Acts17apologetics find inconsistencies; Muhammad compromises message to win converts?

In answer to the video "Paul Won Converts Through Peaceful Preaching; Muhammad Used Bribes and Threats (PvM 17)"

The Quran relates how the prophet's opponents among the pagans and the People of the Book did everything to make him compromise his revealed principles with theirs, forge verses or deliberately corrupt them but the message was divinely protected from the interference of the evil ones -men and jinn- from its descent from heaven all the way to its uttering by the prophet who was repeatedly warned 2:145,10:37,42:15 and never allowed to yield one bit to them despite the hardships he and his followers suffered. Like the prophets of old, who despite the pressure to alter the divine messages and make them more appealing he answered

2:120,10:15,13:37,17:75,68:9,69:44-7,40:66"Say: I am forbidden to serve those whom you call upon besides Allah when clear arguments have come to me from my Lord, and I am commanded that I should submit to the Lord of the worlds".

As reflected is sura qalam, which is among the earliest Meccan suras, pressure was already being imposed on the prophet at the onset of his mission to change and compromise his message. It is to be noted, when the Noble Book unapologeticaly warns its messenger in the context of temptation to yield to his opponents, these frequently seen conditional statements do not mean that the prophet was actually tempted in doing so. There are many implicit meanings to these warnings, including that regarding the obligation to abide by the divine law/sharia, there is no difference between a prophet and a regular believer.

The second thing is that, seeing that the prophet is warned, how much more should they be careful of their responsibilities in upholding the principles of this revelation. And finally, seeing and hearing that the messenger is in no position to change anything in Allah's ordinances, the enemies should know that it would be fruitless to even think of approaching him with such objective.

When the prophet Micaiah the son of Imlah was under the same kind of pressure, he answered, knowing the dangerous repercussions of refusing to yield to the rejecters

1Kings22:14"As the Lord lives, for what the Lord will say to me, that will I speak".

The prophet Isaiah was equally warned not to yield to the disbelievers' requests Isa8:11 who, unhappy with his strong warnings and admonitions, would openly demand that he should forsake the straight path, the true God and give them false prophecies

Isa30:10-11"You shall not prophesy for us true things. Speak to us with smooth talk; prophesy mockery". 

The prophet's opponents practiced deception upon him, and tempted him with greed, held out threats, and raised a storm of false propaganda against him, and persecuted him and applied economic pressure and social boycott against him. Yet the prophet did not compromise an iota of what was revealed to him, even in the direst Meccan period. Although he did experience fear at the consequences, never did he withhold a word that needed to be uttered in the face of his opponents, so as to soften their stance. Even when his uncle and protector Abu Talib was pressured by a Meccan delegation to withdraw his tribal protection of Muhammad and the Muslims, he firmly replied: 

"0 my uncle, if they placed the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left hand to cause me to renounce my task, verily I would not desist therefrom until Allah made manifest His cause or I perished in the attempt". 

The prophet then turned to depart until Abu Talib called him back 

"Say whatever you please; for by the Lord I shall not desert you ever".  

It is to be stressed that the prophet took this stance when his uncle, his last resort, seemed on the verge of letting him down. This attitude, besides the established reputation he had as a man of great integrity by his friends and foes, before and after the revelation, confirm the testimony of God Himself about His chosen one 

68:4"And indeed, you are of a great moral character".

The Quran also presents situations where the prophet is showing fear in communicating certain revelations to his people 5:67,33:37 fearing their reaction, judgements or tauntings but the Quran would compel him to keep transmitting what he is receiving, not to ever

11:12"give up part of what is revealed to you"

showing how he wasnt acting according to his whims

2:120"If you (Muhammad) give in to their whims and desires despite the knowledge that has reached you, you will have no protector or helper against Allah". 

In short, they did all that could be done to defeat his resolve. But just as he repeatedly, from the onset of his mission, rejected any compromise in religion, even less with the basic concept of monotheism 10:104. Since the earliest Meccan verses, he was admonished to distance himself from all rijz/filth 74:5. The mufassirun have included all kind of spiritual evils under that term, idolatry, sinfulness, impurity etc. The wording here does imply a previous tendency or involvement in those evils. The wording here does not imply a previous tendency or involvement in those evils. It assumes a scenario so as to enforce the point that everyone is liable to punishment for transgression 

10:106"And do not invoke besides Allah that which neither benefits you nor harms you, for if you did, then indeed you would be of the wrongdoers".

The conditional form of the second part of the verse shows that the premise is a warning, not an accusation. 

There are many such statements where the prophet is urged to stay away from someone or something that is against the truth revealed to him 26:113,28-86-8 or to behave in a certain way that is upright 

33:1"O Prophet, fear Allah and do not obey the disbelievers and the hypocrites. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise. And follow that which is revealed to you from your Lord. Indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted". 

Their hopes of finding common ground between Islam and their ancestral beliefs which they showed they werent truly attached to and were ready to compromise so long as their worldly interests were preserved, was definitely shattered with the very first word of sura kafirun 

"Say: O kafirun". 

That simple word "qul/say" unambiguously showed them that what the prophet was presenting, his answer to their offers, wasnt his that he would be in a position to negotiate; a third party was sending a message through him and, contrary to them, was so firm in his position that a forceful announcement of dissociation had to be made. That opening word reveals another important point, the sending authority wants to make a strong, unforgiving statement and is pushing the messenger to communicate it despite his often described soft character, gentleness and even sometimes reluctance to transmit a particular message, as described in the Quran.

The second verse elaborates 

109:2"I do not serve that which you serve". 

It follows by refuting any possibility of amalgamating Islam's monotheism with the polytheism of its addressees 

"Nor will you worship that which I worship". 

The next verse increases the intensity of the declaration of acquittal as it shows that the prophet never even considered worshiping their idols before his prophetic call so how could they imagine he would make any compromise with them now that he has received the Quran 

"Nor did I worshiped that which you worshipped". 

This is thus the monotheistic pattern of the prophet, his constancy that began before his call. He had dissociated himself from all practices linked to polytheism, and was wandering in search of guidance as to how to properly worship the One Creator. 

Muhammad was always troubled by witnessing the bestial behavior, the families who viewed a firstborn daughter as a disgrace and would burry her alive among other savage practices and the polytheism of the idol worshipers. The Quran pictures an intense scene on the day of Resurrection, where the parents responsible of such horrendous act would be so contemptible in God's sight that they would not be addressed regarding the killing of their infant. So undeserving are they of being directly spoken to that God will turn to the victim, the one without a voice in this world and even if she had one would not be heard, and ask her if there exists any minutest fault for which she might have deserved to be murdered in that way 81:8-9. In their savagery, short mindedness and lack of God-consciousness they would sometimes not even spare their sons, for fear of poverty and lack of sustenance 6:151. It is to be noted that this abhorrent practice has perdured throughout time, and in a more widespread fashion in the form of abortion, most often for the same kinds of reasons. Fear of being able to sustain a child, in any aspect, can never be a reason for taking away his right to live 17:31. Sustenance at its source, does not reach anyone but by God's leave. 

The temptations of Mecca had no power over the disciplined soul of Muhammad whose prime concern was contemplation. He did not like to frequent the Meccan social gatherings and activities. Sometimes when overcome by the pain of such sights, he would retire for meditation in a small cave known as Hira on the Mountain of Nur two miles from Mecca, he would fast and spend long hours in contemplation far from vice, immorality and idol worship. The cave is an extremely isolated small crevasse high in a mountain which even those passing very near to it, if they ever ventured at that desolate, rocky and hardly accessible place, would not notice. Only those who have been there can understand its remoteness and isolation. It is as if the prophet was drawn to this place, suitable for a spiritual retreat.
Muhammad was taking a different direction than his people, advancing on his path of evolution and spiritual perfection, although being totally unaware of the requirements of the true faith, solely relying on his innate moral uprightness with which every human being is born and which compelled him at most to be repulsed by the ungodly habits and rituals around him and at least to never participate in their practices. For example he is said to have been keen to avoid the idols placed at Safa and Marwah while making runs between those places. 

The report by abd al Mundhir, a known falsifier and fabricator of traditions unanimously rejected as unreliable stating the prophet once sacrificed an offering to an idol prior to his prophethood has been discarded by all hadith scholars. 

Such was the situation of the hanif remnants among the Arabs, those that tried maintaining the legacy of Ibrahim, retiring away from their community, to the desert, a cave or against the walls of the very house built by their forefathers Ibrahim and Ismail whom they constantly remembered, searching and wondering about the original and complete manner in which they should worship the Almighty but that was now almost entirely lost and forgotten.  

The ingrained guidance which Allah has equipped all mankind with, although allowing the possibility of avoiding the great moral harms and reasonably coming to believe in the most basic tenets of correct faith (monotheism and herefafter), it cannot explain the complete and exact requirements of the Creator whom the upright person is convinced of. Despite his awareness in those fundamental principles, the person therefore remains lost and ineffective in his search for an explicit guidance to know his obligations, how he should discharge them, how he should direct all possible aspects of his life in total subservience to God. Such person remains wandering in perplexity in search of the truth until he is shown the ultimate and precise manner in which his Creator is to be served 

12:3,42:52,93:6-7"Did He not find you an orphan and gave you shelter? And found you lost and guided you?". 

It is important to note here it doesnt speak of being lost from the straight path. One can be on the straight path all the while yearning and unsuccessfully looking for the best and ultimate way to progress on it, until it is shown explicitly. The difference between a prophet and philosopher is that the former, after seclusion and deep insight gets the truth and wisdom from God whereas the latter arrives to a glimpse of it or sometimes falls short of it by himself. Consequently, we find that the books of ancient philosophers, and of those that developed their theories after them, could not stand the test of subsequent criticism, resulting either in exposing flaws or entirely discrediting their lines of thought. As to the branch of philosophy that claims to investigate the realm of metaphysics through rational thought, the Quran categorically denies these attempts since it states that the concepts of God, Hereafter and revelation are parts of the knowledge of the unseen/ghayb, meaning beyond the reach of human perception. That knowledge is only imparted through revelation and thus all true metaphysical endeavors depend on it. Although the Quran continuously encourages humanity to inquire into and reflect upon the visible world to acquire knowledge, and understand through it the rational need for the resurrection, judgement and hereafter, in the case of knowledge of the unseen, it aims to guide the individuals during that process 

96:4-5"He taught mankind that which they did not know". 

Any philosophy that is not guided is in great error when dealing with the metaphysical realm, a realm transcending our sense-experience, making its direct intuition or experience impossible. 

That condition the prophet was in, of seclusion and desperate seeking of the truth, as well as God's remedies to his concerns, inner questions and difficulties, is captured in sura duha and sharh. So, just as God, in answer to Ibrahim and Ismail's prayers, showed them the manner in which they and those after them should engage in worshipping Him 2:124-131, as was done to Adam who was taught the manner in which to invoke God and seek forgiveness 2:37,7:23,20:122 God showed the true rituals to Muhammad in answer to his spiritual quest, restoring them to their true form and purpose after they had been disfigured with time. There is a lesson of humility, for a servant to reverently ask his master for the best way to please him, as Ibrahim asked his Lord, and to not be self-conceited in thinking that one knows best how to outwardly behave when addressing the Lord of creation just as one wouldnt disrespect the basic conduct to have when facing a mere worldly ruler. The form of a ritual is just as important as the sincerity in its execution.

In the musnad we read of a neighbor overhearing a conversation that occurred between the prophet, prior to his call, and Khadija at their home 

"wallaahu laa a'budu allaat wal uzza walaahu laa a'budu abadan" 

"I dont worship al-laat and al-uzza and i will never worship them". 

This could have only happened when they had just been married. Had the prophet been a worshipper of the idols prior to his call or during his marriage for some time, he would have had to provide some explanation for his sudden change of attitude, yet we read Khadija respecting his position without showing any sign of surprise 

"leave that al-laat, leave that al-uzz".

Acts17apologetics find compromising clue; Muhammad instructs fighting until they convert?

In answer to the video "Paul Won Converts Through Peaceful Preaching; Muhammad Used Bribes and Threats (PvM 17)"

This hadith comes back many times in anti Muslim circles, passed around like a hot potato. A little background check will clarify the issue. The background is actually 9:5, another favorite of anti Muslim critics. As the surrounding verses make it clear 9:5 is speaking of those who repeatedly broke the contracts, despite the Muslims keeping their engagements, attacked the Muslims first.

These people, the Muslims should remain extremely cautious with. The Believers are required to put their trust in God and negotiate with them regardless of their treacherous history if they show an inclination towards peace 8:61-62, but at the same time should not hesitate to cancel the agreements in case they fear treachery on their part. But this must only be done openly and publicly so as to avoid any misunderstanding on the state of war between the parties 8:58, just as was done with the very first verse of sura tawba where a declaration of immunity and dissociation is made with the treaty breakers.

Then the Muslims should prepare themselves for every eventual threat from within and outside the community 8:60. The Muslims should only stop fighting these treaty violators under 2 conditions:

- The first condition is if they clearly become Muslims by praying regularly and pay the poor rate. This is the only guarantee Muslims have against being attacked by a people provably inclined to backstabbing and breaking of oaths

4:91"You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority".

It is in such background that one should read the often misused report in which the prophet says

"I have been commanded to fight the idolators (Other versions "the people") until they bear witness to La ilaha illallah (there is none worthy of worship except Allah) and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. If they bear witness to La ilaha illallah and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger, and they pray as we pray and face our Qiblah, and eat our slaughtered animals, then their blood and wealth becomes forbidden to us except for a right that is due, and they will have the same rights and obligations as the Muslims".

What is translated as to fight/uqaatil implies fighting opposite an initial attack, as is clear from the context of 9:5. Also, the more complete hadith further portrays the prophet quoting

88:22"Therefore do remind, for you are only a reminder. You are not a watcher over them".

This, in addition to the known proper context of the report, decisively shows there can be no compulsion in religion, as explicitly stated in the Quran in many places. As commented by ibn Taymiya

"what is meant here: Fighting the fighters of those that Allah made permissible to fight, and not those under the treaty and were loyal to Allah".

No forced conversions occured at the conquest of Mecca and sura 88, which is quoted by the prophet in relation to his statement in the hadith, is unanimously believed to have been revealed in Mecca.

- The second condition is if they do not become Muslims but they stop their persecution then

2:193"there should be no hostility except against the oppressors".

That is because

8:38"if they desist, that which is past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the ancients has already passed".

These 2 important point show that 9:5 does not say to fight these hostile idolaters until they become Muslims since an idolater who stops fighting is left to go freely to his homeland 9:6, but until they refrain from their hostile attitude of which a conversion to Islam and the strict and public adherance to each of its ordinances would be a guarantee.

One last time, not all idolaters were fought until they became Muslims, only those that were untrustworthy to be left based on a verbal agreement.

Acts17apologetics find war ethics; jihad has rules and limits?

In answer to the video "Paul Won Converts Through Peaceful Preaching; Muhammad Used Bribes and Threats (PvM 17)"

Even though the object of the enemies of Islam when they take on arms and engage Muslims in war is to exterminate them entirely, the Muslims are told that the Divine object in assisting the believers in punishing the disbelievers at war is not to exterminate them, but to deliver a blow that would deter them from continuous agression 3:127. They are therefore told to fight only the people who attack them

60:9"those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion".

Defensive warfare cannot be predicated on personal whims or desires. War ethics also include not fighting near the Kaaba except if initially attacked. If the enemy desists from deliberate aggression then fighting must stop. This in turn indicates that there should be no rancor against the enemy when they correct themselves or even when they end the hostility. 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.

Fighting cannot be directed at those

60:8"who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes..show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice".

Al-Tabari states that this applies to people of “all ways of life and religions". Nothing abrogates this principle. This is because being friendly and lenient with non-Muslims does not contradict severing ties with those same ones and even fighting them if it is to establish justice and claim one's rights. The Arabic birr/compassion is the same one the Quran uses when instructing Muslims on how to treat their own parents 17:23-4. Others towards whom defensive jihad cannot be directed are those who come in peace without any desire to fight 4:90. Not all of Islam's opponents are alike, some do not strive actively for the extermination of Muslims and should therefore not be fought in the same way as one would engage an armed enemy. They, as well as others could have been deliberately misinformed and are thus given the benefit of the doubt

60:7"It may be that Allah will bring about friendship between you and those whom you hold to be your enemies among them; and Allah is Powerful; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful".  

We see how the Quran engages the issue of warfare in the most sublime and pragmatic of ways. The very foundations of the divine law, as taught by all Prophets, is the establishment of justice and to argue a person has no right to seek his rights is an absolute wrong. The Quran has taught the best attitude, and that is to forgive and continue calling people to right and goodness, even if the people try and persecute another but when the persecution becomes unbearable and life threatening, hindering one from religious freedom then retaliation is permitted, but never above and beyond what a person has himself received.

Acts17apologetics travel in time; what happens to the deserters and cowards?

In answer to the video "Paul Won Converts Through Peaceful Preaching; Muhammad Used Bribes and Threats (PvM 17)"

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.

Acts17apologetics are no warriors; establishing God's will by force?

In answer to the video "Paul Won Converts Through Peaceful Preaching; Muhammad Used Bribes and Threats (PvM 17)"

As shown earlier, the philosophy of armed struggle/jihad as a form of divine punishment is confined to the prophetic era during which a previously warned nation is to be destroyed. 

The 2nd type of jihad is the establishment of the will of God on a specific land (Canaan in the times of Moses, Mecca in the times of Muhammad). It is enforced by a prophet, and his followers makes sure that the new order established is maintained for that land.

Outside these 2 scenarios, the 3rd and last context to which armed jihad is applicable, is in self-defence, when war is waged against a Muslim community solely for its religion. This type of armed struggle covers the prophetic era and beyond. In that context, if their opponents engage them in battle they will be defeated, provided their objective purely is the end to religious persecution. This was Allah's way before

48:22-23"Such has been the course of Allah that has indeed run before, and you shall not find a change in Allah´s course". 

It is to be noted that even the most zealous proponents of Jihad as the struggle to spread Islam to all the world, including nations that do not pose an explicit threat to the Islamic mainland, still maintain that this form of struggle aims at removing all obstacles a human being may face in his freedom to choose Islam or not. If a nation opposes the objective presentation of Islam to its people, so that they may freely choose to adopt or reject it, then an armed struggle by the Islamic state against that oppressive nation is justified. Once the Islamic state is established, then its citizen are free to choose between Islam and payment of zakat, or their own religion and payment of jizya. We thus see that even this view of jihad contains the element of self-defence as well as freedom of religious expression, in accordance with the Quranic axiom of no compulsion in religion. Another thing to note is that this interpretation of Jihad basically is what the western "civilized" world has been doing throughout history, whether the imperialists, christian colonizers, communists or democrats. Contrary to the Islamic model, the invaded people are not given the choice on whether to choose the new system or not, except for the "democratic" invasions to some extent.

God gives glad tidings of success 24:55 in this armed struggle. It is a great test of resolve and faith 9:14,16. 2:153-157 was specifically revealed to prepare the believers for the trials they would have to bear for having chosent he path of truth. They are told to remain firm in their faith so as to find the inner strength to bear that burden, because their opponents will not give up. They have realized that to stop Islam's spread they had to annihilate the Muslims themselves. The verses indicate that the great trial is near, it mentions martyrdom in the way of Allah, and praising it, saying that it is not a death, it is life. It lays great emphasizis on the virtue of "sabr" which is one of the most praiseworthy characteristics of the believer.

2:190-5 allowed retaliation for the first time 

"And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you" 

the root qaf-t-l means to kill. But used in the form qaatilu entails interaction, killing opposite killing or killing against killing. Literally speaking it should be rendered "engage in killing opposite killing" and because of a lack of non-Arabic word conveying that sense, the interactive word "fight" has been preferred and used by both Muslim and non Muslim translators, in all instances where the same form is used. In 9:111 for example, the consequence of qaatilu/"engage in killing opposite killing" either results in killing the opposite party, or being killed and that is because there is a clear will to kill from the opposite side. When the original order to qaatilu was issued in 2:190, it came with 2 important messages:
- do it against those who yuqaatilunakum
- do not transgress the limits when applying the command to qaatilu

What constitutes transgression in that context? To apply the command of qaatilu in a different way than prescribed in the verse, ie against people other than those who "yuqaatilunakum".
This again, not only agrees with what was said about the verb being interactive in nature, as attested by its usage and the dictionaries stating that the word is used "in a context of a counter-effort to kill", but also with the Quran's overall message, which is to live at peace with anyone, Muslim or else, that does not aggress the Muslims unjustly, and defend against those that engage in hostilities without any reason other than hatred for the religion.

The ethics of war as laid down in the verse is to remain within the bounds of 

"and do not exceed the limit. Verily, Allah loves not those who exceed the limit". 

This principle applies to 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. At that point it became inevitable that the early persecuted Muslims should fight in self-defense or they would be destroyed. It is the natural right of all Muslims and every human being to

26:227"defend themselves after they are oppressed".

The divinely sanctioned right, throughout the ages and nations, of jihad in self defense has a clear objective. It isnt for any material gain or territorial expansion, but to dispel mischief, and corruption/fasad on the earth and stop religious oppression 

2:251,22:40,3:167"Come, fight in the way of Allah or [at least] defend".

It is inadmissible that man be prevented from choosing or practicing Islam due to pressure and fear. In such a society, war is justified until one is free to choose or reject Islam 

2:256"There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error". 

This shows that under no circumstances should be forced in spiritual matters, whether it is to accept or reject Islam. 

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. God commands to fight for justice. Any other reason to fight is oppression and fighting

"in the way of the devil" 4:76.

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

"I asked the Prophet 'Which deed is loved most by Allah?" He replied, 'To offer prayers at their early (very first) stated times.' " `Abdullah asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" The Prophet said, "To be good and dutiful to one's parents," `Abdullah asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" The Prophet said, "To participate in Jihad for Allah's Cause." `Abdullah added, "The Prophet narrated to me these three things, and if I had asked more, he would have told me more".

However those among the volontaries going to such extent in their selfless sacrifice that they are martyred, the prophetic sayings describe them as meriting the highest reward. Wordly gains certainly follow as a collateral result of wars, and although are certainly the just compensation of those sacrificing their wealth and resources on the way, the Quran stresses that these wordly gains must never be the motive. In a hadith the prophet even answered about someone fighting in God's cause but also seeking material reward, that in the herafter "He would receive no reward" (sunan Abu Dawud).

The Prophet's conflict with his tribe was not because of any worldly reason; it was only for the freedom to practice the religion of God 4:74,94 in the place originally dedicated for it. The Quraysh had to fulfill their obligations towards the Kaaba because they were its custodians. If they were not ready for this, then they had no right to keep it in their custody nor did they have any right to prevent people from returning to the pure Arbrahamic legacy through intimidations, or stopping others from worshiping on a land settled for that purpose since the days of Ibrahim 22:25-9.

This was Allah's way before in regards to Canaan, even prior to the Israelites settling in it, when its natives progressively abandonned the ways of righteousness, despite knowing it, perverted it beyond recognition Gen15:16,Deut9,1Sam4:7. The Israelites were sent in precisely to purge the sacred land from its unworthy custodians. When the prophetic warnings materialized upon the Quraysh and their grip on the lives and freedom of the people was loosened, then the people hastened to accept Islam in multitudes now that they were suddenly afforded with the liberty to choose their own religion. 110:2 predicted this reality long before the conquest of Mecca

"And you see men embrace the religion of God in multitudes",

and this was through the guidance of the Heavenly Book that transcended all obstacles to give life to the spiritually dead 6:122.

Acts17apologetics start connecting the dots; divinely sanctioned wars?

In answer to the video "Paul Won Converts Through Peaceful Preaching; Muhammad Used Bribes and Threats (PvM 17)"

As regards implementing the divine will by the sword, the Quran retells the stories of past nations who were ordained, against a mightier ennemy and with God's help, to uproot unrighteousness and establish the will of God in a specific land.
Such was the case with the Israelites back in the times of Moses. They had to cleanse the blessed land of Canaan from its unrighteous dwellers, and the same command was issued to Saul/Talut and David 2:246-252, then finally the Ishmaelites.

Under the Ishmaelite prophet and just as was commanded to the previous semitic prophets, Muslims had to purge the ancient temple of monotheism in Mecca from its unworthy guardians who had swayed into the ways of polytheism

22:40-1"Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And had there not been Allah's repelling some people by others, certainly there would have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which Allah´s name is much remembered; and surely Allah will help him who helps His cause; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty. Those who, should We establish them in the land, will keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and enjoin good and forbid evil; and Allah´s is the end of affairs".

So just as Muhammad and the Children of Ishmael were commanded, Allah previously ordered in the days of Moses and the prophets of the children of Israel to fight in His way, see Deut1:41,Deut7,9:4-6,12:1-3,20:16-18 and allthroughout Deuteronomy. The Israelites are commanded to cleanse the land from idolatry, destroying all altars and not leaving a physical trace of idolatrous practices. All subsequent Israelite prophets were to purge all remaining traces of idolatry and evil from the land, by the sword without holding back whether it involves killing Jews or non Jews as prophecised in Isa1:25. In the HB, we read that God's established way of erradicating idolatry is so forecful that He sometimes even tasks non-Jews to do the job when the Israelites failed Jer48:10. This happened when the Chaldeans were sent to destroy the Moabites

"Cursed be he who performs the Lord's work deceitfully, and cursed be he who withholds his sword from blood"

or again when the Assyrians of Sennacherib were raised by God so as to destroy, exil and enslave the idolatrous Kingdom of Israel Amos6:11-14. This reoccured with the Babylonians of Nebuchadnezzar whom God calls His servant for performing His will, sent firstly to inflict massacre upon the Israelites for their repeated transgressions, and then upon those Ammonites and Edomites that occupied the holy lands and reintroduced idolatry in it Jer25:9,49:19.

Later on it would be the non-Jew Cyrus, king of Persia who would be divinely aroused and commanded to wage war against the Babylonians until their defeat, expulsion from the holy land and the return of the Jews to Israel so as to re-establish monotheism in it Jer50:14-21,51:1,53. 

The same semitic pattern of prophethood is thus found in regards to Muhammad, the Ishmaelites and the Kaaba. God does not and never did tolerate the presence of idolatry in a land declared sacred and dedicated to monotheism. So God tasked His prophet with re-establishing the monotheistic practice at the Kaaba, and should his opponents try fighting and exiling him and his followers, they will consequently be uprooted from the land they had complete dominion over 17:76-7. It was not the prophet's job to relocate the uninvited idols of the Kaaba, especially after years of warning those that put them there, against their corrupt practices, and the impending forceful expulsion.

The Quran addresses the Arabs in no uncertain terms and in a time where none would have imagined for such an outcome to materialize, telling them that the result of their rejection will be similar to the peoples of the Messengers of old such as Noah, Hud, Lot, Shuayb, Salih, Moses etc. Just as these people were judged on a lower but nonetheless terryfing scale for rejecting God's communications, a day will come where God's judgement will be even greater 69:1-12.

The Quran places Muhammad and his followers right inside that pattern since the very beginning of the prophetic mission. It would remind them of this reality and comfort them by saying this Law of God will never change. The rejecters are not denying the messenger, the individual; they are denying the Lord of the Universe

6:33-4"We know indeed that what they say certainly grieves you, but surely they do not call you a liar; but the unjust deny the communications of Allah. And certainly messengers before you were rejected, but they were patient on being rejected and persecuted until Our help came to them; and there is none to change the words of Allah, and certainly there has come to you some information about the messengers".

But a prophet's function isnt to bring God's retribution, rather to create spiritual reform before a day comes where no reform will be possible. The prophecies of destruction are warnings that can be undone depending on the people's answer. A prophetic warning is not irreversible. The Quran gives the example of the nation of the prophet Yunus/Jonas to demonstrate that reality. They reformed themselves prior to the expiration of their time of respite and thus the prophecies of destruction were nullified.

A prophet thus, first and foremost conveys clear warnings. The Quran would call this step a verbal jihad 25:52 because it was so hard and dangerous for the messenger and his early followers.
Once all the stages of warning and thorough explanation of the truth pass, as the era of calls to reform reaches its end and the prophetic warnings are about to unfold, the prophet must declare his unambiguous aqcuital from the rejecters. This was emphatically done in sura Kafirun by the prophet towards the enemies among the Quraysh.

The label of "kafirun" at this specific time of the prophetic mission makes it now clear that no reform will come from the addressees, that their continuous animosity and opposition to a messenger of God and the arguments sent with him, after long years of admonition was not really due to the attachement and respect, as they claimed, to their ancestral ways. Only their desires and wordly interests that had shaped their religion was what stood in the way. Many verses reveal how little consideration they had for their inherited ways. They were ready to bargain and compromise their system so long as their wordly interests were preserved. They suggested that for them to embrace faith then the only possible option was to either bring another Quran or to make some changes in it which would be acceptable to them

68:9"They wish that you should be pliant so they (too) would be pliant"  

17:73"And surely they had purposed to turn you away from that which We have revealed to you, that you should forge against Us other than that, and then they would certainly have taken you for a friend"  

10:15"those who hope not for Our meeting say: Bring a Quran other than this or change it".

The prophet was divinely protected and firmly established in his faith 17:74, to face these moral challenges

10:104"If you are in doubt as to my religion, then (know that) I do not worship those whom you worship other than Allah! But I worship Allah Who causes you to die and I have been commanded that I should be of the believers".

Acts17apologetics will not fight for money; War spoils true reason for Jihad?

In answer to the video "Paul Won Converts Through Peaceful Preaching; Muhammad Used Bribes and Threats (PvM 17)"

The prophet Muhammad fought wars for 3 reasons, first to fend off opression, second to establish God's will on a nation of rejecters and 3rd to remove the unworthy custodians of the Kaaba. This is jihad in all its scopes.

To understand the concept of physical struggle/jihad, we have to analyze the context of its use in the times of the last prophet and before.

It is the unalterable law of God that when He sends a messenger in a people, these particular people are left with no option, but to hearken His warnings and calls during an interval of time whose expiry can not be hastened nor delayed except by Allah 15:5,16:61,53:58. Allah states about this period that

His messengers show the community, starting from the leaders in mischief greatly responsible for the general moral degradation of their people down to the poorest and most insignificant elements of the community 17:16,73:11 the signs of the truth in the heavens and earth, as well as in their own deepest selves 41:53,51:27 to the point that the people must recognize it and mend their evil ways. During that process, they are seized with affliction or tried with a sign from God when they reject the messenger 11:52-60,64-68 sent to them in order to humble themselves and mend their ways 7:94.

They are urged to reason and ask for God's forgiveness lest the fate of past sinful nations each greater than other in might 43:8, befalls them. They all received God's messengers with the bayinat ie the undeniable evidence, but on account of persistent rejection, were all uprooted by a grasp so encompassing and violent that it is pictured as beginning from their foundations up

16:26,40:22,18:55,22:42-8"And if they reject you, then already before you did the people of Nuh and Ad and Samood reject (prophets). And the people of Ibrahim and the people of Lut, As well as those of Madyan and Musa (too) was rejected, but I gave respite to the unbelievers, then did I overtake them, so how (severe) was My disapproval. So how many a town did We destroy while it was unjust, so it was fallen down upon its roofs, and (how many a) deserted well and palace raised high. Have they not travelled in the land so that they should have hearts with which to understand, or ears with which to hear? For surely it is not the eyes that are blind, but blind are the hearts which are in the breasts. And they ask you to hasten on the punishment, and Allah will by no means fail in His promise, and surely a day with your Lord is as a thousand years of what you number. And how many a town to which I gave respite while it was unjust, then I overtook it, and to Me is the return".

Mankind is continuously encouraged to research and analyse the history of past nations, unavoidably seeing in it the divine pattern. History is the only extensive evidential base for the contemplation and analysis of how societies function. Proper contemplation of that evidence leads to moral reform, providing a background for one to test his own moral sense against that of individuals and societies of the past when faced with similar situations. The past causes the present, and so the future.

This shows that even in this life, the Creator's relationship with man is not merely based on the physical law, as with other creatures devoid of moral accountability and freewill. The moral law is working side by side with it. Sometimes that higher reality is clearer than at other times, and the clearest manifestation of it is during the times of the prophets. Past nations to whom messengers were sent become means by which the evidence for the hereafter is presented. If moral acts have results in this world, and these results never manifest fully in the world, then it necessitates that another world must exist where the consequences of sin and righteousness will fully appear.

Some of these nations completely mend their ways during their time of respite and prior to their annihilation by Divine affliction, as happenned in the prophet Jonas' lifetime during which they all believed 10:98"When they believed, We removed from them the chastisement of disgrace in this world's life and We gave them provision till a time". If they dont and in addition try uprooting or killing the messengers sent to them with the undeniable bayinat, continuously oppose them and conspire against them to prevent the establishement of the way of God 42:13 then those pinpointed as the guilty ones by the prophets 44:22 in these nations will incure Divine affliction. They may be put to the sword by the believers themselves as in Moses and Muhammad's time, or completely annihilated by natural cataclysms. At other times God might send a powerful ennemy to bring destruction as happened to the Israelites that rejected Jesus, or they are subjugated to the followers of the messengers for generations to come. Concerning this reality, the Psalmist states Ps46:9"Go and see the works of the Lord, that He has wrought devastation in the earth". Allah in the Quran alludes to all these potential outcomes, including the one that will be inflicted upon the rejecters of the prophet Muhammad, similarly to what He had decreed in the times of Moses 6:65-7"Say: "He has the power that He should send on you a chastisement from above you or from beneath your feet, or that He should throw you into confusion, (making you) of different parties; and make some of you taste the fighting of others." See how repeatedly We display the signs that they may understand. And your people call it a lie and it is the very truth. Say: "I am not placed in charge of you." For every prophecy is a term and you will come to know (it)".

Acts17apologetics are offended; Islam allows sex with married captives?

In answer to the video "Paul Won Converts Through Peaceful Preaching; Muhammad Used Bribes and Threats (PvM 17)"

4:23-24 expands on the categories of women that are illegal for intimate relations however it makes an exception for already married Ma Malakat aymanikum. In case a married woman embraces Islam and then decides to desert her non-Muslim husband (only for the sake of her new faith) seeking shelter in a Muslim area. If after examination she is believed to be sincere in her faith then she cannot be turned back to her previous home, not only for safety reasons but also because -in the case her husband is an idolator- her new faith has made unlawful intermarriages with idolaters 2:221. 

A Muslim man may take her under his wing in his household, thus making her his mulk yamin. They become legal for eachother and if they wish to marry, they may only do so after payment of the dower to her initial husband thus definitely annulling the previous marriage ties 60:10. Notice here the justice in the Quran where it first encourages Muslims to pay what is due to the opposite party with whom one is at war, regardless of potentially these enemies not reciprocating with the Muslims in the same situation. 60:11 then discusses that eventuality and says that should it occur, then for the next cases, a disbelieving husband will only be compensated proportionally to what his predecessor unfairly compensated the Muslim camp. By first encouraging indiscriminate justice, and then justice by deterrence, the Quran skilfully equalizes the balance of justice even in times of war.

The other case of a married woman becoming lawful to a Muslim is that of a former married war prisoner. Once the threat of war was over, the defeated enemy and their belongings brought at the battlefield were confiscated, including their women which per their customs they used to unjustly drag with them as a means by which they were emboldened to fight. They now fell under Muslim custody, as a punishment and lesson to those who do not value their own, including a lesson to these very women.

When they were integrated into the fabric of society, taken in a Muslim household and made to benefit from the strict regulations as regards right hand possessions, which includes being kind and caring with them as one would be with the remaining members of the family, these women learned that Islam gave them, even in such conditions, a value they could never have hoped for in their own communities. Their surviving husbands that in fact do not deserve to be married to them in the first place, are only hurt in their male "pride". They didnt love these women, who would treat a wife in such way, bring her to the battlefield as a motivation not to surrender? Even then, they learn that wives, and women in general, do have a value seeing how Muslims treat the wives of their enemies. 

There were also cases of wars where Muslims were on the offensive, and after defeating the enemy, seized the property and families of the combatants. When a Muslim guardian takes into his home such women war captives, making them his right hand possessions, their former marriage is dissolved. After a waiting period until one menstrual cycle is cleared, she become sexually lawful to him. This in no way entails forced sex. There are no such recorded cases in history and if anything, whenever a case of mistreated and abused person was brought to the prophet, he condemned such a behavior, especially when the victims were women and slaves. The guardian may in that case either keep her in his household and stop insisting or send her away from his household by ransoming her against benefits of any kinds to her former camp, if anyone among her own people desires taking her back. For example upon the conquest of Khaybar, Safiyya fell under the prophet's possession. He offered her to return to her own people, or be freed and married to him and she chose the latter. The social contract between a guardian and his right hand possession is exclusive to them both, legalizing and regulating sexual activity as would be in a marriage contract and its accompanying responsibilities of maintenance and good treatment.

Acts17apologetics open the book of wars; Hunayn was a to increase riches?

In answer to the video "Paul Won Converts Through Peaceful Preaching; Muhammad Used Bribes and Threats (PvM 17)"

Here are the details of the battle of Hunayn. In 8/630, 15 days after the conquest of Mecca, news came that the tribe of Hawazin allied with that of Thaqif with the purpose of launching a large assault on the Muslims in Mecca.

The Messenger of God then immediately remobilized the 10000 men that had entered Mecca with him, in addition to 2000 men from the new Quraysh converts, including Abu Sufyan. The Hawazin were led by the old Durayd for his wise counseling and the fierce Ibn Awf who was so eager to finish the Muslims that he brought each of his soldier's women, children and wealth to the battle in order to stir them up and never retreat.

The Muslims reached the valley of Hunayn by night where they got ambushed by a surprise attack from Ibn Awf jut before dawn, first with arrows and then with a general charge. Muslims had no choice but retreat and Muhammad moved to the right, protected by 9 horsemen. Ibn Awf rushed to the Prophet killing one of his guards, then spurred his horse on, but it would not advance. Others similarly charged against the prophet, taking advantage of that apparent moment of vulnerability, in order to avenge their past defeats and deaths at the hands of Muslims, but all suffered similar, unexplainable phenomenons. Muhammad then dismounted his mule, prayed Allah to grant him the promised victory and cursed the unbelievers, called back his retreating Companions with the help of Al Abbas' deep, far reaching voice and summoned them to fight.

The Muslims regrouped and took control of the battlefield chasing away their enemies who split into two groups. One went in the direction of Awtas and the other to the stronghold of At-Ta'if where Ibn Awf found refuge and from whence they resumed their military preparations for a future confrontation. Knowing full well their intentions, the prophet postponed their case to another time

9:25-26"Certainly Allah helped you in many battlefields and on the day of Hunain, when your great numbers made you vain, but they availed you nothing and the earth became strait to you notwithstanding its spaciousness, then you turned back retreating. Then Allah sent down His tranquillity upon His Messenger and upon the believers, and sent down hosts which you did not see, and chastised those who disbelieved, and that is the reward of the unbelievers".

The families of the Hawazin, with all their flocks and herds, fell into the hands of the Muslims. Besides the enemy soldiers that were killed, others retreated, leaving them behind at the battlfield. Per the regulations of warfare, these prisoners were now under Muslim authority and could be disposed of in several ways, including their integration in Muslim households. Those that were managed in accordance with that option, were confronted to Muslims who were 

"reluctant to have intercourse/HARAJ with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers". 

What is interpolated as "sexual intercourse" is haraj/unease. In another version it says karah/dislike. And nowhere does the Arabic speak of "the presence" of the polytheist husbands causing that unease, rather it is the fact that they have disbelieving husbands that are still alive, although these husbands had cowardly abandoned them after bringing them at the battlefield. 

This battle occured at an advanced stage in the early history of Islam, after the conquest of Mecca. War prisoners, including women, had already fallen into Muslim hands before. Suras 70:30,23:6 allowing sexual relations with them had already been revealed. There is no issue of shamefulness or lack of justification for having sex with them. But by the time of this battle, Muslims had grown more self-conscious as a community. Having in a Muslim household women still attached to their polytheistic families via their surviving husbands, made the Muslims feel unease towards them. Maybe it would compromise the values that unite them as a community. This is what happened before when the Israelites intermarried with the conquered nations and adopted their pagan ways. 

Under Islam however, there was no risk of such a thing happening; the manner in which these captives had to be treated favoured their acceptance of the new religion and their wilful assimilation in the Islamic society. 4:23-4 came to cancel that unease by the Muslims. It specified, contrary to the general wording of 70:30,23:6 all women lawful for intimacy, including those married captives of war. In theory therefore, Muslims had all the justification to have these captives within the privacy of their homes, and have sexual relation with them if they desired. In practice however something else happened;

The prophet freed his part of the booty, captives and material belongings. He could not compel the Muslims to do the same, but he nevertheless mediated for that outcome. He said

"To me, the most preferable speech is the most honest. So choose one of the two, either the property or the captives.’ ‘"O Messenger of God!’ they replied. ‘As far as we are concerned, if you force us to choose between property and honor, we shall choose honor.’ Or they said, ‘We esteem honor above all else.’ Thus they chose their women and children. Then the Prophet rose to address the Muslims. He first gloried God, as His due, and then proceeded to say: ‘As for the matter at hand, these men, your brethren, have come as Muslims’ – or ‘having surrendered ourselves (mustaslimin)’ – ‘and we have given them a choice between their offspring and their property. They regarded nothing as equal to their honor; this, I have seen it fit for you to return their women and children to them. Whoever wishes to act so magnanimously, let him do so; and whoever wishes to demand compensation for his share so that we may give him a portion of what God has granted us as spoils, let him do so.’ The Muslims answered God’s Messenger: ‘The judgement is good". The Prophet then said, ‘I do not know who has permitted that and who has not so command your leaders to convey this information to us.’ Once the leaders had informed the Messenger of God that the people had acquiesced to the agreement and permitted it, God's messenger returned the women and children to the Hawazin clan. God's messenger also granted to the women whom he had given to several Qureshi men the choice between remaining in the households of these men or returning to their families".

This is an earlier report than the one of al-khudri quoted in ibn Khatir's tafsir, stating that eventually, some were kept as right hand possessions. If one accepts that report as true then it means it was marginal, and only could have happened after some of those women chose to remain among the Muslims. One cannot blame these women nor is it a surprising decision, seeing how their own male relatives, husbands and fathers, had irresponsibly brought them as hostages to the battlefield to galvanize their troops. This showed how little they valued their own 

"When it was the day (of the battle) of Hunain, the tribes of Hawazin and Ghatafan and others, along with their animals and offspring (and wives) came to fight against the Prophet. The Prophet had with him, ten thousand men and some of the Tulaqa. The companions fled, leaving the Prophet alone. The Prophet then made two calls which were clearly distinguished from each other. He turned right and said, "O the group of Ansar!" They said, "Labbaik, O Allah's Messenger! Rejoice, for we are with you!" Then he turned left and said, "O the group of Ansar!" They said, "Labbaik! O Allah's Messenger! Rejoice, for we are with you!" The Prophet at that time, was riding on a white mule; then he dismounted and said, "I am Allah's Slave and His Apostle." The infidels then were defeated". 

The prophet, after defeating them, waited for them on the spot for 10 days, signifying to them that he was willing to negotiate. The Muslims could have left with their defeated enemies' wealth and prisoners as soon as the battle was over. But the leaders of Hawazin expected the unconditional release of their families and belongings, hence the prophet patiently waiting for them to come forth. As time passed and they didnt get what they expected, the leaders among them thought they could succeed otherwise

"When the delegate of Hawazin came to Allah's Messenger declaring their conversion to Islam and asked him to return their properties and captives, Allah's Messenger got up and said to them, "There Is involved in this matter, the people whom you see with me, and the most beloved talk to me, is the true one. So choose one of two alternatives: Either the captives or the properties. I have been waiting for you (i.e. have not distributed the booty)." "Allah's Messenger had delayed the distribution of their booty over ten nights after his return from Ta'if. So when they came to know that Allah's Messenger was not going to return to them but one of the two, they said, "We prefer to have our captives". 

When one's relatives are taken, the natural reaction is to immediately seek to negotiate to secure their release. Especially when the other side manifests willingness for compromise. The Hawazin not only failed in that regard, but even when they did, they still failed prioritizing their families until the prophet left them no choice but one of two options.

The case of such married war captives is discussed in 4:23-4.

This passage speaks of the categories of women that are illegal for intimate relations however it makes an exception for already married Ma Malakat aymanikum/or right hand possessions.

 Furthermore the early scholars, such as al Nawawi, commenting on the hadith of war captives said that sexual relations with polytheistic women were forbidden, and only could happen following their willful conversion, hence the connection with 60:10. 

Acts17apologetics wont be fooled by money; spoils of war a way to win Muslims?

In answer to the video "Paul Won Converts Through Peaceful Preaching; Muhammad Used Bribes and Threats (PvM 17)"

The believers are never once told to go forth to battle because of war booty and in fact the Quran says that only those who sell this world's material life for the hereafter are worthy of fighting in Allah's way for the defense of the helpless 4:74-5. This is particularly pictured through the oath sworn in 100:1-11 and the ungrateful use of resources and possessions for looting, causing chaos, bloodshed and corruption to spread in the earth.

Neither is fighting for the propagation of Islam once mentioned in the whole of the Quran. Prior to his migration to Medina, when he met with the leaders of Aws and the Khazraj, and that they pledged their loyalty to him they asked: 

“Stipulate whatever conditions you wish to make for your Lord and for yourself.” The Prophet said: “For my Lord, I stipulate that you shall worship Him alone and associate no partners with Him. For myself, I make the condition that you shall protect me as you protect yourselves and your property.” They asked: “What shall we get if we fulfil our pledge?” The Prophet answered: “Paradise.” They said: “It is a profitable deal. We accept no going back and we will never go back on it ourselves".

 All the Prophet’s promised them was the afterlife. Nothing more. Although they did ultimately get rewarded with victory, power, unity of the Arabian tribes, prosperity and much more, all these material gains were collateral, to those who sold this life for the next 

"The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr)". 

The prophet once used war booty as an incentive, but only after the war had ended, which means it had nothing to do with being a motive to go to war. It was meant to help the new Meccan converts to feel that they belong to their adoptive community. The prophet, in line with his well known selfless generosity forfeited his entire portion of the war acquisitions and urged the remaining believers to show similar empathy towards the less affluent and the weak among their new brethren in faith so that they see the reality of Islam. Most selflessly did so, those most firm in faith, while others initially grumbled but eventually regretted after the prophet emotionally pleaded with them and so they followed suit

"do you feel anxiety for the things of this world, wherewith I have sought to incline these people unto the faith in which you are already established?"

This happened after the victory of Hunayn. A superficial and prejudiced reading might argue that financial incentive to establish Islam in the hearts of certain people is akin to bribing them. This couldnt be further from truth. The gesture shows them that Islam, the religion that some had newly adopted actually opens the heart of its adherents to benevolence, solidarity and selflessness. Just as they are now benefitting from Muslim empathy, these new converts will eventually be called to display similar empathy towards the less fortunate. Many among them will readily do so, having grasped the message and philosophy of Islam, and adopted the faith so dearly that material riches would pale in significance to their eyes.

It is important noting that even those from the Medina community that had protested the division of spoils in favor of the new converts, they were more concerned that the prophet's heart had swerved for his Meccan ethnic affinity and became detached from his Medinan followers. They werent really worried about sharing from their wealth. But when he emotionally convinced them otherwise, that he would never abandon them, they tearfully joined in the contribution. Another time he used a portion of his own share of the gold acquired in Yemen for similar purposes, not to win over non Muslims but to establish some of them that had already converted, that they might feel considered and supported as full members of their new community. It is to be noted that in the prophetic history, going all the way back to Moses, the HB is replete with examples of promises of worldly blessings in return for obedience, including military victories, conquests and war booty.