In answer to the video "The Infidel and The Jizyah"
The early Medinite Muslim community lived in an atmosphere of constant threat from inside and outside the city. They would never lay down to sleep except with their weapons with them and had to be in constant preparation for attacks from all sides, by the pagans of all Arabia, and their allies among the people of the book
8:60"And prepare against them what force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them, whom you do not know (but) Allah knows them".
The noble prophet, seeing himself as the guardian of the commumity was very often at the forefront in the case of a potential attack
"Once the people got frightened, so Allah's Messenger rode a slow horse belonging to Abu Talha, and he set out all alone, making the horse gallop. Then the people rode, making their horses gallop after him. On his return he said, "Don't be afraid (there is nothing to be afraid of) (and I have found) this horse a very fast one." That horse was never excelled in running hence forward".
This is one of the features of defensive Jihad, as is done by most governments around the world today; dissuasion through constant military readiness of any potential enemy, known or hidden. In the case an attack is launched, then the Muslims counter attack will not delay so as to imperil the community. This deterring method creates an atmosphere where diplomacy might be preferred than risking confrontation. However even in such an atmosphere, Muslims themselves should never beg for peace when they are in an state of inferiority. This is simple common sense from a military perspective, as it would expose a weak mindset to the enemy who would in turn be further emboldened in his belligerent attitude. Only in a state of superiority should they go and seek peace from the enemy in order to avoid further bloodshed.
This is exactly what the prophet would instruct the soldiers to do when about to confront an open enemy. But should on the other hand the opposite party come with a peace offer then the believers are told to rely on Allah and "incline", ie be receptive to it
8:61"And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing".
God will strengthen and protect those who actively rely on Him, as He did in the past, in case their aggressors seek to deceive them 8:62. It is in such tense context that the prophet is reported to have said
"Do not precede the Jews and the Christians with the Salam. And if one of you meets them in the path, then force them to its narrow portion/narrowest path".
The background of this report is, as seen from other versions is the prophet setting himself for a military expedition against a Jewish tribe, leaving these instructions to those remaining behind
"Verily, I am riding against the Jews tomorrow, so do not greet them with peace and if they greet you with peace, then say: And upon you".
It clearly is a warning to remain distant and cautious of the enemy in times of conflict, openly signifying to him that no further avenue for deescalation between the parties exists. This is how the Classical scholars understood it, placing the report in their chapters related to war campaigns. The scholars further say the tribe in question was the treacherous and covenant breachers of Banu Qurayza. Outside this exceptional context, the Quran encourages Muslims to reciprocate in peaceful salutations.
Reciprocity in goodwill is so hardwired into the Quranic message that even when people meet and greet oneanother, the one answering should exceed the other in his greeting
4:86"When a greeting is offered you, answer it with an even better greeting, or [at least] with its like. God keeps count of all things".
The Islamic greeting is a supplication to Allah, that He might bestow peace on another. This known etiquette, which is a Muslim peculiarity, is a means by which people’s hearts are cleansed. It brings people closer together and reinforces their ties. Further, it is indiscriminate; regardless of who the one originating the salutation, one should answer in kind, with even a recommendation to sometimes precede the ignorant in wishing him peace 25:63,28:55,43:89.
In answer to the video "The Infidel and The Jizyah"
After their defeat, the tribes of Bani Nadir and Qaynuqa were expelled and over those that remained, Muhammad proposed putting their own chief Usir ibn Rizam as Governor of Khaybar over his fellow Jews, but he had to recognize the Prophet's authority and never engage in hostilities or stir up anyone against the Muslims again. He accepted but on his way back to Khaybar where he was escorted with his 30 men and some armed Muslim men, he regretted his decision and attacked the Prophet's messenger, killing him.
Followed a heavy fight from which no Muslim died and all Jewish soldiers were killed except 1 who escaped. The history books report that one of the chiefs of the Bani Nadir named Kinana ibn Rabi, who had been given amnesty and relocated to Khaybar, was put to death under the prophet's orders, by Muhammad ibn Maslama in retaliation for the murder of his borther Mahmud. The rest of the story according to which, prior to his death, he was supposedly tortured for his refusal to indicate the location of his hidden treasure, was copied by both Tabari and Ibn Hisham from Ibn Ishaq who doesnt give any isnad with it. This report was most probably a Jewish invention as it is known that ibn Ishaq, in his effort at collecting every possible historical account regardless of authenticity (leaving the authentication process to be conducted by the subsequent generations), would borrow Jewish stories from the prophet's battles.
Further, the prophet forbade any kind of torture involving burning, and in his pattern of conduct in the authentic reports, no precedent exists for such a behavior although he could have done so on many occasions. War prisonners are to be well treated, clothed, sheltered and fed. When imam Malik was asked the Islamic ruling on torturing war prisonners to obtain military information he replied that he had never heard of such thing being done in Islam. The prophet was disinterested in pursuing wealth, whether in his battles or his reportedly austere lifestyle which his wives complained about even when the community had grown more prosperous. Neither was Kinana's family put to death, as is read in the report. It is related that Kinana's brother was alive under Umar's caliphate.
With the collapse of their last fortress, the Jews did not pose any more threat to the Muslims. Those that were expelled had their immovable properties confiscated and redistributed to the homeless among Muslims, who still had no dwelling places since their migration from Mecca. Those that were allowed to stay, remained on the condition that they could be expelled anytime should they return to treachery, desire for war or instigating others against the Muslims.
They could keep their property but in exchange had to provide the Muslims with part of their crops, they had to relinquish their insularity and participate in the life of the whole community with the rights and obligations that naturally ensue. Ibn Rawahah was placed as governor, and under the Prophet's instructions the Jews were allowed free practice of their religion. Now the believers had inherited under divine sanction their lands and wealth just as other unrighteous people's possessions were entirely given to them as spoils
Neh9:25"And they captured fortified cities and fat soil, and they inherited houses full of all good, hewn cisterns, vineyards, and olive trees, and fruit trees in abundance, and they ate and were sated, and they became fat, and they enjoyed pleasures with Your great goodness".
The Ishmaelites and their prophet however did not behave anywhere remotely like the Israelites and their prophets did whenever the lands of their enemies were granted to them by God, disregarding all ethics of war and humanitarian principles.
If there is one person that did not benefit from the conquest of Khaybar, it is the noble prophet. For example in 33:28-29 the prophet's wives are told that if their desire for this world and its adornment is preferable in their eyes than a life of sacrifices dedicated to their spiritual duties
"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".
After divorce the woman would have stood excluded from the category of "mothers of believers", and she would not be forbidden to any other Muslim; for she would have chosen divorce from the prophet only for the sake of the world and its adornments of which she had been given the choice. The prophet's wives had thus the option of requesting and getting a just and kind divorce for even such petty reasons like their desire to pursue this wordly life which God's prophet could not afford giving them in his household.
By the time this verse was revealed, and as shown in the direct context, the Muslims had conquered the rich agricultural region of Khaybar, and the community had grown more prosperous. But while life was becoming easier for most of its members, this ease was not reflected in the household of the Prophet. As was always his habit, he only allowed himself and his family only the absolute minimum necessary for the most simple living
28:83"that future abode, We assign it to those who have no desire to exalt themselves in the earth nor to make mischief and the good end is for those who guard (against evil)".
His prestigious status as a prophet and ruler never came in the way of that humble principle of living. Not only was he not ever one to ask for any kind of reward from his addressees 6:90,25:56-7,12:104etc but every occasion where he could make use of his status and deep knowledge for material benefit, he would do it for the sake of the needy
58:12"when you consult the Messenger, then offer something in charity before your consultation; that is better for you and purer".
The prophet's wives on the other hand naturally were longing for a share in the comparative luxuries which other Muslim women could now enjoy. His wives often stated that they had little on their shelves besides bread flour and dates. But it is reported that all of them rejected a possible seperation with the prophet and resumed their spiritual duties as "mothers of the believers", and were promised a great reward in the Hereafter for having denied themselves the ordinary comforts of life by remaining in the Prophet's house 33:31.
The prophet was at war for over 13 years with various tribes, including other Jews than Bani Qurayza. If he was a war lord that loved blood as the critics claim by raising this and other incidents, then it would be easy to provide evidence for this lust for be-heading and decapitating to establish a precedent. History on the other hand says that Jews continued to live in that region. They should have all fled following the supposed massacres, but didnt. They were only to be expelled many years after the Prophet died, by Umar. They were shifted to other regions within the Peninsula, Tayma and Ariha, and given paid settlements. Umar was being lenient here, considering that their expulsion was due to them breaching a non-aggression treaty with the Muslims. The prophet therefore could not have ordered their expulsion from the entire peninsula when he said
"I will certainly expel the Jews and Christians from the peninsula until I leave none but Muslims".
That is why the medieval scholars argued that by Arabia, what was meant was the area of the Hijaz. It is well established that when the ancients referred to Arabia, it did not necessarily mean what is understood today as the Arabian Peninsula. The order was specific to the Hijaz, more specifically the southern portion, to secure the establishment of Islam from their proven, unabated hostilities even after the prophet's death. The prophet's foresight proved to be true when he said
"Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula".
Clearly the prophet's conflict with his Israelites brethren was neither arbitrary or prejudiced. It is also to be noted it is Umar who, upon Jerusalem's conquest, cleaned the garbage dump which Christians purposefully left over the Jewish temple mount. It is Umar who invited 70 Jewish families of a nearby refugee village back into Jerusalem giving them the right to return after centuries of banishment by successive Christian leadership. Many attempts were made to reason and coexist with them. This is nothing like the 2000 years of humiliating abasement, mass expulsions, rounding up, forced conversions, false accusations and calumnies, extortions and indiscriminate mass killings of Jewish "Christ-killers" by Christians. What is even more disturbing is that this type of behavior was viewed as theologically and eschatologically justified and positive, in the sense that Christians were being "loving" and "charitable" by inciting Jews to be healed from their cursed and harmful faith.
Here is a timeline of Jewish persecution https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/historyjewishpersecution/.
Jewish "persecution" began since before any Temple was standing, such as in ancient Egypt. As already pointed 99% of such persecution as well as the killings from that time till now come from non-Muslims. But what is most important to note is the Jewish persecution and genocides of other people, through divinely ordained commands still applicable and compulsory to this day, as well as the persecution and killing of Jews by Jews throughout their biblical history.
As to recent times, the Arab nations had no "Jewish problem". They've been living side by side with them for centuries, even helped them escape the Nazis, especially in North Africa. Its not German antisemitic propaganda that turned the tide, causing Nazis and Arabs to ally, rather the shared hatred of the colonizers (British, French or Italian) and opposition to fascism and communism. It is known that the Arab elites did not endorse Nazism either, just as Hitler despised the Arabs. The Mufti of Jerusalem on the other hand had a "Jewish problem" (the massive influx of Jews into Palestine in the late 30s), combined with hatred of the British who opposed their nationalism. When Jews were targeted by Arabs in Arab lands, it was to prevent their emigration to Palestine, by sympathizers of the Mufti. There were no genocidal attacks/pogroms except for the event of Baghdad in '41, again in the backdrop of the politics of the time, blaming the Jews for the British invasion (they were seen as allies in relation to Palestine). But the scale of victims and damage to property is widely disputed, and some Iraqis risked their lives to hide Jewish neighbours. Although the authorities did not immidiately intervene, they eventually conducted an investigation, even executed army officers. Sure, life for a Jew in Arab lands was sometimes far from perfect, just like Muslim life is far from perfect in Israel (killings, destruction of land and property etc). But how many antisemitic incidents throughout ancient history until the 20th century came from Muslims, and were actually ordered by the authorities (as is done today in Israel)? Compare it to the scale of antimuslim attacks in Israel's short history.
In answer to the video "The Infidel and The Jizyah"
This hadith actually demonstrates how Muslim morality in war was such, that the prophet instructed the soldiers about to depart for an expedition against a declared enemy, to only fight their opponents as a last resort and after all avenues of peace have been exhausted
"Fight in the name of Allah and in the cause of Allah. Fight the disbelievers; attack and do not transgress the limits; do not betray; do not mutilate [your enemies' corpses]; and do not kill children. When you meet your enemies FROM AMONG the polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any of them, accept it and cease fighting; 1-Then, invite them to Islam; if they agree, accept it from them and cease your fighting. Then invite them to leave their homeland and move to Madina where they will be entitled to the same rights and obligations of the Muhajirun (the Muslim immigrants from accross the Peninsula fleeing their tribes at war with the Muslims). 2-If they refuse to do so (ie move to Medina), inform them that they will be treated like Muslim Bedouins (desert nomads) and they will be subject to the same rulings applied to believers. However, they will not be entitled to any war booty unless they engage in jihad with Muslims. 3-If they refuse, ask them to pay jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. But if they refuse to pay, seek Allah's help and fight them".
As is clear this is speaking of a sub-group from among the polytheists, those with whom the Muslims are at war and must be fought back in self defense. This means, there is another group of polytheists who arent meant to be fought and the Quran speaks of them, even at an advanced stage of the prophetic mission when Mecca was conquered, in sura tawba 9:4,6,7. They are those who are truthful to their agreements with the Muslims and refrain from attacking them, hence the instruction
"do not betray".
The hostile group on the other hand must be fought but even then, there are war ethics to observe when engaging them, first of all related to the non combatants. That is a significant point, the report says that CHILDREN are exempted from the law of retalitation, not the usual elderly and women. This means the prophet is here permitting the Muslims to seek their right, but not against non-combatants, hence the instruction to
"attack and do not transgress the limits".
The hostile group had no will to refrain from their attitude, had they had any will to do so, they would have shown it as the other pagans did. That is why the prophet doesnt recommend the Muslim fighters to ask them for peace prior to retaliating. But even then, this doesnt mean all doors to a peaceful resolution were shut. It would have been counter productive to simply offer them peace, it would have been tantamount to capitualtion while the Muslims were in full right to exercize their right to self-defence.
That is why the prophet instructs to offer 3 other avenues to avert battle. The first was to convert and join the Medina community as full fledged members with their rights and obligation. The second was convert while remaining in their own comunity, like the desert nomads did. This basically meant the prophet was tacitly telling them to remain in their ways as they wished, just verbally declare Islam so as to avert war. It is to be noted that this type of verbal Islam never deceived the prophet, the Quran speaks of this type of people among the Bedouins 49:14 who hardly practiced the religion, much less participated in their obligations towards the remaining Muslims. This was a pragmatic device the prophet adopted so as to create a peaceful alliance with a hostile people without hurting the dignity of the remaining Muslims who were entitiled to retaliation.
By becoming Muslims, even in the most superficial of ways, then the remaining Muslims must as a duty give them the benefit of the doubt and stop all hostilities. This also gave the enemies additional time to reflect and possibly reform, seeing the high values of Islam first hand. In case of refusal of those 2 options, convert and join Medina, convert and remain among their own, they still are given the option of remaining autonomous in exchange of the jizya. In case of refusal of all the above, then the Muslims have no more choice left but to engage in battle. They would have exhausted all possible avenues for peace with a people bent on attacking them.
All this shows, contrary to what the misleading critics try hard to portray, is that the prophet was interested in one thing only; to prevent hostilities against his community. Had he desired jizya, he wouldnt have proposed the previous 2 options, had he desired Islam, he wouldnt have proposed jizya in exchange for peace, much less the shallow declaration of Islam. Had he desired manpower for his army, he wouldnt have proposed jizya and much less the Muslim Bedouin status.
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 mentioned. 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.
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.
