“Fight those who believe not in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth [i.e., Islam] from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.” (Ch: 9, V: 29, The Quran)
The ‘why?’ for fighting is dishonestly avoided by Spencer because it doesn’t suit his argument (that Islam encourages violence; that Islam is “inherently violent”); the verse doesn’t conclude with “until there are no more disbelievers”, or “until the people are all annihilated”. It does conclude with the determination of the Muslims, their goal to impose an Islamic nation in the Arabian Peninsula. “[Until] religion is only for Allah.” doesn’t mention anything about “world domination” and the fact is that, as many non-Muslims will point out to the Muslims, the entire world was never completely “Islamized”; the Muslims continued to exert their power to an extent until eventual decline of the Islamic empire; when the empirical grip and power was lost due to the Muslims’ becoming weak, incapable, greedy, lustful; loving of the worldly life, and when they became fearful of death. As all worldly empires have their rise and fall, so did the Islamic empire. But unlike Rome, Muslims didn’t shrink into one little space of a few thousand kilometers, or spread into complete insignificance – there remained many remnants of the most glorious past, such as in the remnants of Muslim Spain, but besides that there remain whole populations of Muslims in Muslim-majority countries. There are vast lands and populations wherein the Kalimah (there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) and adhan (the call to prayer) lives, to this very day; where they have always been heard and practiced since the early spread of Islam the first time. Now a new wave of Islamic growth again is taking place; so we can’t say that Islam is insignificant, despite the fact that there are no Nobel prize winners with Muslim names as some people continue to assert; although in fact there are some; maybe one, or two. (I mentioned to someone the man who invented the “micro economic business model” or “micro loans” for the poor, a Bangladeshi Muslim.
Bible Lesson:
In the Bible, Jesus tells the people, “I come not to bring peace, but a sword.”
But that Allah would command genocide is a fabrication of the Christian mind. Even the “genocide verses” in the Bible are not God’s words but are interpolations (added later) to the original Book (Injeel) of God.
“And let them find harshness in you” decries Spencer. Or interpret - The Qur’an is violent; violent verses which teach violence and are interpreted as “sword verses”. But the word “sword” is not found anywhere in the Qur’an in English translations; nor in the original Arabic; we see that there is at least one “sword verse” in the Bible, in Jesus’ words, if we are to believe his sayings, as per the Bible. As Ahmed Deedat said, Jesus, peace be unto him, “was no mealy-mouthed prophet”. Jesus also never said “worship me”, it isn’t there. Therefore, every person should study his/her Bible to learn what Jesus really did say, or what he really did teach, not just listen to the words of “Mathew”, “Mark”, “Luke” or “John” who never even met Jesus, according to scientific study of the texts.
Ch: 60, V: 8, reads:
“Nor does Allah forbid you from dealing justly and kindly with those who fight not against you nor drive you out of your homes.”
Nadir quotes verses with their context. At times during a battle, “And let them find harshness in you” (as when they “meet” the non-believers in battle), and other times, during peace and with non-Muslim neighbors, or “dhimmies”, as well as travelers and so on, who are in the Islamic state, or visiting, such as people today might be considered as “protected” people by any Islamic state, or Muslim-majority state, and whose betrayal or harming is a grave offence in Islamic law. This includes today, legal residents or people with legitimate visas, etc. As for people who are not legally recognized as belonging to the class of “protected” people, one would still advise that they should not be unduly harmed or suffer any injustice, but should be dealt with by the proper authorities e.g. police or government agencies responsible for illegal migrants, etc.
Non-Muslim neighbors or others who are not at war with you are not treated “harshly” (nor “ruthlessly” as Spencer wants all to believe, as he interpolates words (in his explanation, after the initial reading in which he gives only part of the quote to “harshly”, he gives it as “harshly and ruthlessly”) which is not quoting Qur’an), rather they receive treatment which is required, at least basic human rights, such as freedom to work, or freedom to worship (with some curtailing of certain outward practices, which happened in some Islamic states, but not especially “harsh” or “inhumane” treatment, at any rate.) Spencer mentions here also, the Balkan war which made an end to the former Yugoslavia, wherein many more Muslims, by the way, were killed, raped, and so on, than what happened to Serbs; the Serbs were the instigators of the violence and the ones responsible for the Balkan War, not Muslims nor Croats. History shows that it was the Serbs who committed genocide – hundreds of bodies in mass graves were found, and this is undeniable - and proves the inhumanity of the Serbian onslaughts during the war, which were done towards the goal of (in their words) a “Greater Serbia”. Due to their open nationalist agenda and hate the Serbs committed genocide and crimes against humanity with impunity, even in the face of world condemnation and finally, up to (or even during) the phase of the United Nations or NATO involvement in creating a ceasefire, etc.
Muhammad, the Military Leadership
Ch: 3, V: 21
“Mohamed is an exemplary” to the Muslims, argues Spencer.
In the previous verse, when Allah ordered Muhammad to fight, “Ummirtu”, or “I have been ordered to fight”, shows that during a certain period or on a certain day, he was ordered a specific task “to fight” certain people. Some verses direct the reader to “The people”, or “the non-believers”, for example. But this does not tell us that he (peace and blessings of Allah unto him) was ordered to destroy all the people, or commit ruthless genocide. History shows that this is not the case, and in fact, history shows how the Muslims advanced upon armies much larger than their army, and fought even ten times their number, or even hundred times their number, and Islam was victorious; it was due to Allah’s help, and Allah would not help the “disbelieving people”. Allah only gave victory to His people; the Muslims were His people and received divine help.
The people that the Prophet fought, namely the pagan Arabs no longer exist; they were wiped out, not by the Muslim armies, but some converted to Islam while others died out as a people.
That was the fulfillment of God’s promise to the Prophet Muhammad, that He would evict them from the Arabian Peninsula by the Muslims.
“The People” – who is meant?
“The people” is similar to the word “They”. For example, in Ch:10, V: 68, Allah says, “They (the Christians and others) have said, “Allah has taken a son”. We know by the context who “they” are (which is further highlighted by the brackets around “Christians and others”, for the reader. This is not mere fancy, but done to explain clearly who is the subject of the verse. I know this, because it is not only the Christians which claim that Allah has taken a son e.g. Jesus, but also the Jews who say Allah has taken a son (according to other verses in the Quran) e.g. Ezra. The publisher is telling the reader that the Christians and others also, say such things about Allah, for which they have no right.)
Therefore, when the Quran says/mentions “the people” it doesn’t mean all the people, or “everyone”. One has to look at the context to know who is meant. The words in quotations are about a specific group; “The people” or “they”, but should not be taken loosely to mean “all the people”, or “every non-believer”. Other groups spoken of in the Qur’an are “the Jews” “the hypocrites” or “the Romans” all being (obvious) specific examples (but not so as to mean all Jews or all Romans. There is no instance of a declaration of war against “the Jews” or “the Christians” in obvious language. (The verse mentions"people with scriptures", which means that there are others who had received revelation besides the Christians and Jews). There is mention of the Romans in a chapter dealing with them e.g. The defeat of the Pagans by the Romans was also celebrated by the Muslims as a victory of monotheistic religion (Abrahamic religion) over idol worshippers or Paganism.
More about Jihad:
Yes, we do what Muhammad, pbuh, did. In daily life - as for wars, the Muslims leader and top government and military leaders (whether Caliphate, and others in positions of government) would decide when war is necessary. This does not mean that all the wars Muslims engage in are “invasions” or “unilaterally” declared.
Islam doesn’t teach slaughter nor do Muslims want to kill innocents. That is a terrible unjust lie that the misleading and Muslim hating propagandists (Evangelicals and others) continue to spread. Nadir Ahmed does not “go against the mainstream”; Spencer is lying.
Spencer’s Lies Debunked:
Spencer says, “a garrison” who didn’t know (at Tabuk) that Muslims were nearby.
He suggests that the Christian didn’t know that they were in the vicinity of the Muslims’ territory, the grand and very prominent territory of the Muslim Empire. Remember, Spencer says (himself) that Tabuk was the “final battle of Muhammad’s” (lifetime).
The Christians (“a garrison” is a military group, or can also be understood as a “garrison city”, by definition) were a “clear and present danger”, says Ahmed. Even if it were just a garrison town, or a peaceful Christian community, it would not be a presence which the Islamic government would ignore. Again, “the people” were a Christian “garrison”, or probably hostile. In any case, the Muslims would naturally have taken a keen interest in them and wish to know why they were there. Thereafter, it became clear upon their meeting the people of that town or place, they would not submit to the Muslim leadership and were also intent on fighting.
To put this situation into historical perspective:
In fact, already Caesar Heracule’s emissaries had responded to the Prophet and sent for anyone who knew him; even asking Sufyan ibn Harb, while a peace treaty was in place between the Muslims and the Meccans (of which Sufyan was the leader), about Muhammad. This man responded to all Caesar’s (Heracule in Arabic; the leader of the Roman Eastern Empire) questions. Caesar then said, “If I could go to him (e.g. Muhammad) I would wash his feet”. Later, Sufyan became Muslim, on the Fatih of Mecca (conquest of Mecca). But the Caesar abstained from going to see the Prophet, perhaps largely due to fear; in the battle of M’uuta, 3,000 Muslims fought against 100,000 Byzantines (capital, Constantinople); later this Caesar was defeated at Yarmulke during the Caliphates of Abu Bakr and Omar Al Khattab, the first and second Caliphs, respectively. He was in Khums and left Syria for the security of Constantinople. The Romans were 250,000 chained together to prevent their running away from the battle, and the Muslims were 25-30,000, mostly first generation Muslims, and some Tabaiin (second generation Muslims who had never met the Prophet, pbuh). (Revising – checking for accuracy).
Islam is Merciful:
Interestingly, also, “we should fight to secure the safety of the non-believers” and
“We shall fight any enemies of theirs”.
If the people of the garrison mentioned, were to have sent a Messenger or to have responded to the messenger (of Allah’s Messenger), to tell the Muslim we are peaceful people, not here to fight; the Muslim army would have accepted their compliance e.g. either pay the Jizya, as protected people of the state, or fight for the Muslim state as (pro-Muslim) allies. It was the Muslim army that was the “conquering” army, and the Islamic state, which was the “clear authority” in the region. While many people would like to belly ache about this, the fact is that it was not only the Muslims which the Christians should have been fearful of, for not long afterwards, the Christians massacred each other. It had been better, in retrospect, if the Christians had been willing to become allies of the Muslims; during peace time, great advances in society are made, including the development of the sciences and also increased leisure. Obviously, the Christians had confidence that they could route the Muslims, so there is no reason to think that they were “innocent” bystanders or slaughtered; it would also have been better to be dhimmies than ‘captured people’ sold into slavery. The tax or Jizya which the men pay in lieu of serving alongside Muslims as allies is less than the amount of the Muslim charity on wealth, which is only 2.5% on monies (and some commodities) which have been in the Muslim’s possession for one full year (2.50 dollars/1,000 dollars); In other words, a small price to pay for not serving in the army.
When Spencer says, at Tabuk, they (the garrison) didn’t know the Muslims were there, he is lying.
They knew that they were positioned (or living) in the closest proximity to Islam’s borders, or areas within range of the Islamic Empire. We know that the verse was concerned with Tabuk, as Spencer says; the Battle of Tabuk was the final battle of the Muslim Empire under Muhammad, pbuh. The Muslims rode and camped outside Tabuk. It was a few days ride to the encampment, or garrison army. The Christians were “adjacent to” or “within close proximity to” the Muslim Empire, not “amongst” the Muslims, as Spencer intricately manipulates the text (another lie which he easily passes off on unsuspecting people, who largely are not familiar with the text. In fact, he probably counts on it.) This is another example of why I say that debates are not forums for understanding Islam, but help to perpetrate distortions of the religion.
For Muslims to fight people who are “amongst them” gives a wholly different connotation than fighting people who are “adjacent to them”, as the verse can only be understood. Even sincere Muslims who are not well enough prepared to defend the text in the face of blatant lies (which are quickly passed over in the midst of a debate), are obviously perturbed. Spencer is an experienced liar, and Muslims are not yet up to the task of arguing each point, especially as there is not time to check each reference in detail to make a proper counterargument.(I checked my translation, The Qur’an, Darussalam publishers, and the meaning given is “adjacent to” ). Even closing arguments are basically useless restatement of the main points only and don’t offer much in the way of providing justice to the Muslims’ scriptures or traditions, in the hands of inadequate or inexperienced debaters (Indeed it is quite difficult to debate topics, especially how they are framed negatively when Islam is discussed; Is Islam a religion of peace?, might be better than Does Islam teach Terrorism? Or, “Is Europe failing its Muslims” as Tariq Ramadan approached the debate topic (“Is Europe failing its Muslims”), as opposed to how Douglas Murray approached the topic, “Is Islam Failing Muslims?”; two different approaches, one which seeks to shed a positive light on Islam and Muslims, while admitting difficulties encountered by Muslims in Europe, and the other, which seeks to show the negative aspects of Islam (as perceived by an Islamophobe, or anti-Islam spokesperson).
Muslims may (under duress or for good reason) fight other Muslims:
Muslims can (and should) fight people such as “the tartars” or Viking-like warriors, or any who attack innocent people. E.g. “We shall fight any enemy of theirs”. So Allah told Muhammad (pbuh), not “us” to fight “the people” or “those people” who are “non-believers” who were His enemies and enemies of the Muslims, as well as enemies of their allies. In rare instances, such as the “battle of the camel” (revise – check detail) Muslims fought other Muslims. This particular trial happened not long after the Prophet’s death, when Aisha, R.A., from atop her camel, led one group of Muslims in a battle against Muawiya, R.A., and his group - Many more Muslims refrained from the battle or taking any side.
Also, that Muslims are to “fight the non-believers until religion is for Allah” is true, that Muslims should fight so that Islam would grow in number (by sincere conversions more than by birthrate alone could provide within a few short years or decades). Thus, Islam would be secure and could not be extinguished, by threats or by force of conversion to another religion. With numbers comes strength. It is no coincidence that later Genghis Khan was fought, because he would have liked to erase Islam from the face of the earth, as he erased other peoples and eliminated many who opposed him. Allah is more Powerful.
The Jizya:
As for the Jizya which exempted a man from fighting in the Muslims’ army, being a “chief source” of income, this is also not true. While Spencer quotes Omar, the second Caliph of Islam, although Omar (R.A.) said “a source”, not “a chief source”, he interpolates more importance to the Jizya as a source of income for the Islamic government than necessary. Of course, later Allah gave the Muslims the means (after oil rigs were invented) to get oil out of the ground, which is chiefly found in Arab or Muslim lands, in fact, most of the world’s petrol is supplied by Muslim-majority states; Saudi Arabia, Libya, etc. Other resources are natural gas, which is now being ‘mined’, as well as precious gems and metals - diamonds or gold, e.g. Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan. Also, metals which are required for producing the complicated chips in computers, and used in other advanced technologies.
Before the Jizya, Muslims were successful merchants; the Arabs were generally successful traders, businessmen, etc. They also made money from other tribes during the yearly pilgrimage which provided major opportunity for trade, as well as forming of alliances, and so forth. After Islam, there was more prosperity and the Muslims were blessed not only in their religion, but also in children and wealth. Halaal (allowable) money is more blessed than the money from haram (or forbidden) activities. This success was due largely to their geographical position; later on Muslims also sufficed to do business (very profitably) on the silk trade route.
Conclusion:
The Invasion of Tabuk is written about in the biography of the Prophet, The Sealed Nectar, p. 508. It concludes, “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.”
Spenser tries to claim that the nonbelievers who fought were not soldiers on the offensive, nor attempting to tactically position themselves but only protecting a Christian town or city, or otherwise were non-combatants in a “garrison (town)”. He is not clear on this important point, and anyway is not trustworthy. What actually happens after the battle of Tabuk is that many non-Muslims sent messengers or went to the Muslim victors in groups to draw up peace treaties with them. (P. 517, The Sealed Nectar) In fact, this preacher exposes himself to ridicule when he denies that they knew nothing about the Muslims in the area.
Muslims are not permitted to fight or kill anyone who is peaceful, or claims to want “peace” with them. So all the Christians had to do as people approaching the prophet used to do in those days, is send an emissary. This is similar to the actions of people worldwide, in all times and places, when “peace” becomes an important objective; especially when people realize that they are ‘beaten’. When other tribes signed peace treaties, so often the status quo was maintained, as Muslim speakers will testify.
Yes, Muhammad was ordered to fight until religion is all for Allah, e.g. “Until they testify”... or until Islam was a powerful force, and paganism was routed, is the meaning of the rest of the verse. Meanwhile, Jewish and Christian Arabs continued to live amonst the growing masses of Muslims. There were no forced conversions or Islam at the point of a sword.
This meant there would also be “conditions for war” and “conditions for peace”. Not only Muhammad, pbuh, but Muslim leaders later on had treaties of peace with non-Muslims. Nadir Ahmed mentioned some examples of cessation of fighting and peace with non-Muslims. If Muslims were ordered to fight all the people, with no cessation of fighting possible - neither peace nor cessation of hostilities - then there would never have been peace treaties, any periods of growth, or intellectual life. The expansion of the Empire would have necessitated or resorted to complete genocides. But we know from historical evidence to the contrary, that genocides didn’t happen at the hands of Muslim armies during this period of original expansion and spread of Islam, nor during righteously fought wars under righteous Muslim leadership.
The Jews:
Ibn Jauziya also gives the context of the “Expedition of Tabuk”. With the tafseer which Spencer provides us (explained previously), we see that the true context of the Tabuk invasion was an imminent battle with the Byzantines.
Ahmed seems to miss the point Ibn Jauziyah makes, he mentions the verse (in the context of an “expedition” to “meet” the non-believers” in a battle). But I want people to understand that Muslims do not have to believe everything that the scholars in the past said, or what (some) scholars say (sometimes) today. I actually find nothing wrong with what was said by Ibn Jauziyah in favor of Nadir Ahmed’s arguments; that Muslims should fight “the disbelievers” (in the context of an imminent threat at Tabuk) and/or that aggressors should be fought is meant, generally.
One sees things through one’s own “lens”. Peaceful Muslims likewise will see the Qur’an and even Islamic history through the lens that peace is better and war is a military option, or necessary evil sometimes. There are hardly any nations today with a few exceptions, only, who do not have armies or even bases in foreign lands, or are not also occupying part of another country, sometimes as “usurpers” since previously fought battles.
Conclusion:
When the Prophet, pbuh, was dying he repeated the phrase “O Allah! Bear witness.” Three times as he pointed his finger (P. 542, Ibid, describes a narration in Saheeh Muslim 1/397).
Thereafter, the author has that ‘As soon as the Prophet [SAWS] had accomplished delivering the speech, the following Qur’anic Verse was revealed to him:
“This day I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.” [5:3]
“Upon hearing this Verse, ‘Umar [R.A.] cried. “What makes you cry?” He was asked. His answer was: “Nothing succeeds perfection but imperfection.”’ The author gives the reference to this event as described herein, Rahmatul-lil-‘Alamin 1/265 (In the corresponding footnote). Muslims believe Omar to be one of the best Muslims in faith, worship, integrity, strength, wisdom and guidance.
It has been the belief of Muslims that contrary to world domination, the succeeding generations of Muslims would decline greatly from the first, second, third, fourth, to the next and so on. Each succeeding generation would find more weakness and find less in terms of perfection. Therefore, it is my opinion that this is a myth which some segments of Muslim society or some Muslims from one generation to the next have foisted upon Muslims (that an Islamic State would arise (again), which would “take over the world”).
Rather Islam as a way of life, taught the Muslims how to live with non-Muslims, how to treat non-Muslim neighbors, how to be kind to them, as well how to ignore their speech, if it was not proper, either to remove oneself from their presence (also, if Muslims are speaking ill of the religion or joke about serious matters of religion, etc. or engage in vain speech and unislamic behavior, etc. a pious Muslim should remove him/herself from the presence of such people). One may also warn others about the afterlife, remind people about performing good deeds and leaving off evil deeds, etc. Islam teaches one how to live with Muslims and non-Muslims; as well as detailing many practical rules and so on.
As Umar, radiallaho anho, said, “Nothing succeeds perfection but imperfection.” The Muslims declined when they were not worthy of carrying the banner of Islam, and they have suffered many trials and even wished for death; being helplessly under the oppression of tyrants, such as we see in Syria today, in Palestine, and in Iraq, etc. But while we cannot be perfect, nor can Islam be practiced to the perfection practiced by the early generations of Muslims, each time it declined with each succeeding generation, but as a guide Islam (the Qur’an and Sunnah) is the best prescription for living. It is only our weaknesses which prevents us from holding high the principles and perfect wisdom or of demonstrating practically the teachings of Islam, the perfect Wisdom of Allah’s Book which is His words and remains unchanged. Therefore, while it is very difficult to raise the banner of Islam, in the state of weakness and capitulation we find ourselves, it is possible for a generation of Muslims to do so, though not to the level of perfection of the Prophet, nor the level of near-perfection of the Tabaiin, and so on. Allah does not require of Muslims to “take over the world” and that has never been the objective of Islam. The true objective of Islam as stated in the words of Allah, Most High, Most Great, in many verses is to guide mankind to the worship of Allah. How to do that is explained in verses dispersed throughout the Qur’an, which touch on myriad subjects, such as health, wealth, family life, modes of worship, warfare, Islamic etiquette and behavior, Islamic law, Islamic finance, international law, etc. Books having been later written by scholars (mostly in Arabic) explain these in detail. I have found a few English books dealing with the subject, just recently one in particular which is in its latest edition, called, “Islamic Jurisprudence” by C.G. Weeramantry, a non-Muslim, a judge, former justice of the Hague, a doctor of laws of the University of London, and deals only with the subject of Islamic law.
The ‘why?’ for fighting is dishonestly avoided by Spencer because it doesn’t suit his argument (that Islam encourages violence; that Islam is “inherently violent”); the verse doesn’t conclude with “until there are no more disbelievers”, or “until the people are all annihilated”. It does conclude with the determination of the Muslims, their goal to impose an Islamic nation in the Arabian Peninsula. “[Until] religion is only for Allah.” doesn’t mention anything about “world domination” and the fact is that, as many non-Muslims will point out to the Muslims, the entire world was never completely “Islamized”; the Muslims continued to exert their power to an extent until eventual decline of the Islamic empire; when the empirical grip and power was lost due to the Muslims’ becoming weak, incapable, greedy, lustful; loving of the worldly life, and when they became fearful of death. As all worldly empires have their rise and fall, so did the Islamic empire. But unlike Rome, Muslims didn’t shrink into one little space of a few thousand kilometers, or spread into complete insignificance – there remained many remnants of the most glorious past, such as in the remnants of Muslim Spain, but besides that there remain whole populations of Muslims in Muslim-majority countries. There are vast lands and populations wherein the Kalimah (there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) and adhan (the call to prayer) lives, to this very day; where they have always been heard and practiced since the early spread of Islam the first time. Now a new wave of Islamic growth again is taking place; so we can’t say that Islam is insignificant, despite the fact that there are no Nobel prize winners with Muslim names as some people continue to assert; although in fact there are some; maybe one, or two. (I mentioned to someone the man who invented the “micro economic business model” or “micro loans” for the poor, a Bangladeshi Muslim.
Bible Lesson:
In the Bible, Jesus tells the people, “I come not to bring peace, but a sword.”
But that Allah would command genocide is a fabrication of the Christian mind. Even the “genocide verses” in the Bible are not God’s words but are interpolations (added later) to the original Book (Injeel) of God.
“And let them find harshness in you” decries Spencer. Or interpret - The Qur’an is violent; violent verses which teach violence and are interpreted as “sword verses”. But the word “sword” is not found anywhere in the Qur’an in English translations; nor in the original Arabic; we see that there is at least one “sword verse” in the Bible, in Jesus’ words, if we are to believe his sayings, as per the Bible. As Ahmed Deedat said, Jesus, peace be unto him, “was no mealy-mouthed prophet”. Jesus also never said “worship me”, it isn’t there. Therefore, every person should study his/her Bible to learn what Jesus really did say, or what he really did teach, not just listen to the words of “Mathew”, “Mark”, “Luke” or “John” who never even met Jesus, according to scientific study of the texts.
Ch: 60, V: 8, reads:
“Nor does Allah forbid you from dealing justly and kindly with those who fight not against you nor drive you out of your homes.”
Nadir quotes verses with their context. At times during a battle, “And let them find harshness in you” (as when they “meet” the non-believers in battle), and other times, during peace and with non-Muslim neighbors, or “dhimmies”, as well as travelers and so on, who are in the Islamic state, or visiting, such as people today might be considered as “protected” people by any Islamic state, or Muslim-majority state, and whose betrayal or harming is a grave offence in Islamic law. This includes today, legal residents or people with legitimate visas, etc. As for people who are not legally recognized as belonging to the class of “protected” people, one would still advise that they should not be unduly harmed or suffer any injustice, but should be dealt with by the proper authorities e.g. police or government agencies responsible for illegal migrants, etc.
Non-Muslim neighbors or others who are not at war with you are not treated “harshly” (nor “ruthlessly” as Spencer wants all to believe, as he interpolates words (in his explanation, after the initial reading in which he gives only part of the quote to “harshly”, he gives it as “harshly and ruthlessly”) which is not quoting Qur’an), rather they receive treatment which is required, at least basic human rights, such as freedom to work, or freedom to worship (with some curtailing of certain outward practices, which happened in some Islamic states, but not especially “harsh” or “inhumane” treatment, at any rate.) Spencer mentions here also, the Balkan war which made an end to the former Yugoslavia, wherein many more Muslims, by the way, were killed, raped, and so on, than what happened to Serbs; the Serbs were the instigators of the violence and the ones responsible for the Balkan War, not Muslims nor Croats. History shows that it was the Serbs who committed genocide – hundreds of bodies in mass graves were found, and this is undeniable - and proves the inhumanity of the Serbian onslaughts during the war, which were done towards the goal of (in their words) a “Greater Serbia”. Due to their open nationalist agenda and hate the Serbs committed genocide and crimes against humanity with impunity, even in the face of world condemnation and finally, up to (or even during) the phase of the United Nations or NATO involvement in creating a ceasefire, etc.
Muhammad, the Military Leadership
Ch: 3, V: 21
“Mohamed is an exemplary” to the Muslims, argues Spencer.
In the previous verse, when Allah ordered Muhammad to fight, “Ummirtu”, or “I have been ordered to fight”, shows that during a certain period or on a certain day, he was ordered a specific task “to fight” certain people. Some verses direct the reader to “The people”, or “the non-believers”, for example. But this does not tell us that he (peace and blessings of Allah unto him) was ordered to destroy all the people, or commit ruthless genocide. History shows that this is not the case, and in fact, history shows how the Muslims advanced upon armies much larger than their army, and fought even ten times their number, or even hundred times their number, and Islam was victorious; it was due to Allah’s help, and Allah would not help the “disbelieving people”. Allah only gave victory to His people; the Muslims were His people and received divine help.
The people that the Prophet fought, namely the pagan Arabs no longer exist; they were wiped out, not by the Muslim armies, but some converted to Islam while others died out as a people.
That was the fulfillment of God’s promise to the Prophet Muhammad, that He would evict them from the Arabian Peninsula by the Muslims.
“The People” – who is meant?
“The people” is similar to the word “They”. For example, in Ch:10, V: 68, Allah says, “They (the Christians and others) have said, “Allah has taken a son”. We know by the context who “they” are (which is further highlighted by the brackets around “Christians and others”, for the reader. This is not mere fancy, but done to explain clearly who is the subject of the verse. I know this, because it is not only the Christians which claim that Allah has taken a son e.g. Jesus, but also the Jews who say Allah has taken a son (according to other verses in the Quran) e.g. Ezra. The publisher is telling the reader that the Christians and others also, say such things about Allah, for which they have no right.)
Therefore, when the Quran says/mentions “the people” it doesn’t mean all the people, or “everyone”. One has to look at the context to know who is meant. The words in quotations are about a specific group; “The people” or “they”, but should not be taken loosely to mean “all the people”, or “every non-believer”. Other groups spoken of in the Qur’an are “the Jews” “the hypocrites” or “the Romans” all being (obvious) specific examples (but not so as to mean all Jews or all Romans. There is no instance of a declaration of war against “the Jews” or “the Christians” in obvious language. (The verse mentions"people with scriptures", which means that there are others who had received revelation besides the Christians and Jews). There is mention of the Romans in a chapter dealing with them e.g. The defeat of the Pagans by the Romans was also celebrated by the Muslims as a victory of monotheistic religion (Abrahamic religion) over idol worshippers or Paganism.
More about Jihad:
Yes, we do what Muhammad, pbuh, did. In daily life - as for wars, the Muslims leader and top government and military leaders (whether Caliphate, and others in positions of government) would decide when war is necessary. This does not mean that all the wars Muslims engage in are “invasions” or “unilaterally” declared.
Islam doesn’t teach slaughter nor do Muslims want to kill innocents. That is a terrible unjust lie that the misleading and Muslim hating propagandists (Evangelicals and others) continue to spread. Nadir Ahmed does not “go against the mainstream”; Spencer is lying.
Spencer’s Lies Debunked:
Spencer says, “a garrison” who didn’t know (at Tabuk) that Muslims were nearby.
He suggests that the Christian didn’t know that they were in the vicinity of the Muslims’ territory, the grand and very prominent territory of the Muslim Empire. Remember, Spencer says (himself) that Tabuk was the “final battle of Muhammad’s” (lifetime).
The Christians (“a garrison” is a military group, or can also be understood as a “garrison city”, by definition) were a “clear and present danger”, says Ahmed. Even if it were just a garrison town, or a peaceful Christian community, it would not be a presence which the Islamic government would ignore. Again, “the people” were a Christian “garrison”, or probably hostile. In any case, the Muslims would naturally have taken a keen interest in them and wish to know why they were there. Thereafter, it became clear upon their meeting the people of that town or place, they would not submit to the Muslim leadership and were also intent on fighting.
To put this situation into historical perspective:
In fact, already Caesar Heracule’s emissaries had responded to the Prophet and sent for anyone who knew him; even asking Sufyan ibn Harb, while a peace treaty was in place between the Muslims and the Meccans (of which Sufyan was the leader), about Muhammad. This man responded to all Caesar’s (Heracule in Arabic; the leader of the Roman Eastern Empire) questions. Caesar then said, “If I could go to him (e.g. Muhammad) I would wash his feet”. Later, Sufyan became Muslim, on the Fatih of Mecca (conquest of Mecca). But the Caesar abstained from going to see the Prophet, perhaps largely due to fear; in the battle of M’uuta, 3,000 Muslims fought against 100,000 Byzantines (capital, Constantinople); later this Caesar was defeated at Yarmulke during the Caliphates of Abu Bakr and Omar Al Khattab, the first and second Caliphs, respectively. He was in Khums and left Syria for the security of Constantinople. The Romans were 250,000 chained together to prevent their running away from the battle, and the Muslims were 25-30,000, mostly first generation Muslims, and some Tabaiin (second generation Muslims who had never met the Prophet, pbuh). (Revising – checking for accuracy).
Islam is Merciful:
Interestingly, also, “we should fight to secure the safety of the non-believers” and
“We shall fight any enemies of theirs”.
If the people of the garrison mentioned, were to have sent a Messenger or to have responded to the messenger (of Allah’s Messenger), to tell the Muslim we are peaceful people, not here to fight; the Muslim army would have accepted their compliance e.g. either pay the Jizya, as protected people of the state, or fight for the Muslim state as (pro-Muslim) allies. It was the Muslim army that was the “conquering” army, and the Islamic state, which was the “clear authority” in the region. While many people would like to belly ache about this, the fact is that it was not only the Muslims which the Christians should have been fearful of, for not long afterwards, the Christians massacred each other. It had been better, in retrospect, if the Christians had been willing to become allies of the Muslims; during peace time, great advances in society are made, including the development of the sciences and also increased leisure. Obviously, the Christians had confidence that they could route the Muslims, so there is no reason to think that they were “innocent” bystanders or slaughtered; it would also have been better to be dhimmies than ‘captured people’ sold into slavery. The tax or Jizya which the men pay in lieu of serving alongside Muslims as allies is less than the amount of the Muslim charity on wealth, which is only 2.5% on monies (and some commodities) which have been in the Muslim’s possession for one full year (2.50 dollars/1,000 dollars); In other words, a small price to pay for not serving in the army.
When Spencer says, at Tabuk, they (the garrison) didn’t know the Muslims were there, he is lying.
They knew that they were positioned (or living) in the closest proximity to Islam’s borders, or areas within range of the Islamic Empire. We know that the verse was concerned with Tabuk, as Spencer says; the Battle of Tabuk was the final battle of the Muslim Empire under Muhammad, pbuh. The Muslims rode and camped outside Tabuk. It was a few days ride to the encampment, or garrison army. The Christians were “adjacent to” or “within close proximity to” the Muslim Empire, not “amongst” the Muslims, as Spencer intricately manipulates the text (another lie which he easily passes off on unsuspecting people, who largely are not familiar with the text. In fact, he probably counts on it.) This is another example of why I say that debates are not forums for understanding Islam, but help to perpetrate distortions of the religion.
For Muslims to fight people who are “amongst them” gives a wholly different connotation than fighting people who are “adjacent to them”, as the verse can only be understood. Even sincere Muslims who are not well enough prepared to defend the text in the face of blatant lies (which are quickly passed over in the midst of a debate), are obviously perturbed. Spencer is an experienced liar, and Muslims are not yet up to the task of arguing each point, especially as there is not time to check each reference in detail to make a proper counterargument.(I checked my translation, The Qur’an, Darussalam publishers, and the meaning given is “adjacent to” ). Even closing arguments are basically useless restatement of the main points only and don’t offer much in the way of providing justice to the Muslims’ scriptures or traditions, in the hands of inadequate or inexperienced debaters (Indeed it is quite difficult to debate topics, especially how they are framed negatively when Islam is discussed; Is Islam a religion of peace?, might be better than Does Islam teach Terrorism? Or, “Is Europe failing its Muslims” as Tariq Ramadan approached the debate topic (“Is Europe failing its Muslims”), as opposed to how Douglas Murray approached the topic, “Is Islam Failing Muslims?”; two different approaches, one which seeks to shed a positive light on Islam and Muslims, while admitting difficulties encountered by Muslims in Europe, and the other, which seeks to show the negative aspects of Islam (as perceived by an Islamophobe, or anti-Islam spokesperson).
Muslims may (under duress or for good reason) fight other Muslims:
Muslims can (and should) fight people such as “the tartars” or Viking-like warriors, or any who attack innocent people. E.g. “We shall fight any enemy of theirs”. So Allah told Muhammad (pbuh), not “us” to fight “the people” or “those people” who are “non-believers” who were His enemies and enemies of the Muslims, as well as enemies of their allies. In rare instances, such as the “battle of the camel” (revise – check detail) Muslims fought other Muslims. This particular trial happened not long after the Prophet’s death, when Aisha, R.A., from atop her camel, led one group of Muslims in a battle against Muawiya, R.A., and his group - Many more Muslims refrained from the battle or taking any side.
Also, that Muslims are to “fight the non-believers until religion is for Allah” is true, that Muslims should fight so that Islam would grow in number (by sincere conversions more than by birthrate alone could provide within a few short years or decades). Thus, Islam would be secure and could not be extinguished, by threats or by force of conversion to another religion. With numbers comes strength. It is no coincidence that later Genghis Khan was fought, because he would have liked to erase Islam from the face of the earth, as he erased other peoples and eliminated many who opposed him. Allah is more Powerful.
The Jizya:
As for the Jizya which exempted a man from fighting in the Muslims’ army, being a “chief source” of income, this is also not true. While Spencer quotes Omar, the second Caliph of Islam, although Omar (R.A.) said “a source”, not “a chief source”, he interpolates more importance to the Jizya as a source of income for the Islamic government than necessary. Of course, later Allah gave the Muslims the means (after oil rigs were invented) to get oil out of the ground, which is chiefly found in Arab or Muslim lands, in fact, most of the world’s petrol is supplied by Muslim-majority states; Saudi Arabia, Libya, etc. Other resources are natural gas, which is now being ‘mined’, as well as precious gems and metals - diamonds or gold, e.g. Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan. Also, metals which are required for producing the complicated chips in computers, and used in other advanced technologies.
Before the Jizya, Muslims were successful merchants; the Arabs were generally successful traders, businessmen, etc. They also made money from other tribes during the yearly pilgrimage which provided major opportunity for trade, as well as forming of alliances, and so forth. After Islam, there was more prosperity and the Muslims were blessed not only in their religion, but also in children and wealth. Halaal (allowable) money is more blessed than the money from haram (or forbidden) activities. This success was due largely to their geographical position; later on Muslims also sufficed to do business (very profitably) on the silk trade route.
Conclusion:
The Invasion of Tabuk is written about in the biography of the Prophet, The Sealed Nectar, p. 508. It concludes, “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.”
Spenser tries to claim that the nonbelievers who fought were not soldiers on the offensive, nor attempting to tactically position themselves but only protecting a Christian town or city, or otherwise were non-combatants in a “garrison (town)”. He is not clear on this important point, and anyway is not trustworthy. What actually happens after the battle of Tabuk is that many non-Muslims sent messengers or went to the Muslim victors in groups to draw up peace treaties with them. (P. 517, The Sealed Nectar) In fact, this preacher exposes himself to ridicule when he denies that they knew nothing about the Muslims in the area.
Muslims are not permitted to fight or kill anyone who is peaceful, or claims to want “peace” with them. So all the Christians had to do as people approaching the prophet used to do in those days, is send an emissary. This is similar to the actions of people worldwide, in all times and places, when “peace” becomes an important objective; especially when people realize that they are ‘beaten’. When other tribes signed peace treaties, so often the status quo was maintained, as Muslim speakers will testify.
Yes, Muhammad was ordered to fight until religion is all for Allah, e.g. “Until they testify”... or until Islam was a powerful force, and paganism was routed, is the meaning of the rest of the verse. Meanwhile, Jewish and Christian Arabs continued to live amonst the growing masses of Muslims. There were no forced conversions or Islam at the point of a sword.
This meant there would also be “conditions for war” and “conditions for peace”. Not only Muhammad, pbuh, but Muslim leaders later on had treaties of peace with non-Muslims. Nadir Ahmed mentioned some examples of cessation of fighting and peace with non-Muslims. If Muslims were ordered to fight all the people, with no cessation of fighting possible - neither peace nor cessation of hostilities - then there would never have been peace treaties, any periods of growth, or intellectual life. The expansion of the Empire would have necessitated or resorted to complete genocides. But we know from historical evidence to the contrary, that genocides didn’t happen at the hands of Muslim armies during this period of original expansion and spread of Islam, nor during righteously fought wars under righteous Muslim leadership.
The Jews:
Ibn Jauziya also gives the context of the “Expedition of Tabuk”. With the tafseer which Spencer provides us (explained previously), we see that the true context of the Tabuk invasion was an imminent battle with the Byzantines.
Ahmed seems to miss the point Ibn Jauziyah makes, he mentions the verse (in the context of an “expedition” to “meet” the non-believers” in a battle). But I want people to understand that Muslims do not have to believe everything that the scholars in the past said, or what (some) scholars say (sometimes) today. I actually find nothing wrong with what was said by Ibn Jauziyah in favor of Nadir Ahmed’s arguments; that Muslims should fight “the disbelievers” (in the context of an imminent threat at Tabuk) and/or that aggressors should be fought is meant, generally.
One sees things through one’s own “lens”. Peaceful Muslims likewise will see the Qur’an and even Islamic history through the lens that peace is better and war is a military option, or necessary evil sometimes. There are hardly any nations today with a few exceptions, only, who do not have armies or even bases in foreign lands, or are not also occupying part of another country, sometimes as “usurpers” since previously fought battles.
Conclusion:
When the Prophet, pbuh, was dying he repeated the phrase “O Allah! Bear witness.” Three times as he pointed his finger (P. 542, Ibid, describes a narration in Saheeh Muslim 1/397).
Thereafter, the author has that ‘As soon as the Prophet [SAWS] had accomplished delivering the speech, the following Qur’anic Verse was revealed to him:
“This day I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.” [5:3]
“Upon hearing this Verse, ‘Umar [R.A.] cried. “What makes you cry?” He was asked. His answer was: “Nothing succeeds perfection but imperfection.”’ The author gives the reference to this event as described herein, Rahmatul-lil-‘Alamin 1/265 (In the corresponding footnote). Muslims believe Omar to be one of the best Muslims in faith, worship, integrity, strength, wisdom and guidance.
It has been the belief of Muslims that contrary to world domination, the succeeding generations of Muslims would decline greatly from the first, second, third, fourth, to the next and so on. Each succeeding generation would find more weakness and find less in terms of perfection. Therefore, it is my opinion that this is a myth which some segments of Muslim society or some Muslims from one generation to the next have foisted upon Muslims (that an Islamic State would arise (again), which would “take over the world”).
Rather Islam as a way of life, taught the Muslims how to live with non-Muslims, how to treat non-Muslim neighbors, how to be kind to them, as well how to ignore their speech, if it was not proper, either to remove oneself from their presence (also, if Muslims are speaking ill of the religion or joke about serious matters of religion, etc. or engage in vain speech and unislamic behavior, etc. a pious Muslim should remove him/herself from the presence of such people). One may also warn others about the afterlife, remind people about performing good deeds and leaving off evil deeds, etc. Islam teaches one how to live with Muslims and non-Muslims; as well as detailing many practical rules and so on.
As Umar, radiallaho anho, said, “Nothing succeeds perfection but imperfection.” The Muslims declined when they were not worthy of carrying the banner of Islam, and they have suffered many trials and even wished for death; being helplessly under the oppression of tyrants, such as we see in Syria today, in Palestine, and in Iraq, etc. But while we cannot be perfect, nor can Islam be practiced to the perfection practiced by the early generations of Muslims, each time it declined with each succeeding generation, but as a guide Islam (the Qur’an and Sunnah) is the best prescription for living. It is only our weaknesses which prevents us from holding high the principles and perfect wisdom or of demonstrating practically the teachings of Islam, the perfect Wisdom of Allah’s Book which is His words and remains unchanged. Therefore, while it is very difficult to raise the banner of Islam, in the state of weakness and capitulation we find ourselves, it is possible for a generation of Muslims to do so, though not to the level of perfection of the Prophet, nor the level of near-perfection of the Tabaiin, and so on. Allah does not require of Muslims to “take over the world” and that has never been the objective of Islam. The true objective of Islam as stated in the words of Allah, Most High, Most Great, in many verses is to guide mankind to the worship of Allah. How to do that is explained in verses dispersed throughout the Qur’an, which touch on myriad subjects, such as health, wealth, family life, modes of worship, warfare, Islamic etiquette and behavior, Islamic law, Islamic finance, international law, etc. Books having been later written by scholars (mostly in Arabic) explain these in detail. I have found a few English books dealing with the subject, just recently one in particular which is in its latest edition, called, “Islamic Jurisprudence” by C.G. Weeramantry, a non-Muslim, a judge, former justice of the Hague, a doctor of laws of the University of London, and deals only with the subject of Islamic law.
