What is this typical Muslim terminology "Allahu Akbar" and in which cases should it be used? In Islam this phrase is one of the supreme affirmation of strict monotheism. The HB for example doesn't teach strict monotheism but rather a mix of monolatry and monotheism, with an evident inclination towards the former.
While the Quran unequivocally dismisses other deities as inert, senseless and powerless pieces of wood or stones, fabricated lies incapable of removing or modifying an affliction or benefiting those worshiping them, interceding for them, treats them as figments of a corrupt mind's imagination, false conjectures attributed to real or imaginary entities etc, the HB does not speak of false deities that way.
This is reflected in the many biblical texts exhorting the Israelites not to follow other gods, lesser in greatness than the God of Israel 2Chr2:4, a tacit acknowledgement of the existence of those deities. For example in Judges11:24, Jephtah tries to resolve a territorial dispute by telling the Ammonites that the land of Israel had been given to the Israelites by YHWH, while their lands had been given to them by their god Chemosh.
When the Quran urges the believer to proclaim God's greatness (takbir/Allahu akbar) it firstly is in relation to His mastery over all things known and unknown, concrete and abstract. It isnt in relation to other, lesser deities, but in terms of any innovation or description, whether consisting in giving Him non-existing partners, children, behavior etc anything that may compromise His perfect attributes, His being above any likeness 17:111,56:74,87:1.
Besides this primary monotheistic connotation, it may be uttered in all kinds of wordly situations if the purpose is to express God's supreme control, the establishment and prevailing of the divine will. Although what constitutes the true divine will is a matter of personal interpretation sometimes. This opens the door to misusing the phrase to inappropriate situations and by unworthy people.
In answer to the video "Bees Make Honey in the Bodies - Scientific Miracles of the Quran Ep. 8"
16:69"Then eat of all the fruits (thamaraat) and walk in the ways of your Lord submissively. There comes forth from within it a beverage of many colours, in which there is healing for men; most surely there is a sign in this for a people who reflect"
The Arabic for fruit in the sense of apples, oranges etc. is faakiha as in 38:51,43:73,44:55 etc.
Thamaraat (plural) comes from the root TH-M-R and it means the product of the tree of fruit and otherwise. It is conceptually used to point to any product of anything. The verb is athmara (to produce) as in 6:141 where we are told to eat from the tree's product (thamarihi) when it produces (athmara). The word implies that what the tree produces are fruits but it does not mean fruits in every context it is used.
Here are a few examples from the Quran; -14:37,28:57 (any type of product of the earth that can be used to sustain human life) -2:25 (the product of one's good deeds in heaven) -2:155,18:42 (the product of one's effort or the wealth) -7:130 (the ruining of Pharaoh's crops/earth product) -2:266,47:15 (all kinds of products, fruits or else found in heaven)
16:69 says that the bee eats from all kinds of PRODUCTS at-thamaraat (not from all kinds of FRUITS fakiha). Earth and plant products include flowers. Although, bees certainly do eat fruits as well if given the opportunity, the Quran here did not state so. It could have used the specific word for fruits/fakiha, as it does in many places. It has instead eloquently used a word that includes fruits, as well as other plant and earth products.
16:69 further says that there comes forth from within the bees a variety of beverages (shirab) containing benefits for mankind. The Quran here could have said 'asal as it does elsewhere 47:15 if it meant honey. But again, as with the use of thamaraat, it has eloquently avoided a restricted word and instead uses a broader term adapted to the honey making process. Honey begins as a type of beverage coming out of the bee's stomach. Bees first extract nectar through their mouth tube, then store it in their extra stomach, also called the honey stomach or crop. It is a pocket inside their abdomen, a little in front of the ventriculus, the other stomach they use to digest their food. Inside this honey stomach, the nectar mixes with enzymes that modify its chemical compostion. The resulting liquid is regurgitated and drank by another bee. The process is repeated until the partially digested nectar is deposited into a honeycomb.
At that point, bees start fanning the honeycomb with their wings so as to evaporate the water, resulting in honey. It is thus accurate for the Quran to say that a drink comes out from within the bee. Eventually, that drink, once processed becomes beneficial for humans.
As a side note, it is interesting that the gender used for the working honey bee, is the feminine, since the females are the ones collecting the nectar. All the verbs related to the bee are in the 2nd person feminine singular form (attakhidhi/take, kuli/eat, asluki/follow). This is because in the singular, the bee is in the feminine form nahlat. In the plural, it assumes the irregular masculine form nahel. It is common in Arabic to interchange between genders in the plural.
In answer to the video "Paul's Revelations Made Him a Better Man; Muhammad's Made Him Worse (PvM 16)"
Choosing to safeguard one's own people from physical and spiritual oppression, putting one's own life on the line to defend the oppressed and advance the cause of truth is the most selfless material and spiritual sacrifice one can do. Every culture and civilization in history has owed its survival in the face of oppression to these types of honored individuals.
But even then, as in any army, there are degrees among soldiers, hence the prophet saying that military participation is ranked 3rd in terms of divine appreciation
"I asked the Prophet 'Which deed is loved most by Allah?" He replied, 'To offer prayers at their early (very first) stated times.' " `Abdullah asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" The Prophet said, "To be good and dutiful to one's parents," `Abdullah asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" The Prophet said, "To participate in Jihad for Allah's Cause." `Abdullah added, "The Prophet narrated to me these three things, and if I had asked more, he would have told me more".
However those among the volontaries going to such extent in their selfless sacrifice that they are martyred, the prophetic sayings describe them as meriting the highest reward. Wordly gains certainly follow as a collateral result of wars, and although are certainly the just compensation of those sacrificing their wealth and resources on the way, the Quran stresses that these wordly gains must never be the motive. In a hadith the prophet even answered about someone fighting in God's cause but also seeking material reward, that in the herafter "He would receive no reward" (sunan Abu Dawud).
In answer to the video "The "No Compulsion in Islam" Lie"
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.
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? And not only in the eyes of the authorities but in light of Jewish law itself since the halakha requirements for a legal trial were not fulfilled? When the Pharisees take him to the authorities, Pilate tells them to
"Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law".
This is because, supposing Jesus did break some religious law, which he never did, this charge would carry no weight in Roman courts except if it threatened the state. To try creating a valid criminal case they begin accusing him of rebellion against the state and claiming kingship. These charges have no bearing on Jewish law, so that this historically exceptional Sanhedrin had to be hastily set up. This is because the messianic king supposed to usher the era of Jewish dominance over the entire world will do just that. Bar Kochba, a messianic claimant who came just a few years after Jesus was supported by those very Pharisees, hoping he would fulfill those very "crimes" they supposedly accused Jesus of committing.
That "pre-trial" was thus irrelevant on all counts. They could have just handed him to Pilate, on the charge of rebellion, this way saving time on passover eve, in preparation for their festival. They would have also avoided breaking a long list of requirements while setting up this hasty trial, making it invalid even by their own law.
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 "The "No Compulsion in Islam" Lie"
Similarly to the issue of Abdullah Ibn Saba, 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.
In answer to the video "The "No Compulsion in Islam" Lie"
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".
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 destabilising 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 destabilising 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 "The "No Compulsion in Islam" Lie"
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"
“There is no compulsion in religion” negates and disapproves compulsion and coercion in spiritual matters. 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".
Its saying the truth has been explained so clearly, there is no need to use force and if one accepts or rejects it then he is fully deserving of the consequences. The clause on which the prohibition is based on ie
"truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error"
was never changed whether before or after the "verses of the sword" meaning the effect or order cannot be changed or cancelled.
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.
In answer to the video "The "No Compulsion in Islam" Lie"
As stated above there were certainly cases of forced conversions, but these were far more nuanced than the willfully misleading “spread-by-the-sword” narrative makes it seem. The first case mostly picked up by the misleaders is that of south Asia. The notion of millions of Indians forcefully converted is bellied on several levels.
Firstly, Islam counted much more adherents in the Indian areas where the Islamic state had less power, than in the heartland of India where Muslim control and dominion was strongest (70-90% in Punjab and Bengal vs 10-15% in the Gangetic Plain). Those who level that charge of forced Indian conversions mostly base their accusations on ambiguous reports from historical sources the likes of “They submitted to Islam” for example. This could refer to Islam the religion, the Muslim state, or the “army of Islam” and a contextual reading usually supports one of the latter two interpretations.
The devshirme system in the Ottoman empire, which consisted in systematically taking young Christian boys, raising them as Muslims then training them to serve in the empire’s bureaucracy or in the sultan’s personal military force, cannot be considered a valid argument for the spread by the sword theory. The system, although obviously condemnable and without any basis in the Quran nor the practices of the prophet, actually many times benefited the religious minorities of the empire from whence these boys were taken, giving them access to high government positions. An example is that of Sokullu Mehmet Pasha, a Slav from Bosnia who rose through the bureaucracy to become the empire’s grand vizier, a position from which he was able to support Bosnia’s Christian community, though he himself remained Muslim.
Another case of forced conversion in Islamic history is that of Yemen's Orphans’ Decree issued by Imam Yahya al-Mutawakkil in the early 20th century. Again, a fringe phenomenon, without any basis in Islam but rather a Zaydi law requiring the forcible conversion of orphaned Jewish children to Islam. However what transpires from history is that, al-Mutawakkil, who was more interested in asserting his authority by adopting his subjects' customs, applied the rule selectively. In many cases he helped Jewish children escape Yemen to avoid conversions. Seeing this, the guardians of many Jewish children actually fled to Imam Yahya’s jurisdiction rather than from it.
In short this islamophobic boogeyman of "spread by the sword" theory has no legs to stand on and the reality of the matter is that theologically, Islam either explained away by the strength of its arguments, or absorbed the other religions and competing theologies about God, consolidating all into one coherent monotheistic worldview. This was the power of Islam which gave it great intellectual appeal: its ability to satisfy all the existential questions about God and creation, a message of profound substance that remained flexible enough that it would remain forever relevant, and never become obsolete.
As rightly stated by the British historian Hugh Kennedy
"Islam did not spread by the sword but without the sword it would not have spread".
This distinction between the spread of the Muslim empire and the Muslim religion highlights the fact that, as with many new things, whether abstract or concrete, Islam as a religion spread as it engaged with the conquered people. This interraction played out differently throughout the empire, and beyond the empire, including one of, or a combination of factors such as trade, intermarriages, the general appearance of success and prestige of the Muslim conquerors, the appeal of the Islamic social system, local charismatic converts, migrations.
In answer to the video "The "No Compulsion in Islam" Lie"
The early caliphate was actually a war of liberation of the oppressed people of the Roman, Persian and Egyptian nations from centuries of tyranny. There is a reason why the early Islamic state expanded with such speed, the local people did not resist and instead embraced the Muslim liberators that brought positive change in all aspects of their lives, whether they decided to convert or keep their own belief system.
For example the Judeo-Christian population of Syria preferred Muslim rule to that of the Christian Byzantine empire. Seeing this phenomenon occuring all throughout the Muslims territories is what made some medieval jurists argue that the Islamic System is a much better one than any man-made law as it opposed oppression. The purpose of waging Islamic war, became in their eyes to spread the sharia, which includes laws accomodating non-Muslim communities.
This supremacist view of the Islamic system is what made Ibn Khaldun argue that Islam had to ultimately spread globally, even by coercion. Throughout time, dominant powers viewed and still do, their societal order as superior, seeking to spread it by all means so as to safeguard their geopolitical interests. It is to be noted that Ibn khaldun maintained that warfare is intrinsic to human history, since immemorial times. He did not argue that cessation of warfare was something unthinkable to Islam. Prior to ibn Khaldun, other Muslim scholars the likes of al-Turtushi described wars as “social anomalies”. Al-Hasan ibn ‛Abd Allah compared wars “to diseases of society”. The vast majority of Muslim scholars past and present, view war as a necessary remedy against aggression. Going back to ibn Rushd/Averoes, he reported the controversies of his time as to whether an enemy should be killed because of his hostility or solely for his religious difference and refusal to accept Islam.
As one goes through the various legal opinions of the Muslim scholars throughout time and up until the modern era, what transpires is that their understanding of what is required of the Quran and the prophet in terms of warfare reflects the political and ideological environements in which they formulated their ideas.
But the historical facts are clear; none of the wars in the times of the prophet and the early caliphs were done against a people solely because of their religious differences. The massive, but progressive conversions, as will be shown later, could by no means be due to the fear of being enslaved by the Arab Muslims during the early Islamic conquests. Otherwise, we should expect many people to have renounced Islam following the military and political decline of Muslim power in the world.
The fulgurant expansion of the Muslim empire and Islam itself as a religion, a mere century following the prophet's death, from modern-day Spain in the west to India in the east, the vast numbers of conquered people that eventually converted to Islam in the process has confounded observers for centuries, more particularily European Christendom. Islam, to these people was an inferior religion. The myth of forced conversions meant avoiding the difficult idea that Islam was the true religion and that God was on the side of the Muslims. The earliest Christian polemics against Islam cleverly twisted the idea. The Muslim invaders were indeed divinely sent, but not for their own righteousness, rather as a rod of punishment against sinful Christians and their leaders. John bar Penkaye writes in the 680s
"We should not think of their advent (of the sons of Hagar) as something ordinary, but as due to divine working:" When these people came, at God's command, and took over as it were both kingdoms ... , God put victory into their hands in such a way that the words written concerning them might be fulfilled, namely: "One man chased a thousand and two men routed ten thousand" (Deut32). How otherwise could naked men riding without armour or shield have been able to win, apart from divine aid, God having called them from the ends of the earth so as to destroy by them "a sinful kingdom" (Amos9) and to bring low through them the proud spirit of the Persians?"
Similarily to other 7th century texts, the Chronicler of Khuzistan says that
"the victory of the sons of Ishmael who subdued and enslaved these two strong empires was from God".
Ironically in the Chronicle of Fredegar, the Muslims are "the sword of God". One overarching theme in 7th-8th century polemics against Islam is Christian crisis of faith and fear of apostasy. Christians of all spheres of life were rejecting their religion and converting Islam. We read in an apocalypse of the early 8th century
"many people who were members of the church will deny the true faith of the Christians, along with the holy cross and the awesome Mysteries, without being subjected to any compulsion, lashing or blows".
The same is bitterly confirmed by a monk in Mesopotamia, in the Zuqnin Chronicle
"For without blows or torture they slid down in great eagerness toward denial. Forming groups of twenty, thirty and a hundred men, two and three hundred, without any kind of compulsion to this, they went down to Harran to the governors and became Muslims (mhaggnn) So acted numerous people from the regions of Edessa, Harran, Telia, Resh'aina, Dara, Nisibis, Shengar and Callinicum, and from these places both error and the devil gained immeasurable strength among them".
Until now, western scholars and historians are making blunt observations such as "the success of the conquests is virtually beyond plausible historical explanation" (Webb) or "the dynamism of Islam’s expansion defies explanation in ordinary human terms" (Donner) or that we should “dissuade historians from striving vainly to explain the almost inexplicable in normal historical terms” (James Howard-Johnston). Christians also projected onto this phenomenon their own experience of ruthless conquests, looting, destructions and forced conversion and so Islam became a religion “spread by the sword”.
This medieval myth, picked up in the late 19th- early 20th centuries by Orientalist like William Muir, many actually being colonial officials and/or active Christian missionaries that benefited from the vilification of Islam to non-Muslim audiences, is a myth that finds echo in today's Islamophobia industry. Muslim behavior is presented as the latest episode of Islam being spread “by the sword".
Seeing a big part of the Muslim conquests assimilating Christian teritories and peoples, this spiritual, political, social, economic defeat resonated hard in the heart of the Christian elites, and still does today. As they tried throughout the centuries to roll back that humiliation through military and spiritual warfare, they only gained success in the former. Christianity, to Muslims, from the scholar to the layman, boiled down to worshiping a human being and God dying, both non appealing alternatives to the instinctive, natural, reasonable message of Islam. As time passed, Christian missionary strategy changed, from comforting the emotionally unstable in the name of the loving God of the Bible, to giving up mentioning Christianity alltogether; Islam is the religion of the devil and its prophet an anti-christ. If Christians cant have Muslims entering their fold, having them at the very least rejecting Islam is a satisfactory alternative. The reality of the matter however is that even if that strategy is far more successful in making Muslims abandon their religion instead of preaching Christianity directly, the desired results remain poor. The demographics remain from the short to long term heavily in favor of Islam, due firstly to Christianity dying out in the hearts, minds, practices of their societies, but also because the little number of apostates impressed by that demonizing effort, is offset by a radicalising effect; when insulted to his core, ancestral beliefs, the natural reaction of even the least traditional will be spiritual and intellectual "self-defence", seeking deeper knowledge and strengthening of his religious identity. That missionary tactic is also very unpopular among the Christian public, repulsed by the highly antagonizing rhetoric and painted as the aggressing party. Such Christians very often begin investigating Islam and end up finding it appealing. These factors, and others, pile up. The return on investment for those types of missionaries is negative if one weights the time, money, but especially emotional and spiritual degradation for having to dwell in dark pursuits. The best course of actions to the missionaries of that trend is to work on the betterment of their own souls first and foremost, then to strengthen their own communities' loss of faith in their ancestral beliefs.
As to Muslim interaction with the conquered peoples, there have been of course certain instances in history of Muslims disregarding Islamic teachings and behaving cruelly toward non-Muslims, including cases of forced conversion. Allthough the state and church sanctioned evil throughout Christian history, ie the background of the very people levelling these claims so as to demonize Islam, make these cases pale in comparison. This method of cherry picking incidents and leaping to the broad-sweeping, reductionist conclusion that Islam was “spread by the sword” is intellectually dishonest and doesnt stand the test of scrutiny. Practically, such a phenomenal endeavor would have been impossible to achieve for the Muslim conquerers. During the early Muslim conquests, Muslims were a small minority in newly-conquered areas, around 10% in Egypt or 20% in Iraq. That is why for at least two centuries the majority of the inhabitants of the Islamic empire were non-Muslims. The regions conquered up to a century after the prophet didnt become majoritarily Muslims until 850-1050. For example although Iran was entirely under Muslim dominion in 705, its Muslim population hadnt reached 50% prior to the mid 9th century, then 75% a century later.
One of the reasons for that miserable failure of Islam's "spreading by the sword" was that Muslim rulers actually preferred collecting Jizya which they could use at their discretion, than zakat which, although higher, had to be redistributed locally in the provinces and could only be used in certain ways. To corroborate, the Umayyad general al Hakami was removed from his post because of having prevented the local population of Khurasan from converting to Islam so that he could keep on collecting jizya. There were other such cases such as the Abasside general ibn Kawus who forbade Muslim proselytizing in his jurisdiction.
In answer to the video "The "No Compulsion in Islam" Lie"
There is no basis for the caliphate with an ideology for territorial expansion in either the Quran or in prophetic traditions. These wars did not happen under the prophet's authority. Neither the prophet nor the Quran approve of unprovoked aggression. The life and wars of the prophet testify to this.
"`Abdullah bin `Umar came to us and we hoped that he would narrate to us a good Hadith. But before we asked him, a man got up and said to him, "O Abu `Abdur-Rahman! Narrate to us about the battles during the time of the afflictions, as Allah says:-- 'And fight them until there is no more afflictions (i.e. no more worshipping of others besides Allah).'" (2.193) Ibn `Umar said (to the man), "Do you know what is meant by afflictions? Let your mother bereave you! Muhammad used to fight against the pagans, for a Muslim was put to trial in his religion (The pagans will either kill him or chain him as a captive). His fighting was not like your fighting which is carried on for the sake of ruling".
There is no compulsion in religion, and until the end of days, ironically the same day which, those who deceptively level these false accusations against the prophet, think that all races and nations will be forcefully bowing to their God Zech14.
The notion of divinely sanctioned conquests and subjugation, decimation of foreign population is purely a Judeo-Christian one. Many examples were given in the previous article.
