Apostate prophet finds the money; Muhammad was after war spoils and prisonners?

In answer to the video "The Infidel and The Jizyah"

Muslims were given the right to capture as war booty all things brought to the battelfield by their aggressors, including the fighters themselves whose enslavement had a three fold objective. It was first a means by which Muslims could ransom their own captives, or ransom these prisoners in exchange of other material benefits. It is to be noted here that this ransoming did not apply to dead bodies. At the Battle of the Trench, Nawfal ibn Abd Allah ibn al-Mughirah died when he attempted to jump the trench with his horse. When the Meccans offered payment for receiving the body of Nawfal, the Prophet gave them the body and refused their offer. 

Second, the permission to capture war booty and the individuals present at the battlefield in enemy camp, was a form of divine punishment and then, a form of mercy. During captivity they had to be treated with the utmost care thus seeing the reality and justice of Islam after which they could reform themselves, change attitude towards Islam and be freed 8:67-71.

Besides their weapons and other military equipment, waring Arab tribes would often go as far as bringing their women, children and slaves to the battlefield in order to galvanize themselves and do their utmost not to retreat or lose a battle, for their defeat would make them lose their possessions and even worse yet their own people. This is not a license for the Muslims to plunder their enemies and kill their innocent family members as the Israelites have done supposedly through Divine sanction Deut3:6-7,21:1-18, and neither is it the divinely sanctioned misuse of the spoils acquired from the desert dwellers as stated elsewhere in the HB Jer49:28. The Quranic command is to seize whatever is left behind by the aggressor on the battlefield.

The Quran legislates and divides the possessions of the enemy that fall into Muslim hands into 2 groups. Those acquired directly from and most importantly during warfare, called ghanima. Ghanima is split into 1/5th for

8:41"Allah and for the Messenger and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer".

"For Allah" entails as ordained by Him/in His ways, and "for the messenger" means the legislative entity. The prophet had much more moral and religious financial responsibilities towards the community as regular members had, a few examples will be given later. As the prophet said

"it is not lawful for me to take from the spoils that Allah bestowed upon you so much as the amount of this (hair), except for a fifth and it will come back to you".

This is how "extensive" the personal wealth and provisions he had gathered from the spoils and from "the shade of his spear" were. For example when the prophet sent Ali to distribute the spoils from a battle, some disliked it, thinking he was doing it behind the prophet's back and complained about it. This shows how much trust they had in the prophet's ability to redistribute wealth into society. When the prophet heard of the complaint he answered that he had truly sent him, and in addition Ali took less than his due, so they should be thankful instead

"Do not hate him, for he deserved more of the fifth than that".

Ali deserved to take more OF the fifth because he didnt take the entire fifth, exactly as the prophet used to do. Ali said

"Have you not seen the maid-servant among the prisoners? Indeed, I have divided the spoils and set aside a fifth. She became part of the fifth, then she became part of the household of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, then she became part of the family of Ali, and I have consummated it with her".

The remaining 4/5th would be redistributed to those who actively took part in the war effort as obviously they were not otherwise paid for their services. Since the State was not yet fully formed, that there was no treasury with a military budget and that the Muslims, for the sake of their own survival, were required to carry their military duties on the basis of voluntary gifts, so they were allowed a share in war acquisitions

8:60"and whatever thing you will spend in Allah's way, it will be paid back to you fully and you shall not be dealt with unjustly".

This shows that by default, an Islamic state does not have a professional, full time military branch which needs to be constantly maintained and that Muslims are to take up arms voluntarily and benevolently whenever the conditions present themselves, for the defence of the community.

The second type of war spoils are the ones acquired without fighting (such as the surrender of an enemy) called fay (from anfa'a, He restored). Since this category of spoils is obtained without fighting, the warriors had no share in it 59:6. The fay fall entirely under the control of "God and the Messenger", not for any one individual specifically, certainly not for the needs of the rich in particular, but for the benefits of the weak first and foremost, as well as the community at large

59:7"for Allah and for the messenger and for the relatives and the orphans and the needy and the traveller, so that it should not be a perpetual distribution between the rich from among you".

The second part of verse is explicit. The prophet reportedly said that among the signs of the end of times will be the squandering of public property, more particularly 

"the booty of war will be like personal property".

The people trusted the prophet's judgement in the just redistribution of wealth. Neither would he ever profit from his position by using the charity entrusted to him, on himself or his family 

"Dates used to be brought to Allah's Messenger immediately after being plucked. Different persons would bring their dates till a big heap collected (in front of the Prophet). Once Al-Hasan and Al-Husain were playing with these dates. One of them took a date and put it in his mouth. Allah's Messenger looked at him and took it out from his mouth and said, "Don't you know that Muhammad's offspring do not eat what is given in charity?" 

Nor did he ask to centralize donations so as to take credit for helping others 

"Abu Talha had more property of date-palm trees gardens than any other amongst the Ansar in Medina and the most beloved of them to him was Bairuha garden, and it was in front of the Mosque of the Prophet. Allah's Messenger used to go there and used to drink its nice water." Anas added, "When these verses were revealed:--'By no means shall you Attain righteousness unless You spend (in charity) of that Which you love. ' (3.92) Abu Talha said to Allah's Messenger 'O Allah's Messenger! Allah, the Blessed, the Superior says: By no means shall you attain righteousness, unless you spend (in charity) of that which you love. And no doubt, Bairuha' garden is the most beloved of all my property to me. So I want to give it in charity in Allah's Cause. I expect its reward from Allah. O Allah's Messenger! Spend it where Allah makes you think it feasible.' On that Allah's Apostle said, 'Bravo! It is useful property. I have heard what you have said (O Abu Talha), and I think it would be proper if you gave it to your Kith and kin.' Abu Talha said, I will do so, O Allah's Apostle.' Then Abu Talha distributed that garden amongst his relatives and his cousins". 

So the fay prevented the monopolization of wealth laying out the rule that wealth should circulate through society, benefitting each and everybody, and the prophet was the epitome of that principle 

"When Allah made the prophet wealthy through conquests, he said, “I am more rightful than other believers to be the guardian of the believers, so if a Muslim dies while in debt, I am responsible for the repayment of his debt, and whoever leaves wealth (after his death) it will belong to his heirs". 

The part that reads "made the prophet wealthy through conquests" is an interpretation more than a translation. The Arabic simply says "When Allah opened for him the openings/victories". The context obviously entails acquisition of wealth because of the implication of those "openings", which were that the prophet began shouldering the financial difficulties of his people. But neither do the words imply the prophet became "wealthy" nor does it speak of "conquests" as in unprovoked "invasions".

The Quran itself testifies to the purposefully chosen rigorous lifestyle of the prophet even in the times where the community had grown more prosperous, and his household's complaints that naturally ensued. The dispute that followed the prophet's death over the gardens of Fadak, which were fay, between Fatima the prophet's daughter who claimed the inheritance and Abu Bakr the Caliph who wanted the property to be primarily redistributed to the needy as the prophet did in his lifetime, is testimony to this fact. Abu Bakr did not want to change how the Prophet distributed it, but also did not deny Fatima's share as a member of the prophet's household. As one can see, the wealth even stipulated to the Prophet excluding the rest of the believers had to be used by him as the embodiment of the state, to serve the community. It was not until Umar's caliphate that the property was handed to the prophet's family, under the insistence of Ali and ibn Abbas, but under the strict condition that it would be managed as the prophet did; using its produce for the basic sustenance of the family and the surplus to the needy.

In fact so selfless and noble were the prophet's practices that he took on the onus of paying all the debts of the Muslims that died. He did so as soon as the Muslims began having the upper hand in battles, instead of upgrading his lifestyle and increasing the comfort of his household. He applied that policy upon his self and no one else, although he could have asked and received funds for the indebted from the more affluent members of the community, and although he wasnt even required to do so through revelation. 

This is in fact what he did in the early times of the community, when too little means were available to him so as to redistribute to the indebted

 "Whenever a dead man in debt was brought to Allah's Messenger he would ask, "Has he left anything to repay his debt?" If he was informed that he had left something to repay his debts, he would offer his funeral prayer, otherwise he would tell the Muslims to offer their friend's funeral prayer. When Allah made the Prophet wealthy through conquests, he said, "I am more rightful than other believers to be the guardian of the believers, so if a Muslim dies while in debt, I am responsible for the repayment of his debt, and whoever leaves wealth (after his death) it will belong to his heirs".

As shown earlier, he went out of his way to apply the ambiguous Quranic statement of moral obligation towards the community 33:6 as a duty extending to their private financial lives.

He was so noble, that he did not allow the debt to be paid from the inheritance of an individual, desiring that it all go to the heirs of that person. 

Which president, even the richest of them all which was by no means the prophet's case, promised and did take it upon himself to pay the debts of dead Muslims, and care for their orphans? He did so in kind, forgiving ways, through the share that came under his care, encouraging others to follow his example so as to build strong bonds of brotherhood 

"A man demanded his debts from Allah's Messenger in such a rude manner that the companions of the Prophet intended to harm him, but the Prophet said, "Leave him, no doubt, for he (the creditor) has the right to demand it (harshly). Buy a camel and give it to him." They said, "The camel that is available is older than the camel he demands. "The Prophet said, "Buy it and give it to him, for the best among you are those who repay their debts handsomely".

He sometimes had to borrow so as to fulfill that self-imposed obligation. That is why we hear a companion testify 

"I saw Abu Huraira point with his finger many a time and saying: By One in Whose Hand is the life of Abu Huraira, Allah's Apostle could not eat to his fill and provide his family bread of wheat beyond three days successively until he left the world". 

Seeing his situation, the more affluent would feel the need to provide help

 "An Ansari man, called Abu Shu'aib, came and told his butcher slave, "Prepare meals sufficient for five persons, for I want to invite the Prophet along with four other persons as I saw signs of hunger on his face".

Others would send him gifts as sustenance and he would make sure to share it or give it all in charity 

"Whenever a meal was brought to Allah's Messenger, he would ask whether it was a gift or Sadaqa (something given in charity). If he was told that it was Sadaqa, he would tell his companions to eat it, but if it was a gift, he would hurry to share it with them". 

If he benefited from the gift, he would make sure that he would reciprocate 

"Allah's Messenger used to accept gifts and used to give something in return".

Furthermore, in relation to 33:28-9 referred to earlier, in which the prophet is told to 

"say to your wives: If you desire this world's life and its adornment, then come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing". 

No muslim, and no man of any culture is required to go out of his way and ask his wife if she is happy and satisfied enough in all material aspects, especially when one is just with the wife in relation to one's financial capabilities. Further, no muslim or man in general is required to offer divorce if the wife is unhappy. On top of it, not simple divorce, with each partner going his/her way, which would be fairest in this case, but a "gracious" divorce, where the wife is free to leave as well as receive compensation if she chooses to. Yet this is what was required of the prophet, contrary to all muslims, a man supposedly seeking multiple marriages of lust.

When he died, he died with a few things, pawning some of his goods to meet ends meet, and his wives lived a very simple life as reflected in both the Quran and ahadith. He would hastily finish a congregational prayer, astonishing an audience used to see him standing so long in prayer that his feet would get blisters, stepping over people at the mosque, rushing to the room of one of his wives because

“I recalled that there was left with me some gold which was meant for charity; I did not like to keep it any longer, so I gave orders that it should be distributed”.

The prophet was not an ascetic, the Quran and his life are full of examples where he encourages Muslims to seek the good things of this life all the while keeping in view the afterlife. But he made sure that his needs and those of his closest people remained at the bare minimum so that he would always have something available to give in charity

 "Once the Prophet went to the house of Fatima but did not enter it. `Ali came and she told him about that. When 'Ali asked the Prophet about it, he said, "I saw a (multicolored) decorated curtain on her door. I am not interested in worldly things." `Ali went to Fatima and told her about it. Fatima said, "I am ready to dispense with it in the way he suggests." The Prophet ordered her to send it to such-andsuch needy people".

This is one aspect of the prophet's personality that has puzzled his critics, contemporary and throughout the ages. What is the worldly benefit that Muhammad gained from preaching what he did? In his normal life as a husband, he did not behave like royalty expecting to be served 

"I asked `Aisha "What did the Prophet use to do in his house?" She replied, "He used to keep himself busy serving his family and when it was the time for prayer he would go for it".

The recent critics, the intellectually honest have dropped the old unsubstantiated propaganda of sensual, political or material motivation. They now have settled for sincerely delusional, which is basically what the Quraysh, who knew him for a lifetime used to say. Although even this does not stand the test of basic scrutiny. How does one leading the sanest life in every aspect, whether in the private, public or political sphere be delusional in just one aspect, ie divine communication? This prophet, in line with the most basic commonality with all prophets did not ask any of the things a king or leader would ask from his followers, whether from the time of his humble beginnings having attracted only a small band of the most sincere and faithfull believers, or the later years when he had become the "king" of the Arabs

"Once, while I was in the company of the Prophet, he saw the mountain of Uhud and said, "I would not like to have this mountain turned into gold for me unless nothing of it, not even a single Dinar remains of it with me for more than three days (i.e. I will spend all of it in Allah's Cause), except that Dinar which I will keep for repaying debts." Then he said, "Those who are rich in this world would have little reward in the Hereafter except those who spend their money here and there (in Allah's Cause), and they are few in number."

His lifestyle did not move up. He still lived in the exact same house, slept in the exact same bed, and did not own any extra camels. This made his closest companions cry at times, seeing the marks that were left on the prophet's body from sleeping on the branches of date palms

"O Messenger of Allah, how can we allow you to live like this? Look at the kings of Roman, Persia. Look at how they live. Surely O Messenger of Allah, you deserve better".

Instead of considering a slight raise in his comfort, even seeing that his followers were the one making the request, meaning they would never grumble and suspect him of taking advantage of his position, he replied

"O Umar, is this why we are here for? O Umar, aren’t you happy that they have this ‘Dunia’and we have the ‘Akhira’?"

Abdullah bin Masud reported a similar occasion where 

"The Messenger of Allah slept on a straw mat and got up with the marks left by it on his body. Ibn Mas'ud said, "O Messenger of Allah! Would that you make us spread out a soft bedding for you." He replied, "What have I to do with the world? I am like a rider who had sat under a tree for its shade, then went away and left it".

In another instance he stated

"True wealth is not abundant riches. True wealth is the contentment of the soul".

These types of incidents where his most trustworthy followers openly asked him to increase his lifestyle are many 

"`Umar bin Al-Khattab saw a silken cloak (being sold) at the gate of the Mosque and said to Allah's Apostle, "I wish you would buy this to wear on Fridays and also on occasions of the arrivals of the delegations." Allah's Messenger replied, "This will be worn by a person who will have no share (reward) in the Hereafter." Later on similar cloaks were given to Allah's Messenger and he gave one of them to `Umar bin Al-Khattab. On that `Umar said, "O Allah's Messenger! You have given me this cloak although on the cloak of Atarid (a cloak merchant who was selling that silken cloak at the gate of the mosque) you passed such and such a remark." Allah's Messenger replied, "I have not given you this to wear". And so `Umar bin Al-Khattab gave it to his pagan brother in Mecca to wear".

If his clothes were worn out, and that some Muslims noticed it, offering him another, he would not hesitate giving it to someone who asked 

"A woman brought a woven Burda (sheet) having edging (border) to the Prophet, Then Sahl asked them whether they knew what is Burda, they said that Burda is a cloak and Sahl confirmed their reply. Then the woman said, "I have woven it with my own hands and I have brought it so that you may wear it." The Prophet accepted it, and at that time he was in need of it. So he came out wearing it as his waist-sheet. A man praised it and said, "Will you give it to me? How nice it is!" The other people said, "You have not done the right thing as the Prophet is in need of it and you have asked for it when you know that he never turns down anybody's request." The man replied, "By Allah, I have not asked for it to wear it but to make it my shroud." Later it was his shroud"

Even if, for argument's sake as is so often implied by his shameless enemies without ever bringing any evidence in support, the prophet Muhammad misused these 1/5th or "20%" for personal greed, although his contemporaries testified that he only kept

 "One-fifth of the fifth"

and on top of that added another 20% of war booty for personal expenses, then it still does nothing to his divinely appointed status. A little hint of comparison to the critics is to take a look at the divinely sanctioned "heavy yoke" taxation system that benefited Jewish royalty, including the prophets David and Solomon.

In sura duha, one of the earliest Meccan revelations, a period during which it could certainly not be said, even by Islam's most die-hard opponents, that the prophet and his followers were rich it says in 93:8 that God found him aailan which literally means carer of others and subsequently enriched him.

This doesnt mean he became wealthy, but that he was increased in his meager resources for the sake of his empathy towards those he was found caring for. The whole surah duha is actually a verse which establishes the unique presence of Allah in the life of Muhammad upto when he began receiving revelation. An interesting linguistic device used in this sura to capture multitudes of meanings and implications is the omission of the 3rd person singular particle "ka" at the end of each of God's remedies to Muhammad's difficulties. This is done so as to indicate that these multifarious blessings ultimately benefit not only himself but those with him.

The Prophet was not poor and neither does the Quran say so. It states that the wealthiest among Quraysh considered him of no significance in the affairs of the people. Prior to prophethood Muhammad was actually a successful businessman, and Khadija employed him to manage her goods. Those that owned goods often employed businessmen to represent them on these caravans. It was through this employment that Khadija became aware of his outstanding qualities, especially his trustworthiness. He even used to sherd sheep in his teens.

When prophethood began however, he could not provide for himself and his family from anything else than the war acquisitions. As shown above, in doing so he was far removed from behaving like kings and conquerors did, much less the average soldier who actually gained more than him once he redistributed the biggest part of his portion to society. And again, as already shown, had he kept all his shares and added more on top, it would have done nothing to his credibility as a true prophet in light of the HB prophets who were in similar situations and behaved in a far less, if at all, selfless and charitable manner. And besides, even if he had all the possessions which the polemicists most often arbitrarily number and list and 10x as much, it wouldnt diminish an iota to his prophethood status.

Anyone familiar with the HB knows the reason why.

A description of the Prophet's hujuraat/huts is given by Ibn Sa'd in his at-Tabaqat al-Kubra. A narrator named 'Abdullah ibn Yazid saw them just before they were knocked down by the order of the Caliph al-Walid ibn 'Abd al-Malik from Syria in the year 88/707 because he wanted to enlarge the Prophet's mosque. There were 9 huts and simple cottages in total, adjacent to the mosque and progressively built as his household expanded. 4 were of mud brick, with the inner space partitioned off by palm branches plastered with mud, and 5 made of palm branches plastered with mud and not divided into rooms. The doors werent even made of wood but of rough black blankets hanging for privacy. Maymunah's house for example wasnt partitioned. Abdullah ibn Abbas once slept as a youngster there as Maymunah was his aunt, when the Prophet's turn was to sleep in Maymunah's apartment. He detailed how he slept in the same room as the prophet and witnessed him spending the whole night in worship during his stay. The huts didnt exceed 5x4m in dimensions, each having a tiny 5x3m backyard enclosed by the branches of palm trees and unbaked bricks.

Apostate prophet shocked by Jesus' behavior; Christian jizya?

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.

Apostate prophet favorite; Dhimmi oppression through Jizya?

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.

Islam critiqued raises the joker; Islam spread by the sword?

In answer to the video "Surah 9:29 in context"

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.

     

Islam critiqued launches assault on the caliphs; Muslim invasions?

In answer to the video "Surah 9:29 in Context"

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.

Islam critiqued is no military strategist; divine timing of jihad?

In answer to the video "Surah 9:29 in Context"

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.