In answer to the video "Islamicize Me Day 11: Muhammad's Path to Financial Success!"
The believers are never once told to go forth to battle because of war booty and in fact the Quran says that only those who sell this world's material life for the hereafter are worthy of fighting in Allah's way for the defense of the helpless 4:74-5.
Neither is fighting for the propagation of Islam once mentioned in the whole of the Quran.
Prior to his migration to Medina, when he met with the leaders of Aws and the Khazraj, and that they pledged their loyalty to him they asked:
“Stipulate whatever conditions you wish to make for your Lord and for yourself.” The Prophet said: “For my Lord, I stipulate that you shall worship Him alone and associate no partners with Him. For myself, I make the condition that you shall protect me as you protect yourselves and your property.” They asked: “What shall we get if we fulfil our pledge?” The Prophet answered: “Paradise.” They said: “It is a profitable deal. We accept no going back and we will never go back on it ourselves".
All the Prophet’s promised them was the afterlife. Nothing more. Although they did ultimately get rewarded with victory, power, unity of the Arabian tribes, prosperity and much more, all these material gains were collateral, to those who sold this life for the next
"The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr)".
The prophet once used war booty as an incentive, but only after the war had ended, which means it had nothing to do with being a motive to go to war. It was meant to help the new Meccan converts to feel that they belong to their adoptive community.
The prophet, in line with his well known selfless generosity forfeited his entire portion of the war acquisitions and urged the remaining believers to show similar empathy towards the less affluent and the weak among their new brethren in faith so that they see the reality of Islam. Most selflessly did so, those most firm in faith, while others initially grumbled but eventually regretted after the prophet emotionally pleaded with them and so they followed suit
"do you feel anxiety for the things of this world, wherewith I have sought to incline these people unto the faith in which you are already established?"
This happened after the victory of Hunayn. A superficial and prejudiced reading might argue that financial incentive to establish Islam in the hearts of certain people is akin to bribing them. This couldnt be further from truth. The gesture shows them that Islam, the religion that some had newly adopted actually opens the heart of its adherents to benevolence, solidarity and selflessness. Just as they are now benefitting from Muslim empathy, these new converts will eventually be called to display similar empathy towards the less fortunate. Many among them will readily do so, having grasped the message and philosophy of Islam, and adopted the faith so dearly that material riches would pale in significance to their eyes.
It is important noting that even those from the Medina community that had protested the division of spoils in favor of the new converts, they were more concerned that the prophet's heart had swerved for his Meccan ethnic affinity and became detatched from his Medinan followers. They werent really worried about sharing from their wealth. But when he emotionally convinced them otherwise, that he would never abandon them, they tearfully joined in the contribution.
Another time he used a portion of his own share of the gold acquired in Yemen for similar purposes, not to win over non Muslims but to establish some of them that had already converted, that they might feel considered and supported as full members of their new community. It is to be noted that in the prophetic history, going all the way back to Moses, the HB is replete with examples of promises of worldly blessings in return for obedience, including military victories, conquests and war booty.
In answer to the video "Islamicize Me Day 11: Muhammad's Path to Financial Success!"
The Prophet's travels and engagements with others are referred to in the books of history as ghazawat/maghazi. The expeditions he sent are called siyar. But the biographers did not understand these terms as always including fighting. Some were preaching missions, forging alliances, while others had a clear fighting purpose. These war ghazawat were 9 in total, Badr, Uhud, The Ditch, Qurayzah, al-Mustaliq, Khaybar, Mecca' conquest, Hunayn, and al-Ta’if. Badr, Uhud, and the Ditch were clear defensive engagements, Khaybar preemptively quelled war preparations by the enemy, Qurayza was a retaliation for treachery. The battles of Hunayn and al-Ta’if occured when the clans of Hawazin and Thaqif marched to Hunayn to fight the Prophet after he took control in Mecca.
The first aim of the Prophet's military missions was thus to weaken the Quraysh by cutting off their caravan routes to al Sham through alliances with the various tribes along this route. This dissuasive blockade cut off their trade routes. Nations today amply make use of such tactics, in order to prevent or diminish military funding of an enemy. One would think, had the prophet's objective been to ambush passing caravans and raid them, as David harassed and raided the natives of Canaan who had escaped until now the sword of the Israelites destroying men and women but keeping the spoils 1Sam27:8-9, then he would have lured the Quraysh into using their trading routes instead of dissuading them.
He also had to send missions in order to seek protective alliances against the constant invasion threats by the Meccans, furious that Muhammad had slipped away from them in Mecca and that Islam was rapidly growing in Medina. The number of fighters sent to these first expeditions compared to the ennemy forces proves the aim was not to attack, or seize Quraysh goods in retaliation for the goods which the Quraysh had seized from them. The expeditions were sent out either to make alliances with neighboring tribes, or they were reconnaissance patrols because of the constant threats reaching Medina that the Meccans might strike any day.
It was also an occasion to show some military capabilities to the Medinites spies and hypocrites among the Muslims. These were the first to profess faith in Islam each time it gained some success through the efforts of the prophet and his companions but they were the first to run and hide as soon as Islam had a 'set-back'. The first military campaigns also served as a way to silence the constant plotting of the Jews. In none of the prophet's expeditions was there any question of looting, plundering or deliberatly aggressing innocents.
The Quran repeatedly warns the believers that wordly gains are not the objective of Jihad
4:94"when you go to war in Allah's way, make investigation, and do not say to any one who offers you peace: You are not a believer. Do you seek goods of this world's life? But with Allah there are abundant gains".
The believers can never go to war boastfully and for the sake of empty glory 8:47. The Quran relates in 8:5-8 how Allah tested the believers' motives in battle in order to purge them from their greed; if they would run after the booty or stand firm with the prophet to defend Islam.
When the aqcuisition of slaves became restricted to battles after which they had to be freed either voluntarly or as a ransom, God warned the Muslims that during battle the motive must be the attainement of the military objectives before any consideration for war gains, and once the objective is fully accomplished, only then the taking of war prisonners and seizing of other spoils is allowed 47:4. In a later verse following the battle of Badr, God admonished those among the Muslims who had shown weakness in their general outlook on life, who had succombed to their greed and begun capturing soldiers while the battle was still raging and the enemy threat hadnt been entirely contained
8:67"you desire the frail goods of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter; and Allah is Mighty, Wise".
But because God had already permitted the ransoming of war prisonners 47:4 that wealth gathered, although not in accordance with the spirit of the law, was considered lawful
8:68-9"Were it not for an ordinance from Allah that had already gone forth, surely there would have befallen you a great chastisement for what you had taken to. Eat then of the lawful and good (things) which you have acquired in war, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful".
The believers are warned not to repeat this behavior and submit to their greed. They must keep in mind the higher objectives for going to war.
They are elsewhere strongly admonished 3:152 for their attitude during the battle of Uhud and them becoming "weak-hearted" for having "desired this world" after Allah "had shown you that which you loved". This was in reference to the spoils of war booty. Going to battle motivated by wordly gains is not noble in God's eyes.
In answer to the video "Islamicize Me Day 11: Muhammad's Path to Financial Success!"
This pattern described earlier, of proportionality of divine help in relation to inner faith, can be seen almost all throughout the wars the Israelites were involved in. In the times of Moses those lacking faith were warned not to fight the Canaanites, because divine assistance in battle is the prerogative of those worthy of it. Consequently, they were sent to wander 40 years in the desert until the last one from those that had shown distrust in God was dead and a worthy generation raised in their stead. God promised them through Moses, just as He did with Muhammad and the nation about to be established under his leadership, that should they abide by the covenant and the divine ordinances, then in battle they will be assisted in a way that
Lev26:8"Five of you will pursue a hundred, and a hundred of you will pursue ten thousand, and your enemies will fall by the sword before you".
What is most interesting is that, as already observed earlier, there is a direct correlation between spirituality and level of divine help. This did not escape the early rabbinical comentators, as here stated by Rashi
"Since five will pursue a hundred, this means that each Jew will pursue twenty enemies; therefore, should Scripture not have written here: “and a hundred of you will pursue two thousand”? But, [the Torah teaches us that] there is no comparison between a few who fulfill the Torah and many who fulfill the Torah [and thus, here, the larger the group of pursuers, the higher proportionately is the number pursued]. — [Torath Kohanim 26:10]"
see also 1Chr12:14.
That notion of proportionality of divine help in relation to the level of spirituality continued down to the time of king Ahab whose small band of 7000 Israelites, the only ones left among their nation to have preserved the straight path and the only ones to have been selected for the battle, were made victorious against an enemy several times greater than them in number and power 1Kings20,19:18.
Again in their war with the Hagarites, the sons of Reuben prevailed because of having shown spiritual worthiness and were thus deserving of divine assistance 1Chr5:18-20. This important relationship between divine assistance and level of spirituality is the reason behind the many Quran verses denouncing those shallow in their faith who were averse at the thought of leaving their homes to defend the oppressed 4:75-77,8:5-6.
In the Hebrew Bible, Deborah the prophetess denounces in her song the slackness of those tribes who were slow in joining the ranks of the Jewish fighters against the oppressive Canaanites, contrasting them with shining examples of bravoury and temerity of the people who offered their lives on the battle fields Judges4,5. Following that principle, the Quran would tell the Muslims not to be associated with half-hearted ones in battle and risk compromising their God-consciousness 9:47-8. Those that had shown cowardice on previous occasions werent worthy of divine assistance and were thus told
9:83"By no means shall you ever go forth with me and by no means shall you fight an enemy with me; surely you chose to sit the first time, therefore sit (now) with those who remain behind".
They could had provided with much needed material assistance 9:46 but by that time the Muslims understood that victory comes from God and God alone. In the times of Gideon, up to 20.000 of a total 30.000 Jewish fighters were forbidden to join the battle against the Midianites on account of their fear and cowardice Judges7:3.
It is the mark of every prophet that whenever he sets forth for war in the way of God, he selects only the righteous and worthy elements to be the bearers of the banner of truth, side by side with him. This is because the prophets are aware that divine assistance is directly correlated to their global level of God-consciousness. The prophet Talut/Saul put all able men through a test of privation to see who would be allowed to join him fight the pagan armies 2:246-251.
In answer to the video "Islamicize Me Day 11: Muhammad's Path to Financial Success!"
2:190"And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits".
The war in God's way is expressedly defined as fighting "those that fight with you" while giving precedent to ethical values (spoken of in the following verses and elsewhere) meaning it is completely independant of one's own whims, desires and motives, and this is perfectly depicted with the Quran's narration of the Badr expedition, where the Muslims were commanded to go forth of their homes with the objective of repelling the threat of the marching Meccan army, instead of following the desires of some among them of going after the easier alternative and raid the vulnerable caravans.
The Muslims, who had now proven their trust in the prophet of God, turned their backs to the caravans to engage their enemies instead, were assured that regardless of the might of their enemy, they will be divinely assisted
4:74-75"Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter..And what reason have you that you should not fight in the way of Allah and of the weak among the men and the women and the children, (of) those who say: Our Lord! cause us to go forth from this town, whose people are oppressors, and give us from Thee a guardian and give us from Thee a helper".
And to add to this test of their resolve, the Muslims were located far from the stream of Badr which the Meccans had taken control of. They were camping on sandy ground making it difficult for them to run, while the Meccans had a ground of firm clay under their feet. But Allah's help came to the believers
8:11"(Remember) When He caused calm to fall on you as a security from Him and sent down upon you water from the cloud that He might thereby purify you..and that He might fortify your hearts and steady (your) footsteps thereby".
The battle started on the 17th of Ramadan. The Muslims set to meet the Quraysh alliance with 313 fighters, 2 horses and 70 camels. In a vision to the prophet, Allah made the future adversaries of the Muslims look few in numbers because had He shown them as they truly were
8:43"you would certainly have become weak-hearted and you would have disputed about the matter".
In that prophetic vision, the prophet saw what would occur at the battlefield, namely the fact that the ill-equiped and outnumbered Muslims will be assisted by angels whose number will be proportionate to the believers' degree of patience and God-consciousness, "pouring down" from Heaven, thousand after thousand in succession/murdifin like an orderly army is sent section after section in waves 3:123-5,8:9.
The number of angels was meant, not to answer a logistical necessity since the verses make it clear that 3:126"there is no victory, save from Allah, the Mighty, the Wise", but to serve 2 purposes. It is also important to keep in mind, before delving into these 2 deeper purposes of sending divine assistance, that whether at Badr or Uhud, no Quranic verse points to those angels as having actively participated in the battlefield.
The first purpose of mentionning the number of angels was to make their promised vast numbers a means of stiring the believers' God-consciousness and spirituality. They are clearly told the degree of divine assistance is directly correlated to their level of God-consciousness as already shown in 3:123-5 and in fact they would later be reminded from the example of the battle of Uhud, that so long as they had shown a spiritually upright attitude God was by their side and the victory was theirs up to the point where they submitted to their greed 3:152. The same idea is reiterated elsewhere, as in 8:65 where they are told (through 2 examples in order to establish it as a general law) how patience and resolve will grant them a power ratio of 10 to 1. Since that ratio is directly correlated to a certain level of patience and resolve, and that they had still not attained that level yet, for the time being their military might is limited at 2 to 1. Due to this weakness, Allah has limited the capacities of their enemies, not letting them exceed too much that of the believers
8:66"For the present Allah has made light your burden, and He knows that there is weakness in you.."
This rule regarding divine assistance is demonstrated from their defeat at the battle of Uhud where they had behaved unrighteously and greedily, and from their victory at Badr, where they had been God-conscious, selfless and disregarded any wordly pursuit, and thus became deserving of divine assistance. They were in both cases much inferior in military capabilities than their foes, thus showing that their victory had nothing to do with their own selves, and came from elsewhere
8:9-18"Allah is the weakener of the struggle of the unbelievers".
Divine assistance being proportional to faith is again demonstrated in sura baqara where, after God told the Israelite warriors, through their prophet, that He is with the sabireen/the steadfast, the Israelites going to battle with Talut/Saul, requested that God first and foremost fills them with sabr/steadfastness and then grants them victory. Even when Moses set up for the hardest mission, confronting one of the greatest and most powerful kings alive, he only asked for God to
"expand his chest".
He was asking God to calm him with confidence, assurance, towards the fact that he will succeed with God's help. Moses is demanding God to increase his faith in Him, because God's help is contingent on strong faith and assurance.
In answer to the video "Islamicize Me Day 11: Muhammad's Path to Financial Success!"
The battle of Badr is the most explicit example of what jihad consists of.
When the Quraysh began their grand-scale preparations to attack Medina, they had mutually decided that most of their savings and all profits made this year would be put together and used for the purchase of weapons, horses, and other items of war
8:36"Surely those who disbelieve spend their wealth to hinder (people) from the way of Allah; so they shall spend it, then it shall be to them an intense regret, then they shall be overcome; and those who disbelieve shall be driven together to hell".
The Great Battle of Badr took place in the month of Ramadan 2/624.
Abu Sufyan was returning from Syria to Mecca escorting his caravans containing items that were precisely meant to be used for that war effort. It is also important mentionning, the Meccans had in their treasury all the property unlawfully seized from the Muslims as they were forced to emigrate to Medina, leaving their homes and belongings behind. Contrast this with the attitude of the prophet who had ordered Ali to remain behind him for 3 days as he left Mecca for the first time to settle in Medina, so that every property the Quraysh had entrusted him with be returned to them. So although the Muslims would have been justified militarily in raiding Abu Sufyan's caravans so as to weaken their enemies' treasury, as well as compensate their loss of property to the Meccans, this is not how the war played out, as will be shown.
As a side note, it was precisely this motive that prompted the prophet David as related in the HB, to initiate a specific raid on the Amalekites that had formerly seized an Israelite city's spoils after burning it to the ground 1Sam30. Raids were a paticularity of David's armies when they ambushed, fought and plundered their enemies 2Sam3:22. David was never reprimanded for these non-divinely sanctionned actions, nor for other cruel, unwarranted behavior such as the mutilation and slaughter of people 1Sam18:25. Only his adulterous behavior was considered sinful 1Kings15:5. So right off the bat, for some Judeo-christian critics to come and try to discredit the prophet Muhammad for allegedly conducting "raids", it shows deep unfamiliarity with their own scriptures and the way their true, and greatest prophets behaved whether in their personal lives or in their battles, none of them even remotely comparable in terms of sinfulness, greed, lust and cruelty as the vilest of charges they can find against the prophet Muhammad.
Back to the battle of Badr, fearing that he might be intercepted by the prophet through the tribes he had allied with, Abu Sufyan, while still in Syria and a few weeks before starting his journey back, sent a message to Mecca to gather men and swiftly send them towards Medina in order to stop a possible expedition from the Muslims that would be heading towards him. These suspicions were reinforced by the prophet himself, who openly made his plans known. This means the prophet was more interested in alarming the Quraysh and causing them to gather all their forces to defend their caravans. The Medina Muslims at that crucial point were living under the constant threat of a potential invasionby the Quraysh. The prophet's desire was to cause a decisive encounter with this enemy. Only a significant defeat would put an end to this state of affairs and instaure a climate of safety around the weak Muslim community
8:7"and Allah desired to manifest the truth of what was true by His words and to cut off the root of the unbelievers".
About 1000 men from the various clans of Quraysh, headed by Abu Jahl, responded to Abu Sufyan's call and marched to Medina while the caravans were deviated to another route through the sea coast. As the Meccan army reached Badr, Abu Sufyan's caravans were passing just 3 miles away, on the seaside and despite news coming to them that the caravans were not attacked by the Muslims, the fighting men of Quraysh kept on marching towards Medina to meet the Muslims and engage them in battle. In their minds, 1000 well-equipped warriors would suffice to teach the under equipped and outnumbered Muslims a good lesson. So they camped at the stream of Badr. Even after the Banu Zuhrah tribe deserted the ranks of the Quraysh they were still counting 990 men, among them al-Abbas (the Prophet's uncle), Aqil (son of Abu Talib).
As news came to the Muslims in Medina that the caravan was coming from Syria (on the north side) and that the Meccan army was marching towards Medina (from the South), the Muslims began reasoning between 2 alternatives: raid Abu Sufyan's vulnerable caravan and thus weaken the Meccans in their resources to fight them (the safest and most lucrative option) or to boldly face the Meccan alliance as the prophet suggested. The 2nd option was adopted and after a 3 days journey, the Muslims reached Badr.
If they werent compelled to defend themselves, that their lives in Medina werent under constant threat, the Muslims who counted just above 300 fighters would have never entertained the idea of setting an appointement with the Quraysh alliance
8:41"and if you had mutually made an appointment, you would certainly have broken away from the appointment".
Those who saw them marching to meet a far superior ennemy, considered that their faith had rendered them crazy 8:49. The Muslims were at the side of Badr's valley that was nearer to Medina, and the Quraysh at the furthest side of the valley, while the Meccan caravans at the seacost returning to Mecca 8:42. The Quran, the sole contemporary writing testifying to the event, gives an accurate account on the reason why the Muslims set out from Medina to meet the Meccans
8:5-8"Even as your Lord caused you to go forth from your house with the truth, though a party of the believers were surely averse. They disputed with you about the truth after it had become clear, (and they went forth) as if they were being driven to death while they saw (it). Remember the occasion when Allah was holding out to you the promise that one of the two hosts would fall to you: you wished the weaker host should fall to you: but Allah willed to prove by His words the Truth to be truth and to cut across the roots of the disbelievers so that the Truth should come out as truth and falsehood should be proved to be falsehood, even though the evil-doers did not like it".
This belies the baseless claim that the Prophet intended to attack the caravans of the Quraysh whose army only had the purpose of protecting their goods. These are not the descriptions of men seeking to plunder unarmed caravans, not only because of the southern route they had taken (the caravans were to the north) but also the Quran shows the Muslims leaving their homes, unwillingly, fearing death and disputing about the matter that was explained to them. That matter is related in 8:7 with God promising them victory over one of the "parties" while they originally desired to go after the "unnarmed party". This shows that God and the prophet's orders were never to go after the vulnerable party, the caravans.
Although some Muslims had originally desired to avoid the Meccan army and attack the caravan instead, that idea was not accepted, not by the prophet, and not by God. Such tone is found in all of the Muslims' early battles as they set themselves to encounter a much stronger enemy 33:9-11,48:12.
As a side note, Ibn ishaq who, like Tabari, was a historian not a mufassir, whose declared objective was to collect everything that was being said on a hisorical incident or verse fearing for the loss of valuable information, regardless of its veracity or falsehood, leaving the responsibility to sift the truth on the subsequent generations, relates a comment painting the prophet as leaving Medina with the objective of raiding the caravans. Not only does this alleged order go against the command in the Quran 8:7, but while trying to reconcile the Quran verses showing the Muslims unwilling to leave for that expedition, fearing death, with his comment, he gives the absurd reason that the Muslims' fear and aversion was due to the
"thought that the Messenger of Allah would go to war".
Why would they be fearful when the caravans were highly vulnerable, numbering only 30-40 men lightly equiped and seperated from the Meccan army as all sources agree, and the Muslims had mobilized more than 300 men?
In answer to the video "Thanks, Muhammad, for the Death Threats"
This Quran, and as embodied by the prophet, calls Muslims to treating others, whether close or far "neighbors", from one's own people or not, as they themselves would like to be treated as well as how they would like others to treat their own abandoned relatives 4:9,36,42:23,83:1-6 and even better yet in order to create a positive change even in one's enemy 41:34,59:9.
The prophet said
"Whoever would love to be delivered from the Hellfire and entered into Paradise, then let him die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and let him treat the people the way he would love to be treated".
In another narration of the prophet, those who are able to show such selflessness are described as neither belonging to the prophets or martyrs, but the prophets and martyrs will envy them due to their status on the Day of Resurrection
"The best faith is to love for the sake of Allah, to hate for the sake of Allah, and to work your tongue in the remembrance of Allah. Mu’adh said, “What is it, O Messenger of Allah?” The Prophet said: That you love for the people what you love for yourself, and you hate for the people what you hate for yourself, and that you speak goodness or remain silent".
Many times the Quran starts or ends a passage about belief in the One God, with a statement about just dealings between men, always showing how faith and righteousness are inevitably linked to social interactions. The whole mission of the prophet Shuayb sent to Madyan is summed up thus
11:84"He said: O my people! Worship Allah, you have no god other than Him. And do not decrease from the measure and the scale".
From that perspective, the noble prophet Muhammad, like his predecessor, insisted on being fair in social transactions. He taught honesty in dealings to such an extent that should a storekeeper sell perishable goods in a wholesome state then the person who bought it from him and gives it in charity will earn him a reward similar to the one who gave the charity. And thus he would give advice such as forbidding
"the sale of dates till they were good (ripe), and when it was asked what it meant, the Prophet said, "Till there is no danger of blight".
When Muslims display their humanity and empathy, they should do it selflessly, not expecting any favor in return while lending a helpful ear to any type of "asker" 74:6,93:10. This is because everyone in this world may be subject to physical, spiritual or intellectual need.
This comprehensive attitude enjoined in the Quran, along with other such directives, takes the principle of the "golden rule" to new heights and should be labelled the "diamond rule".
Slaves were an integral part of the household to such an extent that, as with other members of the biological family, women were allowed to unveil in their presence 24:31. This of course was a ruling of conveniency, given the frequent interaction with the male servants going about their various assisting tasks within the household. But it further contributed to their thorough integration within the family sphere, solidifying the various rulings of consideration towards them.
They had to be fed and maintained without any psychological injury and for the sake of Allah, not seeking benefits of any kind from them in return
76:8-10"And they give food however great be their own want of it to the poor and the orphan and the captive: We only feed you for Allah's sake; we desire from you neither reward nor thanks: Surely we fear from our Lord a stern, distressful day. So God will save them from the woes of that day, and give them radiance and gladness. So God will save them from the woes of that day, and give them radiance and gladness".
What is remarkable here is that the Quran places even the need of the captive, regardless of his religion, above the need of the Muslim guardian himself. This is just one of the many passages that further dwarfs the judeo-christian notion of the golden rule.
So, even though the Quran does not pronounce an abstract concept like to “love your neighbour”, it does however articulate its reality and applications in a much more comprehensive manner, constantly interlinking worship of God with application of social justice.
In a hadith, the prophet describes how the angel Jibril admonished him for the sake of the neighbours
"Mujahid reported that a sheep was slaughtered for 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr. He asked his slave, "Have you given any to our Jewish neighbour? Have you given any to our Jewish neighbour? I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'Jibril kept on recommending that I treat my neighbours well until I thought that he would order me to treat them as my heirs.'"
Reciprocity in goodwill is so hardwired into the Quranic message that even when people meet and greet oneanother, the one answering should exceed the other in his greeting
4:86"When a greeting is offered you, answer it with an even better greeting, or [at least] with its like. God keeps count of all things".
The Islamic greeting is a supplication to Allah, that He might bestow peace on another. This known etiquette, which is a Muslim peculiarity, is a means by which people’s hearts are cleansed. It brings people closer together and reinforces their ties.
In answer to the video "Thanks, Muhammad, for the Death Threats"
God did not command Jesus to fight just as He did not command Noah and other prophets to fight in His way, because God intended to bring down His punishment on the rejectors differently, and He did so quite severely after Jesus' departure. If God had willed to punish the transgressors through his prophet Jesus as He did through the Israelite prophets before him, Jesus would have taken up arms and fought in Allah's way, like his predecessors did, and like the Ishmaelite prophet did after him
47:4"and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others".
This method of punishment upon the rejectors of a prophet is therefore a trial for the sake of men and does not mean Allah needs men to accomplish a task He is unable to do by Himself. Had He willed, He would have destroyed them Himself by sending a disaster from the heavens or from within the earth. Before them, many nations were destroyed by His torment in the blink of any eye. He could have similarly routed them as well.
The Quran draws an interesting parallel in sura hadid, between the sending of prophets and Iron. This metal is a symbol of the forceful establishment of the natural balance of justice if needs be, and the verse 57:25, after speaking of both the prophets and iron, ends with God's attributes of might and strength. See also 22:40-41.
Jesus did everything but "pray for his enemies", he kept on promising the doom of those who rejected him after calling them all sorts of names. He remained passive in the face of oppression because he knew God would not punish his rejectors through him, but differently as he prophesied in the NT.
Jesus was part of an Israelite tradition of prophets and divinely inspired "judges", leaders, kings who all were commanded to "fight the Lord's battles" as is here said of David 1Sam25:28, and who were allowed and even many times commanded, like all followers of God's revealed laws to kill in certain circumstances, whether in retribution of an injustice, religious transgression or wars. It was certainly not against wisdom to kill, for it is precisely Solomon's wisdom that David appeals to in order to circumvent an oath not to kill Shimei who had cursed him 1Kings2:8-9. What evidence is there that he would have acted differently than the Israelite Prophets and Ishmaelite Prophet had he been commanded to, especially considering he appeals to this very tradition. Jesus proclaimed his belief in the Torah, never denying a single letter from it, never abrogating any of its laws, including those relating to obligatory as well optional warfare.
Yes, we're talking of wars solely meant to increase Israel's glory, and wealth.
On a general note, history shows that in the absence of a dominant political system that has the monopoly of violence, a religious movement, any type of movement will not hesitate to take up arms and defend its own interests whenever it is oppressed or wants to expand its interest. Contrary to Judaism and Islam, Christianity was born under the Roman empire. It had to remain quite and passive if it wanted to survive. However, the moment Christianity became state religion in the 4th century, the Church had no qualms in militarily advancing its interests around the world. This standpoint was abandoned in 16th century Europe after millions of Christians lost their lives in interreligious warfare. Before that, the Jews similarly abandoned religious military action, once it became clear that YHWH would not "smite the nations before them". This occured following the double crushing defeats, first with the 2nd destruction of the Temple and 2nd with the defeat of the messianic bar kochba revolt. That tendency is even more pronounced in the Rabbinic tradition of the Mishnah. Fearing that any new hot headed messianic claimant would rise up again and this time take the community to complete extinction, the elders or sages completely overturned the Biblical militant tone. This is done by separating between divinely commanded wars, including defensive, on one side and which every Jew is obligated to participate in, and any other type of war, deemed non-compulsory.
Just besides Jesus' notorious "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek" verses, he is portrayed as vilificating his enemies and those that rejected him to the extreme. We read of some bizarre, unjust and violent incidents attributed to him such as causing the death by drowning of a herd of swine, in fact stealing them from their rightful owners, then allowing demons to purposely enter their bodies Matt8:32,Mk5:13,Lk8:33. Another bizarre incident one wouldnt expect a supposedly peaceful preacher to do is destroying a fig tree for not having fruit out of season Matt21:18-21,Mk11:13-14. On a more violent note, Jesus foretold the punishment of the Israelites, similar to the people of Galilee.
His magnanimous utterance, asking God to forgive his torturers and oppressors isnt even agreed upon as authentic
Lk23:34"Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing".
It is absent from manuscripts earlier than 200CE.
He attacked the Pharisees and Jewish scribes in public, exposing their hypocrisy. He kicked out the money-lenders from the Temple when it was within his own power, besides threatening the Israelites with divine judgment, which includes destruction, for their rejection of him and calling their religious leaders and scribes all sorts of names from "serpents", "race of vipers" to "sons of hell" or calling them "hypocrites" and "blind fools" in public, called their generation "wicked and adulterous", told his followers to "Leave them; they are blind guides", compared them to "whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean", "full of hypocrisy and wickedness" compared them to "unmarked graves, which men walk over without knowing it" and when one of the pharisees objected with
"when you say these things, you insult us"
Jesus continued his truthful admonition until he finished with the terrible sentence that
"this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world" Matt23.
In the parable of the good samaritan Lk19 that Christians like harping upon, we see Jesus again vilificating those "race of vipers" that rejected him by portraying them as inhumane, incapable of even a simple act of mercy.
Therefore as a punishment in this very world for their spiritual blindness and rejection of him he purposely spoke in complicated parables to create confusion in the minds of those kind of people outside his followers, and avoid them turning to God and repenting Mk4:10-12.
The evidence, as is clear, points to the exact opposite of the claims that he would have acted any different than the Israelite prophets that preceded him. In fact, not only are there no instances where he loved and prayed for his rejecters and oppressors who persecuted and put him and his handful of powerless followers in a corner, ultimately brutally murdering them, but he consoled his companions by telling them to hold fast, for the time is surely coming that God would bring forth his justice and judgement in this world through the Paraclete, and that further, Jesus' name will be honored in a world where neither he or his apostles werent given any.
At best, he only forgave those who wronged others.
In answer to the video "Thanks, Muhammad, for the Death Threats"
Nobody other than insecure Christians claim Muslims worship a false god. Even Judaism nowadays, which sees in Islam the manifestation of God's promised blessings of Ishmael, cannot but admit that Islam is the only religion along with Noachidsm (the system revealed to, and taught by Noah, as alluded to in the Quran 42:13) that can earn non-Jews success in the hereafter. They see in both of these "gentile religions" a complete compatibility with the universal spiritual principles revealed prior to Moses and the mosaic law (which is exclusively binding on Jews).
Trinitarian Christianity on the other hand is a different issue. Islam doesnt need Judaism to be justified but it is interesting to see how the closest people to Christianity, reading the same books, those who should a priori understand and accept the Christian proposition, in regards to their doctrines are actually further from them than from Islam which they see as a legitimate gentile religion
2:113"And the Jews say: The Christians do not follow anything (good) and the Christians say: The Jews do not follow anything (good) while they recite the (same) Book. Even thus say those who have no knowledge, like to what they say; so Allah shall judge between them on the day of resurrection in what they differ".
The truth of Islam is independent of whether Jews, Christians or Buddhists recognize it. It stands firm and strong because of its own internal arguments while the aforementioned groups crumble in the light of their own internal evidence, let alone common sense.
Christians are often the ones trying to disparage Islam by painting it as seemingly in disconnect with the Judeo-Christian system. This argument, as shown earlier is built on false assumptions; that Islam claims to be in continuity with these 2 religions, and that Christianity itself is a continuation of Judaism. Ironically and as the Quran alludes to, Judaism, which is supposed to be the precursor of Christianity, actually argues, based on the same books of the Christians, that the latter is a sinful way while Islam is in congruence with the pre-mosaic system. This is a quiet devastating observation to those trying to use that sort of analogy of continuity against Muslims.
In answer to the video "Thanks, Muhammad, for the Death Threats"
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!"
As already explained to that youtuber in another video, Abdullah Ibn Sad Ibn Abi Sarh is really not a complicated topic at all, much less one that can be used, as he candidly thinks, for polemical purposes.
Abi Sarh 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.
As to his reported claim of having forged some Quran verses, well the historical records paint a completely different picture. When he was among the prophet's scribes, he is actually said to have contributed to the Quran's creation by anticipating the revelation of the verse 23:14, before the prophet recited it. The prophet then allegedly told him to write it down as part of the Quran. He is said to have then apostatized and returned to Mecca for protection.
Al hafidh al iraqi in his sira in the form of a poetry and in the part speaking of the prophet's scribes, lists 42 names among them Ibn Abi Sarh, emitting reserves as to whether he was truly a scribe or not. He then says that Sarh, along with 2 other scribes apostized with only Sarh later returning to Islam. Nothing is said of the reason of his apostasy, nor of the supposed way in which Sarh "used to direct Muhammad to write this or that"etc. as claimed by modern polemicists.
Before getting into a factual analysis of the report on sura 23, why would only 1 scribe out of more than 40 doubt Muhammad's truthfulness if all others like him were free to edit the text as they deemed it fit?
As to Abi Sarh's claims, assuming them to have been truly uttered, there are several internal factors exposing him as a liar. Abi Sarh embraced Islam after the hijra (the circumstances of his initial conversion are unknown) and joined the Muslims in Medina where his apostasy later occured. His conversion and apostasy thus occured in Medina. This means sura 23, which he supposedly contributed to and thus led him to leave Islam, must have been revealed there, in Medina, yet this sura is a known Meccan sura with no exception of any single verse. That alone is strong enough evidence to discard the claim, taking down with it the polemic on 6:93, also Meccan, which the polemicists try to depict as revealed in relation to Sarh following his "exposing" of Muhammad by "creating" a verse of sura 23.
Disregarding the reports stating Sarh reverted to Islam before Mecca's conquest, meaning without any compulsion, after which he lived and died as a pious Muslim, the polemicists attempt using other reports stating Sarh was on an execution list and thus converted under duress after the Muslim invasion of Mecca.
If those reports are taken as true, the only information that can be drawn from them is that until the very last moment while his conversion could have made the difference between life and death yet he did not convert. He was forgiven and had thus no reason to "fear" anyone in his decision process in later reverting to Islam.
Nothing is said in those reports of the sentence against him having anything to do with the (disproven) claims on suras 6 and 23. Some reports do however say that he, along with a few others were on an execution list for (among other crimes like murder) their war-inciting, devisive poetry and anyone familiar with the culture of the time knows what role a certain type of poetry played in initiating bloody conflicts. It is a type of offence falling under the Quranic category of fasad fil ard, crimes punishable by death.
Some side arguments to keep in view is that, supposing the allegations concerning his contribution to sura 23 as true, followed by his apostasy and return to Mecca, then it would be very obvious for him to make such grandiose claims, since he now needed the sympathy and favors of the Quraysh whom he had previously betrayed in a time of war. He needed to allay their suspicions and resentment.
A similar case is that of al Rahhal Ibn Unfuwah. He was sent on a mission to Banu Hanifah, the people of Musaylimah the false prophet, whom he eventually joined. He then tried gaining the people's sympathy there by claiming the Prophet agreed to share the prophetic mission with Musaylimah, and some followed him. We even have cases of a whole Jewish delegation paying reverence to the Meccan idols by bowing to them, so as to forge an alliance with the prophet's enemies. The ahadith and the Quran in 4:51 refer to that shocking incident. These kinds of public renouncement of one's position in favour of a former enemy for political purposes were common. A similar case to abi Sarh is that of a Muslim in Medina who decided to betray the prophet, fearing for his relatives left behind in Mecca at the hands of the Quraysh
"I heard `Ali saying, "Allah's Messenger sent me, Az-Zubair and Al-Miqdad somewhere saying, 'Proceed till you reach Rawdat Khakh. There you will find a lady with a letter. Take the letter from her.' " So, we set out and our horses ran at full pace till we got at Ar-Rawda where we found the lady and said (to her). "Take out the letter." She replied, "I have no letter with me." We said, "Either you take out the letter or else we will take off your clothes." So, she took it out of her braid. We brought the letter to Allah's Messenger and it contained a statement from Hatib bin Abi Balta a to some of the Meccan pagans informing them of some of the intentions of Allah's Messenger. Then Allah's Messenger said, "O Hatib! What is this?" Hatib replied, "O Allah's Messenger, Don't hasten to give your judgment about me. I was a man closely connected with the Quraish, but I did not belong to this tribe, while the other emigrants with you, had their relatives in Mecca who would protect their dependents and property . So, I wanted to recompense for my lacking blood relation to them by doing them a favor so that they might protect my dependents. I did this neither because of disbelief not apostasy nor out of preferring Kufr (disbelief) to Islam." Allah's Messenger, said, "Hatib has told you the truth." `Umar said, O Allah's Apostle! Allow me to chop off the head of this hypocrite." Allah's Messenger said, "Hatib participated in the battle of Badr, and who knows, perhaps Allah has already looked at the Badr warriors and said, 'Do whatever you like, for I have forgiven you".
Another similar case is that of a Christian who joined Islam in Mecca and apostised later in Medina, then claiming he used to fabricate the revelations for Muhammad, again obviously to be more readily accepted by the prophet's enemies. Yet how could he remain Muslim for such a long time originally converting in sincere faith during the hardest time for the nascent Muslim community, until late in Medina and the revelations of suras baqara and aal imran which he used to read, and subsequent revelations he used to write, all the while knowing it to be a lie, deliberately fabricating information to include into the Quran which he used daily in his supplications? How credible is his testimony and how appropriate is it for his story to be included in the chapter about lying in Bukhari's collection? What is further inconvenient to those who attempt using that report to discredit the prophet, is the rest of it speaking of the divine punishment inflicted on him, witnessed by the narrator as a miracle.
Waraqa the pre-Islamic hanif among others, is another of those candidates whom the critics like pointing to as a potential candidate for being an inspiration to Muhammad. In this one of many attempts at throwing all potentialities regardless of any logical, reasonable or contextual consideration, in the hope that a few will stick, these critics would have us believe that Waraqa was giving private lessons in scriptures to the prophet Muhammad and yet still believed in him prior to his death as a true messenger of God, wishing he could live on to support him in his difficult mission.
The Quran itself testifies, and nobody ever came up to deny it, despite the various calumnies reported both in the Quran and hadith the likes of which almost all prophets were victims of, that the prophet knew nothing of the religion prior to his call.
Nothing is known of the complete picture and signs which Waraqa saw that led him to believe in the prophet so strongly, but what is known is that he did, and that there was at the time great hope among the monotheist communities of the Hijaz, that a prophet and salvific figure fulfilling the prophecies of the HB and the NT would soon rise.
Also, historically, and as corroborated in the Quran itself, many people in the earliest days of Islam would convert, apostise, revert or remain non-Muslims, in some cases multiple times in a lifetime, guided by different reasons, mostly to escape the Islamic justice system following a serious crime.
In a time in Medina where the Jews did not spare any means, from deception to open hostility and war mongering, at opposing the rise of the nascent Muslim community, an incident occured involving both Jews and Muslims. A Muslim man, who had been absent from his house came back and saw that some of his precious belongings were gone. Circumstancial evidence immediately pointed to a particular household among the Ansar, who were at the time the main supporters of the prophet. When the culprit, from the bani Ubayriq clan, saw that suspicion was pointing to him, he decided to frame a neighboring Jew by entrusting him with the stolen property and then falsely accusing him. In light of the evidence, nobody, including the prophet could deny the Jewish man's guilt, despite his repeated claims of innocence, and even though the original circumstancial evidence pointing to the Ubayriq was still lingering in the Muslims' minds. Until revelation came on that occasion, pointing to deceiving appearances among so called Muslims and the importance of upholding justice impartially 4:105-113. The prophet, against all strategical and political wisdom, given the interests at play, judged in favor of the Jew and openly declared the Muslim's guilt. In his impartiality, he did not even resort to covering up the matter so as to safeguard the pride of his allies. The Muslim deceiver and hypocrite in question, some reports name him Bashir, others Tu'mah, then apostized, left Medina and joined the Meccan idolaters.
Others, that originally were drawn into the community out of immitation or interest, without deeper inquiries found themselves doubting the divine origin of the Quran, and this in no way constitutes an argument nor is relevant in determining the truth of Muhammad's prophethood. The opposite would mean that every single prophet of the Bible was a false prophet, since all of them were doubted, accused of all sorts of things, besides liars, madmen or demon possessed. All had people wavering in their faith among their addressees, some apostizing, others remaining hypocrites and others reverting back to faith.
Jesus was eventually abandoned by his closest entourage, some of them doubting his truthfulness (Thomas) while others conspired to kill him (Judas).
