much different. It is wrong to call just anything Islamic because it is naming itself as “Muslim”, or “Islamic”. Yes, one can be Muslim, but also “unIslamic” at the same time. How often do we see this in the so-called “Islamic” world? Say, rather that Morsi is a Muslim, or Muslim Brother. That way, we don’t have to argue about semantics, right!



I can very well believe that the Obama Administration (not “a free and democratic America” - you see how I can avoid the semantics?) would support a radical, or extremist form of “Islam”, to further their agenda; their goal is to discredit Islam, to prove that “Islam” is the reason that the Arabs are backwards, and can’t take care of their own business. Then they will accuse the elected government in Egypt of “totalitarianism”, and so on. But did they ever intervene in 30 or 40 years of rule by the murdering and torturing government of Mubarak? No, and Muslims won’t forget how the American government, in the past, supported despotic regimes all over the world, who refused to give their people basic human rights.



Therefore, why do they accept American support for their new government?

If Morsi knows about behind the scenes American involvement or support for his government, he should speak now, and tell the Americans to leave Egypt alone.

Ask his people for forgiveness for dealing with the enemy. The party does not need anyone’s acceptance, except from the people of Egypt.