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.
Of course that God fights through the believers, inflicting His punishment on a nation of rejecters and transgressors as He did aforetime. In 8:17,9:14,59:2 the prophet and the believers are told that although they were physically waging war against their enemies, it was ultimately Allah who was smiting, not them. This is according to the Quranic principle that God, being the origin and sustainer of all causality, encompassing every happening by His will and power, is the indirect cause of every occurence.
In this case, God could have exacted His retribution on a nation of rejecters by unleashing calamities and cataclysms, but He has willed to do it differently with the Muslims 47:4, giving them the opportunity to increase in obedience to Him with this ultimate test of selflesness. God desired to achieve the same purpose in the times of Moses and the prophets after him, through whom He was fighting the enemy
Joshua10:14,42,23:3,10,1Sam17:47,2Sam23:9-12,Deut2:31-33,Ezek25:14,Ex12:12-23,Isa45:1,Zech14:3,Neh4:14,,Ps89:24,Ps18:35-48"The God Who grants me vengeance and destroys peoples instead of me".
The Psalmist refers to the Israelites' conquest of Canaan with these words
Ps44:4"For not by their sword did they inherit the land, neither did their arm save them, but Your right hand and Your arm and the light of Your countenance, for You favored them".
The HB speaks of the same phenomenon through non-Jewish nations namely the Persians ruled by Cyrus Jer51:20-24 or the Babylonians incited to destroy the Egyptians and were thus doing God's "smiting" concretely Ezek32:11-15, or through pagan nations raised to destroy the Jews themselves through whom YHWH was acting Ezek5:17,6:3,38:1-4,Amos6:11-14,9:1-4etc.
A little prior to the battle of Khaybar, the prophet allowed the targeted assassination of Sallam ibn al-Huqayq al-Nadri, also known as Abu rafi'. He is not the same person as Kinana ibn Al Rabi' as some misinformed critics have tried portraying. Ibn Khatir for example in his tafsir cites them both as actively participating in the battle of the confederates, with al Huqayq playing a prominent role in gathering and inciting the Meccans in their bid to inflict a crushing blow on the nascent Muslim community. Elsewhere, by al Bayhaqi, he is said to have financed the coalition and provided weapons.
After the issue of Bani Qurayza was settled, the Khazraj tribe, a rival of Al-Aws, asked for the Prophet’s permission to kill al-Huqayq, aka Abu Rafi, in the same manner that the Aws were permitted to execute a criminal mastermind, Kaab bin Al-Ashraf. Permission was granted provided that no women or children would be harmed, an instruction that was respected despite Abu Rafi's wife almost foiling the attempt. This happened prior to the siege of Khaybar, where he was mercifully allowed to remain following the defeat of the Jewish-Meccan alliance at the previous battle of the Trench, and from where he kept on actively inciting the Muslims' enemies.
Wars were started and innocent people lost their lives because of such incitements. The prophet thought that such a move would dissuade the people of Khaybar from pursuing their belligerent attitude but it did not.
Now this youtuber wants to talk of the events of Hunayn and related issues.
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.
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. More on that passage further below.
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.
As to the passage 4:23-24 it 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.
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.
Following the campaign of Ta'if, the Messenger of Allah then sent letters to the Kings and rulers of the territories adjoining the Arabian peninsula inviting them to Islam.
After his death, his successors conquered all the countries to whose heads he had written letters calling them to Islam. This is the letter sent to Heraclius
"Caesar then asked for the letter of Allah's Messenger (ï·º) and it was read. Its contents were: "In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful (This letter is) from Muhammad, the slave of Allah, and His Apostle, to Heraculius, the Ruler of the Byzantine. Peace be upon the followers of guidance. Now then, I invite you to Islam (i.e. surrender to Allah), embrace Islam and you will be safe; embrace Islam and Allah will bestow on you a double reward. But if you reject this invitation of Islam, you shall be responsible for misguiding the tillers (i.e. your nation). O people of the Scriptures! Come to a word common to you and us and you, that we worship. None but Allah, and that we associate nothing in worship with Him; and that none of us shall take others as Lords besides Allah. Then if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are (they who have surrendered (unto Him)..(3.64)"
The invitation is purely a religious one, without physical threat of armed conflict. The "safety" resulting from embracing Islam is in relation to divine punishment in the hereafter. This is made clear through the prophet's quote of 3:64 where eachone is free to choose his own path after guidance has been conveyed. The prophet's insistance here on the sin of misleading the common people is remarkable in that context. He firstly promises the ruler a double reward for accepting Islam (a counter productive incentive if the prophet's aim was his own enrichment through taxation of a foreign nation). The double reward being this ruler's own salvation coupled with being credited for introducing his own Trinitarian misguided folks to the truth of Islam. In those days it was the state religion that was emulated by the citizen. Rejection on the other hand doesnt entail invasion, which would have been what the prophet supposedly wanted in his material pursuit, but instead, we see again reference to spiritual consequences; the ruler will be responsible for misguiding his people. The prophet here skips even mentioning the personal sin of the ruler, and instead focuses on the enormity of misguiding the masses through spiritual tyranny. The prophet here is interested in guidance, more particularly of that ruler's own people, stuck for centuries in the dark conjectures of their Trinitarian falsehood.
In Rajab in the height of summer heat, a time of severe drought that discouraged many 9:81, the Prophet got all willing Muslims and newly converted Arab tribes to get ready for jihad against the Byzantines and their Arab allies. They were preparing a large assault on the northern approaches of Arabia (As confirmed by Sahih Muslim, Ibn Sa’d, Kitab Futuh al-Buldan and Al-Zurqani) to avenge the last engagement at Mu'tah and to crush the nascent power of the Muslims who now stood at the frontier of both the Byzantine and Persian empires. News about Byzantine soldiers setting up camps in the frontier strip of Syria reached the Prophet through the caravans traders travelling between the Hijaz and Syria.
The importance of that encounter was such that only the most hardened and serious elements were called to join. Although some failed answering the call, the prophet didnt blame them, even praised them as if they had accompanied him. On the other hand the half-hearted people seeking vain excuses, and hypocrites, were told to stay back even though they did not explicitly refuse joining. A small example to corroborate is that of Jadd b. Qays, the chief of Bani Salamah, who was told to remain behind based on his lust for female war captives. This by the way bellies the weak reports where it is the prophet that supposedly encouraged him to go to battle with the prospect of acquiring women captives. Some comentators have said that 9:49 refers to him. Although their freedom wasnt interfered with, these hypocrites and opportunistic Muslims would later be temporarily ostracized by the community, with the prophet even refusing to accept their zakat. They were neither fought nor killed, but were instead naturally cast away the more the Muslims gained ascendent over their open enemies. Most of them were known through their deeds and sayings, and were thus marked with shame and placed under scrutiny.
It is to be noted, the Byzantines were already busy fomenting sedition in Medina long before this military preparation. Their agent in Medina was a Christian monk named Abu ‘Amir ar-Rahib who had sought their help to eliminate the prophet and the Muslims. This man fled from Medina to Mecca following the Muslims' victory of Badr and began stirring the Quraysh in the subsequent battles against the prophet and actively participating in the battle of Uhud where he personally targeted the prophet. As the momentum began more and more to be on the Muslims' side, he eventually fled to Syria from where he began lobbying the Byzantines, as well as sending letters to his Medina accomplices, giving them instructions on how to prepare for his return together with his new powerful allies. Among the preparations the Medina hypocrites did, prior to the Tabuk expedition, was the building of a mosque, referred to in the Quran 9:107-110, that would serve as their base and possible luring ground where they could assassinate the prophet.
When rumors started spreading regarding a possible invasion, although fearful at the thought of having to face another enemy mightier than them, the Muslims did not immidiately make preparations for war. The manpower and organization required could not be set up simply based on rumors.
The Muslims themselves did not pay much heed to these talks and were instead more preoccupied by issues within the prophet's household. Had the Muslims been that easy to be triggered into war based on mere rumours, then they would have certainly gone forth considering the magnitude of the threat to their lives, and would not have dismissed that news as of lesser importance than the rumors of their leader divorcing his wives. It thus took another month before the Muslims started war preparations, meaning the rumors must have been confirmed during that time and enough evidence were gathered to convince the believers to go forth. They were convinced to prepare for a long march despite the severe drought and heat of that particular period, although the fruits of their trees and fields had ripened so as to be collected and relieve the people from the scarcity of produce, despite the battle front being at a long march and that the enemies in Medina and among the Quraysh could potentially stab the central government's back at that moment when all fighting men were far away.
The whole passage in sura tawba speaks of the difficulty of that endeavour, to the point it caused a seperation between the most sincere in faith from the rest. To argue that all these efforts and sacrifices were made because of mere rumours, is unfounded. When all were ready for the journey, the Prophet left Ali in control of Medina and delivered a sermon in which he asked all to help one another and spend from their wealth to the poor. Ali was the Muslims' standard bearer in nearly all Islamic battles and the fact that he was discharged from his jihad duties on that occasion highlights the degree of threat coming from the Medina hypocrites and the surrounding enemies.
The prophet would never had left Medina vulnerable at that point had he not reached a high level of certainty concerning the gathering Byzantines. Neither would the Muslims have overwhelmingly agreed to join given the risk to their homes and the aforementioned sacrifices they had to endure.
Again, never would they have left their capital at the mercy of their enemies simply based on rumours. All clans responded to the prophet's call to charity with generosity, the 1st one to give being Uthman (the 3rd Caliph) who also sponsored an army of poor people known as jayshu'l-`usrah for the occasion. 9:38-57 alludes to this episode. The largest ever army of Believers led by Muhammad arrived at Tabuk in the month of Sha'ban, but came the news that the Romans had withdrawn from the border towns. The enemy must have been informed through their Medina allies and spies of the formidable force gathered by the Muslims and thus eventually judged it wasnt in their interest to pursue such an adventure. In addition, they risked compromising their control over the Levant in case of defeat.
This was a humiliation considering the prestige of the Byzantines who were now reduced to negate/silence the whole thing, acting as if they had never intended launching an attack, and that any such report was a mere gossip, and thus wished to prove their impartiality regarding the events which took place in Arabia. However it is precisely this silence and lack of subsequent action that betrays them. Any empire, let alone that of the Romans, would see such an unprovoked move and show of force, alliances with border clans whom some were their former allies, as a major aggression. This is even seen in today's geopolitics. Any similar move would cause an arms race and amassing of troops on both sides of the border. Clearly the Byzantines' silence was due to them having seen the proof that the nascent Muslim nation could call their bluff at anytime.
The prophet thus had no reason to pursue them into their own territory as his goal had already been achieved. And further the Quran only allows fighting in self-defense, whether in the form of a pre-emptive strike of iminent danger, or in answer to an open attack. The only squirmish that occured was when the prophet sent a delegation to bring a local Christian chief, Ukaydir of Dumah, who had pledged alliegance to the Byzantines against the Muslims. The locals had previously been hostile to Muslim passers by and gathered forces to threaten Medina. The prophet desired to settle the matter with him peacefully and secure the Muslim nation's borders from hostile alliances.
The expedition sent by the prophet however resulted in one death among the enemies, the circumstances of that incident arent clear. Ukaydir was captured then released on the condition he would personally come to the prophet as requested, which he did. He agreed to stop all hostilities and be part of the Muslim alliance, under the Muslim state, benefitting from his rights and obligations as a member of a religious minority. Previously to that the prophet had shown him his kind intentions by even returning his royal coat that was brought to him by the prophet's envoy, saying that
"The dress of the people who will go to Paradise will be more wonderful".
The Muslims finally returned to Medina relieved that no fighting took place with the Byzantines, after several days of camping on the spot, signing several peace treaties to secure the nation's borders. Some reports state the Muslims remained in Tabuk for up to 2 weeks.
After the campaign of Tabuk which echoed in all corners of the Peninsula, the remaining pagan tribes came swearing allegiance to the Prophet, declaring their conversion and destroying their idols. The Prophet used to give the best welcome to anyone who sought him, and to reinstate the local leaders in their positions of power upon conversion to Islam. Now the conversion of the Hijaz was complete. The power of the Muslim nation extended from the frontiers of Byzantium in the north to Yemen and Hadramawt in the south and teachers were sent to the different provinces in order to preach the doctrines of Islam and educate the people in monotheism.
The Messenger of Allah had inflicted the greatest blow on the devil and his cult of idolatry from among all God's prophets, and in this way only Moses could compare to him.
24:55"Allah has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will most certainly make them rulers in the earth as He made rulers those before them, and that He will most certainly establish for them their religion which He has chosen for them, and that He will most certainly, after their fear, give them security in exchange; they shall serve Me, not associating aught with Me; and whoever is ungrateful after this, these it is who are the transgressors."
These were not the words of a human being which had all the chances of not being materialized. They were the words of God which were spoken by His messenger at a time when the disbelievers were convinced that time itself would prove the prophet wrong and defeat his purpose, that his teachings were false or at best, a delusion 52:30. Thus they materialized and became part of history – in fact created history which has no parallel in the annals of this world.
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. Those that pass the 2 preceding criteria by believing in God and the concept of resurrection, should adhere to Islam as the only reasonable spiritual reality. If they 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 from the people of the book, believers in God and the resurrection. Being sincere in their faith, they should, like the aforementioned group naturally enter the fold of Islam. The Quran speaks of them, those that 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. But those that make the choice not to, they remain as people of the book who despite their sincerity in faith, do not regard as forbidden what Allah and His messenger 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. "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. This speaks of the Jews and Christians whom the Quran in many places condemns as sinful, insincere to the truth of their own books. The praiseworthy among them, followers of "the deen of truth" were those included in the 3rd category.
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.
Of course that God fights through the believers, inflicting His punishment on a nation of rejecters and transgressors as He did aforetime. In 8:17,9:14,59:2 the prophet and the believers are told that although they were physically waging war against their enemies, it was ultimately Allah who was smiting, not them. This is according to the Quranic principle that God, being the origin and sustainer of all causality, encompassing every happening by His will and power, is the indirect cause of every occurence.
In this case, God could have exacted His retribution on a nation of rejecters by unleashing calamities and cataclysms, but He has willed to do it differently with the Muslims 47:4, giving them the opportunity to increase in obedience to Him with this ultimate test of selflesness. God desired to achieve the same purpose in the times of Moses and the prophets after him, through whom He was fighting the enemy
Joshua10:14,42,23:3,10,1Sam17:47,2Sam23:9-12,Deut2:31-33,Ezek25:14,Ex12:12-23,Isa45:1,Zech14:3,Neh4:14,,Ps89:24,Ps18:35-48"The God Who grants me vengeance and destroys peoples instead of me".
The Psalmist refers to the Israelites' conquest of Canaan with these words
Ps44:4"For not by their sword did they inherit the land, neither did their arm save them, but Your right hand and Your arm and the light of Your countenance, for You favored them".
The HB speaks of the same phenomenon through non-Jewish nations namely the Persians ruled by Cyrus Jer51:20-24 or the Babylonians incited to destroy the Egyptians and were thus doing God's "smiting" concretely Ezek32:11-15, or through pagan nations raised to destroy the Jews themselves through whom YHWH was acting Ezek5:17,6:3,38:1-4,Amos6:11-14,9:1-4etc.
When Jesus supposedly said that a time will come where those killing Jews will think they are doing God's work, did he known that in the HB, doing God's work doesnt preclude killing in general, and more specifically killing Jews? Firstly, at the hands of the pagan nations whom YHWH himself instigated against his "chosen race". These powerful enemies of theirs through whom God was acting to punish and destroy the Israelites, desecrate their most sacred places are referred to by God in both the Quran and the Hebrew Bible as "My servants" Jer25:9,27:6,32:3,Lam1:13,15,2:1-10etc because they were performing God's will, under His complete control, and are thus rewarded for it Ezek29:19-20.
It is also in a sense a reproof to the Jews who, despite their transgressions, still considered themselves God's chosen, His prefered and exalted servants. Yet here God calls pagan nations His servants instead of them. He summons, not His chosen race, but His pagan servants to perform His justice and inflict His punishements on those very people claiming to be God's servants. This happened a few times, where people were killing Jews and were certainly doing God's work. But for the vast majority of their history, Jews were murdered by God-loving Christians who thought they were doing God's work. For over 2000 years Jews have been subjected to humiliating abasement, mass expulsions, rounding up, forced conversions, false accusations and calumnies, extortions and indiscriminate mass killings.
Bible loving Christians were after "Christ-killers" who got what they deserved. What is even more disturbing is that this type of behavior was viewed as theologically and eschatologically justified and positive, in the sense that Christians were being "loving" and "charitable" by inciting Jews to be healed from their cursed and harmful faith. Here is a timeline of Jewish persecution https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/historyjewishpersecution/.
As a side note Jewish "persecution" began since before any Temple was standing, such as in ancient Egypt. Contrary to what this youtuber is clumsily trying to portray, 99% of such persecution as well as the killings from that time till now comes from non-Muslims.
But what is most important to note is the Jewish persecution and genocides of other people, through divinely ordained commands still applicable and compulsory to this day, as well as the persecution and killing of Jews by Jews throughout their biblical history.
As to recent times, the Arab nations had no "Jewish problem". They've been living side by side with them for centuries, even helped them escape the Nazis, especially in North Africa. Its not German antisemitic propaganda that turned the tide, causing Nazis and Arabs to ally, rather the shared hatred of the colonizers (British, French or Italian) and opposition to fascism and communism. It is known that the Arab elites did not endorse Nazism either, just as Hitler despised the Arabs. The Mufti of Jerusalem on the other hand had a "Jewish problem" (the massive influx of Jews into Palestine in the late 30s), combined with hatred of the British who opposed their nationalism. When Jews were targeted by Arabs in Arab lands, it was to prevent their emigration to Palestine, by sympathizers of the Mufti. There were no genocidal attacks/pogroms except for the event of Baghdad in '41, again in the backdrop of the politics of the time, blaming the Jews for the British invasion (they were seen as allies in relation to Palestine). But the scale of victims and damage to property is widely disputed, and some Iraqis risked their lives to hide Jewish neighbours. Although the authorities did not immidiately intervene, they eventually conducted an investigation, even executed army officers. Sure, life for a Jew in Arab lands was sometimes far from perfect, just like Muslim life is far from perfect in Israel (killings, destruction of land and property etc). But how many antisemitic incidents throughout ancient history until the 20th century came from Muslims, and were actually ordered by the authorities (as is done today in Israel)? Compare it to the scale of antimuslim attacks in Israel's short history.
This verse touches upon the issue of piecemeal revelation. One of the aspects of that process was to guide the nascent Islamic movement in all its stages to suit its requirements on different occasions. It did so for example by elaborating on certain previous concise statements, either by a longer revelation in a different place or by addition of relevant information within the same previously revealed verse. We have classical examples reported in the hadith books, like 2:187 and 4:95 where the scribe present, who was being dictated the concise then more elaborate revelation, describes how the event occured supernaturally. It is a Quranic principle that one should not ask about things that if answered would render a simple directive complicated. But one may ask while revelation is descending and will be answered 5:101 as documented regarding ibn Um Maktum's concern upon hearing verse 4:95. The difference between the 2 attitudes is that of sincerity. The first one hears a directive, reflects on it and comes back after a while with conjecture, as if he is trying to avoid it. On the other hand the one expressing a concern directly when hearing a command does so out of genuine concern for a condition preventing him from immediately implementing the directive.
The gradual revelation, progressive elaboration also gives the audience the feeling that it is being closely followed, listened to, attended to and corrected by its Sustainer, answering relevant questions of law or theology, questions by the believers or disbelievers alike, providing strong argument in favor of the truths it propounds or to counter false notions
25:32"And they do not bring to you an example except that We brought to you the truth and best of explanation".
Again this is not a strange phenomenon in the prophetic history, especially when it comes to the issue of further elaboration/explanation of a previous concise statement or ruling. See Jn3 for example. For a very detailed explanation of what piecemeal revelation consists of, this youtuber and others can go back to a previous video.
