In answer to the video "Al-Qasas 28:48 - The Quran Affirms the Bible"
When the Quran states scriptures of the past were corrupted and tampered with, it never asserts corruption in an absolute sense. This is precisely why the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaymin (Guardian/Arbitrer), when talking about what came before it, including the Torah and Injil. It points out major mistakes in them, filters the Truth from falsehood
21:24"this is the reminder of those with me and the reminder of those before me".
The Quran confirming the past scriptures, as well as any tradition, oral or written, in which divine truths still remain 2:41, means that the principles taught by Muhammad come from a common source and can be found throughout these textual and oral traditons. It also means the coming of Muhammad and the Quran prove the prophecies of the Torah and Gospel as true 6:20,7:157,61:6. It is in this same sense that Jesus confirmed and fulfilled the Torah and the Prophets. He confirmed the truth in them, exposing the falsehood, oral or textual, and he fulfilled the prophecies related to himself
Matt5:17-20,19:16-19,Quran5:46"And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil)".
The Bani Israil who rejected Jesus were in reality rejecting their Torah. Now that the Quran came, if the people of the book do not stand firm by it, then they will be violating even their own scriptures which it confirms and fulfills. In 46:10 the Quran refers to a witness from among the Israelites that believed in the like of his scriptures, meaning the Quran. According to tradition, the verse is speaking of the learned rabbi Abdullah ibn Salam's conversion to Islam. Given his religious knowledge, he knew the Quran abrogates and supersedes, exposes and denies, confirms in places while contradicting in many other places his own scripture, the Torah. But yet it literally says, this rabbi believed in the like of his scriptures.
That "likeness" between the Torah and the Quran therefore can only be the statements that fully agree with one another. This is exactly what is meant by Quran confirming the past revelations. It confirms the truth in them in several ways, including exposing what is from God and what is man-made, hence its function as the Muhaymin/guardian,arbitrer as well as fulfilling its prophecies, which the Quran repeatedly echoes and which of course the learned rabbi knew applied to Muhammad
2:146"those to whom We have given the scripture recognize him as they recognize their own sons".
That is also why the minority comentators that rejected the application of the verse to ibn Salam, rather see in it a reference to Moses himself. He was the Israelite witness that testified to one like himself/mithlihi, as clearly stated in the prophecy of
Deut18:18"I will set up a prophet for them, from among their brothers like you and I will put my words into his mouth and he will speak to them all that I command him".
But as attested in history, not all of them remained obdurate
3:199"And most surely of the followers of the Book there are those who believe in Allah and (in) that which has been revealed to you and (in) that which has been revealed to them, being lowly before Allah; they do not take a small price for the communications of Allah; these it is that have their reward with their Lord; surely Allah is quick in reckoning".
These are the righteous among the followers of previous scriptures and who remained truthful to their Books. This sincerity inevitably led them to believe in the Quran
4:162,5:83"But the firm in knowledge among them..believe in what has been revealed to you and what has been revealed before you...and when they hear what has been revealed to the apostle, you will see their eye overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize. They say; our Lord, we believe so write us down with the witnesses".
A subtle aspect worth noting in 2:121 is that since the righteous among them are mentioned, the expression used is "We have given them the Book" not "They were given the Book" conveying the idea that it is God who gave it to them and guided them on account of their righteousness, contrary to those who were given the book without identification of the giver or instructor. This pattern is present throughout the Quran and is actually one of the many examples of its linguistic precision. This is why the people of the book are never told to reject their scriptures in 5:68,69 but rather to stand by not only the Torah and the Gospel, but the Quran, to which the previous scriptures naturally lead to. This has been pointed to in the words "and that which is revealed to you from your Lord". Because it is the "Muhaymin" of their revelations, the guardian of the truth which God himself has pledged to preserve unlike any holy book, the reminder of the pure way of Ibrahim.
As to those who would claim, and still do, that they only believe that which has been revealed to them then the Quran answers them that even Prophets that came from among their own people, preaching adherence to their own books were killed by these men, as Jesus put it Mk12:1-12,Matt23:31-37. This charge was levelled against them in the earliest Meccan revelations such as 37:37 before the interraction with them in Medina.
In answer to the video "Islamicize Me Day 6: The Prophet's Drinking Game"
It is interesting to note the manner in which God instilled an etiquette of humility when about to communicate with the divine, that would later forever be perpetuated. God, as He was about to impart divine wisdom, prophecy, miracles to Musa told him to be aware of the sacredness of his surrounding and humble himself by taking off his sandals
20:12"Surely I am your Lord, therefore put off your shoes; surely you are in the sacred valley, Tuwa".
As stated in the HB
Ex3:5"Do not draw near here. Take your shoes of your feet, because the soil upon which you stand is holy soil".
God himself required it, not because of mourning and neither humility, as is sometimes understood in Judaism but
"because the soil upon which you stand is holy soil"
God does certainly mind the issue of impurities desecrating a place Holy due to being a location of communication with the divine. The prophet Muhammad also invoked the presence of impurities as a reason to take off the shoes in congregation. These things matter to God and, just as one wouldn't present himself soiled with feces in front of any wordly respectable figure, one similarily does his best to avoid doing so when about to address the Creator.
Muslims take their shoes off because they emulate their prophet who preserved the way of his predecessors. Of course the law isnt rigid, and has a spirit, like every divine ordinance, hence the prophet Muhammad's flexibility in the matter, depending on the circumstances. He sometimes prayed with shoes off, or on but in the latter case always made sure his shoes had no impurities on them.
In answer to the video "Islamicize Me Day 6: The Prophet's Drinking Game"
The purification of the garments 74:4, another pre-requisite of religious rituals, similarily contains an element of symbolism as seen with the classical Arabic metaphor of garment purity being equal with moral uprightness, as well as encourages rectitude. Beyond this symbolism, purification of the garments encourages general rectitude.
A neat and clean, as well as pure appearance helps one to remain mentally uplifted everyday, and gives the correct introduction of one's personality to others. This is a reason why, as a side note, the prophet is reported to have avoided both in his private and religious life, foul smelling foods and used to perfume himself on all occasions, always seeking to be presentable so as to not offend neither the humans nor the angels, especially in a religious gathering context
7:31"O children of Adam, take your adornment at every place of prayer. Eat and drink, but not to excess. Verily, He does not love those who commit excess".
Here again however, just as above, there is no need to over exert oneself and be obsessed with the cleanness of one's clothes prior to engaging in the prayer ritual. A case in point is the following, and there is no shame in speaking of it. People do not always undress entirely naked during sexual intercourse. His wife Aisha said
"I never saw the Messenger of Allah’s (Allah bless him & give him peace) private parts”.
Naturally then, it might happen that visible traces of sexual fluids remain on one's clothes, especially if those clothes are wide and ample as is the case in many cultures.
Someone asked Umm Habibah, the wife of the Prophet:
"Did the Messenger of Allah ever offered prayer in a garment in which he had sexual intercourse?" She said: "Yes, if there was nothing noxious on it".
So even though one must perform a ritual bath prior to prayer in that case, one's clothes do not need to be entirely washed because of a few traces. The removal of these visible impurities is enough to purify the clothes again. This happened to the prophet, as it must have happened to countless prophets and regular people before, and after him.
The prophet was a saint, but remained entirely human, living in according to what he thought was the most suited behavior of his time and space, so long as it did not contravene the principles of higher morality and pragmatism. Unfortunately nothing survived of the prophets Moses, David or Solomon's standards of behavior in similar circumstances for comparison.
In answer to the video "Islamicize Me Day 6: The Prophet's Drinking Game"
Islamic pre-worship rituals symbolize mental and physical preparation before the momentous instant of addressing the Creator, like a transitional time from the hustle and bustle of life to the remembrance and glorification of Allah. It isnt some kind of ritualistic obsession or constant concern with hygiene. Without water for ablution one may perform "tayammum" which is touching the ground/earth/sand then passing over certain body parts. This means that ritual purity isnt due to the inherant condition of water, rather it is aqcuired through obedience to a symbolic command, with or without water.
To further corroborate on the symbolism of pre-prayer rituals, one may even pray without tayammum prior in extreme cases where neither water nor clean earth is found 2:239,4:101-3. This is not something new and is present in the previous scriptures. Throughout the book of Leviticus in the HB, the speech is interrupted every now and then in between very intricate purity rituals, reminding the higher reason for the practice
"You shall be holy, for I, the Lord, your God, am holy".
Najasa, or ritual uncleanness, isnt therefore a state of physical uncleanness. It may be the case, for example if one would come in contact with feces, but not necessarily. On the other hand, tahara or ritual purity, isnt a state of physical cleanness. One may be wearing clothes whose dirty condition isnt caused by something impure (dust, dirt from the ground, grease etc). The prophet however laid great stress on general body hygiene, declaring carelessness in the matter a sin, such as using the restrooms inappropriately and causing one's self to be constantly soiled in urine. This reveals a lack of care not only for oneself but for other people using the same space and society at large with whom one comes into physical contact. This condemnation of course does not include those affected by a medical condition, as per the prophet's own words, and neither is it some kind of obsession or exaggeration with hygiene
"from Um Qays Ibn Mihsan that she brought a baby boy of her’s who was not yet eating food to the Messenger of Allah (Sallalahu Alayhi Was-Sallam) and he sat him in his arms and he urinated on his garment, so the Messenger of Allah called for some water and sprinkled over it but did not wash it".
This is simple pragmatism. As anyone whose had male children knows, or who was in close contact with them, including while playing, carrying or cleaning them, when they suddenly urinate, the urine generally spreads dropplets on a wide surface. And this is something that happens very often at this stage of their development. Cleaning thoroughly the whole surface everytime, be it one's clothes or other object would be cumbersome. Girls' urine on the other hand tends to spill onto a narrower area, easier to clean, hence the recommendation to clean that specific soiled area thoroughly
"Water should be sprinkled on the urine of a baby boy, and the urine of a baby girl should be washed away".
It speaks of washing away the girl's urine, not the entire clothes on which it fell. However when a baby boy starts eating a more varied diet, meaning at a later stage when such urine accidents are less frequent, and that in addition the quantity of urine has increased, then the ruling of conveniency is lifted and a more thorough washing is prescribed.
When he said to eat with the right hand exclusively it was because the left was reserved for cleansing oneself. This is again, far from being a ritualistic obsession, a pragmatic approach to general hygiene.
Some reports depict the prophet discouraging excessive usage of water and over washing and cleaning oneself, while performing the pre-worship rituals. He also refrained from doing so himself. He said that wastefulness applies to ablution
"even if you were on the banks of a flowing river".
Also he did not lay strict stress on the kind of water to be used for ritual purity. As depicted earlier, ritual purity isnt caused by the inherant quality of the water. This doesnt mean one is to sacrifice common sense and basic hygiene by using any kind of water regardless of its condition to perform the ablutions. So although the prophet didnt lay great stress on the kind of water to be used, he did explain that it shouldnt be used if it is perceptibly altered in its smell, color or texture as reported in a prophetic saying
"Water cannot be rendered impure by anything except something which changes its smell, taste and colour".
This is the least one would expect from the prophet who laid great stress on general body hygiene. This hadith has been quoted in its complete version. Some scholars think that this version might be a conflation of different ahadith, but in any case it still shows how the report was understood because there are other ahadith that define the conditions for water to be deemed pure, meaning not all water is pure. It is also to be noted that the report has for background a believer asking the prophet about a particular well, the large well of Budaa, whose water was not stagnant, and the person was unsure whether the filth accidentally carried into it due to flooding and rain affected its purity. The citation is also found in the context of believers coming across a large body of water (the Arabic also includes the meaning of rivulet) in which a dead animal was found.
The people naturally refrained from using this water until the prophet allowed them to do so. In both cases the people were being too cautious considering the flow and volume of water involved.
In answer to the video "What Does Kafir (Really) Mean?"
When Allah "mocks" certain people, he does not do so by laughing or joking, but with concrete, appropriate actions 9:79,2:15.
God's word in the next world either abases with utter humiliation or elevates and dignifies, as echoed both in the HB Ps75:8 and the Quran 3:26. The process in the Hereafter is thus not in need of empty mockeries, as in laughter and finger pointing, as one imagines when this word appears. For such anthropomorphisms, a God in Heaven looking down mocking, laughing while his punishment is inflicted, one needs not look further than the depictions of the HB
Ps2:2-4"Kings of a land stand up, and nobles take counsel together against the Lord and against His anointed?...He Who dwells in Heaven laughs; the Lord mocks them"
Prov1:26-27"I, too, will laugh at your calamity, I will scoff when what you fear comes; when your fear comes like a storm, and your calamity comes like a whirlwind; when trouble and straits come upon you".
God mocking or humiliating in the Quran is always linked to Him delivering verdicts and punishments, facts and evidence. His mocking IS His verdict, not dissociated from it. During their judgement, the earthly mockers and deniers will be proven wrong on various points that were the subject of their mockeries such as hell and the resurrection 83:17. A major humiliation will be when they are asked to call those whom they thought would be their saviors, and then realize their error 28:62-66. Again, this is no arbitrary setting that they will be made to experience, but a humiliating answer to their earthly abuse of the True God
16:27"Then on the resurrection day He will bring them to disgrace and say: Where are the associates you gave Me, for whose sake you became hostile?".
The innocent and oppressed of this world who could not defend themselves and whose pleadings were silenced and suppressed will be represented by God Himself at the divine court. He will be the prosecutor on their behalf, claiming justice for them and facing their tormentors who are now ashamed and abased 3:161,81:8-9. Allah mocks, not by sitting and laughing, but by delivering a judgement whose truth will be so manifest that the former deniers and mockers cannot but feel humiliated.
Abasement is not an injustice when it results from presenting the truth. Abasement and humiliation is unfair when one is the victim of inappropriate, unjust words or deeds. When the mockers are presented all the truths they used to mock and deny, God's mockery wont be inappropriate or unjust. Their long and difficult reckoning will be in itself a humiliation;
Firstly with their inability to physically bend their knees and kneel to demonstrate their worldly obedience 68:42-3, then ironically, at one point their knees will be free to bend, not to worship, but to beg to be spared the entry in hell 19:72, just as they will beg in vain to be relieved from it later on from the punishment 40:49-50, chained 14:49,69:30-31, gathered
25:34"on their faces"
ie in total spiritual abasement, shamefully holding their book of deeds behind their backs 84:10. They will witness a different spectacle on the plain of resurrection, which in itself is a type of abasement
66:8"on the day on which Allah will not abase the Prophet and those who believe with him; their light shall run on before them and on their right hands".
In contrast, this group will be upholding proudly their book of deeds 69:19,83:18,84:7. Their humiliation will continue, as they witness the elevation, and honoring of those they disgraced on earth being praised and dignified by entities called ashaab al aaraf, right before their admission to heaven 7:46-49, begging them for water to be relieved from the distress of that Day 7:50, asking a share of the light beaming on the righteous while they stand in darkness
57:13-15"Wait for us so that we may acquire light from your light. It will be said (to them): Go back behind you and seek a light. And a wall would be struck between them with a door, its interior containing mercy, but on its outside, there will be torture".
Their faces will be blackened 3:106,39:60 as if literally
10:27"covered with slices of the dense darkness of night",
their whole being engulfed by a thick and burning smoke driving them inside of hell 44:10-11,77:30-4. The absence of light upon the wicked on the day of judgement is alluded to in the Hebrew Bible, including in Job38:14-15. The mocking faces they were making in this life, will be reproduced in the hereafter, but not by their will and desire, rather the violence and intensity of the fire that will come in contact with their faces will cause them contortion in their facial expressions and scaling back of their lips from the heat 23:104. Such descriptions conform with the Quranic notion of there being a physical connection between this world's deeds and the experiences of the hereafter.
In answer to the video "What Does Kafir (Really) Mean?"
The youtuber here is struggling and wants to know what does Islam think of other races. The Quran actually addresses this issue since the account of creation. There it condemns Iblis who had no better reason to reject bowing to Adam, other than he was of lesser, earthly origins why he, Iblis, made of fire.
The fact that man could be favored spiritually despite his humble origins could not be reconciled with Iblis' pride and arrogance just as the disbelievers of all times could not reconcile their prejudiced worldly views with God's criteria for prophethood that are not bound by any ethnical, social or economic considerations. The angels on the other hand bowed down before man, despite the fact that they were purely celestial beings, demonstrating that honor lies in obedience and humility to God.
The prophet David summed up this higher reality in the Bible
Ps8:6"You have made him (man) slightly less than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and majesty".
Man is of a lesser make than the angels but can achieve a much higher rank through spiritual merit. This also leads us to the Islamic concept that the worth of the human is not measured by his race, gender, ethnicity, tribal origins, or social achievements but through righteousness and spiritual awareness 4:1,25:77,34:37,25:27-8,42:23,49:13.
The promotion of racism, nationalism, tribalism and sectarianism at the expense of morality and human brotherhood is in actuality, following the lead of Satan and, by implication, rejecting the dignity of one's own self. The prophet said
"O people, your Lord is one and your father Adam is one. There is no favor of an Arab over a foreigner, nor a foreigner over an Arab, and neither white skin over black skin, nor black skin over white skin, except by righteousness. Have I not delivered the message?"
Or
"Verily, you have no virtue over one with white skin or black skin, except by favor of righteousness".
Once the prophet was approached by a Bedouin who in a typical fashion and mentality of his time, asked him which tribe is best. The prophet, in accordance with the aforementioned Quran teachings repeated the principle that
"The most noble is the one who has the most piety.”
The man said he didnt mean it in that sense. So the Prophet gave him a satisfactory answer all the while keeping in view the Quran principle of the true value of a human being
"the most noble person is Yusuf ibn Ya‘qub ibn Ishaaq ibn Ibrahim".
He gave him the example of a non-Arab whose righteousness exceeded that of most Arabs. That is besides all extra Quranic material speaking of some black people among the prophet's closest entourage, such as the ex-slave Bilal or the prophet's second wife Sawda. Bilal was the first caller to prayer, praised as one who is already in heaven despite still alive. He was selected among those who entered the Kaaba together with the prophet upon the conquest of Mecca for the first time. Elsewhere in the ahadith the prophet is depicted as supporting a black woman's testimony in a dispute with an Arab man, praying at the grave of a black man, forbidding a man from disowning his dark complexioned son, reprimanding a companion for mocking the skin color of a black man by pointing him to the famous verse about the value of a human being in his God-consciousness 49:13.
Other hadith describe situations where he is confronting his racially prejudiced society, telling them that whoever a leader might be, even an
"Ethiopian whose head is like a raisin",
then they are to put their prejudice aside and obey him. Raisin is in reference to the black color. The prophet is using their own prejudice against them, pushing it to the extreme to explain there are no boundaries of race in legitimate leadership. He was always quick to correct his people's racial and societal prejudices
"A black person, a male or a female used to clean the Mosque and then died. The Prophet did not know about it . One day the Prophet remembered him and said, "What happened to that person?" The people replied, "O Allah's Messenger! He died." He said, "Why did you not inform me?" They said, "His story was so and so (i.e. regarded him as insignificant)." He said, "Show me his grave." He then went to his grave and offered the funeral prayer".
He respectfully stood at the funeral procession of a Jew, in a time of great enmity between Medinite Jews and Christians, demonstrating the principle that we are all equal in humanity
"A funeral procession passed in front of the Prophet and he stood up. When he was told that it was the coffin of a Jew, he said, "Is it not a living being (soul)?"
Mahran, his black slave was a vehicle of impressive miracle of strength. As they were returning together from a tiresome trip, most probably a battle, in which he did not participate since slaves were exempted, the prophet who on the other hand did participate, progressively loaded Mahran with more and more heavy belongings of the travellers until, in his own words
"i carried the load of six or seven donkeys without even feeling it".
The last part of the quote is often omitted by polemicists. Following the incident, Mahran was nicknamed "the ship". The prophet knew what he was doing and how a miracle would ensue. He was not deliberately loading Mahran with more than what he would be able to bear
"Your slaves are your brethren, upon whom God has given you authority. So, if one has one’s brethren under one’s control, one should feed them with the like of what one eats and clothe them with the like of what one wears. You should not ask them to do things beyond their capacity, and if you do so, help them [with their hard job]".
The prophet would even tolerate black ethnic groups among the population of slaves, to play their instruments and display their cultural dances at occasions (that particular report is often distorted by polemicists arguing they were instead displayed for sale).
If the prophet compared Iblis to a specific contemporaneous black man, who not only had ugly monstrous looks but also evil and sinful behavior, it isnt necessarily for the color of his skin.
Only a polemicists whose self and society diabolizes black people for the color of their skin may think so. The prophet, let alone the Quran as depicted in introduction, was far from such lowly morality and prejudice. In another similar narration he compares Satan to an Arab. Further there are statements of the Prophet where he compared the end times arch-evil figure (dajjal) to Abdul Uzza b. Qatan who was an Arab and not black.
In answer to the video "What Does Kafir (Really) Mean?"
The capital punishment solely for renouncing one's religion isnt Quranic, it is a Biblical ruling outlined in Deut13 or Deut17:1-7 and stipulates that all those who are caught enticing others into, or commiting idolatry, are to be put to death, in such a forceful manner that all the inhabitants of the city are to be indiscriminately executed, their livestock and possessions burned and their dwellings razed to the ground.
A demonstration of the law's application, on a large-scale and in a systematic way, directly commanded by God is when thousands of Israelites were executed by their own brethren for having reverted to idol worship during the exodus. This incident is reported in both the Torah and Quran. Further the Biblical law of apostasy is general to all situations. When the Israelite prophets executed apostates and idolaters from among their own, it wasnt in war times where the apostate risked joining enemy ranks or spying on their or refusing to contribute economically as a full fledged member of a community with his rights and obligations.
Later on in the course of their tumultuous history and as they were adapting the revealed law (of apostasy and other inconvenient and/or difficult laws) to their needs and whims, or their life circumstances, the passing of the death penalty required a much more stringent procedure. It was the case before, during and after the time of Jesus which is why it was rarely if ever applied then, whether by Jews or early followers of Jesus.
This by the way is one of the many points that undermine the crucifixion tale, as will be shown further below.
In Christianity a similar process of reinterpretation occurred as regards the capital punishment for apostasy. Up to the middle ages, whether it was church leaders, popes, thinkers and saints the likes of Thomas Aquinas, all justified and applied whenever they could, based on passages of both the HB/NT, the death penalty to apostates, as well as heretics and open sinners. It was not until Christianity and its church weakened through reforms and secularism that the capital punishment for religious transgressions was abandoned.
The Jews, in the times of Jesus didn't have any authority to try jesus for a death penalty, among other reasons, because of the procedures they had put into place so as to avoid the harsh mosaic punishments befalling their community for their frequent capital offenses: -the NT says that the high priest headed up the trial. The high priest never headed the Sanhedrin, that role fell to Nasi and the Av Bet Din, neither of whom are mentioned in the NT.
-To pass a death penalty a Jewish Sanhedrin had to meet in the Chamber of Hewn Stones in the Temple, but in 28CE which is prior to Jesus' supposed execution, the Chamber was destroyed so the Sanhedrin moved to another room on the Temple Mount, and then into the city itself (Talmud, Shabbat 15a, Rosh haShanah 31a).
Deut17:8-13"go up to the place that G-d your L-rd shall choose"
means the chamber of carved/hewn stone. Just as the Tabernacle was the only place in which to bring animal offerings until the final place was identified as the Temple, so to was the place for the court identified as the chamber in the Temple. Also, the Romans had removed the right to pass the death penalty according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 17:13). Around the year 6 CE, Herod Archelaus, was dethroned and banished to Vienna. He was replaced, not by a Jewish king, but by a Roman Procurator named Caponius. The legal power of the Sanhedrin was then immediately restricted. When Archelaus was banished the Sanhedrin lost the ability to try death penalty cases in favor of the Roman procurator (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20:19). So right there we have two impediments to the Jews passing a death sentence. -The Sanhedrin never met at night Matt26:57,Mk14:53 or in secret, on Shabbat or any holy day -- or even on the day BEFORE. Misnah (Sanhedrin IV:1) and Maimonides (Hilkot Sanhedrin XI:2).
- A death penalty case required two eye witnesses to the crime even when the Jews had the authority. When a death sentence was passed a minimum of 24 hours was given before it was carried out, giving time for witnesses to come forth on behalf of the condemned
-Jewish trials were never held in anyone's house, only in the Temple
So, in addition to the many legal proceedings which would have had to be broken for such trial to have taken place as is depicted in the Gospels, something that never happened in Jewish history, the Jews, living under Roman dominion, didn't have any authority to try Jesus for a death penalty. Why would they even make such effort, organizing this secret meeting just prior to the Passover festival, a time of religious preparations, breaking a long list of mosaic comandements along the way, yet knowing that their endeavor would be fruitless and their judgement would bear no legal weight? When in Jn18 the Pharisees take him to the Romans, they do not bring up their irrelevant blasphemy charge against him. They in fact bring no accusation at all. They leave it to Pilate to start guessing what crime Jesus is guilty of. What then was the necessity of that "pre-trial"? Why did they not just hand him to Pilate? They would have saved precious time on passover eve, an important time of religious dedication and preparation.
The whole story is fiction, meant at demonizing the Jews so that the blame is not shouldered by the Roman executioners, when they reluctantly put Jesus to death. The gentile authorities, painted as borderline Christians, were this way appeased and could be targeted for missionary activity, as occured soon after. Consequently, we never see in history Christians blaming, oppressing and mass murdering Italians in retaliation for Jesus' death, but rather Jews, despite them being in fact the necessary tools in the cosmic scheme of salvation through God's suicide..
In answer to the video "What Does Kafir (Really) Mean?"
Similarly the misquoted reports about Abu Bakr's ridda wars do not come in the context of apostasy. The people fought against were regarded as Muslims according to many other reports, although a minority had apostised. They were fought for their refusal to pay due government taxes and poor rate, and after they initially and unexpectedly attacked those that sided with Abu Bakr on the issue, and after causing bloodshed among government ranks and attempted to overthrow the first caliph. Prior to giving further details about this event, it is important noting that the Quran sanctions warfare against anyone, including Muslims, who refuse to desist from destructive practices such as riba 2:278-9. The events of the ridda war occured shortly after the prophet's death when many disheartened recent converts apostised and others attempted to reduce their community contributions.
Umar is reported to have pleaded with Abubakr to be more lenient with those that refused paying their dues, which he categorically refused. Clearly the issue was not about spiritual apostasy or else Abubakr would have acceded to Umar's request, accepting that they pay less in exchange of their adherence to the Muslim community. Abubakr sent them an official letter calling them back to Islam, those very people who were nominal Muslims, but that refused adhering to the laws of the Islamic state. He instructed his emissaries to fight the rebels after they have been informed of their obligations towards the state and have rejected
"(the duties) that are incumbent upon them and [the advantages] that accrue to them, and (the emissary) should take what is [imposed] on them and give them what they are due".
In his letter Abubakr additionally appealed to the prophet's practice in a similar situation. When he was confronted to Muslims who rebelled against the state and refused paying their dues, unjustly taking advantage of the system which others were sacrificing their own wealth and lives to maintain
"he struck whoever turned his back to Him (God) until he came to Islam, willingly or grudgingly".
Such a behavior is equal to turning one's back to God, as is represented by the state religion. This isnt speaking of simply renouncing the religion while remaining a full fledged citizen with his rights and obligations.
The rebels of the ridda war launched their assault by night while the majority of the Muslim soldiers were sent on an expedition outside Medina. Abu Bakr fought back with his people and killed those who were involved. It is with such historical and Quranic perspective that the killing of apostates as reported in the history and hadith books should be understood, spiritual apostasy was never the sole charge warranting the death penalty, but rather political apostasy ie socio-political destabilisation and conspiracies to commit bloodshed, especially in times of war or other sort of trials that caused the early Muslims to be on high alert against those who wished to overthrown the system. In addition, some among the early Muslims' enemies pretended converting in attempts to infiltrate the community and harm it through inciting sedition and providing vital information in times of war 3:72,33:60. All governments would punish and sometimes execute foreign spies, double agents, or traitors to an enemy with whom one is at war. These are the people covered in the saying
"The one who leaves his religion AND SEPERATES from the community, kill him".
This clearly puts 2 condition for the execution of an individual in war times, leaving the religion combined with separation from the community to join the enemy. Leaving the religion while remaining a full fledged citizen with his rights and obligations does not warrant the death penalty. This openly declared threat would make the conspirators think twice before engaging in their insidious behavior. All scholars have understood that leaving Islam must be coupled with a will to harm it and its people, to warrant the death penalty. Ibn Taymiyah said
"Muhaarabah (waging war against Islam) is of two types: physical and verbal. Waging war verbally against Islam may be worse than waging war physically – as stated above – hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to kill those who waged war against Islam verbally, whilst letting off some of those who waged war against Islam physically. This ruling is to be applied more strictly after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Mischief may be caused by physical action or by words, but the damage caused by words is many times greater than that caused by physical action; and the goodness achieved by words in reforming may be many times greater than that achieved by physical action. It is proven that waging war against Allaah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) verbally is worse and the efforts on earth to undermine religion by verbal means is more effective".
Another typical example is that of Abdullah Ibn Sad Ibn Abi Sarh who had converted then apostised, joined the enemy side and began undermining the authenticity of the Quran by spreading rumors that he had been forging verses. He in addition incited the opposite party to war. When the Muslim side finally overcame against all odds and his own inciting efforts, his inevitable, legitimate fate was now execution for high treason. This is what governments generally do once a traitor is apprehended, especially when a conflict ends while the person is still among enemy ranks. At that point, ibn Abi Sarh sought Uthman's intercession and came to the prophet to pledge his allegiance. The prophet ignored Uthman's plea twice before finally accepting. The prophet knew that he deserved to be put to death but at the same time, because of the general amnesty he had declared upon Mecca's conquest, he hesitated in the case of Sarh' special case, leaning more towards the capital penalty. By his silence, he left it to the attendance of close followers to do as they liked and as he saw that they leaned the opposite way, he reluctantly validated their judgement and accepted Sarh's pledge.
However and as already shown from the Quran, should one leave Islam peacefully without intending any harm to the community, not combining apostasy with public rejection of the state system, which includes refusal to acquit oneself from fiscal obligations, then the consequences of the sin are left for the Creator to decide in the Hereafter. A case in point is that of a bedouin that apostised though he had accepted Islam, pledging allegiance in front of the prophet the day before. The prophet did not punish him, the most that he did was to ignore him 3 times before stating
"Medina is like a furnace. It expels its impurities and collects what is pure".
The early caliphs followed the same line. Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz did not bother a group of apostates so long as they did not rebel against government laws. It is thus rejection of the religion in a way that threatens the stability of the Islamic system in place that warrants death penalty. These were the cases covered by the prophet's saying
"Whosoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him".
In fact there are explicit reports where the prophet let people leave the community in security following their spiritual apostasy.
Once more, there is no compulsion in religion 2:256,18:29 so no punitive measure can be directed at an apostate neither can he be compelled to go back to Islam or forced to repent solely on the basis of his choice of creed. Per the Quran and as made clear in 4:88-90 quoted earlier, action is to be undertaken against an apostate when he engages in hostile behavior towards Muslims and the Muslim state. Fighting, punishing or killing an apostate has therefore nothing to do with a person's choice of creed but with his behavior towards the Muslims.
In answer to the video "What Does Kafir (Really) Mean?"
Severing of social ties must be made with apostates who were former hypocrites, especially in the context of war as in the verses that will be quoted, since these former Muslims used to hide their hatred and enmity from other Muslims, and now openly declare it, even striving to make them leave their religion
4:88-89"What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned?..They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike".
They are therefore to be cut off from the community to avoid the spread of their mischief
4:89"take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes)/hajiru in Allah's way".
Ties with them can only be restored when they decisively return to Islam (as indicated by the clause "fi sabilillah/for Allah's sake") and prove their faith to the rest of the community through difficult sacrifices such as leaving their homes and doing hijra in Allah's way, forsaking the domain of evil for an environment where they can practice their faith without restrictions, as the true believers were doing. If they do not do so then their expression of Islam is only for the purpose of spying and destruction, serving the purpose of those with whom Muslims are at war. In this case
4:89"if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper".
They must be executed because of their open and secret hostile activities. However if those apostates refuse to flee their homes in Allah's way but nevertheless end the threat from within the community, by migrating for
4:90"a people between whom and you there is an alliance"
or who decide to remain within the Muslim community but have decisively abandoned all hostilities
4:90"who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people..withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them".
This Quranic passage establishes the social ruling as regards apostasy. The Quran frames it exclusively in the context of war, which is also the historical context in which the early scholars of Islam discussed the law of apostasy. That is why neither the Quran nor the scholars impose a punishment solely for the act of apostasy, but when it is coupled with hostile activity, verbal or physical. Ridda is the word used in reference to those who engage in this multifaceted behavior. This historical perspective is often missed, disregarded or obscured whenever critics quote a saying from the prophet on apostasy, or the rulings of the fuqaha'. One can now understand the words of the prophet
"The one who leaves his religion AND SEPERATES from the community, kill him".
Here, the apostate is to be killed if he in addition severes all ties with the community. In those days, this amounted to joining enemy ranks. If the apostate remains in the community he is left unharmed. We thus see the prophetic practice in clear congruence with the aforementioned Quranic passage.
However even in times of peace, execution of an apostate is sometimes justified. In an Islamic state, Islam itself is what constitutes and legislates life on every level; administrative, economic, social etc. For a Muslim citizen to abandon Islam means to reject the law of the land. One cannot at the same time pledge to abide by those rules while rejecting the essence of the legislative authority, which is the Quran and the prophetic sunna. The entire system derives from these 2 pillars, and new laws are continuously formulated based on them. This constitutes a destabilizing factor on all levels of society; how can a government endure if people reject a system unanimously adopted by the community? Except under a tyranny, such an attitude is unjustifiable and is an existential threat to the state. That is why the jurists have legislated for the threat to be cut off from its onset, before it becomes a movement. The apostate on the other hand is free to leave the land and reside outside Islamic jurisdiction, or remain in it without making his apostasy public. But if he makes the apostasy and rejection of the system public, remains in Muslim land, he becomes de facto an outlaw and a destabilizing factor within society. Even if it is for the sake of converting to one of the non-Muslim groups of the Islamic land, the apostate still is guilty of rejecting the legislative authority. The non-Muslim groups on the other hand, pre-existed the Islamic state until it expanded to their lands. They never at any point rejected the legislative authority, but instead embraced it, along with the freedom of religion it grants them.
To further corroborate, under Uthman's caliphate, a man named Abdullah Ibn Saba and his followers deeply resented Uthman, favoring Ali instead whom they saw as a semi divine figure more eligible to be caliph. Their over exaltation of Ali took them outside the fold of Islam, making them apostates. Their true aim by feinting conversion was to spread political and social discord to destabilize the caliphate. They planned on capturing and killing Uthman should he refuse stepping down, and Uthman was eventually murdered. Ali eventually arrested them, exiled some of them and executed others. The fact some were exiled shows that although they were all considered apostates, they did not all qualify for the death penalty. The executions were not motivated by choice of creed, which isnt an endorsed practice by the Quran, but rather for the capital offense of fasad fil ard, which per the Quran warrants the death penalty. Although the brief and most authentic reports do not clearly say how this was done, some say that they were first burned then thrown into a ditch while others say they were first beheaded then had their lifeless bodies burnt. In both possible cases, Ali had done something which the prophet forbade; - the first potential misdeed was execution by fire. It is reported
"When we intended to depart, Allah's Apostle said, "I have ordered you to burn so-and-so and so-and-so, and it is none but Allah Who punishes with fire, so, if you find them, kill them". In another report "We were with the Prophet and we passed by a colony of ants which had been burned, and the Prophet became angry and said, ‘It is not fitting for any man to punish with the punishment of Allah.”
- the second potential misdeed was mutilation of lifeless bodies. It is reported
"The Prophet forbade robbery (taking away what belongs to others without their permission), and also forbade mutilation (or maiming) of bodies.”
The traditions explain that this instruction is rooted in a Quranic verse
16:126"And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient".
This verse is said to have been revealed after the prophet had seen the violent manner in which his uncle Hamza's dead body had been ripped open and then threatened
"Never yet have i felt more anger than now i feel; and when next time God gives me victory over Quraysh, i will mutilate thirty of their dead".
This emotional, on the spot declaration was never fulfilled, and the prophet in addition forbade mutilation as shown above, in obedience to the Quranic directive. Even in warfare, killing must be swift, without recourse to inefficient weapons that cause unnecessary suffering
"The Prophet forbade the throwing of stones (with the thumb and the index or middle finger), and said "It neither hunts a game nor kills (or hurts) an enemy, but it gouges out an eye or breaks a tooth".
When ibn Abbas learned of what Ali had done (either burning or mutilating), he publicly rebuked him by appealing to the prophetic sunna mentioned above, which embarrassed Ali, hence his first reaction
"Wayh Ibn Abbas!".
Ali either knew about the prophet's commands but let his emotions overcome him in the execution of the right course, or had forgotten them. So he admitted his error and praised ibn Abbas for speaking the truth
"When ‘Ali was informed about it he said: How truly ibn Abbas said!"
In answer to the video "What Does Kafir (Really) Mean?"
The youtuber here is struggling and wants to know what is the Quranic stance on apostasy.
18:29,2:256"There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing"
When 2:256 says there is no compulsion in religion, it also gives the reason for the prohibition of compulsion
"truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error".
The reason is that truth has been clearly explained, there is thus no need to enforce it. It is available for anyone to consider, while knowing the consequences of accepting or rejecting it. The clause on which the prohibition of force is based ie "truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error" was never reversed, whether before or after the "verses of the sword" meaning the effect must equally remain unchanged.
Islam requires that belief follows reason and understanding. There is no need for compulsion in a matter whose advantages and disadvantages are clearly defined and the reward and punishment for accepting or rejecting it well-explained
"the right way has become clearly distinct from error".
This is why the prophet is told that he is not a warder, keeper and guardian over those who turn away. Like all prophets that passed before him his task consists in warning and giving glad tiding to the people, he has no power to influence their freewill or force their belief 17:54,42:48,88:21-2. He should therefore let him disbelieve whoever wishes to 18:29 after making sure that the message has reached them 13:40 in the most kindly manner 6:108,16:125.
Also, anyone can leave Islam and come back time and time again without punishment or being killed 4:137 which bellies the idea of killing a person as a punishment for leaving Islam or wavering in his faith. However God will only accept his repentance if it is sincere 3:86-89 and not followed by constant periods of disbelief then belief 4:137. As reported by ibn Abbas
"A man from among the Ansar accepted Islam, then he apostatized and went back to Shirk. Then he regretted that, and sent word to his people (saying): 'Ask the Messenger of Allah [SAW], is there any repentance for me?' His people came to the Messenger of Allah [SAW] and said: 'So and so regrets (what he did), and he has told us to ask you if there is any repentance for him?' Then the Verses: 'How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their Belief up to His saying: Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful' was revealed. So he sent word to him, and he accepted Islam."
Nowhere does the Quran say a person must be punished or killed solely for the act of apostasy and all it mentions is that apostates shall face a terrible punishment in the Hereafter. This of course excludes those who apostize unwillingly, who are
3:86-91,16:106"compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith".
Such a person is compelled to renounce faith with his lips due to imminent danger on his life while he remains a firm believer in his heart. This is what is often referred to as taqiya. The Quran doesnt condone lying, rather commands to uphold one's pledges, to judge with equity, to speak justly, kindly, with integrity, without corruption, with the outward locution corresponding to the intent
4:5-9,135,6:152,2:83,235,3:32,70"O you who believe! Reverence God and speak justly".
It is further to be noted here, that although martyrdom in the cause of faith is highly meritorious, still the Quran absolves those who sincerely, not out of lack of faith, cannot go to such an extent because
2:233"no soul shall have imposed upon it a duty but to the extent of its capacity".
Saving life takes precedence over following the law. That is why a Muslim may eat pork if facing starvation. Exactly what Jesus taught in the Gospels when he transgressed the sabbath by citing David's example.
Punishment in the hereafter for the sin of apostasy is therefore solely the lot of the one who willingly, without any compulsion renounces Faith and:
"opens (his) breast to disbelief-- on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement".
In answer to the video "What Does Kafir (Really) Mean?"
In the HB and as corroborated by Jesus in the NT when he said to abide by it to the minute details, several types of wars are promulgated. Jesus by the way, is the one to have promulgated these laws in the first place, prior to his incarnation. So among these laws the pre-turn the other cheek Jesus instructed upon his subjects, is the compulsory command/mitzva among the 613 revealed at Sinai, binding on Jews of all times to destroy Amalek's seed Deut25:19 without showing any pity whenever the opportunity is there, and exterminate the remaining Canaanite nations from the land of Israel whenever any of them or their descendants are identified Deut20:16.
This is a timeless ordinance, as already said, part of the 613 binding commandements, and is thus an explicit order to genetically exterminate a certain people.
Every command within the Torah is understood as eternally binding and those that are inapplicable today due to the absence of a Temple will be reinstated in the utopian messianic era, where every nation will be forcefully subdued to the Jewish God Mal3:4,Deut30,Ezek11,36,37,Isa56:6-8,Zech14:16,Jere33:15-18,Ezek43:18-46:24. The eternally binding command to blot out Amalek's seed and other Canaanites, if one fails acting upon this law anytime a descendant of such tribes is genetically identified, then one becomes subject to divine anger as what happened to king Saul 1Sam28:18,1Chr10. Saul suffered a violent and dishonourable death. His household was decimated at the hands of the Philistines who also dispossessed his community. The same happened prior to the entire Israelite community that was sent for a 40 years desert wandering for their refusal to engage the promised land's natives in battle. Along with those known, compulsory genocidal warfare as described earlier, during which no atrocities towards men, women, children, cattle and plants may be spared, there are laws relating to optional warfare, for the sole purpose of Israel's "national glory" as labelled by their rabbis. In such cases any random nation the Israelites arbitrarily choose, and set themselves out to conquer can either be "peacefully" submitted, resulting in the enslavement and taxation of its population, or in case of their rejection of the "peace offer", a military subjugation resulting with the execution of all adult males, the capture as spoils of war of their women, children, and livestock
Deut20:10-14"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby".
In addition, should it be necessary to completely subdue that nation
2Kings3:19"you shall fell every good tree, and you shall stop up all springs of water, and you shall clutter every good field with stones".
In the land of Canaan, those natives that werent driven out or exterminated as per the Torah's injunctions during the invasion, were subdued into slavery Josh17:13. Their descendants suffered the same fate under Solomon's rule 1Kings9:20-1. After all and as stated in both the HB and the Talmudic writings (Eleazar ben Shammua) , the purpose of creation and the reason why the heavens and earth are maintained is for the chosen race to observe Torah. All these citations werent made to disparage the Bible, rather at pointing what would have been the outcome had the Quran been the product of human base desires, whims, greed and lust. The fact is the Ishmaelites went through almost identical situations as the Israelites in their confrontations with opposing tribes and nations, and yet we do not find anything remotely similar in terms of abuse and excess as is seen throughout the Hebrew writings, and by the hands of true prophets of God.
It is to be further noted that the Quran does allude to some episodes where the Israelites were confronted to, or were about to engage the Canaanites. Everytime, it refrains from mentionning the shocking acts which the Israelites have comitted. The Quran could have used these incidents as divinely sanctionned precedents allowing unrestricted bloodshed and abuses. Yet we keep on reading in the context of warfare, verses stressing self-restraint in retaliation, or the non-materialistic goals of fighting in Allah's way.
In answer to the video "What Does Kafir (Really) Mean?"
Until 9:29, the sura Tawba prescribed divine punishment upon 3 groups; the hypocrites among the Muslims, the treacherous warmongers among the idolaters, and those idolaters insisting on their pagan practices within the sacred precincts of Mecca.
No punishement is prescribed on the peaceful idolaters beyond Mecca, as well as those in Mecca that refrain from their rituals at the sacred sites re-dedicated strictly to the Islamic religion. They are to be left unharmed as mentionned earlier.
Nor is there until now any legal directive towards the remaining non-Muslims living under Muslim rule, whether in Mecca or beyond. This included the people of the book (Jews and Christians) or the followers of other belief systems, or even atheists
9:29"Fight those who believe not in God and nor in the Last Day and nor do they forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden and nor do they follow the religion/DEEN of truth from among the people of the book, till they give the compensation with a willing hand, while they are humble".
This verse, as attested by the prophetic practice, is not restricted to the people of the book. It covers any religion that was and could potentially fall under Muslim rule as a result of provoked warfare. The verse mentions 4 categories;
1- Those who do not believe in God
2- Those who reject the resurrection
3- Those who regard as lawful what Allah and the prophet have forbidden. Those that pass the 2 preceding criteria by believing in God and the concept of resurrection, should adhere to Islam as the only reasonable spiritual reality. If they make the choice not to, then they are believers in one of the many man made religions that does not forbid what Allah has forbidden through His prophet in the Quran and sunna. Or they might be from the people of the book, believers in God and the resurrection. Being sincere in their faith, they should, like the aforementioned group naturally enter the fold of Islam. The Quran speaks of them, those that remained truthful to the scriptures in anyway, shape or form it reached them, trying to follow it to the best of their ability. Their sincerity, unprejudiced, praiseworthy reading and understanding of their books led many of them to eventually believe in the revelation bestowed on the prophet Muhammad 2:121,83,3:113-115,199,4:162,5:13,66,69,83,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4. But those that make the choice not to, they remain as people of the book who despite their sincerity in faith, do not regard as forbidden what Allah and His messenger forbade.
4- Those who do not follow the DEEN of truth from among the people of the book. The root D-Y-N means rule or debt or any obligation. It may be summarized as "system". It is used this way in the Quran 9:36,12:76 classical literature and even in common Arabic speak. Whenever the preposition "mina" is used before a composite entity, or a group, and that this entity is given a qualification, then "mina" carries the meaning of "among", pointing to a portion from among that composite entity 4:46,160,5:5,23,41,57,107,8:65,57:10. "The Deen of truth" in that phrase cannot refer to Islam as a religion. One cannot speak of a portion from among the people of the book as being followers of Islam while others reject it. This speaks of the Jews and Christians whom the Quran in many places condemns as sinful, insincere to the truth of their own books. The praiseworthy among them, followers of "the deen of truth" were those included in the 3rd category.
None of the groups above are to be fought until they become Muslims. Rather until they pay the jizya in submission to the Islamic rule. That subjection is in relation to the Islamic system which they are now bound to, being permanent non Muslim residents under protection of the Muslim state. The majority of Muslim scholars have understood the passage in that way. See for example al-Shafi'i, Al-Umm, Vol. 4, Ahmad Mustafa al-Maraghi's Tafsir Vol. 10 or Fatani, Ikhtilaf al-Darin p48. This is also seen by the fact that the musta'min (a non Muslim temporary resident) is not subjected to the Islamic legal system nor the jizya, according to the Hanafi school. That subjection has thus nothing to do with humiliation, as some have interpreted, and without any evidence in the prophetic practice nor that of the first caliphs. Humiliation does occur however, when those non-Muslim residents of the Islamic state refuse to pay government taxes to the point they have to be forcefully made to. Just as Muslims, shortly after the prophet's death had to be fought, humbled, and forced to pay the government taxes under Abu Bakr's caliphate.
The order to fight therefore isnt motivated by a choice of creed otherwise the mere paying of a tax would not have been enough to end the fighting, rather a forceful conversion would. Yet that option is never proposed in the verse. The only issue for them is explicitly spelled out; Payment of taxes and submission to the laws of the religious state they live in as members of a different religion on whom different rights and obligations apply. The governement has actually more to gain in wealth and manpower if they convert, especially in early times when Muslims were a minority in these newly conquered lands. Yet they are told to keep their religion and autonomy instead.
Converting to Islam, something that isnt incumbent upon them, would end the command to fight them should they insist on not paying the jizya. But they will not escape being fought should they refuse honoring the duties that fall upon them as Muslims, including contributing financially to the functioning of the Islamic state, as well as obligations that did not apply to their former religious communities, like military service. There really is no true incentive for them to leave their religion which is why the option is never proposed in the verse.
The verses that follow illustrate some of the transgressions of the people of the book, and their causes, such as deification of prominent personalities, blind following of their religious leaders etc, while no blame is placed on them for not following Islam. These dark deviations in religion will never extinguish the light of guidance, no matter how much the disbelievers among the people of the book dislike it 9:32. The verse employs the image of a person attempting to extinguish a strong light with a blow from the mouth, to illustrate the relative feebleness of his position.
The passage ends with the reiteration of a prophecy made long before 48:28,61:9 regarding the prevailing of the deen/way of truth sent by the One true God over all other ways no matter how much the polytheists dislike it 9:33. The wording of this verse is very appropriate since it specifically mentions the polytheists, followers of non-divine religions, as disliking the establishment of the deen of truth. The people of the book, sincere to their scriptures as pointed earlier, will not dislike the establishment of a Godly system, since it does not only mean establishing Islam, but also exposing and establishing the truth of their own religion
5:83"And when they hear what has been revealed to the messenger you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize".
The Jizya is a collective tax, not a head tax. It is imposed on the people of dhimma, the diminutive for dimmat Allah wa rasulih, the protection of God and His messenger. This connection demonstrates the significance of the dhimmis, making them eligible for protection under divine obligation. The prophet applied the command upon Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and according to some scholars like abu Hanifa, the pagans, based on a prophetic saying
"If they (Arab polytheists) accept the dhimmah contract (aqd al-dhimmah), then inform them that they have the same rights and duties as Muslims".
The jizya imposed on them is a collective tax because it is agreed upon by mutual consultation, not arbitrarily decided by the Muslim state. The nature of the compensation to the Muslim state varied depending on the capacities of each one. It was not always monetary and its amount was adaptable to each case.
The benefits which the government offers in exchange of the due jizya, are matters of communal and national interest - defending the territory from outside aggression, establishing security, maintaining the environment, building infrastructure, etc., not the sort of benefits you can opt out of. The earliest Muslim rulers even appointed a portion of the Muslim zakat to feed the needy among the people of the book, even though they were exempted from paying the jizya. When a Jew came asking the caliph Umar for money, he said
"go find him and those like him, and give them out of the public treasury".
It is known that together with the needy, the clergy was also exempted from the tax by the Muslim authorities. And yet they fully benefited from government services, including military protection and infrastructure. These exception to the rule of 9:29 are based upon strong and firm unconditional principles as regards the Muslim duty towards the weak in any society, and the preservation of the worship sites of the people of the book where the name of Allah is mentionned. There is thus a strong Quranic basis for the policy of most Muslim rulers, including as early as the caliph Umar, of being selective in the application of the jizya upon the people of dhimma.
Even though Jizya it is not a personal head tax, for the sake of argument, one can either pay taxes willingly, or be punished through several forceful means including jail in case of refusal, or leave the country. In a secular state the issue is pretty much the same. Special taxes will apply to alien residents, who in addition to having to compensate the state for providing them with benefits of all kind, must also exempt themselves from the obligations and rights that apply to the citizen of that state (military service, various taxes on salaries, financial regulations etc). Paying that tax will protect them from being pursued and punished by that government.
Some insidious critics like calling it "protection money". Every taxation system in the world is in fact aimed at providing protection; either by financing a system that preserves the well-being of the society as a whole, or by protecting against punishment, since failing to pay results in sanctions. Jizya is the rightful compensation demanded from the dhimmi, in exchange of the exemption from the laws, rights, obligations, penalties etc of that state religion in matters that do not concern the society as a whole. That is because the sharia for Muslim governance of non-Muslim citizens is that non-Muslims should not be forced to follow the moral laws dictated in the Quran.
The idea that this model oppressed non Muslim dhimmis to the point they preferred conversion is unfounded, without any historical and documented basis. It wasnt therefore a system aimed at enriching anyone, but a legitimate compensation for concrete services and exemptions. That is why non-Muslims that volontarily participated in the military were exempted from the tax. Those that paid the tax and werent properly served were refunded. For instance when Muslim ruled Syria was threatened with invasion by the Romans and the Muslim ruler doubted whether he would be able to protect the non-Muslims of that region, he hastily returned their jizya money which was supposed to be partly aimed at guarantying their protection. Abu Ubaydah ibn al Jarrah told the Christians they would be bound by the agreement again only if he is able to fend off the Roman invasion. The Christians consequently prayed for Muslim victory, knowing that the Romans would never behave with them in such a manner.
Under that system, non Muslims enjoy complete religious autonomy as long as it does not conflict with the state religion. For example selling alcohol publicly. Dhimmis may deliberate, individualy deny, or reform their religious laws to their liking and to fit their desires without any concern about the laws of the state, again, so long as no conflict occurs between the 2. For example it is well known that Christian and Jewish elites enacted laws preventing their people from resorting to a Muslim judge in cases where their own laws were unfavorable.
The misinformed critics arguing that jizya was an unfair system aimed at enriching the Muslim state may be thinking of the divinely blessed taxation and hoarding of riches and spoils by king David and his appointed governors in his conquests. This wealth was dedicated to the building of national religious edifices (on the ruins of other people's) 2Sam8,1Chr18:2,6,8,13,20:1-2,26;26-7 and meant for personal glory as well 2Sam12:29-31. The wise king and prophet Solomon would continue in this pattern, in line with the rules of the monarchy dictating that the king's expenditures (a "heavy yoke" that ultimately caused the scission of the kingdom of Israel after Solomon's death 1Kings12) should be collected indiscriminately, contrary to the jizya that spares the needy and weak 1Sam8:11 (some exemples of the daily rights, gifts and luxuries of the Jewish monarch to be brought forth by conquered nations in 1Kings5:1-7,9:14-15,27-28,2Chr27:5). Solomon similarily to David had appointed representents that collected his levy from Jews and non-Jews, the difference between the 2 groups being that when the conquered nations could not pay they were reduced to forced labor 1Kings9:21. Contrary to this subduing system aimed at benefiting a party and lowering another, going back to the days of Joshua (Josh16:10) and before, jizya partly financed the functioning of a society in which those who paid it were fully part of.
