Apostate prophet would side with the liars; how did Muslims deal with the people of the book?

In answer to the video "The "No Compulsion in Islam" Lie"

Until 9:29, the sura Tawba prescribed divine punishment upon 3 groups; the hypocrites among the Muslims, the treacherous warmongers among the idolaters, and those idolaters insisting on their pagan practices within the sacred precincts of Mecca. 

No punishement is prescribed on the peaceful idolaters beyond Mecca, as well as those in Mecca that refrain from their rituals at the sacred sites re-dedicated strictly to the Islamic religion. They are to be left unharmed as mentionned earlier.

Nor is there until now any legal directive towards the remaining non-Muslims living under Muslim rule, whether in Mecca or beyond. This included the people of the book (Jews and Christians) or the followers of other belief systems, or even atheists 

9:29"Fight those who believe not in God and nor in the Last Day and nor do they forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden and nor do they follow the religion/DEEN of truth from among the people of the book, till they give the compensation with a willing hand, while they are humble".

This verse, as attested by the prophetic practice, is not restricted to the people of the book. It covers any religion that was and could potentially fall under Muslim rule as a result of provoked warfare. The verse mentions 4 categories;

1- Those who do not believe in God 

2- Those who reject the resurrection 

3- Those who regard as lawful what Allah and the prophet have forbidden. Belief in God and the concept of resurrection leaves one with no other reasonable spiritual choice than to adhere to Islam. Those that make the choice not to, then they are believers in one of the many man made religions that does not forbid what Allah has forbidden through His prophet in the Quran and sunna. Or they might be adherants to a truly revealed religion, such as the Jews and Christians, but reject what Allah and His prophet forbade.

4- Those who do not follow the DEEN of truth from among the people of the book. The root D-Y-N means rule or debt or any obligation. It may be summarized as "system". It is used this way in the Quran 9:36,12:76 classical literature and even in common Arabic speak. Whenever the preposition "mina" is used before a composite entity, or a group, and that this entity is given a qualification, then "mina" carries the meaning of "among", pointing to a portion from among that composite entity 4:46,160,5:5,23,41,57,107,8:65,57:10. Among the Jews and Christians there are those whom the Quran condemns as sinful, unsincere to the truth of their own books. There are others from among them who follow the DEEN of truth. They remained truthful to the scriptures in anyway, shape or form it reached them, trying to follow it to the best of their ability. Their sincerity, unprejudiced, praiseworthy reading and understanding of their books led many of them to eventually believe in the revelation bestowed on the prophet Muhammad 2:121,83,3:113-115,199,4:162,5:13,66,69,83,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4. "The Deen of truth" in that phrase cannot refer to Islam as a religion. One cannot speak of a portion from among the people of the book as being followers of Islam while others reject it.

None of the groups above are to be fought until they become Muslims. Rather until they pay the jizya in submission to the Islamic rule. That subjection is in relation to the Islamic system which they are now bound to, being permanent non Muslim residents under protection of the Muslim state. The majority of Muslim scholars have understood the passage in that way. See for example al-Shafi'i, Al-Umm, Vol. 4, Ahmad Mustafa al-Maraghi's Tafsir Vol. 10 or Fatani, Ikhtilaf al-Darin p48. This is also seen by the fact that the musta'min (a non Muslim temporary resident) is not subjected to the Islamic legal system nor the jizya, according to the Hanafi school. That subjection has thus nothing to do with humiliation, as some have interpreted, and without any evidence in the prophetic practice nor that of the first caliphs. Humiliation does occur however, when those non-Muslim residents of the Islamic state refuse to pay government taxes to the point they have to be forcefully made to. Just as Muslims, shortly after the prophet's death had to be fought, humbled, and forced to pay the government taxes under Abu Bakr's caliphate.

The order to fight therefore isnt motivated by a choice of creed otherwise the mere paying of a tax would not have been enough to end the fighting, rather a forceful conversion would. Yet that option is never proposed in the verse. The only issue for them is explicitly spelled out; Payment of taxes and submission to the laws of the religious state they live in as members of a different religion on whom different rights and obligations apply. The governement has actually more to gain in wealth and manpower if they convert, especially in early times when Muslims were a minority in these newly conquered lands. Yet they are told to keep their religion and autonomy instead.

Converting to Islam, something that isnt incumbent upon them, would end the command to fight them should they insist on not paying the jizya. But they will not escape being fought should they refuse honoring the duties that fall upon them as Muslims, including contributing financially to the functioning of the Islamic state, as well as obligations that did not apply to their former religious communities, like military service. There really is no true incentive for them to leave their religion which is why the option is never proposed in the verse.

The verses that follow illustrate some of the transgressions of the people of the book, and their causes, such as deification of prominent personalities, blind following of their religious leaders etc, while no blame is placed on them for not following Islam. These dark deviations in religion will never extinguish the light of guidance, no matter how much the disbelievers among the people of the book dislike it 9:32. The verse employs the image of a person attempting to extinguish a strong light with a blow from the mouth, to illustrate the relative feebleness of his position.

The passage ends with the reiteration of a prophecy made long before 48:28,61:9 regarding the prevailing of the deen/way of truth sent by the One true God over all other ways no matter how much the polytheists dislike it 9:33. The wording of this verse is very appropriate since it specifically mentions the polytheists, followers of non-divine religions, as disliking the establishment of the deen of truth. The people of the book, sincere to their scriptures as pointed earlier, will not dislike the establishment of a Godly system, since it does not only mean establishing Islam, but also exposing and establishing the truth of their own religion 

5:83"And when they hear what has been revealed to the messenger you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize".

The Jizya is a collective tax, not a head tax. It is imposed on the people of dhimma, the diminutive for dimmat Allah wa rasulih, the protection of God and His messenger. This connection demonstrates the significance of the dhimmis, making them eligible for protection under divine obligation. The prophet applied the command upon Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and according to some scholars like abu Hanifa, the pagans, based on a prophetic saying 

"If they (Arab polytheists) accept the dhimmah contract (aqd al-dhimmah), then inform them that they have the same rights and duties as Muslims". 

The jizya imposed on them is a collective tax because it is agreed upon by mutual consultation, not arbitrarily decided by the Muslim state. Each individual was imposed depending on his financial capacity. The benefits which the government offers in exchange of the due jizya, are matters of communal and national interest - defending the territory from outside aggression, establishing security, maintaining the environment, building infrastructure, etc., not the sort of benefits you can opt out of. The earliest Muslim rulers even appointed a portion of the Muslim zakat to feed the needy among the people of the book, even though they were exempted from paying the jizya. When a Jew came asking the caliph Umar for money, he said 

"go find him and those like him, and give them out of the public treasury". 

It is known that together with the needy, the clergy was also exempted from the tax by the Muslim authorities. And yet they fully benefited from government services, including military protection and infrastructure. These exception to the rule of 9:29 are based upon strong and firm unconditional principles as regards the Muslim duty towards the weak in any society, and the preservation of the worship sites of the people of the book where the name of Allah is mentionned. There is thus a strong Quranic basis for the policy of most Muslim rulers, including as early as the caliph Umar, of being selective in the application of the jizya upon the people of dhimma. 

Even though Jizya it is not a personal head tax, for the sake of argument, one can either pay taxes willingly, or be punished through several forceful means including jail in case of refusal, or leave the country. In a secular state the issue is pretty much the same. Special taxes will apply to alien residents, who in addition to having to compensate the state for providing them with benefits of all kind, must also exempt themselves from the obligations and rights that apply to the citizen of that state (military service, various taxes on salaries, financial regulations etc). Paying that tax will protect them from being pursued and punished by that government. 

Some insidious critics like calling it "protection money". Every taxation system in the world is in fact aimed at providing protection; either by financing a system that preserves the well-being of the society as a whole, or by protecting against punishment, since failing to pay results in sanctions. Jizya is the rightful compensation demanded from the dhimmi, in exchange of the exemption from the laws, rights, obligations, penalties etc of that state religion in matters that do not concern the society as a whole. That is because the sharia for Muslim governance of non-Muslim citizens is that non-Muslims should not be forced to follow the moral laws dictated in the Quran. 

The idea that this model oppressed non Muslim dhimmis to the point they preferred conversion is unfounded, without any historical and documented basis. It wasnt therefore a system aimed at enriching anyone, but a legitimate compensation for concrete services and exemptions. That is why non-Muslims that volontarily participated in the military were exempted from the tax. Those that paid the tax and werent properly served were refunded. For instance when Muslim ruled Syria was threatened with invasion by the Romans and the Muslim ruler doubted whether he would be able to protect the non-Muslims of that region, he hastily returned their jizya money which was supposed to be partly aimed at guarantying their protection. Abu Ubaydah ibn al Jarrah told the Christians they would be bound by the agreement again only if he is able to fend off the Roman invasion. The Christians consequently prayed for Muslim victory, knowing that the Romans would never behave with them in such a manner.
 
Under that system, non Muslims enjoy complete religious autonomy as long as it does not conflict with the state religion. For example selling alcohol publicly. Dhimmis may deliberate, individualy deny, or reform their religious laws to their liking and to fit their desires without any concern about the laws of the state, again, so long as no conflict occurs between the 2. For example it is well known that Christian and Jewish elites enacted laws preventing their people from resorting to a Muslim judge in cases where their own laws were unfavorable.

Apostate prophet is kicked out of Mecca; who has right over the sacred land?

In answer to the video "The "No Compulsion in Islam" Lie"

Sura Tawba stipulated that all idolators were forbidden custody and entry to the precincts of the Sacred Mosque after its restauration to its original purpose, as instituted by Abraham, of being the prime symbol of monotheism for all visitors 9:17-22. 

With their sacraligious practices 8:34-5 which had disfigured the legacy of Ibrahim and Ismail, they had become spiritualy unclean 9:28 and unworthy of being the custodians of the sacred house, let alone perform their idolatrous rituals in it. 

They could not claim legitimacy over the House of God instead of the righteous monotheists such as the hanif remnants who had tried preserving the way of their father Ibrahim. The pagan Ishmaelites could not claim authority over the Kaaba for the sole reason that they inherited it and maintained it 

"do you make (one who undertakes) the giving of drink to the pilgrims and the guarding of the Sacred Mosque like him who believes in Allah and the latter day and strives hard in Allah's way? They are not equal with Allah; and Allah does not guide the unjust people". 

They were unclean spiritually because of their sins, just like the hypocrites are said to be unclean 9:95 and like the sinful nations who had to be uprooted by the Israelites under divine order from a land declared sacred by God Deut9. This principle would ironicaly later on be applied upon the Israelites themselves. Under Ahab's rule they progressively returned to idol worship. King Jehu later massacred them as he tried erradicating the land from Baal worship, tearing down pagan temples 2Kings10.

As regards to Quranic principle of spiritual uncleanness of the sinners, it is a concept present throughout the Bible too.

The Sacred House dedicated to the worship of the One God since its raising by Ibrahim and his son Ismail, could not remain therefore in the custody of the spiritual degenerate and those that corrupted its purpose, because their authority over it and their divine protection 105:1-5 was granted conditionaly to the keeping of the way of Ibrahim 106:1-4. Just as the the Jews had to be removed from their control over God's temple once they reverted to their sinful ways, now the Ishmaelites, because of their failure, the Kaaba had now to be cleansed from all traces of polytheism and return to its monotheistic purpose, in answer to Ibrahim's prayers, until the Day of Resurrection 2:125-130. The Quran would admonish the Quraysh indirectly for following the erring ways of their forefathers and failing to maintain the Kaaba's purpose, through the story of Ibrahim whom they prouded themselves to be the direct descendants of.
 
This ordinance, the banning of idolaters from practicing their religion in the sacred precincts of the Kaaba, had naturally disturbed those among the Muslims whose entire livelihood depended on trade during the pilgrimage season 9:28. This meant the town would lose its position as a comercial center and most trade would cease. However these worldly considerations could not interfer with the carrying out of higher objectives and further 

"if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise". 

That enrichment came as the entire land of Arabia entered the fold of Islam like waves upon waves as prophecied in a time when none could have imagined for such an outcome to come true 110:1-3. Trade resumed ever since, on a scale they would have never fathomed, and the Meccans regained their prestige in the region and beyond. The jizya, which some critics argue was meant at counterbalancing the loss of trade, isnt what caused that "enrichment", neither back in the time of the prophet nor in our times. How is the jizya relevant today in "enriching" the Muslims of Mecca or Medina? Jizya did not fill the private pockets of Meccan businessmen, nor financed private projects, neither in the past nor today. It was the prerogative of the government, used in exchange of concrete state services and exemptions as will be shown below. The caliph Umar, towards the end of his life urged to 

"abide by the rules and regulations concerning the Dhimmis of Allah and His Apostle, to fulfill their contracts completely and fight for them and not to tax them beyond their capabilities". 

He added elsewhere 

"as it is the Dhimma/covenant/protection of your Prophet and the source of the livelihood of your dependents". 

So there clearly is an exchange in benefits. The Muslim governement is to fight and protect those with whom it made a covenant. This is just one among the many services enjoyed by the people of dhimma, as will be shown below. They in exchange compensate the Muslims for their sacrifices and services, without being overburdened financially. This is nothing unusual under any modern day government.

Apostate prophet sees sura 9 through a new angle; Muslim restraint?

In answer to the video "The "No Compulsion in Islam" Lie"

Even once that declaration of forceful dissociation was made at the sura's beginning, the Muslims didnt jump on the occasion and immidiately attacked Mecca, although it was completely within their right. Instead, the noble sura announces that those treaty violators are given respite during the 4 sacred months of pilgrimage.

That is how spiritually upright, in addition to magnanimous, the sura enjoyns Muslims to be, preserving first and foremost the religious sanctity of the Kaaba and the sacred months. During those 4 inviolable months, the opponents may walk freely in the land of Mecca now under Muslim authority, and reconsider their warmongering. They may also turn to God in repentence which would even be better for their own selves, although not a condition for not being fought. Their perseverence in their desire for war, towards an individual who by now has estabished without doubt his divine authority, will bring about the wrath of God. They were on the brink of suffering the same fate as the rejecters of old in the prophetic history, as the divine retribution manifested either through natural calamities, or the believers themselves as in Moses' and subsequent Israelite prophets' case 6:65. This is what active fighting of a messenger brings upon a people

9:2"you cannot weaken Allah and that Allah will bring disgrace to the unbelievers".

As just alluded to, in Muhammad's case, contrary to all cases of divine punishements, a 4 months ultimatum is given while clearly explaining what the outcome will be when it passes and they have not reformed themselves

9:5"So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful".

This is the mercy of the sura, the fact that although all signs of the truth have been shown through a messenger, and the punishement is about to engulf the remaining disbelievers as it did in the previous battles up to that point, it is as if God, contrary to all previous cases in prophetic history when divine destruction was sent, hit the "pause button" and told the disbelievers to reevaluate their spiritual and antagonistic positions one last time. They have been given time to reflect, not for a day or 2 but 4 full months.

This verse was named by some scholars as the “verse of the sword”, not because it allows Muslims to kill indiscriminately, but because it commands them to defend the community against their enemies. This designation was not used by the Prophet, his companions, or the early Muslims.

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. Muslims must only do so openly and publicly so as to avoid any misunderstanding on the state of war between the parties 8:58 as was done with the very first verse of sura tawba and its unequivocal dissociation with the traitors. Then they should prepare themselves for every eventual threat from within and outside the community 8:60.

The Muslims should only stop fighting them under 2 conditions:

- 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.

- And if they do not become Muslims but they stop their persecution then

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

and 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.

Apostate prophet taken by the hand; step by step analysis of sura tawba?

In answer to the video "The "No Compulsion in Islam" Lie"

The first verse 9:1 announces a clearing of guilt or dissociation. That is from where the other name of sura tawba comes from "baraa’a". That baraa'a, or dissociation was between Allah and His messenger on one side and the idolators on the other. But not any idolaters, rather those who had previously made a treaty with the Muslims but violated it as seen just 3 verses later.

The treacherous violation of mutual agreements is a serious and grave matter for all peoples and cultures. In the times the Quran was revealed, the state of lawlesness was such that only tribal alliances could safeguard a people from attacks and if a group couldnt be reliable upon for their word then one shouldnt expect the Muslims to blindly accept putting their lives at risk. The Quran alludes to this perpetually violent environment of the peninsula during the rise of Islam

29:67"Do they not then see that We have made Makkah a sanctuary secure, while men are being snatched away and ravaged from all around them?"

It is thus impossible to read sura tawba without appreciating this historical background and the importance of consolidating the rule of law in war-torn Arabia.  The Muslims had time and time again renewed their agreements after the opposing party had violated it 8:56,61. It was this frequent violation that ultimately led to this forceful and unambiguous declaration of immunity, against those who

9:10"do not pay regard to ties of relationship nor those of covenant in the case of a believer; and these are they who go beyond the limits".

Those further described as

9:12-13"break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion"

those to whom

"oaths are nothing"

and

"broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you FIRST".

It was impossible that the Muslims should be bound forever by the terms of those agreements, while their enemies could repudiate them with impunity and aggressiveness

9:7"How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Messenger; EXCEPT those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque?".

Clearly we see, not all groups of idolaters are meant. We know from the earliest sources of Islam that the polytheists of Mecca which the verses point to, were fought against as a result of them breaking a treaty and murdering members of the tribe of Banu Khuza’a, who were allied with the Muslims at the time. The Banu Khuza'a werent even Muslims then. That is how truthful and indiscriminate the prophet and Islam are in applying justice. As a result of Banu Bakr and Quraysh blatant breach of the hudaybiya treaty, the conquest of Mecca took place.

The declaration of immunity is therefore not directed at the idolators because of their religion, it does not cover those that honor their treaties

"So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty)".

They are those idolaters who had honored their initial agreements with the Muslims and had not backed up anyone against them, the Muslims in turn are told to

9:4"fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty)".

Even the elements within the treaty violators, once besieged, or during the course of warfare give up fighting, leaving their people to seek protection from the Muslims 9:6, they must then be protected and explained what is Islam in order to clear their preconceived notions

"this is because they are a people who do not know".

They are then, in full accordance with the divine principle of no coercion in religion 2:256, escorted to

"attain his place of safety".

This means any area they designate as their own place of shelter. That person is called musta'min in Islamic legal terminology. He would not be subjected to the jizyah and Islamic laws, being a temporary resident of the Islamic state. This is the justice, pragmatism, magnanimity of Islam, contrary to what the critics want to portray.

Apostate prophet misreads Quran; Sura Tawba and sword verse contradict No compulsion?

In answer to the video "The "No Compulsion in Islam" Lie"

Nowhere does sura tawba contradict the principle of no compulsion in religion. After years of warfare and the Muslims inflicting defeat after defeat to their opponents, whose obsession and concern was to prevent at all costs the free establishement of a new community and religion that threatened a corrupt order from which they benefited, the time had come for the Muslims to be allowed to freely enter Mecca and worship in it.

The Prophet sent with Ali the final ultimatum to the tribes gathering for the annual pilgrimmage from accross the Arabian peninsula and the remaining Idolators of Mecca. They were unworthy of being the guardians of a land declared sacred by God since its establishement by their forefathers Abraham and Ishmael 8:34-35,53,9:17-22,28. This is just as God, in the times of the children of Israel, declared Canaan sacred and unfit to any trace of idolatry Deut9,Lev18:24-8,20:22-3. The Israelites consequently had to exterminate or forcefully expell from it those who indulged in it and defiled it Ezra9:12, erasing all traces of idol worship, not allowing any covenant or peaceful outcome to its inhabitants.

Similarily to Ali, Joshua, before engaging the Canaanites in battle, sent an ultimatum to the inhabitants, offering them three choices: to leave the land, surrender and declare peace, or stand up and fight. The native tribe of the Girgoshites accepted the first condition. However, thirty-one kings chose to fight and were eventually all defeated by a 40.000 strong Jewish army at the end of a 7 years struggle Josh4:13,Josh12. 14 years later, Canaan was entirely conquered and divided among the 12 tribes of Israel. In many areas however the native population was neither entirely exterminated, nor expelled as explicitly commanded and made binding on the Jews for al times to come Deut20:16,25:19. They were enslaved instead Judges1:28. This disobedience led the Israelities to gradually lose both their ethnicity through inter-mixing with the natives, and their monotheistic religion Judges3:5-7. As a result God lifted His divine protection, and the Israelites could not contain their enemies anymore, becoming themselves slaves in that very land they had been promised and which they successfully conquered previously, the land in which they were supposed to lead a pious, grateful and free life following their Egyptian bondage.

The Arabs at the time of the prophet, not only were guilty for corrupting the way of the land, but they were also preventing the righteous from it. That ultimatum was in the form of sura tawba, the most unforgiving and stern address to the enemies of Islam among the Muslim comunity itself (hypocrites), the polytheists and the people of the book. So hard it is against them, that the rahma, the perfect mercy of Allah which usually is such a manifest attribute of His that the Quran describes it as 6:12,54"written upon" Him, doesnt open the sura, contrary to all other suras. The divine rahma was to be "put on hold", in accordance with the sunna/way of Allah as regards the punishement of a nation.

When a messenger with clear warnings is rejected and opposed, in addition attempting to killing him, that particular nation will be inflicted with God's retribution. This is why this sura cannot be taken as the blueprint for Islamic "foreign policy" for all times since it deals with specific circumstances pertaining to a precise and significant location, with deep and established causes, and then it provides the answer to such problems. It would be extremely difficult for the full list of causes and circumstances to reoccur, but should they do, then it would render the commands and solutions applicable.

Sura tawba was loudly announced by Ali on the day of sacrifice/idh al adha and for 3 consecutive days. It is to be kept in mind that even at this advanced stage of the prophetic mission, and when Mecca had become subdued to Muslim rule, the Muslims were still in inferiority compared to their opponents throughout the peninsula and beyond. The adjacent Roman and Persian empires were now well informed of the growing Muslim movement. The sura itself relates some Muslims' reluctancy to engage in confrontation due to this 9:38.

Apostate prophet seeking clarity; What is Quranic abrogation?

In answer to the video "The "No Compulsion in Islam" Lie"

2:106 speaks of N-S-KH meaning a) to write an exact copy, or b) to write over as in replace. 16:101 says baddalna aya makan aya/we replace an aya in the place of an aya. Sura 16 by the way is Meccan and according to the proponents of the idea, the first case of abrogation occurred in Medina. Both verses speak of the physical replacement of the abrogated, with the abrogating and this is not the case of Quranic abrogation according to which both types of verses are still present within the Quran. It is talking of the Quran's ayat superseding the ayat of previous scriptures, replacing them, which precisely is one of the oft repeated functions of the Quran.

Another verse misused by the proponents of Quranic abrogation is 13:39. It speaks of "mahw" which means effacement and total removal; this again disagrees with the advocates of that theory according to which both the abrogating and the abrogated verse remain in the Quran.

No consensus exists on whether the doctrine is a reality. The identification of abrogated rulings in the Quran has been in the past and still is an act of biased interpretation. We see cases of companions, even after the prophet's death giving different opinions on whether a verse is abrogated or not, as is the case for 2:184 with ibn Umar arguing for and ibn Abbas against its abrogation. Scholars of abrogation, fuqaha’ havent been able to refine the principles of abrogation so as to give them universal shape. Different scholars have come up with their own standards of abrogation. This doctrine was introduced decades after the Prophet and was developed in full over three centuries by many scholars. In other words, abrogation is not a genuine Islamic doctrine. Most verses proposed as subject to abrogation do not even conform with the rule of an aya replacing another aya; for example scholars on the subject argue that the "verse of the sword" 9:5 abrogates 2:256 yet they conveniently omit that 2:256 contains information that cannot be replaced and so they are forced to select even within an aya what is abrogated and what is not. Further the verse of no compulsion was revealed in Medina after the first command to perform jihad 2:190-5. It is a reiteration of an Islamic principle present long before in Meccan verses, including in 18:29. This means the application of that principle of freedom of religious choice, and its validity, are unaffected by the political superiority of the Muslims.

No authentic report of the prophet mentions the theory or the existence of abrogated verses within the Quran. Not a single verse of the Quran indicates that a ruling has been overruled by another. Something else to note is that even the traditional adherents to the notion agree that there are no abrogated verses present in the Quran. This is seen from the various ahadith which speak of passages people used to recite and that were absent from the prophet's final recital of the Quran. People explained that phenomenon through the theory of abrogation. Even when some scholars speak of abrogated verse still present in the Quran, they dont argue that these verses become obsolete, rather they carry a new meaning.

Islam critiqued needs a stronger venum; Poisonning the prophet?

In answer to the video "Muhammad, Psychology and Satan"

Assuming the poison story to be true, why didnt God's prophet die on the spot with those who ate the poisonned meal. Our opponents will keep on scratching their heads about this. Instead he lived on for years, fasted every year in the scorching desert heat, fulfilled all his duties of statesman, army commander, husband, counselor and friend, and conquered Mecca. He destroyed the idols with his own hands and fulfilled every prophecy made at the beginning of his call.

What the opponents need to realize is that the reason he did not die then, is because God didnt allow the prophet to die until his mission was accomplished. 

5:67"O Apostle, deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people"

Muhammad died a natural death and he didnt even need to appeal to Christ in order to neutralize any type of injested poison as embarrassingly proposed by the Greek writers of the Gospels Mk16:18. After all Christians do believe in their potential in performing even greater miracles (Greek "erga") than Jesus Jn14:12.

God was definitely supporting His prophet after he ate the poisoned meal, just as He supported him before despite the difficulties and attempts at his life. He was not immidiately put to death or disallowed to continue his mission and transmitting his message after injesting the poison. The opposite would have been the case had he been a false prophet or had done something at that point heavily disapproved of by God, as forcefully warned in the Quran would instantly, not progressively, happen to him 69:45-47. This defeated the "test" that the Jewess desired to make the prophet go through, as it says in one version of the report that she wanted to kill him with the poison

"Thereupon he said: Allah will never give you the power to do it".

The effect of poison as intended by the one using it is immidiate or very short term death of the victim, as happenned to one companion that ate the meal at that occasion with the prophet. The objective however of immidiate death or harm was defeated in regards the prophet.

It isnt uncommon in Jewish history to attempt poisoning a prophet sent to them. That is what they did to the prophet Jeremiah's food. In Jer11:19 it lit. says

"Let us destroy his food with wood"

ie Let us put poison into his food. This Jewish woman that poisoned the prophet's meal and his companion wanted to see

"if you were a Prophet, then Allaah would tell you about it, and if you were not a Prophet the people would be rid of you".

This as a side note bellies the unfounded allegation in anti-Islamic circles that the woman offered the poisonned meal in revenge for the killing of her family. She was testing his prophethood. So the prophet took a bite and sensed the poison, and immidiately said to all those taking part in the meal to withdraw their hands from it, although most had already eaten from it at that point. It was unfortunately too late for one of his companions who died from it. Miraculously, that companion was the only casualty of the incident, and this allowed the unveiling of an intricate outcome and lesson from the event. The prophet then confronted the culprit.

This woman thought that a prophet claimant dying in such circumstances would expose him as a liar but the opposite happenned: his companion died and Muhammad lived on until

"This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion".

The JEwess Zaynab bint al harith was later forgiven by the prophet. Other versions state that when Bishr ibn al-Bara’ ibn Ma’roor died as a result of the effects of this food, then the prophet executed her as a qisaas punishment, while others yet like ibn Kathir maintain that she even converted to Islam, seeing that the prophet passed her "falsification" test and was thus left alone. She initially approached the prophet with the meal after the treaty negotiations with the Jewish leadership of Khaybar had ended.

In such circumstances it would have been against decorum and basic sensitivity to refuse it based on suspicion. In ancient times, especially in rural cultures till this day, refusal to share a meal when the host clearly displays his peaceful intentions is a sign of treachery and mistrust. The Quran relates how Abraham was fearful of his guests that refused the food he offered them despite his clear hospitality 11:69-70. There were no means to the prophet Muhammad by which to chemically test the meal and verify his suspicion. His detractors wouldnt have missed this opportunity to charge him with accusing an innocent woman without proof. Neither did he behave like the kings and leaders of times past by having someone taste the food before he ate nor would it have ever been in his thought and character to have forced the woman to eat it herself or forced any of the Jews to eat it to prove that it was not poisoned. In accordance with his lofty character and prophetic status, he wanted to show that he was willing to trust the Jews, hoping that, perhaps, they will be guided. He did not yield to suspicion, even with the enemy. Yet, by eating, he did not show any lack of wisdom because showing suspicions without proof is not the way to build a relationship. And the prophet, in accordance with the Quran's commands was never one to be inconsiderate of others or sceptical of their inner condition.  Especially in the context of warfare, the good treatment of captives, as the prophet was here exemplifying, is expected to soften their hearts towards Islam. But if they act treacherously despite the Muslims' honourability, they will be overpowered just as they had been 8:70-71.

What is interesting with Bishr is that he was the only one, together with the prophet, that sensed the poison during the meal. Although the prophet spat out the morsel in his mouth after briefly chewing on it, Bishr, seeing him beginning to eat, trusted his judgement and swallowed his bite prior to the prophet's reaction. The remaining Muslims did not sense the poison and started eating, just like Bishr, trusting the prophet's judgement, until everyone was told to stop. This is where something strange occurs. Bishr, according to most reports dies instantly, as well as a dog that ate a morsel of the poisonned meal. The prophet lives on but suffers occasionally from the effects of the poison while it had no consequence on the remaining Muslims. Bishr's martyrdom revealed the deadly nature of the poison. The prophet's sickness proved the entire meal was toxic, not just Bishr's portion. The remaining Muslims' immunity was miraculous, given that the whole meal was poisoned. Had only Bishr or only the prophet been afflicted, one could have argued that a specific part of the meal was poisoned or that a specific individual was particularly sensitive to the poison. If the prophet was safeguarded and that someone else, together with Bishr were afflicted, someone could have said the prophet was simply lucky. The Prophet's sickness was necessary to prove that no human being will be allowed to put an end to his life, despite being clearly poisoned, until his mission is accomplished. The manner in which these events unfolded show that God was in full control.

The poison story, assuming it happenned, is actually just 1 of the many attempts at the life of God's prophet, keeping also in mind all the battles in which he himself took part against the rejecters, but never did God allow his messenger to die before the end of his mission, like Moses wasnt allowed to die through all his jihad battles until his mission was fulfilled.

 The poison certainly did injure him and cause him sustained pain, but nowhere does it say or hint that it was the direct cause of death. The poison damage on his body was just one of many scars the prophet carried with him until his deathbed, whether due to the years of hardship, starvation and persecution or the years of battle. Despite all that, he still lived beyond the average life expectancy of his common folk and only once his mission was completed. He saw with his very eyes every single prophecy made in the earliest years of prophethood fulfilled, cleansed God's chosen and blessed land of Mecca and restaured it to its original Abrahamic purpose.

Neither Moses nor Aaron, according to the convoluted HB, even get to fulfill their life mission of entering the promised land, despite the battles they led. They are suddenly dispatched from the narrative for the most ridiculous reasons. Moses was condemned by God for some misdeed and put to death while his

"eyes were not weak nor his strength gone".

His heartfelt prayer was denied

Deut3"Let me, I pray, cross over and see the good land on the other side of the Jordan..But YHWH was furious with me on your behalf and would not listen to me. YHWH said to me, “Enough! Never speak to Me of this matter again!"

If anything, the argument of sudden death as a sign of divine disapproval, a charge misapplied to the prophet Muhammad in relation to the poison story, fits instead the biblical Moses, put to death at the highlight of his prophetic career and while he was in full health. Even if, in the worst case, Muhammad's death is directly correlated to the Quranic warning in 69:45-47 not to falsely attribute a statement to God, then it still means the prophecy came true, that Muhammad was physically prevented from altering it and that the Quran is the authentic, preserved and protected word of the Creator. The verse says his hand will be seized the moment he tries doing so, then killed. The words imply even a minuscule uttering in God's name. It would be impossible for him to walk around making lengthy speeches up. That is why the verse comes in a passage where Allah stresses the divine origin of the Quran, and then states the hypothetical scenario, following by a reiteration of its veracity. But assuming for argument's sake Muhammad at some point lied and was killed by God, this must then mean that all he previously spoke in God's name, was true revelation uttered by a true prophet.

Just for arguments' sake, even if the prophet Muhammad had died from the delayed effects of the poison, this is certainly not an argument against his prophethood, not according to Zaynab bint al harith's own HB criteria for the identification of prophets as outlined in Deut18, nor in light of the Bible's own reports of the constant assaults, some succesful and others not, against true prophets' lives.

As a final note it is ironic that those trying to cast doubts on the truthfulness of Muhammad's prophethood by misrepresenting this story are mainly if not only Christians, who firmly believe in the Greek Testament and its depiction of Jesus' ignoble, humiliating and accursed end which probably no true prophet, even those murdered by the sinful Israelites, ever were inflicted with. What does that do to Jesus' credibility as a man sent by God, judging by those critics' own standards?

Islam critiqued places Muhammad in a pattern; The suicidal prophets of God?

In answer to the video "Muhammad, Psychology and Satan"

This weak charge often presented by the opponents against the prophet Muhammad specifically, will be easily done away with, after this little introduction.

In the bible, the scriptures of our opponents, we read how the rebellious trend of the ISraelites did not abate all throughout their exodus from Egypt Ex16:3 and beyond, as decried by all prophets subsequent to Moses. At one point they quarelled to such an extent with Moses that they almost stoned him to death, thus showing their mistrust and very shallow belief in God that had just lead them out of slavery, showing them all sorts of miracles along the way, Who fed them with heavenly food Ex16:4-15,17:1-4.

In their incessant insolence they did not spare Moses even in his private, conjugal matters, causing God Himself to wrathfully descend on the culprits Numb12,Ex2:21. Disregarding the burning fire of God that almost consumed the camp because of their ingratitude, this continuous attitude would reach a point where Moses would even ask God to spare him the burden of prophethood on such wretched people by terminating his own life, which actually is an indirect thought of suicide Numb11.

Now we get to the charge levelled by this youtuber, of supposed suicidal thoughts of the prophet Muhammad at the beginning of his revelational experience. Firstly, this incident with Moses described earlier, together with that of Jesus, form at least 2 scriptural examples of alleged suicidal tendencies among Biblical figures. Jesus, who saw the moral injustice and strife of the world he lived in, felt that if he killed himself, it would benefit the world. He devised an elaborate plan of crucifixion, instead of jumping off a cliff or slashing his wrists, one which would be an appeal to gain the sympathy of others Jn10:17-8. One may add that the idea was initially planted into Jesus' mind through a satanic suggestion

Matt4"Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down".

There are other ways to look at Jesus' death all of them as damaging to the Christian position; assuming it was not a satanic suggestion, Jesus' death was a wilful suicide sketched with his co-equal divine partners prior to his incarnation 

Jn3:16"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son". 

If not willful, then forced suicide since Jesus begs his father 3 times to relieve him from this impending crucifixion whose eventual occurrence he knew about long ago, but backed off from at the last moment, until he submits to the Father's will 

Lk22"not my will but yours be done". 

As to the Bukhari report in which the prophet is described as being so sad when revelation stopped for a longer time than usual that he contemplated throwing himself off high mountains, the part speaking of suicide is seperate from the rest of the hadith (we have heard) and without isnad, as noted by Bukhari. The same hadith is reported in several compilations as well as Bukhari itself, without any mention of the suicide part, which is a weak report without basis. Such a rumour might have originated in someone seeing the prophet frequently retreating to the surrounding hills, as he naturally did when revelation was interrupted, and then drew the wrong assumption about suicide. That assumption which began to circulate got mixed up with real facts.

There is also the issue of Gabriel depicted as repeatedly dissuading the prophet from his attempts, as if one supernatural appearance and reassurance wasnt enough. As a final sidenote, contrary to the Quran and the traditions, neither the HB nor the NT condemn suicide although several people are reported to have done it and/or thought of it, including Moses and Jesus as shown above. Coming from such an incomplete background, the critics have no basis to accuse any Muslim figure of supposedly contemplating suicide.

In the Quran we read

5:32"For this reason did We write upon the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men".

This ordinance in the Quran is universal, both for unjustly murdering or preserving a soul. The Quran further adds a clause of self-defence and application of justice to the moral principle, a clause which is present in the law of and teachings of every prophet of God

"unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land".

This clause in addition outlaws suicide

6:151"and do not kill the self that Allah made forbidden to violate except by the right".

The "right" being the establishment of justice in the case of manslaughter or corruption in the land. It even isnt permissible to desire death, as per the prophet's saying

"Let none of you wish for death on account of an affliction that befalls him. If he has no alternative, let him pray, O Allah! Give my life so long as the life is good for me, and take away my life if death is good for me".

From a higher, spiritual perspective, the Quran says mankind has a purpose and sufferings actually contribute positively to its achievement. The harder the situation the higher the opportunity to attain that purpose. Islam is the only religion that gives a positive outlook on life and satisfactorily answers the issue of evil, hardships and suffering.

Islam critiqued remembers a cosy Christmas; Jingle bells of the devil?

In answer to the video "Muhammad, Psychology and Satan"

There are narrations speaking of the effects of revelation, not only on the prophet but on those around him; his camel would sit and sink into the sand, a close companion whose knee happenned to be under that of the prophet almost shattered, among the examples. When he described it at times coming to him "like" the sound of a bell (meaning something similar but not the same) it was to convey to his addressees in terms they could relate to, what he was personally experiencing.

As a side note, the hadith saying the "bell is the musical instrument of the Satan" obviously is speaking of the real, physical thing unlike the similitude the prophet was using in reference to a certain type of revelation.

Further it isnt speaking of bells used at any occasion but for musical purposes that invite devilish, inappropriate behavior. It is well established in classical Arabic, let alone Semitic languages in general as seen from Jesus' calling Peter "satan" in the NT Matt16:23, that when someone or something is associated with the devil, most of the time it is understood as a metaphor for its evil consequences. For example in Medina the Muslims suggested using bells at first to signal the arrival of the time of prayer, showing that bells arent always associated with evil. Eventually someone was designated to vocally call the people to prayer.

As to the short hadith saying those who travel with dogs and bells are shunned by the angels, although it is hard to ascertain the context from which the saying is taken from and to which question/remark/incident the prophet was answering/reacting to, it could be infered that it is speaking of specific cases since, whether in the hadiths or Quran, one finds full and unrestricted permission to use dogs on a hunting trip.

It could therefore be in reference to stealthy war expeditions and military preparations, which the Muslims often undertook and that could be compromised by noisy bells and dogs, hence the angels' (that are repeatedly said to accompany the believers in battle) disapproval. All of the various manifestations of revelation on him were far removed from any sign of neuronal illness, as some malicious critics have recently suggested, since he never lost consciousness or memory during the process.

Islam critiqued has a condition; Obsessive compulsive calumnies?

In answer to the video "Muhammad, Psychology and Satan"

The obsessive compulsive opponents of Islam sometimes humourisly project their own condition upon the prophet. He used to repeat certain things therefore he must have had some kind of disorder. This charge is based on ahadith where the prophet instructs people to repeat certain things 3 times, like knocking on a door. There is nothing special about the odd number 3 but it is commonly understood even nowadays that knocking once, twice or 4 times isnt a proper way of announcing oneself at someone else's home. This instruction also teaches to not remain too long outside a person's home since that person might have his own reasons for not opening the door or answering back.

Just as there are no OCD symptoms with people writing children's books and stopping at the number 10, the same is the case for most people counting until 3 before starting something, jumping etc. It is only if one focuses on a certain number(s) that erroneous conclusions are drawn. The prophet repeated, and asked people to repeat certain things a variety of times, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or even 20, all depending on appropriateness, common sense, educational or preaching purposes, or cultural understanding of his time.