In answer to the video "The Infidel and The Jizyah"
In the HB and as corroborated by Jesus in the NT when he said to abide by it to the minute details, several types of wars are promulgated. Jesus by the way, is the one to have promulgated these laws in the first place, prior to his incarnation. So among these laws the pre-turn the other cheek Jesus instructed upon his subjects, is the compulsory command/mitzva among the 613 revealed at Sinai, binding on Jews of all times to destroy Amalek's seed Deut25:19 without showing any pity whenever the opportunity is there, and exterminate the remaining Canaanite nations from the land of Israel whenever any of them or their descendants are identified Deut20:16. This is a timeless ordinance, as already said, part of the 613 binding commandements, and is thus an explicit order to genetically exterminate a certain people.
Every command within the Torah is understood as eternally binding and those that are inapplicable today due to the absence of a Temple will be reinstated in the utopian messianic era, where every nation will be forcefully subdued to the Jewish God Mal3:4,Deut30,Ezek11,36,37,Isa56:6-8,Zech14:16,Jere33:15-18,Ezek43:18-46:24.
The eternally binding command to blot out Amalek's seed and other Canaanites, if one fails acting upon this law anytime a descendant of such tribes is genetically identified, then one becomes subject to divine anger as what happened to king Saul 1Sam28:18,1Chr10. Saul suffered a violent and dishonourable death. His household was decimated at the hands of the Philistines who also dispossessed his community.
The same happened prior to the entire Israelite community that was sent for a 40 years desert wandering for their refusal to engage the promised land's natives in battle.
Along with those known, compulsory genocidal warfare as described earlier, during which no atrocities towards men, women, children, cattle and plants may be spared, there are laws relating to optional warfare, for the sole purpose of Israel's "national glory" as labelled by their rabbis. In such cases any random nation the Israelites arbitrarily choose, and set themselves out to conquer can either be "peacefully" submitted, resulting in the enslavement and taxation of its population, or in case of their rejection of the "peace offer", a military subjugation resulting with the execution of all adult males, the capture as spoils of war of their women, children, and livestock
Deut20:10-14"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby"
. In addition, should it be necessary to completely subdue that nation
2Kings3:19"you shall fell every good tree, and you shall stop up all springs of water, and you shall clutter every good field with stones".
In the land of Canaan, those natives that werent driven out or exterminated as per the Torah's injunctions during the invasion, were subdued into slavery Josh17:13. Their descendants suffered the same fate under Solomon's rule 1Kings9:20-1. After all and as stated in both the HB and the Talmudic writings (Eleazar ben Shammua) , the purpose of creation and the reason why the heavens and earth are maintained is for the chosen race to observe Torah.
All these citations werent made to disparage the Bible, rather at pointing what would have been the outcome had the Quran been the product of human base desires, whims, greed and lust. The fact is the Ishmaelites went through almost identical situations as the Israelites in their confrontations with opposing tribes and nations, and yet we do not find anything remotely similar in terms of abuse and excess as is seen throughout the Hebrew writings, and by the hands of true prophets of God.
It is to be further noted that the Quran does allude to some episodes where the Israelites were confronted to, or were about to engage the Canaanites. Everytime, it refrains from mentionning the shocking acts which the Israelites have comitted. The Quran could have used these incidents as divinely sanctionned precedents allowing unrestricted bloodshed and abuses. Yet we keep on reading in the context of warfare, verses stressing self-restraint in retaliation, or the non-materialistic goals of fighting in Allah's way.
In answer to the video "The Infidel and The Jizyah"
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.
The misinformed critics arguing that jizya was an unfair system aimed at enriching the Muslim state may be thinking of the divinely blessed taxation and hoarding of riches and spoils by king David and his appointed governors in his conquests. This wealth was dedicated to the building of national religious edifices (on the ruins of other people's) 2Sam8,1Chr18:2,6,8,13,20:1-2,26;26-7 and meant for personal glory as well 2Sam12:29-31. The wise king and prophet Solomon would continue in this pattern, in line with the rules of the monarchy dictating that the king's expenditures (a "heavy yoke" that ultimately caused the scission of the kingdom of Israel after Solomon's death 1Kings12) should be collected indiscriminately, contrary to the jizya that spares the needy and weak 1Sam8:11 (some exemples of the daily rights, gifts and luxuries of the Jewish monarch to be brought forth by conquered nations in 1Kings5:1-7,9:14-15,27-28,2Chr27:5). Solomon similarily to David had appointed representents that collected his levy from Jews and non-Jews, the difference between the 2 groups being that when the conquered nations could not pay they were reduced to forced labor 1Kings9:21. Contrary to this subduing system aimed at benefiting a party and lowering another, going back to the days of Joshua (Josh16:10) and before, jizya partly financed the functioning of a society in which those who paid it were fully part of.
The fulgurant expansion of the Muslim empire and Islam itself as a religion, a mere century following the prophet's death, from modern-day Spain in the west to India in the east, the vast numbers of conquered people that eventually converted to Islam in the process has confounded observers for centuries, more particularily European Christendom. Islam, to these people was an inferior religion. The myth of forced conversions meant avoiding the difficult idea that Islam was the true religion and that God was on the side of the Muslims. The earliest Christian polemics against Islam cleverly twisted the idea. The Muslim invaders were indeed divinely sent, but not for their own righteousness, rather as a rod of punishment against sinful Christians and their leaders. John bar Penkaye writes in the 680s
"We should not think of their advent (of the sons of Hagar) as something ordinary, but as due to divine working:" When these people came, at God's command, and took over as it were both kingdoms ... , God put victory into their hands in such a way that the words written concerning them might be fulfilled, namely: "One man chased a thousand and two men routed ten thousand" (Deut32). How otherwise could naked men riding without armour or shield have been able to win, apart from divine aid, God having called them from the ends of the earth so as to destroy by them "a sinful kingdom" (Amos9) and to bring low through them the proud spirit of the Persians?"
Similarily to other 7th century texts, the Chronicler of Khuzistan says that
"the victory of the sons of Ishmael who subdued and enslaved these two strong empires was from God".
Ironically in the Chronicle of Fredegar, the Muslims are "the sword of God". One overarching theme in 7th-8th century polemics against Islam is Christian crisis of faith and fear of apostasy. Christians of all spheres of life were rejecting their religion and converting Islam. We read in an apocalypse of the early 8th century
"many people who were members of the church will deny the true faith of the Christians, along with the holy cross and the awesome Mysteries, without being subjected to any compulsion, lashing or blows".
The same is bitterly confirmed by a monk in Mesopotamia, in the Zuqnin Chronicle
"For without blows or torture they slid down in great eagerness toward denial. Forming groups of twenty, thirty and a hundred men, two and three hundred, without any kind of compulsion to this, they went down to Harran to the governors and became Muslims (mhaggnn) So acted numerous people from the regions of Edessa, Harran, Telia, Resh'aina, Dara, Nisibis, Shengar and Callinicum, and from these places both error and the devil gained immeasurable strength among them".
Until now, western scholars and historians are making blunt observations such as "the success of the conquests is virtually beyond plausible historical explanation" (Webb) or "the dynamism of Islam’s expansion defies explanation in ordinary human terms" (Donner) or that we should “dissuade historians from striving vainly to explain the almost inexplicable in normal historical terms” (James Howard-Johnston). Christians also projected onto this phenomenon their own experience of ruthless conquests, looting, destructions and forced conversion and so Islam became a religion “spread by the sword”.
This medieval myth, picked up in the late 19th- early 20th centuries by Orientalist like William Muir, many actually being colonial officials and/or active Christian missionaries that benefited from the vilification of Islam to non-Muslim audiences, is a myth that finds echo in today's Islamophobia industry. Muslim behavior is presented as the latest episode of Islam being spread “by the sword".
Seeing a big part of the Muslim conquests assimilating Christian territories and peoples, this spiritual, political, social, economic defeat resonated hard in the heart of the Christian elites, and still does today. As they tried throughout the centuries to roll back that humiliation through military and spiritual warfare, they only gained success in the former. Christianity, to Muslims, from the scholar to the layman, boiled down to worshiping a human being and God dying, both non appealing alternatives to the instinctive, natural, reasonable message of Islam. As time passed, Christian missionary strategy changed, from comforting the emotionally unstable in the name of the loving God of the Bible, to giving up mentioning Christianity alltogether; Islam is the religion of the devil and its prophet an anti-christ. If Christians cant have Muslims entering their fold, having them at the very least rejecting Islam is a satisfactory alternative. The reality of the matter however is that even if that strategy is far more successful in making Muslims abandon their religion instead of preaching Christianity directly, the desired results remain poor. The demographics remain from the short to long term heavily in favor of Islam, due firstly to Christianity dying out in the hearts, minds, practices of their societies, but also because the little number of apostates impressed by that demonizing effort, is offset by a radicalising effect; when insulted to his core, ancestral beliefs, the natural reaction of even the least traditional will be spiritual and intellectual "self-defence", seeking deeper knowledge and strengthening of his religious identity. That missionary tactic is also very unpopular among the Christian public, repulsed by the highly antagonizing rhetoric and painted as the aggressing party. Such Christians very often begin investigating Islam and end up finding it appealing. These factors, and others, pile up. The return on investment for those types of missionaries is negative if one weights the time, money, but especially emotional and spiritual degradation for having to dwell in dark pursuits. The best course of actions to the missionaries of that trend is to work on the betterment of their own souls first and foremost, then to strengthen their own communities' loss of faith in their ancestral beliefs.
As to Muslim interaction with the conquered peoples, there have been of course certain instances in history of Muslims disregarding Islamic teachings and behaving cruelly toward non-Muslims, including cases of forced conversion. Allthough the state and church sanctioned evil throughout Christian history, ie the background of the very people levelling these claims so as to demonize Islam, make these cases pale in comparison. This method of cherry picking incidents and leaping to the broad-sweeping, reductionist conclusion that Islam was “spread by the sword” is intellectually dishonest and doesnt stand the test of scrutiny. Practically, such a phenomenal endeavor would have been impossible to achieve for the Muslim conquerers.
During the early Muslim conquests, Muslims were a small minority in newly-conquered areas, around 10% in Egypt or 20% in Iraq. That is why for at least two centuries the majority of the inhabitants of the Islamic empire were non-Muslims. The regions conquered up to a century after the prophet didnt become majoritarily Muslims until 850-1050.
For example although Iran was entirely under Muslim dominion in 705, its Muslim population hadnt reached 50% prior to the mid 9th century, then 75% a century later. One of the reasons for that miserable failure of Islam's "spreading by the sword" was that Muslim rulers actually preferred collecting Jizya which they could use at their discretion, than zakat which, although higher, had to be redistributed locally in the provinces and could only be used in certain ways.
To corroborate, the Umayyad general al Hakami was removed from his post because of having prevented the local population of Khurasan from converting to Islam so that he could keep on collecting jizya. There were other such cases such as the Abasside general ibn Kawus who forbade Muslim proselytizing in his jurisdiction. As stated above there were certainly cases of forced conversions, but these were far more nuanced than the willfully misleading “spread-by-the-sword” narrative makes it seem. The first case mostly picked up by the misleaders is that of south Asia. The notion of millions of Indians forcefully converted is bellied on several levels.
Firstly, Islam counted much more adherents in the Indian areas where the Islamic state had less power, than in the heartland of India where Muslim control and dominion was strongest (70-90% in Punjab and Bengal vs 10-15% in the Gangetic Plain). Those who level that charge of forced Indian conversions mostly base their accusations on ambiguous reports from historical sources the likes of “They submitted to Islam” for example. This could refer to Islam the religion, the Muslim state, or the “army of Islam” and a contextual reading usually supports one of the latter two interpretations.
The devshirme system in the Ottoman empire, which consisted in systematically taking young Christian boys, raising them as Muslims then training them to serve in the empire’s bureaucracy or in the sultan’s personal military force, cannot be considered a valid argument for the spread by the sword theory. The system, although obviously condemnable and without any basis in the Quran nor the practices of the prophet, actually many times benefited the religious minorities of the empire from whence these boys were taken, giving them access to high government positions. An example is that of Sokullu Mehmet Pasha, a Slav from Bosnia who rose through the bureaucracy to become the empire’s grand vizier, a position from which he was able to support Bosnia’s Christian community, though he himself remained Muslim.
Another case of forced conversion in Islamic history is that of Yemen's Orphans’ Decree issued by Imam Yahya al-Mutawakkil in the early 20th century. Again, a fringe phenomenon, without any basis in Islam but rather a Zaydi law requiring the forcible conversion of orphaned Jewish children to Islam. However what transpires from history is that, al-Mutawakkil, who was more interested in asserting his authority by adopting his subjects' customs, applied the rule selectively. In many cases he helped Jewish children escape Yemen to avoid conversions. Seeing this, the guardians of many Jewish children actually fled to Imam Yahya’s jurisdiction rather than from it.
In short this islamophobic boogeyman of "spread by the sword" theory has no legs to stand on and the reality of the matter is that theologically, Islam either explained away by the strength of its arguments, or absorbed the other religions and competing theologies about God, consolidating all into one coherent monotheistic worldview. This was the power of Islam which gave it great intellectual appeal: its ability to satisfy all the existential questions about God and creation, a message of profound substance that remained flexible enough that it would remain forever relevant, and never become obsolete.
As rightly stated by the British historian Hugh Kennedy
"Islam did not spread by the sword but without the sword it would not have spread".
This distinction between the spread of the Muslim empire and the Muslim religion highlights the fact that, as with many new things, whether abstract or concrete, Islam as a religion spread as it engaged with the conquered people. This interraction played out differently throughout the empire, and beyond the empire, including one of, or a combination of factors such as trade, intermarriages, the general appearance of success and prestige of the Muslim conquerors, the appeal of the Islamic social system, local charismatic converts, migrations.
There is no basis for the caliphate with an ideology for territorial expansion in either the Quran or in prophetic traditions. These wars did not happen under the prophet's authority. Neither the prophet nor the Quran approve of unprovoked aggression. The life and wars of the prophet testify to this.
"`Abdullah bin `Umar came to us and we hoped that he would narrate to us a good Hadith. But before we asked him, a man got up and said to him, "O Abu `Abdur-Rahman! Narrate to us about the battles during the time of the afflictions, as Allah says:-- 'And fight them until there is no more afflictions (i.e. no more worshipping of others besides Allah).'" (2.193) Ibn `Umar said (to the man), "Do you know what is meant by afflictions? Let your mother bereave you! Muhammad used to fight against the pagans, for a Muslim was put to trial in his religion (The pagans will either kill him or chain him as a captive). His fighting was not like your fighting which is carried on for the sake of ruling".
During the Prophet's lifetime, while the Quran was being revealed, no act of hostility was initiated by him against an enemy because of his religion. For instance, the Jews of Qaynuqa fought alongside Muslim ranks after Badr, a Jewish Rabbi fought and called upon his fellow Jews to fight alongside the Prophet against the Quraysh at Uhud, even many idolaters fought on the Prophet's side at Hunayn and al-Ta’if. The confusion about the tradition of war in Islam arises from the fact that the decision to join in these wars was given religious justification. However, the Quran does so because it is a God-given right that mankind should be free to worship Him in security. Confusion is also due to the Muslims's enemies being identified by their religious beliefs in relation to Islam; kuffar, mushrikun and ahl al-kitab.
There is no compulsion in religion, and until the end of days, ironically the same day which, those who deceptively level these false accusations against the prophet, think that all races and nations will be forcefully bowing to their God Zech14. The notion of divinely sanctioned conquests and subjugation, decimation of foreign population is purely a Judeo-Christian one. In the HB and as corroborated by Jesus in the NT when he said to abide by it to the minute details, several types of wars are promulgated.
There is the compulsory command/mitzva among the 613 revealed at Sinai, binding on Jews of all times to destroy Amalek's seed Deut25:19 without showing any pity whenever the opportunity is there, and exterminate the remaining Canaanite nations from the land of Israel whenever any of them or their descendants are identified Deut20:16. This is a timeless ordinance, as already said, part of the 613 binding commandments, and is thus an explicit order to genetically exterminate a certain people. Every command within the Torah is understood as eternally binding and those that are inapplicable today due to the absence of a Temple will be reinstated in the utopian messianic era, where every nation will be forcefully subdued to the Jewish God. The eternally binding command to blot out Amalek's seed and other Canaanites, if one fails acting upon this law anytime a descendant of such tribes is genetically identified, then one becomes subject to divine anger as what happened to king Saul 1Sam28:18,1Chr10. Saul suffered a violent and dishonourable death. His household was decimated at the hands of the Philistines who also dispossessed his community.
The same happened prior to the entire Israelite community that was sent for a 40 years desert wandering for their refusal to engage the promised land's natives in battle. Along with those known, compulsory genocidal warfare as described earlier, during which no atrocities towards men, women, children, cattle and plants may be spared, there are laws relating to optional warfare, for the sole purpose of Israel's "national glory" as labelled by their rabbis.
In such cases any random nation the Israelites arbitrarily choose, and set themselves out to conquer can either be "peacefully" submitted, resulting in the enslavement and taxation of its population, or in case of their rejection of the "peace offer", a military subjugation resulting with the execution of all adult males, the capture as spoils of war of their women, children, and livestock
Deut20:10-14"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby".
In addition, should it be necessary to completely subdue that nation
2Kings3:19"you shall fell every good tree, and you shall stop up all springs of water, and you shall clutter every good field with stones".
In the land of Canaan, those natives that werent driven out or exterminated as per the Torah's injunctions during the invasion, were subdued into slavery Josh17:13. Their descendants suffered the same fate under Solomon's rule 1Kings9:20-1. After all and as stated in both the HB and the Talmudic writings, the purpose of creation and the reason why the heavens and earth are maintained is for the chosen race to observe Torah.
All these citations werent made to disparage the Bible, rather at pointing what would have been the outcome had the Quran been the product of human base desires, whims, greed and lust. The fact is the Ishmaelites went through almost identical situations as the Israelites in their confrontations with opposing tribes and nations, and yet we do not find anything remotely similar in terms of abuse and excess as is seen throughout the Hebrew writings, and by the hands of true prophets of God.
It is to be further noted that the Quran does allude to some episodes where the Israelites were confronted to, or were about to engage the Canaanites. Everytime, it refrains from mentioning the shocking acts which the Israelites have committed. The Quran could have used these incidents as divinely sanctioned precedents allowing unrestricted bloodshed and abuses. Yet we keep on reading in the context of warfare, verses stressing self-restraint in retaliation, or the non-materialistic goals of fighting in Allah's way.
The early caliphate was actually a war of liberation of the oppressed people of the Roman, Persian and Egyptian nations from centuries of tyranny. There is a reason why the early Islamic state expanded with such speed, the local people did not resist and instead embraced the Muslim liberators that brought positive change in all aspects of their lives, whether they decided to convert or keep their own belief system.
For example the Judeo-Christian population of Syria preferred Muslim rule to that of the Christian Byzantine empire. Seeing this phenomenon occuring all throughout the Muslims territories is what made some medieval jurists argue that the Islamic System is a much better one than any man-made law as it opposed oppression.
The purpose of waging Islamic war, became in their eyes to spread the sharia, which includes laws accommodating non-Muslim communities.
This supremacist view of the Islamic system is what made Ibn Khaldun argue that Islam had to ultimately spread globally, even by coercion. Throughout time, dominant powers viewed and still do, their societal order as superior, seeking to spread it by all means so as to safeguard their geopolitical interests. It is to be noted that Ibn khaldun maintained that warfare is intrinsic to human history, since immemorial times. He did not argue that cessation of warfare was something unthinkable to Islam. Prior to ibn Khaldun, other Muslim scholars the likes of al-Turtushi described wars as “social anomalies”. Al-Hasan ibn ‛Abd Allah compared wars “to diseases of society”. The vast majority of Muslim scholars past and present, view war as a necessary remedy against aggression. Going back to ibn Rushd/Averoes, he reported the controversies of his time as to whether an enemy should be killed because of his hostility or solely for his religious difference and refusal to accept Islam.
As one goes through the various legal opinions of the Muslim scholars throughout time and up until the modern era, what transpires is that their understanding of what is required of the Quran and the prophet in terms of warfare reflects the political and ideological environments in which they formulated their ideas.
But the historical facts are clear; none of the wars in the times of the prophet and the early caliphs were done against a people solely because of their religious differences. The massive, but progressive conversions, as will be shown later, could by no means be due to the fear of being enslaved by the Arab Muslims during the early Islamic conquests. Otherwise, we should expect many people to have renounced Islam following the military and political decline of Muslim power in the world.
Muhammad didn't punish any of the guilty in his 13 years at Mecca, almost 3 times the length of Jesus' total mission, because God had still not granted him the authority and power to do so. And before the critics raise their eyebrows thinking that he would have done it had he the power to do so, let me remind them of a pervasive pattern of the Semitic prophets, running through the Israelites and Ishmaelite.
When the prophets Moses and Muhammad emigrated from the lands where they were oppressed, their passive attitude had nothing to do with them being conscious of their weakness and therefore preferring to wait for a better time to fight back. Both the Israelites and the early Muslims were much weaker than their enemies when they were initially commanded to fight in Allah's way.
What did Moses in the Torah order the Israelites to do, when they insisted on fighting after having regretted their disobedience the first time? He told them not to go to war because God wont be with them and they would all be killed
Deut9:23-24,Numbers14"Do not go up, because the LORD is not with you. You will be defeated by your enemies".
The same happenned in the times of Joshua (Joshua7).
Similarly, the prophet Muhammad was told to "wait" in the face of persecution and keep transmitting the Revelation openly, until he was commanded to take up arms against the oppressors for God will be with him 2:190,9:14,8:17. When the people of Medina secretly met with the prophet, pledging their allegiance shortly after his migration, and suggested they should lead a surprise attack by night on the Meccans, the prophet refused arguing it did not concord with his message, ie the time was not right yet. Even prior to that, some were eager to engage their persecutors in battle
"There were some companions of the Prophet who were in a hurry to wage war while they were at Mecca before hijrah. They said to the Prophet "Allow us to take (our) pickaxes in order to fight these polytheists.' And we have been told that ‘Abdu Rahman ibn ‘Awf was among those who had said it. But the Prophet forbade them to do so and said, "I have not been ordered this".
The decision frustrated his close companions including his early followers that suffered torture at the hands of the Meccans. The "timing" of counter attack was not due to the Muslims becoming stronger and the prophet consequently ordering them to take up arms.
Both the ahadith and the Quran show that they were inferior in numbers and might as compared to their oppressors during most of their battles especially the first ones, and the Quran relates in Sura Baqara how they went forth reluctantly. We also read in 4:77,47:20 how the believers eagerly awaited the divine command to allow military action and how many turned their backs in terror once it came.
When the decreed timing of jihad had arrived, the prophet was commanded to march towards the opressor even if he had to do it by himself 4:84. Victory is only in God's hands. That is why we read in 9:25-6 that the Muslims' vast numbers was not a factor of victory. Just as the Israelites largely outnumbering their enemies could not bring them victory in their later wars, neither avert crushing defeats, since God had withdrawn His help 2Chr24:17-24.
The early Muslims eventually came to understand that principle. In the time of the caliphate, when the Persians had gathered their forces for war, Umar sought advice from Ali about whether or not he should engage. Ali said:
"Victory or defeat in this matter does not depend on abundance or scarcity of forces. It is God’s religion which He has supported, and it is His army which He has strengthened and aided, until it has reached the point that it has reached, and has risen as it has today. We hold a promise from God, where He says: "Allah has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will most certainly make them successors in the land as He made successors those before them, and that He will most certainly establish for them their religion which He has approved for them, and that He will most certainly, after their fear, give them security in exchange(24:55)". God shall fulfill His promise and support His army...As to what you said about their [large] number, [you should know that] in the past we did not use to fight relying on number and abundance, but we used to fight relying on support and assistance from God.
The prophet's decision to fight back had thus nothing to do with a position of physical and logistical power. The "timing" was solely decreed by God, and not by his whims, nor the whims of the prophets before him. Another biblical example is when the Israelites were commanded to fight in God's way, although they were much weaker than the Amalekites and other pagan tribes
Judges6:16"And the Lord said to him...I shall be with you, and you shall strike Midian as one man".
It is in fact reported that under Gideon's leadership, God did not want the Israelites to be too numerous in their confrontation with the oppressive Midianites and so, in order not to compromise the credibility of a strictly divine victory, ordered their ranks to be trimmed down from 30.000 fighters to 300. The most fearful were the first to be sent back and then those that drank from a river by kneeling to it. This was done to expose the ISraelites influenced by pagan rituals (Judges7).
Strangely enough, God did not find them too numerous and a threat to the credibility of the divine nature of their victory in their initial invasion of Canaan under Joshua where they numbered 40.000 warriors. In the times of David and as described throughout the book of Samuel, David always inquired to the Lord if the timing and strategy were right for him to engage the enemies in battle. David knew that any victory could only come with God's help, especially considering how outnumbered he and his followers were
"Shall I go up to the Philistines? will you deliver them into my hand?' And the Lord said unto David: 'Go up; for I will surely deliver the Philistines into your hand"
Ps33:16-17,Ps20:8"These trust in chariots and these in horses, but we-we mention the name of the Lord our God".
David would recall the events in his latter days
Ps18:18"He delivered me from my mighty enemy, and from those that hated me, for they were too powerful for me".
On the other hand, King Saul before him decided at one point to seek military guidance using occultism instead of relying on God. This was one of the main reasons God caused him to die in battle in a violent and humiliating way, as well as caused his sons to be slain 1Sam13,28,1Chr10.
Similar biblical examples of divine orders to fight according to divine "timing", regardless of human logistical and military situation is when the weak and outnumbered Jacob was commanded to rise and confront his enemies, aided by his small army composed of his sons and servants. God promised He would make him prevail over the kings of Canaan that had united to destroy them. The divine victory, detailed in Jewish oral tradition, instilled terror in the heart of Jacob's enemies which prevented their pursuit Gen34:30,35:1-5.
When the Assyrian empire of Sennacherib had completely subdued and reduced to slavery the kingdom of Israel, and was threatening to pursue its advance into the kingdom of Judea, the king Hezekiah had full trust in God's judgement, timing and promised victory despite his army's inferiority however some of his counselors who lacked faith preferred trusting their own judgement and strategy, and were thus doomed for severe chastisement 2Kings19,Isa22.
What is further important noting is that under the prophet of Islam, contrary to the Jewish prophets' genocidal warfares, Islam did not resort to wiping out and oppressing comunities and populations so as to assert its dominance following victory. Yet, contrary to Judaism, Islam supplanted all surrounding ignorant communities in terms of spiritual, moral and social aspects. And this despite Islam's enemies always outnumbering the Muslims, better equipped, enjoying greater material resources, whether in the Arabian peninsula or beyond. The unique Islamic system is what made it prevail over and crush ignorance, first in Arabia and then in the two adjacent superpowers of Byzantium and Persia.
God did not command Jesus to fight just as He did not command Noah and other prophets to fight in His way, because God intended to bring down His punishment on the rejectors differently, and He did so quite severely after Jesus' departure. If God had willed to punish the transgressors through his prophet Jesus as He did through the Israelite prophets before him, Jesus would have taken up arms and fought in Allah's way, like his predecessors did, and like the Ishmaelite prophet did after him
47:4"and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others".
This method of punishement upon the rejectors of a prophet is therefore a trial for the sake of men and does not mean Allah needs men to accomplish a task He is unable to do by Himself. Had He willed, He would have destroyed them Himself by sending a disaster from the heavens or from within the earth. Before them, many nations have been destroyed by His torment in the blink of any eye. He could have similarly routed them as well. The Quran draws an interesting parallel in sura hadid, between the sending of prophets and Iron. This metal is a symbol of the forceful establishement of the natural balance of justice if needs be, and the verse 57:25, after speaking of both the prophets and iron, ends with God's attributes of might and strength. See also 22:40-41.
In the eternal struggle between good and evil, light and darkness, Allah allows the darkness of oppression to grow at the expense of the light of freedom, and then causes the light to overcome the darkness
22:61"That is because Allah causes the night to enter into the day and causes the day to enter into the night, and because Allah is Hearing, Seeing".
All is done with utlimate wisdom, justice
22:6,62"That is because Allah is the Truth".
8:39,2:193"And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors".
The verse and its wider context is speaking of religious persecution. It is the right and duty of every Muslim to defend himself against that persecution causing him fear or preventing him completely from practicing his religion, or even compromising some of it to please the oppressor.
"and all the religion is for Allah"
explains why religious persecution must be fought. THE religion should be entirely for Allah. The singular definite article "the" points to Islam only, not all world religions. Islam should be entirely for Allah means there cannot be any forceful compromise between this way (Islam) and any other way or form of worship out of fear. Among the exegetes that interpreted the verse in this manner, is At-Tabari. Even the most zealous proponents of spreading Islam worldwide, understand the verse as removing all impediment making a person fearful to choose Islam or not. In other words, one should be free to access knowledge about Islam and willingly embrace it if he wills. Muslims in particular, should be able to worship freely and without any fear just as the followers of previous revelations had the right to worship safely and without any compulsion.
As said in 22:40, Allah repelled some men by means of others, throughout the ages to keep safe synagogues, churches and cloisters
2:251"And were it not for Allah's repelling some men with others, the earth would certainly be in a state of disorder; but Allah is Gracious to the creatures".
The end of the verse 2:193 re-stresses against whom fighting must be exclusively directed at, showing that the aim is not to erase all other forms of worship, but only to stop fitna/religious persecution in an Islamic context
"but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors".
(see 10:83,16:110,85:10 for fitna).
If they desist from persecution, the Muslims are at once to stop fighting against them, and hostilities are not to be continued against any except the aggressors. The interpretation that these words mean that fighting is to be continued until all people accept Islam, is therefore belied, not only by the clear wording of the verse, but by the rest of the Quran speaking of peaceful coexistance regardless of faith so long as no hostility is initiated against the Muslims, and also belied by history itself.
For example in 9:4, the Muslims are told to leave the Idolators who do not break their aggreements, do not fight them or incite others. 8:38 further states that
"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".
The "desisting" and the "returning" refer to the struggle of the disbelievers against the Muslims. They are urged to stop the fitna lest they be destroyed when their appointed time of respite expires 15:5 like the past nations of vehement rejectors to whom God's messengers were sent
33:60-2"If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease and the agitators in the city do not desist, We shall most certainly set you over them, then they shall not be your neighbors in it but for a little while. Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering. (Such has been) the course of Allah with respect to those who have gone before; and you shall not find any change in the course of Allah".
There is no coercion in religion because truth is made plain through the revelation 2:256,18:29 it becomes self evident against falsehood and thus naturaly prevails over any form of worship that is not the surrender to Allah 3:19,9:33,34:46-47,48:28,61:9. This is according to a universal system established upon Truth, and where falsehood is therefore bound to vanish 15:85,17:81,21:16-8. When the Quran speaks of domination of Islam as a religion over others, it makes such a statement in a prophetic context 48:27-8, without hinting to the disappearance of other belief systems. It only indicates that Islam's superiority as a religion will be established over all others.
The forceful, worldwide, physical dominion of one religion above all others in this life isnt a Quranic concept, but a Biblical one that will occur in the Messianic Age. See Zech14 for example among messianic passages, relating how "utopian" the world will become once all other religions, along with those that keep practicing them despite the warnings, are wiped out and only the Jewish God is worshiped. This is not to mention that among the 613 commandements revealed at Sinai are the genocidal laws still applicable to this day Deut20:16,17,25:19.
The phenomenon of Muslim violent intolerance to others, besides being statistically marginal and scripturally baseless, is a reaction, the indirect but happily approved creation of Judeo-Christian biblically endorsed oppression and destruction of other races and nations, which has been ongoing since the earliest times of both these religions' inceptions. The Judeo-Christian media uses and needs the fringe Muslim lunatics to further justify their policies, instead of giving voice to the truthful and genuine Muslims that constitute the vast majority.
Just because one doesnt see violent images of Christian or Jewish leaders decapitating others, doesnt mean that people, especially Muslims, arent dying in the 100s daily from direct and indirect result of the Judeo-Christian battle to shape world geopolitics in accordance with their ultimate aim, the domination of their system and ushering of their utopian messianic age. There is a reason why Jewish and Christian leaders see in Trump a reincarnation of Cyrus.
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.
