Jihad - The way of peace and Justice, the path to Heaven.

 

Hussain Tirmizi

 

In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful.

 

All praise belongs to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. The most gracious, the most merciful. Master of the final Day. You alone we serve and you alone we seek help from. Guide us on the right path. The path of those bestowed with your blessings. Not the path of those inflicted with your wrath nor of those gone astray.

 

An authour of ?Answering-Islam', Reverend Richard Bailey wrote an article called ?JIHAD THE TEACHING OF ISLAM FROM ITS PRIMARY SOURCES - THE QURAN AND HADITH' located here:

 

answering-islam.org/Bailey/jihad.html

 

This is a detailed response to this article, knocking down each claim of Islam and showing the deliberate lies and hypocrisy of Bailey.

 

He divides his article into 4 Stages, which he perceives to be Islam's change from a pacifistic religion to a violent religion (which is false).

 

I won't respond much to his section: ?Stage 1', since that just shows the great pacifistic teachings of Islam, most of which still apply to innocent non-Muslims.

 

I will just briefly mention the teachings that always apply to the innocent non-Muslims (listed in Stage 1):

 

  1. Freedom of Religion (Surah al-Kafirun 109:6).
  2. Feeding the captives of war (Surah al-Insan 76:8-9)
  3. The Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) is always just a warner, never an enforcer (Surah al-Hajj 22:49, Surah al-Mulk 67:26)
  4. Repelling evil with that which is best (Surah al-Mu'minun 23:96)
  5. Struggling with the Holy Qur'an against disbelievers, i.e. using intellect (Surah al-Furqan 25:52).
  6. Inviting them to Islam (Da'wah) with wisdom and beautiful preaching and arguing in the most gracious ways (Surah an-Nahl 16:125-126)

 

Muslims are never ordered to fight against innocent non-Muslims. I have made sure to explain all misconceptions in this article.

 

Then Bailey quotes an article from a Pakistani brigadier who states that Muslims wanted to worship at the Holy Ka'ba. This obviously cannot be true because Muslims used to pray towards Jerusalem and shifted their direction to the Holy Ka'ba later on.

 

The Pakistani brigadier is just a man and his words do not have to be fully true (though he sounds like a good man).

 

Bailey writes:

 

STAGE TWO: (FIRST INSTRUCTION IN MEDINA) - DEFENSIVE FIGHTING PERMITTED: [Several months after arrival in Medina the Muslims began looting the Meccan caravans passing through the area. (It is very hard to understand how someone claiming to be a prophet could adopt the carnal, pagan Arab practice of robbing the caravans of other tribes, call it "striving in the way of God" and then say that one fifth of the loot belongs to God!) That practice eventually resulted in their being attacked by the Quraish from Mecca in several battles, beginning with the battle of Badr in 624. At that time permission was given to defend themselves by fighting and killing. The only enemies in the picture were the "unbelievers" of the Quraish tribe in Mecca, who were idol worshipers.]

 

My Response:

 

Why does he, like all Islamophobes, never mention the whole story? It is because they have an agenda to attack Islam and not to depict the truth.

 

Back to the topic, Bailey fails to mention that the polytheists stole the possessions of the Muslims and piled it all up in that caravan. Those possessions belonged to the Muslims, so they have every right to fight back against those who steal from them.

 

And 1/5th of the booty, which was rightfully the possessions of the Muslims, did not just go to Allah (SWT), but went to Allah (SWT), the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW), to the orphans, the poor and the needy (Surah al-Anfal 8:41).

 

The Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) did not take the booty for himself. There is no proof of that. He obviously needed the money to run the Islamic state, as its head. Furthermore, many Ahadith and Islamic sources testify of the simple life he lived, the practical work he did, the bed he slept on made of leather wrapped in date-palm fiber and much more.

 

What about his Bible? In the Bible, the Prophet Moses, acting on God's order, committed genocide against the Midianites, but spared the virgin girls for rape (Numbers 31:17-18). Then they divided the booty up and gave a fair portion of it to GOD (Numbers 31:26-46).

 

According to the Bible, God was given 32 virgins as well (Numbers 21:40).

 

To Bailey, it seems OK for a Prophet to commit genocide, rape virgins and for God to have 32 virgins, but it seems unlikely for him to fight for his own honour, by taking back stolen possessions and devoting 1/5th of it for himself and God (so he can run the State) and for the poor, orphans, the needy and the travellers (see Surah al-Anfal 8:41).

 

That shows Bailey's hypocrisy.

 

The enemies were not the ?disbelievers' of the Quraysh. It was only those among the Quraysh that constantly initiated violence, first by stealing the Muslim possessions in Mecca and other acts later on.

 

Bailey writes:

 

Sura 22:39-41 (permission is given to go to war to defend themselves)

 

.

 

Sura 22:58 (rewards for those who die in jihad)

 

My Response:

 

Of course there are rewards for those who die in Jihad, i.e. die to defend themselves. Those are true honourable warriors.

 

Everyone recognises the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto who fought for their lives when the Nazi occupiers surrounded their towns with barbed wire. The Islamic policy is that no one should deal with terrorists who initiate violence. They should fight back and defend their women, children and their honour.

 

Bailey then quotes the same Pakistani brigadier who shows how Muslims turned defensive from pacifistic, through Divine proclamation, which is true.

 

Bailey writes:

 

STAGE THREE: (REVISED INSTRUCTION IN MEDINA) - DEFENSIVE FIGHTING COMMANDED: [A few months after granting permission to fight in self-defense, the command was given making war (in self defense) a religious obligation. At first, the only enemies in the picture were the "unbelievers" of the Quraish tribe in Mecca, who were idol worshipers. They were the ones who had in a sense declared war on the Muslims. Starting with the battle of Uhud (see sura 3 references below) the hypocrites (Arabs who claimed to be Muslims, but really did not believe) began to show themselves as enemies, and later the Jews were considered enemies. In the beginning of this stage the Jews were not considered enemies because Muhammad was still expecting them to accept him as a prophet like Moses.]

 

My Response:

 

Again the enemies were not the disbelievers of the Quraysh, but only those among them who took part in initiating hostility against the Muslims.

 

The Jews were not enemies initially because they did not break treaties and ally themselves with pagans, but when they did break treaties constantly (Surah al-Anfal 8:56), the Muslims were commanded to fight them or leave them if they turned peaceful (Surah al-Anfal 8:57-61).

 

Who says that the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) expected them to accept him as a Prophet? I have never heard that. Bailey should provide proof.

 

Bailey writes:

 

Sura 2:109 (forgive and overlook unbelieving Jews and let God take care of them)

 

.

 

Sura 49:15 (True believers spend all in God's cause.)

 

My Response:

 

Who says that that does not still apply? There is no verse abrogating Surah al-Baqara 2:109, meaning that we must still overlook disbelievers who attempt to turn us towards disbelief.

 

Here are responses to each verses Bailey lists respectively:

 

Surah al-Baqara 2:190-194:

 

This only says to fight against those who initiate battle and tells Muslims not to transgress the limits. The rules of war in Islam are very just, which say not to kill women, children and old people, not to cut down trees or destroy inhabited places and not to loot during the war (Sahih Muslim 19:4319, Sunan Abu Dawud 8:2663, Malik al-Muwatta 21:9, 10 and more).

 

Muslims are told to fight until there is no more persecution, i.e. to fight until the enemies stop torturing, murdering and subjugating innocent Muslims. The Muslims are taught to strike the enemies in the same way they strike us. For instance, if an enemy is scared and is not fighting, he is not to be injured and is to be taken captive at the end of the war and of course, as a prisoner, he is to be released by ransom or out of grace (Surah Mohammad 47:4)

 

Surah al-Baqara 2:216-217:

 

It is mandatory for every Muslim to fight. But the fighting is not against innocents, but against initiators of war and those who oppress innocent men, women and children (verse 190 and Surah an-Nisa 4:75). These verses demand Muslims to fight the polytheists of Mecca, who attempted to enforce their religion on Muslims by fighting. Islam teaches that fighting is forbidden in the sacred months, i.e. Muharram, Rajab, Dhul-Qa'dah and Dhul-Hijjah. The sacred month in this verse refers to Rajab.

 

Allah blessed those who believed and did Jihad in the way of Allah (SWT). Jihad means both internal and external struggle, the internal struggle being to improve your character, faith, knowledge, acts and wisdom and the external struggle being fighting in the way of Allah (SWT), i.e. against the initiators of war and the oppressors of innocent civilians (Surah al-Baqara 2:190, Surah an-Nisa 4:75).

 

Surah al-Baqara 2:256-257:

 

That's right, compulsion in religion is forbidden to innocent non-Muslims who commit no crime.

 

Surah al-Anfal 8:1:

 

It is for Allah (SWT) and the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) to decide where the spoils of war go.

 

In Islam 1/5th of the spoils of war should be for Allah (SWT) and his Messenger, the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW), his family, the orphans, the poor and the needy (Surah al-Anfal 8:41).

 

To run a state of course, the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) would need money. None of it was spent on himself for luxuries. Many Ahadith and Islamic sources testify of the simple life he lived, the practical work he did, the bed he slept on made of leather wrapped in date-palm fiber and much more.

 

Surah al-Anfal 8:12-18:

 

Again, this only refers to the disbelievers of Mecca who fought against the Muslims during the Battle of al-Badr. Plus the next verse states that ?they' (i.e. those disbelievers), acted adversely to Allah (SWT) and that he is ordering the Muslims to fight them as recompense for their evil.

 

The Islamophobes always cry: ?This verse tells Muslims to chop the heads of non-Muslims? Islam must be evil.' It is their deception that is evil and Islam is pure monotheism and truth. I wonder what those hypocrites would do in war. Would they sip tea, while their enemies are butchering them?

 

Isn't it OK to fight in self-defence?

 

Of course Allah (SWT) forbids cowardice in these verses, i.e. fleeing from a battle. Believers are supposed to be brave, courageous warriors of Allah (SWT) who fight in his way in order to maintain justice for innocent men, women and children, who suffer and for self-defence (Surah al-Baqara 2:190 Surah an-Nisa 4:75). Believers must never be cowards, who flee war. That is forbidden in Islam. And of course Allah (SWT) does plan against the plans of the disbelievers.

 

Surah al-Anfal 8:38-42:

 

This again refers to the Battle of al-Badr and states to fight the disbelievers until there is no more persecution and Religion if only for God, meaning all the polytheist enemy combatants and their tyranny is annihilated.

 

But Islamophobes always ignore the last part, which states that is they desist Allah (SWT) sees what they do, meaning of course, that we must also desist.

 

1/5th of the spoils of war are for Allah (SWT) and the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW), the near of kin, the orphans, the needy and the travellers.

 

Many critics believe that it is morally wrong to take spoils from dead combatants during war, but what is wrong with taking booty? Are you just supposed to leave it their and let it go to waste?

 

They do not belong to anyone, but are spare possessions after war. These possessions can be used for good purposes, such as charity and helping your family.

 

As said before, the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) would need money, to run a State. None of it was spent on himself for luxuries. Many Ahadith and Islamic sources testify of the simple life he lived, the practical work he did, the bed he slept on made of leather wrapped in date-palm fiber and much more.

 

The polytheists stole the possessions of the Muslims and piled it all up in that caravan. Those possessions belonged to the Muslims, so they have every right to fight back against those who steal from them.

 

Verse 42 refers to the time when the Muslims had to fight against the Meccan Strong Army, which was coming to attack them, rather than the Meccan caravan, containing all the stolen property of the Muslims.

 

Surah al-Anfal 8:45-46:

 

Yes we must obey Allah (SWT) and his Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) and be united.

 

Surah al-Anfal 8:57-61:

 

If you read verse 56 it mentions those who constantly break treaties with Muslims. Historically, this refers to the Jewish tribes in Medina who constantly surprised Muslims with deceptive attacks, even though they have a peace treaty. Allah (SWT) instructs us to fight against them and this is completely justified. However, in verse 61, after the fighting instruction, we are told to make peace with them, if they turn to peace.

 

Surah al-Anfal 8:65-72:

Read from verse 56-75. It refers to the very same Jewish tribes, who constantly broke treaties. They had pretended to turn peaceful, only to cause more mischief and so Allah (SWT) orders us to fight against them.

 

Surah Mohammad 47:4, 6-15:

 

This states that when the Muslims encounter disbelievers (meaning encounter them in battle), we must fight hard against them and then take prisoners from survivors. After the war finishes we must release the prisoners by ransom or out of grace.

 

This only refers to times of battle. Of course martyrs in battles will be blessed in Heaven.

 

Surah Ale-Imran 3:152:

The passage (from 152-159) speaks of the Battle of Badr when Allah (SWT) assisted the Muslims and the Battle of Uhud when the Muslims had been defeated, because some of them were impatient and greedy for spoils of war. However, the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) was kind-hearted to them and Allah (SWT) told the believers to forgive them and seek forgiveness for them (Surah Ale-Imran 3:159).

Surah Ale-Imran 3:157-195:

These verses again, speak of the Battle of Uhud and state that the Muslims fought in it to defend themselves. There is no initiation of war, nor any terrorism in these verses.

Martyrs will be rewarded in Heaven, because of their bravery, courage and commitment in fighting against tyranny and oppression.

 

Verse 195 speaks of those who were persecuted and had fought in the way of Allah (SWT) and were slain by the pagans. This does not promote terrorism. Both the Battle of Badr and Uhud were defensive battles, against the tyranny and oppression of the Arab polytheists.

 

Surah as-Saff 61:4-13:

 

Allah (SWT) does love those who fight in his way.

 

We are told to believe and do Jihad in the way of Allah (SWT) with our properties and lives.

 

As said previously, the fighting in Islam refers to fighting in self-defence and fight for the sake of oppressed men, women and children (Surah al-Baqara 2:190, Surah an-Nisa 4:75).

 

Verse 13 says that Allah (SWT) will grant the Muslims another victory and give them good news, which refers to the conquest of Mecca according to several commentators.

 

The conquest of Mecca was only done after the polytheists of Mecca had broken the treaty with the Muslims. It was not initiated by Muslims but by polytheists and yet it was a bloodless conquest.

 

Surah an-Nisa 4:74-77:

 

These verses tell Muslims to fight to defend innocent civilians, who pray for liberation.

 

Surah an-Nisa 4:84-91:

 

This refers to those who fought against the Muslims (Surah an-Nisa 4:85).

 

This refers to those who become hostile. If they offer peace, Allah (SWT) does not allow us to fight them. But if they pretend to be peaceful and turn hostile, when given the opportunity, Allah (SWT) tells us that as long as they do not offer peace and continue initiating war, he gives us clear authority to kill them.

 

Surah an-Nisa 4:95-96:

 

Those who stay at home and do not fight are not equal in rank and reward to those who fight, because they do not have the same level of courage, bravery, selflessness and commitment.

 

Surah an-Nisa 4:100:

 

This does refer to those who forsake their homes for Jihad as said by Answering-Islam. Jihad refers to both internal and external struggle, the internal struggle being, improve your character, faith, knowledge, acts and wisdom and the external struggle being fighting in the way of Allah (SWT), i.e. against the initiators of war and the oppressors of innocent civilians (Surah al-Baqara 2:190, Surah an-Nisa 75).

 

This only refers to, however, the war-mongering disbelievers and not all disbelievers and tells us how to perform prayer in Battle, to avoid opportunist enemies.

 

Surah al-Ahzab 33:25-27:

 

These verses just recount on how the polytheists and their Jewish allies were defeated.

 

The Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) ordered the believers to lay siege on the Jewish strongholds and after sometime the Jews accepted to come to an agreement for their treacherous behavior.

 

The Jews elected Sa'ad ibn Mu'adh as to decide their fate. Sa'ad was an ally and friend of these Jews during the pre-Islamic period so the Jews thought that he would show them mercy.

 

However, an arrow had been shot at Sa'ad in his jugular vain during the Battle of the Ditch and he prayed to see the Jews suffer for their treachery before he died. So he decided that all the mature males should be killed and all the women and children taken captive. This was done and 400-900 Jewish males were executed, due to their own judgment. The women and children were taken captive, just as this verse says.

 

For proof of all the claims, regarding the context of these verses read Tafsir ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Tanwir al-Miqbas Tafsir ibn Abbas and Tafhim al Qur'an, which are all Qur'an commentaries from Ancient to Modern times.

 

Surah al-Ahzab 33:50:

 

This just speaks of the wives of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW), which were specially made lawful to him and not to other believers.

 

The problem is that Islamophobes are very narrow-minded. They never think outside the square and just jump to the conclusion that the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) invented Islam to fulfill his sexual desires (God forbid).

 

If that was the case wouldn't he have enjoyed himself with 100s of females during the pre-Islamic period, as a youth (when he is able to enjoy materialistic desires more than ever). Obviously.

 

Why would he marry 1 woman, about 15 years older than him, during his youth, when he is most active (assuming he loved sex)? During this time, he could have had a great time but he remained married to one woman for 24 years and never married anyone else during her lifetime.

 

That proves he is not sexually driven (which Islamophobes believe).

 

Then why did he marry so many wives? If someone notices, he will see that almost all of his wives were from different tribes, meaning what? This means that he wanted to share a relationship with each of the tribes, which had converted to Islam, so they would reconcile under him, after centuries of internal conflict.

 

Surah al-Hajj 22:58-59:

 

This verse states that Allah (SWT) shall reward the believers who fight in his way. These are the ones who kill and are killed fighting in the way of Allah (SWT).

 

Again, the fighting in Islam is either in self-defence or for the oppressed men, women and children in oppressive towns (Surah al-Baqara 2:190, Surah an-Nisa 4:75).

 

There is no instance of a war during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) that was initiated unjustly. They were either in defense or for the sake of the oppressed.

 

Surah al-Hajj 22:78:

 

We are ordered to struggle hard in the way of Allah (SWT).

 

As said before, to struggle (Jihad) refers to both internal and external struggle, the internal struggle being, improve your character, faith, knowledge, acts and wisdom and the external struggle being fighting in the way of Allah (SWT), i.e. against the initiators of war and the oppressors of innocent civilians (Surah al-Baqara 2:190, Surah an-Nisa 4:75).

 

Surah al-Fath 48:15-24:

 

Historically, this refers to the hypocrites who were absent during the Battle of Khaybar. This battle was fought against the Jews who had incited hostilities amongst Muslims and neighbouring Arab tribes, especially in their strongest and most well armed fort, which was in Khaybar.

 

The hypocrites were afraid to fight because the Jews outnumbered and the Muslims by almost a 10:1 ratio. The Muslims had only 1 600 men, while the Jews had 14 000 men.

 

Apparently for the hypocrites, the Muslims had won the battle and conquered the fort at Khaybar from the mischievous Jews.

 

Here Allah (SWT) also exempts the blind, lame and ill from battle. Muslims made many gains after this battle, especially because they defeated the Jews, who heavily outnumbered them, which was a true miracle. This war had ended mischief from the Jewish tribes in Arabia.

 

For proof of all the claims, regarding the context of these verses read Tafsir ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Tanwir al-Miqbas Tafsir ibn Abbas and Tafhim al Qur'an, which are all Qur'an commentaries from Ancient to Modern times.

 

Surah al-Fath 48:29:

 

This verse states in the end, that the disbelievers are filled with rage after seeing Muslims prostrate to Allah (SWT) and seek his blessings. This obviously only refers to those disbelievers (of which there are many today). We must be hard against them and that does not mean to act violently, but to avoid friendships and association with them and refute them.

 

Surah at-Tahrim 66:9:

 

If you read the historical context of this verse it only refers to the disbelievers of Mecca who broke their peace-treaty with the Muslims. Read the explanation of Surah at-Tawba 9:5 for that.

 

About the hypocrites we are commanded to fight them with our tongues.

 

For proof of this claim, regarding the context of this verse read Tafsir ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Tanwir al-Miqbas Tafsir ibn Abbas and Tafhim al Qur'an, which are all Qur'an commentaries from Ancient to Modern times.

 

Surah al-Hujarat 49:15:

 

Of course true believers are those who give their lives for the sake of Allah (SWT) to defend Islam. Again, that is self-defence.

 

Bailey writes:

STAGE FOUR: (AFTER CONQUERING MECCA) - OFFENSIVE WAR COMMANDED TO KILL THE PAGANS AND HUMBLE THE CHRISTIANS AND JEWS: [The Muslims continued to gain strength until the Meccans surrendered (in 630 AD). Most of the pagans of the city then became Muslims, so Mohammad and his followers were able to take over the city and cleanse the Ka'aba of some 360 idols resident there. At this point a new order was given to fit the new situation. By this time it was evident that the Jews would not accept Muhammad's claim to be a prophet, so the list of enemies now included all unbelievers - Jews and Christians as well as the pagans. Now it is no longer just defensive fighting, but aggressive Jihad against all unbelievers is commanded. Since this is the final teaching of the Quran regarding Jihad, it is what is still in force today.]

My Response:

That is completely ridiculous. Offensive Jihad was not commanded against pagans, Jews and Christians. It was the pagans who initiated war against the Muslims after the conquest of Mecca (the Battle of Hunayn).

Muslims were ordered to fight against Christian and Jewish inhabitants inside Islamic Land, if they refused to pay the tax. That is fully fair and just.

If I refuse to pay tax in Australia I will be arrested and in China, I'd be executed. Now critics may say taxes in Australia and China are for everyone, whereas in Islam they are for Christians and Jews.

That is not true though. In Islam Muslims are also ordered to pay taxes (Surah al-Baqara 2:177, Surah at-Tawba 9:60 and there are many more verses).

Bailey is right that Jihad is still in force today, but it is not against all unbelievers. True Jihadists are those who fight in defence of their lives and in defence of innocent men, women and children (Surah al-Baqara 2:190, Surah an-Nisa 4:75).

Most Muslim warriors today are freedom fighters and not terrorists.

Imagine if your house got blown up, all your family was killed and the killers were right in front of you? Would you be a terrorist for fighting back?

Well that's how it is for many civilians in Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq, who fight against the terrorist Zionist-Crusaders who kill their families and they are called terrorists. Why?

Apparently some Muslims commit acts of terror, but they are not true Muslims. Now why is that? Well because they blow themselves up in civilian areas, when Islam clearly prohibits the killing of women and children and the destruction of inhabited areas during war (Sahih Muslim 19:4319, Sunan Abu Dawud 8:2663, Malik al-Muwatta 21:9, 10 and more).

Here are responses to each verses Bailey lists:

 

Surah at-Tawba 9:5

 

This is the most widely used verse for Islamophobes. They claim that this verse abrogates Surah al-Baqara 2:256, which states that there is no compulsion in Religion.

 

However that is false, because this verse does not apply to all pagans, but only to the hostile polytheists (of Mecca) who broke the treaty and kinship between themselves and the Muslims (Surah at-Tawba 9:8, 10).

 

Historically, the polytheists and Muslims reached an agreement that neither side would attack the other and they would have a peace treaty lasting 10 years. Two years after this treaty was signed it was broken by a group of polytheists, who raided a Muslim encampment, killing almost everyone inside.

 

The Muslims had every right to fight back. This time Allah (SWT) gave no chance to the polytheists. After the many years of terror and persecution against the Muslims, they could not be trusted with peace, so they had to be killed. However Allah (SWT) gave them the chance to convert to Islam and not face the penalty of death, for their crimes.

 

Allah (SWT) ordered the Muslims to give sanctuary to polytheists who sought protection from Muslims. He ordered them to give them protection and recite the Holy Qur'an to them, in order to convince them of Islam (Surah at-Tawba 9:6).

 

There is no proof of any verse abrogating Surah al-Baqara 2:256, including this one. Muslims are not allowed to enforce their religions on any innocent non-Muslim, under pain of death.

For proof see Tafsir ibn Kathir, which states that this verse abrogated all peace treaties between the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) and any idolater. Now does that mean that all treaties are abrogated with idolaters? No.

Tafsir ibn Kathir clearly states that it ended peaceful verses between the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) and any idolater, meaning that there was no more peace between Muslims and pagans for that time (since they always creates hostilities). But there is no evidence of peace treaties being abrogated for idolaters today, such as Hindus.

 

Surah at-Tawba 9:11-15:

 

This just continues on from the previous passage and if one reads the whole extract, he will see that these verses refer to those who broke the treaty against the Muslims, but then converted to Islam in order to escape the penalty, then left Islam.

 

Leaving Islam means that they still have to face the penalty for their horrible crime, i.e. slaying the innocent Muslims in the encampment. That is completely just of course.

 

Surah at-Tawba 9:16:

 

This just says that Allah (SWT) will not forsake the true believers, who take no support from anyone but Allah (SWT), the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) and the believers and have fought in battle and struggled to better themselves.

 

Again battle just means to fight in defence or to fight for the lives of innocent forsaken men, women and children who constantly pray for help (Surah al-Baqara 2:190, Surah an-Nisa 4:75).

 

All battles in Islam were against tyrants and not against innocents.

 

Surah at-Tawba 9:19-22:

 

These 2 verses were revealed when one of the polytheists boasted that they give drinks to pilgrims and guard the sacred Mosque, i.e. the Holy Ka'ba. Allah (SWT) states that the believers are far better than them in his sight, those who strive in his way, meaning they do Jihad by fighting in defence and for the sake of oppressed innocent men, women and children and they struggle against their own souls to better themselves, i.e. by resisting sinful temptations in all their forms, for instance, lust, greed, gluttony etc.

 

Surah at-Tawba 9:25-26:

 

Allah (SWT) and his Messenger (SAWW) are more important than anything else for a true believer and Jihad is very important. Again, Jihad is a fight against oppression and for defense and also a struggle against one's desires to be better.

 

The Battle of Hunain took place after the Muslim bloodless conquest of Mecca. The pagans from neighbouring Arab tribes had united to attack the Muslims and finish off Islam. They were 3 times less in number than the Muslims, but Allah (SWT) allowed the pagans to gain the upper hand, because most of the Muslims became overconfident.

 

But then he aided them and in the end they won the battle.

 

Surah at-Tawba 9:28:

 

Idolaters are not allowed near the Ka'ba because they are unclean. This does not have to mean just physically unclean, but also spiritually, because instead of praising their creator, they praise their creation, which is strictly forbidden.

 

Physically, idolaters were very unclean at that time as they are today. They slept with 20 women a day, sacrificed to idols, buried newly-born daughters, never prayed to the one-God, drank blood, alcohol and committed much more filthy acts.

 

Today Hindus also commit many dirty acts. They drink sacrifice to idols, drink cow urine, eat cow dung, swim naked in rivers, have child prostitution and temples filled with rats. Their lifestyle is filthy and this is generally true for all pagans, thus Allah (SWT) forbids them from entering his Holy House in Mecca, the Ka'ba.

 

Surah at-Tawba 9:29-31:

 

This verse tells us to fight the Jews and Christians, until they pay the taxes levied upon them, as citizens of a Muslim state and are in a state of submission, i.e. to the Muslim authorities.

 

There is nothing oppressive in this verse, of course, because the Jews and Christians living in the Muslim Nation have to obey the Islamic Law and respect our ethics. This does not mean that they are oppressed or second-class citizens. They have the protection of the Islamic State and equal rights with Muslims, but they pay a tax.

 

Is this tax oppressive? No, because the Muslims have to also pay a tax, Zakaat (Surah al-Baqara 2:177, Surah at-Tawba 9:60), which is more than the Jizya tax. Furthermore, the Jewish and Christian citizens do not have to fight in case of wars, while the Muslims do.

 

In all nations, even western nations, people have to obey the authorities, for instance, no one can disobey a police officer, unless he is enforcing something irrelevant upon them. Same thing applies here.

 

Of course God's curse is on those who associate partners with him, among the Jews and Christians, because they went astray after the truth had been given to them and when Islam came, they denied it, though the proof was given to them.

 

What is wrong with that though? According to Christians, God's curse is on all those who do not accept Christ as their Lord and saviour, yet I have no problem with them believing this. They can believe what they like.

 

Surah at-Tawba 9:38-41:

 

All believers had to take part in battles, if Allah (SWT) and the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) ordered it. These battles are not initiations of war, but are either acts of defense or attacks against oppressive people, whose citizens suffer all the time because of their tyrannical rulers and pray for help (Surah al-Baqara 2:190, Surah an-Nisa 4:75).

 

Cowardliness is not an excuse to avoid battle of course. True believers are brave warriors who fight in every way for an end to tyranny in all its forms.

 

Verse 31 is an order from Allah (SWT) to the Muslim combatants at the time, to march in Battle, which historically refers to the Battle of Tabuk, against the Byzantines.

 

After the Muslims had sent an emissary to the Emperor of Byzantium, Heraclius, inviting him to Islam to be saved (i.e. attain salvation for the hereafter), Heraclius had the emissary executed.

 

So the Muslims retaliated by waging war against Heraclius in the Battle of Mu'tah. The Muslims had only 3 000 men while the Byzantines numbered up to 100 000. According to many Muslim traditions, they killed many of the enemy men, before having to flee, as they were heavily outnumbered.

 

However after the conquest of Mecca, the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) fought against the Romans in a new campaign called the Battle of Tabuk. This time he had 30 000 Muslim soldiers ready. Before they entered Tabuk, the Byzantine Armies had fled, upon hearing of the huge army coming to take over Tabuk. The Christians and Christian rulers who were left had either converted to Islam or paid the Jizya tax to be under the protection of the Islamic State.

 

The Byzantine Army had retreated before the Battle could commence and this had instilled pride into the Muslims, who were able to scare away the most powerful Empire in the world, Byzantium.

 

Surah at-Tawba 9:52:

 

If one reads the context, he/she will realise that this only refers to the cowardly hypocrites, who wish to keep away from battle. They hate successful military battles for Muslims and love seeing Muslims defeated (see Surah at-Tawba 9:49-50).

 

Allah (SWT) tells the Muslims that there are 2 great things in stock for Jihad, victory or martyrdom for the cause of Allah (SWT), which is completely just.

 

As said before, this Jihad does not mean terrorism or invading others, because the Byzantines originally initiated the Battle of Tabuk, as they killed the Muslim emissary for inviting them to Islam.

 

Surah at-Tawba 9:73:

 

If one reads the next word it gives the context to this.

 

The next verse states that it only referred to the apostates who attempted a plot, which historically refers to their attempt to take the life of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW), which they miserably failed at.

 

Even though they made an attempt on the life of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW), just look how merciful Allah (SWT) is. He gave them a chance to repent and turn back from their evil ways (Surah at-Tawba 9:74).

 

Surah at-Tawba 9:81-96:

 

This again recounts on the hypocrites in the Battle of Tabuk, who were making excuses to avoid the fighting, i.e. that the desert is too hot.

 

Why couldn't they just trust Allah (SWT) and his Apostle, who ended up gaining the greatest victory for Islam, during the life of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW)?

 

They were materialistic cowardly hypocrites, who did not trust the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW). If they went to fight, they would take part in the glorious victory.

 

Verse 83 just forbids the hypocrites who want to go to war, because they chose to sit down the first time. This certainly made them learn their lesson.

 

Verse 86 also recounts on the hypocrites who always prefer avoiding battle when the order comes from Allah (SWT) to go to war.

 

Verse 88 states that the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) and the believers strive hard to fight in the way of Allah (SWT). Of course this is true.

 

This does not refer to any terrorism or bloody conquests, like Genghis Khan. The fighting in Islam is either in self-defence or for the oppressed men, women and children in oppressive towns (Surah al-Baqara 2:190, Surah an-Nisa 4:75).

 

Verse 92-96 just go on to say that there is no blame for combatants who had the intention to fight, but could not fight because of lack of transportation means.

 

Surah at-Tawba 9:111:

 

This verse states that Allah (SWT) shall reward the believers who fight in his way. These are the ones who kill and are killed fighting in the way of Allah (SWT).

 

Again, the fighting in Islam is either in self-defence or for the oppressed men, women and children in oppressive towns (Surah al-Baqara 2:190, Surah an-Nisa 4:75).

 

There is no instance of a war during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) that was initiated unjustly. They were either in defence or for the sake of the oppressed.

 

Surah at-Tawba 9:122-123:

 

Historically, this also refers to the Battle of Tabuk. This orders the believers to prepare for the war and to fight against the disbelieving combatants at Tabuk.

 

For proof of all these claims, throughout the explanation of Surah at-Tawba read Tafsir ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Tanwir al-Miqbas Tafsir ibn Abbas and Tafhim al Qur'an, which are all Qur'an commentaries from Ancient to Modern times.

 

Surah al-Ma'idah 5:33-38:

 

This punishment applies only to terrorists, who wage war against the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) and strive to make mischief on the land. The reason it is very harsh is so that the next criminal thinks twice before he creates mischief. Initially it seems to be harsh and cruel, but it works out and casts fear into criminals, so they are much less likely to harm innocents.

 

However, the next verse states that they are to be forgiven if they repent before the Muslims are able to defeat them, meaning that they repent sincerely and not out of fear.

 

Surah al-Ma'idah 5:51:

 

This verse forbids Muslims for taking Jews and Christians as (Awliyah), i.e. guardians and protectors. This means that our allegiance is solely to Muslims and not to disbelievers.

 

A person playing for ?Team A' would not ally himself with ?Team B', but he can still be friendly and kind towards members of ?Team B'.

 

Similarly Muslims are encouraged by Allah (SWT) to be kind, just and respectful towards innocent disbelievers (Surah al-Mumtahinah 60:8), however we are forbidden to take them as guardians, because generally, it is a fact that they are guardians of each other. Just look at all the ?Christian' Nations allied to the illegal State of Israel.

 

Bailey writes:

THE LAW OF ABROGATION: [According to the Quran itself (Sura 2:106, 13:39 and 16:103) God sometimes substitutes a "better" verse or passage for one previously given, thus superceding the first one. Sura 2:106: "None of our revelations (verses) do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better or similar. Knowest thou not that God hath power over all things?"; Sura 13:39: "God doth blot out or confirm what he pleaseth. With Him is the Mother of the Book."; Sura 16:101: "When we substitute one revelation for another, - and God knows best what He reveals (in stages), - they say, ?Thou are but a forger' but most of them understand not." Although all Muslim scholars believe that God replaced some earlier verses by substituting later verses, there is a great difference of opinion among them as to which verses supercede which verses. Nevertheless, most are agreed that Sura 9:5, (called "the verse of the sword") supercedes most of the previous verses regarding jihad. Some believe it supercedes as many as 111 previous verses. In spite of this general agreement, many today quote the previous replaced verses in order to validate their perception of Islam being a peaceful religion. Thus modern, liberal Muslim leaders, especially here in the west, are teaching what could be called "the Islam of Mecca" with its emphasis on non violence and tolerance. At the same time, "the Islam of Medina," with its more aggressive, totalitarian nature is what is being practiced and taught by orthodox, fundamentalist Muslims in most parts of the Muslim world.]

My Response:

Obviously Surah at-Tawba 9:5 does supersede most verses regarding Jihad, but only to the pagan societies of Arabia, because they broke treaties and initiated war against Muslims, even after the conquest of Mecca.

What does that mean? It means that because of their persecution of the Muslims for 18 years and their breaking of both treaties and kinship, they were given no chance for peace (Surah at-Tawba 9:8, 10).

It was not only because of that. It was also because these idol-worshipers themselves lived like filth and oppressed the weak among their society. Newly-born girls were buried alive, if they were the eldest child, women were inherited by men and the poor and weak were disregarded. Islam brought light to these people:

muslim-responses.com/Destroying_Paganism/Destroying_Paganism_

But the mercy of Islam never went away because Muslims were still ordered to give sanctuary to any idolater seeking it and to recite the verses of the Holy Qur'an, so he may be guided (Surah at-Tawba 9:6).

Liberal Muslim leaders do not teach ?Islam of Mecca'. Peace never left Islam, because, as I said before, the abrogation of peaceful verses, only applied to the pagans of Arabia, whose filthy way of life died out.

For proof see Tafsir ibn Kathir, which states that this verse abrogated all peace treaties between the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) and any idolater. Now does that mean that all treaties are abrogated with idolaters? No.

Tafsir ibn Kathir clearly states that it ended peaceful verses between the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) and any idolater, meaning that there was no more peace between Muslims and pagans for that time (since they always creates hostilities). But there is no evidence of peace treaties being abrogated for idolaters today, such as Hindus.

Islam is truly ?ad-Deen as-Salam' (the Religion of peace), in both Mecca and Medina.

Bailey can't prove otherwise and I can easily refute him if he tries, as I have done in this rebuttal. Islam does not teach aggression or totalitarianism. Islam allows freedom of speech, thought and expression as long as it is not intended to offend anyone.

In an Islamic society no one can go around saying things like: ?Muhammad is a terrorist (God forbid)'. If they have something to say they can go and ask a Muslim scholar, but they can't go around spreading hate-messages.

Freedom has its limits, for instance, my freedom does not give me the right to kill someone.

Now it is time to silence his attacks on Ahadith.

Bailey writes:

B. FROM THE HADITH (TRADITIONS):

[200 to 300 years after the death of Muhammad, several men devoted their lives to collecting verifiable ("sahih") traditions ("hadith") concerning the teachings and actions of Muhammad as witnessed by his followers and passed on through other reliable believers. Among the six most respected hadith collections, Muhammad bin Ismail bin Al-Mughirah Al-Bukhari's nine volume collection is the most respected of all. Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, who translated Imam Bukhari's work into English, wrote, "It has been unanimously agreed that Imam Bukhari's work is the most authentic of all the other works in Hadith literature put together. The authenticity of Al-Bukhari's work is such that the religious learned scholars of Islam said concerning him: ?The most authentic book after the Book of Allah (i.e. Al-Qur'an) is Sahih-Al-Bukhari.'" In his careful investigation Imam Bukhari accepted as authentic only 7275 out of the 300,000 hadith which he heard. Among these traditions, are many regarding Muhammad's teaching and practices concerning Jihad. (Volume four alone contains 283 of them.) I have selected the following 50 traditions from Imam Bukhari's collection which I feel capture the essence of Jihad in Islam:]

My Response:

Yes, but only the Holy Qur'an is 100% divine.

Bailey writes:

From Volume 4:

4:41 Abdullah bin Masud said, "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.'"

.

4:73 Muhammad said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords."

My Response:

Yes that is true of course. Martyrs will be blessed in Heaven, because of their bravery and courage.

The words of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW): ?Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords.' symbolises that fighting for Islam is the way to Heaven.

These battles are not initiations of war, but are either acts of defense or attacks against oppressive people, whose citizens suffer all the time because of their tyrannical rulers and pray for help (Surah al-Baqara 2:190, Surah an-Nisa 4:75). Allah (SWT) also reminds Muslims of his teaching to Israel, where the murder of a single innocent human is like the murder of humanity (Surah al-Ma'idah 5:32). This teaching still applies to Islam as it has never been abrogated.

Many critics believe that it is morally wrong to take spoils from dead combatants during war, but what is wrong with taking booty? Are you just supposed to leave it their and let it go to waste?

They do not belong to anyone, but are spare possessions after war. These possessions can be used for good purposes, such as charity for the orphans, the poor, the needy and helping your family.

Bailey writes:

4:210 Once Allah's Apostle (during a holy battle), waited till the sun had declined and then he got up among the people and said, "O people! Do not wish to face the enemy (in a battle) and ask Allah to save you (from calamities) but if you should face the enemy, then be patient and let it be known to you that Paradise is under the shades of swords." He then said, "O Allah! The Revealer of the (holy) Book, the Mover of the clouds, and Defeater of Al-Ahzab (i.e. the clans of infidels), defeat the infidels and bestow victory upon us."

My Response:

This is just descriptive and not prescriptive. It describes a battle that took place during the time of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) and does not order Muslims to commit any violence against innocents.

Bailey writes:

4:80 Muhammad said, "Allah welcomes two men with a smile. One of whom kills the other and both of them enter Paradise. One fights in Allah's cause and gets killed. Later on Allah forgives the killer (i.e. he embraces Islam) who also get martyred (in Allah's cause)."

My Response:

Is there anything wrong with this? This just shows how Allah (SWT) forgives all sin and gives men another chance. This is the beauty of Islam.

Furthermore, in Islam, battles are not initiations of war, but are either acts of defense or attacks against oppressive people, whose citizens suffer all the time because of their tyrannical rulers and pray for help (Surah al-Baqara 2:190, Surah an-Nisa 4:75).

Bailey writes:

4:96 Muhammad said, "He who prepares a ghazi [a warrior returning from participating in Jihad] going in Allah's cause is (given a reward equal to that of) a ghazi; and he who looks after properly the dependents of a ghazi going in Allah's cause is (given a reward equal to that of) a ghazi."

.

4:146 Muhammad said, "A time will come when groups of people will go for Jihad and it will be asked, ?Is there anyone amongst you who has enjoyed the company of the Prophet?' The answer will be ?Yes.' Then they will be given victory (by Allah). Then a time will come when it will be asked, ?Is there anyone amongst you who has enjoyed the company of the companions of the Prophet?' It will be said, ?Yes,' and they will be given the victory (by Allah). Then a time will come when it will be said, ?Is there anyone amongst you who has enjoyed the company of the companions of the companions of the Prophet?' It will be said, ?Yes,' and they will be given victory (by Allah)."

My Response:

Yes that is true of course. Martyrs will be blessed in Heaven, because of their bravery and courage.

In Islam, battles are not initiations of war, but are either acts of defense or attacks against oppressive people, whose citizens suffer all the time because of their tyrannical rulers and pray for help (Surah al-Baqara 2:190, Surah an-Nisa 4:75). Allah (SWT) also reminds Muslims of his teaching to Israel, where the murder of a single innocent human is like the murder of humanity (Surah al-Ma'idah 5:32). This teaching still applies to Islam as it has never been abrogated.

Bailey writes:

4:147 Sahl bin Sa'd As-Sa'idi said, "Allah's Apostle and the pagans faced each other and started fighting. When Allah's Apostle returned to his camp and when the pagans returned to their camp, somebody talked about a man amongst the companions of Allah's Apostle who would follow and kill with his sword any pagan going alone. He said, ?Nobody did his job (i.e. fighting) so properly today as that man.' Allah's Apostle said, ?Indeed, he is amongst the people of the (hell) fire.' A man amongst the people said, ?I shall accompany him (to watch what he does).' Thus he accompanied him, and wherever he stood, he would stand with him, and wherever he ran, he would run with him. Then the (brave) man got wounded seriously and he decided to bring about his death quickly. He planted the blade of the sword in the ground directing its sharp end towards his chest between his two breasts. Then he leaned on the sword and killed himself. The other man came to Allah's Apostle and said, ?I testify that you are Allah's Apostle.' The Prophet asked, ?What has happened?' He replied, ?(It is about) the man whom you had described as one of the people of the (hell) fire. The people were greatly surprised at what you said, and I said, "I will find out his reality for you." So, I came out seeking him. He got severely wounded, and hastened to die by planting the blade of his sword in the ground directing its sharp end towards his chest between his two breasts. Then he leaned on his sword and killed himself.' Then Allah's Apostle said, ?A man may seem to the people as if he were practicing the deeds of the people of Paradise while in fact he is from the people of the (hell) fire, another may seem to the people as if he were practicing the deeds of the people of hell (fire), while in fact he is from the people of Paradise.'" [This would seem to clearly condemn suicide, but it is not really the same as the suicide bombers who kill many enemies and die in the process. They are not condemned by the more radical Muslims, who would consider them true Martyrs going to Paradise.]

My Response:

Thank you very much Bailey. You just proved that suicide bombers do not follow Islam and thus proved that terrorists are not real Muslims, since they are not following the Sunnah.

?They are not condemned by more radical Muslims', says Bailey. Well doesn't that tell you something?

Yes. It tells us that the radical Muslims are not following Islam either. But the wider Muslim communities condemn these attacks and say that Islam does not really teach this. What does that show us? It shows us that they are truly following Islam, since suicide is forbidden.

Bailey writes:

4:175 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." [Notice it is an invasion, not a defensive war.]

My Response:

Yes it was an invasive war, but who initiated the whole conflict between the Byzantines and the Muslims?

It was the Byzantine emperor, Heraclius who slew the Muslim emissary, who invited him to Islam. That crime began the whole conflict. For this reason, Allah (SWT) ordered the believers to fight against the Byzantines, in the Battle of Mut'a. There were only 3000 Muslims and 100 000 Byzantines and by the end, the Muslims were forced to retreat, but they imposed heavy damage on the Byzantine army.

It was then that the Byzantines realised that Muslims were truly warriors, who would fight till the end. Later on, the Allah (SWT) ordered the Muslims to undertake the expedition of Tabuk, where they were to conquer land from the Byzantines, because the two parties were already hostile.

The Muslims cannot be accused for this because the hostility was created because of Heracluis' crime of slaying the Muslim emissary.

Furthermore, this invasion was completely bloodless, because the Byzantine army fled out of fear.

Egypt's patriarch refused to embrace Islam, but unlike Heraclius he did not slay the emissary and send gifts back to the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) for his invitation.

Muslims did not fight him, did they? No, because unlike Heraclius he was an innocent non-Muslim.

Bailey writes:

4:179 Muhammad said, "The hour will not be established until you fight with the Turks; people with small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces will look like shields coated with leather. The hour will not be established till you fight with people whose shoes are made of hair." [No wonder the Arabs and Turks don't seem to like each other!]

My Response:

This Hadith is not racist to Turks. It is just stating that this event will happen against Turks before the Day of Judgement will come.

Perhaps it refers to the time when the Arabs betrayed the Turks by breaking from the Muslim Ummah. They sold their souls to Britain, just because of vain nationalism. What happened after 24 years? The illegal Israeli state formed over Palestine.

The description of the Turks in this is not racist of course. It is just stating how they will look. There is no offensive or racist language used here.

Allah (SWT) says in the Holy Qur'an that all the variations in appearance, language and colours amongst mankind is a sign from him (Surah ar-Rum 30:22) and that all of mankind comes from two people, Adam and Eve and that the best among them is the one who is most pious (Surah al-Hujarat 49:13).

This means that Islam does not judge people according to race, colour, appearance or language but according to piety. Racism is forbidden in Islam.

Bailey writes:

4:182 Ali said, "When it was the day of the battle of Al-Ahzab (i.e. the clans), Allah's Apostle said, ?O Allah! Fill their (i.e. the infidels') houses and graves with fire as they busied us so much that we did not perform the prayer (i.e. ?Asr) till the sun had set.'" [?Asr is the 3rd prayer, which is to be done in middle of the afternoon. The 4th prayer is to be done just before sunset.]

My Response:

The Battle of Ahzab was a defensive battle. This was when the Jews of Bani Qurayza and the idolater infidels joined together to attack the Muslims in Medina. The Jews broke their treaty by doing this.

Bailey writes:

4:186 Aisha said, "Once the Jews came to the Prophet and said, ?Death be upon you.' So I cursed them. The Prophet said, ?What is the matter?' I said, ?Have you not heard what they said?' The Prophet said, ?Have you not heard what I replied (to them)? (I said), ("The same is upon you.")'" [Bukhari: "There is great similarity between the pronunciations of the Arabic words meaning ?peace' and ?death.' The first is ?as-salamu' and the second is ?as-samu.' The Jews instead of saying ?As-salamu Alai-kum' (?peace be on you.') said, ?As-samu Alai-kum,' intending to invoke evil upon the Prophet rather than to greet him. But the Prophet noticed what they had said and invoked evil upon them in his turn. They were the losers, for Allah would accept the Prophet's invocation and reject theirs."] [Quite a contrast with Jesus, who taught "Bless them who curse you." (Luke 6:28)!]

My Response:

Well doesn't this show freedom of expression in Islam? Did the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) kill them? No. He just said: ?Same on you'.

Yes, Islam does order us to say: ?Wa A'laikum' (same on you). But what does this have to do with Jihad?

That is quite a contrast with the Biblical teaching of ?blessing those who curse you' and ?turning the cheek'.

I wonder what Christians gain out of doing that. If someone started cursing and beating your child, would you bless him or start defending your child. What would be the best thing to do in that situation?

Bailey writes:

4:192 On the day of the battle of Khaibar, Sahl bin Sa'd heard Muhammad say, "I will give the flag to a person at whose hands Allah will grant victory." So, the companions of the Prophet got up, wishing eagerly to see to whom the flag will be given, and everyone of them wished to be given the flag. But the Prophet asked for Ali. Someone informed him that he was suffering from eye-trouble. So, he ordered them to bring Ali in front of him. Then the Prophet spat in his eyes and his eyes were cured immediately as if he had never any eye-trouble. Ali said, "We will fight with them (i.e. infidels) till they become like us (i.e. Muslims)." The Prophet said, "Be patient, till you face them and invite them to Islam and inform them of what Allah has enjoined upon them. By Allah! If a single person embraces Islam at your hands (i.e. through you), that will be better for you than the red camels."

My Response:

The Battle of Khaybar was fought against the Jews who had incited hostilities amongst Muslims and neighbouring Arab tribes, especially in their strongest and most well armed fort, which was in Khaybar.

 

The hypocrites were afraid to fight because the Jews outnumbered and the Muslims by almost a 10:1 ratio. The Muslims had only 1 600 men, while the Jews had 14 000 men.

 

Apparently for the hypocrites, the Muslims had won the battle under the leadership of Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (AS) and conquered the fort at Khaybar from the mischievous Jews.

 

Read commentaries on Surah al-Fath 48:15-24 from Tafsir ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Tanwir al-Miqbas Tafsir ibn Abbas and Tafhim al Qur'an, which prove all my points about the Battle of Khaybar.

Bailey writes:

4:193 Anas said, "Whenever Allah's Apostle attacked some people, he would never attack them till it was dawn. If he heard the adhan (i.e. call for prayer) he would delay the fight, and if he did not hear the adhan, he would attack them immediately after dawn." [Bukhari: "The Prophet would wait till dawn to see whether the people he was attacking had been converted to Islam or not, and the sign of their embracing Islam will be the pronunciation of the adhan. He would not attack them if he heard the adhan.] [The message seems clear - convert or be attacked!]

My Response:

Yes, but this only applies to people who committed certain crimes, for instance the pagan infidels of Mecca, who slew the unarmed Muslims in the encampment or the Jews of Banu Qurayza, who betrayed the Muslims and joined the pagan infidels of Mecca, to attack the Muslims.

This does not apply to all non-Muslims. The punishment for their crime is execution, but they can forego this punishment by converting to Islam. The verse: ?There is no compulsion in Religion' (Surah al-Baqara 2:256) applies to innocent non-Muslims, however the only way out for murdering treacherous criminals, is to convert to Islam.

Bailey writes:

4:195 Anas said, "The Prophet set out for Khaibar [a Jewish village attacked and subjugated in 628] and reached it at night. He used not to attack if he reached the people at night, till the day broke. So, when the day dawned, the Jews came out with their bags and spades. [see Deuteronomy 23:12,13] When they saw the Prophet they said, ?Muhammad and his army!' The Prophet said, ?Allahu-Akbar! (Allah is Greater) and Khaibar is ruined, for whenever we approach a nation (i.e. enemy to fight) then it will be a miserable morning for those who have been warned.'"

My Response:

Like all Islamophobes, Bailey tries to make the Jews look like harmless victims who were subjugated by the Muslim perpetrators.

If he actually bothered to read the whole story, he would know that Khaybar was the strongest Jewish Fort and their center for creating mischief. It was those Jews who encouraged neighbouring Arab tribes to attack Muslims, which is why both Banu Nadir and Banu Qurayza broke the treaty.

It was because of their treachery that the Muslims were ordered to fight them until they were defeated or had converted to Islam. They were subjugated, only because they initiated hostility and created mischief and murder.

According to what we are told in the media about 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad ordered the pilots to crash the planes on the twin towers. Physically he committed no crime, but he initiated it, so he was subjugated, tortured and harassed.

The same applies to the Jews of Khaybar, so Bailey shouldn't try to make them look like innocent victims. I can do the same with Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, though Muslims were not barbarians like the CIA agents who constantly tortured and subjugated Khalid Sheikh Mohammad.

Read commentaries on Surah al-Fath 48:15-24 from Tafsir ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Tanwir al-Miqbas Tafsir ibn Abbas and Tafhim al Qur'an, which prove all my points about the Battle of Khaybar.

Bailey writes:

4:196 Mohammad said, "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ?None has the right to be worshiped but Allah,' and whoever says, ?None has the right to be worshiped by Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah (either to punish him or to forgive him.)" [Clear enough! He was "ordered" to fight with the people until they become Muslims!]

My Response:

Taking a logical approach, if the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) has been ordered to do something, it is from Allah (SWT). Therefore we must immediately turn to the Holy Qur'an. When we do, we find the closest verse in match to the saying: "fight with the people till they say, ?None has the right to be worshiped but Allah,' is Surah at-Tawba 9:5.

The hostile polytheists (of Mecca) broke the treaty and kinship between themselves and the Muslims (Surah at-Tawba 9:8, 10).

 

Historically, the polytheists and Muslims reached an agreement that neither side would attack the other and they would have a peace treaty lasting 10 years. Two years after this treaty was signed it was broken by a group of polytheists, who raided a Muslim encampment, killing almost everyone inside.

 

The Muslims had every right to fight back. This time Allah (SWT) gave no chance to the polytheists. After the many years of terror and persecution against the Muslims, they could not be trusted with peace, so they had to be killed. However Allah (SWT) gave them the chance to convert to Islam and not face the penalty of death, for their crimes.

 

Allah (SWT) ordered the Muslims to give sanctuary to polytheists who sought protection from Muslims. He ordered them to give them protection and recite the Holy Qur'an to them, in order to convince them of Islam (Surah at-Tawba 9:6).

Bailey writes:

4:198 Ka'b bin Malik said, "Whenever Allah's Apostle intended to carry out a Ghazwa, [a Jihad excursion with Mohammad leading.] he would use an equivocation to conceal his real destination till it was the Ghazwa of Tabuk [a valley in Arabia where the Muslims confronted Christians in 630] which Allah's Apostle carried out in very hot weather. As he was going to face a very long journey through a wasteland and was to meet and attack a large number of enemies. So, he made the situation clear to the Muslims so that they might prepare themselves accordingly and get ready to conquer their enemy."

My Response:

It was the Byzantine emperor, Heraclius who slew the Muslim emissary, who invited him to Islam. That crime began the whole conflict. For this reason, Allah (SWT) ordered the believers to fight against the Byzantines, in the Battle of Mut'a. There were only 3000 Muslims and 100 000 Byzantines and by the end, the Muslims were forced to retreat, but they imposed heavy damage on the Byzantine army.

It was then that the Byzantines realised that Muslims were truly warriors, who would fight till the end. Later on, the Allah (SWT) ordered the Muslims to undertake the expedition of Tabuk, where they were to conquer land from the Byzantines, because the two parties were already hostile.

The Muslims cannot be accused for this because the hostility was created because of Heracluis' crime of slaying the Muslim emissary.

Furthermore, this invasion was completely bloodless, because the Byzantine army fled out of fear.

Egypt's patriarch kindly refused to embrace Islam. Unlike Heraclius he did not slay the emissary and send gifts back to the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) for his invitation.

Muslims did not fight him, did they? No, because unlike Heraclius he was an innocent non-Muslim.

Bailey writes:

4:220 Muhammad said, "... I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy) ..."

My Response:

This Hadith answers itself. The Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) was made victorious because Allah (SWT) cast terror into the hearts of the enemy and thus aided the Muslims in their victory.

Islam clearly forbids terrorism against any innocent (Surah al-Ma'idah 5:32).

Bailey writes:

4:248 Abdullah bin Amr said, "A man came to the Prophet asking his permission to take part in Jihad. The Prophet asked him, ?Are your parents alive?' He replied in the affirmative. The Prophet said to him, ?Then exert yourself in their service.'" [Bukhari: "The participation in Jihad (i.e. holy battles) with one's parents' permission."]

My Response:

This shows the deep respect Islam promotes towards one's parents.

Bailey writes:

4:256 As-Sa'b bin Jaththama said, "The Prophet ... 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).'"

My Response:

This Hadith does not endorse killing women and children during night raids, as it may seem.

Nowhere in the Hadith does it say that women and children should be killed, and the missionary didn't even quote it properly. The Hadith was talking about night raids in which women and children happened to be killed, and when the prophet said they are from them, this has been correctly been interpreted to mean that they were collateral damage, and there was no sin because they were unintentionally killed! Furthermore, the very fact that the Muslims were asking about this issue showed their concern, why would they even bother to consult the prophet on the issue if killing women and children was permissible and was a none-issue? Lastly, such incidents were very rare, and in no shape or form come anywhere near the collateral damage we see being committed around the world by wars being committed by the U.S. and other nations.

Bailey writes:

4:258 Ibn Umar said, "During some of the Ghazawat [Jihad wars] of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children."

My Response:

This Hadith is not in contradiction to the other one.

Rather this proves we should judge the last Hadith in light of this one, in this Hadith we have a clear command prohibiting the killing of women and children, hence the other Hadith must be referring to those women and children who happened to be killed by accident.

Bailey writes:

4:259 Abu Huraira said, "Allah's Apostle sent us in a mission (i.e. an army-unit) and said, ?If you find so-and-so and so-and-so, burn both of them with fire.' When we intended to depart, Allah's Apostle said, ?I have ordered you to burn so-and-so and so-and-so, and it is none but Allah Who punishes with fire, so, if you find them, kill them.'" [Maybe not with fire, but Muhammad's order to kill these two enemies in some other way is clearly an act of aggression.]

My Response:

How is it an act of aggression?

Bailey does not know the context of the Hadith, so he cannot jump to conclusions.

However if we analyse the Holy Qur'an we see that killing innocents is like murdering humanity (obviously meaning that it's forbidden) (Surah al-Ma'idah 5:32). Therefore we can confidently assume that these enemies were criminals, and not only do we have to assume that they were criminals, WE KNOW THEY WERE CRIMINALS.

Bailey writes:

4:260 Ikrima said, "Ali burnt some people [apparently Muslims who had left Islam] and this news reached Ibn Abbas, who said, ?Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, "Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's punishment." No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, "If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."'" [The Islamic law of apostasy mandates death to anyone who leaves Islam.]

My Response:

Regarding apostasy, see this video.

Bailey writes:

4:261 Anas bin Malik said, "A group of eight men from the tribe of Ukil came to the Prophet [i.e. they became Muslims and began to live in Medina with the Muslims] and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, ?O Allah's Apostle! Provide us with some milk.' Allah's apostle said, ?I recommend that you should join the herd of camels.' So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and they were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died." [This obvious torture does not compare favorably with Yusuf Ali's note in Sura 5:36-38.]

My Response:

Well these men were serious criminals.

Furthermore Islam orders equal requital (Surah al-Baqara 2:194, Surah al-Ma'idah 5:8). Therefore, if these apostates killed the shepherd without torture, the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) would have done the same, but we don't know that.

But through analysis of the Qur'anic teachings, we can assume right away that these apostates must have tortured the shepherd the same way and were to be requited equally. And we do have proof from Ibn Ishaques sira that these criminals did torture the shepherd.

Bailey writes:

4:264 Al-Bara bin Azib said, "Allah's Apostle sent a group of Ansari men to kill Abu-Rafi'. One of them set out and entered their (i.e. the enemies') fort. That man said, ?I hid myself ... and came upon Abu Rafi' and said, "O Abu Rafi'." When he replied me, I proceeded towards the voice and hit him. He shouted and I came out to come back, pretending to be a helper. I said, "O Abu Rafi'," changing the tone of my voice ... I asked him, "What happened to you?" He said, "I don't know who came to me and hit me." Then I drove my sword into his belly and pushed it forcibly till it touched the bone. Then I came out, filled with puzzlement and went towards a ladder of theirs in order to get down but I fell down and sprained my foot. I came to my companions and said, "I will not leave till I hear the wailing of the women." So, I did not leave till I heard the women bewailing Abu Rafi', the mercant of Hijaz. Then I got up, feeling no ailment, (and we proceeded) till we came upon the Prophet and informed him.'" [This treacherous murder followed by pleasure in the women's wailing seems to be rewarded both by Allah's miraculous healing and by Muhammad's approval.]

My Response:

Abu Rafi' is fully innocent isn't he? He did nothing wrong and was a victim of Muslim brutality, isn't that right?

Maybe Bailey should mention that Abu Rafi' was the head of the Jews in Khaybar and he created hostilities between Muslims and neighbouring Arab tribes. This is the criminal who constantly persisted neighbouring Arab tribes to attack Muslims.

If I kept persisting a person to bomb the Eiffel Tower, and he did so, leaving 100s of victims, would I be innocent? No.

Who said that the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) approved of taking pleasure in the women's ailment? That is just Bailey's own theory, which he has no proof for.

Bailey writes:

4:267,269 Muhammad said, "War is deceit."

My Response:

Isn't that so true?

In war there is always strategy, to trick the enemy and gain advantage in the battle. That does deceive them, because they undergo and unexpected attack.

For instance, Hitler did not know Stalin's plan of moving back and burning all the food and supplies, so the Germans could take over a land of nothing, before the Russians finally striked back, took all their land back, got the Germans out of East Europe and started bombing the German parliament house.

Hitler was deceived, but that is how war is.

Bailey writes:

4:270 Jabir bin Abdullah said, "The Prophet said, ?Who is ready to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has really hurt Allah and His Apostle?' Muhammad bin Maslama said, ?O Allah's Apostle! Do you like me to kill him?' He replied in the affirmative. So, Muhammad bin Maslama went to him (i.e. Ka'b) and said, ?This person (i.e. the Prophet) has put us to task and asked us for charity.' Ka'b replied, ?By Allah, you will get tired of him.' Muhammad said to him, ?We have followed him, so we dislike to leave him till we see the end of his affair.' Muhammad bin Maslama went on talking to him in this way till he got the chance to kill him." [This certainly clarifies the meaning of "War is deceit."]

My Response:

Ka'b ibn Ashraf was not an innocent person either. He was a criminal because after the Muslims defeated the pagan infidels at the Battle of Badr, he was saddened and constantly persisted the humiliated pagans to re-launch an attack on the Muslims.

He also wrote erotic poetry about Muslim women, which was considered blasphemy and so he was killed.

Obviously something has to be done. You can't just let someone create mischief, murder and hostility and do nothing about it.

Hitler never took part in war, but does that make him innocent? He still ordered the Jews to be gassed and invaded many of his European neighbours.

Same goes with Ka'b. Just because he didn't physically do something does not make him innocent, because he promoted violence and hostility.

Deception is something that is necessary in war. A less harsh tone to this act in war would be ?strategy'. When there is war any method is appropriate, as long as the utmost heed is taken not to commit a crime against innocents.

Bailey writes:

4:280b Anas bin Malik said, "Allah's Apostle entered (Mecca) in the year of the conquest (of Mecca) wearing a helmet over his head. After he took it off, a man came and said, ?Ibn Khatal [a pagan opponent] is clinging to the curtains of the Ka'ba.' The Prophet said, ?Kill him.'"

My Response:

Again, this missionary fails to realize that the person who has been killed was no innocent person, but yet another person who had been creating problems and hostilities with the Muslims.

Bailey writes:

4:286 Salarma bin Al-Akwa said, "An infidel spy came to the Prophet while he was on a journey. The spy sat with the companions of the Prophet and started talking and then went away. The Prophet said, (to his companions), ?Chase and kill him.' So, I killed him."

My Response:

A spy isn't an innocent man, who should be given flowers and presents. His whole purpose is to create mischief.

Furthermore, Islam commands us to do justice (Surah al-Ma'idah 5:8) so it is likely that this person was going to relay information that would lead to hostility and mischief, but was killed before given the chance.

Bailey writes:

4:288 Ibn Abbas said, "... The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, ?Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, ...'" [The Muslims not only expelled the pagan Arabs from the land they had possessed for centuries, but until today they will not allow non-Muslims to be citizens of Saudi Arabia. Therefore, they should have no trouble understanding why the Jews have attempted to push the non Jewish Palestinians out of Palestine.]

My Response:

The Arabian Peninsula at that time was a lot smaller than it is today. It did not include all of Iraq, Jordan and Syria and none of Lebanon and Palestine. It only referred to the Hijaz area.

The pagans were expelled because of they worshiped idols and that act is not allowed in the Holy Land (i.e. the-then borders of the Arabian peninsula). No pagans are allowed there. Furthermore those same pagans had expelled the Muslims, and those pagans persisted in hostilities with the Muslims, so this was the only solution.

Non-Muslims have entered Saudi Arabia before. Sheikh Abdul-Aziz ibn Baz issued a Fatwa, allowing American soldiers to enter Saudi Arabia for defence against Saddam Hussein, who kept bombarding its capital Riyadh.

This only refers to pagans, not all non-Muslims. Jews and Christians would be allowed to visit Saudi Arabia.

The Jews in Palestine is a whole different story, because the Jews and Muslims lived in peace before Zionist terrorists wanted to kick out all the gentiles from Palestine.

Israel was born out of Nazism and Zionist terrorism. In fact, one History book even states in its FACT SECTION:

?Did you know? During the Second World War, Stern Gang members sent messages of support to the Nazis and offered their cooperation in the ?new world order'?' (Bruce Dennett, Stephen Dixon, Key Features of Modern History, Third Edition, Copyright 2005, page 65).

The Stern Gang were Zionist extremists who were responsible for many bombings and killings of British, Muslims and even Jews in Palestine.

You would expect such terrorists to be the last people to support Nazis and yet they did. The whole ?New World Order' was obviously a plan to establish a Jewish State in Palestine, probably so they can set up a base for their false Messiah, Dajjal.

Unlike the Jews and Muslims, living in peace, before Zionists came into the picture, the pagans and Muslims did not live in peace. The pagans always initiated violence against Muslims, so that is a whole different story.

Bailey writes:

4:317 Abdullah said, "when the Prophet returned (from Jihad), he would say Takbir [i.e. "Allah-o Akbar" (Allah is greater)] thrice and add, ?We are returning, if Allah wishes, with repentance and worshiping and praising (our Lord) and prostrating ourselves before our Lord. Allah fulfilled His promise and helped His slave, and He alone defeated the (infidel) clans.'"

My Response:

In Islam, battles are not initiations of war, but are either acts of defense or attacks against oppressive people, whose citizens suffer all the time because of their tyrannical rulers and pray for help (Surah al-Baqara 2:190, Surah an-Nisa 4:75).

Bailey writes:

From Volume 9:

9:50 (& 4:283) Ali said, "... no Muslim should be killed ... for killing a kafir (disbeliever)." [In other words, killing a non Muslim is not murder, it is holy war.]

My Response:

Islam orders a life for a life (Surah al-Baqara 2:178-179, Surah al-Ma'idah 5:45) and forbids us to kill any innocents (Surah al-Ma'idah 5:32). Furthermore an opinion of one Muslim scholar and leader such as Ali does not mean it is a complete unanimous view, rather in Islam there are several opinions when it comes to matters of fiqh!

Bailey writes:

9:57 Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, ?Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, ?Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

My Response:

Regarding apostasy, see this video.

Bailey writes:

[On page xxiv of his introduction to Bukhari's Hadith, Dr. M. Khan, the translator (into English) writes, "Then Allah revealed in Sura Bara'at (9) the order to discard (all) the obligations (covenants, etc.) and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the people of the scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizya (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians who do not embrace Islam and are under the protection of an Islamic government) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (9:29). So they (Muslims) were not permitted to abandon ?the fighting' against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are strong and have the possibility of fighting against them."]

My Response:

Islam does not call for constant fighting against Jews and Christians, until the whole world is invaded.

Logically, if that were true the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) would have fought against Maqawqis, the patriarch of Egypt, because he did not embrace Islam.

Maqawqis kindly replied back to the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) and sent him back gifts. The Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) never fought against Maqawqis in his entire life and there is no evidence that any of the caliphs after him did either.

If Islam really called for the invasion of the world, wouldn't the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) invade Egypt? Yes.

Furthermore, the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) maintained peace the non-Muslims of Khuza'ah and Banu Mudlij, who signed a peace treaty with him during the period of peace between the Muslims and polytheist Meccans. He never invaded them because they never broke their treaties. For proof see the commentary of Surah al-Mumtahinah 60:8, in Tanwir al-Miqbas Tafsir ibn Abbas.

See the true teachings of Islam's and its reforms to the woman and general society:

muslim-responses.com/Women_Reform/Women_Reform_

muslim-responses.com/Destroying_Paganism/Destroying_Paganism_

And verily, Allah (SWT) knows best and has blessed us with Islam, the Religion of Peace and Justice.

www.muslim-responses.com