The idea of the Quran being a dull, boring or incomprehensible repetitive book is a discredited proposition, not only by the scholars of Islam all throughout their exegetical works spanning centuries, but also more recently by non-Muslims who have been doing, and keep on doing, a remarkable job at unveiling the intricate connections of the text, from verse to another, paragraph to paragraph and sura to sura. See Norman Brown's work on sura 18 for instance.
That weak assertion is only still circulating among uneducated critics of Islam, and missionaries. For most of modern Islamicists, the Quran has to be approached as a text on its own, with its own internal coherence to be properly understood. So long as explanations to its passages are sought from the perspective of its alleged, ellusive and countless proposed sources, the Quran will remain an obscure book for those approaching it. There is a vast field nowadays of Quranic studies, with many sub-branches, studied by both Muslims and non-Muslim scholars; the interconnection between suras, passages, verses, words and even letters and how the whole thing remarkably fits together.
In the Quran when it comes to reminding of past narratives and anectodes, the objective isnt dry storytelling and genealogies as in most of the Bible where one can easily and quickly lose track of names, places and other details. These little details, if omitted wouldn't make humanity miss out on anything in terms of guidance, and in fact confuse the reader and distract his attention to trivial matters.
The Quran is not a historical record or dry, impartial document: it is argumentative and impactful to get people to believe and actively reform themselves and their environement. Its powerful statements are in an intellectual, spiritual and emotional language that every culture accross time and space can appreciate. The Quran's objective isnt story telling, but "message telling" and maximizing its audience's attention to the precept(s) of the story. Muslims will not be asked on the Day of Judgment the details of the people of the cave or how Noah's flood occured, how many generations passed between a person and another, the names in a genealogy or whether they memorized the names of people in the Quran. They will be questioned as to how they responded to the lessons from the different incidents and stories related in the Quran.
Thus to focus on the message, the Quran injects the passage of a well-known story, whenever the larger context a sura requires it. And when it does so, it only puts the details of that story that are relevant to that specific context. That is why one sees variations in repetitions, but never contradictions. The only exception to that style of narrative is the story of the prophet Joseph/Yusuf which takes the form of a beginning to end narrative in one place, and a highly eloquent, intricate one at that.
What was being recited by Muhammad, the illiterate man living among them for 40 years without them ever noticing any poetry skills, did not use confounding words or phrases neither did it employ strange Arabic dialects. Its choice of words produced the maximum impact in the hearts and intellects of those that heard it.
Its content was far from the decadent depictions of various common themes of Preislamic poetry.
Arab poetry varied from vivid lustful language, to history, soothsaying, propaganda, incitements against other tribes, to epic tales of honor, mentions of Abraham and the sacrifice, praise of the holy sanctuary etc. Yet when the Quran addressed each of those themes, it did so with refinement and a meaningful choice of words and structure that gave a multifaceted, intricate moral and spiritual dimension to the issue.
The masters of eloquence of the time could not classify it in any genre due to many factors, including contents and form. The many intricate types and subtypes of the Jahiliyya poetry are well known, and it is the Quran's particular structure, not belonging to any of the established pattern, that made them unable to counter it. This baffled its audience, compelling the opponents to find nothing better to say than to call it magic, inspired by demons and so forth.
Thomas Bauer "There is yet another reason why scholars of the Quran are deterred from looking more closely at contemporary literature even the briefest of examinations of the two bodies of texts reveals that they share little in common so different are the Quran and contemporary poetic literature that one can hardly come up with a better example of difference if one tried From their different ways of using language to their notable differences in content, hardly any similarities are to be found This distinction is so marked that it might well seem virtually pointless to claim that Arabic poetry can make any serious contribution to an understanding of the Quran".
Ibn Ishaq recorded al-Walid bin Mugira's reaction to the Quran:
"They said, "He is a kahin." He said, "By God, he is not that, for we have seen the kahins, and his (speech) is not unintelligible murmuring (zamzama) and rhymed prose (sajc) of a kahin." "Then he is possessed (majnun)," they said. "No, he is not that," he said. "We have seen and known the possessed state, and here is no choking, spasmodic movements, and whispering." "Then he is a poet," they said. "He is not that," he replied. "We have known poetry in all its forms and meters, and this is not poetry." "Then he is a sorcerer," they said. "No, he is not that," he said, "for we have seen sorcerers and their sorcery, and here is no spitting and no knots."
Rhymes do appear in the Quran, but the establishment of a rhyming scheme is absolutely not the objective nor one of the purposes of Quran syntax. There are reports even of the prophet warning against the attitude of being concerned in trying to make one's prayers and supplications fit a certain rhythmic or rhyming pattern.
As a quick side note, some critics have asserted that the Quran in places, in order to preserve a rhyming pattern, has sometimes spelled the same word differently. For example the prophet Elias that becomes Ilyasin 6:86,37:130 or Mt Sinai/sayna that becomes sinin 23:20,95:2, or the Arabicized names Harun and Qarun (Aaron/Korah). A simple observation however will demonstrate that this isnt necessarily the case for in the Quran itself people and places have been given different names regardless of the rhyming pattern. The prophet Yunus is also called dhunnun and even Mt sinai is sometimes just referred as Tur or Tur sayna.
It isnt uncommon in any language or culture for people or places to be known by several names. Ilyasin has in addition been said to be the name given to the followers of the prophet Ilyas. A peculiarity of Elijah in the HB is that he had a following of prophets 2Kings2.
There is no sensible reason for a text to introduce a new, unknown name and confuse the audience for the sake of prose, while it would be easier to make an already well established name rhyme with a convenient word instead. Also if one looks at the verses in question, they are surrounded by verses unconcerned with establishing a rhyming scheme, even when ending with a prophet's name.
The poets of Quraysh thus agreed on calling him a magician whose craft was eloquence that by means of eloquent words he was capable of dividing the man against his father, his brother, his spouse and his own tribe 46:7,21:3,34:43,54:2,74:24,10:76,11:7,37:15. The fact is that truth always causes a seperation ultimately as seen in the nations and families of the prophets of old, from Nuh who had to abandon his own disbelieving son to be taken by the deluge, to Ibrahim who left his disbelieveing father, Lut who left his wife behind him as the town was about to be destroyed etc, and the same is related in the scriptures of old, from the HB to the NT
Micah7:6,Matt30:21-36"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved..Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law a man's enemies will be the members of his own household".
Just as the moral reforms brought by Jesus and Muhammad were met with the staunchet opposition, so was the Book given to Musa
11:110-112"And certainly We gave the book to Musa, but it was gone against; and had not a word gone forth from your Lord, the matter would surely have been decided between them; and surely they are in a disquieting doubt about it. And your Lord will most surely pay back to all their deeds in full; surely He is aware of what they do. Continue then in the right way as you are commanded.."
Reciting and listening to the Quran became forbiden but nonetheless, many Quraysh would listen to it in secret, captured by the vivid imagery, metaphores, parables and appeal to the emotions which rendered the realm of the Unseen such as the Hereafter or the Resurrection recognizable to the senses, something which had a profound impact on their psyche and some converted. This growing popularity would add to the deeply rooted sentiment of jealousy so common among the desert Arabs of the time.
Because God commands to fight for justice. Any other reason to fight is oppression and fighting
"in the way of the devil" 4:76.
The Quran would therefore stir up the believers for battle 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. It was their failure to trust in God's capacity to defeat, through a weak army, a much stronger adversary that caused their 40 years desert wandering prior to entering the land promised to Abraham. God calls mankind to fight in His way first to solve the wordly obstacles to which a particular people is confronted, but these worldly obstacles are connected to the spiritual aspect of man's existence.
This means that fighting in God's way liberates man from both physical and spiritual obstacles. That is why those who fear wordly losses in the process, are told that this world is ultimately ephemeral whether in case of victory or loss. They would thus have certainly reason to fear should their battle be solely aimed at achieving wordly objectives.
But since fighting in God's way includes spiritual objectives, then one has no reason to fear because the Hereafter in which the benefits of that struggle will be certainly found, is everlasting 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 material and spiritual sacrifice one can do. Every culture and civilization in history has owed its survival in the face of oppression to these types of honored individuals.
But even then, as in any army, there are degrees among soldiers, hence the prophet saying that military participation is ranked 3rd in terms of divine appreciation. Those among the volontaries going to such extent in their selfless sacrifice that they are martyred, the prophetic sayings describe them as meriting the highest reward. Wordly gains follow as a collateral result of wars, and although are certainly the just compensation of those sacrificing their wealth and resources on the way, the Quran stresses that these wordly gains must never be the motive. In a hadith the prophet even answered about someone fighting in God's cause but also seeking material reward, that in the herafter "He would receive no reward" (sunan Abu Dawud).
Accepting to fight in Allah's way results in reward in this world as well as the next 48:18-21, but turning one's back to the enemy and refusing to shoulder that duty makes a person
48:16,8:16"deserving of Allah's wrath"
in this world as well as the next. Here are the prophet Jeremiah's words
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 pointed, 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. A new generation was then raised instead, one 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 very 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".
True Believers rejoice at any opportunity of serving God's cause, like Joshua and Caleb who rent their clothes telling the remaining cowards among the Israelites to stand up for battle. In the end, what God wishes to accomplish is independant of the direct addressees of a prophet. As demonstrated with Musa and the Israelites, 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.
For all the above mentionned noble reasons, the oppressed believers are urged and compelled, despite the natural fear of having to confront a superior enemy, to stand for war 2:216,8:65 if they are fit physically, mentally and financially 9:91,48:17 while relying on Allah; He knows their material and physical weakness and will assist them 8:66.
Jihad, in all of its aspects, whether for the establishment of God's will in a specific land, as was the case in Mecca with Muhammad or Moses in Canaan, whether for the punishment of rejecters in the prophetic era, as was the case with the Ishmaelites and the Israelites, or the timeless right to self defence, is always limited to the principle of
"and do not exceed the limit. Verily, Allah loves not those who exceed the limit".
Among these limits not to trespass, the Muslims, even though oppressed should not seek blind revenge at all costs, rather they should try engaging in peaceful negotiations before 8:39-40. In a dominant position, Muslims must remain concious of their past weakness before Allah strenghtened them and not refuse the hand of peace from non-muslims 4:94. In all cases retaliation must be
22:60"with the like of that with which he has been afflicted and he has been oppressed".
2:194"Thus, if anyone commits aggression against you, attack him just as he has attacked you - but remain conscious of God".
This means that even while seeking just and equal retribution, one must remain conscious of God's limits. The Quran's supreme realism reflects even in such situations, telling those whose spirituality is of a high degree, that if they are able to be patient and forgive for Allah's sake, instead of exercising their legitimate right to retaliation when they have taken the upper hand then Allah will compensate them for their magnanimity
42:39-43,16:126-8"but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient..Surely Allah is with those who guard (against evil) and those who do good (to others)".
The sensitivity of the issue is pictured in God's address to David, the prophet-king 34:10-11. As he was given mastery over a crucial component in warfare -iron-, he and all those after him are told that in their use of that martial technology, God is ever seeing of what they do, indicating that they should use this means in the path of righteous deed, not in the way of oppression, cruelty, and sin.
The early caliphate was actually a war of liberation of the oppressed people of the Roman, Persian and Egyptian nations from centuries of tyranny.
There is a reason why the early Islamic state expanded with such speed, the local people did not resist and instead embraced the Muslim liberators that brought positive change in all aspects of their lives, whether they decided to convert or keep their own belief system.
For example the Judeo-Christian population of Syria preferred Muslim rule to that of the Christian Byzantine empire. Seeing this phenomenon occuring all throughout the Muslims territories is what made some medieval jurists argue that the Islamic System is a much better one than any man-made law as it opposed oppression. The purpose of waging Islamic war, became in their eyes to spread the sharia, which includes laws accomodating non-Muslim communities.
This supremacist view of the Islamic system is what made Ibn Khaldun argue that Islam had to ultimately spread globally, even by coercion. Throughout time, dominant powers viewed and still do, their societal order as superior, seeking to spread it by all means so as to safeguard their geopolitical interests. It is to be noted that Ibn khaldun maintained that warfare is intrinsic to human history, since immemorial times. He did not argue that cessation of warfare was something unthinkable to Islam. Prior to ibn Khaldun, other Muslim scholars the likes of al-Turtushi described wars as “social anomalies”. Al-Hasan ibn ‛Abd Allah compared wars “to diseases of society”. The vast majority of Muslim scholars past and present, view war as a necessary remedy against aggression. Going back to ibn Rushd/Averoes, he reported the controversies of his time as to whether an enemy should be killed because of his hostility or solely for his religious difference and refusal to accept Islam.
As one goes through the various legal opinions of the Muslim scholars throughout time and up until the modern era, what transpires is that their understanding of what is required of the Quran and the prophet in terms of warfare reflects the political and ideological environements in which they formulated their ideas.
But the historical facts are clear; none of the wars in the times of the prophet and the early caliphs were done against a people solely because of their religious differences. The massive, but progressive conversions, as will be shown later, could by no means be due to the fear of being enslaved by the Arab Muslims during the early Islamic conquests. Otherwise, we should expect many people to have renounced Islam following the military and political decline of Muslim power in the world.
The fulgurant expansion of the Muslim empire and Islam itself as a religion, a mere century following the prophet's death, from modern-day Spain in the west to India in the east, the vast numbers of conquered people that eventually converted to Islam in the process has confounded observers for centuries, more particularily European Christendom. Islam, to these people was an inferior religion. The myth of forced conversions meant avoiding the difficult idea that Islam was the true religion and that God was on the side of the Muslims. The earliest Christian polemics against Islam cleverly twisted the idea. The Muslim invaders were indeed divinely sent, but not for their own righteousness, rather as a rod of punishment against sinful Christians and their leaders. John bar Penkaye writes in the 680s
"We should not think of their advent (of the sons of Hagar) as something ordinary, but as due to divine working:" When these people came, at God's command, and took over as it were both kingdoms ... , God put victory into their hands in such a way that the words written concerning them might be fulfilled, namely: "One man chased a thousand and two men routed ten thousand" (Deut32). How otherwise could naked men riding without armour or shield have been able to win, apart from divine aid, God having called them from the ends of the earth so as to destroy by them "a sinful kingdom" (Amos9) and to bring low through them the proud spirit of the Persians?"
Similarily to other 7th century texts, the Chronicler of Khuzistan says that
"the victory of the sons of Ishmael who subdued and enslaved these two strong empires was from God".
Ironically in the Chronicle of Fredegar, the Muslims are "the sword of God". One overarching theme in 7th-8th century polemics against Islam is Christian crisis of faith and fear of apostasy. Christians of all spheres of life were rejecting their religion and converting Islam. We read in an apocalypse of the early 8th century
"many people who were members of the church will deny the true faith of the Christians, along with the holy cross and the awesome Mysteries, without being subjected to any compulsion, lashing or blows".
The same is bitterly confirmed by a monk in Mesopotamia, in the Zuqnin Chronicle
"For without blows or torture they slid down in great eagerness toward denial. Forming groups of twenty, thirty and a hundred men, two and three hundred, without any kind of compulsion to this, they went down to Harran to the governors and became Muslims (mhaggnn) So acted numerous people from the regions of Edessa, Harran, Telia, Resh'aina, Dara, Nisibis, Shengar and Callinicum, and from these places both error and the devil gained immeasurable strength among them".
Until now, western scholars and historians are making blunt observations such as "the success of the conquests is virtually beyond plausible historical explanation" (Webb) or "the dynamism of Islam’s expansion defies explanation in ordinary human terms" (Donner) or that we should “dissuade historians from striving vainly to explain the almost inexplicable in normal historical terms” (James Howard-Johnston). Christians also projected onto this phenomenon their own experience of ruthless conquests, looting, destructions and forced conversion and so Islam became a religion “spread by the sword”.
This medieval myth, picked up in the late 19th- early 20th centuries by Orientalist like William Muir, many actually being colonial officials and/or active Christian missionaries that benefited from the vilification of Islam to non-Muslim audiences, is a myth that finds echo in today's Islamophobia industry. Muslim behavior is presented as the latest episode of Islam being spread “by the sword".
Seeing a big part of the Muslim conquests assimilating Christian territories and peoples, this spiritual, political, social, economic defeat resonated hard in the heart of the Christian elites, and still does today. As they tried throughout the centuries to roll back that humiliation through military and spiritual warfare, they only gained success in the former. Christianity, to Muslims, from the scholar to the layman, boiled down to worshiping a human being and God dying, both non appealing alternatives to the instinctive, natural, reasonable message of Islam. As time passed, Christian missionary strategy changed, from comforting the emotionally unstable in the name of the loving God of the Bible, to giving up mentioning Christianity alltogether; Islam is the religion of the devil and its prophet an anti-christ. If Christians cant have Muslims entering their fold, having them at the very least rejecting Islam is a satisfactory alternative. The reality of the matter however is that even if that strategy is far more successful in making Muslims abandon their religion instead of preaching Christianity directly, the desired results remain poor. The demographics remain from the short to long term heavily in favor of Islam, due firstly to Christianity dying out in the hearts, minds, practices of their societies, but also because the little number of apostates impressed by that demonizing effort, is offset by a radicalising effect; when insulted to his core, ancestral beliefs, the natural reaction of even the least traditional will be spiritual and intellectual "self-defence", seeking deeper knowledge and strengthening of his religious identity. That missionary tactic is also very unpopular among the Christian public, repulsed by the highly antagonizing rhetoric and painted as the aggressing party. Such Christians very often begin investigating Islam and end up finding it appealing. These factors, and others, pile up. The return on investment for those types of missionaries is negative if one weights the time, money, but especially emotional and spiritual degradation for having to dwell in dark pursuits. The best course of actions to the missionaries of that trend is to work on the betterment of their own souls first and foremost, then to strengthen their own communities' loss of faith in their ancestral beliefs.
As to Muslim interaction with the conquered peoples, there have been of course certain instances in history of Muslims disregarding Islamic teachings and behaving cruelly toward non-Muslims, including cases of forced conversion. Allthough the state and church sanctioned evil throughout Christian history, ie the background of the very people levelling these claims so as to demonize Islam, make these cases pale in comparison. This method of cherry picking incidents and leaping to the broad-sweeping, reductionist conclusion that Islam was “spread by the sword” is intellectually dishonest and doesnt stand the test of scrutiny. Practically, such a phenomenal endeavor would have been impossible to achieve for the Muslim conquerers.
During the early Muslim conquests, Muslims were a small minority in newly-conquered areas, around 10% in Egypt or 20% in Iraq. That is why for at least two centuries the majority of the inhabitants of the Islamic empire were non-Muslims. The regions conquered up to a century after the prophet didnt become majoritarily Muslims until 850-1050. For example although Iran was entirely under Muslim dominion in 705, its Muslim population hadnt reached 50% prior to the mid 9th century, then 75% a century later. One of the reasons for that miserable failure of Islam's "spreading by the sword" was that Muslim rulers actually preferred collecting Jizya which they could use at their discretion, than zakat which, although higher, had to be redistributed locally in the provinces and could only be used in certain ways.
To corroborate, the Umayyad general al Hakami was removed from his post because of having prevented the local population of Khurasan from converting to Islam so that he could keep on collecting jizya. There were other such cases such as the Abasside general ibn Kawus who forbade Muslim proselytizing in his jurisdiction.
As stated above there were certainly cases of forced conversions, but these were far more nuanced than the willfully misleading “spread-by-the-sword” narrative makes it seem. The first case mostly picked up by the misleaders is that of south Asia. The notion of millions of Indians forcefully converted is bellied on several levels. Firstly, Islam counted much more adherents in the Indian areas where the Islamic state had less power, than in the heartland of India where Muslim control and dominion was strongest (70-90% in Punjab and Bengal vs 10-15% in the Gangetic Plain). Those who level that charge of forced Indian conversions mostly base their accusations on ambiguous reports from historical sources the likes of “They submitted to Islam” for example. This could refer to Islam the religion, the Muslim state, or the “army of Islam” and a contextual reading usually supports one of the latter two interpretations.
The devshirme system in the Ottoman empire, which consisted in systematically taking young Christian boys, raising them as Muslims then training them to serve in the empire’s bureaucracy or in the sultan’s personal military force, cannot be considered a valid argument for the spread by the sword theory. The system, although obviously condemnable and without any basis in the Quran nor the practices of the prophet, actually many times benefited the religious minorities of the empire from whence these boys were taken, giving them access to high government positions. An example is that of Sokullu Mehmet Pasha, a Slav from Bosnia who rose through the bureaucracy to become the empire’s grand vizier, a position from which he was able to support Bosnia’s Christian community, though he himself remained Muslim.
Another case of forced conversion in Islamic history is that of Yemen's Orphans’ Decree issued by Imam Yahya al-Mutawakkil in the early 20th century. Again, a fringe phenomenon, without any basis in Islam but rather a Zaydi law requiring the forcible conversion of orphaned Jewish children to Islam. However what transpires from history is that, al-Mutawakkil, who was more interested in asserting his authority by adopting his subjects' customs, applied the rule selectively. In many cases he helped Jewish children escape Yemen to avoid conversions. Seeing this, the guardians of many Jewish children actually fled to Imam Yahya’s jurisdiction rather than from it.
In short this islamophobic boogeyman of "spread by the sword" theory has no legs to stand on and the reality of the matter is that theologically, Islam either explained away by the strength of its arguments, or absorbed the other religions and competing theologies about God, consolidating all into one coherent monotheistic worldview. This was the power of Islam which gave it great intellectual appeal: its ability to satisfy all the existential questions about God and creation, a message of profound substance that remained flexible enough that it would remain forever relevant, and never become obsolete.
As rightly stated by the British historian Hugh Kennedy
"Islam did not spread by the sword but without the sword it would not have spread".
This distinction between the spread of the Muslim empire and the Muslim religion highlights the fact that, as with many new things, whether abstract or concrete, Islam as a religion spread as it engaged with the conquered people. This interraction played out differently throughout the empire, and beyond the empire, including one of, or a combination of factors such as trade, intermarriages, the general appearance of success and prestige of the Muslim conquerors, the appeal of the Islamic social system, local charismatic converts, migrations.
There is no basis for the caliphate with an ideology for territorial expansion in either the Quran or in prophetic traditions. These wars did not happen under the prophet's authority. Neither the prophet nor the Quran approve of unprovoked aggression. The life and wars of the prophet testify to this.
"`Abdullah bin `Umar came to us and we hoped that he would narrate to us a good Hadith. But before we asked him, a man got up and said to him, "O Abu `Abdur-Rahman! Narrate to us about the battles during the time of the afflictions, as Allah says:-- 'And fight them until there is no more afflictions (i.e. no more worshipping of others besides Allah).'" (2.193) Ibn `Umar said (to the man), "Do you know what is meant by afflictions? Let your mother bereave you! Muhammad used to fight against the pagans, for a Muslim was put to trial in his religion (The pagans will either kill him or chain him as a captive). His fighting was not like your fighting which is carried on for the sake of ruling".
During the Prophet's lifetime, while the Quran was being revealed, no act of hostility was initiated by him against an enemy because of his religion. For instance, the Jews of Qaynuqa fought alongside Muslim ranks after Badr, a Jewish Rabbi fought and called upon his fellow Jews to fight alongside the Prophet against the Quraysh at Uhud, even many idolaters fought on the Prophet's side at Hunayn and al-Ta’if. The confusion about the tradition of war in Islam arises from the fact that the decision to join in these wars was given religious justification. However, the Quran does so because it is a God-given right that mankind should be free to worship Him in security. Confusion is also due to the Muslims's enemies being identified by their religious beliefs in relation to Islam; kuffar, mushrikun and ahl al-kitab.
There is no compulsion in religion, and until the end of days, ironically the same day which, those who deceptively level these false accusations against the prophet, think that all races and nations will be forcefully bowing to their God Zech14.
The notion of divinely sanctioned conquests and subjugation, decimation of foreign population is purely a Judeo-Christian one. In the HB and as corroborated by Jesus in the NT when he said to abide by it to the minute details, several types of wars are promulgated. There is the compulsory command/mitzva among the 613 revealed at Sinai, binding on Jews of all times to destroy Amalek's seed Deut25:19 without showing any pity whenever the opportunity is there, and exterminate the remaining Canaanite nations from the land of Israel whenever any of them or their descendants are identified Deut20:16. This is a timeless ordinance, as already said, part of the 613 binding commandments, and is thus an explicit order to genetically exterminate a certain people. Every command within the Torah is understood as eternally binding and those that are inapplicable today due to the absence of a Temple will be reinstated in the utopian messianic era, where every nation will be forcefully subdued to the Jewish God. The eternally binding command to blot out Amalek's seed and other Canaanites, if one fails acting upon this law anytime a descendant of such tribes is genetically identified, then one becomes subject to divine anger as what happened to king Saul 1Sam28:18,1Chr10. Saul suffered a violent and dishonourable death. His household was decimated at the hands of the Philistines who also dispossessed his community. The same happened prior to the entire Israelite community that was sent for a 40 years desert wandering for their refusal to engage the promised land's natives in battle.
Along with those known, compulsory genocidal warfare as described earlier, during which no atrocities towards men, women, children, cattle and plants may be spared, there are laws relating to optional warfare, for the sole purpose of Israel's "national glory" as labelled by their rabbis. In such cases any random nation the Israelites arbitrarily choose, and set themselves out to conquer can either be "peacefully" submitted, resulting in the enslavement and taxation of its population, or in case of their rejection of the "peace offer", a military subjugation resulting with the execution of all adult males, the capture as spoils of war of their women, children, and livestock
Deut20:10-14"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby".
In addition, should it be necessary to completely subdue that nation
2Kings3:19"you shall fell every good tree, and you shall stop up all springs of water, and you shall clutter every good field with stones".
In the land of Canaan, those natives that werent driven out or exterminated as per the Torah's injunctions during the invasion, were subdued into slavery Josh17:13. Their descendants suffered the same fate under Solomon's rule 1Kings9:20-1. After all and as stated in both the HB and the Talmudic writings, the purpose of creation and the reason why the heavens and earth are maintained is for the chosen race to observe Torah.
All these citations werent made to disparage the Bible, rather at pointing what would have been the outcome had the Quran been the product of human base desires, whims, greed and lust. The fact is the Ishmaelites went through almost identical situations as the Israelites in their confrontations with opposing tribes and nations, and yet we do not find anything remotely similar in terms of abuse and excess as is seen throughout the Hebrew writings, and by the hands of true prophets of God.
It is to be further noted that the Quran does allude to some episodes where the Israelites were confronted to, or were about to engage the Canaanites. Everytime, it refrains from mentioning the shocking acts which the Israelites have committed. The Quran could have used these incidents as divinely sanctioned precedents allowing unrestricted bloodshed and abuses. Yet we keep on reading in the context of warfare, verses stressing self-restraint in retaliation, or the non-materialistic goals of fighting in Allah's way.
In the ancient world, populations were most often scattered in clusters of clans and small villages with a main town close by. When warners were sent, they concentrated their efforts in the mother town so as to reach the surrounding populations more effectively 28:59. When time came for the final message to be sent to mankind, Arabia was most suited to be the place from whence the final expression of the truth would emanate from. It enjoyed a central geostrategic position with regard to the known world at that time. It had been surrounded for long by a belt of ancient civilizations; the Egyptian civilization in the west, the Phoenicians and Assyrians in the north, the Babylonians, Persians and the Indus Valley civilizations in the north-east and east. Further in that direction laid the Chinese civilization. Arabia in ancient times was thus very much in the middle of the then “civilized” world.
Only in that obscure and unbothered land of Arabia could a new state-community with a fresh ideology arise and establish itself, before the intervention of the neighboring superpowers. At the time of Islam's advent, they were the Christian Roman empire of Heraclius I and the Zoroastrian Persian empire of Chosroe II.
In 1350, the estimated population of the earth was 370 million. We are now in the 7 billion, meaning the dramatic growth of mankind has essentially occurred 600 plus years after the death of the Prophet. 4 billion+ of that population exists in Asia alone, meaning right by the Middle East. The major influx of the population of humanity has been in contact with the Abrahamic movement since the time of the Prophet and even before, through the Israelites. Through these growing demographics and population movements, Africa and Europe were also exposed, with South America coming fourth when its population started swelling in the 1500s through European influx.
So when it comes to being a region to remind men of the final reckoning there can be no better place than the Middle East.
Interestingly, when the first human civilization appeared, God sent in it His first messenger with a global mission. Mesopotamia, the nation from which Abraham came, is really considered one of, if not the first civilization of mankind and the Hammurabi codes, which is considered the first real legal document, arose from this nation.
The point is, when civilization reached a stage where it was set to become a global culture, the prophetic mission turned global. This is why Abraham became the spiritual imam for all of humanity 2:124. The prophetic mission then took on a collective capacity with the Israelites first and, after their divine destruction and removal from the covenant, the Ishmaelites took on this mission. This is precisely why, when Abraham fulfilled the vision of sacrifice, God promised to bless his descendants as nations.
The language itself of Arabia was most suited for the transmission of the Quranic message
12:2,41:3,26:191-196"The Faithful Spirit has descended with it, Upon your heart that you may be of the warners. In plain Arabic language. And most surely the same is in the scriptures of the ancients".
Past Revelations sent to different locations and cultures always conformed to the language of the primary addressees
41:44,43:3,14:4"And We did not send any messenger but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly"
Ezek3:4-5"And He said to me; "Son of man, go, come to the house of Israel and speak to them with My words. For it is not to a people of an unfathomable language and a heavy tongue that you are sent, [but] to the house of Israel".
Every messenger only spoke to his people with their own language, not a foreign one otherwise they might misunderstand
"so that he might explain to them clearly".
This doesnt exclude that the messenger might speak the language of another people or that he might be sent to a foreign nation. This was Yunus/Jonah's case, an Israelite who went to the neighboring Assyrian kingdom as very briefly related in Jonah1-4 but also prophecied among his own people 2Kings14:25.
The Quran doesnt say the knowledge of Arabic is a prerequisite to understand it. It says it had to be sent in Arabic because its primary addressees spoke Arabic 26:198-9,42:7,41:44. A non-Arab approaching the Quran in another language than Arabic is perfectly able to understand it, depending on the quality of the translation. The one approaching the Arabic text obviously needs to master Arabic to understand it and translate it. He must be careful in his choice of words so as to try and catch a succinctly as possible the semantic nuances of a word without upsetting any theological concept. This is no different for a Biblical scholar mastering the intricacies of Greek to aid a study of the Septuagint or learning Latin to grasp later Latin vulgates. Revelation is not the prerogative of any race, culture or language.
All languages are a blessing from God and He has dispersed His creation throughout the planet by equipping them with the use of varying tongues 30:22. The Quran appeals in most of its themes to human emotions because it is the most universal of languages. One of the main reasons the Quran has such an appeal across linguistic, cultural, and temporal divides precisely is because it conveys its message in a way that people can relate to on a basic, universal level. Its message resonates in the emotions and inner genetic spiritual fabric of mankind and that is why it keeps making sense to people from so many different cultures, across time. Translation captures the WHAT but not the HOW of a statement. It may give a sense of what is being said but not how the Speaker conveyed the speech. And it is precisely the eloquence of the Quran that mostly impacted the Arabs. This aspect will forever remain lost in translation, locked in the original language.
Besides the language, there are other things people need to become acquainted with when approaching any ancient writing, so as to avoid any misunderstandings and be able to appreciate the intent behind the words and references. The Quran for instance uses references relevant to the people of the location in which it was revealed. These references might not be necessarily known or experienced by all people of the world but their implicit meanings can still be appreciated if one studies how the primary addressees experienced these references.
For example sometimes in the context of provoking gratefulness, it turns the attention to the availability of all kinds of fruits. The ones it names were typically appreciated by the Arabs of the Hijaz, like olives, dates and grapes 16:11. A foreign reader, as he gets acquainted with the culture of those first addressed by the Quran, can still appreciate the verse's portents by transposing his own taste of fruits with their tastes. There are several other examples, as in 16:81 saying how garments may be used to protect from the heat, and this is because the verse's primary addressees were desert dwellers.
The description again, is not absolute; it doesnt mean garments cannot be used for warmth, since the Arabs also experienced the harsh cold of the night and used these garments for warmth.
As regards the Arabic language, it had several advantages as opposed to the dominant languages of commerce and intellectual discourse of the time; Latin, Greek, Persian, Hebrew. These were so interwoven as media for the communication of various thought systems that they became unsuitable for the transmission of Islamic concepts. The Abrahamic legacy prior to Islam was polluted by the integration of such languages in the course of its transmission. Only a language free from false theological notions could bring back the Abrahamic legacy to its original intent. It is known and argued by the masters of the language since al Farabi that the Qurayshi dialect, due to its centralizing position in Arabia, had reached the peak of eloquence by acquiring the best of other tribes' speech patterns and poems. The Quraysh used to deny the inclusion into their dialect, of expressions found among tribes bordering non-Arabic lands. Arabic in the time of the prophet counted many dialects, with the most dominant being his own language, that of the Quraysh. The Quran states about itself, over and over that it is in a clear Arabic language, devoid of any crookedness. It does not specify which Arabic. A study clearly reveals that it possesses mainly the features of the Qurayshi dialect, in addition to several others spoken in the Hijaz and Najd. It is this characteristic, the fact that it was expressed in the centralizing dialect of the most influencing tribe, but allowed enough flexibility so as to integrate other dialects, that made the Quran understandable to all tribes; clear Arabic.
The Arabic of the Quraysh in particular had developed to such a level that it could transmit any verbalized message, no matter how abstract the idea.
The Quran therefore was in no need to borrow any word or concept to convey any of its themes. That notion is in fact rejected, when it points in derogatory manner to the foreign tongue of one man who was at some point suspected of being the prophet's teacher 16:103. Not only was the accusation faulty from a linguistic perspective, his foreign tongue could never have inspired the matchless Arabic of the Quran, which the Arab masters of the language themselves recognized could not equal in eloquence, but was also faulty from a deeper cultural and theological viewpoint. None of the words and concepts conveyed in the Quran can be said to have been influenced by the ideological currents of the region. Even the foreign theologies and philosophies to the Arabs, those now deemed closest to Islam and that penetrated deep inside the peninsula, from Judaism's monolatry to Christianity's dying god incarnate, have no effect from near or far, to any of the tenets of the Quran.
Also, the accusation as quoted in the Quran is that this foreign person was actively interacting with the prophet, communicating and teaching him yet he was a non Arabic speaker so how could the two have such elaborate exchanges, in addition without ever being noticed? The Quran answers that accusation in a very appropriate way; given that the person they were pointing to spoke unintelligibly (aajami is used buy the Arabs for a language they could not understand) how could the prophet learn any of the stories found in the Quran from him, then reproduce that information accurately in a language they can understand? It is the same as saying that Einstein heard a toddler explaining the theory of relativity, then reproduced that information correctly in a language any physicist would recognize. This calumny was not grounded in any reality, like many other contradictory claims the prophet's opponents used in order to tarnish his well established integrity, in the same manner as prophets before him were unjustly targeted.
This is one of the Quranic axioms regarding the concept Heavenly rewards, including mating; the carnal, physical dimension and the spiritual will be linked in a most perfect way. No aspect of the human being will be left unfulfilled.
All aspects of life which the righteous denied or limited for him/herself out of fear of God and obedience to His comandements will be experienced in the hereafter with an unimaginable intensity, from a physical and spiritual aspect and without the negative, worldly side.
The successful in the Hereafter will be granted all their wishes and beyond, but the Quran sometimes chooses to specify some of those rewards in order to parallel the worldly sacrifices of the pious with the corresponding compensation of the next world.
Whether in the Quran or the HB, humans will be resurrected bodily to experience their blissful reward. It would be a useless concept even from a biblical perspective, should the reward of the hereafter only be of a spiritual nature. This means humans will never cease being humans in the world to come. If that is the case then no human, besides those influenced by the writings of the Greeks and who view the body as the enemy of the spirit (pauline christians) will deny the legitimate pleasures of the flesh, including sex.
For example those whose most prominent aspect of their spirituality was dreading the day of resurrection, will be free from any distress and worry when they are raised, while those who piously gave up from their resources for the sake of the needy will find abundant luxury from their Sustainer.
Those who suffered rejection and ostracism, hardships and even sometimes life threatening sacrifices due their uprightness and desire to be near unto God in this life, will be drawn near to their Lord in the Hereafter in full security and glory. They will in addition be raised as the greatest kings, dressed and served accordingly. The Quran in 18:28 as well as other places mentions the social ostracism and taunting the mainly poor followers of the prophet had to endure from the elite. Besides outright mocking his humble assemblies, they boasted of their worldly achievements as indicators of them being divinely approved 19:73,77. This attitude, present in mankind since immemorial times and prevalent even in our days, is personified in the Quran with Qaarun, and others too 28:79-83. They are heedless of the fact that countless people each mightier that the other were brought low and severely chastized in this life 30:7-10. These social elites would sometimes ask the prophet to send his humble assemblies away if he desired they sit with him to learn about the message.
Consequently the Quran vindicates those that were looked down upon, describing how in the Hereafter honor will only be theirs, adorned with the attires of the greatest rulers and raised on thrones above lush gardens 18:31,22:23,35:33,76:20-1 receiving gifts surpassing what they wish for due to them compromising in this world their own desires for the sake of the needy 50:35.
They will be made to inherit the land; a metonym often used to illustrate their just honoring. God's bounties were made available to all in this world as a matter of testing our conduct and morals, not as a means of honoring us, but in the Hereafter where that testing is over and only the successful will enjoy themselves and will be elevated, every benefit imaginable will only belong to the righteous believers 7:32,21:105,39:73-4,43:35.
In a realm of continuous inner and outward peace, sense of spiritual fulfillement due to nearness to God, as well as first hand experience of all higher realities that have now finally been unveiled, the meritorious will rightfully enjoy all material benefits, without envy or discrimination, nor ever compromising their spirituality.
Another example of heavenly compensation for worldly sacrifices is that of wine, one of life's pleasures which the believer denied himself in obedience to God. He will find it in paradise without any of its negative aspects, along with many other pleasurable drinks 56:18-19. In fact all enjoyments of paradise, in whatever quantity but only of the best quality, will be free from harm, disease or discomfort as is encountered in this world, unrestricted by any natural or unnatural factor and not requiring any toil to be obtained or appreciated 13:35,15:48,44:55,56:32-33.
From the righteous male viewpoint, the woman with whom he will be coupled, though incredibly beautiful, will have an equally beautiful character, morals and spirituality. Sexual desires and thoughts are, for males, the most important urges they must learn to channel within the religious legal limits in this world. The Quran's injunctions on that matter repeatedly come in the context of success in the hereafter. Sexuality within the permissible limits is such an important notion, that it is repeatedly tied to the most basic requirements of the religion, like the daily prayers 23:1-6.
Consequently to the righteous' self-control in this life, lowering his gaze, refusing to transgress and yield to temptation 24:30, he will be satisfied in the most fulfilling way in paradise. This includes not only physical satisfaction with the opposite gender, but emotional as well. This is an objective right and natural demand of justice. He will be coupled with a mate whose moral uprightness will be corresponding to his. Humans wont cease being humans in paradise. Their physical and spiritual enhancement will lead to equally enhanced physical and spiritual enjoyments.
As to the righteous women, although females do have of course sexual urges which they need to control in this life and keep within the legal limits 24:31, these desires are not as overwhelmingly present and challenging to their daily, worldly, spirituality as they are with males. It just is a biological, mental and spiritual reality, so much so that the background of many criminal cases involving men are sexually motivated, whether consciously or subconsciously. The Quran therefore does not speak of this aspect of the heavenly reward of righteous females although it never is denied.
The Quran enforces, time and again the fact that all paradise dwellers, males or females, will find a just and corresponding reward, all that their hearts desire, and much more that cannot be described since entirely outside any human experience. There shall be no excess nor shortfall between the shares of the women and those of the men, in quantity or quality
3:195"I will not waste the work of a worker among you, whether male or female, the one of you being from the other".
This verse as a side note was revealed prior to the one in sura ahzaab which allegedly came to reassure the person that came to the prophet asking him about the heavenly reward of women 33:35. It is very common in commentaries and ahadith to associate a verse with a real situation and make it seem that the revelation of the verse came in answer to it. Although verses did many times come in specific circumstances, at other times it is the assumption of the reporter, and is in fact an occasion of recitation rather than revelation. It is even clearer in this case, as the traditions report a similar occasion where someone approached the prophet with the same question about the reward of women, he then stood at the pulpit and recited 33:35. There are even earlier Meccan verses stressing the indiscriminate reward of heaven, including 40:40,43:70 or
16:97"Whoever does righteousness, whether male or female, while he is a believer - We will surely cause him to live a good life, and We will surely give them their reward [in the Hereafter] according to the best of what they used to do".
Not every new convert was directly aware of all the intricacies of the Quran, hence their questioning of the prophet despite the presence of these verses. What is interesting is that not one Quranic verse uses the female gender in connection to the punishments of Hell, yet it is understood that, far from being favoritism towards women, the use of the male gender is only by way of representation of the whole of humanity. The axiom of gender equality in heavenly reward is well established, and whenever some of these rewards are gender specific, it is because it is addressing a male audience, not because the said reward is denied to women.
That being said, the idea of a woman having multiple husbands is not something sought after by women in general. So while it is appealing, as well as morally, religiously allowed for a man in this world to have multiple wives, it is not the case for women. The idea is distorted and sinful. It would be rejected by the vast majority of women even if given the freedom to choose. Hence the description of women in heaven as
55:56"women limiting [their] glances, untouched before them by man or jinni".
Morally reprehensible, sinful and unappealing things will not become acceptable in heaven. The multiplicity of husbands to a woman in paradise is thus excluded. This does not negate complete emotional, spiritual, physical satisfaction with her unique husband in heaven.
The Quran therefore does not speak of every kind of heavenly rewards, but rather gives a preview, a glimpse of the main areas that will naturally, as a demand of justice, intensely be experienced by the righteous who in this life preserved him/herself from transgression. These main areas being; honor, materialism, and sex.
The Arabs during the rise of Islam lived their life preoccupied with these 3 main things, having little to no regard to spirituality in the process. Little has changed since then, especially in our times. The message of the Quran as it addressed those Arabs, and humanity at large through them, is that these pursuits are perfectly legitimate, but that they should not be sought according to one's whims. God did not create man in a material world, with physical and mental senses while expecting him to refuse himself the appeal of these senses. Rather God, Who is the provider of these enjoyments and the Maker of our senses, wants mankind to seek those pleasures in God-consciousness. If one is able to live his/her life in the pursuit of these things while remaining within God's limits, then, regardless if one is successful or not in achieving them in this world, one will surely experience them in an exponential, unfathomable manner in the hereafter.
Although Heaven is undoubtedly the place where all the desires of the righteous are granted, contrary to the dwellers of hell to whom
34:54"a barrier shall be placed between them and that which they desire",
and the only kind of toil they will experience will be one that gives pleasure 16:31,36:55-7 it is also the place where the righteous' earthly traits of nobility and satisfaction through spirituality will be even more prominent; they firstly humbly acknowledge that the abundant reward is because of Allah's grace, not simply on account of their deeds 35:35. They will love it most to sing hymns of praise to Allah and glorify His name just as they did in this world. They will wish eachother peace 10:10 in a place where there will be no room for vain, idle or mean talk, only peaceful intentions 19:62. So upright and spiritually aware the dweller of heaven is, that the Quran pictures a persecuted believer exclaiming, upon his entry in heaven, his wish that his nation could know God's mercy and forgiveness to him, instead of expressing his satisfaction for having ended up "victorious" or simply stating his overwhelming excitement at his own reward. The dwellers of heaven will thus be free from any ill feelings towards anyone, whether their brethren of paradise or the people who made them suffer while on earth. They will be content and appeased in the best way
89:27"O soul that are at rest, Return to your Lord, well pleased with Him, well pleasing Him. So enter among My servants, and enter into My garden".
This state of spiritual purity will make any ill or evil intention useless to them. They will never entertain the idea of desiring something inappropriate towards anyone, anything, or their God. What they will like is what will be pleasing to their appeased souls and this pleasure will always be linked to the pleasure of God.
Just as there are higher places above higher places, in this Garden that is as large as the heavens and earth 3:133,57:21 there will be Gardens beyond Gardens 55:46,62 (two beyond two just like the "two" gardens of Sheba does not mean that there were only two gardens in the whole country, but that the entire land was like a garden and wherever a man stood, he could see a garden on his right and a garden on his left 34:15-7) thus conveying once more the idea of infinity in connection with the concept of paradise, and the fact it is beyond perception
85:11"they shall have gardens beneath which rivers flow".
In contrast, hell is a place of tightness and pressure, of layers of fire above and below its dwellers who in addition are chained together 25:13,39:16,7:41,29:55. Chaining is mentioned in the Quran opposite the tyrannical nations that oppressed and chained the weak
88:25-6"On that day, none will punish as He punishes, and none will bind with chains as He binds".
Despite its vastness, pictured as asking for more and more to be hurled into it, it keeps its dwellers constricted in a narrow space within it, in the manner of a large wall where there are many points of place for a great deal of nails, but every nail is in pressure.
An interesting linguistic nuance used in the Quran to illustrate the vastness and abundance experienced in Paradise is that at the time of stating the bounties of the people of Heaven, it does not precede the statement with the particle min/of, which denotes a portion of something. But it uses the particle in the next sentence when describing Hell's chastisement 34:4-5. This is in line with God's repeated just and merciful reckoning, inflicting a precise, limited and corresponding punishment while rewarding with boundless mercy.
But in spite of this boundless vastness, a person can buy paradise with finite actions like the often reiterated principle of "selling" this worldly life for God's sake. Once they reach heaven, the righteous will understand how its sustenance for example has similarities with what they knew on earth but is really different 2:25 so when the Quran speaks of certain earthly fruits being in heaven 55:68 it is to give us an idea through something we can relate to, of what lies in store. This reveals, once again, the principle that this universe, all of it, is in fact a "teaser" of the hereafter, giving humans a glimpse of things pleasant or not, which will be experienced in the world to come.
Just as the righteous who sacrificed many aspects of worldly pleasures to live within the limits God has prescribed, and will be correspondingly compensated in the Hereafter, the reverse is the case of those who in this life lived in the greedy pursuit of riches, using and abusing from all material benefits without any higher perspective in mind.
As they freely ate and drank the unlawfully acquired or the religiously forbidden food and drinks, they will find themselves eating fire and other harmful, unwholesome food and drinks in the Hereafter 4:10,47:15,18:29,14:16,38:57,55:44,88:5. The Quran compares them in this worldly life to cattle, enjoying food and drink while in the process devoid of the higher realities in mind. For this reason, the equivalent of these worldly foods, drinks, and means of comfort will be found but with a mirror opposite effect 56:41-72,77:29-32. The believers on the other hand enjoyed each pleasure of this life, including one of the most prominent being food and drink, in God-consciousness, which includes in consideration of the needy and within the limits set by God, as well as gratefulness. They are thus awarded that human delight with the best food and drink in abundance and unrestrictedly
47:12-15"Indeed, Allah will admit those who have believed and done righteous deeds to gardens beneath which rivers flow, but those who disbelieve enjoy themselves and eat as grazing livestock eat, and the Fire will be a residence for them. Is the description of Paradise, which the righteous are promised, wherein are rivers of water unaltered, rivers of milk the taste of which never changes, rivers of wine delicious to those who drink, and rivers of purified honey, in which they will have from all [kinds of] fruits and forgiveness from their Lord, like [that of] those who abide eternally in the Fire and are given to drink scalding water that will sever their intestines?".
As they misused their garments, which are otherwise supposed to provide spiritual and physical protection, to corrupt the minds, or as symbols of their tyrannical authority, they will find themselves covered with clothing of liquid pitch 14:50.
Similarly, those that unlawfully and ungratefully took advantage of the abundance of sustenance and security will find themselves confronted to hunger and fear to such an extent that it would be as if these 2 conditions are covering them like garments 16:112. Those that only considered worldly pursuits in heedlessness of the Hereafter, neglecting their spiritual relationship with God, will find themselves despised and rejected, distanced from God's mercy 17:18,23:66,83:15,20:126,11:99. Those that prevented people from hearkening God's words and distorted divine truths will not hear God's pleasant words in the next world 2:174.
There are many other descriptions the Quran gives of how the worldly response that humans give to God's bounties, which are nothing but testing devices, manifest in the world to come.
