[Readers, please note: the original author of this ‘Book’ sent me the draft for a review and commentary. Having carefully reviewed and having made some minor corrections/alterations of the draft , I felt compelled to circulate this basic book on ‘Real Islam’ in the Internet, so that anyone who is interested in ‘Real Islam’ and Islamic Terrorism may benefit from its rich content. The original author prefers to remain anonymous at this stage, until possibly when a publisher agrees to publish this book at an appropriate time. Due to its prolix nature, I have divided this ’Book’ into 15 parts. This is part 1/15; the remaining parts will be posted as they become available. Please feel free to comment on this ‘Book.’ All comments should be sent to abul88@hotmail.com. Happy reading—Abul Kasem, the reviewer.]  

Please send an e-mail to islam_undressed@yahoo.com if you want to have a copy of the latest electronic version of this book.

An Introduction to Real Islam and Jihad

 (November 2003)

Introduction

            The war we are engaged in, we are told, is a war against 'terror'. But terror is a method, not an enemy. Those who limit their thought process to the constraints of the politically-correct ‘thought police’ seem content to believe that we are not really fighting individuals or nations, but rather an abstraction, … as if somewhere there are soldiers with "Republic of Terror" embroidered on their uniforms marching lock-step to attack us. Terrorist acts are simply the weapon of choice deployed by the true enemy. So in reality we are no more in a war against terrorism than we were engaged fighting the scourge of Machine guns in WWI, Zeros in WWII, or the plague of Soviet Tanks in the Cold War.  Though such vague, loose nomenclature may be reassuring in our society obsessed with political correctness, it prevents rational evaluation of the true threat behind the terrorist weapon deployed against us.

            The gentle reader should be forewarned that his work delves much deeper into the cultural, spiritual, and religious roots of the current conflict than many others dare to go. This is not for the faint hearted, but is presented for the benefit and enlightenment of all lovers of truth, knowledge, and freedom. It should be noted that this work is likely to be tagged by some as Islamophobic or racist.  It may appear, and some will undoubtedly charge, that the facts and views presented herein are extreme. But the data is in fact genuine, accurate, and fair, as is the context.  It seems inevitable these days, that perspectives based on traditional values are quickly tagged as politically ‘incorrect’, and more often than not are judged as coming from the extreme far right.  Contrary to the reviews of the ‘morally-core challenged’ elite that are sure to follow, this author does not lean heavily to the far right. Those all the way ‘Right’ have no concept that the absolute (and unalterable) demands of Justice can be satisfied by mercy through spiritual change, repentance, and true reform.  I will however, admit to ascribing to political, social, and religious philosophy centred much more on personal responsibility than is currently interpreted as ‘politically correct’ by the far-left.

            There is Far-Left, Left, Middle, Right, and Far-Right. Be careful not to limit and ascribe correct behavior and judgment to any one political philosophy. Within all these leanings are valuable perspectives, truth, and wisdom. I look at them all as incomplete sources of information and ideas. Because the Left often seeks to void personal responsibility by circumventing justice with mercy, without the process of repentance, they err. Because the Right often says ‘Lock them up and throw away the key’, or ‘hang-em high’, and operate from a merciless platform of pious superiority, they err. Then there is the Middle... Within the Middle there are good people who are intelligent and try to take the best and wisest approaches from both spectrums depending on current realities, but unfortunately large numbers are simply people without deep moral convictions or strong values which our society has traditionally depended on for its strength and prosperity. Those with no convictions are dangerous because, with no compass of their own, they can be easily manipulated through misinformation and spin. Stalin referred to these as “the convenient masses”.

            There are two very practical pieces of advice upon which one can base fair judgment of other people, religions, and governments. In fact those who fail to embrace this advice completely will remain forever as lost as ‘old’ Europe is today.  I believe my source is a good one. The first litmus test to use in judgment is, … "Only through a mans works is his true nature exposed". The other is "By this we can know if man has truly repented, … he will confess and forsake the bad behavior”. By these two pieces of advice, one can fairly judge the value of individuals/groups actions, and also gauge the progression of an individual/group if and when they realize their actions lead to bad fruit, and make claim to be reformed. Until then, it would be stupid to call the kettle anything other than 'black', even when speaking from a pot that is less than white.

            The West looks forward to Islam taking full responsibility for the bad fruit being produced in their name, and out of a sense of principal and humanity actually doing something to change it, without having to be pressured by others.  But we must also be realistic and realize we can expect only more of the same, … a little ‘hand wringing’ is probably all we will ever see from their regional and world leaders, along with more finger pointing at Israel and the West. The reasons for such pessimism will become clear later. In the mean time, until we see effective action and hear convincingly from this supposed vast silent majority of peace-loving Muslims, it is expedient for the rest of the world to live with both eyes wide open.

Chapter 1

The Enemy at the Gates:

     On September 11, 2001, Self-described devout Muslims carried out an act of brutal terrorism and murdered some 3000 people in America. They hijacked 4 planes, slit the throats of stewardesses, and destroyed the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon. America and other nations responded and went after culpable Muslim terrorist groups in Afghanistan. Their various cells, networks, and organizations stretch far and wide, and elsewhere in the world some governments arrested others associated with Islamic terrorist organizations, all claiming to be good devout Muslims.

     Following September 11th, most Muslims living in the West defended Islam and stated that Islam is a religion of peace, while many other Muslims living in the Islamic world and even some Muslims in America (living in predominately Muslim communities) as well as Muslim students on American campuses, openly celebrated the deaths and destruction wrought upon us. Many others throughout the Islamic world were observed rejoicing and calling for the continuing destruction of America shouting "Death to America", and "America is the Great Satan".  Huge numbers openly or quietly rejoiced, with the absence of sincere and coherent outrage palpable. In the West Muslim spokesmen were much more muted, some proclaimed that the Muslim terrorists have hijacked their faith and that real Islam is a kind, tolerant religion not associated with terrorist individuals or events. A claim oft repeated in defense of Islam was that “Islam’ is a word which literally means ‘Peace’”.  In response it was pointed out that the Arabic word for peace is salaam, and that Islam is Arabic for surrender or submission, quite a different concept than peace, and that even Muslim means one who submits.   Now the official line from Islam is that “Islam’ means Peace through submission to Allah’s will”, but the opposite camp points out that the newly created definition is illusory in that it does not mention what ‘Allah’s will’ is with respect to Jihad and its role in the advancement of Islam. The two camps often seem to completely contradict each other. Obviously, they both cannot be correct. Those in the West are left to divine, what’s the bottom line according to real Islam? Out of an overabundance of prudence, it would be wise to first fortify ourselves with knowledge. If we fail to thoroughly investigate what Islam is truly all about, there is a danger we might inadvertently invite even more horrific sequels to the disasters that have already been perpetrated upon us.

     Since that dastardly attack the topic of Islam seems always in the news and there has been much more discussion around terms like “Jihad”. One question commonly asked is "why are so many associated with this religion so violent?" Giving the benefit of the doubt to a poorly understood religion, and to secure the support of the Islamic world, the American political machine has gone out of its way to stress that America and her allies are not fighting Islam, but rather, they are fighting Muslim terrorists who have perverted the true teachings of Islam. On the other hand, other voices have raised concerns that indeed there is a violent component within the religion, and that Islam itself is part of the problem. Thus far those expressing concerns about fundamental Islam have been largely muted, out of an overabundance of political correctness and liberal social concerns. But this overwhelming desire to view the Islamic world through rose-colored glasses has led to a resistance of critical analysis of Islamic writings, practice, and history.

     For us to truly understand "Jihad" and Islamic violence in today’s time frame, we must start by examining the Islamic texts in some detail.  A sixty-second sound byte from an "expert" (be they Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or otherwise) is not sufficient. To gain a knowledge base sufficient for fair judgment one must more deeply investigate the three sources of religious philosophy related to Islam in their holy texts, … the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira.  But quoting a verse is not enough, we also have to acquaint ourselves with other sources of history surrounding the period to understand the context, background, scope, and applicability of the various passages related to Jihad and violence in Islam. Otherwise, one would be left with many passages that seemingly contradict each other, and be no closer to truly understanding "Jihad", and the application of Islamic violence today. A complete picture must be drawn. A mere phrase such as "Islam means peace", or "Jihad is an internal struggle against internal, sinful desires", or, "Islam is violent" has little support if one does not know the actual teachings of Islam.

     Since the death of thousands of Americans has occurred at the hands of self-proclaimed devout Muslims, and since scores of similarly disposed Muslims have vowed to continue to murder Americans, be they men, women, or children, it is incumbent upon us to examine the fundamental teachings of Muhammad, found in their texts, and see how they are being applied or misapplied today. This investigation and study has become all the more urgent because of what is at stake.  It is not only American lives (and way of life), which may be at risk, but the lives of anyone living in a free, democratic society. Therefore, readers should understand that when "America", or "American" is referenced, we are also including Britons, Mexicans, French, Germans, Japanese, Brazilians, Russians, Poles, Chinese, Australians, Canadians, Brazilians, and so forth. It is not just Americans who may be at risk; all non-Muslim peoples are at issue.

     For a start, the sometimes-elusive Islamic concept of Jihad must be clearly understood. In particular, we need to determine exactly how violent Jihad is understood, accepted and supported by a majority (or a large minority) of Muslims today.  If it is accepted and supported as it is practiced my many militant groups today, then it would really be incorrect to call Islam a religion at all by western standards; rather it would represent more a military, political and cultural threat. These hard questions need to be asked to know if the actions of the many devoted murderous Muslims in various organizations and lands today can be identified as truly Islamic and if their violent acts are done in the spirit of real Islam, or if they (and their active and passive supporters) represent a fringe minority.  Many prefer to believe that the threat to America comes not from Islam itself, but from an extremist form of the religion espoused by terrorists and their small but vocal band of supporters.  If they are a tiny insignificant minority, they may be manageable by typical diplomatic, military, and law enforcement methods designed to marginalize, isolate, discredit, and destroy.  But a majority or even a large minority from a population of billions is still a huge number of people virtually impossible to manage by those methods, because if millions or billions intend to kill and destroy a particular people or nation, there is very little that society can do to protect itself short of extreme protective self-defense and even offensive measures.  For ourselves, and our future, we need to answer the following three questions:

1) What are the teachings of real Islam found in the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira with respect to the use of violence, call it Jihad if you like, to aggressively spread it’s power over non-Muslims, and are these teachings valid and applicable today?

2) Is real Islam behind and does it condone the murder of 3000 Americans and the destruction of the WTC, or were those Muslim terrorists doing something well outside Muhammad’s religion?

3) What does the future hold for Islam and America, Britain, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, Russia, China, and so on?

Chapter 2

Real Islam and the Religious Texts:

            "Real" Islam is the Islam Muhammad practiced and taught, as it is read and understood by the majority of Muslims today. Further, the most applicable part of Real Islam is based more heavily upon Muhammad’s final teachings and deeds than earlier writings. These final teachings are recorded in the Qur’an, Hadith (Hadith are the traditions and sayings of Muhammad), and Sira (Sira is comprised of Muhammad’s biographical material).  

     These foundational texts of Islam contain Muhammad’s words and deeds over a 23-year period, the Qur’an being dominant in Islamic theology.  In studying the scripts, it needs to be remembered that many of his words that are understood apply only to a specific people for a specific time or event.  It appears that as Muhammad’s circumstances changed, his words, teachings, commands, and attitudes also sometimes changed. Thus, as situations changed over time and Muhammad’s words and teachings morphed to accommodate them, real Islam changed over time. In the end, at Muhammad’s death, the philosophy and conduct of Islam and its followers solidified to a more stable and recognizable form. Therefore, to determine what real Islam teaches regarding Jihad and violence, we must examine these text’s chronology, context, scope, and applicability. It is either mistaken or dishonest to take one passage out of context and apply it to a set of circumstances for which it was not meant.  

      What we are going to do is examine a number of Qur’anic passages related to Jihad and violence. Citations from related Islamic texts, i.e., the Hadith and Sira are provided to provide the context, chronology, and background. Additionally, references from various early Islamic scholars’ commentary are presented (tafsir). When appropriate, quotations from other books written by scholars or experts on Islam are presented, be they Muslim, Christian, or secular.  

      After this, we are going to go a step further. We are also going to examine Muhammad’s actions. Actions ever speak louder than words; therefore, let us lend an ear to hear what it is that his deeds speak about the man.  A wise sage said, "A man is defined by what he does." Thus, Muhammad’s works must be thoroughly scrutinized, for surly they truly portray his heart and show us who he truly was and what he truly believed. We will also briefly review what Muhammad’s closest "companions" understood to be his final wishes, which they understood to be the commands of God as to His messenger or apostle. We will refer to the four "rightly guided" Caliphs: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali. These four hold a special place in Islamic theology and history. If anyone knew what Muhammad truly wanted, they did. Following Muhammad’s death, they continued to fulfil and obey his commands, as they understood his final clear directions and wishes. They loved Muhammad, obeyed his commands, and put their lives on the line for him time and again. Hence their actions depict their understanding of how Muhammad wanted them to carry on Islam into the future (i.e. real Islam).  

      Now then, if Muhammad’s calls to violence found within the texts were only for a specific period of time, against a specific people, for an understandable cause such as self defence, or to alleviate the oppression of an oppressed people, then the critics of Islam could not honestly say that Islam is a religion that condones aggressive violence and terrorism. On the other hand, if it can be shown that Muhammad’s final intentions for Islam were to attack, conquer, and rule all other peoples, and that the use of violence, in various forms including terrorism, were justified towards installing Islam as the dominant power, and that philosophy is being extended to today by a significant number of believers, then it would be a deliberate deception to call Islam a religion of Peace.  

            In light of the long, often-violent history of Islam’s expansion, and the many more recent terrorists attacks in the world, it would be foolish to rely on carefully crafted statements, in English, from prominent Muslims regarding the true nature of Islam.  Westerners are inclined to believe religious leaders are normally honest and pious, and we want desperately to believe that all Muslim clerics and Imams are similarly disposed, but that is an assumption fraught with peril. Unfortunately, as will be shown, dishonesty and deception towards non-believers are also a part of accepted Islamic practice and doctrine, and success at such deliveries in the advance of Islam is celebrated and rewarded.  

So, Let’s start this investigation.

Chapter 3

ABROGATION:

            Understanding the application of Abrogation as it is used in interpreting the Qur’an is critical to this study.  This unusual application is an important principal and facet of Islamic studies.  We must start with the Qur’an because the Qur’an is one of the foundations of Islam. Islam is built upon the Qur’an and "Sunnah", or lifestyle of Muhammad. Many Western readers will probably be inclined to apply traditional methods of logic and study of Biblical Scriptures to their study of the Qur’an. They will be tempted to take various Qur’anic verses at face value, mistakenly thinking that all the verses in the Qur’an are applicable today. They may reason that since the Qur’an in one place says, "there is no compulsion in religion"; it must mean that Muslims are not to force people into Islam. This approach, however, is erroneous. One of the odd facets of the Qur’an is that some verses "abrogate" other verses, or in other words they cancel them, rendering them null and void and no longer applicable.  "Abrogation" means the cancelling or replacement of one Qur’anic passage by another. Things changed during the 23-year period that Muhammad spoke the Qur’an. As circumstances changed, Muhammad’s directions and precepts found in the Qur’an changed accordingly, sometimes quite dramatically. Thus the Qur’an abrogates or cancels itself in various passages and presents seemingly conflicting statements. Muslims do not view these abrogations as contradictions, but rather, as improvements to better suit the varying circumstances or needs, or to fit Muhammad’s religious concepts. For example, many Islamic scholars consider that the verse reference above "there is no compulsion in religion", found in 2:256, has been abrogated by the passage found in 9:5, (more on this later).  This is widely understood because the more tolerant verse in chapter 2 was spoken about 7 - 8 years earlier than the one spoken in Chapter 9.  

            The "Dictionary of Qur’anic Terms and Concepts", pages 5 and 6, [2], state: "Qur’anic injunctions themselves may be abrogated, as has happened in a few cases. An example of this abrogation is 24:2 which abrogates the punishment of adultery, (q.v.) stated in 4:15-16. A study of the Qur’an shows first, that only a limited number of Qur’anic verses have been abrogated, and second, that the abrogation pertains to legal and practical matters only, and not to matters of doctrine and belief."  

     In "Islam: Muhammad and His Religion", page 66, [3], the great Islamic scholar Arthur Jeffery wrote: "The Qur’an is unique among sacred scriptures in teaching a doctrine of abrogation according to which later pronouncements of the Prophet abrogate, i.e.: declare null and void, his earlier pronouncements. The importance of knowing which verses abrogate others has given rise to the Qur’anic science known as "Nasikh wa Mansukh", i.e.: "the Abrogators and the Abrogated"."  

     The Encyclopedia of Islam, [4], states on abrogation:

Rather than attempting to explain away the inconsistencies in passages giving regulations for the Muslim community, Kuran scholars and jurists came to acknowledge the differences, while arguing that the latest verse on any subject "abrogated" all earlier verses that contradicted it. A classic example involves the Kuranic teaching or regulation on drinking wine, where V, 90, which has a strong statement against the practice, came to be interpreted as a prohibition, abrogating II, 219, and IV, 43, which appear to allow it.  

      So, as a result of changing circumstances, various Qur’anic passages were abrogated, and it is normal that, as a philosophy and doctrine, Islamic doctrine changed over time. As such, rules that apply at one point in time may not necessarily apply at a later date.  This concept is unusual by Western religious standards in its scope, and there are even minor disagreements within Islam regarding which teaching or doctrine abrogates another.  But in general, Muslims recognize more recent passages and writings as the most applicable, abrogating earlier references on the same subject matter.  

      Therefore, when discussing Islam and Jihad, what must be considered most applicable are Muhammad’s final teachings and the commands that he wanted obeyed. What were his last wishes and instructions regarding Jihad and violence?  Which Qur’anic passages are still in force today for the Muslim and the Muslim community, and which are not? Earlier statements related to peace may or may not have been abrogated by later statements related to violence, or visa versa.  We will have to carefully examine the context of the texts to know which are acceptable and in force today for Muslims.

  ____----****O****----____

An Introduction to Real Islam and Jihad 

(Part 2/15)

Chapter 4

Definitions of "JIHAD":

     What follows are several classical definitions of Jihad. Thereafter, we will examine passages from the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira related to Jihad and violence in Islam. "Jihad" or other forms of the word occur in the Qur’an about 35 times. Additionally throughout the Qur’an there are other words used for various other forms of violence. 

      From the "Concordance of the Qur’an", by Hanna Kassis, published by University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA, 1983, [6] comes a definition, which is probably the simplest, most straightforward found. Kassis essentially derived it from the Qur’anic context of the word: 

JIHAD = JAHADA (verb). To struggle, strive, fight for the faith.  

     The following is a more detailed definition of Jihad from the Shorter

Encyclopaedia of Islam, page 89, [7]:

DJIHAD, holy war. The spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general. It narrowly escaped being a sixth "rukn", or fundamental duty, and is indeed still so regarded by the descendants of the Kharidjis. The position was reached gradually but quickly. In the Meccan Suras of the Kur’an patience under attack is taught; no other attitude was possible. But at Madina the right to repel attack appears, and gradually it became a prescribed duty to fight against and subdue the hostile Meccans. Whether Muhammad himself recognized that his position implied steady and unprovoked war against the unbelieving world until it was subdued to Islam may be in doubt. Traditions are explicit on the point; but the Kuranic passages speak always of the unbelievers who are to be subdued as dangerous or faithless. Still, the story of his writing to the powers around him shows that such a universal position was implicit in his mind, and it certainly developed immediately after his death, when the Muslim armies advanced out of Arabia. It is now a "fard ‘ala ‘l-kifaya, a duty in general on all male, free, adult Muslims, sane in mind and body and having means enough to reach the Muslim army, yet not a duty necessarily incumbent on every individual but sufficiently performed when done by a certain number. So it must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam." 

      Many Westerners have wondered in amazement at the number of men leaving safe and relatively comfortable lands to undertake a perilous journey and face a certain death to fight superior forces in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Iraq.  Clearly, those who do so, do it out of a strong sense of religious duty, fully expecting to be rewarded for their sacrifice.  The "Dictionary of the Qur’an", op cit, defines Jihad as: 

 "The literal meaning of Jihad is "to strive". Technically, Jihad is any endeavor that is made to further the cause of God, whether the endeavor is positive (e.g. promoting good) or negative (e.g. eradicating evil) in character, takes the form of social action or private effort, involves monetary expenditure or physical struggle, or is made against the enemy without or the enemy within (i.e. against "the bidding self"). The reduction of Jihad to "war" is thus unjustified, though war is an important form of Jihad, and a number of Qur’anic verses about Jihad (e.g. 8:74, 75, 9:44) refer primarily to fighting. The comprehensive nature of Jihad is evidenced by such verses as 29:69: "Those who strive in Us (= Our way), We guide them to Our ways." When Jihad takes the form of war it is know as qital ("fighting"). 

      Regarding Jihad, the "Tafsir of Ibn Kathir", volume 2, pages 116, 117 on verse 2:191, [8], states: 

As Jihad involves death and the killing of men, Allah draws our attention to the fact that the disbelief and polytheism of the disbelievers, and their avoidance of Allah’s path are far worse than killing. Thus Allah says, "And Fitnah is worse than killing." This is to say that shirk (Polytheism) is more serious and worse than killing. 

      The "Reliance of the Traveller, (the Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law)", page 599, [9], is one of the more respected, classical works in Islamic theology. This 1200+ page voluminous book on Sharia contains fundamentals of Islamic jurisprudence compiled by "the great 13th century Hadith scholar and jurisprudent", Imam Nawawi, and others (like Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri). This work was not written with a Western audience in mind. They wanted to produce a book on Islamic Laws that was precise, and accurate; one that taught true and correct Islamic values. There are additional statements regarding the rules of Jihad found in "Reliance of the Traveller", but we quote only the relevant statements that portray Jihad’s scope and application:

o9.0 JIHAD 

"Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the less Jihad. As for the great Jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self, (nafs), which is why the Prophet said as he was returning from Jihad.

‘We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad’

The scriptural basis for Jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:

1) Fighting is prescribed for you (2:216)

2) Slay them wherever you find them (4:89)

3) Fight the idolaters utterly (9:36)

and such Hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet said:

"I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah"; 

and the Hadith reported by Muslim, 

     ‘To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.’” 

o9.1 OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD 

     Jihad is a communal obligation. When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others  (O: the evidence for which is the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace). 

“He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,” 

and Allah Most High having said: 

 Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah’s path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each Allah has promised great good" (Koran 4:95). 

o9.3  Jihad is also (O: personally) obligatory for everyone  (O: able to perform, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims.  

  o9.8   The Caliph makes war upon the Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians, provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax Jizya…in accordance with the word of Allah Most High:

 "Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and Hiss messenger have forbidden – who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been give the Book – until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled." 9:29

The Caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim…. 

     Finally, from Sahih Muslim,Book 1, Hadis  #0033, and Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Hadis #387, comes a telling insight on the true meaning and scope of Jihad:

Muhammad said, "I have been ordered to fight against people until they say that "there is no god but Allah", that "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah", they pray, and pay religious taxes. If they do that, their lives and property are safe." 

     The Qur’an says Jihad receives the highest reward and is the surest way to paradise if the “fighter” dies: “Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead … they live … in the presence of their Lord” (Qur’an 3:169). “… To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah … soon shall we [God] give him a reward” (Qur’an 4:74). 

      Based upon many Islamic scholars writings, it appears undeniable that violent Jihad is permitted in Islam for both offensive and defensive purposes. It was commanded by, and praised by Muhammad as being one of the greatest forms of true Islamic spirituality.  Further, some of the final direction from Muhammad was that it (Jihad) is to continue until all people are subjected to Islamic rule.  Aggression toward non-Muslims is allowed, but prior to attacking, the Muslims are to offer them a choice: 1- Become Muslim; 2- do not become Muslim but pay the extortion (jizya) tax; 3- defend yourselves unto death.

For reference, some verses in the QUR’AN that contain the word, or form of the word "JIHAD": 3:136,142; 4:95,97; 5:35,54,59; 8:72,74,75; 9:16,19,20,24,41,44, 73,74,81-82, 86,87,88; 16:110-111; 22:77-78; 25:52; 29:5,6,7,8,69; 31:14-15; 47: 31,33; 49:15; 60:1; 61:11; 66:9.

Chapter 5 

Chronology and Abrogation in the QUR’AN:

     Now we will review the general CHRONOLOGY of the QUR’ANIC listings, with respect to their violent Jihadi passages. As stated earlier, we must explore both the context and chronology of the Qur’an’s passages. This is challenging because the Qur’an is not arranged chronologically, and in fact, no one knows for certain its complete chronology. There is no standard chronological agreement among scholars, be they Muslims, Christians, or secular, as to when chapters or even portions of chapters were revealed during Muhammad’s life. Some of Muhammad’s words, spoken as the Qur’an near the end of his life, were folded into passages he spoke near the beginning of his declared prophethood. Therefore, the Qur’an is a jumbled chronological hodgepodge. In and of itself, the Qur’an is practically worthless when it comes to determining its chronology. The only corroborating references that are able to provide us a guide as to when certain passages were spoken are the Sira and Hadith. Sometimes they provide chronological details behind the Qur’an’s verses. However, as a whole, scholars are unable to completely determine the Qur’an’s chronology. Consequently, they only offer their best, educated, opinions. In our study, we are most interested in the opinions accepted by the majority of Muslims today. 

    A Qur’anic chronology is very important because what Muhammad said earlier in his life did not necessarily apply to later events (due to "abrogation" mentioned above). By any standard of evaluation, it appears he was always prepared to change his mind, vows, and rules. (See the selection of Hadiths from Sahih Muslim, [10], book 15, #s 4044 – 4062). If we are to understand true Islamic Jihad as it is understood and taught today, then we need to establish his final position with respect to Jihad and aggression. Hence the importance of the last few chronological passages of the Qur’an, and the subsequent actions of his closest companions and followers. 

    Note that the majority of various Qur’anic passages relative to "Jihad" or violence come from chapter nine (ie Sura 9). Most scholars agree that chapter nine is from a very late period - near the end of Muhammad’s life. The great Muslim historian Tabari, in volume 8, (who wrote a 39 volume Islamic history and an extensive commentary on the Qur’an), [11], shows that the conquest of Mecca occurred in 630, and Ibn Ishaq documented in his "Sirat Rasulallah", page 617, [12], (this work is the most authentic biographical material still extant today), states that the main Jihad section of chapter 9 was revealed in AH 9, i.e. 631. Muhammad died in 632. Therefore, chapter 9 was revealed during Muhammad’s last two years, if not in the last year. Chapter 5 is usually thought to be the last chronological chapter, but it does not have many references to Jihad. 

     The following is a quote from the Encyclopaedia of Islam, op cit, with respect to the problems of Qur’anic chronology. At the end of the quote are its chronological lists taken from several different scholars of Islam. 

     The Kuran responds constantly and often explicitly to Muhammad's historical situation, giving encouragement in times of persecution, answering questions from his followers and opponents, commenting on current events, etc. Major doctrines and regulations for the Muslim community, which are never stated systematically in the Kuran, are introduced gradually and in stages that are not always clear. There are apparent contradictions and inconsistencies in the presentation of both the beliefs and the regulations, and the latter are sometimes altered to fit new situations. Thus it is essential to know the approximate dates or historical settings of some passages, and at least the chronological order of others, if they are to be understood fully. This problem was recognized by early Muslim scholars who devoted much attention to it in the first few centuries, until a fairly rigid system of dating was established and given the imprimatur of orthodoxy. In modern times the study of the chronology of the Kuran has been almost exclusively a domain of Western scholars, who have not however been able to reach a consensus on a dating system, or even on the possibility of establishing one.

The Egyptian standard edition gives the following chronological order of the Suras, with the verses said to date from a different period given in parentheses: XCVI, LXVIII (17-33, 48-50 Med.), LXXIII (10 f., 20 Med.), LXXIV, I, CXI, LXXXI, LXXXVII, XCII, LXXXIX, XCIII, XCIV, CIII, C, CVIII, CII, CVII, CIX, CV, CXIII, CXIV, CXII, LIII, LXXX, XCVII, XCI, LXXXV, CVI, CI, LXXV, CIV, LXXVII (48 Med.), L (38 Med.), XC, LXXXVI, LIV (54-6 Med.), XXXVIII, VII (163-70 Med.), LXXII, XXXVI (45 Med.), XXV (68-70 Med.), XXXV, XIX (58, 71 Med.), XX (130 f. Med.), LVI (71 f. Med.), XXVI (197, 224-7 Med.),XXVII, XXVIII (52-5 Med., 85 during Hijrah), XVII (26, 32 f., 57, 73-80 Med.), X (40, 94-6 Med.), XI (12, 17, 114 Med.), XII (1-3, 7 Med.), XV, VI (20, 23, 91, 114, 141, 151-3 Med.), XXXVII, XXXI (27-9 Med.), XXXIV (6 Med.), XXXIX (52-4 Med.), XL (56 f. Med.), XLI, XLII (23-5, 27 Med.), XLIII (54 Med.), XLIV, XLV (14 Med.), XLVI (10, 15, 35 Med.), LI, LXXXVIII, XVIII (28, 83-101 Med.), XVI (126-8 Med.), LXXI, XIV (28 f. Med.), XXI, XXIII, XXXII (16-20 Med.), LII, LXVII, LXX, LXXVIII, LXXIX, LXXXII, LXXXIV, XXX (17 Med.), XXIX (1-11 Med.), LXXXIII Hijrah II (281 later), VIII (30-6 Mec.), III, XXXIII, LX, IV, XCIX, LVII, XLVII (13 during Hijrah), XIII, LV, LXXVI, LXV, XCVIII, LIX, XXIV, XXII, LXIII, LVIII, XLIX, LXVI, LXIV, LXI, LXII, XLVIII, V, IX (128 f. Mec.), CX. 

      The Encyclopaedia of Islam, op cit, also details three Western Islamic scholars chronology of the Qur’an. (Noldeke was one of the greatest Qur’anic scholars from the West). This is the chronological order of the last Medinan Suras listed in their work:

Weil: 2, 98, 62, 65, 22, 4, 8, 47, 57, 3, 59, 24, 63, 33, 48, 110, 61, 60, 58, 49, 66, 9, 5.
Noldeke and Blachere: 2, 98, 64, 62, 8, 47, 3, 61, 57, 4, 65, 59, 33, 63, 24, 58, 22, 48, 66, 60, 110, 49, 9, 5.

[NOTE, traditional Western dating breaks the chronological order of the Qur’an up into 3 or 4 groups. The last group (sometimes called "late Medinan") is presented above. There are earlier Suras in both lists above, however, for space’s sake, and editing time, only the last Sura grouping is presented. Note that Sura 9 is the second to last in all these three scholar’s groupings.] 

      Canon Sell in "The Historical Development of the Qur’an", page 204, [13], details that Jalalu-d-Din as-Suyuti (a great Muslim Qur’anic scholar) lists Chapter 9 second to last, and Sir William Muir (a great Western Islamic scholar) lists chapter 9 as last. All of the above mentioned references also list Chapter 5 near the chronological end, if not at the very end. 

      The Hadith of Sahih Bukhari, volume 6, book 60, # 129 (or 5.59.650), [14], Hadith states that "The last Sura that was revealed was Bara’a…"  so Sura 9 was considered by him to be one of the last, if not the last revealed chapters of the Qur’an. 

     Therefore, the works of six top scholars, (3 of them Muslim, 3 Western), all agree that Chapter 9 is either the last or the second last chapter to be spoken or revealed by Muhammad. Consequently, since this chapter contains the largest amount of violent passages, this is our focus, because as a result of being the last Chapter revealed, Sura 9 would dominate, or abrogate, conflicting Qur’anic passages from earlier periods. That being said, to be thorough and fair we will also review other relevant passages on Islamic violence and Jihad found in the Qur’an. 

     In “Milestones, Ideologue of Fundamentalist Islam in Egypt”, Syed Qutb argues strongly for Jihad from some select Qur’anic verses (Qur’an 4:74-76; 8:38-40; 9:29-32). These passages alone, he states, suffice to justify the universal and permanent dimensions of Jihad (pp. 53-76). 

____----****o****----____
3

Chapter 6

The QUR’AN and JIHAD: Offensive and Defensive Verses:

     Historically Muhammad and his movement did not initially use force to induce the Jews, Christians and pagans to accept Islam; however force was justified for defence. Later, when he began to gather an army to himself and was able to go on the offensive, he did so. Then when people or circumstances turned against him he told his followers that the latest "revelations from Allah" instructed him to: "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (9:73). Thus Muhammad’s career of warring in the name of Allah began as soon as it became a viable option, and then did not cease. Those defeated by Muhammad’s military actions were offered protection if they would submit to the dictates of Islam or pay tribute (ie Jizya tax or protection money). Those that refused those options had no "choice" but to be put to death. Non-Muslims were Dhimmis (the people of obligation) and, as such, were to be "utterly subdued". Such a recipe guaranteed the expansion of Islam. 

   Encarta Encyclopedia ‘99’ states: "The remarkable speed of [Islam’s] religious expansion can be attributed to the fact that it was accomplished primarily through military conquest. Muhammad drew Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula to Islam by his forceful personality, the promise of salvation for those who died fighting for Islam, and the lure of fortune for those who succeeded in conquest. The caravan raids of the early years of Islam soon became full-scale wars, and empires and nations bowed to the power of this new religious, military, political, economic, and social phenomenon." 

     Below are some of the many Qur’anic verses that reference violence and Jihad. At the end of each passage of selected verses, comments and reference material will be added. Qur’anic passages, unless otherwise noted, are taken from The Noble Qur’an, [15]. Note that for clarification the translators sometimes added words in parenthesis.

PASSAGE ONE: SURA 22:39 – 41 and 2:193

22:39 Permission to fight is given to those (i.e. believers against disbelievers), who are fighting them, (and) because they (believers) have been wronged, and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory.

22:40 Those who have been expelled from their homes unjustly only because they said: "Our Lord is Allah." - For had it not been that Allah checks one set of people by means of another, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, wherein the Name of Allah is mentioned much would surely have been pulled down. Verily, Allah will help those who help His (Cause). Truly, Allah is All-Strong, All-Mighty.

22:41 Those (Muslim rulers) who, if We give them power in the land, (they) order for Iqamat-as-Salat. [i.e. to perform the five compulsory congregational Salat (prayers) (the males in mosques)], to pay the Zakat and they enjoin Al-Ma'ruf (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam orders one to do), and forbid Al-Munkar (i.e. disbelief, polytheism and all that Islam has forbidden) [i.e. they make the Qur'an as the law of their country in all the spheres of life]. And with Allah rests the end of (all) matters (of creatures).

2:193. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.) [Same verse from Dawood’s Koran [16] 2:193 states: “Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil doers.”] 

     The context and background of the above passages can be found in Ibn Ishaq’s and Tabari’s work. What follows is from the biographical work of Ibn Ishaq’s "Sirat Rasulallah", op cit, pages 212, 213. [NOTE: two passages from the Qur’an are referenced: [a] Sura 22:39-41, and [b] Sura 2:193].

     "THE APOSTLE RECEIVES THE ORDER TO FIGHT

     The apostle had not been given permission to fight or allowed to shed blood before the second Aqaba [a place where a pledge was made between Muhammad and his followers from Medina]. He had simply been ordered to call men to God and to endure insult and forgive the ignorant. The Quraysh [a leading group of Meccans] had persecuted his followers, seducing some from their religion and exiling others from their country. They had to choose whether to give up their religion, be maltreated at home, or to flee the country, some to Abyssinia, others to Medina.

     When Quraysh became insolent towards God and rejected His gracious purpose, accused His prophet of lying, and ill treated and exiled those who served Him and proclaimed His unity, believed in His prophet and held fast to His religion, He gave permission to His apostle to fight and to protect himself against those who wronged them and treated them badly.

     The first verse which was sent down on this subject from what I have heard from Urwa b. Al-Zubayr and other learned persons was: "Permission is given to those who fight because they have been wronged. God is well able to help them, --- those who have been driven out of their houses without right only because they said God is our Lord. Had not God used some men to keep back others, cloister and churches and oratories and mosques wherein the name of God is constantly mentioned would have been destroyed. Assuredly God will help those who help Him. God is Almighty. Those who if we make them strong in the land will establish prayer, pay the poor-tax, enjoin kindness, and forbid iniquity. To God belongs the end of matters [a]. The meaning is "I have allowed them to fight only because they have been unjustly treated while their sole offence against men has been that they worship God. When they are in the ascendant they will establish prayer, pay the poor-tax, enjoin kindness, and forbid iniquity, i.e., the prophet and his companions all of them." Then God sent down to him: "Fight them so that there be no more seduction," [b] i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. "And the religion is God's,", i.e. Until God alone is worshipped."

     When God had given permission to fight and this clan of the Ansar had pledged their support to him in Islam and to help him and his followers, and the Muslims who had taken refuge with them, the apostle commanded his companions, the emigrants of his people and those Muslims who were with him in Mecca, to emigrate to Medina and to link up with their brethren the Ansar. "God will make for you brethren and houses in which you may be safe." … 

     Ibn Ishaq’s work details the chronological and historical context of the above verses. Generally, Muhammad is now going to fight in self-defence. But, if we look closely, we find that Muslims will be allowed to a) "fight them so that there be no more seduction" – i.e., others trying to dissuade Muslims from Islam, and b) "the religion is God’s, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped." The seeds for future aggression to further Islam by using violence were now planted. 

     Tabari also documents this event. (Note: Tabari often used Ibn Ishaq’s work as a basis for parts of his history). Below is an except from Tabari, op cit, volume 6, page 137, on the time of the revelation of the above passage.

     The seventy representatives chiefs of those who had accepted Islam, came to the Messenger of God from al-Madinah met him during the pilgrimage, and swore an oath of allegiance to him at al-Aqabah. They gave him their pledge in the following words: "We are of you and you are of us; whoever comes to us of your Companions, or you yourself if you come to us, we shall defend you as we would defend ourselves." After this the Quraysh began to treat them harshly and the Messenger of God commanded his Companions to go to al-Madinah. This was the second trail, during which the Messenger of God told his Companions to emigrate and himself emigrated. It was concerning this that God revealed:

     And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for God. [Note: This verse (8:39) was probably not revealed until after the battle of Badr. The almost identical verse 2:193 seems not to have been revealed until shortly before the conquest of Mecca.]

Tabari adds on page 138:

     Those members of the Aws and the Khazraj who took the oath of allegiance at the second al-Aqabah took the pledge of war, when, in contrast to the terms of the first al-Aqabah, God permitted fighting. The first was the pledge of women, as I have mentioned above on the authority of Ubadah al-Samit. The second pledge of al-Aqabah was to wage war against all men [Note: That is, on anyone who attacks Muhammad.], as I have mentioned above on the authority of Urwah al-Zubayr.] 

Regarding 2:193, the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, op cit, page 117, 118, states 

     Then Allah orders Muslims to kill the disbelievers "until there is no more Fitnah." According to Ibn Abbas and others, "Fitnah" means polytheism, "And religion (worship), is for Allah" meaning Allah’s religion should stand supreme and overshadowing the rest of the religions. In the Sahihayn, it is reported that the Prophet said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people till they say: "None has the right to be worshipped by Allah, and whoever says it will save his life and property from me except on breaking the law (rights and conditions for which he will be punished justly), and his accounts will be with Allah"". 

     Therefore, PASSAGE ONE provides us with the allowance of fighting and the works of history and Sira provide us with their chronology – early during Muhammad’s time in Medina. These verses are primarily defensive, but there is also a component of aggression in "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for God."  It appears that Muhammad envisioned that there would come a time when he would no longer be on the defensive, but on the offensive. Thus, his early words depict his later actions. 

PASSAGE TWO: SURA 2:216 & 217

2:216 Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know.

 2:217 They ask you concerning fighting in the Sacred Months (i.e. 1st, 7th, 11th and 12th months of the Islamic calendar). Say, "Fighting therein is a great (transgression) but a greater (transgression) with Allah is to prevent mankind from following the Way of Allah, to disbelieve in Him, to prevent access to Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah), and to drive out its inhabitants, and Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And they will never cease fighting you until they turn you back from your religion (Islamic Monotheism) if they can. And whosoever of you turns back from his religion and dies as a disbeliever, then his deeds will be lost in this life and in the Hereafter, and they will be the dwellers of the Fire. They will abide therein forever." 

     So it appears that not only death in this life, but the classical Hollywood eternal damnation in a lake fire will face those who abandon the faith, … pretty severe. Helmet Gatje in "The Qur’an and its Exegesis", page 213, [18], presents a quote from Baidawi’s Tafsir on this verse. Baidawi was one of the greatest early commentators on the Qur’an. Gatje’s words are in parenthesis.

     "They will question thee concerning the holy month": It is related that, in the month of Jumada l-Akhira, which was two months before (the battle of) Badr, the Prophet sent out his paternal cousin Abd Allah ibn Jahsh with an expeditionary force, in order to be on the look-out for a caravan of (the tribe of) Quraish in which were Amr ibn Abd Allah al-Hadrami and three (other) men. They killed Amr, took two of his men captive, and drove away the caravan, which contained the goods of trade from at-Taif. This happened at the beginning of (the month of) Rajab, while Abd Allah and his people believed it was (still) the (month of) Jumada l-Akhira. Regarding this, the (people of the tribe of) Quraish said: "Muhammad has (unlawfully) regarded the month in which raids and warlike acts are forbidden, so that the fearful can be safe and men can move freely everywhere for the sake of their livelihood, as permissible (for such forbidden acts). This fell hard upon the members of the expeditionary force, and they said: "We will not submit until compensation comes down for us." At this, Muhammad gave back the caravan along with the captives. According to Ibn Abbas (however it is related) that the Messenger of God accepted the booty when this verse came down. This is supposed to have been the first booty in Islam. Those who question (Muhammad about the holy month) were the unbelievers, who thereby sought to ascribe to him calumny and profanation (of a holy month). Others say (however) that they were the members of the expeditionary force (who asked Muhammad about the holy month)…. 

 "Say: Fighting in it is a heinous thing": that is, a heinous sin. For the most part, in opposition to Ata, it is held that this statement is abrogated by the following words of God: "If they do not leave you alone and offer you peace and stop hostilities, then take them wherever you find them and slay them" (Sura 4:91/93). In this case the more specific (that is, the prohibition against fighting during the month of Rajab) would be abrogated by the general order (that is, the general command to kill the unbelievers). However, there is a contradiction in this. It lies nearest (the truth) to reject (the interpretation that the present verse declares an absolute prohibition against fighting in the holy month. Although (the word) "fighting" is indefinite here, it is fixed in scope; and thus, (the fighting here) not (to be understood as fighting) in general…  

      These passages display clearly what Muhammad ordered at the time these verses were revealed.  Just after arriving in Medina, Muhammad issued commands and they attacked and stole other people’s possessions. His followers were also later justified when, during that process, they ended up murdering a man. 

     This action took place during a period of recognized "peace" within the Arab community. They had an understanding, a code of honor if you will, that all would honor the sacred months and not make war upon others. Muhammad’s men broke this code. And to justify this and other deeds, Muhammad received a timely "revelation" justifying the robbery and murder these men committed. Even with these few verses regarding Jihad and violence, duplicity is apparent. It appears that in the earliest stages of the movement, that as circumstances changed, Islam changed as needed to fit the new reality. 

     Also note how this passage contradicts or "abrogates" passage one. 2:216 and 217 allow offensive attacks but 2:190-194 primarily command defensive actions. Here, Muhammad’s actions were a raid upon some travelling merchants who had goods that were not from the city of Mecca. 

PASSAGE THREE:  SURA 4:94, 95

4:94  O you who believe! When you go (to fight) in the Cause of Allah, verify (the truth), and say not to anyone who greets you (by embracing Islam): "You are not a believer"; seeking the perishable goods of the worldly life. There are much more profits and booties with Allah. Even as he is now, so were you yourselves before till Allah conferred on you His Favors (i.e. guided you to Islam), therefore, be cautious in discrimination. Allah is Ever Well Aware of what you do.

4:95  Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward;  

     These two verses show how important Jihad and fighting are in Islam. Apparently Jihad is highly commendable, and those that fight are rated high in Allah’s eyes, and they will be greatly rewarded.  This also shows clearly the aggressive intentions of Jihad.  Ali’s Koran starts 4:94 with, "Oh you who believe, when you go abroad in the cause of Allah…"  From our chronological tables we see that this chapter was also revealed during the Medinan period. In Rodwell’s Koran, [19], the notes for chapter 4 state: "Most of the events alluded to in this Sura fall between the end of the third and the close of the fifth year after the flight to Medina."

      Now, let’s look at another Muslim scholar’s commentary. From the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, op cit, pages 145 – 150, (not re-quoting the verses)

     Quoting Ibn Abbas: "Some Muslims chased a man for his booty, who said to them: "Assalamu Alaykum." They killed him and seized his booty. Consequently, the above verse was revealed. It is mentioned in a biography that his brother Fazzar emigrated to the Prophet in compliance with his father’s command to call on Fazzar people to embrace Islam. On his way, one of the Prophet’s brigades found him at night. He had already informed them that he was a Muslim, but they rejected his admission, and killed him. His father said: "I went to the Prophet and he gave me one thousand dinars and other compensation, and sent me back." Then, the above verse was revealed.

     Al-Bukhari narrated, on the authority of Ibn Abbas: "The Prophet said to Al-Miqdad: "When a believer conceals his Faith among a people who are disbelievers and he has disclosed his Islam, then you have killed him, didn’t you, too, conceal your Islam in Makkah before? (1). Narrated by Al-Bukhari in this way (summarized and Mu’allaq).

      Iman Ahmed quoted Ibn Abbas as saying: "A man from Banu Saalim who was herding his sheep, passed by a group of the Prophet’s companions, and greeted them. They said: "He only greeted us in order to seek our protection." They went to him and killed him. Afterwards, they brought his sheep to the Prophet and the above verse was revealed."" (2) 

      Note from Ibn Kathir’s quote. 1) Muslims were allowed to attack non-Muslims and plunder their possessions. It is quite clear that the poor shepherd was treated badly by any standard. He greeted them, poised no threat, but he was murdered because the Muslims thought he was not a ‘true’ Muslim. In other words, it was totally permissible to attack non-Muslims at this time in Islam’s history. The murdering Muslims were not then reproached for having attacking others of the same faith, instead they were reproached for attacking a person who greeted them – as a Muslim would do, but whom they thought was not a true Muslim. Had the shepherd not greeted them, Muhammad would have had less difficulty in justifying his murder, and it probably would not have merited mention of any kind at all. One wonders why it took the murder of a Muslim for Allah to "reveal" this Muslim-sensitive protective verse to Muhammad? Obviously it would have been better if Allah could have revealed this to Muhammad earlier so as to prevent a potential brother from being murdered.

 Let’s continue with Ibn Kathir’s commentary. Regarding verse 4:95 it says,

      "Al-Bukhari quoted Al-Barra as saying: "When the above verse was revealed, the Prophet called Zaid Ibn Thabit and ordered him to write it down. Ibn Umm Maktum came to the Prophet and explained to him his disability. Then, Allah revealed: "Except those who are disabled." 

     Note here that once again, it took an unforeseen change in human circumstances and predicaments for Allah to complete a revelation to answer it. Jihad was ordered for Muslims to be sanctified as good followers, but it was pointed out that some Muslims were unable to fight – such as blind men. Consequently, Allah had to modify his prior revelation to Muhammad with another revelation – exempting the disabled from Jihad. 

      Thus far, three Qur’anic passages have been considered. The first was revealed around the time Muhammad fled from Mecca to Medina; the second, just a few months after his arrival in Medina and the third, from between the 3rd and 5th year of Muhammad’s stay in Medina.

____----****o****----____

Chapter 7

ACTIONS, Speaking even Louder than the Words

      Now, from the Muslim perspective using their own writings, let us examine some additional actions that Muhammad ordered from 1 A.H. up to 6 A.H. There are more incidents we could reference, but for the sake of time and space we have to limit the amount of detailed information. This material is presented to facilitate honest evaluation and judgment of Muhammad himself, because it is only by his actions that he can and should be judged.

     While reading the incidents below, we should continue to ask ourselves if real Islam, i.e. Muhammad’s Islam, allows aggressive violence and terrorism. The following 13 events and incidents (occurring in the last few years of Muhammad’s life) will be examined:

1) The killing of Abu Afak

2) The killing of Asma Marwan

3) Attack upon the Banu Qaynuqa Jews

4) The killing of Kab Ashraf

5) The killing of Ibn Sunayna.

6) Attack against the Banu Nadir Jews

7) The killing of the Shepherd

8) Massacre of the Banu Qurayza Jews

9) The torture killing of Kinana

10) The killing of a slave Wife and Mother

11) The slaying of an old woman from Banu Fazara

12) The killing of Abdullah Khatal and his Daughter

13) The attack upon Tabuk 

INCIDENT # 1 – The Murder of Abu Afak

      This occurred around 2 A.H. In this incident Muhammad requested his men to kill an old Jewish man named Abu Afak. Abu Afak was 120 years old. He was a man with much experience and became alarmed and concerned observing Muhammad and his followers activities soon upon their arrival at Medina. Abu Afak spoke out and urged his fellow Medinans to question Muhammad. Below are the details from Muslim sources. 

 From "The Life of Muhammad, op cit., page 675,

      SALIM B. UMAYR'S EXPEDITION TO KILL ABU AFAK

Abu Afak was one of the Ubayda clan. He showed his disaffection when the apostle killed al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit and said:

          "Long have I lived but never have I seen

          An assembly or collection of people

          More faithful to their undertaking

          And their allies when called upon

          Than the sons of Qayla when they assembled,

          Men who overthrew mountains and never submitted,

          A rider who came to them split them in two (saying)

          "Permitted", "Forbidden", of all sorts of things.

          Had you believed in glory or kingship

          You would have followed Tubba 

[NOTE: the Tubba was a ruler from Yemen who invaded that part of what is present Saudi Arabia: the Qaylites resisted him]

      The apostle said, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" Whereupon Salim b. Umayr, brother of B. Amr b. Auf, one of the "weepers", went forth and killed him. Umama Muzayriya said concerning that:

          You gave the lie to God's religion and the man Ahmad! [Muhammad]

          By him who was your father, evil is the son he produced!

          A "hanif" gave you a thrust in the night saying

          "Take that Abu Afak in spite of your age!"

          Though I knew whether it was man or jinn

          Who slew you in the dead of night (I would say naught).

     Additional information is found in the Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, (Book of the Major Classes) by Ibn Sa'd, Volume 2, [20], page 32.

      Then occurred the "sariyyah" [raid] of Salim Ibn Umayr al-Amri against Abu Afak, the Jew, in [the month of] Shawwal in the beginning of the twentieth month from the hijrah [immigration from Mecca to Medina in 622 AD], of the Apostle of Allah. Abu Afak, was from Banu Amr Ibn Awf, and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was a Jew, and used to instigate the people against the Apostle of Allah, and composed (satirical) verses [about Muhammad].

      Salim Ibn Umayr who was one of the great weepers and who had participated in Badr, said, "I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu Afak or die before him. He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu Afak slept in an open place. Salim Ibn Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people who were his followers, rushed to him, took him to his house and interred him. 

     From a contemporary Muslim scholar - Ali Dashti's "23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad", [21], page 100:

     "Abu Afak, a man of great age (reputedly 120 years) was killed because he had lampooned Mohammad. The deed was done by Salem b. Omayr at the behest of the Prophet, who had asked, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" The killing of such an old man moved a poetess, Asma bt. Marwan, to compose disrespectful verses about the Prophet, and she too was assassinated." 

     Prior to listing all of the assassinations Muhammad had ordered, Ali Dashti writes on page 97: 

"Thus Islam was gradually transformed from a purely spiritual mission into a militant and punitive organization whose progress depended on booty from raids and revenue from the zakat tax."

Here an aged man was apparently killed upon Muhammad's command. He was no apparent physical threat to Muhammad, and he did not urge people to commit violent acts against Muhammad or his followers. There was no discussion with Jewish leaders, no dialogue with Abu Afak, simply an apparent outright killing of one of Muhammad's weak and defenseless critics. The aged Abu Afak urged the people who lived in Medina to doubt and question Muhammad’s words and acts. Muhammad's sayings probably seemed strange and dictatorial to the old man, and he chided the Arabs that put their faith in Muhammad with satirical verses. Muhammad heard of this and viewed the 120-year-old man as a threat to his credibility, not to his life. Nowhere does it say that Abu Afak urged his fellow Arabs to attack or harm Muhammad. Yet, for creatively speaking his mind for the benefit of his friends, this man was killed. Further understanding can be gleaned from the last statement in Umama b. Muzayriya's verse: "Though I knew whether it was man or jinn …Who slew you in the dead of night (I would say naught)." 

     This statement displays that Muhammad’s henchmen knew exactly what they were doing. They knew it was cold-blooded murder that they were committing upon Muhammad's request. They also intended to keep it a secret, to hide their deeds from the populace at large, which is why Umama said he wouldn't reveal who murdered Abu Afak.

INCIDENT # 2 – The Murder of Asma bt. Marwan

     This incident immediately followed the murder of Abu Afak around 2 A.H. The incident involves Muhammad's request for his men to murder a woman named Asma bt. Marwan. 

 (Quoting from Guillaume, op cit, pages 675, 676,

 UMAYR B. ADIYY'S JOURNEY TO KILL ASMA BT. MARWAN

      "She was of B. Umayya b. Zayd. When Abu Afak had been killed she displayed disaffection. Abdullah b. al-Harith b. Al-Fudayl from his father said that she was married to a man of B. Khatma called Yazid b. Zayd. Blaming Islam and its followers she said:

     "I despise B. Malik and al-Nabit

     and Auf and B. al-Khazraj.

     You obey a stranger who is none of yours,

     One not of Murad or Madhhij. [Note: Two tribes of Yamani origin]

     Do you expect good from him after the killing of your chiefs

     Like a hungry man waiting for a cook's broth?

     Is there no man of pride who would attack him by surprise

     And cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him?"

Hassan b. Thabit answered her:

     "Banu Wa'il and B. Waqif and Khatma

     Are inferior to B. al-Khazraj.

     When she called for folly woe to her in her weeping,

     For death is coming.

     She stirred up a man of glorious origin,

     Noble in his going out and in his coming in.

     Before midnight he dyed her in her blood

     And incurred no guilt thereby."

      When the apostle heard what she had said, he said, "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" Umayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, "You have helped God and His apostle, O Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, "Two goats won't butt their heads about her", so Umayr went back to his people.

     Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint [girl] Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, "I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting." That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact. The first of them to accept Islam was Umayr b. Adiy who was called the "Reader", and Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam."

And from Ibn Sa'd's, "Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir" [op cit] volume 2, page 31:

      "SARIYYAH OF UMAYR IBN ADI"

      Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against Asma Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. Asma was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She even composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him Umayr, "basir" (the seeing).

      Now, to sum this up and put it in perspective; Muhammad had al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit killed. This upset Abu Afak, so he spoke out against it. So, likewise, Muhammad had Abu Afak eliminated. This offended Asma bt. Marwan, and she spoke out against that deed she deemed evil. She encouraged her fellow tribesmen to take action against Muhammad. When Muhammad heard of what she had said, he had her killed also. 

      Further note: Hassan b. Thabit’s poem as a response to her: "Before midnight he dyed her in her blood and incurred no guilt thereby." Even here his closest followers were fully aware of Muhammad’s methods and understood that murder was allowed for Islam. There is nothing to refute that they had been murdering people all along, and Thabit rightly knew the she would be on Muhammad’s hit list quite shortly. And, true to form, Muhammad dispatched his followers to kill her. 

     Now, at first glance, this order to kill Asma might seem justifiable to some. Asma was calling for someone to kill Muhammad. But then, after all, he had been murdering her friends. But from Muhammad’s viewpoint it is understandable that he might be troubled by her call. It is obvious that peaceful folks who are no threat to their neighbors normally have no reason to fear, but Muhammad’s followers were practicing a hard-ball form of religion with no room for dissent or opposition. Today, gang leaders, organized mobsters, drug cartels, and other criminal elements are similarly upset by those who expose and speak out against their murderous activities. 

      So, let's look deeper at the event and examine the context of Asma's relationship to her tribe. 

 1) First, Asma has seen Muhammad in action. She had personal knowledge of several apparent cold-blooded murders. Of course, it seems reasonable by western standards that she should speak out against them.

 2) Second, her tribe was not under Muhammad's rule. Perhaps they had a treaty with Muhammad, perhaps not. Either way, this woman was apparently free by local laws and norms to speak her mind. If a treaty existed, and she was out of line, Muhammad could have complained to her tribe's leaders, and they could have commanded her to be silent or dealt with the situation.

 3) What's more noteworthy about this event is that after she was murdered, Muhammad said, "Two goats won't butt their head about her", meaning no one will care about her death. Obviously at a minimum her children, her family, and her friends felt differently, but that did not register as important to Muhammad any more than the value of her life as an unbeliever.  Also note, that there were already people from her tribe who had become Muslims. Certainly these people were not going to listen to her. 

      The point is: if no one of significance really cared about her being murdered, then no one really cared about what she had to say. Her people also knew about Muhammad having had Abu Afak murdered, and they didn't care about that either. In that light, it seems unlikely anyone take her seriously enough to listen and respond to her urgings to murder Muhammad, who was the leader of a powerful group of people. None of her own people were willing to put their lives on the line for her words.  Although her stand seemed justified and principled, it had insufficient local support, which Muhammad perceived. 

      The bottom line is that Asma bt. Marwan was not a legitimate threat to Muhammad. She didn't scare him, she was not the leader of her tribe, and she had little or no influence. She was little more than a nuisance to him. Yet Muhammad had her murdered, again, in premeditated cold blood. Were Asma and Abu Afak murdered simply because they rejected Muhammad, or were their deaths meant to serve as examples in order to dissuade other would be critics? In our day, what would a society based on law and individual rights call an organized group of people who murder civilians that sleep for the reasons and purposes outlined?

INCIDENT # 3 – Muhammad’s Conflict with and Attack upon the Jews of Banu Qaynuqa  

     Shortly after Muhammad arrived at Medina he had conflict with the Jews. There were a number of large and small tribes of Jews in and around Medina. The Banu Qaynuqa Jews were one of the larger tribes. Muhammad desperately wanted the Jews to believe in him, but almost all the Jews refused. The more learned Jews perceived immediately that Muhammad’s claim of being a prophet did not jibe with their traditions and earlier teachings of the prophets, and they quickly rejected him. Their rejection undermined Muhammad’s credibility because they had the "Scriptures", i.e. Torah or Old Testament. Thus, they were a threat to Muhammad and the theology he was in the process of establishing. From early on, there were very ill feelings between the Jews and Muhammad. As Muhammad’s power grew he began to confront the Jews. 

      Tabari places this incident with the Banu Qaynuqa as occurring in 2 AH.  To set the stage, we will start with a quote from the esteemed collection of Hadith by Imam Muslim. The name "Abu’l-Qasim" is another of Muhammad’s names. 

Sahih Muslim, op cit, Book 019, Number 4363: [NOTE: words in parenthesis are from the translator – Ahmad Sidiqqi].

 It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira who said: We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe. They said: Abu'l-Qasim, you have communicated (God's Message to us). The Messenger of Allah said: I want this (i. e. you should admit that God's Message has been communicated to you), accept Islam and you would be safe. They said: Abu'l-Qasim, you have communicated (Allah's Message). The Messenger of Allah said: I want this... - He said to them (the same words) the third time (and on getting the same reply) he added: You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I wish that I should expel you from this land Those of you who have any property with them should sell it, otherwise they should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle (and they may have to go away leaving everything behind). 

      Muhammad wanted them to submit to him. Note that the Jews rejected him and then how he threatened them: O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe … 

      Notice how Muhammad’s declaration – "You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle," So, now Muhammad believed he co-owned the entire world with God.  Some might say that his ego had already gotten the better of him.  Also note that his intentions were well known with them – “You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I wish that I should expel you from this land.” The enmity between them had grown and Muhammad was looking for a way to rid himself of those disbelieving Jews that he considered a threat to his credibility. 

      The Banu Qaynuqa Jews were primarily goldsmiths, tradesman, and craftsman. They were on his bad side and he waited for an opportunity to deal with them. He did not have to wait long. His opportunity arose following a problem between some Muslims and Jews. There are a lot of details surrounding this incident, but for length’s sake we will limit our presentation. This incident is in and of itself a worthy subject for a separate in-depth investigation. However, what is important here is to display yet another facet of Muhammad’s inclination to violence. Even at this stage of his ascent to power, attacking and killing numerous innocent people seems well within his character. In the eyes of the devout then and now, those that opposed or disagreed with Muhammad also opposed and disagreed with God, and thus faced God’s wrath, expressed through Muhammad. 

     The entire set of details is not presented, save only those that pertain to the point. However, the source references from which those interested may look them up for study are; Sahih Muslim #4363 (cited above),  Guillaume, page 260, 364, 365,  Ibn Sa’d, volume 2, page 32 

  The summary of the incident:

      Muhammad and the Qaynuqa were at odds. They had rejected Muhammad and resisted his demand that they acknowledge his prophethood. Instead, they made fun of him and vexed him. They treated him as some  false, ridiculous, egotistical man who claimed greatness and prophethood. Naturally, Muhammad could not long tolerate them. 

     After Muhammad’s victory at Badr, he called the Qaynuqa Jews together and insisted that they acknowledge his prophethood, or, they would end up like the defeated Meccans (see the Sahih Muslim quote above). The Jews refused him, and stated they were ready to fight him if that was what he wanted. Muhammad received a "revelation" concerning the Jews – Sura 3: 12, 13. 

     Shortly thereafter, an incident occurred in a market place. A Qaynuqa Jew played a bad joke upon a Muslim lady leading to her humiliation. Her male companion killed the Jew. His friends in turn killed the Muslim man. This led to a confrontation between Muhammad and the Qaynuqa. Muhammad made no attempt to work things out with the Jews. Rather he received a visitation from a spirit named "Gabriel" – the same spirit that visited him for the first time in a cave (which caused Muhammad to attempt suicide). During this visitation, Gabriel gave Muhammad a revelation. The details come from the "Kitab al Tabaqat al Kabir", op cit, vol 2, page 32:

Then occurred the ghazwah of the Apostle of Allah against the Banu Qaynuqa on Saturday, in the middle of Shawwal, after the commencement of the twentieth month from the hijrah. These people were Jews and allies of Abd Allah Ibn Ubayyi Ibn Salul. They were the bravest of Jews, and were goldsmiths. They had entered into a pact with the Prophet. When the battle of Badr took place they transgressed and showed jealousy and violated the pact and the covenant. Thereupon Allah the Blessed and the High revealed to His Prophet: "And if thou fears treachery from any folk, then throw back to them (their treaty) fairly. Lo! Allah loves not the treacherous". [Sura 8:58] The Apostle of Allah had said: ‘I fear the Banu Quynuqa’ but after this verse it is stated that he marched against them.  

      Now, Muhammad had the pretext to attack the Qaynuqa (the altercation in the market place), and Allah’s permission to attack them. He didn’t feel the need to work out the problems with the Jews; rather he moved to rid himself of them. Muhammad besieged them for about fifteen days; then the Qaynuqa Jews surrendered. Another additional key piece of information is provided by Ibn Sa’d:

     They shut themselves up in their fortress, so he (Prophet) strongly besieged them, till Allah cast fear in their hearts. They submitted to the orders of the Apostle of Allah, that their property would be for the Prophet while they would take their women and children with them. Then under his orders their hands were tied behind their backs. The Apostle of Allah appointed al-Mudhir Ibn Qadamah al-Slimi, of the Banu al-Silm, the tribe of Sa’d Ibn Khaythamah to tie their hands behind their backs. Abd Allah Ibn Ubayyi had a talk with the Apostle of Allah about them and entreated him (to release them). Thereupon he (Prophet) said: Leave them, may Allah curse them and curse him who is with them! He abandoned the idea of their killing and ordered them to be banished from Madinah.  

Another critical set of details, relative to my argument is provided from Guillaume, pages 363, 364:

      My father Ishaq b. Yasar told me from Ubada - …"when the B. Qaynuqa fought the apostle Abdullah b. Ubayy espoused their cause and defended them, and Ubada Samit who was one of the B. Auf, who had the same alliance with them as had Abdullah, went to the apostle and renounced all responsibility for them in favor of God and the apostle, saying, "O apostle of God, I take God and His apostle and the believers as my friends, and I renounce my agreement and friendship with these unbelievers.: Concerning him and Abdullah b. Ubayy, this passage from the chapter of the Table came down [2 – Sura 5:51]     "O you who believe, take not Jews and Christians as friends. They are friends of one another. Who of you takes them as friends is one of them. God will not guild the unjust people. You can see those in whose heart there is sickness, i.e. Abdullah b. Ubayy when he said, "I fear a change of circumstances." Acting hastily in regard to them they say we fear that change of circumstances may overtake us. Peradventure God will bring victory or an act from Him so that they will be sorry for their secret thought, and those who believe will say, "Are these those who swore by God their most binding oath?" [that they were with you], as far as God’s words, "Verily God and His apostle are your friends, and those who believe, who perform prayer, give alms and bow in homage," mentioning Ubada taking God and His apostle and the believers as friends, and renouncing his agreement and friendship with the B. Qaynuqa… 

     There are a number of issues to be dealt with in relation to this incident. As a side note it is interesting to look at the "pact/treaty" that the Muslim writers claim to have existed between the various Jewish tribes and Muhammad. An analysis of this so-called "Charter of Medina", or "treaty", done by A. Wensinch, "Muhammad and the Jews of Medina", [24], page 70, reveals that this "treaty" was really more of an edict issued by Muhammad upon the Jews, rather than what might today be considered a "treaty". Muhammad laid a burden of regulation upon the Jews, which they had to accommodate, and with which they were apparently in full compliance. What is important is that Muhammad was at odds with the Jews because they had rejected him, and after his victory at Badr, Muhammad now felt confident that he could threaten, and then move against them, despite the earlier assurances in the Charter made at a time when Muhammad’s forces were less dominant. 

     Accordingly, now occurred one of the more questionable and ugly actions committed by Muhammad against the Jews. The Jews shut themselves up in their fortress, then succumbed to the siege and submitted to the orders of the Apostle of Allah and agreed that their property would be for the Prophet while they would take their women and children with them. They were undoubtedly unhappy with both the earlier terms and the new surrender terms issued, but they resigned themselves to continue to follow the dictates of this powerful man and his forces.  

      The Jews surrendered to Muhammad expecting to be expelled, taking their families with them. However, as they surrendered, Muhammad ordered that their hands be tied behind their backs. Muhammad was preparing to massacre the males! It seems that they surrendered expecting acceptable terms, but now, when they were defenceless, Muhammad tied them up in preparation for a wholesale slaughter. Then, an interesting exchange takes place, which seems a further blot on Muhammad’s record. A pagan (Abd Allah ibn Ubayy, a recent convert whom Muhammad considered a hypocrite) confronts Muhammad and demands that the Jews not be massacred. Muhammad was challenged by a pagan to not commit the evil act, and in response Muhammad grew angered to the point where it was evident to all "shadows appeared upon his face".

Tabari records (Volume 7, page 86): 

      The Messenger of God besieged them until they surrendered at his discretion. Abd Allah b. Ubayy b. Salul rose up when God had put them in his power, and said, "Muhammad, treat my mawali well"; for they were the confederates of al-Khazraj. The Prophet delayed his answer, so Abd Allah repeated, "Muhammad, treat my mawali well." The Prophet turned away from him, and he put his hand into (the Messenger’s) collar. The Messenger of God said, "Let me go!" – he was so angry that they could see shadows in his face (that is, his face colored). Then he said, "Damn you, let me go!"  He replied, "No, by God, I will not let you go until you treat my mawali well. Four hundred men without armor and three hundred with coats of mail, who defended me from the Arab and the non-Arab alike, and you would mow them down in a single morning? By God, I do not feel safe and am afraid of what the future may have in store." So the Messenger of God said, "They are yours." 

      So, we see a pagan apparently shaming Muhammad to not carry out his brutal plan to murder 700 Jewish males. On this event alone, it could be argued that the pagan had more human compassion and a stronger sense of right and wrong, which is to say that his morality was superior to Muhammad’s by any standard. Islam considers that when a young boy begins puberty, that he is an adult, so these males were probably aged from 14 on up. Abd Allah ibn Ubayy was apparently a warlord or mercenary who for political, military, and/or economic reasons allied himself with Muhammad’s forces for this campaign.  It should be noted here that for whatever reason the pagan later wisely counted himself amongst the ‘believers’ (as apparently all who survived the march of Islam in those days had to in order to survive and prosper).  His share of booty was undoubtedly increased in this and subsequent actions after his ‘miraculous’ conversion. 

     Another similar minor incident occurred between ibn Ubayy and Ubada Samit. From Sir William Muir’s work "The Life of Muhammad", [25], volume 3, chapter 13, page 138 we read:  

     Abdallah upbraided Obada (they were both principals in the confederacy with the Cainucaa,) for the part he had taken in abandoning their allies, and aiding in their exile: -- "What! art thou free from the oath with which we ratified their alliance? Hast thou forgotten how they stood by us, and shed for us their blood, on such and such a day? "- and he began enumerating the engagements in which they had fought together. Obada cut him short with the decisive answer, -- "hearts have changed. Islam hath blotted all treaties out."  

      Samit Ubada had an alliance with the Qaynuqa Jews. They had stood together at one time, and shed blood to defend Ubada and his tribe, but, because of the conflict between the Muslims and the Jews, Samit broke his alliance with the Jews. And, accordingly, there was yet another "revelation" for Muhammad justifying and supporting this, which will be addressed further. 

      This incident is documented so readers do not think that Muhammad only had a few people occasionally murdered. The record demonstrates that Muhammad was prepared to eliminate anyone, individuals or entire tribes, who, in Muhammad’s mind opposed him. All that was needed was a convenient event or any statement of opposition and the requisite revelation was generated to justify pulling the trigger. 

These events, chronicled as they are, leads to some legitimate questions:

 1) If Muhammad and his followers were about peace, why didn’t he try to work things out between himself and the Jews? There was no diplomacy as it progressed from an incident, to a "revelation," to an attack. Obviously many nations and movements throughout history have suffered opposition from other nations and yet have not gone immediately to war, rather the norm is to try to work out misunderstandings. If Muhammad is an example for all mankind as claimed, why are his patience and peace making skills apparently so meagre?

2) Was it necessary to eradicate an entire tribe of people over an incident in which one Muslim was victimized after killing another? Is it reasonable that an entire tribe of people were destroyed by what was at the time the most prominent Members of a ‘peaceful’ religion?

INCIDENT #4 – The Murder of Kab b. Ashraf

     Muhammad continued to have problems with various people around Medina who refused to acknowledge his claim to prophethood. Kab b. Ashraf was a prominent local who made it known that he did not believe in Muhammad. Kab never lifted a weapon against Muhammad or any Muslim, he only voiced his opinion against Muhammad, and allegedly made up some unsavory poems about Muslim women. Muhammad saw him as a threat, and therefore, had him killed at the darkness of night. 

     Tabari states that this murder took place in 3 A.H.  

From Bukhari, op cit, vol 5, book 59,  #369:  [Note, this is a very long Hadith. Also note the actual killer in this Hadith is another man named Muhammad bin Maslama. I have referred to him as Maslama.]

 "Narrated Jabir Abdullah: "Allah's messenger said "Who is willing to kill Ka'b al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His apostle?" Thereupon Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's messenger! Would you like that I kill him?" The prophet said, "Yes". Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka'b). The prophet said, "You may say it."

Maslama went to Ka'b and said, "That man (i.e. Muhammad) demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) [taxes] from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you." On that, Ka'b said, "By Allah, you will get tired of him!" Maslama said, "Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food." Ka'b said, "Yes, but you should mortgage something to me." Maslama and his companion said, What do you want?" Ka'b replied, "Mortgage your women to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the Arabs?" Ka'b said, "Then mortgage your sons to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people's saying that so and so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms to you."

Maslama and his companion promised Ka'b that Maslama would return to him. He came to Ka'b at night along with Ka'b's foster brother, Abu Naila. Ka'b invited them to come into his fort and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, "Where are you going at this time?" Ka'b replied, "None but Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Naila have come." His wife said, "I hear a voice as if blood is dropping from him." Ka'b said, "They are none but my brother Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed."

Maslama went with two men. So Maslama went in together with two men, and said to them, "When Ka'b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strike him. I will let you smell his head."

Ka'b Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Maslama said, "I have never smelt a better scent than this." Ka'b replied, "I have got the best Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume." Maslama requested Ka'b "Will you allow me to smell your head?" Ka'b said "yes." Maslama smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka'b again, "Will you let me (smell your head)?" Ka'b said "Yes". When Maslama got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions) "Get at him!" So they killed him and went to the prophet and informed him."

The story as told by Ibn Ishaq, op cit, page 365,

He [Maslama] said, "O apostle of god, we shall have to tell lies." He answered, "Say what you like, for you are free in the matter."

Thereupon he and Silkan [Abu Naila], and Abbad, and Harith, and Abu Abs Jabr conspired together and sent Silkan to the enemy of God, Ka'b, before they came to him. He talked to him some time and they recited poetry one to the other, for Silkan was fond of poetry. Then he said, O Ibn Ashraf, I have come to you about a matter which I want to tell you of and wish you to keep secret." "Very well", he replied. He went on , "The coming of this man is a great trial to us. It has provoked the hostility of the Arabs, and they are all in league against us. The roads have become impassable so that our families are in want and privation, and we and our families are in great distress. Ka'b answered, "By god, I kept telling you O Ibn Salama, that the things I warned you of would happen." Silkan said to him, 'I want you to sell us food and we will give you a pledge of security and you deal generously in the matter." He replied, "Will you give me your sons as a pledge?" He said, "You want to insult us. I have friends who share my opinion and I want to bring them to you so that you many sell to them and act generously, and we will give you enough weapons for a good pledge." Silkan's object was that he should not take alarm at the sight of weapons when they brought them. Ka'b answered, "Weapons are a good pledge."

Thereupon Silkan returned to his companions, told them what has happened, and ordered them to take their arms. Then they went away and assembled with him and met the apostle."

Thaur told me the apostle walked with them as far as Gharqad. Then he sent them off, saying, "Go in God's name; O God help them." So saying, he returned to his house. Now it was a moonlight night and they journeyed on until they came to his castle, and Abu Naila called out to him. He had only recently married and he jumped up in the bedsheet, and his wife took hold of the end of it and said, "You are at war, and those who are at war do not go out at this hour." He replied, "It is Abu Naila. Had he found me sleeping he would not have woken me." She answered, "by god, I can feel evil in his voice." Ka'b answered, "Even if the call were for a stab a brave man must answer it."

So he went down and talked to them for some time, while they conversed with him. Then Abu Naila said, "Would you like to walk with us to Shib al-ajmuz, so that we can talk for the rest of the night?" "If you like", he answered, so they went off walking together; and after a time Abu Naila ran his hand through his hair. Then he smelt his hand, and said, "I have never smelt a scent finer than this." They walked on farther and he did the same so that Ka'b suspected no evil. Then after a space did it for the third time and cried, "Smite the enemy of God!" So they smote him, and their swords clashed over him with no effect. Maslama said, "I remembered my dagger when I saw that our swords were useless, and I seized it. Meanwhile the enemy of god had made such a noise that every fort around us was showing a light. I thrust it into the lower part of his body, then I bore down upon it until I reached his genitals, and the enemy of God fell to the ground.

Harith had been hurt, being wounded either in his head or in his foot, one of our swords having stuck him. We went away, passing by the Umayya and then the Qurayza and then both until we went up the Harra of Urayd. Our friend Harith had lagged behind, weakened by loss of blood, so we waited for him for some time until he came up, following our tracks. We carried him and brought him to the apostle at the end of the night. We saluted him as he stood praying, and he came out to us and we told him that we had killed god's enemy. He spat upon our comrade's wounds, and both he and we returned to our families. Our attack upon god's enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.

Further note: On page 442 there is a descript poem part of which deals with Kab’s murder. The poem is composed by a Muslim, and this part says:

     … By Muhammad’s order when he sent secretly by night

     Kab’s brother, to go to Kab

     He beguiled him and brought him down with guile" 

     Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir provides us with yet another interesting artifact related to this story. From the Tabaqat, vol 2, page 37:  "Then they cut his head and took it with them. ..... they cast his head before him [Muhammad]. He (the prophet) praised Allah on his being slain."

     Note what happened here. Ka'b encouraged Muhammad's enemies, and made up some poems about Muslim women. Muhammad didn't like it, and had him murdered. To accomplish their action against Kab, Muhammad allowed them to lie to Kab in order to get him to lower his defenses and trust them. After they killed Ka'b, they beheaded him and brought the head to Muhammad. When Muhammad saw his head, he praised Allah for Ka'b being slain! Some obvious questions come to mind:

1) Did Muhammad abide by the treaty he had with the Jews? Was it right to dispatch men to commit the murder one of their leaders under cover of night using deceit and cunning?

2) What does this say about Islam’s view of non-Muslim laws? If Kab were a real criminal, couldn't Muhammad have dealt with him according to the local law or understanding he had with the Jews? Why is it that for the sake of Islam, no other law is binding?

3) What are the implications for any society? In effect, can Muslims murder in the night those who oppose them or Islam?

4) Are deceit and lies, when deployed against non-believers in the violent advancement of Islam, still acceptable behavior today? 

INCIDENT # 5 – The Murder of Ibn Sunayna

      Muhammad’s problems with the various Jews were not over yet. They had rejected him, which he could not tolerate. His animosity towards them seemed to be ever increasing. Just after the murder of Kab b. Ashraf, and before the battle of Uhud (3 A.H.), Muhammad ordered his followers to "kill any Jew that comes under your power".  Anti-Semitism is defined as; “an intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people”. By that standard, Muhammad could be considered Islam’s original anti-Semite.

From Guillaume, op cit, page 369:

"The apostle said, "Kill any Jew that falls into your power." Thereupon Muhayyisa b. Masud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, 'You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?' Muhayyisa answered, 'Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.'" 

 This story is also supported in the Sunan of Abu Dawud, [26], Book 19, Number 2996:

 Narrated Muhayyisah: The Apostle of Allah said: If you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them. So Muhayyisah jumped over Shubaybah, a man of the Jewish merchants. He had close relations with them. He then killed him. At that time Huwayyisah (brother of Muhayyisah) had not embraced Islam. He was older than Muhayyisah. When he killed him, Huwayyisah beat him and said: O enemy of Allah, I swear by Allah, you have a good deal of fat in your belly from his property. 

     Yet another murder committed upon Muhammad's command. Note that Muhayyisa would have killed a family member at the drop of a hat. Here Muhammad, in his actions behaved not unlike a criminal boss, ordering his men to wantonly murder Jewish people. Hitler also did this, but in the name of Arian purity rather than in the name of a ‘religion of peace’. 

     A quote from an Islamic scholar – Wensinck, op cit, writes in, "Muhammad and the Jews of Medina", page 113:

 "It is remarkable that tradition attributes Muhammad's most cruel acts to divine order, namely the siege of Qaynuqa, the murder of Kab, and he attack upon Qurayzah. Allah's conscience seems to be more elastic than that of his creatures."..... Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi report that the prophet said the morning after the murder (of Kab Ashraf), "Kill any Jew you can lay your hands on." 

     This incident shows that Muhammad had unsuspecting people, those who even had good relations with Muslims, murdered in cold blood simply because they were Jewish. There was no other apparent justification to murder these Jews other than they were not Muhammad's followers. These actions were the work of Muhammad's henchmen committing murder at his explicit instruction. 

INCIDENT # 6 – The Attack against the Banu Nadir Jews

     Similar to the attack on the Banu Qaynuqa Jews, the attack on the Banu Nadir Jews arose from Muhammad’s desire for an opportunity to move against those that rejected his authority. Tabari (vol.7) states that this occurred during year 4 from the Hijrah. This event, like the attack upon the Qaynuqa has a large amount of detail, but we will only document the relevant portions for the argument at hand. However, the following references are provided should the reader wish to review the entire accounts. 

References: Tabari volume 7, page 156+;  Sahih Muslim,Book 19,  # 4324, 4347;  Sunan of Abu Dawud,  Book 14, # 2676;  Ibn Ishaq "Sirat Rasulallah" (translated by A. Guillaume) "The Life of Muhammad", pages 265 & 437+;  Ibn Sa’d’s, "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir", Volume 2, pages 68–71;

"The Life of Muhammad", by Muir, found:

      This event, detained to show one aspect of jihad, also displays Muhammad’s unusual rational for attacking the Nadir.  The incident started when Muhammad visited the Banu Nadir to ask them to pay blood-wit – i.e. financial compensation, for a man who was murdered by one of their tribe. The B. Nadir agreed. While there, it is claimed that some of the Jews decided to kill Muhammad, by dropping a large rock upon him, from the roof of a nearby building. According to the sources, not all of the Jews agreed to attempt to kill him. However, Muhammad was given a "warning from heaven" (arguably from the so-called spirit Gabriel), that they were going to try to kill him so he quickly left the B. Nadir’s area. Following that, Muhammad attacked them. He laid siege to their fort. During the siege Muhammad ordered his men to burn down the Nadir’s date palm trees. This palm grove was very large and provided food and finances for the Nadir. As Muhammad destroyed their grove, the Nadir challenged Muhammad. 

The Jews took refuge in their forts and the apostle ordered that the palm trees should be cut down and burnt, and they called out to him, "Muhammad, you have prohibited wanton destruction and blamed those guilty of it. Why then are you cutting down and burning our palm trees?" 

      The Jews said this because previously Muhammad had told his men that they were not to destroy food trees. But here, the Jews saw that Muhammad contradicted himself and went against his own teachings. As a response, Muhammad has yet another timely revelation:

 "Whatsoever palm trees ye cut down or left standing on their roots, it was by Allah’s leave Quran 59:5.

 Tabari, op cit, volume 7, page 158 provides more details:

     When the Messenger of God’s companions returned they went to him and found him sitting in the mosque. They said, "O Messenger of God, we waited for you but you did not come back." "The Jews intended to kill me," he replied, "and God informed me of it. Call Muhammad b. Maslamah to me." When Muhammad b. Maslamah came, he was told to go to the Jews and say to them, "Leave my country and do not live with me. You have intended treachery." Muhammad b. Maslamah went to them and said, "The Messenger of God orders you to depart from his country." They said, "Muhammad, we never thought that a man of al-Aws would come to us with such a message." "Hearts have changed," he replied, "and Islam has wiped out the old covenants." "We will go," they said. 

And an interesting verse is now revealed. From the Sunan of Abu Dawud, op cit, Book 14, Number 2676. Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

When the children of a woman (in pre-Islamic days) did not survive, she took a vow on herself that if her child survives, she would convert it a Jew. When Banu an-Nadir were expelled (from Arabia), there were some children of the Ansar (Helpers) among them. They said: We shall not leave our children. So Allah the Exalted revealed; "Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error." 

     In "The Quran and Its Interpreters", [27], volume 1, pages 252- 256, by Muhammad Ayoub, there are several differing Tafsir presented on this verse.  Ayoub presents Wahidi’s Tafsir.  Wahidi relates on the authority of Sa’id ibn Jubayr, who related it on the authority of Ibn Abbas:

"When the children of a woman of the Ansar all died in infancy, she vowed that if a child were to live, she would bring it up as a Jew. Thus when the Jewish tribe of al-Nadir was evicted from Medina [4/625], there were among them sons of the Ansar. The Ansar said, "O Apostle of God, what will become of our children!" Thus God sent down this verse." Sa’id ibn Jubayr said, "Therefore whoever wished to join them did so, and whoever wished to enter Islam did so likewise."  

      While Ayoub presents other Tafsir on this verse, some of them supporting the concept that people are not to be forced into Islam, the only Hadith from a Sahih collection that I’ve found is the one above. And that context has nothing to do with not forcing people into Islam, rather, it allows captured Jews some limited family options. More on this later. 

INCIDENT # 7 – The Murder of the Shepherd

      From Guillaume, op cit, page 673 an incident is detailed as occurring in 4 A.H. It involves another Muslim man named Amr Umayya, who was sent out by Muhammad to murder Muhammad's enemy Abu Sufyan. However, their assassination attempt failed. As he returned home, he met a one-eyed shepherd. The shepherd and the Muslim man both identified themselves as members of the same Arab clan. Prior to going asleep, the shepherd said that he would never become a Muslim. Umayya waited for the shepherd to fall asleep, and thereafter:

"as soon as the badu was asleep and snoring I got up and killed him in a more horrible way than any man has been killed. I put the end of my bow in his sound eye, then I bore down on it until I forced it out at the back of his neck."

Umayya returned and spoke with Muhammad. He relates: "He [Muhammad] asked my news and when I told him what had happened he blessed me". 

     So, Muhammad blessed one of his men who brutally murdered a one-eyed shepherd while he slept. This shepherd did not assail Muhammad, but he did not believe in him. The shepherd did not invoke war against Muhammad. However, he wanted the freedom to choose his own faith and way, and he rejected Muhammad. Apparently, Umayya was determined not to return empty handed following his failure to murder the individual Muhammad targeted, and his selection of the handicapped Shepherd appears to be a random accident.  So, we see another person who didn't want to follow Muhammad, and another justified murder - simply for casually mentioning without malice that he did not intend to follow Muhammad. Muhammad's trail of blood continued to grow, a pattern very familiar to all who followed him then and now. 

Partial summary up to this point:

     We’ve covered a large amount of material, and should pause for a short review. We’ve gone about half way through the Quranic verses we intend to cover, and about half way through the last 10 years of Muhammad’s life. We have not covered all of the Quran’s verses related to Jihad, nor have we covered all of Muhammad’s violent actions. However, it should be obvious that shortly after Muhammad’s arrival at Medina the concept and allowance of shedding the blood of those that opposed or refused Muhammad’s rule was justified and ordained. Thus, as soon as Muhammad had military power to force his will on others he began to put it to use, to spread his domination by any and all means necessary

     We’ve seen that Muhammad had people murdered, and that he had tribes eliminated. Mothers, old men, friendly non-Muslim business men, handicapped shepherds, critics, freethinkers, all fell to his sword of death. He even would have massacred the adult males of an entire tribe of Jews, had not a pagan stopped him. Likewise he told another tribe (Banu Nadir) that they had ten days to leave or they would be beheaded. He allowed his followers to lie and deceive his enemies to murder them. We’ve seen him destroy the financial wealth of a tribe in order to defeat them. And those that followed Muhammad betrayed and broke former allegiances with friends and tribes in order to act against them. 

     After reading thus far, what should we think?  Is it becoming clearer why there are so many devout Muslims who also espouse violent methods against non-brothers?  Is it also becoming obvious why most Muslim peoples and nations are so feeble in their efforts to stop the extremists amongst them? In fact, the fastest and perhaps only way for Muslim terrorists in our day to be truly defeated, would be for them to first lose their grass-root local support, and then to be turned upon by ‘peaceful’ Islam, … but it appears that would be contrary to the teachings and philosophies of Muhammad.  Unfortunately, if true Islam, deep down actually supports the twisted rationalization behind terrorism, then our hope for effective help from the Muslim (so called moderate Muslims) community in the war on terror is not likely to succeed.

____----****o****----____

Chapter 8

Yet more Actions which Speak Louder than Words:

      We continue our review of the actions that Muhammad took. Talk is very inexpensive but actions are absolute illustrious. What else did Muhammad actually do as he came into power?

INCIDENT #8 – Muhammad’s Massacre of the Bani Qurayza Jews

     Muhammad lived among various Jewish tribes. He had issued an injunction or edict towards them expecting them to fulfil certain conditions related to living in Medina. One of these was that the Jews were not to help Muhammad’s enemies.

      During A.H. 5 (i.e. 626, 627 A.D.), an important siege / battle took place, "The Battle of the Trench". During this time, Muhammad’s enemies (Meccans and their allies), negotiated with the Jews of the tribe of Banu Qurayza to aid them against Muhammad. In the end the Jews did not betray Muhammad. They did not allow the Quraysh to use their land to launch an attack against Muhammad, and they did not attack Muhammad. Certainly they were not Muhammad’s best friends, having seen the brutalities and murders he had carried out against so many people.

     The Quraysh eventually lifted the siege and returned to their homes. Following that, Muhammad claimed that the angel Gabriel came to him and ordered him to attack the Banu Qurayza. (Notice that it is this spirit "Gabriel" at work again, motivating Muhammad to attack). By this time the Muslims were well aware that the B. Qurayza had negotiated with the Quraysh. Though the negotiations did not result in the feared alliance, still they were of great concern to the Muslims, and incited hatred towards the Jews. Sa’d b. Muadh, one of Muhammad’s top lieutenants, who was severely wounded during the Battle of the Trench (or the Battle of Ahzab), proclaimed that he did not want to die until he had seen the Jews destroyed. As the confrontation began, a Muslim who was on good terms with the B. Qurayza told them that Muhammad intended to massacre the Jews. Muhammad laid a formidable siege on the beleaguered Jews of B. Qurayza.

      Eventually, the Jews could not hold out and they surrendered. Muhammad picked out one of his men to judge their fate: the very same Sa’d  b. Muadh, who had made the previously mentioned death declaration, which undoubtedly Muhammad was aware of. Sa’d proclaimed that the adult males (any teenage boy who had started puberty, i.e. growing of facial/pubic hair, etc.) were to be beheaded, and, the women and children enslaved. Thus, Muhammad massacred around 800 prisoners of war and enslaved their women and children.

      The Sirat Rasulallah, op cit, page 464, records what one of the Jewish leaders said:

Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off.

      Muhammad massacred these men, not for making war upon him, not for aiding his enemies, but only because they were a threat to his further aims. They had rejected Muhammad and Islam, and they would not follow him as a prophet. Consequently, they would have to be removed. At this point in time, there were no more pagan leaders to plead for these Jews (as Ubayy had done for the Qaynuqa). There were no more Jewish tribes or allies nearby to lend them a hand, (they had all been expelled). Now Muhammad was free to do what appears he intended to do from the beginning: massacre those who threatened him and/or refused to become his followers.

      Apparently some of these Jews were given the option of becoming Muslims but they refused. From the only records available, only four Jews are recorded as having converted – obviously to save their own lives. The Jews believed Muhammad was a false prophet, hence their leader accepted their massacre instead of yielding to him.

     Edward Gibbon, in his classic history, “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” described the aftermath of the assault:

“Seven hundred Jews were dragged in chains to the market-place of the city; they descended alive into the grave prepared for their execution and burial and the apostle beheld with an inflexible eye the slaughter of his helpless victims. Their sheep and camels were inherited by the Musulmans: three hundred cuirasses, five hundred pikes, a thousand lances, composed the most useful portion of the spoil.”

     Gibbon was a respected historian and not some Zionist. But even the Arab’s own historians make no pretensions about their military conquests. There was no benevolence or spreading enlightenment as a motivation. It was all about rape and plunder. The History of Al-Tabari, written in the 10^th century clearly outlines (pg 166, 175) the slaughter and pillaging and rapacious motivations of these forces. Even in recent history, the Arab tribes under the direction of Lawrence of Arabia weren’t motivated to attack the Turks for anything other than simple plunder and gold.

INCIDENT #9 – The Torture and Death of Kinana

     Previously we learned that Muhammad attacked the Jewish settlement of Khaybar following the treaty of Hudaybiyya. One particularly heinous incident among several stand out. Here is the material.

      On page 515 of Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasulallah", (The Life of the Prophet of God), the events of the conquest of Khaybar are detailed. This event occurred about 3 years before Muhammad's death due to poisoning. Khaybar was a large Jewish settlement about 95 miles north of Medina. The Jews there were primarily farmers. Khaybar was known to have some of the best date palms in the region. The Jews there were well to do because they had worked hard and earned it. They had good relations with the surrounding tribes of pagans, Christians, and Jews.

     Prior to Muhammad's conquest of Khaybar, he had just been stopped by the Meccans from performing a pilgrimage to Mecca. Outside of Mecca, he also signed a humiliating treaty with the Meccans - a treaty that a number of his leading followers didn't like. This humiliated and embarrassed Muhammad and his followers, who then sought redemption in a different course of action. Apparently, to placate his men, Muhammad claimed to have a "revelation" that God would give them the possessions of the Jews of Khaybar. Six weeks later he marched on Khaybar with the intent to conquer and plunder.

      Page 515 of the above book reads:

   "Kinana al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (Tabari says "was brought"), to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" He said "Yes". The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr Al-Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has." So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud."

     Many might find Muhammad's orders to torture Kinana to obtain "buried treasure" similar to what criminals do to obtain people's money or possessions. It is not difficult to picture the organized crime figures beating someone or torturing him to make him talk. "Talk!, tell us where the money is!, or we'll make your pain even worse!". Finally, when he is near death, Muhammad has his head cut off. It appears that Muhammad's greed drove him to torture and then to murder a man for the sole purpose to obtain money and treasure.

      Think about Muhammad's statement, "Torture him until you extract what he has". This is the prophet of Islam in action when he had the power of the sword with no threat of external consequence. What kind of a man is this prophet of Islam, and what does this say about the people who choose to follow him, as all who do must also choose to justify and support all his deeds? Millions have gone to their death unwilling to risk their eternity on the man, an even greater number have hitched their wagons to his destiny.  It’s an age-old dilemma and choice still being forced on many throughout the world today.

INCIDENT #10 – The Murder of a Slave Wife and Mother.

     This incident involves a Muslim man who murdered his own slave-wife and mother of his children. From the Hadith of Abu Dawud [26]. Book 38, Number 4348: Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:

A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet was informed about it.

He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.

He sat before the Prophet and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.

Thereupon the Prophet said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.

To continue to quote from Abu Dawud. Note #3800 states:

"This shows that even if a Jew or any non-Muslim abuses the Prophethe will be killed. This is held by al-Laith, al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, and Ishaq."

     Here we see here that Muhammad allowed people to murder others simply for insulting him. Note that a slave women, who was used as a concubine by her Muslim master, paid for her criticism of Muhammad with her life. The man murdered the mother of two of his children apparently in the presence of his young, and when the prophet hears of it he makes a special effort to sanction and justify the brutal act. It seems the opportunity to establish fear in the hearts of all should they disparage Muhammad simply could not be passed up.

     Now then, was that slave a threat? Were Muslims going to leave Islam because of a slave women's criticism? Of course not, she was only an irritant to her husband. But Muhammad could not tolerate for long any personal criticism. His ego could not allow his credibility undermined by anyone, no matter how insignificant and powerless he or she is; so he allowed and encouraged his followers to murder anyone who expressed different views. This incident also shows that Muhammad allowed his followers to even murder members of their own families.

INCIDENT #11 – The Murder of the Old Woman from Fazara

     This incident involves the actions of Muslims who were sent out by Muhammad on a raid against the Fazara tribe. The Fazara initially defeated the Muslims. The wounded Muslim leader swore vengeance. After he recovered he went out and attacked the Fazara again. One very old woman was captured. Here is the account from Guillaume, op cit, and page 665:

"....and Umm Qirfa Fatima was taken prisoner. She was a very old women, wife of Malik. Her daughter and Abdullah Masada were also taken. Zayd ordered Qays to kill Umm Qirfa and he killed her cruelly (Tabari, by putting a rope to her two legs and to two camels and driving them until they rent her in two.)

     Here, Muhammad's companions went out and attacked people, took some prisoners, then committed some brutal atrocities against their captives. These men were so destitute of basic human values that they ripped an old woman in half by using camels! One wonders how many Muslims are intimately acquainted with the record of brutal killings by Muhammad himself or explicitly ordered, sanctioned, and justified. Muhammad and his followers seem in every bit as brutal as the worst humanity has ever produced.

INCIDENT #12 – The Murder of Abdullah Khatal and his daughter

     This incident involves another slave woman who was murdered, upon Muhammad's command because she had mocked Muhammad some time earlier.  From Guillaume, op cit, page 550, 551:

"Another [to be killed] was Abdullah Khatal of B. Taym b. Ghalib. He had become a Muslim and the apostle sent him to collect the poor tax in company with one of the Ansar. He had with him a freed slave who served him. (He was Muslim). When they halted he ordered the latter to kill a goat for him and prepare some food, and went to sleep. When he woke up the man had done nothing, so he attacked and killed him and apostatized. He had two singing-girls Fartana and her friend who used to sing satirical songs about the apostle, so he ordered that they should be killed with him."

     Let's stop here and examine this paragraph. Muhammad ordered that a man who apostatized, and his two slave girls, be killed. Khatal was ordered to be killed not because he killed his male slave, a Muslim, but because he apostatized. Islamic law does not allow a Muslim man to be put to death for killing a slave. Muhammad also ordered two slave girls to be killed for singing satirical songs about him. They sung satirical songs about Muhammad probably at least a year or more earlier. Now, after Muhammad conquered Mecca, it was his time to pay those slave girls back. These slave girls were not threats to Islam, or to the new Islamic State, they were only ordinary slave girls. They were ordered to be executed only because they sang some silly song about Muhammad. Page 551 finishes the story of the slave girls:

"As for Ibn Khatal's two singing girls, one was killed and the other ran away until the apostle, asked for immunity, gave it to her."

     Needless to say, if the second slave girl did not ask for immunity, Muhammad would have had her murdered also. Muhammad had her sister killed just for poking a little fun of him in song. A sense of humor was apparently not one of Muhammad’s strong suits.

INCIDENT #13 – Muhammad’s Attack upon Tabuk

      There are many, other violent incidents that could drawn from Muhammad’s biography. We conclude the incidents section with this event because it shows Muhammad’s beliefs regarding Jihad and his mission of conquest for Islam. In one of his latest acts, it seems clear that Muhammad had no intention of living peacefully, side by side with non-Muslims, even with those who were far from his community’s borders. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that non-Muslims were his enemies because they had rejected him. As recorded in the Qur’an, non-Muslims had these options: become Muslim, pay extortion tax, or fight and die.

     Muhammad heard that the Romans were going to attack him. He marshalled 30,000 of his troops and they went north to the town of Tabuk to do battle with the Romans. However, upon arriving, they found that there was no threat at all. Instead, Muhammad sent a detachment to Ayla, to give them the afore-mentioned options: convert, pay the extortion tax - jizya, or die. The Christian leader there decided to pay tribute. Details of the incident can be reviewed at http://answering-islam.org/Books/Muir/Life4/chap28.htm, from which the following is extracted:

 "To John ibn Rabah and the Chiefs of Aylah. Peace be on you! I praise God for you, beside whom there is no Lord. I will not fight against you until I have written thus unto you. Believe, or else pay tribute. And be obedient unto the Lord and his Prophet, and the messengers of his Prophet. Honor them and clothe them with excellent vestments, not with inferior raiment. Specially clothe Zeid with excellent garments. As long as my messengers are pleased, so likewise am I. Ye know the tribute. If ye desire to have security by sea and by land, obey the Lord and his Apostle, and he will defend you from every claim, whether by Arab or foreigner, saving the claim of the Lord and his Apostle. But if ye oppose and displease them, I will not accept from you a single thing, until I have fought against you and taken captive your little ones and slain the elder.

      Think about what exactly is being said here; "Do what me and my associates tell you, give us your finest merchandise", "If my men are happy, I’m happy, pay me the money and you’ll be protected, upset me or them and your family will not be safe". Frankly, Muhammad’s words to John read like a script strait from "The Godfather".

Summary of the 13 incidents:

     We see how Muhammad’s attacks upon these people demonstrate his commitment to the teachings in Sura 9; "Make war upon the Christians and Jews, unless they convert or pay the extortion." Real Islam, i.e. Muhammad’s Islam, is clearly taught in the Qur’an, and demonstrated by Muhammad’s actions. Muhammad’s actions speak loudly here. Committed near the end of his life, they clearly portray what he wanted his followers to continue to do: attack and conquer non-Muslim people.  The vast majority of Islamic theologians today understand amongst themselves that these final acts and teachings abrogate all earlier, more conciliatory verses.  The fear of many is that the earlier, more tolerant versus are repeated for western consumption only, so that the frog might not notice how hot the pot is becoming until it is too late…

     Documentation shows many more people suffered a similar fate, but here is a summary of 10 individual murders committed upon Muhammad's requests or efforts just outlined.

1) Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish man who was murdered simply because he was a Jew
2) Abu Afak, a 120-year-old man, murdered while he slept
3) Asma Marwan, mother of 5 children, murdered while she slept
4) A slave women, mother of two children, murdered while she slept
5) A one-eyed shepherd, murdered while he slept
6) A very old woman literally ripped in half by Muslims who captured her in a raid
7) A slave girl, who was murdered because she poked fun at Muhammad

8) Murder of Kab Ashraf, a prominent local who did not believe in Muhammad

9) Murder of Ibn Sunayna (Jewish merchant on good social/business terms with Muslims)

10) The torture and death of Kinana, to extract money.

    If those descriptions shock you, consider that we are able to present the stories using the only source available, … the ‘Islamic friendly’ written history of the events. Now there are always two sides to every story, but the victims’ side in these cases is simply not available. One can only imagine just how far the truth may have been massaged to make the official record more palatable, or what additional important information has been omitted.  The only thing that is certain is that the official account was never at risk of being challenged, … dead people generally don’t talk too much. No one knows if other factors were at play beyond the data presented by those who wrote this history, but it certainly seems safe to say that we are not getting the full story. Even so, to most reasonable people, no further information is needed to deplore the actions of Muhammad and his followers in relation to those events. However, if we had the power to interview those people and get their perspective on the events, they would undoubtedly be understood to be even more deplorable and inhumane.

____----****o****----____

Chapter 9

More Jihadic Passages from the QUR’AN:

     As we continue to review the Qur’an’s verses we will see them widen in scope of aggression and as we review Muhammad’s actions we will see what could only be described as a ‘trail of blood conquest’ extend. 

PASSAGE FOUR: SURA 2:190 - 192

     To be fair, the following verse is one often cited to Westerners in relation to Jihad, but it is also the first one that was revealed in connection with Jihad, and, unfortunately, it was subsequently supplemented (abrogated) by another (V9:36).

2:190. And fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors.

 [To be rigorous, we repeat verse, this time from Dawood’s Koran, op cit, 2:190 ‘Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors.’] 

2:191. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

2:192. But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. 

     Two Muslim writers, Asad and Abdullah Yusuf Ali, both state that the chronology of this passage occurred around the time following the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. In Ali’s "The Holy Qur’an", [28], page 77, Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s commentary states, 

      This passage is illustrated by the events that happened at Hudaybiyyah in the sixth year of the Hijrah; though it is not clear that it was revealed on that occasion. The Muslims were by this time a strong and influential community. Many of them were exiles from Makkah, where the Pagans had established an intolerant autocracy, persecuting Muslims, preventing them from visiting their homes, and even keeping them out by force from performing the Pilgrimage during the universally recognized period of truce. This was intolerance, oppression, and autocracy to the last degree, and the mere readiness of the Muslims to enforce their rights as Arab citizens resulted without bloodshed in an agreement which the Muslims faithfully observed. 

     And Asad in "The Message of the Qur’an", [29], page 41:

     The reference to warfare in the vicinity of Mecca is due to the fact that at the time of the revelation of this verse the Holy City was still in the possession of the pagan Quraysh, who were hostile to the Muslims.

      If the Muslim’s chronology above is correct, then this passage occurred about 2 years before Muhammad conquered Mecca around the time of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. This was prior to the conquest of Mecca by the Muslims and it sounds reasonable to me. A year or so after the treaty Muslims were allowed to make the pilgrimage but they did not rule Mecca or the nearby lands. The Muslims were strong now and capable of defending themselves, but they were not the supreme power in the region. So, Muhammad ordered them to defend themselves against the Meccan attacks, but not be aggressors because they had a treaty. However, outside of Mecca, Muhammad was free to attack tribes of non-Muslims that were not aligned with the Meccans, and this he did!

      Also note that the pact concluded between the Muslims and Meccans was not a "treaty" in the Western sense of the word. Rather it was a truce or cease-fire (i.e., an agreement of cessation of hostilities for a 10 year period). After 10 years, if nothing else had been concluded between the parties, they would be at odds again.

      Ibn Sa’d, op cit, records in volume 2, page 131:

      "…he [Muhammad] recited: We have given thee (O Muhammad) a signal victory [1]. He (Mujammil’) said: A person from the Companions of Muhammad said: O Apostle of Allah! is it a victory? He replied: By Him in Whose hand is my soul, it is surely a victory. He (Mujammi’) said: Then (the booty of) Khaybar was allotted to the participants of al-Hudaybiyah in eighteen shares. The army consisted of one thousand five hundred persons out of who three hundred were horsemen, and every horseman got two shares.

      Just six weeks after Muhammad concluded the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, he attacked and plundered the large Jewish settlement of Khaibar.  Let us emphasize two points relative to the Qur’an and Treaty of Hudaybiyya made with the Meccans. 

1)  They were to cease hostilities between themselves. i.e. the Meccans and the Muslims. Consequently, Qur’anic verse 2:190 says, "Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors."

2)     The Muslims were allowed to attack those groups that were not aligned with the Meccans. 

 Bukhari, op cit, volume 3. book 50, number 891: (Note: this is lengthy Hadith, only the relevant part is quoted)

 ……No doubt, the war has weakened Quraish and they have suffered great losses, so if they wish, I will conclude a truce with them, during which they should refrain from interfering between me and the people (i.e. the 'Arab infidels other than Quraish), and if I have victory over those infidels, Quraish will have the option to embrace Islam as the other people do, if they wish; they will at least get strong enough to fight.

      So, we see two classes of people here: 1) the Meccans and their allies, and 2) the polytheist tribes living nearer Muhammad. The treaty allowed Muhammad to attack the non-aligned polytheists, without having to worry about interference from the Meccans. Hence. aggressive Jihad continued against the polytheists near Muhammad’s lands. 

 [Note the jumbled chronology. From Baidawi’s commentary (tafsir) we see that 2:193 was revealed just after Muhammad arrived in Medina. This is about 8 years before chapter(Sura) 9 was revealed, and about 6 years before the verses above, 2:190 – 192 were revealed. 2:216, 217 and 2:193 occurred 6 years before verses 2:190 – 192, yet 2:193 was placed in the Qur’an to follow 2:190-192.]

      As previously quoted, the "Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, op cit, on verse 2:191 states:

      As Jihad involves death and the killing of men, Allah draws our attention to the fact that the disbelief and polytheism of the disbelievers, and their avoidance of Allah’s path are far worse than killing. Thus Allah says, "And Fitnah is worse than killing." This is to say that shirk (Polytheism) is more serious and worse than killing.

      In sum, verses 2:190 – 192 are defensive with respect only to the Meccans and their allies, and for a specific time (10 years). They are therefore limited in application and duration, and are not comprehensive towards all groups of people. Consequently, they cannot necessarily be applied to today’s Islamic theology or events of our time as evidence that Islam is not aggressive or merely defensive. Additionally, the consensus in Islam is that the verses are limited and in fact have been abrogated by more recent verses which have no ‘defensive’ constraints.

PASSAGE 5: SURA 9:1 - 7

9:1 Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger to those of the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), with whom you made a treaty.

9:2 So travel freely (O Mushrikun - see V.2:105) for four months (as you will) throughout the land, but know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah, and Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.

9:3 And a declaration from Allah and His Messenger to mankind on the greatest day (the 10th of Dhul-Hijjah - the 12th month of Islamic calendar) that Allah is free from (all) obligations to the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) and so is His Messenger. So if you (Mushrikun) repent, it is better for you, but if you turn away, then know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah. And give tidings of a painful torment to those who disbelieve. 

9:4 Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfil their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).

9:5 Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

9:6 And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur’an), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.

9:7 How can there be a covenant with Allah and with His Messenger for the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) except those with whom you made a covenant near Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah)? So long, as they are true to you, stand you true to them. Verily, Allah loves Al-Mattaqun (the pious - see V.2:2). 

     Abdullah Yususf Ali’s commentary in his Qur’an, op cit, page 435, states that verses 9:1 – 29 were revealed during the month of Shawwal, A.H. 9, and read out by Hadhrat Ali loud to the various pilgrims in Mecca two months later to give Muhammad’s new policy a wide hearing. A. Yusuf Ali then states that the rest of the sura (30 – 129) were revealed months earlier than the first 29 verses, and sums up the lessons of the Prophet’s expedition to attack the Christian town of Tabuk (More on Tabuk later).

     Other Islamic writers state that, perhaps the first 40 verses of sura 9 were revealed, preceded by verses 41 to the end of the chapter. There are more differing opinions regarding the chronology and sections of passages revealed. However, all scholars extensively reviewed agree that the first 29 verses were some of the last verses spoken by Muhammad. 

      As previously stated, this passage was one of the very last to be spoken by Muhammad. The background for this verse is found in "The Life of Muhammad", op cit, page 617-619. It is a very long passage only partially cited.

      A discharge came down, [Muhammad received a revelation from God], permitting the breaking of the agreement between the apostle and the polytheists that none should be kept back from the temple when he came to it, and that none need fear during the sacred months. That there was a general agreement between him and the polytheists; meanwhile there were particular agreements between the apostle and the Arab tribes for specified terms. And there came down about it and about the disaffected who held back from him in the raid on Tabuk, [a Christian town Muhammad attacked, and forced them to pay him], and about what they said (revelations) in which God uncovered the secret thoughts of people who were dissembling. We know the names of some of them, of others we do not. He said (This chapter is a commentary on Sura 9) "A discharge from God and His apostle towards those polytheists with whom you made a treaty," i.e. those polytheists with whom you made a general agreement. "So travel through the land for four months and know that you cannot escape God and that God will put the unbelievers to shame. And a proclamation from God and His apostle to men on the day of the greater pilgrimage that God and His apostle are free from obligation to the polytheists," i.e., after this pilgrimage. So if you repent it will be better for you; and if you turn back know that you cannot escape God. Inform those who disbelieve, about a painful punishment except those polytheists with whom you have made a treaty," i.e. the special treaty for a specified term, "Since they have not come short in anything in regard to you and have not helped anyone against you. So fulfil your treaty with them to their allotted time. God loves the pious. And when the sacred months are passed, He means the four which he fixed as their time, "then kill the polytheists wherever you find them, and seize them and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. But if they repent and perform prayer and pay the poor-tax, then let them go their way. God is forgiving, merciful. If one of the polytheists, i.e. one of those whom I have ordered you to kill, asks your protection, give it him so that he may hear the word of God; then convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know."

Then He said: "How can there be for the polytheists" with whom you had a general agreement that they should not put you in fear and that you would not put them in fear neither in the holy places nor in the holy months "a treaty with God and His apostle except for those with whom you made a treaty at the sacred mosque?" …

 Continuing a few paragraphs later on page 619:

      Then the apostle gave orders to fight the polytheists who had broken the special agreement as well as those who had a general agreement after the four months which had been given them as a fixed time, save that if any one of them showed hostility he should be killed for it….

 Continuing a few paragraphs later on page 620:

      Then comes the story of their enemy until he arrives at the mention of Hunayn [a battle site between Muslims and non-Muslims], and what happened there and their turning back from their enemy and how God sent down help after they had abandoned one another.

…Then He mentioned Tabuk and how the Muslims were weighed down by it and exaggerated the difficulty of attacking the Byzantines when the apostle called them to fight them; …

     Prior to this "revelation" of chapter 9, Muhammad had several; "agreements" with various Arab tribes. Some of these agreements were for a specified time. Others were general agreements allowing the pagans to visit the Kaba and perform their religious rituals. Some of these tribes were peaceful with him, others disliked him and caused him grief. Allah gave Muhammad a "revelation" allowing him to break all these various agreements, either immediately, or later. Thereafter he would attack them following the four sacred months. With notable exceptions, he would keep those treaties that were for a specified time with tribes that were on friendly terms. However, once those times were over, the state of aggression would be in place. Once again, Muhammad had gained power, and things changed. Now Muhammad was permitted to lie, i.e., break his agreements, and make war upon the pagans. Muhammad's circumstances changed - Allah changed, Islam changed.
     Note the last quoted paragraph,  ".....If one of the polytheists” (i.e. one of those whom I have ordered you to kill), is supposed to be God telling the Muslims to go out and kill people. Some of these people had gotten along peacefully with the Muslims. But because they didn't follow Muhammad they were going to be attacked sooner or later.

Sura 9:5 is the verse in the Qur’an that commands Muslims to attack and kill pagans:

"When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful."

       This passage if often quoted by some as proof that Islam is an aggressive religion. Some Muslims have responded that this verse was only directed towards pagan tribes that were at war with the Muslims. However, as the whole of the context is read, both in the Qur’an, and in the Sira, it is evident that defensive warfare is immediately allowed, but that offensive warfare would be taking place following the end of the four sacred months. [NOTE: The four sacred months are not sequential in the Islamic calendar, they are spread throughout the year, thus some writers have suggested that Muhammad gave the pagans about one year until Muhammad’s Islamic aggression was to commence.]

      Now to present a series of quotes From the "Tafsir of Ibn Kathir", op cit, volume 4.  

First in verse 9:5, page 375:

“But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give the Zakah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful"

      Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat (verse or passage) as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its ruling and obligations.

But then on verse 9:5, page 376:

So when the sacred months have passed… meaning, "Upon the end of the four months during which We prohibited you from fighting the idolaters, and which is the grace period We gave them, then fight and kill the idolaters wherever you may find them…

Then on verse 9:5, page 377:

This honorable Ayah was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term." Al-Awfi said that Ibn Abbas commented: "No idolater had anymore treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed.

     This passage is one that is primarily offensive. It does allow for defence if pagans attack the Muslims during the time of the treaty or sacred months, beyond that, it calls for offensive aggression against pagans if they exercise freedom of religion and remain non-Muslim. This is not a difficult passage to understand. Attack and kill the pagans, if they repent and become Muslims, leave them alone. Clearly, this passage calls for compulsion to Islam, claims otherwise are just plain dishonest.

PASSAGE 6: SURA 9:29

 9:29 Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

     Again, first we turn to Ibn Ishaq, op cit, page 620, for the historical context of this verse. 

  Then He said (v. 28): "The polytheists are nothing but unclean, so let them not approach the sacred mosque after this year of theirs, and if you fear poverty" that was because the people said "the markets will be cut off from us, trade will be destroyed, and we shall lose the good things we used to enjoy," and God said, If you fear poverty God will enrich you from His bounty," i.e. in some other way, "if He will. He is knowing, wise. Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day and forbid not that which God and His apostle have forbidden and follow not the religion of truth from among those who have been given the scripture until they pay the poll tax out of hand being humbled," i.e. as a compensation for what you fear to lose by the closing of the markets. God gave them compensation for what He cut off from them in the former polytheism by what He gave them by way of poll tax from the people of the scripture….

      Again, quotes from Ibn Kathir on verse 9:29, op cit, pages 404 – 409:

 The Order was given to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah.

      This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah’s religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims’ control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination….

 Pages 405, 406

Paying Jizyah is a Sign of Kufr (Unbeliever) and Disgrace.

      Allah said, until they pay the Jizyah, if they do not choose to embrace Islam, with willing submission, in defeat and subservience, and feel themselves subdued, disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.

      To add support and insight from another Tafsir on 9:29. From the Tafsir of Al-Jalalein. i.e., Al-Jalalein Interpretation of the Koran.

     "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, (which is Islam that abolishes all other religions) of the people of the Book, (meaning the Jews and the Christians ) until they pay the Jizya (the tax imposed upon them) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. (with humiliation and submission to the government of Islam.) 9:29 ."

     A final reference for this verse – this was cited earlier in this article from the "Reliance of the Traveler."

      The Caliph makes war upon the Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians, provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax Jizya…in accordance with the word of Allah Most High:

 "Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and Hiss messenger have forbidden – who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been give the Book – until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled." 9:29

The Caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim….

     It is obvious: the order to fight and kill Christians and Jews is in verse 9:29. It is clear that Muhammad ordered his followers to fight those Christians and Jews to convert them or pay the Jizya, and if they don't convert or pay, they were to be killed. The message is unmistakably clear: convert... or pay in a state of humiliated submission, or die.

     Here again is the historical background for this is found in "The Life of Muhammad", op cit, page 620,

...."until they [the Jews and Christians] pay the poll tax out of hand being humbled", i.e. as a compensation for what you fear to lose by the closing of the markets. God gave them compensation for what He cut off from them in their former polytheism by what He gave them by way of poll tax from the people of Scripture."

      Muhammad consistently taught his followers to oppress or kill non-Muslims. Generally, Jews and Christians were allowed to live as such, provided they paid tribute (the Jizya tax). In this case, this tax was a revenue given to the Muslims to make up for revenues they lost from people who no longer dealt in pagan activities. If the Jews and Christians refused to pay this extortion tax they would have to convert to Islam or be killed.

     Also note that the tax levied upon the Christians and Jews was not to support the state in general affairs, it was to compensate the Muslims because they had lost revenue. It appears Muhammad acted not unlike a Mafia crime boss, making others pay for "protection". Truly, the Christians and Jews really did need protection from the followers of Muhammad in their day, and were compelled to pay tribute for their survival. 

     Read the last paragraph quoted from Ibn Ishaq again and notice Muhammad’s twisted logic:  if the Muslims were going to lose revenue, Allah would make it up to them by His bounty: the Muslims were to extort the money from the Jews and Christians! (Ref. to verses 9:28, 29). What does this say for Allah’s bounty? Did Allah need to take the money from Christians and Jews to give it to the Muslims? If Allah were really with Muhammad, why couldn’t the Muslims earn it themselves and generate their own livelihood? Was the direction truly from the loving and benevolent God of all men, or was Muhammad simply justifying thievery by applying it to God’s

     Notice the difference between 9:5 and 9:29  Earlier, non-Jews or Christians (idolaters or pagans) had to convert to Islam or be killed, generally they didn't have the option of paying the tax as did the more prosperous Jews and Christians. Only Later, in Islamic history were some pagans also given the option of paying Jizya to survive, but that was not Muhammad’s original order.

PASSAGE 7: SURA 9:30, 31

9:30 And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allah's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth! 

9:31 They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allah), and (they also took as their Lord) Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded [in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) to worship none but One Ilâh (God - Allah) (none has the right to be worshipped but He). Praise and glory be to Him, (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)." 

      From the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, op cit, page 408:

      Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because They are Idolaters and Disbelievers.

      Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. As for the Jews, they claimed that Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over Isa (Jesus), it is obvious. That is why Allah declared both groups to be liars. 

     Notice in verse 30 how Muhammad said, "May Allah’s curse be on them" – because Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God. 

     These verses continue Muhammad’s tirade against Christians and Jews. Here he provides some of his reasoning for killing Jews and Christians: i.e., they believe that Jesus is the Son of God, or they believe that Ezra is the Son of God, thus making them polytheists. (Note, this is an apparent flaw in the Qur’an as there may have been a minor sect of Jews that greatly esteemed Ezra, or even believed that he was a son of God, but, Judaism has never declared Ezra to be the Son of God).

      All this goes hand in hand with some of Muhammad’s last words before he died: "May Allah curse the Christians and the Jews for they build their churches next to the graves of the prophets." 

PASSAGE 8: SURA 9:123

9:123 O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who are the Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2) 

     From the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, page 546, 547: The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers, the Closest, then the Farthest Areas.

      Allah commands the believers to fight the disbelievers, the closest in area to the Islamic state, then the farthest. This is why the Messenger of Allah started fighting the idolaters in the Arabian Peninsula. When he was finished with them and Allah gave him control over Makkah, Al-Madinah, At-Taif, Yemen, Yamamah, Hajr, Khaybar, Hadramawt, and other Arab provinces, and the various Arab tribes entered Islam in large crowds, he then started fighting the People of the Scriptures. He began preparation to fight the Romans who were the closest in area to the Arabian Peninsula, and As such had the most right to be called to Islam, especially since they were from the People of the Scriptures. The Prophet marched until he reached Tabuk and went back because of the extreme hardship, little rain, and little suppliers. This battle occurred on the ninth year after his Hijrah. 

     Kathir’s commentary shows that the early Muslims understood what Muhammad expected of them. They knew that their religion was one of violence, compulsion, and conquest. There was no mystery in the minds of Muhammad’s followers regarding warfare to spread Islam. History shows that they attacked non-Muslims zealously. There in nothing in the Qur’an that ever tells them to stop attacking and subjecting non-Muslims, rather the direction is to continue until all the world is under Islam’s rule.

But what about the "NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION VERSE" so often cited today as proof Islam is a tolerant and accommodating religious movement? 

PASSAGE 9: 2:256

2:256. There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower. 

     This verse is the most often quoted verse used to portray Islam as a religion of peace. On the surface it sounds good. However, investigation into how the early Muslim scholars viewed it, and the background and comments they ascribe to it cast it in a slightly different light.

     From the Sunan of Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2676:  Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

When the children of a woman (in pre-Islamic days) did not survive, she took a vow on herself that if her child survives, she would convert it a Jew. When Banu an-Nadir were expelled (from Arabia), there were some children of the Ansar (Helpers) among them. They said: We shall not leave our children. So Allah the Exalted revealed; "Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error." 

     From the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, op cite, pages 37, 38

      Allah says: "There is no compulsion in religion", meaning: do not force anyone to embrace Islam because it is clear, and its proofs and evidences are manifest. Whoever Allah guides and opens his heart to Islam has indeed embraced it with clear evidence. Whoever Allah misguides, blinds his heart and has set a seal on his hearing and a covering on his eyes cannot embrace Islam by force. 

      The reason for the revelation of this verse was that the women of Ansar used to make a vow to convert their sons to Judaism if the latter lived. And when the tribe of Bani an-Nadhir was expelled from Madinah, some children of Ansar were among them, so their parents could not abandon them; hence Allah revealed: "There is no compulsion in religion…" narrated by Ibn Jarir, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, Abu Dawud and an-Nasa’I, on the authority of Bandar, Abu Hatim, and Ibn Hiban from the Hadith of Shu’bah, Mujahid and others. However Muhammad Ibn Ishaq narrated that Ibn Abbas said: it was revealed with regard to a man from the tribe of Bani Salim Ibn Awf called al-Husayni whose two sons converted to Christianity but he was himself a Muslim. He told the Prophet: "Shall I force them to embrace Islam, they insist on Christianity", hence Allah revealed this verse. But, this verse is abrogated by the verse of "Fighting": "You shall be called to fight against a people given to great warfare, then you shall fight them, or they shall surrender" (sura 48:16). Allah also says: "O Prophet! Strive hard against the disbelieves and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them" (9:73), and He says, "O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who are the Pious, (9:123). 

     Therefore, all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizya they should be fought till they are killed. This is the meaning of compulsion. In the Sahih (al-Bukhari), the Prophet said: "Allah wonders at those people who will enter Paradise in chains", meaning prisoners brought in chains to the Islamic state, then they embrace Islam sincerely and become righteous, and are entered among the people of Paradise. 

      Ibn Kathir presents two different stories as reasons behind 2:256. The first story has nothing to do with compelling people into Islam. The second story begins to go against compulsion, but, Ibn Kathir then says that this verse was abrogated by the verse of "fighting" i.e. 48:16. I add that the only Sahih Hadith material I’ve been able to find on the matter (Sunan of Abu Dawud) supports the story of the expulsion of the Banu Nadir Jews. Thus, either way, compulsion of people to convert to Islam is allowed. 

     Ibn Kathir does say at the beginning of this quote: Allah says: "There is no compulsion in religion", meaning: do not force anyone to embrace Islam because it is clear, and its proofs and evidences are manifest. Whoever Allah guides and opens his heart to Islam has indeed embraced it with clear evidence. Whoever Allah misguides, blinds his heart and has set a seal on his hearing and a covering on his eyes cannot embrace Islam by force. But he goes on to contradict himself later in the next two paragraphs.

 FOR THE RECORD – Who exactly was/is compelled to accept Islam? 

     Since Muslim spokesman in the West frequently say that Islam forbids compulsion of conversion to Islam (2:256), we feel it is necessary to provide here historical references that show otherwise. Based upon the material, the story of the expulsion of the Banu Nadir Jews is the cause of the "revelation" of 2:256. Thus, the verse does not have anything to do whatsoever with forcing people to accept Islam. And, as we read elsewhere in the Qur’an, Muhammad taught that his followers were to make war upon people who choose not to convert to Islam. 

      Here are some historical references behind forced conversion to Islam. Note that they are taken from Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasulallah, op cit. 

 #1) On pages 668 and 669 Abu Bakr instructs a fellow Muslim in Islam. He states: "You asked me for the best advice that I could give you, and I will tell you. God sent Muhammad with this religion and he strove for it until men accepted it voluntary or by force."

 #2) On page 547, Muhammad’s arch enemy, Abu Sufyan was given safe passage by Ibn Abbas to meet with Muhammad. During the meeting, the following conversation occurs:

      "Woe to you, Abu Sufyan, isn’t it time that you recognize that I [Muhammad] am God’s apostle?" He answered, "As to that I still have some doubt."

      I [Ibn Abbas] said to him, "Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head," so he did so.

     Abu  Sufyan did not intend to recognize Muhammad until he was threatened with his life. This is a clear case of compulsion of accepting Islam: convert or die.

#3) On pages 614, 615, Muhammad’s attack upon the people of Thaqif (who were hostile to Muhammad) is detailed. In them it states that they submitted to the demands of Muhammad, their reasoning for doing so was this:

      "We are in an impasse. You have seen how the affair of this man has progressed. All the Arabs have accepted Islam and you lack the power to fight them, so look to your case." Thereupon Thaqif took counsel and said one to another, "Don’t you see that your herds are not safe; none of you can go out without being cut off." So after conferring together they decided to send a man to the apostle as they had sent Urwa [to accept Islam so that they and their possessions would be safe from being plundered and killed by the Muslims].

      These people did not become Muslim because they wanted to. They had been invited to Islam and they refused. They had even killed the Muslim envoy! However, because they were outgunned and outnumbered, they decided, If you can’t beat them, join them. Thus their conversion was a sham, and made under compulsion.

#4) On page 645 the story of Muhammad’s emissary Khalid to the tribe of the Banu al-Harith bin Ka’b in the region of Najran is described. Muhammad…. ordered him [Khalid] to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them; and if they declined he was to fight them. So Khalid sent out and came to them, and sent out riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam, saying, "If you accept Islam you will be safe," so the men accepted Islam as they were invited.

      People were converting to Islam simply because they were threatened. Notice Khalid’s words – "If you accept Islam you will be safe." Is this the type of religion that people truly desire, one that threatens them with death unless they convert? 

____----****o****----____

Chapter 10

Actions of the four "Rightly Guided" Caliphs:

      Previously it was mentioned we would review the actions of some of Muhammad’s closest companions, particularly the four "rightly guided" caliphs. The rightly guided Caliphs were the rulers of the Islamic Empire after Muhammad’s death. Following Muhammad’s death, these men reigned over Islamic lands, each one after the death of the previous one. These men are: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali (Muhammad’s son-in-law). Below is a brief timeline of some of their actions and conquests. We do not have detailed information of all their military actions, … they are too numerous. This information is drawn from various volumes of the History of Tabari, op cit, the "History of Islam", by Robert Payne, [32], and "Jihad", by Paul Fregosi, [33]. These books will provide a much fuller account of the offensive Islamic crusades. Of important significance: it should be noted that these conquests were not defensive in nature, but offensive. These men were conquering the world for Islam – exactly as Muhammad instructed. We should also add that during Ali’s reign, Islamic conquests paused slightly. The Islamic empire experienced its first civil wars during Ali’s reign, (all this within a generation of Muhammad’s death). 

     Note that these Caliphs are called ‘rightly guided’, as opposed to ‘wrongly guided’.  This is because of the Universal recognition that they always acted in full compliance of true Islam (or Real Islam) as guided by Muhammad’s final and clear teachings and example. 

ABU BAKR’S REIGN

A.H. 11 (622, 623) Abu Bakr makes war upon the people of Yamana who wished to leave Islam

A.H. 12 Muslim armies attack the Christians in Palestine

UMAR’S REIGN

A.H. 13 The conquest of Damascus, Syria

A.H. 14 & 15 Syria and Palestine conquered

A.H. 15 – 21 Iraq, Southern Persia, and Egypt conquered

UTHMAN’S REIGN

A.H. 24 The conquests in Northern Persia and Armenia

A.H. 28  The Attack on Cyprus

ALI’S REIGN

      During Ali’s reign there were two civil wars. The first Islamic civil war occurred between Ali, Muhammad’s son-in-law, and Aisha, (Abu Bakr’s daughter, a child, Muhammad consummated a marriage with when she was 9 years old). 

     13,000 Muslims died killing each other as Ali defeated Aisha. Not long thereafter, Ali fought Muwawiyya, Abu Sufyan’s son. Muwawiyya was appointed governor of Damascus / Syria, and moved against Ali to take power. In the end, Ali won out as the two sides negotiated a peace of some sorts. Not long thereafter, Ali was murdered by Muslims, (as was Uthman), (Umar was killed by a slave). Muwawiyya then assumed power as Caliph. 

     As you can tell from the brief chronology, the Caliphs made war like the Nazis. They went on conquest after conquest. Their message was the same as Muhammad’s: convert, pay extortion taxes, or die. Islam, Real Islam, their Islam, was a religion of terror, war, oppression, and conquest. 

      Below are Hadith dealing with the conquests and subjections of the Caliphs. 

Bukhari  vol.4, book 53, number 386:   Narrated Jubair bin Haiya:

'Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. When Al-Hurmuzan embraced Islam, 'Umar said to him. "I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade." Al-Hurmuzan said, "Yes, the example of these countries and their inhabitants who are the enemies of the Muslims, is like a bird with a head, two wings and two legs; If one of its wings got broken, it would get up over its two legs, with one wing and the head; and if the other wing got broken, it would get up with two legs and a head, but if its head got destroyed, then the two legs, two wings and the head would become useless. The head stands for Khosrau, and one wing stands for Caesar and the other wing stands for Faris. So, order the Muslims to go towards Khosrau." So, 'Umar sent us (to Khosrau) appointing An-Numan bin Muqrin as our commander. When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty-thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, "Let one of you talk to me!" Al-Mughira replied, "Ask whatever you wish." The other asked, "Who are you?" Al-Mughira replied, "We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life: we used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." (Al-Mughira, then blamed An-Numan for delaying the attack and) An-Nu' man said to Al-Mughira, "If you had participated in a similar battle, in the company of Allah's Apostle he would not have blamed you for waiting, nor would he have disgraced you. But I accompanied Allah's Apostle in many battles and it was his custom that if he did not fight early by daytime, he would wait till the wind had started blowing and the time for the prayer was due (i.e. after midday)." 

Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0029:

It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) breathed his last and Abu Bakr was appointed as his successor (Caliph), those amongst the Arabs who wanted to become apostates became apostates. 'Umar b. Khattab said to Abu Bakr: Why would you fight against the people, when the Messenger of Allah declared: I have been directed to fight against people so long as they do not say: There is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was granted full protection of his property and life on my behalf except for a right? His (other) affairs rest with Allah. Upon this Abu Bakr said: By Allah, I would definitely fight against him who severed prayer from Zakat, for it is the obligation upon the rich. By Allah, I would fight against them even to secure the cord (used for hobbling the feet of a camel) which they used to give to the Messenger of Allah (as zakat) but now they have withheld it. Umar b. Khattab remarked: By Allah, I found nothing but the fact that Allah had opened the heart of Abu Bakr for (perceiving the justification of) fighting (against those who refused to pay Zakat) and I fully recognized that the (stand of Abu Bakr) was right.

A BANQUET OF HADITH THAT DEAL WITH JIHAD AND AGGRESSIVE VIOLENCE FOR ISLAM 

     We’ve examined many verses from the Quran, and associated context from Sira and Hadith, along with commentaries from Islamic scholars regarding violence and jihad. We also put together a list of violent incidents that demonstrate various facets of Islamic jihad. Below is a long selection of Hadith regarding violence and jihad. I add this to widen the reader’s understanding of Islamic jihad and violence. In some cases I will not quote the Hadith in full because of the length of the Hadith. Most of these Hadith are available on the internet and can be downloaded for free. As you read these below, allow me to inject this question: "What is Muhammad’s fundamental position towards the use of violence to further Islam?" [NOTE. Most of these Hadith come from the collections of Bukhari and Muslim. These two collections are regarded as absolutely reliable and truthful to the Sunni branch of Islam (85% of the Islamic world is Sunni). The collection of Abu Dawud is also held is high esteem, but not as highly as the other two]. 

Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3200:

Sufyan b. Abd Zuhair reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Syria will be conquered and some people will go out of Medina along with their families driving their camels. and Medina is better for them if they were to know it. Then Yemen will be conquered and some people will go out of Medina along with their families driving their camels, and Medina is better for them if they were to know it. Then Iraq will be conquered and some people will go out of it along with their families driving their camels, and Medina is better for them if they were to know it.

Sahih Bukhari, vol. 4, book 52, number175:

Narrated Khalid bin Madan:

That 'Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi told him that he went to 'Ubada bin As-Samit while he was staying in his house at the sea-shore of Hims with (his wife) Um Haram. 'Umair said. Um Haram informed us that she heard the Prophet saying, "Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition." Um Haram added, I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Will I be amongst them?' He replied, 'You are amongst them.' The Prophet then said, 'The first army amongst' my followers who will invade Caesar's City will be forgiven their sins.' I asked, 'Will I be one of them, O Allah's Apostle?' He replied in the negative." 

Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4294:

"It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them…."

PERMISSIBILITY OF KILLING WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN THE NIGHT RAIDS (PROVIDED IT IS NOT DELIBERATE):

Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4321:

It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them. 

Bukhari vol. 4, book 52, number.256:

Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama:

The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle." 

Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4645:

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Sa'id Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said (to him): Abu Sa'id, whoever cheerfully accepts Allah as his Lord, Islam as his religion and Muhammad as his Apostle is necessarily entitled to enter Paradise. He (Abu Sa'id) wondered at it and said: Messenger of Allah, repeat it for me. He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah! 

Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4646:

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Qatada that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) stood up among them (his Companions) to deliver his sermon in which he told them that Jihad in the way of Allah and belief in Allah (with all His Attributes) are the most meritorious of acts. A man stood up and said: Messenger of Allah, do you think that if I am killed in the way of Allah, my sins will be blotted out from me? The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Yes, in case you are killed in the way of Allah and you were patient and sincere and you always fought facing the enemy, never turning your back upon him. Then he added: What have you said (now)? (Wishing to have further assurance from him for his satisfaction), he asked (again): Do you think if I am killed in the way of Allah, all my sins will be obliterated from me? The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Yes, it you were patient and sincere and always fought facing the enemy and never turning your back upon him, (all your lapses would be forgiven) except debt. Gabriel has told me this. 

Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4681:

The tradition has been narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Qais. He heard it from his father who, while facing the enemy, reported that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Surely, the gates of Paradise are under the shadows of the swords. A man in a shabby condition got up and said; Abu Musa, did you hear the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say this? He said: Yes. (The narrator said): He returned to his friends and said: I greet you (a farewell greeting). Then he broke the sheath of his sword, threw it away, advanced with his (naked) sword towards the enemy and fought (them) with it until he was slain. 

Bukhari vol.4, book 52, munber 266A:

Narrated Salim Abu An-Nadr:

(the freed slave of 'Umar bin 'Ubaidullah) I was Umar's clerk. Once Abdullah bin Abi Aufa wrote a letter to 'Umar when he proceeded to Al-Haruriya. I read in it that Allah's Apostle in one of his military expeditions against the enemy, waited till the sun declined and then he got up amongst the people saying O people! Do not wish to meet the enemy, and ask Allah for safety, but when you face the enemy, be patient, and remember that Paradise is under the shades of swords.", " Then he said, "O Allah, the Revealer of the Holy Book, and the Mover of the clouds and the Defeater of the clans, defeat them, and grant us victory over them." 

Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4324:

It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) ordered the date-palms of Banu Nadir to be burnt and cut. These palms were at Buwaira. Qutaibah and Ibn Rumh in their versions of the tradition have added: So Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, revealed the verse:" Whatever trees you have cut down or left standing on their trunks, it was with the permission of Allah so that He may disgrace the evil-doers" (lix. 5). 

Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4597:

It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said on the day of the Conquest of Mecca: There is no Hijra now, but (only) Jihad (fighting for the cause of Islam) and sincerity of purpose (have great reward) ; when you are asked to set out (on an expedition undertaken for the cause of Islam) you should (readily) do so. 

Bukhari vol. 4, book 52, number 79:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

On the day of the Conquest (of Mecca) the Prophet said, "There is no emigration after the Conquest but Jihad and intentions. When you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately." (See Hadith No. 42) 

Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4626:

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace upon him) said: Allah has undertaken to look after the affairs of one who goes out to fight in His way believing in Him and affirming the truth of His Apostles. He is committed to His care that He will either admit him to Paradise or bring him back to his home from where he set out with a reward or (his share of) booty. …By, the Being in Whose Hand is Muhammad's life, if it were not to be too hard upon the Muslims. I would not lag behind any expedition which is going to fight in the cause of Allah. But I do not have abundant means to provide them (the Mujahids) with riding beasts, nor have they (i. e. all of them) abundant means (to provide themselves with all the means of Jihad) so that they could he left behind. By the Being in Whose Hand is Muhammad, I love to fight in the way of Allah and be killed, to fight and again be killed and to fight again and be killed. 

Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4652:

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Sa'id Khudri that a man came to the Holy Prophet (may peace he upon him) and said: Who is the best of men? He replied: A man who fights in the way of Allah spending his wealth and staking his life. The man then asked: Who is next to him (in excellence)? He said: Next to him is a believer who lives in a mountain gorge worshipping hid Lord and sparing men from his mischief.

Bukhari  vol. 4, book  52, number 177:

 Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." 

Bukhari vol. 4, book 52, number 180:   Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "The Hour will not be established till you fight with people wearing shoes made of hair. And the Hour will not be established till you fight with people whose faces look like shields coated with leather. " (Abu Huraira added, "They will be) small-eyed, flat nosed, and their faces will look like shields coated with leather.")

 (The text note says these people are the Turks).

Bukhari vol. 4, book 53, number 355: 

Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ashari:

A Bedouin asked the Prophet, "A man may fight for the sake of booty, and another may fight so that he may be mentioned by the people, and a third may fight to show his position (i.e. bravery); which of these regarded as fighting in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights so that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights for Allah's Cause." 

Bukhari vol. 4, book 52, number 41:

Narrated Abdullah bin Masud:

I asked Allah's Apostle, "O Allah's Apostle! What is the best deed?" He replied, "To offer the prayers at their early stated fixed times." I asked, "What is next in goodness?" He replied, "To be good and dutiful to your parents." I further asked, what is next in goodness?" He replied, "To participate in Jihad in Allah's Cause." I did not ask Allah's Apostle anymore and if I had asked him more, he would have told me more. 

Bukhari vol. 4, book 56, number 792:

 Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

The Prophet said, "A time will come when the people will wage holy war, and it will be asked, 'Is there any amongst you who has enjoyed the company of Allah's Apostle?' They will say: 'Yes.' And then victory will be bestowed upon them. They will wage holy war again, and it will be asked: 'Is there any among you who has enjoyed the company of the companions of Allah's Apostle ?' They will say: 'Yes.' And then victory will be bestowed on them."

Bukhari vol. 6, book 60, number 493:

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

'Umar asked the people regarding Allah's Statement:

'When comes the Help of Allah (to you O Muhammad against your enemies) and the conquest of Mecca.' (110.1) They replied, "It indicates the future conquest of towns and palaces (by Muslims)." 'Umar said, "What do you say about it, O Ibn 'Abbas?" I replied, "(This Surat) indicates the termination of the life of Muhammad. Through it he was informed of the nearness of his death." 

Bukhari vol.1, book 8, number 387:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."

 Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2635:

Narrated Anas ibn Malik:

The Prophet said: I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His servant and His Apostle, face our qiblah (direction of prayer), eat what we slaughter, and pray like us. When they do that, their life and property are unlawful for us except what is due to them. They will have the same rights as the Muslims have, and have the same responsibilities as the Muslims have.

Bukhari vol. 5, book 59, number 568:

Narrated Usama bin Zaid:

Allah's Apostle sent us towards Al-Huruqa, and in the morning we attacked them and defeated them.  

Bukhari vol. 5, book 59, number.641:

Narrated Jarir:

In the Pre-Islamic Period of Ignorance there was a house called Dhu-l-Khalasa or Al-Ka'ba Al-Yamaniya or Al-Ka'ba Ash-Shamiya. The Prophet said to me, "Won't you relieve me from Dhu-l-Khalasa?" So I set out with one-hundred-and-fifty riders, and we dismantled it and killed whoever was present there. Then I came to the Prophet and informed him, and he invoked good upon us and Al-Ahmas (tribe). 

Bukhari vol. 5, book 59, number 716:

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

Thursday! And how great that Thursday was! The ailment of Allah's Apostle became worse (on Thursday) and he said, fetch me something so that I may write to you something after which you will never go astray." The people (present there) differed in this matter, and it was not right to differ before a prophet. Some said, "What is wrong with him ? (Do you think ) he is delirious (seriously ill)? Ask him ( to understand his state )." So they went to the Prophet and asked him again. The Prophet said, "Leave me, for my present state is better than what you call me for." Then he ordered them to do three things. He said, "Turn the pagans out of the 'Arabian Peninsula; respect and give gifts to the foreign delegations as you have seen me dealing with them." (Said bin Jubair, the sub-narrator said that Ibn Abbas kept quiet as rewards the third order, or he said, "I forgot it.") (See Hadith No. 116Vol. 1)

Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2478:

Narrated Imran ibn Husayn:

The Prophet said: A section of my community will continue to fight for the right and overcome their opponents till the last of them fights with the Antichrist.

Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2493:

Narrated Abu Malik al-Ash'ari:

Abu Malik heard the Apostle of Allah say: He who goes forth in Allah's path and dies or is killed is a martyr, or has his neck broken through being thrown by his horse or by his camel, or is stung by a poisonous creature, or dies on his bed by any kind of death Allah wishes is a martyr and will go to Paradise.

Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2496:

Abu Hurairah reported the Prophet as saying:

He who dies without having fought or having felt fighting (against the infidels) to be his duty will die guilty of a kind of hypocrisy".

Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2506:

Narrated Abu Ayyub:

Abu Imran said: We went out on an expedition from Medina with the intention of (attacking) Constantinople. Abdur Rahman ibn Khalid ibn al-Walid was the leader of the company. The Romans were just keeping their backs to the walls of the city. A man (suddenly) attacked the enemy.

Thereupon the people said: Stop! Stop! There is no god but Allah. He is putting himself into danger.

Abu Ayyub said: This verse was revealed about us, the group of the Ansar (the Helpers). When Allah helped His Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and gave Islam dominance, we said (i.e. thought): Come on! Let us stay in our property and improve it.

Thereupon Allah, the Exalted, revealed, "And spend of your substance in the cause of Allah, and make not your hands contribute to (your destruction)". To put oneself into danger means that we stay in our property and commit ourselves to its improvement, and abandon fighting (i.e. jihad).

AbuImran said: AbuAyyub continued to strive in the cause of Allah until he (died and) was buried in Constantinople.

Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2535:

Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal:

The Apostle of Allah said: If anyone fights in Allah's path as long as the time between two milkings of a she-camel, Paradise will be assured for him. If anyone sincerely asks Allah for being killed and then dies or is killed, there will be a reward of a martyr for him. Ibn al-Musaffa added from here: If anyone is wounded in Allah's path, or suffers a misfortune, it will come on the Day of resurrection as copious as possible, its color saffron, and its odor musk; and if anyone suffers from ulcers while in Allah's path, he will have on him the stamp of the martyrs.

Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2631:

Narrated Ka'b ibn Malik:

When the Prophet intended to go on an expedition, he always pretended to be going somewhere else, and he would say: War is deception.

Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2632:

Narrated Salamah ibn al-Akwa':

The Apostle of Allah appointed Abu Bakr our commander and we fought with some people who were polytheists, and we attacked them at night, killing them. Our war-cry that night was "put to death; put to death." Salamah said: I killed that night with my hand polytheists belonging to seven houses. 

Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2664:

Narrated Samurah ibn Jundub:

The Prophet said: Kill the old men who are polytheists, but spare their children.

Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2665: 

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:

No woman of Banu Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed. 

____----****o****----____

     Undeniably, Christians have in the past also committed despicable acts in the name of God, and in recent history the Serbia conflicts and the Protestant-Catholic Northern-Ireland clashes stand out as examples. But there are three major differences and distinctions that can be drawn between those crimes and the acts committed in Islam’s name. The first difference is that the unfortunate events were limited in both time and scope, they had an end. The second distinction is that terrorists acting from Christian cultures always did their vile deeds in violation of scriptural teaching and the example of Christ, not in fulfilment of it, as in Islam. The third dissimilarity is that people from Christian cultures who perform terrorist acts against others are recognized as criminals, not worshiped as heroes. To expect Muslims to drop their belligerence toward the West, which has existed since Islam’s founding in the 7^th century, is to expect them to jettison core values of their faith — something for which there is no precedent in Islamic history. Although nowadays nothing seems less tolerated than pessimism, yet in relation to Islam this attitude is in fact simply just realism.

     Most Americans have a benignly positive attitude toward religion, but is our civic piety, allied with political correctness, blinding us and keeping us from asking reasonable questions about Islam, questions upon which the survival of our civilization may depend. Does Western cultures obsessed with tolerance render us incapable of drawing reasonable conclusions about Islam’s core values and designs. The general reluctance to criticize any non-Christian religion and the almost universal public ignorance about Islam make for a dangerous potentially lethal mix.

     Unlike Constitutional provisions in the US, there is no cultural or scriptural mandate for separation of church and state in Islam, making secular democracy an alien and hostile concept. Women have few rights over and against their husbands, who may legally beat their wives and concubines. Enslaving infidels and raping infidel women are justified under Qura’nic law (and still occur in some Muslim lands). Grotesque punishments for crimes — beheadings and the like — are not medieval holdovers; on the contrary, they will forever be part of authentic Islam as long as the Qur’an is revered as the perfect Words of Allah.

     While Muslims in the West live in peace, prosperity and religious liberty, Christians and other Infidels in Muslim lands have been, are now, and will continue to be persecuted, sometimes unto death. Turkey is the only Muslim country that could be called democratic, and that’s probably a stretch.  The example of Turkey is laudable, but sadly it shows that secularist values can only be imposed on Islamic societies by force, and will therefore remain tenuous. Because Islam demands death for heretics, moderate Muslims will always risk their lives if they offer more liberal interpretations of their faith. The problem is that for all its schisms, sects, and multiplicity of voices, Islam’s violent elements are firmly rooted in its central texts; as such, Islam cannot be other than a religion of violence. It would be too pessimistic to say that there are no peaceful strains of Islam, but it would be imprudent to ignore the fact that deeply imbedded in the central documents of the religion is an all-encompassing vision of a theocratic state that is intractable and fundamentally different from (and opposed toward) democratic values and Western governments based on them.

Chapter 12

The Qu’ran’s View Toward Christians and Jews:

 Muhammad’s actions against the Jews of Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, Banu Qurayza and several individuals identified as Jewish in the Qur’an have been previously chronicled and will not be repeated here.

    A basic principle of Islamism holds that humanity is divided according to a strict hierarchy of worth. At the top of this hierarchy are free Muslim males, the cream of humanity. Below them, in descending order of humanity, are: Muslim male slaves, free Muslim women, Muslim female slaves, the males of the "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians), and, then, the females of the ‘People of the Book’. Finally, the rest of humanity comes in dead last (excuse the pun), because they lack a soul they are regarded as worthless having no rights whatsoever. This unfortunate final grouping includes Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, and others. But before Jews and Christians celebrate escaping last-place in this uniquely Islamic popularity contest, the fine print should first be carefully studied.

     With quotes referencing Christians and Jews from the Quran like: – "WORST OF CREATURES, PERVERSE, FRIENDS OF SATAN", it seems impossible to characterize Islam as a tolerant religion harmless to others.  By one widely accepted definition of a ‘Religion’; … “An organization dedicated to raising the spiritual awareness and moral standards and actions of its followers, and in improving peaceful relationships with others”, Islam seems to fall well short of qualifying. Early Islam was clearly neither harmless nor tolerant of non-believers. Intolerance seems the cruel norm in Islamic societies, while tolerance, charity and kindness towards different cultures and religions is glaringly absent.  The fruits of extreme Islam are bitter indeed, and it is by their fruits that we should judge them.

     The clear direction appears to be that Muslims are not allowed to even be friends or take favours from Jews and Christians, unless the devotion and tax is extracted by force or threat of force. 

98:1 Those who disbelieve from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and among Al-Mushrikun (polytheists) were not going to leave (their disbelief) until there came to them clear evidence.

98:6 Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Quran and Prophet Muhammad) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

5:51 O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya' (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but Auliya' to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya', then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong­doers and unjust).

58:19.  Shaitan (Satan) has overtaken them (the Jews). So he has made them forget the remembrance of Allah. They are the party of Shaitan (Satan). Verily, it is the party of Shaitan (Satan) that will be the losers!

4:76 Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (Satan, etc.).  So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan); Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Shaitan (Satan).

47:35 So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islam), while you are having the upper hand. Allah is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds. 

      Christians and Jews then and now hold a special place in Islamic theology. In the end, they were regarded with contempt by Muhammad, and were presented in a hateful manner in the Qur’an and in modern Islamic theology today. The final direction appears to be this: When the Muslims have the upper hand, they are not to seek peace, but instead they are expected to sacrifice and toil for the continued destruction of all their enemies.  The final words reported from the mouth of the dying Muhammad were a curse on the favoured ‘People of the Book’. From Ibn Sa'd page 322: When the last moment of the prophet was near, he used to draw a sheet over his face; but when he felt uneasy, he removed it from his face and said:

"Allah's damnation be on the Jews and the Christians who made the graves of their prophets objects of worship."

     The bitterness of this final utterance from their beloved prophet, as he died a painful death at the hands of a Jewish girl, obviously still weighs heavy on the minds and hearts of all of Islam.  Revenge is a glorified mandate for Muslims yesterday and today.

The QURAN on Relations with Non-Muslim Family Members

     Earlier, it was pointed out that Muslims broke ties of allegiance and friendship with allied tribes and near family members. The Qur’an takes this a step further. Sura 58:22 shows that family blood ties are broken. Islam has an anti-family element, causing Muslims to fight and kill even their relatives if they reject Muhammad’s rule. Family ties, devotions, and sensibilities form the backbone of Western civilizations, from which we derive our strength and teach morality. In Islam, even normal, natural family bonds are subservient and must yield to Muhammad’s vision of Islam. That is why in many Muslim communities and households each family member is expected to police the acts, thoughts, and expressions of other members in the household.  On a slightly broader scale, communities are expected to monitor the conduct of families in their neighborhoods. So in Islamic lands, the control structure in place extends from the highest branches of the government (including the Judiciary), to the lowliest family member. The consequences imposed for failure to support the official family, neighborhood, tribal, national policy with respect to violent Jihad vary by tribe and region, but are often quite brutal. 

48:29 Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe (or ruthless, vehement) against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.

58:22 You (O Muhammad) will not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, making friendship with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), even though they were their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred (people). For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with Ruh (proofs, light and true guidance) from Himself. And We will admit them to Gardens (Paradise) under which rivers flow, to dwell therein (forever). Allah is pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the Party of Allah. Verily, it is the Party of Allah that will be the successful. 

     In the officially state-sponsored Wahhabi controlled elementary schools in Saudi Arabia (our alleged ally in the war on terror), there is a fifth-grade lesson book that reads as follows:

“It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a friend of one who does not believe in God and his Messenger or who fights the Islamic religion. God has severed the [link of] friendship between Muslims and infidels. The Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother-in-belief, while the infidel, even if he is your brother of kin, is your enemy by religion.”

____----****o****----____

Chapter 13

The Inescapable Inferences:

      Instead of trying to comprehend and facing the true roots of militant Islam, we have preferred to hope that Islamic violence is just the pernicious work of a few individuals or radical groups. We hope that by destroying the al-Qaida network the threat of Islamic terrorism will cease. We can then put it out of our minds and hope and pretend that it will no longer affect us. We are captivated by sports, Harry Potter, the Lord of the Rings, and rock stars. We are happy that the DOW is back up and interest rates have lowered, and hope the recession will soon be over. Yet, those planning our destruction are still living among us and saying that Islam is a religion of peace. All the while, just as Maslama deceived his good friend Ka’b b. al-Ashraf in order to murder him, militant Muslims are prudently, patiently planning their next acts of terrorism.

      At  the beginning of this work, we asked the readers to keep three questions in mind during this course of study. They were: reading, visualizing; and digesting the facts outlined herein has undoubtedly been distasteful. It tears at the natural human heart to contemplate and visualize what so many suffered at the hands of early Islam. Though intelligent, clear thinking individuals have undoubtedly drawn their own conclusions, the questions are repeated here, along with some of the obvious inferences drawn now with full support from the material covered.

1)     What are the teachings of real Islam found in the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira with respect to the use of violence, call it jihad if you like, to aggressively spread it’s power over non-Muslims, and are these teachings valid and applicable today?

ANSWER: It should be obvious that real Islam still calls for the use of jihad, force and violence, when able, to spread Islam’s power over non-Muslim people. The jihad may take the form of passing out literature for Islam, or it may take the form of assassination, or a bombing of a building, or a massacre, for worse. These teachings are valid and applicable even today.

2) Is real Islam behind and does it condone the murder of 3 000 Americans and the destruction of the WTC, or are these Muslim terrorists doing something well outside Muhammad’s religion?

ANSWER:  Yes. Real Islam is behind the murder of thousands of Americans and it condones the destruction of the WTC. Official Islamic theology taught in most parts of the world justify violent acts to further the cause of converting all to Islam, especially acts designed to weaken the “Great Satan”, deemed the biggest threat to that cause.

3) What does the future hold for Islam and America?

ANSWER:   Continued Islamic violence. Would that it could be said otherwise, but it appears likely that Muslims will yet perform many large and small acts of murderous violence against us. If given the chance they may, one day ,detonate a nuclear warhead, or warheads, in large American cities, as many in the movement see it as their only viable option. In order to advance Muslim theology as they see it, these militants know that America must be brought low, regardless of the cost. They are dedicated and may eventually succeed in obtaining the bombs or bomb material from Iran, Pakistan, Korea or perhaps from a former Soviet Republic Country. Muslim militants are cognizant of how to go about this, their goal is our incapacitation, and they believe the best way to accomplish this is through the use of WMD’s.

So, why is it that so many Muslims want to see America broken or destroyed?

      America is a powerful superpower; indeed, some say the last superpower.  Its military strength and cultural power represents the best hope against the violent spread of Islam. Obviously, if America is weakened or incapacitated, then Muslim terrorists can begin to act with more impunity throughout the world. The attack against the WTC was not simply an effort to kill large numbers of American people, had they wanted to do that they could have found better targets. Rather, the attempted attack against the Whitehouse, the attack against the WTC and at the Pentagon were strikes at America’s financial strength, government, and command and control centre, conveniently coupled with the murder and destruction of ordinary Americans. Muslims believe that if they can hurt us badly, we might capitulate and not reply to the threat from the extremists, or at least, hope to weaken us and make it much more difficult to deal with or pursue them elsewhere in the world. Just as Muhammad destroyed the financial strength and morale of the date-palm groves of the Banu Nadir, and had key leaders assassinated, so too, these Muslims have struck at our financial strength and leadership.

     Take the current war in Afghanistan and Iraq costing hundreds of billions. No country can long sustain such expenses. Eventually, our capacity to counter Islamic violence will spread too thin and diminish. Calculate the results of 9/11/01. Billions of dollars have been lost. Tens of thousands of Americans have lost their jobs as a result. The stock market crashed, taking two years to partially recover, and it is still somewhat tenuous. The economy fell deeper into recession. Looking further down the road, they probably hoped that once America is broken or destroyed, then the rest of Europe, Australia, or other regions could next be targeted.

     If Muslims in Algeria can slit the throats of small Algerian children and throw them down wells, then zealots cut from the same violent cloth will not care one iota about any American life. These murdered children were fellow Algerians and sometimes fellow Muslims. Perhaps they weren’t Muslim enough to the Muslim terrorists. In either case, the devoted Muslims we are dealing with are of the same spirit that murdered these children, and the same spirit that had the Jews of the Banu Qurayza tribe massacred. This is a spiritual war, where militant Muslim extremists are pawns in the hands of a force with a truly evil agenda.  The spiritual power behind terrorism is bigger, and more perverse, than all failed political theologies propagated to date. It does not know Islamic bounds. Militant Muslims serving their terror masters will not care about millio