Another brilliant article
Content:
1. Introduction
2. Background: Surah 9:49
3. Banu Asfar’s Impending Army
4. The Report of Jadd b. Qais, And Excuse of Staying
5. Where is “Enslavement of the Blonde Women”?
6. Conclusion
1. Introduction
It is really worrying how some Christian missionaries use our Quran and Hadith text to deliberately and deceptively twist our scriptures for their own propagandist’s gains. This type of malicious lies has real affect on those who have no knowledge about our scripture. This may even lead some into extremism, all thanks to some Christian missionaries who want to lead innocent people astray to make few shekels on Youtube.
Not long ago the Yazidi minority group were persecuted and subjected to all kinds’ of horrendous treatment by Daesh in Iraq, who claim to follow Islam. Muslim scholars around the world have condemned this cultish group, who are no different from Christian missionaries who…
View original post 3,011 more words
Categories: Islam
Blogging Theology 
This is white supremacy. He did not just make the claim up that the reason for the war were female slaves. He also claimed that there were blonde women. Byzantine people were not blonde! Roman people were not and are not blonde!
LikeLike
Unless they dyed their hair
LikeLike
Regarding this disgusting sex-issue the authors are right. But they are wrong by saying that IS’ treatment of the Yazidis was so bad. I agree that the rape that happened is not right. But the rest of it was more or less fine.
They also mentioned so-called kurdish Muslims who protected the Yazidis. But these Kurds are not Muslims. They are secularists and some are even part of leftist (atheist) militias.
The Hanafi Madhhab offers Yazidis the Dhimmah. The Shafii Madhhab may not and therefore IS had the right to do this. Only the rape was wrong.
LikeLike
When was the last time Yazidis turned Muslim women into slaves?
LikeLike
The Shafii Madhhab does not allow Dhimmah for those who are not “people of the book” or Zoroastrians. If Yazidis are considered to be Zoroastrians they can get the Dhimmi-status. This is reasonable but IS disagreed and their position is reasonable too.
LikeLike
Boy, answer my question. When was the last time the Yazidis enslaved Muslim women?
LikeLike
Nadir, the only reasonable position is to grant everybody equal rights.
LikeLike
Equal rights would make Islam obsolete.
LikeLike
Nadir, the Constitution of Medina proves you wrong.
LikeLike
Nadir,I agree, your understanding of Islam is obsolete.
LikeLike
kmak, someone who reads the filth coming from AsharisAssemble should understand this better. The constitution of Madinah is basically a Hadith. A Hadith cannot abrogate the Qur’an. This issue is clearly explained in the Qur’an by Surah 9.
LikeLike
Who said anything about abrogation? Once again, you ignore the conclusions of the Marrakesh Declaration, troll.
LikeLike
I don’t ignore them but I refuse them. If you want I can show you Hanafi scholars saying this.
LikeLike
Did these Hanafi scholars attend the Marrakesh conference?
LikeLike
This conference was in 2016.
LikeLike
That’s the point. The Marrakesh Declaration is the contemporary view. Appealing to premodern verdicts made in a context that is highly different from ours just goes to show how out of touch you are with reality. F’uck off.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would say that it is not the real context of our time but the secular values that claim supremacy over the world. These Muslim scholars have probably given verdicts based upon modern (secular) international laws.
LikeLike
Constitution of Medina represents secular values?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Islamic state offered rights to Iraqi Christians but they refused. The Prophet never gave rights to the Arab pagans. IS takes the same rule for Yazidis. There is disagreement in this issue.
LikeLike
IS is not legitimate to begin with so the disagreement excuse doesn’t apply to them. When the Prophet (saw) conquered Mecca he didn’t slaughter the people or enslave them even though they were guilty. IS did the exact opposite even though the Yazidis posed no danger to the Iraqi Sunnis nor the Ummah generally. You are a piece of sh’it Nadir.
LikeLike
Funny that you should post this, since I am almost done with my article on this very subject.
LikeLiked by 1 person
do give us the link Sam
LikeLike
Here goes: http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2016/07/the-prophet-of-temptation-and-lust.html
I am sure your friend Kaleef will love it! 😉
LikeLike
BTW, in the following article and rebuttal I actually obliterate the lies of Muslims like Kaleef who argue that Muhammad was simply defending himself against the the unbelievers since they were the ones who started the oppression and hostility:
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/antagonizing.htm
http://answeringislam.net/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/mo_antagonizer.html
Even though they are quote lengthy they are worth your time to read over them. Let me know what you think.
LikeLike
And here is another thorough article that I wrote concerning Q. 9:5 and 29 which also exposes the lies of Muslims like Kaleef who tried to mislead people into thinking that the unbelievers such as the Romans were the ones who started attacking Muslims: http://answeringislam.net/authors/shamoun/q9_5_29.html
Once again, your thoughts would be truly appreciated.
LikeLike
http://www.islamnewsroom.com/news-we-need/329-yusuf-estes-correcting-quran-misquotes
This verse, often called “the verse of the sword”, has been misquoted just like sammy has one
in a manner similar to the previous verses. First, we shall provide the verse in its context:
9:5-6 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
Having presented the verse in context, we can analyze it properly. Dr. Maher Hathout gives an explanation on the historical context of the verse:
This verse was revealed towards the end of the revelation period and relates to a limited context. Hostilities were frozen for a three-month period during which the Arabs pledged not to wage war. Prophet Muhammad was inspired to use this period to encourage the combatants to join the Muslim ranks or, if they chose, to leave the area that was under Muslims rule; however, if they were to resume hostilities, then the Muslims would fight back until victorious. One is inspired to note that even in this context of war, the verse concludes by emphasizing the divine attributes of mercy and forgiveness. To minimize hostilities, the Qur’an ordered Muslims to grant asylum to anyone, even an enemy, who sought refuge. Asylum would be granted according to the customs of chivalry; the person would be told the message of the Qur’an but not coerced into accepting that message. Thereafter, he or she would be escorted to safety regardless of his or her religion. (9:6). (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, pp.52-53, emphasis added)
Therefore, this verse once again refers to those pagans who would continue to fight after the period of peace. It clearly commands the Muslims to protect those who seek peace and are non-combatants. It is a specific verse with a specific ruling and can in no way be applied to general situations. The command of the verse was only to be applied in the event of a battle. As Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes:
The emphasis is on the first clause: it is only when the four months of grace are past, and the other party show no sign of desisting from their treacherous design by right conduct, that the state of war supervenes – between Faith and Unfaith. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, Text, Translation and Commentary, emphasis added)
If the pagans would not cease their hostilities towards the Muslims, then they were to be fought, especially since they were living in the land of an Islamic state. Dr. Zakir Naik writes concerning this verse:
This verse is quoted during a battle. …We know that America was once at war with Vietnam. Suppose the President of America or the General of the American Army told the American soldiers during the war: “Wherever you find the Vietnamese, kill them”. Today if I say that the American President said, “Wherever you find Vietnamese, kill them” without giving the context, I will make him sound like a butcher. But if I quote him in context, that he said it during a war, it will sound very logical, as he was trying to boost the morale of the American soldiers during the war. …Similarly in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 the Qur’an says, “Kill the Mushriqs (pagans) where ever you find them”, during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur’an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don’t be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them. Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer to the allegation that Islam promotes violence, brutality and bloodshed. It says:
“If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge.” [Al-Qur’an 9:6]
The Qur’an not only says that a Mushriq seeking asylum during the battle should be granted refuge, but also that he should be escorted to a secure place. In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don’t just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security? This is exactly what Allah (swt) says in the Glorious Qur’an to promote peace in the world. (SOURCE, emphasis added)
Dr. Naik makes some very interesting observations about the verse. Indeed, it is truly amazing how Islam-haters will ignore God’s infinite mercy in their attempt to malign Islam. God has always given human beings a way out of any suffering, and has only ordained fighting as a last resort. Muslim scholars have written much commentary on these Qur’anic verses explaining the historical context in such great detail so that there may be no misconceptions. We have quoted extensively from various commentators on these verses and there is no need to repeat the same material again. We will provide one more commentary before moving on. Professor Shahul Hameed writes on verse 9:5:
This is a verse taken from Surah At-Tawba. This chapter of the Qur’an was revealed in the context when the newly organized Muslim society in Madinah was engaged in defending themselves against the pagan aggressors. The major question dealt with here is, as to how the Muslims should treat those who break an existing treaty at will. The first clause in the verse refers to the time-honored Arab custom of a period of warning and waiting given to the offenders, after a clear violation. That is, they will be given four months’ time to repair the damage done or make peace. But if nothing happens after the expiry of these forbidden months, what should be done? This is what the present verse says. According to this verse, fighting must be resumed until one of the two things happens: Either the enemy should be vanquished by relentless fighting. That is what is meant by {then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem [of war]}; or they should repent, establish prayers and pay zakah, etc. This is one of those verses of the Qur’an which are likely to be misunderstood, if quoted out of context. We must understand that this fighting was against a people who forced the Prophet and his companions to leave not only their own homes but all their property and even their hometown of Makkah to Madinah. Once the Muslims were organized into a community in those lawless times, the rules to be followed by the Muslims were clearly laid down, even in the matter of war. Since Islam is a comprehensive system, no human activity could be ignored. And given the nature of mankind, we cannot imagine a situation where fighting is completely ruled out either. As can be seen, the above injunctions on fighting is not on an individual level, but only in the case of a society that strives to flourish and thrive as a nation. But even here the norms are clear: fighting is only in self defence or for the establishment of justice; and always fighting is the last option. And no one is allowed to transgress the limits set by God. (SOURCE, emphasis added)
Ibn al-`Arabi, in his commentary on the Qur’an, writes:
“It is clear from this that the meaning of this verse is to kill the pagans who are waging war against you.” (Ahkam al-Qur’an: 2/456, emphasis added)
Shaykh Sami al-Majid also makes some very interesting points in his discussion on this verse:
If we look at the verses in Sûrah al-Tawbah immediately before and after the one under discussion, the context of the verse becomes clear. A few verses before the one we are discussing, Allah says:
“There is a declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the pagans with whom you have contracted mutual alliances. Go then, for four months, to and fro throughout the land. But know that you cannot frustrate Allah that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 1-2]
In these verses we see that the pagans were granted a four month amnesty with an indication that when the four months were over, fighting would resume. However, a following verse exempts some of them from the resumption of hostilities. It reads:
“Except for those pagans with whom you have entered into a covenant and who then do not break their covenant at all nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill your engagements with them until the end of their term, for Allah loves the righteous.” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 4]
So when Allah says: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them and beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” we must know that it is not general, since the verse above has qualified it to refer to the pagan Arabs who were actually at war with the Prophet (peace be upon him) and those who broke their covenants of peace. This is further emphasized a few verses later where Allah says:
“Will you not fight people who broke their covenants and plotted to expel the Messenger and attacked you first?” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 13] (SOURCE)
Therefore, the context of the verse within the Surah makes it clear that this refers to those who are persistent in their hostilities and attacks against Muslims, and it is applied in battle only. We recommend that one reads Shaykh Sami Al-Majid’s full article entitled There is no Compulsion in Religion.
LikeLike
Misquoted Verse #11
9:29 Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, [even if they are] of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Some people like samny have falsely concluded from verse 9:29, that Muslims are commanded to attack all non-Muslims until they pay money. In fact, such an interpretation is completely false and contradicts authentic Islamic teachings. Commenting on this verse, Shaykh Jalal Abualrub writes:
These Ayat (Quranic verses) stress the necessity of fighting against the People of the Scripture, but under what conditions? We previously established the fact that the Islamic State is not permitted to attack non-Muslims who are not hostile to Islam, who do not oppress Muslims, or try to convert Muslims by force from their religion, or expel them from their lands, or wage war against them, or prepare for attacks against them. If any of these offenses occurs, however, Muslims are permitted to defend themselves and protect their religion. Muslims are not permitted to attack non-Muslims who signed peace pacts with them, or non-Muslims who live under the protection of the Islamic State. (Abualrub, Holy Wars, Crusades, Jihad)
Likewise, the following fatwa points out that Muslims cannot attack a peaceful non-Muslim country:
Question: Is it an obligation of an Islamic state to attack the neighboring non-Muslim states and collect ‘jizya’ from them? Do we see this in the example of the rightly guided Caliphs who fought against the Roman and Persian Empires without any aggression initiating from them?
Answered by Sheikh Hânî al-Jubayr, judge at the Jeddah Supreme Court
If the non-Muslim country did not attack the Muslim one nor mobilize itself to prevent the practice and spread of Islam, nor transgress against mosques, nor work to oppress the Muslim people in their right to profess their faith and decry unbelief, then it is not for the Muslim country to attack that country. Jihâd of a military nature was only permitted to help Muslims defend their religion and remove oppression from the people.
The Persians and Romans did in fact aggress against Islam and attack the Muslims first.
The Chosroe of Persia had gone so far as to order his commander in Yemen specifically to kill the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Romans mobilized their forces to fight the Prophet (peace be upon him), and the Muslims confronted them in the Battles of Mu’tah and Tabûk during the Prophet’s lifetime.
May Allah guide us all. And May peace and blessing be upon our Prophet Muhammad. (SOURCE, emphasis added)
The above fatwa refers to the historical context in which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) fought against other nations. The Prophet Muhammad did not initiate agression against anyone, rather he and his followers were under attack from all who sought to crush the new Islamic state. The first hostilities between the Muslims and the Roman empire began when the Prophet Muhammad’s messenger to the Ghassan tribe (a governate of the Roman empire), Al-Harith bin Umayr Al-Azdi, was tied up and beheaded (Al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, p. 383). The killing of a diplomat was an open act of war, and the Prophet Muhammad sent an armed force to confront the tribe, but the Roman empire brought in reinforcements and the resulting conflict, known as the Battle of Mut’ah, was a defeat for the Muslims. Only after this did subsequent battles between the Muslims and the Roman Empire occur, and the Muslims emerged victorious. Likewise, as mentioned in the above fatwa, hostiltiies between the Muslims and the Persians only began after the Persian emperor Chosroe ordered his governor in Yemen Badham, to kill the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, although his efforts were thwarted when the latter accepted Islam. Other non-muslim groups, such as those in Madinah, also initiated hostilities against the Muslims despite peace treaties as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes:
As for fighting the Jews (People of the Scripture), they had conducted a peace pact with the Messenger after he migrated to Madinah. Soon afterwards, they betrayed the peace pact and joined forces with the pagans and the hypocrites against Muslims. They also fought against Muslims during the Battle of A`hzab , then Allah revealed…[and he cites verse 9:29] (Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 80)
In light of the historical context of this verse, it becomes very clear that the verse was revealed in connection with agression initiated against Muslims. As Dr. Jamal Badawi very accurately concludes with regard to verse 9:29 and similar verses:
All of these verses, without exception, if studied carefully, address aggression and oppression committed against Muslims at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), whether by idolatrous Arabs, some of the Jewish tribes in Madinah, or by some Christians. (SOURCE)
Therefore, the command to fight in verse 9:29 relates to those non-muslims who commit agression and not those who are committed to live in peace. The verse is subject to certain conditions that were apparent when it was implemented in the time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes:
What we have stated makes it clear that Islam did not allow the initiating of hostilities, except to: 1. repel aggression; 2. protect Islamic propagation; 3. deter Fitnah and oppression and ensure freedom of religion. In such cases, fighting becomes a necessity of the religion and one of its sacred ordainments. It is then called, ‘Jihad’. (Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 81)
The verse then proceeds to mention some issues relating to the Islamic state, and governing non-muslim citizens of the Islamic state. Dr. Maher Hathout comments on the regulations in verse 9:29:
Freedom of religion is an essential aspect in an Islamic state. One of the five pillars of Islam is zakat (almsgiving). The People of the Book (Christians and Jews) are not obliged to pay the Islamic zakat that is spent by the state for social necessities and state affairs as defined in the Quran (see 9:60). But they must pay other taxes to share in the state budget. If they refuse to pay this tax to the state and rebel against the state, then it is the obligation of the state to confront them until they pay it. This is what Caliph Abu Bakr did after the death of the Prophet, when some people refused to pay zakat. (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.53)
The verse mentions Jizya, which is unfortunately misunderstood by some people. Like any nation, the Islamic government requires its citizens to pay taxes in return for its services. Since Muslims pay the Zakat, the non-muslim citizens are required to pay Jizya (for more information on Jizya, please refer to Jizya in Islam and Jizyah and non-muslim minorities). Dr. Monqiz As-Saqqar writes concerning the Jizya tax:
The sum of jizya was never large to the extent that the men were unable to pay. Rather, it was always available and reasonable. During the reign of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, jizya never exceeded one dinar annually and it never exceeded four dinars under the Umayyad rule. (SOURCE)
Shaykh Abu’l-Hasan Al-Mawardi (d. 1058CE) explicitly points out that the Jizya should be exacted in accordance with the means of the people, and the Imam should judge the conclude the amount to the satisfaction of the leaders of those being taxed:
The fuqaha (Jurists) differ as to the amount of the Jizya. Abu Hanifa considers that those subject to this tax are of three kinds: the rich from whom forty-eight dirhams are taken; those of average means from whom twenty four are taken, and the poor from whom twelve dirhams are taken: he thus stipulated the minimum and maximum amounts and prohibits any further judgement on behalf of those responsible for its collection. Malik, however, does not fix its minimum and maximum amount and considers that those responsible should make their own judgement as to the minimum and maximum. Ash-Shafi’i considers that the minimum is a dinar, and that it is not permitted to go below this while he does not stipulate the maximum, the latter being dependant on the ijtihad (judgement) of those responsible: the Imam, however, should try to harmonise between the different amounts, or to exact an amount in accordance with people’s means. If he has used his judgement to conclude the contract od jizyah to the satisfaction of the leaders of the people being taxed, then it becomes binding on all of them and their descendants, generation after generation, and a leader may not afterwards change this amunt, be it to decrease it or increase it. (Al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd. 1996, pp. 209-210)
Hence, the laws of Islam forbid Muslims from opressing non-muslims and command them to treat others with justice and compassion. In fact, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself forbade Muslims from harming non-muslim citizens of an islamic state or any non-muslim with whom there was an agreement of peace, as he said,
“The one who wrongs a covenanter or impairs his right or overworks him or forcibly takes something from him, I will be his prosecutor on the Day of Judgment. (Sunan Abi Dawud 170/3 no. 3052, Sunan an-Nasa’i 25/8 no. 2749, and verified by Al-Albani no. 2626).
In conclusion, verse 9:29 commands Muslims to fight against only those who initiate agression as illustated by its historical context. Muslims may only fight under strict conditions, and are commanded to live peacefully with peaceful non-muslim neighbors.
Similar Narration
Bukhari: God’s Apostle said, I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, None has the right to be worshipped but God. (Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196)
With regards to the narration, only part of it has been quoted, and the full text reads:
And the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “I have been ordered to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship other than Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer, and pay zakat, and if they do this, then their blood and money shall be protected from me, except by an Islamic right, and their account will be with Allah.
This narration lists some of the pillars of Islam that Muslims must adhere to. The fighting being ordained here refers to the enforcement of laws and regulations within an Islamic state. Just as modern governments enforce their legal policies, so to does the Islamic state. These legal policies refer to Muslims paying their Zakat (charity tax) and abiding by the laws in an Islamic state. Those who understood the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) the best, were his companions, and we can examine their application of the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to derive a better understanding. We find that after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), many hypocrites who had pretended to be Muslim began to turn away and leave their religious duties, one example was Zakat (the charity tax). They wanted to compromise the commands of God. It was then that Abu Bakr, the First Caliph and the Caliph of that time, cited this narration to make it clear that a compromise would not be tolerated and he would fight them until they agreed to follow Islam in full. The fighting that resulted was known as the Riddah wars. Similarly, we can see that today’s governments would not tolerate it if a citizen refused to pay tax or abide by the laws of the country. If one lives in a state or country they must abide by the regulations to ensure a secure and healthy society. We should note that the ‘people’ referred to in this narration does not refer to all of humanity. As Shaykh Ahmed Ibn Taymiyyah says:
“It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant.” (Majmu` al-Fatawa 19/20)
Clearly, this narration does not refer to imposing Islam upon non-Muslims, since the Qur’an explicitly states:
2:256 There is no compulsion in religion…
Also, we have already dealt with the claims that this verse was abrogated under our discussion of verse 9:5. Once understood in their correct context, these verses and narrations become clear.
http://www.islamnewsroom.com/news-we-need/329-yusuf-estes-correcting-quran-misquotes
http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/p/complete-list-of-articles.html?m=1
LikeLike
BTW, here is a foretaste of what I am about to do to Kaleef’s sham piece on Q. 9:29 and this recent one where he tries to defend Muhammad using the lure of taking blonde women as sexual captives as a means of enticing his men to attack Tabuk. Note what al-Wakidi said botu Byzantine supposedly going forth to attack the Muslims:
“They said: The Saqita–they were Nabateans– arrived in Medina with flour [Page 990] and oil in Jahiliyya and after Islam arrived. Indeed there was news of al-Sham with the Muslims every day. Many of those who came to them were from Nabatea. A group arrived which mentioned that the Byzantines had gathered many groups in al-Sham, and that Heraclius had provisioned his companions for a year. The Lakhmids, Judham, Ghassan and Amila had gathered to him. They marched and their leaders led them to al-Balqa’ where they camped. Heraclius stayed behind in Hims. THAT WAS NOT A FACT, but rather something that was said to them that they repeated. There was not an enemy more fearful to the Muslims than them. That was because of what they saw of them, when they used to arrive as merchants, of preparedness, and numbers, and sheep.” (The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, edited by Rizwi Faizer, translated by Rizwi Faizer, Amal Ismail and AbdulKader Tayob [Routledge Studies in Classical Islam, First edition 2011], p. 485; capital emphasis ours)
“He said: Heraclius had sent a man from the Ghassan to observe the Prophet, his ways, his characteristics, the redness of his eyes, and the seal of prophecy between his shoulders. He asked if he (the Prophet) accepts sadaqa, and he learned something of the situation of the Prophet. [Page 1019] Then he returned to Heraclius and he mentioned that to him. He invited the people to believe in the Messenger of God, but they refused, until he feared they would go against his authority. He stayed where he was, AND DID NOT MOVE OR GO FORWARD. News that had reached the Prophet, about Heraclius sending his companions and getting close to the South of al-Sham, WAS FALSE. HE DID NOT DESIRE THAT, NOR DID HE INTEND IT. The Messenger of God consulted about proceeding. Umar b. al-Khattab said, ‘If you are commanded to march, march!’ The Messenger of God said, ‘If I was commanded about it I would not consult you!’ He said, ‘O Messenger of God, the Byzantines have many groups, but there is not one of Muslims. You are close to them as you see, and your closeness FRIGHTENS THEM. So return this year until you come to a decision, or God establishes for you in that affair.’” (Ibid., 499; capital emphasis ours)
This is why I really have no respect for these internet apologist wannabes, and neither should you.
LikeLike
Williams,
Here are some more quotes for your deceitful friend Kaleef which I am including in my refutation of his articles on Q. 9:29 and 49. Ibn Kathir confirms that the reason why Muhammad decided to attack the Byzantines at Tabuk was because of their disbelief. His purpose was to get them to convert to islam or force them to pay jizya:
The Battle of Tabuk
According to the scholars of Syirah [sic], this battle took place in Rajab, in the 9th year of Hijra.
Occasion of the Battle
When Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers form [sic] entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profit from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book UNTIL THEY EMBRACE ISLAM OR PAY THE JIZYAH. Allah says… (At-Tawbah: 28-29)
Therefore, the Messenger of Allah decided to fight the Romans IN ORDER TO CALL THEM TO ISLAM… (Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, translated by Wa’il ‘Abdul Mut’aal Shihab [Dar Al-Manarah/El-Mansoura, Egypt, Second edition 2001], pp. 183-184; capital emphasis ours)
And here is what Ibn Kathir wrote in his biography on Muhammad right after quoting Q. 9:28-29:
It is related from Ibn ‘Abbas, Mujahid, Sa’id b. Jubayr, Qatada, al-Dahahak and others that when God Almighty decreed that the polytheists should be prevented from approaching the Sacred Mosque, whether in the pilgrimage or at other times, the Quraysh said they would be deprived of the commercial activity that took place during the pilgrimage, and that they would therefore suffer financial loss. And so God compensated them for that by ordering them to battle the people of the scriptures so that they either accepted Islam or paid the jizya tax ‘an yadin, “being in a state of submission”.
I comment that the Messenger of God THEREFORE DECIDED TO BATTLE THE BYZANTINES. This was BECAUSE THEY WERE THE PEOPLE NEAREST TO HIM and most appropriate to invite to the truth because of their proximity to Islam and to those who believed in it. God Almighty had stated, “O you who believe, FIGHT THOSE UNBELIEVERS WHO ARE NEAR YOU. LET THEM FIND SEVERITY IN YOU; and know that God is with those who are pious” (surat al-Tawba (or al-Bara’a); IX, v.123). (Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad: Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya, translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, reviewed by Dr. Muneer Fareed [Garnet Publishing, 2000], Volume IV (4), p. 1; bold and capital emphasis ours)
And:
Imam Ahmad stated that it was related to him by Ishaq b. ‘Isa, quoting Yahya b. Salim, from ‘Abd Allah b. Uthman b. Khuthaym, from Sa’id b. Abu Rashid, who said, “In Hims I met al-Tanukhi, the envoy of Heraclius to the Messenger of God; he was a neighbor of mine and a very old man who had reached 90 or so. “I asked, ‘Won’t you tell me about the message of Heraclius to the Messenger of God and of his message to Heraclius?’ ‘Certainly,’ he replied.
“(He narrated) The Messenger of God reached Tabuk and sent Dihya al-Kalbi to Heraclius. When the message of the Messenger of God reached him, Heraclius summoned the priests and patriarchs of Rome AND LOCKED HIMSELF AND THEM INSIDE A BULDING. He told them, ‘This man is encamped where you are aware, AND HE HAS SENT ME OFFERING ME THREE ALTERNATIVES. He invites me to follow him in his religion, OR THAT WE GIVE HIM WHAT WE HAVE ON THIS OUR LAND, THIS LAND REMAINING OURS, OR THAT WE GO TO WAR WITH HIM. By God, you well know from what you read in the books that he will definitely take our land, SO LET US EITHER FOLLOW HIM IN HIS FAITH OR GIVE HOM WHAT WE HAVE ON OUR LAND.’
“They snorted in disgust as one man so hard as almost to burst from their hooded gowns, saying, ‘You are inviting us to abandon Christianity or have us be slaves to a Bedouin from Hijaz?’
“When he realized that when they left him they would turn the Byzantines against him, he made peace with them immediately, saying, I only said that to find out bow dedicated you are.’
“He then summoned an Arab of Tajib who had power over the Christian Arabs and said, ‘Find me some man who can well remember speech and whose native tongue is Arabic whom I can send to this man WITH A REPLY TO HIS MESSAGE.
“He brought me to him and Heraclius gave me a letter, saying, ‘Take this letter of mine to this man. Commit to memory what he says and note three specifics: take note of any comment he makes about the letter he wrote me; observe whether he reads my letter and whether he makes mention of “night”. and [sic] observe whether there is anything you find curious about his back.’
“So I set off with his letter and reached Tabuk where I found him seated among his men, his legs drawn up and wrapped in his garment, over near the spring. I asked, ‘Where is your leader?’ ‘This is he,’ I was told.
“I went over and sat down before him, handed him my letter which he placed on his lap. He then asked, ‘From whom have you come?’ ‘I am a brother of Tanukh,’ I answered. He asked, ‘Would you like to join Islam, the hanafi faith of your father Abraham?’ I replied, ‘I am the messenger of my people and belong to the faith of my people; I cannot turn from it before I return to them!’ He laughed and said, ‘You cannot lead aright whomever you wish; but God leads aright whomever He wishes; He knows best those who will be led aright’ (surat al-Qasa, XXVIII, v.56). Brother of Tanukh, I wrote a message to Chosroe (and he tore it up) and God will tear him up and tear up his realm. I wrote a letter to Negus and he burned it; and God will burn him up along with his realm. I wrote a letter to your leader and he kept it; the people will experience courage from him so long as there remains goodness in life.’…
“When he had finished reading my letter, he said, ‘You are right; you are indeed a messenger. If I had some reward, I would give it to you. We are travelers out of supplies.’ One of the group of men then called out to him. ‘I will give him a reward.’ And he opened his pack and brought me a gold-threaded garment which he placed in my lap. I asked who was the donor of the reward, and I was told it was ‘Uthman.
“The Messenger of God then asked, ‘which of you will accommodate this man?’ One of the young ansar said, ‘I will.’ The ansar got up and I arose with him. When I had left the group of men, the Messenger of God called out to me, ‘Come here, brother of Tanukh!’ I hurried over to where I had been sitting in front of him and he lifted off the shirt from his back and said, ‘Over here; carry on and do as you were ordered.’ I looked over at his back and saw a seal in the place of the fold of his shoulder blades, like a large mole.”
This is a hadith that is gharib, unilateral; its line of authority IS NOT BAD. Imam Ahmad is alone in giving it. (Ibid., pp. 18-20; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Heraclius’ reaction to Muhammad’s threatening letter exposes Kaleef’s boldfaced lie that the emperor was intending to march out against the Muslims in order to kill them. These quotes prove that it was Muhammad who went on the offensive to attack and subjugate the Byzantines solely because they were Christians who did not believe in Islam.
Now you see why I said I have no respect for these deceitful Islamic internet apologists? Their willingness to shamelessly lie and misrepresent what their own sources teach is truly reprehensible.
LikeLike
Williams, please make sure that deceptive Kaleef is aware of these quotes from my forth coming rebuttal. He really should be ashamed of himself for writing “rebuttals” filled with lies and selective quotations of sources wrenched out of context. For that I am going to end up embarrassing him. Here is another nugget from my forth coming response:
In fact, the Muslim sources testify that Heraclius tried to do everything he could to get his nation to agree to Muhammad’s demands, showing that he had absolutely no intention of starting a war with the Muslims. These same Islamic traditions also confirm that Heraclius returned back to Constantinople once he realized that he couldn’t convince his people to accept Muhammad’s conditions:
Al-Tabarani related, through Yahya b. Salama b. Kuhayl, from his father, from ‘Abd Allah b. Shaddad, from Dihya al-Kalbi, who said, “The Messenger of God sent me with a letter to Caesar, leader of the Byzantines.”
(The account continues) “Caesar was informed that there was a man at his gate claiming to be an envoy from the messenger of God. Caesar WAS DISTURBED AT THIS and ordered that the man be brought in. This was done; he had his bishops present with him.”…
“The letter was read to its end and Caesar ordered everyone out and sent for me. I went in and h asked me questions to which I answered. He then sent for his bishop, their most prominent figure, a man whose opinion and statements were influential, and when he read the letter, he said, ‘By God, he is the prophet Moses and Caesar foresaw and whom we have awaited!’ ‘What do you advise me?’ Caesar asked. The bishop replied, ‘As for myself, I believe and follow him.’ ‘I too know’, Caesar commented, ‘that he is genuine, but I can do nothing. If I did, my kingdom would be lost and the Byzantines would kill me.’”
On this subject, Muhammad b. Ishaq quoted Khalid b. Yasar as related that a Syrian elder said, “From what news he had heard of the Prophet, and having decided to leave Syria for Constantinople, Heraclius assembled the Byzantines and addressed them as follows, ‘Byzantines, I have certain issues I wish to present to you. Tell me what are your wishes regarding them.’
“They asked what they were and he went on, ‘You will know, by God, that this man is certainly a prophet who has been sent. We find him to have those qualities by which he has been described to us (before); let us proceed and follow him and thus find peace in this world and the next.’
“They replied, ‘But then we would be under the control of the Arabs; and we are more numerous, powerful and have a more extensive domain than they do!’
“He continued, ‘LET US PAY HIM THE jizya, THE POLL-TAX, EVERY YEAR. That will relieve PRESSURE ON ME FROM HIM and by what I give him I WILL BE SPARED POSSIBLE WARFARE.’
“They responded, ‘Why should we give to the despised and powerless Arabs tax money they would take from us, when we are the more numerous, have a powerful nation and a larger domain? No, by God, we’ll absolutely never do that!’
“‘Well then,’ Caesar suggested, ‘LET’S MAKE PEACE WITH HIM BY MY GIVING HIM SURIYYA while he leaves me the land of al-Sham.’ He explained that Suriyya consisted of Palestine, Jordan, Damascus and Hims, up to al-darb, while the lands beyond al-darb constituted al-Sham.
“They objected, ‘Why should we give him Syria when you know well that it is the very navel of al-Sham! We’ll never do that!’
“When they refused, he asked them, Do you think, by God, that you’ll have defeated him IF YOU DEFEND YOURSELVES FROM HIM in your towns?’
“He then rode away on his mule, eventually looking down upon al-darb and approaching the land of al-Sham. He then said, ‘Peace be upon you, land of Suriyya; this is my farewell greeting.’ He then hurriedly returned to Constantinople. But God knows best.” (Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad: Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya, translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, reviewed by Dr. Muneer Fareed [Garnet Publishing, 2000], Volume III (3), pp. 362-363; capital emphasis ours)
Notice how the foregoing Muslim reference depicts Heraclius doing everything he can to avoid going to war with Muhammad. Also note carefully Heraclius’ supposed words to the people about defending themselves against Muhammad, since all of this proves that Muhammad was the aggressor who had threatened to attack the Byzantines.
It is therefore a boldfaced lie when Muslims claim that the reason why Muhammad mustered his troops to fight against the Byzantines at Tabuk is because the Byzantine army was planning to attack the Muslims. This is nothing more than a shameless attempt of whitewashing Islamic history in order to paint Muhammad as a saint who only raided and murdered people in self-defense.
LikeLike