In answer to the video "Islamicize Me Day 3: Wax On, Wax Off"
As is explicit in the Quran, the divine protection of the carriers of the revelation pertains strictly to the revelation itself. But in everyday affairs, the messengers, who are still humans endowed with freewill and thus the potential, if not to sin due to their heightened level of spiritual awareness, to make mistakes, they are left to their own devices in their everyday lives to fight off the assaults of evil forces.
No prophet was in a constant state of communication with the divine realm. The hadith and Quran itself speak of long periods where revelation had stopped, and the subsequent tauntings of his enemies on the issue, the questions of his followers and his anxious anticipation. The prophet is for instance reported, as a reflection of his all too often humble character, to have said
"I am only human like you; I forget as you forget. If I forget, then remind me".
This comes in the context of a slight mistake which he had done during prayer, inadvertently shortening it, apparently angry with himself as he suspected the mistake, then humbly accepting the correction from the attendance which confirmed his thought
"The Prophet (peace be upon him) meanwhile, stood by a piece of wood placed in the mosque, leaning against it, as if he was angry. So a man stood and said, 'O Messenger of Allah, have you forgotten or has the prayer been reduced?' So the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him) said, 'I did not forget nor has it been reduced.' So the man said, 'Rather you have indeed forgotten.' So the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to the Companions, 'Is what he is saying true?' They said 'Yes' So the Prophet (peace be upon him) went forward and prayed what remained of the prayer, then he gave the salutation, then he prostrated twice, then he gave the salutation".
The prophet did not forget the Quran. He forgot, momentarily like any one with a memory lapse, certain passages. That is irrelevant to the issue of Quran preservation. When these memory lapses occured, the Quran had already been transmitted, in both oral and written form. Hence even regular members of the community, not even renouned memorizers, correcting the prophet's recital.
Something important noting in that regard. The Quran assures him
87:6"We shall make you recite (sanuqriuka) so you shall not forget".
Allah was literaly puting the holy words into the prophet's mouth
19:97"We have only made it easy in your tongue that you may give good news thereby to those who guard (against evil) and warn thereby a vehemently contentious people"
and teaching him how to read them out. As the prophecy of Deut18 says
"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him".
Man is apt to forget, and the Prophet was a human being and he too was apt to forget and since the Quran was also a great asset which was being entrusted to him, he would repeat each and every word of the revelation fearing that any of it might slip away from his memory. This verse, telling him he will be made to recite in manner so as to not forget, came as a reassurance, stressing that God has taken upon Himself its impression on his memory. This was not by his own power and leave, being a mortal like anyone else and it is a reminder of this reality that the Quran continues
87:7"Except what Allah pleases, surely He knows the manifest, and what is hidden".
The context of the verse is about intricate, detailed, purposeful divine planing for all things and how nothing escapes God's grasp and knowledge. The prophet's rare occasions of very limited forgetfulness (and his followers and recorders' reminding him) were fully in accordance with that master plan, meant among other things at humbling him as well as to the believers' eyes around him, of his own faillibility as a human being as well of God's being in control of the process of memorization and compilation of the Quran, allowing only what He wills to be temporarily, not completely, forgotten. As a principle, the Quran reminds in many instances of that concept, how this revelation and its very preservation is a mercy from Allah that could be taken away from Muhammad or erase parts of it from the prophet's own memory without him noticing it as said above, therefore man should remain grateful for it and never feel complacent
17:86-7"And if We please, We should certainly take away that which We have revealed to you, then you would not find for it any protector against Us. But on account of mercy from your Lord-- surely His grace to you is abundant".
There is one recorded incident where God caused a permanent blackout among the Muslim community's best reciters
"We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: "If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust." And we used so recite a surah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it, but remember (this much) out of it: 'Oh people who believe, why do you say that which you do not practise.' (lxi 2.) and, 'That is recorded in your necks as a witness (against you) and you would be asked about it on the Day of Resurrection" (xvii. 13)".
What is interesting here is that this report is narrated by up to 15 of the most renowned companions, over a wide geographical distribution, from Basra to Kufah, Mecca to Medina. Nothing is known from the chapter in question except for the vague snippet each narrator remembers. God in His wisdom, has left this trace in the memory of men, and took the rest so as to provide proof of His control over the transmission process of the divine revelation. He may take away what He peases and establish what He wants. With the Jews, this process took the form of punishment. Their books describe God, in answer to their complacency towards divine guidance, the rejection, persecution and killing of the prophets sent in their midst, as interrupting an ongoing guiding revelation Ezek3:26,24:27,33:21-22.
3:144 was revealed in the context of the battle of Uhud during which the Muslims were overwhelmed by the enemy and rumor spread that the prophet was killed. So many of the believers fled the battlefield and some considered apostasy. They are admonished not for stopping to fight but for depending their faith on the prophet; meaning their belief would continue as long as he lived, and disappear the moment he died, turning back to their former state after finding the guidance. The verse tells them that the religion of truth and its successful establishment is in the hands of Allah, Muhammad has no authority in this affair, he is but a messenger charged with conveying the message and many passed away before him. This is particularly made clear when Allah mentions the war of Badr and his assistance to the believers and suddenly cuts short the speech, turning towards His Prophet to tell him,
3:127-128"You have no concern in the affair".
In its wider implication the verse re-states the fundamental Islamic doctrine that adoration is due to God alone, and that no human being - not even a prophet - may have any share in it. 3:144 also hints to another reality, by mentioning both the possibilities of assassination and of Muhammad dying a natural death it projects on the future behavior of the Muslims and warns them that Muhammad is naught but a messenger, that they should not idolise him and turn upon their heels after him. When prophets were sent to humanity with the guidance, wisdom and Book from Allah, it was not for their followers to be their servants and neither to be worshiped, but to worship Allah alone 3:78-79. Muslims must uphold at all costs, this religion of Ibrahim and this Quran. The striking similarity between
3:144"Muhammad is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away"
and
5:75"The Messiah son of Marium is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away"
comes as a sign from Allah who makes clear His communications. Only these 2 messengers are described with the exact same wording because no other prophets were inappropriately over exalted among the nations to whom they were sent and the subsequent generations, as much as these 2
"See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away".
Noting encapsulates that notion more than the shahada which places God as the only entity worthy of worship, side by side with Muhammad who is nothing but His messenger.
The Quran requires from the prophet in turn, to declare belief in God and the past prophets equally 2:285. The Shahada is a testimony in which the fundamental principles that concentrate all tenets of the Book are mentioned. It isnt meant at listing all the tenets of Islam, but at mentioning the aspects that encapsulate them most. This is very similar to the Biblical notion of the "10 sayings", erroneously rendered 10 "commandements" in Christian Bibles. These 10 sayings encapsulate the entire 613 mosaic commandments revealed at Sinai for the Jewish people. In the case of the shahada, the fundamental tenets mentioned are; belief in only one entity worthy of worship, Allah, and obedience to His messenger Muhammad. The first part stresses uncompromising monotheism. That part is stated in the negative rather than the positive. This is because the true challenge is not to believe in a single creator but to cleanse oneself of partnering with Him, whether it is another deity, worldly authority, or personal desire. The second part of the shahada stresses belief in all that was brought by that divinely appointed human being, as well as adherence to the community established through him. If these 2 components are understood and accepted, one has uttered the complete testimony to Islam.
Of course a hypocrite or liar can testify outwardly without inner conviction 49:14-17,63:1. Their disregard and lowly opinion for that which they claim belief in, does not however diminish anything of its truth and value so long as God is testifying to the truth. Even if the most noble witnesses attest to the truth of those principles, God remains the supreme and most valuable witness, because He is the highest standard of Truth
4:166"But Allah bears witness by what He has revealed to you that He has revealed it with His knowledge, and the angels bear witness (also); and Allah is sufficient as a witness".
The Quran hardly has a page which does not address the central religious issue of striving in God's way through trials of ease and hardship, where one will have to assert his will freely and choose to act within the limits of Allah. This hard struggle will go on, uninterrupted until the day where all will return to Him 84:6 and the road to the highest places is sometimes compared to an uphill climb 90:4-18, or as Jesus says to a tight path leading to a narrow door Matt7:13-14. This verse 90:4 does not speak of evil or of a wicked human nature, it is referring to the difficulties that will come in man's life as an inevitable consequence of him being a volitional creature, as stated in the following verses
90:8-10"Have We not given him two eyes, And a tongue and two lips, And pointed out to him the two conspicuous ways?"
Elsewhere the Quran eloquently uses the image of life being a vast ocean upon which man is constantly trying to remain afloat, and the manner to do so is given as spiritual strengthening through righteous deeds
73:1-10,29:2-3"Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, We believe, and not be tried? And certainly We tried those before them, so Allah will certainly know those who are true and He will certainly know the liars".
This purification process is necessary for a soul's success in the Hereafter 87:14. The success will only be possible when one, out of conviction stands before God in an attitude called ihsan
4:125"And who has a better religion than he who submits himself entirely(in ihsan) to Allah? And he is the doer of good (to others) and follows the faith of Ibrahim, the upright one".
This is the purest definition of Islam -willful servitude to God- and no other way is acceptable to Him. Mere declaration isnt enough, one must be able to withstand the requirements of that obedience despite the moments of hardship and ampleness, until his last breath 3:102. The key to that successful end is to have the quality of sabr/steadfastness and constancy, epitomised by the greatest prophets and the manner in which they endured the trials of life while maintaining spiritual uprightness in words, intentions and deeds not once, but throughout their lives, striving to maintain it as a prominent spiritual trait 16:127,13:28.
The importance of being entirely submitted to God is emphasized in past scriptures too 2Chron30:8,Job22:21. After the prophet Muhammad, submission to God entailed accepting His revelations and laws which have reached their ultimate form with the Quran. Of course some may hypocritically submit without sincere belief and the Quran repeatedly speaks of, and exposes this behaviour
49:14"The dwellers of the desert say: We believe. Say: You do not believe but say, We submit; and faith has not yet entered into your hearts..".
The prophet said
"Faith/iman consists of more than sixty branches (i.e. parts). And Haya (This term "Haya" covers a large number of concepts which are to be taken together; amongst them are self respect, modesty, bashfulness, and scruple, etc.) is a part of faith."
The early Muslims in particular who were threatened by the phenomenon of religious hypocrisy, distinguished between one that enters Islam and one that implements it with sincerity
"I asked, "O Allah's Messenger! Why have you left that person? By Allah I regard him as a faithful believer." The Prophet commented: "Or merely a Muslim."
Iman literally means "to feel secure". It entails complete trust, in a religious context, to God besides Whom there is no protector. The word is most appropriate considering the objective of the religion, which is to build a relationship between the individual and his Creator. Through pondering on the signs surrounding the individual, external and internal, as well as the divine revelation, one progressively increases in iman 4:136,47:17,48:4 until a level of submission is reached that entails a detailed and entire dedication of one's life to that new system
43:69,2:208"O you who believe/alatheena amanu, enter into submission one and all".
Iman and that ultimate level of submission therefore express themselves through one's deeds
49:15,2:25"And give glad tidings unto those who believe and do good works; that theirs are Gardens underneath which rivers flow" 14:31"Say to My servants who believe/alatheena amanu that they should keep up prayer and spend out of what We have given them secretly and openly before the coming of the day in which there shall be no bartering nor mutual befriending".
Allah also describes the high status of Muhammad and his companions, and then ends 48:29 with
"Allah has promised those among them who believe and do good, forgiveness and a great reward".
The phrase "among them" is highly significant and shows that even among these high ranked people, the honour and respect with Allah depends on real, concrete deeds, and most of all steadfastness and constancy on the straight path
16:110"Definitely, your Lord unto those who have migrated after being persecuted, then they struggled and patiently persevered; verily your Lord, after that, is forgiving Merciful"
3:136"As for these, their reward is forgiveness from their Lord and Gardens beneath which rivers flow; therein they will abide forever. How blissful will the reward of (such) workers/aamilin be!".
The basic principle that the spiritual felicity does not depend on name or nomenclature, that no one can get honour with Allah except by true faith in, and total servitude to Him throughout one's life is reiterated many times
20:112,33:29,2:112"whoever submits his self entirely to Allah and he is the doer of good, he has his reward with his Lord".
The submission to Allah is therefore the merging of the correct belief, with the correct deeds
29:7,35:10"To Him do ascend the good words; and the good deeds, lift them up".
The shahada itself is not found mentioned in a single Quranic verse. But the repeated axiom throughout the Book of what constitutes correct faith is belief in Allah and unconditional obedience to His messenger. Although one is free to add any other tenet within the testimony, like the prophethood of a specific individual such as Jesus or Noah, or belief in the previous books, or the entities of the unseen such as the angels, the testimony of faith would remain incomplete if belief in Muhammad's prophethood isnt expressed. It would still leave many principles of the Book as unattested for. As well it would give the ambiguity that one has not fully adhered to the community established by Muhammad, or that Muhammad is a true prophet. On the other hand to testify to Muhammad's divine appointment, automatically entails belief in all that is propounded in the message he brought, which includes every single principle and tennet of the Book, indiscriminate honoring of all of God's prophets of whom Muhammad is part of, as well as adherence to the Islamic community. That is why one may only add specific testimonies of faith once the 2 main components have been uttered and accepted. Some may choose adding an aspect in relation to a previous belief system, such as Jesus being nothing but a prophet of God so as to stress one's dissociation from trinitarian Christianity, as is typically done by a former Christian.
In every day speak Muslims very often utter one or another aspect of the shahada in an isolated manner. A Muslim will often express that God is the only deity worthy of worship in a discussion, or that Muhammad is the messenger of God. It is even seen in all types of arts and engravings, past and present. This does not mean that a partial or incomplete shahada is being expressed. Nothing in any of those art works hint at or claim to be declarations of faith.
Jesus taught his followers the testimony of faith similar to the Muslim shahada
Jn17:3"And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent".
Once again, 2 basic components for a clear testimony of faith, uncompromising monotheism on one side and adherence to a community established by a divinely appointed human being, distinct from the One God who sent him. That community must accept Jesus' leadership only, reorienting their past emotional and spiritual affiliations for new norms they are expected to live by
Lk14:26"If any man comes to me and does not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers and sisters, and yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple".
The issue of aqeedah/aqida is one that developed between the 8th-10th century by the likes of ibn Hanbal, abu Hasan al Ashari, al Shafi'i, al Maturidi or al Ghazali. These are the schools that have survived within sunni Islam. However, historically there have existed many more schools than these. Even today, there are minority schools within Sunni Islam, as well as major schools of thought outside of Sunni Islam. The scholars who formulated their aqeedah, felt the need to answer questions raised by new adherents to Islam with different cultural backgrounds and by non-Muslim critics, as the empire spread far beyond Arabia. A aqida or creed, takes the well established aspects of belief/iman, as stated in the Quran 2:177,4:136 such as God's oneness, resurrection, angels, books and prophets, and expounds upon each aspect in details. Sunnis have included qadar/predestination as a sixth point in light of the hadith of Gabriel
"Inform me about Iman (faith)." He (the Prophet) answered, "It is that you believe in Allah and His angels and His Books and His Messengers and in the Last Day, and in fate (qadar), both in its good and in its evil aspects".
Having the correct aqeedah consists for a large part of practicing Tawhid. Tawhid means Allah is One in His Lordship and no one has the power over the creation but Him. He is One in the right to be worshipped. He has Names and Attributes unique to Him. The prophet and the companions did not have to establish detailed creeds as they did not have to contend with the questions and doubts raised after their time. Not a single scholar or adherent to a particular creed negates those points, from Sunni to Shia. So, although the aqeedah of the prophet and the companion was very concise, the later scholars of Islam developed extremely detailed formulation of it. A Aqeedah became more like a lengthy argumentation in light of a particular scholar's philosophical, intellectual, vocabulary tools at hand. The vast majority of the points discussed in a aqeeda do not explicitly go back to the prophet or the companions, but are the result of a particular scholar's deductions, hence the divergences in aqeedas. One therefore doesnt need to agree on every single point of a scholar's articulation of the pillars of belief, if one is able to show that the point one disagrees with doesnt necessarily follow the premise, just as scholars disagreed among themselves on those details. The fact is throughout the centuries there were nuances on the fine points of aqeeda among scholars of the same school. The detailed articulations of the pillars of belief did not lead any Muslim group to deviate from worshiping one entity, to several, as happened to Christianity. Christians went as far in the development of their creeds that they had to invent new vocabulary, including the notion of "persons" to mask the reality of the tri-theism they fell into. The divergences between schools pertain, among other things to whether the descriptions of certain of God's attributes likes eyes and hands, should they be understood literally, metaphorically or one of the two depending on context and language? Does qadar cause human deeds directly by affecting human will, indirectly by causing freewill to exist or sometimes one or the other depending on context? As to the hadith on the 72 sects, the part stating that only 1 will be admitted to heaven is highly controversial in its isnad and even contradicts the plain meaning of many Quranic passages about the resurrection and judgement, where each individual will be raised alone to account for his own beliefs and actions.
Aqeeda differences are nothing like the differences in creeds within the Christian Church tradition for instance, where differences affect the nature of God, the hierarchy of the godhead, human nature, or the hereafter. For example does the holy spirit issue from the father or from both the father and son (who was "begotten" by the father)? What is the relation of humans with divine grace, do Christians become partakers or not of the divine nature? Will the dead go through a purgatory in the afterlife? Is sin a hereditary condition making all humans totally depraved, and that initiated with Adam or did his descendants inherit the state of mortality?
The Quran, when referring to the most honourable experiences of the prophet still calls him a slave, such as in the context of his chosenness, possessor of a miracle and taken on the israa and miraj 2:23,17:1,18:1. Therefore the Quran continuously stresses the prophet Muhammad being a slave of Allah like any Muslims 7:194, not possessing the keys of the unseen except what Allah granted him 7:188 and him being nothing but a warner and giver of glad tidings. Upon the prophet's passing away and as the Muslims were bewildered with grief, Abu Bakr rose up and recited this verse 3:144. The attendance perceived then the appropriateness and relevance of the verse in relation to their inner thoughts. Hearing the verse again shocked them to such an extent that
"it was as if the people never knew that Allah had revealed this verse".
Muslims of the past and today, including contemporaries of the prophet would sometimes over exalt him.
Like in every community with a charismatic leader, there will be people who will be inclined to overstep the bounds of reverence, even when the leader explicitly tells them not to do so. And when these leaders are prophets, per the Quran the highest rank a human being can reach in terms of spiritual eminence, then this tendency among the followers becomes more pronounced. The prophet Muhammad disliked being honoured like a royalty, and hence forbade his people to stand up for him. His followers knew it and despite their love for him would refrain from doing so
"There was no person more beloved to them than the Messenger of Allah." [He said:] "And they would not stand when they saw him because they knew that he disliked that."
This resulted in many times visitors being unable to distinguish between him and the remaining assembly. In contrast, one thing God made sure of is that the believers should lower their voices and carefully listen to the prophet in their midst and on whose instructions salvation depends 49:2. He would not let people stand for him although he himself would stand up for others, as he did when
"A funeral passed by the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and he stood up. It was said to him, “It is a Jew.” The Prophet said, “Was he not a soul?”.
Just as he refused for others to stand up for him, he did not let anyone bow down for him out of reverence
"When Mu‘aadh ibn Jabal came from Syria, he prostrated to the Prophet, who said, “What is this, O Mu‘aadh?” He said, I went to Syria and saw them prostrating to their archbishops and patriarchs, and I wanted to do that for you. The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said, “Do not do that".
Once, during Badr
"The Prophet was arranging the ranks with his switch (miqra`a) and he nudged Sawad’s belly with it, scratching him inadvertently, with the words: “Align yourself with the others.” Sawad said: “Ya Rasulallah, you hurt me, so give me reparation.” The Prophet handed him the switch and said: “Take reparation.” Sawad approached him and kissed his belly. The Prophet said: “What made you do that, O Sawad?” He replied, “Y Rasulallah, the time has come for what you see, and I loved that my last action in this dunya be to touch you.”
As is clear here, the prophet Muhammad did not expect this, nor did he ask for it, nor did he command others to do it. Kissing in this manner in Arabian tradition was understood as reverence as is done to a leader. Even the Jews, upon the prophet's arrival in Medina
"kissed his hands and his feet, and they said: 'We bear witness that you are a Prophet.' So he said: 'Then what prevents you from following me?' They said: 'Because Dawud supplicated to his Lord that his offspring never be devoid of Prophets and we feared that if we follow you then the Jews will kill us".
Many ahadith, let alone the Quran, explain that there is a fine line between justified reverence, due to a person's righteousness only, and unjustified over exaltation
”A group of men once said, ‘O Muhammad! You are our most righteous person, and the son of our most righteous person, our ‘sayyid’ (great Master) and the son of our ‘sayyid.’ The Messenger of Allah thereupon said, ‘O people! Say what you have to say, but do not allow Satan to deceive you. I am Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdullah, Allah’s Servant and Messenger. I do not like that you elevate me above the rank that Allah, Almighty and Ever-Majestic be He, has granted me.’ “ The prophet further said “Do not exagerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary,for I am only a slave. So, call me the slave of Allah and His Messenger".
The result is that despite the reverence of the multitudes, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, for various reasons, towards this righteous, humble and God-fearing man, neither he nor his admirers, past and present, claimed that he was a son of God, His incarnation or divine in any other way, but instead he always was and still is the slave and messenger of Allah. This was certainly no false humility. Although he was known as the most trustworthy individual among his contemporaries, enemies and friends alike who would both entrust him with valuables, as well as the fair distribution of charity, to the point that he was given the epithet al-amin/the trustworthy one, he showed that this quality, even in its supreme form is not his prerogative
"The Prophet said, "Every nation has an Amin (i.e. the most honest man), and the Amin of this nation is Abu 'Ubaida bin Al-Jarrah"
He consistently refused the offers of worldly compensation by his opponents in exchange for giving up or changing some of his message. Even when the community had grown prosperous he maintained a simple, sometimes bordering on ascetic lifestyle. Some particular incidents of overexaltation were condemned by him, as he was being treated by cupping he ordered to
"take this blood and pour it away so no one will see it.” When he had departed from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), he went and drank the blood. He said: “O ‘Abd-Allaah, what have you done?” He said: “I put it in the most secret place where I thought it would be most hidden from the people.” He said: “Perhaps you drank it.” He said: “Yes.” He said: “Why did you drink the blood? Woe to the people because of you and woe to you because of the people"
in another version the prophet ended with
"because of what your people will go through because of you".
Of course blood is impure to consume, human or else 6:145 and if found on oneself should be cleaned before standing for the ritual prayer. All the versions of that hadith have the prophet instructing his blood be discarded but contrary to the above condemnation of the one who drank it, other reports, none of them standing the test of authentication, have the prophet approving the act and even sometimes mentioning the salvific nature of his blood. Surely had this been true there would have been countless other cases of muslims asking for or going around drinking and eating their prophet's blood or flesh.
We would have certainly seen the kind of ridiculous post Jesus innovations by Christians the likes of the Eucharist cannibalistic ritual of metaphorically drinking and eating Christ's body. The most reliable report in that matter is the one depicting a soldier, during battle took the injured prophet and
"sucked the wound so that to clean it until there was no blood and the whiteness of his skin showed. It was said to him: Spit it out. He said: No, by Allaah, I will never spit it out. Then he went and fought. And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever wants to see one of the people of Paradise, let him look at this man.” Then he was martyred".
The words have no ambiguity in them, the man applied this method of treatment out of physical necessity, not for the purpose of gaining salvation through the blood. The prophet, as with the other reports did not want his blood be drank, both because of the Quranic instructions and to avoid idolising him. Further nothing is said of the prophet's reaction after the man refused spitting the blood and immediately resumed fighting, nor is there a connection between the blood and the statement about him being of the dwellers of paradise. The prophet could have made this final remark in relation to the man's warrior spirit and fighting zeal, which in fact led him to be martyred soon after.
On a similar occasion somebody drank the bowl in which he had urinated at night, despite his order to
"Throw away whatever is in the bowl"
and then proceeded to tell the person she had nevertheless ingested a beneficial remedy for stomach pain, as per his own understanding of folk remedies. Besides the recognized weakness of this report, especially the bit about drinking the bowl, nowhere does it say anything of the prophet commanding to do so, why would he when he himself took great care so as to avoid sprinkling urine on his garments because of it being a ritual impurity?
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 comyiting idolatry, are to be put to death, in such a forceful manner that all the inhabitants of the city are to be indiscriminately executed, their livestock and possessions burned and their dwellings razed to the ground.
A demonstration of the law's application, on a large-scale and in a systematic way, directly commanded by God is when thousands of Israelites were executed by their own brethren for having reverted to idol worship during the exodus. This incident is reported in both the Torah and Quran. Further the Biblical law of apostasy is general to all situations. When the Israelite prophets executed apostates and idolaters from among their own, it wasnt in war times where the apostate risked joining enemy ranks or spying on their or refusing to contribute economically as a full fledged member of a community with his rights and obligations. Later on in the course of their tumultuous history and as they were adapting the revealed law (of apostasy and other inconvenient and/or difficult laws) to their needs and whims, or their life circumstances, the passing of the death penalty required a much more stringent procedure. It was the case before, during and after the time of Jesus which is why it was rarely if ever applied then, whether by Jews or early followers of Jesus.
This by the way is one of the many points that undermine the crucifixion tale, as will be shown further below.
In Christianity a similar process of reinterpretation occurred as regards the capital punishment for apostasy. Up to the middle ages, whether it was church leaders, popes, thinkers and saints the likes of Thomas Aquinas, all justified and applied whenever they could, based on passages of both the HB/NT, the death penalty to apostates, as well as heretics and open sinners. It was not until Christianity and its church weakened through reforms and secularism that the capital punishment for religious transgressions was abandoned.
The Jews, in the times of Jesus didn't have any authority to try jesus for a death penalty, among other reasons, because of the procedures they had put into place so as to avoid the harsh mosaic punishments befalling their community for their frequent capital offenses: -the NT says that the high priest headed up the trial. The high priest never headed the Sanhedrin, that role fell to Nasi and the Av Bet Din, neither of whom are mentioned in the NT.
-To pass a death penalty a Jewish Sanhedrin had to meet in the Chamber of Hewn Stones in the Temple, but in 28CE which is prior to Jesus' supposed execution, the Chamber was destroyed so the Sanhedrin moved to another room on the Temple Mount, and then into the city itself (Talmud, Shabbat 15a, Rosh haShanah 31a).
Deut17:8-13"go up to the place that G-d your L-rd shall choose"
means the chamber of carved/hewn stone. Just as the Tabernacle was the only place in which to bring animal offerings until the final place was identified as the Temple, so to was the place for the court identified as the chamber in the Temple. Also, the Romans had removed the right to pass the death penalty according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 17:13). Around the year 6 CE, Herod Archelaus, was dethroned and banished to Vienna. He was replaced, not by a Jewish king, but by a Roman Procurator named Caponius. The legal power of the Sanhedrin was then immediately restricted. When Archelaus was banished the Sanhedrin lost the ability to try death penalty cases in favor of the Roman procurator (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20:19). So right there we have two impediments to the Jews passing a death sentence. -The Sanhedrin never met at night Matt26:57,Mk14:53 or in secret, on Shabbat or any holy day -- or even on the day BEFORE. Misnah (Sanhedrin IV:1) and Maimonides (Hilkot Sanhedrin XI:2).
- A death penalty case required two eye witnesses to the crime even when the Jews had the authority. When a death sentence was passed a minimum of 24 hours was given before it was carried out, giving time for witnesses to come forth on behalf of the condemned
-Jewish trials were never held in anyone's house, only in the Temple
So, in addition to the many legal proceedings which would have had to be broken for such trial to have taken place as is depicted in the Gospels, something that never happened in Jewish history, the Jews, living under Roman dominion, didn't have any authority to try Jesus for a death penalty. Why would they even make such effort, organizing this secret meeting just prior to the Passover festival, a time of religious preparations, breaking a long list of mosaic comandements along the way, yet knowing that their endeavor would be fruitless and their judgement would bear no legal weight? When in Jn18 the Pharisees take him to the Romans, they do not bring up their irrelevant blasphemy charge against him. They in fact bring no accusation at all. They leave it to Pilate to start guessing what crime Jesus is guilty of. What then was the necessity of that "pre-trial"? Why did they not just hand him to Pilate? They would have saved precious time on passover eve, an important time of religious dedication and preparation.
The whole story is fiction, meant at demonizing the Jews so that the blame is not shouldered by the Roman executioners, when they reluctantly put Jesus to death. The gentile authorities, painted as borderline Christians, were this way appeased and could be targeted for missionary activity, as occured soon after. Consequently, we never see in history Christians blaming, oppressing and mass murdering Italians in retaliation for Jesus' death, but rather Jews, despite them being in fact the necessary tools in the cosmic scheme of salvation through God's suicide..
Another typical example is that of Abdullah Ibn Sad Ibn Abi Sarh who had converted then apostised, joined the enemy side and began undermining the authenticity of the Quran by spreading rumors that he had been forging verses. He in addition incited the opposite party to war. When the Muslim side finally overcame against all odds and his own inciting efforts, his inevitable, legitimate fate was now execution for high treason.
This is what governments generally do once a traitor is apprehended, especially when a conflict ends while the person is still among enemy ranks. At that point, ibn Abi Sarh sought Uthman's intercession and came to the prophet to pledge his allegiance. The prophet ignored Uthman's plea twice before finally accepting. The prophet knew that he deserved to be put to death but at the same time, because of the general amnesty he had declared upon Mecca's conquest, he hesitated in the case of Sarh' special case, leaning more towards the capital penalty. By his silence, he left it to the attendance of close followers to do as they liked and as he saw that they leaned the opposite way, he reluctantly validated their judgement and accepted Sarh's pledge.
However and as already shown from the Quran, should one leave Islam peacefully without intending any harm to the community, not combining apostasy with public rejection of the state system, which includes refusal to acquit oneself from fiscal obligations, then the consequences of the sin are left for the Creator to decide in the Hereafter. A case in point is that of a bedouin that apostised though he had accepted Islam, pledging allegiance in front of the prophet the day before. The prophet did not punish him, the most that he did was to ignore him 3 times before stating
"Medina is like a furnace. It expels its impurities and collects what is pure".
The early caliphs followed the same line. Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz did not bother a group of apostates so long as they did not rebel against government laws. It is thus rejection of the religion in a way that threatens the stability of the Islamic system in place that warrants death penalty. These were the cases covered by the prophet's saying
"Whosoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him".
In fact there are explicit reports where the prophet let people leave the community in security following their spiritual apostasy.
Once more, there is no compulsion in religion 2:256,18:29 so no punitive measure can be directed at an apostate neither can he be compelled to go back to Islam or forced to repent solely on the basis of his choice of creed. Per the Quran and as made clear in 4:88-90 quoted earlier, action is to be undertaken against an apostate when he engages in hostile behavior towards Muslims and the Muslim state. Fighting, punishing or killing an apostate has therefore nothing to do with a person's choice of creed but with his behavior towards the Muslims.
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 additionaly 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 lauched 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 governements 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 seperation 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".
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!"
18:29,2:256"There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing"
When 2:256 says there is no compulsion in religion, it also gives the reason for the prohibition of compulsion
"truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error".
The reason is that truth has been clearly explained, there is thus no need to enforce it. It is available for anyone to consider, while knowing the consequences of accepting or rejecting it. The clause on which the prohibition of force is based ie "truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error" was never reversed, whether before or after the "verses of the sword" meaning the effect must equally remain unchanged.
Islam requires that belief follows reason and understanding. There is no need for compulsion in a matter whose advantages and disadvantages are clearly defined and the reward and punishment for accepting or rejecting it well-explained
"the right way has become clearly distinct from error".
This is why the prophet is told that he is not a warder, keeper and guardian over those who turn away. Like all prophets that passed before him his task consists in warning and giving glad tiding to the people, he has no power to influence their freewill or force their belief 17:54,42:48,88:21-2. He should therefore let him disbelieve whoever wishes to 18:29 after making sure that the message has reached them 13:40 in the most kindly manner 6:108,16:125.
Sure anyone able but unwilling to defend his own people from persecution is deserving of condemnation, in this world and the next. When the believers were stirred up for battle, it was based on the reality of their physical and spiritual opression, whether men, women, old and young alike 2:217,4:75,8:26,22:39-40,28:57,60:1,85:8-10,96:9-10. This was an undeniable reality and necessity. They had to overcome any fear and trust that Allah's help will come at the battlfield. He will weaken the struggle of the oppressors no mater the forces they can muster 4:84. Even when this was established, the prophet still did not expect the Muslims to shed their blood for a decision from which they were excluded. Consensual agreement always preceded the final decision to go to war, as here stated in the context of the battle of Uhud
3:159"and seek their advise in all matters of public policy".
Once the decision is attained by common agreement, the plan must be launched with an absolute trust in God
3:159"then when you have decided upon a course of action, trust in Allah; for surely Allah loves those who place their trust in Him".
Even the prophet after that point may not revoke the covenant and act according to his whims 3:161-4. It is to be noted that in that particular context of Uhud, the prophet was the minority opinion. He advised confronting the Meccan alliance within Medina, instead of meeting them at Uhud. Yet he never protested the decision once it was mutually agreed upon, nor did he blame the majority once the battle was over and the Muslims were defeated. No matter how supreme the wisdom of the Muslim community's ruler is, in this case a prophet of God, the right of the remaining members of society to be consulted can never be waved off. We see here that in this defeat of the Muslims at Uhud, an important lesson was implemented as to the conduct of a Muslim leader.
Once everybody is set to leave with a full trust in their decision and the will of God, then their physical, mental, financial capacities as compared to their enemies only become secondary issues. Only if these conditions would result in overburdening and harming the person and the people depending on him, even before engaging in fighting, then such person is justified in holding back from fighting 9:91,48:17. The others rely on Allah, who knows their material and physical limits, and will assist them 8:66. They are fully justified in fighting back, and will be helped in the process
22:38"Surely Allah will defend those who believe; surely Allah does not love any one who is unfaithful, ungrateful".
Part of the 613 Jewish commandments is to similarily be fearless in battle and fully trust in God Deut3:22,7:21,20:3 and in fact the reason why the Jews were punished with a 40 years desert wandering prior to their entry into the land promised to their forefathers was because they had shown fear and mistrust in God's capacity to defeat, through a weak army, a much stronger adversary. Besides the wordly necessity of waging war in God's way, the Quran asssures those who fear death and the loss of this present world that it is a shallow reasoning since this world is ephemeral and the Hereafter awaiting the righteous believers, including those that went forth for a just war, is perduring 4:74. Choosing to serve God in this way, putting one's own life on the line to defend the oppressed and advance the cause of truth is the most selfless spiritual sacrifice one can achieve and hence martyrdom is justifiably described in the prophetic sayings as meriting the highest reward. And although the believers are promised wordly gains as a result of their faith in God and His prophet, as a result of their personal sacrifices for the sake of their cause against all odds, the Quran stresses that these wordly gains must never be the true motive. However military jihad only ranks third 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".
Just as obeying a divine injuction to fight in Allah's way results in being rewarded in this world as well as the next 48:18-21, turning one's back to the enemy and refusing to fight in Allah's way makes a person
48:16,8:16"deserving of Allah's wrath"
in this world as well as the next, as stated in the Hebrew Bible in
Jer48:10"A curse on anyone who is lax in doing the Lord’s work! A curse on anyone who keeps their sword from bloodshed".
As already said above, history bares testimony to this fact with the example of the Israelites who had refused to put their trust in the prophet Musa to go forth and fight in Allah's way. Their wordly reward was consequently taken away and they were forbidden entry into the blessed land and sent to wander 40 years in the desert until the last one of those who had shown cowardice was dead and a new generation raised instead that would willingly take up arms, fight and conquer as divinely ordained.
See the Quran in 2:243,5:21-26 as well as the Hebrew Bible in Numbers13:28-33,14:1-35,21:14-35,26:64-65 and Deut2:7,14-19,Josh5:6.
The Muslims are warned that the same fate awaits those who turn their backs to the prophet when they are called to struggle in Allah's way
9:38-39"If you do not go forth, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you, and you will do Him no harm; and Allah has power over all things".
The Believers should rejoice at the opportunity of serving God's cause but what God wishes to accomplish isnt really dependent on them for He could easily uproot them in case of disobedience and rise another people instead. However, those who followed the prophet Muhammad in times of peace and war are the opposite example. Contrary to the majority of Israelites in Moses' time who refused to march forth despite witnessing all kinds of divine miracles, the majority of Muhammad's followers fought when ordered to. This is corroborative of their desperate situation, leaving them no choice but to fight for their survival, the survival of their families and their rights to worship Allah. Because of all their sacrifices and because they went forth when they were commanded to, they were made successors in the land 6:133-134 and they earned Allah's rewards in this world as well as, God wills, in the next.
In addition, the Muslims are commanded not to neglect the obligatory prayers, even when facing the enemy at the battlefield 4:101-3. This shows the true objective of these warriors fighting to free themselves and their people from religious bondage; fighting was not their primary occupation for when the time of holding the timed and ordained communion with their Lord arrived, they performed their spiritual obligations despite the imminent danger.
