Islam critiqued is truly sceptical; why write Quran if memorization is best?

In answer to the video "Perfect Preservation of the Quran is a Modern Invention"

Even at that point when Muslims felt the need to securize the written Quran, and when it was achieved, it neither diminished nor discouraged the process of memorization, so much so that even today Muslims can count in their ranks thousands of huffaz. Just as the prophet greatly encouraged the act of memorizing the Quran, after him, Memorizers were held in high esteem by the people. Some women even asked to be taught the Quran instead of receiving their dower of marriage as reported in (Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Nasai, al Taj).

The Prophet used to recite different passages from the revealed text while leading the daily prayers and declared the process of memorising the Book an act of great virtue, in countless traditions. The phenomenon reached a point that some Companions went to the extreme of reciting the whole book in one night. However, when the Prophet was informed, he asked them not to seal the Quran in less than three days or a week. (Al Nasai, al Musnad). The prophet said; 

"Whoever completes a recitation of the Quran, it is as if he has reached the station of prophethood except that he does not receive revelation"(Usul al-Kafi) 

"The nobles of my nation are those who bear the Qur'an (in their hearts), and the people of the night (who worship Allah during the hours of darkness)"  

"The number of stations in the garden of Paradise corresponds to the number of verses of the Qur’an. When someone who knows the Qur’an enters the garden he will be told: ‘Recite and for every verse ascend a station.’ There will be no station higher than he who has memorised the entire Qur’an".

Many other traditions show the constant encouragement from the prophet to take care, write down, memorize and transmit the Quran to all members of the society men, women and even children.

"Allah will crown the parents of the one who teaches his child the Quran"  

"The best of you is the one who learns the Qur’an and teaches it"  

"One who teaches his child the Qur’an is like one who has made ten thousand Hajj pilgrimages"  

‘The hearts of men can become rusty just as iron rusts. He was asked: O Messenger of Allah what is their polish? He (S) said: The recitation of the Quran and remembrance of death’

So many of the later-generation Muslims emulated their predecessors in memorising the entire Quran and the number of huffaz increased from generation to generation from an estimated 40 after the prophet's death to hundreds in the next generation and the number continued to swell until now more than 1400 years later we can count hundreds of thousands across the globe with some reciters as young as 10 years old. One cannot but see in this phenomenon, the realisation of the prophecy made 1400 years ago 

54:17"And certainly We have made the Quran easy for remembrance, but is there anyone who will mind?". 

The contemporaries of Muhammad proudly preserved the poems and speeches of the pre­Islamic era so it would be inconceivable for these same people to be careless regarding their personal copies of the great Book whose laws they proclaimed, for which they had staked their lives, left their homes, spent their wealth, abandoned their families and children.

Abu Bakr's collection, as stated earlier was assembled on loose parchments. It was not compiled in book form and reproduced, up to the time of Uthman. It was meant for safekeeping so as to ensure the availability of a complete and approved written testimony to the Quran. Also, AbuBakr's collection was not meant as a standard by which people should refer to in their recital. And so, until the time of Uthman, people kept using their personal codices and ways of recital. Under Abu Bakr' caliphate, Muslim land had not yet expanded beyond the Peninsula, a territory where people were already familiar with the proper reading and recitation of the Quran. However with the rapid expansions to new lands and people under Umar then Uthman, the complete Uthmanic text, properly ordered and rewritten according to the new rasm (more on that point later), was sent to various provinces along with a memorizer to demonstrate the proper reading. Uthman did so under his caliphate upon receipt of the very first report about variant recitations in the provinces.

As already stated, the differences were dialectical and in the manners of vocalization; and this is what the reporter, Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, who was sent on a campaign to Azerbaidjan had noticed on his return march. A plan to tacle the issue was put in place the same year. It is to be noted, recital variations had already been detected and addressed by the previous caliph who had rebuked ibn Masud for accepting to teach in the Hudhail dialect to accommodate some people of Iraq. But by Uthman's time, the variations were more widespread given the expansion of the Muslim empire.

Again, this process of proper Quranic education and memorization of the far provinces had already started under Umar the previous caliph who had been entrusted with Abubakr's compilation. Umar sent teachers that established schools in Kufa, Basra, Syria out of which came 100s of students and future teachers would come out from. The reason that prompted Uthman's Quran project, and Abubakr's before him, is thus very different than having to put a canon together from among conflicting traditions each claiming to be the divine truth. This was the case with Christianity's competing sects like the Marcionites, Ebionites, Gnostics, proto-orthodox (named as such because they were the ones that eventually were adopted by the state) each insisting that they correctly upheld the teachings of Jesus. All were in competition to become the rightful, officially endorsed version.

Uthman's collection was therefore not a new one nor the first, but the second based on Abu Bakr's compilation that was in Hafsa's hands. A lesser known, but complimentary narration suggests that Uthman, prior to requesting Abu Bakr's compilation that was in Hafsa's hands, first commissioned the compilation of a mushaf based on primary, independent sources, including the companions' parchments as well as all material he could gather from Aisha. Only then did he compare that compilation to Abubakr's that was in Hafsa's hands. Both versions agree to Hafsa's suhuf playing a crucial role in the final authentication of Uthman's mushaf.

This secondary narration adds even more strength to the Quran's authenticity as we now have a double compilation effort from 2 different sources (Abu bakr, then Uthman) 10 years appart, each agreeing with one another. Besides spelling mistakes or omissions which are known and documented, the written parts of the Quran originally disseminated among the Muslims confirmed one another. Among those anecdotal spelling mistakes which were detected, hence irrelevant to the process of transmission which is primarily oral, the hadith speak of Uthman asking Ubayy ibn Kaab to check the correct spelling of taghut which was found to be written sometimes with an elongated alef. Uthman then returned the original to Hafsa, further showing that no difference whatsoever existed with Uthman's compilation otherwise he would have simply destroyed Hafsa's copy, as he did with other imperfect copies later on.

According to some reports, he even destroyed his own copy that pre-dated his compilation

"I too had a copy of the Quran but I erased it and am content to rely on this copy".

What further corroborates that Uthman's compilation did not differ from the scattered writings left by the prophet, then collected by Abu Bakr a few month after the prophet's death, is the fact that up to this day, the Uthmani script allows the preservation of all the approved recitations going back to the Prophet.                                                                                                                                 

Islam critiqued meditates; why didnt Muhammad compile the Quran?

In answer to the video "Perfect Preservation of the Quran is a Modern Invention"

The revelation of the Quran was a long and gradual process, explicitly meant, among other things at solidifying it in the believers' hearts 28:51, as a sign of Allah's pledge to secure it and preserve it. This process continued until very shortly before the prophet's death. He did not know when he would die, as affirmed in the Quran itself 7:188,46:9 although he had the feeling that Gabriel's double recitation of the entire Quran, instead of the usual single review a year, was an indication of his approaching end. Another indication was the total victory of Islam in the Peninsula, marked by the conquest of Mecca. God favoured His prophet by telling him to seek forgiveness as the sign of victory manifests, so as the ensure him a honourable station in the hereafter, and teaching the Muslims through him they should not feel complacent in terms of righteousness because of worldly success 

110:1-3"When the victory of Allah has come and the conquest, And you see the people entering into the religion of Allah in multitudes, Then exalt [Him] with praise of your Lord and ask forgiveness of Him. Indeed, He is ever Accepting of repentance". 

Because he did not know his exact time of death, he could not have commanded the compilation himself while the possibility was still open for new revelation to be inserted among the previous ones, in a location within the existing text that was between his hands.

The prophet, being simply the conveyer of the message, kept on communicating what was revealed to him. So long as he was alive, the descent of revelation was still a possibility, given his function as a reformer and teacher. It is his death that signified the end of revelation. It did happen, as with Moses or Muhammad, that long intervals separated 2 revelations, but never did God remove revelation completely from his messengers long before their death.

Neither did the prophet know where a revelation had to be placed until the divine order would be given

75:17"Surely on Us (devolves) the collecting of it and the reciting of it".

According to Ibn Abbas, the prophet didnt even know when a sura would end until he would receive the bismillah formula. Gabriel did not just oversee the correct recitation, but also the collecting together of the various written parts as stated in the verse. Ibn Abi’l-‘Aas, one of the scribes, describes how he once witnessed the phenomenon

“I was sitting with the Messenger of Allaah when he fixed his gaze on something, then lowered his gaze until he was almost looking at the ground, then he gazed at something. He said, ‘Jibreel came to me and told me to put this aayah (he recited 16:90) in this place in this sura".

Just as he was commanded from on high, the prophet in turn would supervise the placement of verses, passages and suras in specific places, within the already existing text. 

Uthman himself in a statement reflects the Quranic doctrine of divine arrangement of the Quran. When ibn Al Zubayr told him 

"This verse, which is in Surat a/ Baqarah, 'Those who die and leave wives behind ... without turning them out,' has been abrogated by another verse. Why then do you write it (in the Qur'an)? 'Uthman said, 'Leave it (where it is), 0 son of my brother, for I will not shift anything of it (i.e., the Qur'an) from its original position".

As a side note, No report attributed to the prophet exists identifying the final revelation. The various opinions that came to us are those of companions and their successors, giving their ijtihad. Not every single companion was present every time revelation descended. Days or months could pass before the information circulated everywhere. When certain reports speak of last verse, this "last" is determined by context for example in a discussion on abrogation some argued that such and such a verse came last and thus cannot be abrogated 

("The people of Al-Kufah differed concerning this Verse: "And whoever kills a believer intentionally." So I went to Ibn 'Abbas and asked him, and he said: 'It was revealed among the last of what was revealed, and nothing of it was abrogated after that.'") 

other narrations spoke of the last verse in the sense of latest group of revelations, as in the case of ayaat ul riba 2:275-2:280 

("One of the last verses to be revealed was the verse on riba")

 as is similarly meant for 9:11 

("It was narrated that Anas bin Malik said: "The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'Whoever departs this world with sincerity towards Allah..This is confirmed in the Book of Allah, in one of the Last Verses to be revealed, where Allah says: "But if they repent...")

 or last revealed about a particular issue as in the case of 4:176 

("Narrated Al-Bara' bin 'Azib: The last verse revealed about the decease who left no descendants or ascendants...")

The majority opinion is that 2:281 was last to be revealed overall. It is implicitly understood based on a narration that the prophet Muhammad died a few days later.

This gradual process solidified the Quran in the believers' hearts 28:51, as a sign of Allah's pledge to secure it and preserve it. Consequently the Prophet would memorize each verse as it was revealed, recite it to the "Scribes of the Revelation" (kuttab al-wahy) who would write it down immediately, in the manner of prophets of old. Jeremiah for instance dictated his prophecies to his disciple Baruch son of Neriah, when God commanded him

Jer30:1"Write for you the words that I have spoken to you, on a scroll"  

Jer36:4"And Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah, and Baruch wrote from Jeremiah's mouth all the words of the Lord that He had spoken to him, on a roll of a book".

The prophet Jeremiah was literate and also wrote a scroll by himself Jer51:60. 

Uthman stated

"It was customary with the messenger of Allah that when a portion of different chapters was revealed to him, and when any verse was revealed, he would call one of those persons who used to write the Holy Quran and say to him: Write this verse in the chapter where such and such verses occur".

So although the prophet did not and could not have compiled the Quran himself, yet by reviewing with the memorizers the revelations in his, and their hands, and supervising the writing and placement of every new revelation, he made sure that once his life would come to an end, his followers would have a complete, structured and authentic Quran they would be able to assemble into a book. The difficulty for his followers would consist in gathering the Quran in its twofold transmission form so as to corroborate the one with the other; oral first and foremost, and then textual from all available loose materials on which it was written, such as palm-leaves, bones, parchments etc which were not even all available in one and the same place. Despite this monumental task, there never was disagreement as to the sequence of verses in any recitation 

“I am going to leave with you two heavy burdens. The first of them is the Book of Allah: in it is the true guidance and the light. Therefore, hold fast to it.” Then he (the Prophet) prompted and induced the Muslims to adhere to the Book of God. Then he said: “And my household. I remind you of Allah in matters relating to my household. I remind you of Allah in matters relating to my household. I remind you of Allah in matters relating to my household".

As a side note the second part of the hadith comes in the context of a group of soldiers' harsh and unwarranted disrespect of Ali, the prophet's cousin and son in law, at the location of Ghadir.

That double security system; textual/oral had preserved the Quran so well, that the Muslims did not immidiately feel the need of collecting and compiling it into a book after the prophet's death. After all the Quran, by its very definition is a "recitation" meaning a primarily oral phenomenon in a traditionally oral society. This security assurance however did not last for long. A few months following the death of the prophet, this double security system was compromised. Abu Bakr ordered the collection following the loss of reciters on the day of Yamamah as authenticaly and strongly supported by the Islamic history, then handed it down to Umar who left it to Hafsa. 

Islam critiqued is amazed; but what about the initial defective Quran script?

In answer to the video "Perfect Preservation of the Quran is a Modern Invention"

The basic nature of early scripts was suitable for the memorizers. They knew, through oral transmission the correct pronounciation of each word. Others however werent orally introduced to the Quran, and in addition spoke different dialects. They found great difficulty if they opened the Book and tried to read from such basic script for the first time.

The Hebrew Bible was similarly only punctualized in the 9th century CE, hundreds of years after it is believed to have been written, to help the person less familiar with Hebrew. 

This basic Quranic script was meant to keep it locked in its original double security system, textual/oral. Any one trying to bypass the established oral tradition and recite or read the Quran on his own would instantly be detected. Just as happens nowadays with critics trying to approach that basic script and suggest multiple possible readings, thinking they are discrediting it while they are in fact confirming the very purpose of those that compiled the Quran in this manner. The kind of recital and textual variants we see, either in the ancient manuscripts or as reported in Quran comentaries, testify to the early fixation of the text. Had the transmission only been oral there would have been variants the likes we have in the hadith literature when the earliest ahadith were strictly passed on orally for many decades prior to being written. This original, defective script of the Quran implies that written copies were only intended as memory aid. This is all the more true if one considers that the Arabic script had already stabilized even prior to Islam, and that Arabs already used diacritical marks. Yet the first official copies did not.

Papyri dated to 22AH contain dotting on several letters (PARF 557/558). A Quran manuscript, the Birmingham manuscript, radio carbon dated with high probability to the lifetime of the prophet's time or at most a few years after his death, has a partially dotted script. The lower script of the Sanaa manuscript is equally dotted in some instances. All the Hijazi manuscripts available, which are the earliest, are partially dotted.

Thus, this purposeful omission by the scribes, writing in a defective script, meant that it would have been impossible to read the Quran accurately strictly using the text. This reinforces the notion that an oral tradition was well established prior to the compilation effort.

This by the way is one of the aspects of Muslim tradition confirmed by the Sanaa manuscripts. The authors of these texts made use of near-synonyms with certain passages from the Uthmanic recension. These near symonyms, known and listed in the Islamic tradition as parts of the prophetic approved readings, have led scholars that do not give much weight to the Muslim tradition, to actually confirm it once more as truthful. Comenting on various studies of the Sanaa manuscripts, Nicolai Sinai says

"The phenomenon (that is, of near symonyms) does, however, shed valuable light on the initial stage of the Quran’s transmission history, insofar as it suggests some degree of oral transmission in which transmitters were forced to rely on their memory of the gist of what was being said, rather than being able to check a written original. As Sadeghi has highlighted, the fact that an examination of the lower layer of the palimpsest yields a fair number but not a downright overabundance of such synonymic substitutions is best explained by an admixture of oral and written transmission. One may accordingly follow him in conceiving of the Quran’s textual transmission as being ultimately rooted in the transcription of oral proclamations recited at speed, thus accounting for the original transcribers’ occasional disagreement about whether a given verse employed, say, alnār or jahannam. The fact that Islamic works ascribe similar synonymic substitutions to some of the non-ʿUthmānic codices of the Quran reportedly com- piled by certain companions of the Prophet adds further weight to this hypothesis".

But this phenomenon of oral preservation was of course not exclusive to the Quran.

The pre and early post-Islamic culture was predominently oral. Poets for example extremely rarely compiled their poetry into writing. The Quran was actually the very first Arabic book. Interestingly, the meaning of the word itself reflects that process. Quran, from qara'a means "to read" and in Arabic the term can be used both for reading from a physical text or from memory. The compilation of the Quran, the first Arabic book was a landmark in the history of the language and literature, beginning the transition from an oral to written society.

So, as Muslim territories expanded rapidly just a few decades following the prophet's death, the memorizers of the Quran could not keep up in reaching and educating every new community. It was not possible to send a reciter to every corner of the caliphate, before the need to read and recite the Quran had reached every community and individual. That is why the authorities had to further improve upon that basic orthography, making it easier for someone to read the Quran even if he wasnt fully acquainted with its recital prior. This will be shown later on.
                                                                                                                                         
So in 22/642, a little more than 10 years after the prophet's death, the caliph Uthman, in an effort to standardize the script of the Quran so as to allow it to be read the authentic recitations, took the loose pages of the Quran from Hafsa, the prophet's wife after her father Umar's death, for a copying in the form of a book or mushaf. There were no differences between the 2. Uthman simply used AbuBakr's compilation as a blueprint for the multiple copies he later disseminated in the Muslim territories. The process was done in combination with the approval of the best reciters of Medina. This is in keeping with the prophet's own practice of dual authentication and preservation of the Quran since the very first revelation. Again, Uthman's mushaf was thus nothing but a clean and perfect copy of Abu Bakr's collection of the Quran, when he was the first caliph. Prior to Uthman's compilation efforts, Abu bakr collected the Quran from all the various supports on which it was written and that were found in the prophet's house, then handed it to Umar who left it to Hafsa. This will be detailed a little later.

Islam critiqued goes back in time; Early Muslims opinion on the Quran?

In answer to the video "Perfect Preservation of the Quran is a Modern Invention"

There is zero proof that early Muslims doubted the Quran's authenticity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Once the institution of prophethood was sealed, Allah, contrary to His previous revelations, pledged that He would gather and structure, then protect His final revelation. No other book or divine scripture has this pledge of protection from God Himself. Many Quranic verses refer to the ongoing process of writing it down 80:11-16,85:21-22,6:77-80,25:5.

Many ahadith whether from the Muatta, Kitab Al-Nida Lil-Salah, Bukhari's Kitab Fadailul-Quran, all confirm the Quran was entirely written on different support in Muhammad time, although not compiled in one book. This in itself wasnt a problem to the multitude of memorizers contemporaries to the prophet. They knew its correct order.

We read in sahih Muslim of the prophet's command

"Do not take the Qur'an on a journey with you, for I am afraid lest it should fall into the hands of the enemy".

Again in Bukhari

"its confirmed that among those who compiled the Quran in the Prophet's time are Abdullah Ibn Mas’oud, Muadh and Ubayy Ibn Ka’b".

This close circle of the prophet's companions recited the Quran as it was revealed, from beginning to end (10 times according to some traditions) in front of the Prophet all of which indicates that it was in a gathered and structured form although not collated in the form of a book.

Again in al-Sirat al-Mustaqim, Anas, whom this youtuber claims did not think the Quran was correctly preserved, says:

"Four men collected the Qur’an during the life of the Prophet (S) those being my father, Mu’adh, Zaid(Ibn Thabit), and Abu Zaid".

Zaid ibn Thabit reported

"We used to collect the fragments of the verses of the Quran and put them in their appropriate places at the instruction of the Messenger of Allah (S). Despite this, the verses were still fragmented so the Prophet (S) ordered ‘Ali (a) to gather them in one place and warned us against losing them." 

Other examples of Quran compilers during the Prophet's time is the one of a woman named Umm Waraqah (al Itqan,v1,p215).

The Quran challenges its opponents to find discrepancies in it, or to produce similar verses or suras meaning that these suras were there in the public hands. The Quran was transmitted, learned and passed down both verbally and in script form, on a scale never seen for any document, let alone religious. Any unbiased individual can see this is a process which is still continuing today. But the primary source of transmission was always oral.

All written texts were dependent on it and it still is the case today as all written texts must be attested *by the oral tradition of transmission through a Hafiz. Again, this simply is a statement of fact. Writing down was only meant to consolidate the process of oral preservation. This is what the novices to Islam, which is the case of most of its self-proclaimed critics, fail to grasp. They approach Quran authenticity with their own scriptural history in mind, thinking that the Quran was put to writing out of thin air.

This dual method of control, textual but mainly oral, which was never practiced by the transmitters of the Bible, made it impossible for any tampering as it would immediately be detected by the thousands of memorizers in all corners of the Muslim territories. The number of people having transmitted the Quran is so vast that any error in the transmission, textual or oral, became impossible. This is why the Quran is labelled "mutawattir", a level of authenticity attributed to an oral transmission when it has been related exactly the same way by countless independant sources.

Extremely few ahadith have been labelled as such or reached the level of multiple independant sources as the Quran. Most ahadith are based ahad reports or singular transmissions. Further and in contrast to the Quran, the ahadith require isnad (detailed chain of transmission) to be validated, because the earliest communities often disputed and argued about the veracity of these statements.

The Quran never required any isnad to gain a sense of credibility and authenticity because the text and veracity of the Quran was agreed to by a consensus of the earliest Islamic communities. Despite the abundance of 1st-2nd century hijra manuscripts, there is zero proof that the Quran was transmitted in anyway other than tawatur. Hence the position of mainstream academia as regards the authenticity of the Islamic narrative of compilation, preservation, transmission of the text and recitals. See further below.

The Quran, contrary to both hadith and sunna does not seek support because it has community consensus or reliable transmission chain. Rather, it requires one to believe in its veracity based on it clear arguments. No scripture can be accepted purely on the basis that the same community profess its Divine origins and have themselves sought to protect it.

When Islam spread to territories where the people hadnt yet received an oral transmission of the Quran, but only the script, they were confused on the proper pronunciation of the words. The basic nature of the early script, especially the lack of headings or separations between the suras, could have most probably been the reason for some people to have confused the beginning and ending of certain suras.

There are for instance 2 reports attributed to Abu Ubaid and Aisha, reports that are deemed unauthentic and unreliable by hadith scholars, on sura Ahzab. In one report the person argues that there was a time when sura Ahzab, which currently counts 73 verses was similary in length to surah Baqarah which now has 286 verses. Some people thought that al ahzab and others were longer than they actually were. This could easily be explained by the fact that both al ahzab and al baqara were revealed in Medina. But sura Baqara was revealed over 10 years and so it could have been that at the time the comment was made on sura Ahzab's length, al baqara was also around 70 verses in length until a time came where it became longer. Assuming for argument's sake that al Ahzab did count 200+ verses, one would have to explain the intricate internal coherence of this short sura as we have it today. It has no inappropriate gaps, no discordant passages or unexplainable blanks the likes of which one would expect finding in a sura out of which a chunk of 200 verses was taken away, leaving only a mere 70. Even if we forget the issues regarding this hadith's authenticity, this misunderstanding could have been due to the basic early Quranic script as noted before, with no separations between verses and suras.

Similarly some companions were unsure whether sura tawba/bara'a and sura anfal, the one preceding it, were one and the same sura. Hence the famous absence in today's Quran, of the opening formula from sura tawba, the bismilla

"What is your reasoning with Surah Al Anfal, which has less than a hundred verses, and Surah At-Tawbah, which has more than a hundred verses, yet you put them together without writing in the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful between them and you placed them with the seven long surahs. Why did you do that? Uthman said: Al-Anfal was among the first to be revealed in Medina and At-Tawbah was among the last of those revealed of the Quran and their discussions resemble each other, so we thought that they were part of each other. Then the Messenger of Allah died and it was not clear to us if they were part of each other. For this reason, we put them together without writing in the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful and we included them with the seven long surahs".

Even a superficial reading of that report reveals the inconsistencies. Uthman himself in that hadith states that Anfal and Tawba/Bara'a were revealed on different occasions, meaning he knew they were separate. In addition the prophet never said they were a single unit. He recited on several occasions sura Tawba on its own. His companions prior to Uthman's compilation, treated sura tawba as a separate sura

“I entered the mosque on a Friday when Muhammad was delivering the sermon. I went and sat near Ubayy. The Prophet recited Surah Bara’ah/tawba.” "Umar ibn Khattab had written the directive: “Learn Surah Bara’ah and teach your women Surah Nur.”

Further ibn Abbas states that the companions divided the Quran into 7 portions, composed of 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 suras and then the last portion which extends from the mufassal to the end. This grouping can only be correct if anfal and tawba are separate. All these facts, as well as the suspicion on the personality of 'Awf or of Yazid al Farisi who is the sole narrator from ibn Abbas, make it highly unlikely that Uthman was unsure about the separation between anfal and tawba.

Apostate prophet salutes everyone; Prophet said do not greet the Jews?

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.

Apostate prophet discusses Jewish history; Khaybar farmers serving Muslims?

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.

Apostate prophet picks a hadith; Muhammad Offered 3 courses before killing them?

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.

Apostate prophet back to basics; Meaning of Quran 9:29?

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.