Islam and non-Muslims

Why is Islam a problem for Non-Muslims? – Ten Questions never honestly answered.

Without going into what happens inside Islam with respect to its adherents, here we are only concerned with the interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims as mediated by the religious prescriptions and diktats of Islam.

The major concerns of non-Muslim communities about Islam and Muslims can be summarized through the following questions

(1) What are the formal causes and related specific prescribed forms that can be given by any Muslim population or group to wage Jihad against non-Muslims?

(2) Has Ghazwa, looting of property, land and enslavement of men, women and children of non-Muslims in the form of “right-hand possessions” been specifically ruled out of Jihad? Is there no example in the Quran, the Hadiths, and the Sunnah that can forever be cited as precedence to specifically loot, slaughter, and enslave as a necessary part of any Jihad which takes military form?

(3) What are the specific conditions and characteristics of any verbal statement or human expression through any media, that constitutes an insult towards Islam? Does Islam prohibit any negative criticism of aspects of Islam that non-Muslims find offensive and against their own principles and then the Muslims have the right to unilaterally declare punishments for making such criticisms?

(4) Does the enslavement of the women of non-Muslims for sexual use by Muslims, whether as a necessary part of Jihad or outside of Jihad, carry any prohibition or punishment within Islam? Is automatic annulment of marriages of captive married women of non-Muslims and their immediate sexual use prohibited in Islam?

(5) Wherever and whenever a Muslim population becomes the numerical majority in a certain geographical area or territory, is it prohibited or is it compulsory to impose the Sharia or Muslim law on all non-Muslims living within the same geographical territory? Specifically does all the prescriptions of Hudood, that is capital and physical punishment for what is seen within Islamic texts as deviance from prescribed sexual behavior, and capital punishment for what can be interpreted by one or more Muslims as blasphemy be imposed on all non-Muslims?

(6) Is any contract or agreement made with non-Muslims binding on Muslims? Does Islam prohibit with the force of maximum penalty possible, the breaking of any declaration or promise made to a non-Muslim population about future intentions of Muslims towards that non-Muslim population?

(7) Is there precedence within the Quran, the Hadiths, and the Sunnah that can forever be cited as precedence to specifically destroy religious and other cultural sites and material of significance to non-Muslims, and impose Islamic religious symbols or structures on those sites and material?

( 8 ) Is it prohibited to allow the marriage of a woman born in an Islamic family or of a Muslim father, to a non-Muslim man? In case such a marriage takes place is it required in Islam to either force the man to convert to Islam or to automatically annul the marriage or to give him death penalty?

(9) Is it necessarily required in Islam to give the death penalty to any Muslim who wants to convert to any other religion or faith or even declares in favour of agnosticism or atheism while at the same demanding the right to convert non-Muslims into Muslims without any obstruction from non-Muslims?

(10)Is it prohibited in Islam to try and erase all traces of existing or pre-existing non-Muslim cultures in all its forms, including written sources and records, and prohibit the continuation of such cultures in any form including education and recounting of history?

The major problem with these questions is that they are usually not asked or replied to with full honesty supported by quotes or otherwise in formally presented interviews with Muslim theologians or documentaries on Islamic theology. The questions are of crucial importance based on the perceptions of historical experience by non-Muslims in parts of the world where non-Muslims have survived or managed to retain territory and some degree of political and military independence is spite of the presence of a sizeable Muslim

population.

In follow-ups to this introductory note I will try to discuss these questions with respect to concrete examples from history and different regions of the world.

References and Sources:

The Sirat Rasul Allah was first written by Ibn Ishaq in 750 C.E.. and was edited and abridged by Ibn Hisham in 830 C.E. It was translated in 1955 by Alfred Guillaume as “The Life of Muhammad” (published by Oxford Press.) This biography or Sira, Ishaq’s Hadith Collection, consists of apparently verbal quotations from Muhammad and his companions. The Sira is the only surviving written account of Muhammad’s life and the early days of Islam possibly composed within two centuries of the death of Muhammad.

The History of al-Tabari, called the Ta’rikh, was written by Abu Muhammad bin al-Tabari between 870 and 920 A.D. The Tarikh was translated and published between 1987-97 by the State University of New York Press. Tabari’s work consists almost entirely of chronologically arranged Islamic Hadiths.

Al-Bukhari’s Hadith, titled: Sahih Al-Bukhari—(The True or Authentic Traditions) was collected by Imam Bukhari in 850 A.D. There are some disputes about the printed English translation by Muhammad Khan, and Published from Maktaba Dar-us-Salam.

Imam Bukhari’s student Muslim’s Hadith Collection was translated into English and is available online.

There are five Qur’an translations into English available: Ahmed Ali, Pikthal, Noble by Muhsin Khan, Yusuf Ali, and Shakir. The oldest parts of Qur’an have been dated to 725 A.D.—almost one hundred years after they were first claimed to have been recited. Almost all Islamic and non-Islamic scholars of faith texts of Islam recommend using the Quran together with the Hadiths (especially the Hadiths of Ishaq and Tabari which contain more uncensored biographical material) for chnronological consistency and to align contexts.

1. What are the formal causes and related specific prescribed forms that can be given by any Muslim population or group to wage Jihad against non-Muslims?

The chief injunctions about why jihad should be undertaken, are given as

Qur’an 2:216 “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not.”

Bukhari:(4)(52)(311) “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘There is no migration after the Conquest of Mecca, but only Jihad. When you are called by the Muslim ruler for Jihad fighting, you should go forth immediately, responding to the call.’”

Bukhari:(4)(53)(412) “Allah’s Apostle said on the day of the conquest of Mecca, ‘There is no migration now, only Jihad, holy battle. And when you are called for Jihad, you should come out at once.’”

It is possible to try to dispute this intepretation of a perpetual jihad by saying that what is being referred to is simply a particular historical event in the context of the initial migration or Hijra to Medina, and return in military strength to triumph over the Quraysh at Mecca. However note that what is mentioned is simply “after” or “from now on” and is essentially an open ended expression as far as time is concerned – the Hadiths themselves or the Quran does not specifically rule out an everlasting or perpetual interpretation – any movement of a Muslim group not on pilgrimage (but symbols of pilgrimage can be worn as deception while actually on jihad, and jihad can be undertaken even on Islamic holy months – both can be claimed as Sunnah since there is precedence in the acts of Muhammad himself) since the Hijra can be interpreted therefore as jihad.

Qur’an 4:95 “Not equal are those believers who sit at home and receive no injurious hurt, and those who strive hard, fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause with their wealth and lives. Allah has granted a rank higher to those who strive hard, fighting Jihad with their wealth and bodies to those who sit. Allah prefers Jihadists who strive hard and fight above those who sit
home. He has distinguished his fighters with a huge reward.” Here fighting and receiving physical injury is explicitly mentioned in connection with jihad and is recommended.

Qur’an 33:22 “Among the Believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah and have gone out for Jihad (holy fighting). Some have completed their vow to extreme and have been martyred fighting and dying in His Cause, and some are waiting, prepared for
death in battle.” Here Jihad is declared to be a covenant with Allah and it also refers to physical struggle and possibility of physical death in connection with Jihad which clearly points out that this fighting is not an abstract or spiritual struggle without any physical component.

Bukhari:(4)(52)(44) “A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, ‘Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.’ He replied, ‘I do not find such a deed.’”

Bukhari:(1)(2)(25) “Allah’s Apostle was asked, ‘What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and His Apostle Muhammad.’ The questioner then asked, ‘What is the next best in goodness?’ He replied, ‘To participate in Jihad, religious fighting in Allah’s Cause.’”

In the above Hadiths jihad is considered either the first duty or the second duty of a Muslim.

Nowhere in the Quran and the principal Hadiths being referred to here is the context of “Jihad” mentiond or used in a peaceful sense.

Qur’an 9:111 “Allah has purchased the believers, their lives and their goods. For them is Paradise. They fight in Allah’s Cause, and they slay and are slain; they kill and are killed.”[ Jihad is duty for a Muslim as his life has been purchased by Allah ]

Qur’an 47:4 “So, when you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam.” [ All out warfare or total war as Jihad should be undertaken to subjugate non-believers]

Qur’an 9:91 “There is no blame on those who are old, weak, ill, or who find no resources to spend (on Jihad, holy fighting), if they are sincere (in duty) to Allah and His Messenger.” [All Muslims having resources or fighting strength should undertake Jihad, andonly the destitute and infirm are exempt from this duty]

Qur’an 9:122 “It is not proper for the Believers to all go forth together to fight Jihad. A troop from every expedition should remain behind when others go to war.”

Noble Qur’an 2:190 [Footnote]: “Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.”

Bukhari:(4)(52)(65) “A man came to the Prophet and asked, ‘A man fights for war booty;
another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah’s
Cause?’ The Prophet said, ‘He who fights that Allah’s Word, Islam, should be superior,
fights in Allah’s Cause.’”

Muslim:(40)(20)(4676) “Jihad Is Compulsory.”

Bukhari:(4)(52)(284-5) “When the Divine Inspiration [Qur’an surah]: ‘Those of the believers who sit at home,’ was revealed, Maktum came to the Prophet while he was dictating the verse. ‘O Allah’s Apostle! If I were able, I would take part in Jihad.’ So Allah sent down revelation to His Apostle: ‘…except those who are disabled, blind, or lame.’”

Muslim:(40)(20)(4676) “Believers who sit home and those who go out for Jihad in Allah’s Cause are not equal.”

Bukhari:(4)(52)(54) “The Prophet said, ‘Were it not for the believers who do not want to be without me, I would always go forth in army-units setting out for Jihad.’”

Bukhari:(4)(52)(216) “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Were it not for fear it would be difficult for my followers, I would not have remained behind any army units. No doubt I wish I could fight in Allah’s Cause and be martyred and come to life to be martyred again.’”

Bukhari:(4)(52)(48) “The people said, ‘Allah’s Apostle! Acquaint the people with the good news.’ He said, ‘Paradise has one hundred grades which Allah has reserved for the Mujahidin who fight in His Cause.’”

Bukhari:(4)(51)(47) “‘What causes you to smile, O Allah’s Apostle?’ He said, ‘Some of my followers who in a dream were presented to me as fighters in Allah’s Cause on board a ship amidst the sea caused me to smile.’”

Bukhari:(4)(51)(72) “Our Prophet told us about the message of our Lord: ‘Whoever amongst us
is killed will go to Paradise.’ Umar asked the Prophet, ‘Is it true that our men who are killed
will go to Paradise and the Pagan’s will go to the Hell Fire?’ The Prophet said, ‘Yes.’”

Bukhari:(4)(51)(73) “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Know that Paradise is under the shade of swords.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N80 “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 who also get martyred in Allah’s Cause.’”

Bukhari:(4)(52)(287) “The Emigrants and the Ansar said, ‘We are those who have given a pledge
of allegiance to Muhammad that we will carry on Jihad as long as we live.’” Bukhari:(4)(52)(94) “The Prophet said, ‘Whoever spends two things in Allah’s Cause [his life and his wealth], will be called by all the gatekeepers of Paradise.’”
Bukhari:(4)(52)(130) “Aisha said, ‘Whenever the Prophet intended to proceed on a raid he used
to draw lots amongst his wives and would take the one upon whom the lot fell. Once, before setting out for Jihad, he drew lots and it fell on me; so I went with him.” Bukhari:(4)(52)(134) “We [Aisha]used to take part in holy battles with the Prophet, providing his fighters with water and bringing the killed and the wounded back to Medina.”[women can participate in Jihad as supporting forces]
Bukhari:(4)(52)(175) “He heard the Prophet saying, ‘Paradise is granted to the first batch of my
followers who will undertake a naval expedition.’ The Prophet then said, ‘The first army
amongst my followers who will invade Caesar’s City will be forgiven their sins.’”
Bukhari:(4)(52)(178-9) “The Prophet said, ‘One of the portents of the Hour is that you will fight
people wearing shoes made of hair. And you will fight the Turks, a broad-faced people with small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces will look like shields coated with leather.’”
Bukhari:(4)(52)(182-4) “Allah’s Apostle invoked evil upon the infidels, saying, ‘O Allah! The
revealer of the Holy Book, defeat these people and shake them. Fill the infidels’ houses
and graves with fire.’” Bukhari:(4)(52)(259) “Allah’s Apostle sent us on a mission as a army unit and said, ‘If you find so-and-so and so-and-so, burn both of them with fire.’”

Bukhari:(4)(52)(208) “My brother and I came to the Prophet and asked to migrate. He said,
‘Migration has passed away.’ I replied, ‘For what will you accept our pledge of allegiance?”
He said, ‘I will take the pledge for Islam and Jihad.’” [Jihad can be a precondition for conversion into Islam or allegiance to a Muslim]

Bukhari:(4)(52)(220) “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing
the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror. While I was sleeping,
the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.’ Allah’s
Apostle has left the world and now we are bringing out those treasures.” [ Terror is essential part of Jihad and it can be undertaken to obtain the treasures of the World]

Bukhari:(4)(52)(267) “The Prophet said, ‘Khosrau will be ruined. There won’t be a Persian King
after him. Caesar will be ruined. There will be no Caesar after him. You will spend their
treasures in Allah’s Cause.’ He proclaimed, ‘War is deceit.’” [ War in the context of  Jihad is essentially deceitful in strategy]

Bukhari:(4)(53)(386) “Umar sent Muslims to great countries to fight pagans. He said, ‘I intend
to invade Persia and Rome.’ So, he ordered us to go to [the Persian King] Khosrau. When
we reached the enemy, Khosrau’s representative came out with 40,000 warriors, saying,
‘Talk to me! Who are you?’ Mughira replied, ‘We are Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous
life. We used to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, our Prophet,
the Messenger of our Lord, ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or pay us
the Jizyah tribute tax in submission. Our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says: ‘Whoever
amongst us is killed as a martyr shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as
he has never seen, and whoever survives shall become your master.’” [Zaziya Tax, pleasure of Paradise if a martyr, or power over the defeated can be sufficient reason for Jihad]

Tabari IX:49 “Muhammad urged the Muslims by way of a meeting to help cover the expenses
of Jihad in Allah’s Cause. The men provided mounts in anticipation of Allah’s reward.”Ishaq:603 “The Apostle went forward energetically with his preparations and ordered the men to get ready with all speed. He urged Muslims to help provide the money, mounts, and means to do Allah’s work. Those who contributed earned rewards with Allah.” [Allahs reward is sufficient cause to provide for Jihad]

Tabari IX:76 “Malik has reported to me that you were the first from Himyar to embrace Islam and that you have killed infidels, so rejoice at your good fortune.” Qur’an 047.033Believers, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger! Those who disbelieve and hinder men from the Cause of Allah, He will not pardon. Do not falter; become fainthearted, or weak-kneed, crying for peace. You have the upper hand.” [Here it is clear that Jihad is not peaceful]

Muslim:(29)(20)(4636) “The Messenger of Allah was asked: ‘What deed could be equivalent to Jihad in the Cause of Allah? He answered: ‘You do not have the strength to do that deed.’ The question was repeated twice or thrice. Every time he answered: ‘You do not have the strength to do it.’ When the question was asked for the third time, he said: ‘One who goes out for Jihad is like a person who keeps fasts and stands in prayer forever, never exhibiting any weariness until the Mujihid returns from Jihad.’” Muslim:(29)(20)(4638) “As I was (sitting) near the pulpit of the Messenger a man said: ‘I do not care if, after embracing Islam, I do not do any good deed (except) distributing drinking water to pilgrims.’ Another said: ‘I do not care if I do not do any good deed beyond maintenance service to the Sacred Mosque.’ Yet another said: ‘Jihad in the Way of Allah is better than what you have said.’ When prayer was over, I entered (the apartment of the Prophet) and asked his verdict about the matter. It was upon this that Allah, the Almighty and Exalted, revealed the Qur’anic Verse: ‘Do you make the giving of drinking water to the pilgrims and the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque equal to (the service of those) who believe in Allah and strive hard and fight Jihad in His Cause. They are not equal. Those who believed and fought Jihad in Allah’s Cause with their wealth and their lives are far higher in degree with Allah.’” Muslim:C30B20N4639 “The Messenger said: ‘Leaving for Jihad in the Way of Allah in the morning or in the evening will merit a reward better than the world and all that is in it.’” [ Higher esteem in the eye of Allah is sufficient cause for Jihad]

Muslim:(32)(20)(4646) “Muhammad stood up among his Companions to deliver his sermon in
which he told them that Jihad in Allah’s Cause and belief in Allah were the most meritorious
of acts. A man stood and said: ‘Messenger, do you think that if I am killed in the Way of Allah,
my sins will be blotted out?’ The Messenger said: ‘Yes, in case you are killed in Allah’s
Cause and you always fought facing the enemy, never turning your back upon him.’ The
man asked (again).’ The Messenger said: ‘Yes, if you always fought facing the enemy and
never retreated. Gabriel has told me this.’”[desire to erase sins is sufficent cause  for Jihad]

Bukhari:(4)(52)(104) “The Prophet said, ‘Good will remain in the foreheads of horses for Jihad

for they bring about a reward in Paradise or booty.’” (105) “The Prophet said, ‘If somebody keeps a horse in Allah’s Cause motivated by His promise, then he will be rewarded for what the horse has eaten or drunk and for its dung and urine.’” [Maintaining horses for Jihad  is a  paradise giving  action]

Ishaq:385 “Amr Jamuh was a very lame man. He had four lion-like sons who were present at
the Apostle’s battles. At Uhud he came to the Prophet and told him that his sons wanted
to keep him back and prevent his joining the army. ‘Yet, by Allah, I hope to tread in the
Heavenly Garden of Paradise despite my lameness. The Apostle said, ‘Allah has excused
you, and Jihad is not incumbent on you.’ Then Muhammad turned to his sons and said,
‘You need not prevent him. Perhaps Allah will favor him with martyrdom.’ So the lame old
man went into battle and was killed.”[Martyrdom and lure of Paradise is a sufficient reason for Jihad]

Ishaq:445 “The rules of the Prayer of Fear were revealed during this raid [4:102]. Muhammad
divided the Companions into groups; one stood facing the enemy; the other stood behind
the Prophet. He magnified Allah by shouting ‘Allahu Akbar.’ Then he and those behind him
performed a rak’ah and prostrated themselves.”

Bukhari:(4)(52)(68) “When Allah’s Apostle returned from the battle of the Trench, he put down
his arms and took a bath. Then Gabriel whose head was covered with dust, came to him
saying, ‘You have put down your arms! By Allah, I have not put down my arms yet.’ Allah’s
Apostle said, ‘Where to go now?’ Gabriel said, ‘This way,’ pointing towards the tribe of
Qurayza. So Allah’s Apostle went out towards them.” [ Divine inspiration from an Angel is sufficient cause to go to jihad]

Bukhari:(4)(52)(280) “When the Qurayza were ready to accept judgment, Sa’d proclaimed, ‘I
give the judgment that their men should be killed and their children and women should be
taken as prisoners.’ The Prophet remarked, ‘You have judged them with the judgment of
King Allah.’”

Ishaq:485 “Muhammad found that the Lihyan had been warned. They had taken secure positions
on the mountaintops. After he failed to take them by surprise as he intended, he said, ‘If we
go down to Usfan, the Meccans will think we have come to [terrorize] them.’”

Ishaq:486 “If the Lihyan had remained in their homes they would have met bands of fine fighters, audacious warriors who terrorize. They would have confronted an irresistible force glittering like
stars. But they were weasels, sticking to the clefts of rocks instead.”

Ishaq:489 “Do the bastards think that we are not their equal in fighting? We are men who
believe there is no shame in killing. We don’t turn from piercing lances. We smite the
heads of the haughty with blows that quash the zeal of the unyielding [non-Muslims]. We’re
heroes, protecting our war banner. We are a noble force, as fierce as wolves. We preserve
our honor and protect our property by smashing heads.”

Tabari VIII:48 “Then he set out at full speed after the enemy—he was like a beast of prey.”

Ishaq:490/Tabari VIII:51 “The Muslims advanced and fought fiercely. Allah caused the Mustaliq
[non-Muslims] to fight and killed some of them. Allah gave the Apostle their children,
women, and property as booty.”

Muslim:(19)(4292)Aun inquired whether it was necessary to extend an invitation to submit to Islam before murdering infidels in the fight. Nafi told me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger made a raid upon Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. This Tradition was related by one who was among the raiding troops.

Tabari VIII:56/Ishaq:493 “According to Aisha: ‘A great number of Mustaliq were wounded. The
Messenger took many captives, and they were divided among all the Muslims.’”

Muslim:(26)(20)(4614) “I saw Allah’s Messenger twisting the forelock of a horse with his fingers
as he was saying: ‘A great benefit. A reward for rearing them for Jihad. The spoils of war
have been tied to the forelocks of horses.’”

Muslim:(28)(20)(4626) “Merit Of Jihad And Campaigning In Allah’s Cause: The Apostle 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 Apostle. He is committed that He will either
admit him to Paradise or bring him back to his home with a reward or his share of booty.
If a person gets wounded in Allah’s Cause he will arrive on the Day of Judgment with his
wound in the same condition as it was when it was first inflicted; its color will be blood but
its smell will be musk perfume. If it were not too hard on Muslims I would not lag behind any
raid going out to fight in the Cause of Allah. But I do not have abundant means to provide
them (the Mujahids [Islamic terrorists]) with riding beasts, nor have they all have the
means (to provide themselves with the weapons of Jihad). I love to fight in the Way of Allah
and be killed, to fight and again be killed and to fight and be killed.’”

Tabari VIII:123/Ishaq:515 “Allah’s Apostle besieged the final [Jewish] community until they
could hold out no longer. Finally, when they were certain that they would perish, they
asked Muhammad to banish them and spare their lives, which he did. The Prophet took
possession of all their property.”

Bukhari:(5)(59)(510) “Allah’s Apostle reached Khaybar at night. It was his habit that, whenever he reached an enemy at night, he would not attack them till it was morning. [This is probably a lie : Muhammad did adopt night attacks – (4)(52)(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.” ] When morning came, the Jews came out with their spades and baskets. When they saw the Prophet, they said, ‘Muhammad! O dear God! It’s Muhammad and his army!’ The Prophet shouted, ‘Allahu-Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a nation, evil will be the
morning for those who have been warned.’”

To be continued…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

10 Responses to “Islam and non-Muslims”

RSS Feed for Dikgaj’s Weblog Comments RSS Feed

“…It is strange that most of the present-day Muslim scholars refuse to cite the actual statements made about Hindus and Hinduism by their heroes such as Ahmad Sirhindi and Shah Waliullah while praising them to the skies as saviours of Islam in India. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Allama lqbal were shining examples of this intriguing silence. The late Professor Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi published two significant books on the history of Islam in India – Ulema in Politics (1972), and The Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent (1977). He has devoted many pages to Ahmad Sirhindi and Shah Waliullah in both the books. But he has not cited a single sentence written or spoken by the ‘great sufis’ on how they looked at Hindus and Hinduism. I have no doubt that Nizami has also suppressed those letters of Shah Waliullah in which the latter has poured out his heart about kufr and the kafirs. It is only Professor S.A.A Rizvi who has taken us into the secret chambers so to say. Professor Rizvi is a Shia. And the venom which characters like Ahmad Sirhindi have poured on Hindus and Hinduism is quite comparable to that which they poured out on Shi’as and Shi’ism.

Professor Rizvi has cited select passages from the original Persian of Ahmad Sirhindi’s letters. It is only recently that the letters have become available in Urdu translation. Ahmad Sirhindi wrote to many Muslim notables in the reign of Akbar and Jahangir. Some of these letters were in strong protest against Akbar’s liberal, equitable policies vis-à-vis Hindus. One of Sirhindi’s patrons was Abdul Rahim Khan-i-Khanan whom many Hindus cherish as a Hindi poet and a devotee of Krishna. It is unfortunate that quite a few recipients of these letters cannot be identified straight away because they are addressed by their titles and not by their names. As the letters are not dated, it is difficult to say whether the bearer of a particular title belonged to the reign of Akbar or Jahangir. The same title was given to several persons in succession. I reproduce below some passages from these significant letters in order to show how the mind of this great sufi functioned. He was the leading light of the Naqshbandi sufi silsila, and the foremost disciple of Khwaja Baqi Billah who brought this silsila to India in the reign of Akbar. I may add that the Prophet appeared quite frequently to both Baqi Billah and Ahmad Sirhindi in their dreams or states of trance, and gave guidance to them.

Some of his statements translated from the original Urdu script have been reproduced below:

“It is said that the Sharia prospers under the “shadow of the sword” (al-Shara’ tahat al-sait). And the glory of the holy Sharia depends on the kings of Islam.”

“Islam and infidelity (kufr) contradict one another. To establish the one means eradicating the other, the coming together of these contradictories being impossible. Therefore, Allah has commanded his Prophet to wage war (jihad) against the infidels, and be harsh with them. The glory is Islam consists in the humiliation and degradation of infidels and infidelity. He, who honours the infidels, insults Islam. Honouring (the infidels) does not mean that they are accorded dignity, and made to sit in high places. It means allowing them to be in our company, to sit with them, and talk to them. They should be kept away like dogs. If there is some worldly purpose or work which depends upon them, and cannot be served without their help, they may be contacted while keeping in mind all the time that they are not worthy of respect. The best course according to Islam is that they should not be contacted even for worldly purposes. Allah has proclaimed in his Holy Word (Quran) that they are his and his Prophet’s enemies. And mixing with these enemies of Allah and his Prophet or showing affection for them, is one of the greatest crimes.”

“The abolition of jizyah in Hindustan is a result of friendship, which (Hindus) have acquired with the rulers of this land… What right had the rulers to stop exacting jizyah? Allah himself has commended imposition of jizyah for their (infidels) humiliation and degradation. What is required is their disgrace, and the prestige and power of Muslims. The slaughter of non-Muslims means gain for Islam. To consult them (the kafirs) and then act according to their advice means honouring the enemies (of Islam), which is strictly forbidden.”

“The prayer (goodwill) of these enemies of Islam is false and fruitless. It should never be called for because it can only add to their numbers. If the infidels pray, they will surely seek the intercession of their idols, which is taking things too far. A wise man has said that unless you become a dewanah (crazy) you cannot attain Islam. The state of this mania means going beyond considerations of profit and loss. Whatever one gains in the service of Islam should suffice…”

“Ram and Krishan whom Hindus worship are insignificant creatures, and have been begotten by their parents… Ram could not protect his wife whom Ravan took away by force. How can he help others? It is thousands of times shameful that some people should think of Ram and Krishan as rulers of all the worlds. To think that Ram and Rahman are the same, is extremely foolish. The creator and the creature can never be one… The controller of the Cosmos was never called Ram and Krishan before, the latter were born. What has happened after their birth that they have come to be equated with Allah, and the worship of Ram and Krishan is described as the worship of Allah? May Allah save us!”

“Our prophets who number one hundred and twenty four thousand have encouraged the created ones to worship the Creator. The gods of the Hindus (on the other hand) have encouraged the people to worship them (the gods) instead. They are themselves misguided, and are leading others astray. See, how the (two) ways are different!”

“Before that kafir (Guru Arjun Dev) was executed, this recluse (meaning himself) had seen in a dream that the reigning king had smashed the skull of idolatry. Indeed, he was a great idolater, and the leader of the idolaters, and the chief of unbelievers. May Allah blast him! The Holy Prophet who is the ruler of religion as well as the world, has cursed the idolaters as follows in some of his prayers – “O Allah, demean their society, create divisions in their ranks, destroy their homes, and get at them like the mighty one.”

“It is required by religion (Islam) that jihad should be waged against the unbelievers, and that they should be dealt with harshly. It is obligatory on Muslims to acquaint the king of Islam with the evil customs of false religions. Maybe the king has no knowledge of these evil customs. Some Ulama of Islam should come forward, and proclaim the evils present in their (unbelievers’) ways… It will be no excuse or, the Day of Judgment that they did not proclaim the tenets of the Sharia because they were not called upon (to do so).”

“Therefore, it is necessary that infidelity should be cursed in order to serve the faith (Islam). Cursing unbelief in the heart is the lesser way. The greater way is to curse it in the heart as well as with the body. In short, cursing means to nourish enmity towards enemies of the true faith, whether that enmity is harboured in the heart when there is fear of injury from them (infidels), or it is harboured in the heart as well as served with the body when there is no fear of injury from them. In the opinion of this recluse, there is no greater way to obtain the blessings of Allah than to curse the enemies of the faith (be impatient with them). For Allah himself harbours enmity towards the infidels and infidelity…”

“Once I went to visit a sick man who was close to death. When I meditated on him, I saw that his heart was layered with darkness. I intended to remove those darkness. But he was not yet ready for it… When I meditated more deeply, I discovered that that darkness had gathered due to his friendship with the infidels. They could not be dispersed easily. He had to suffer torments of hell before he could get purged of them.”

“Every person cherishes some longing in his heart. The only longing which this recluse (meaning himself) cherishes is that the enemies of Allah and his Prophet should be roughed up. The accursed ones should be humiliated, and their false gods disgraced and defiled. I know that Allah likes and loves no other act more than this. That is why I have been encouraging you again and again to act in this way. Now that you have yourself arrived at that place, and have been appointed to defile and insult that dirty spot and its inhabitants, I feel grateful for this grace (from Allah). There are many who go to this place for pilgrimage. Allah in his kindness has not inflicted this punishment on us. After giving thanks to Allah, you should do your best to ruin that place and their false gods … whether the idols are carved or uncarved. Let us hope that you will not act slow. Physical weakness and severity of the cold weather, comes in my way. Otherwise, I would have presented myself, and helped you in doing the job. I would have liked to participate in the ceremony and mutilate the stones.”

This is short history of the love that Sufis has for the native Indians…”
http://www.islam-watch.org/Ibrahim.Lone/Sufis-of-India-Villains-in-the-Guise-of-Saints.htm

Symposium: Convert or Die
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2475

“…Although [he] acknowledges the forced conversion of pagans in Arabia, he ignores its Koranic source(s), in particular the timeless war proclamation (the Koran being the “uncreated word of Allah” for Muslims) on generic pagans (not simply Arabian pagans), Koran 9:5, which offers pagans the stark “choice” of conversion or death: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” . Thus for the idolatrous Hindus (and the same applies to enormous populations of pagans/animists wherever Muslim jihadist armies encountered them in history, including, sadly, contemporary Sudan) for example, enslaved in vast numbers during the waves of jihad conquests that ravaged the Indian subcontinent for well over a half millennium (beginning at the outset of the 8th century C.E.), the guiding principles of Islamic law regarding their fate —derived from Koran 9:5—were unequivocally coercive. Jihad slavery also contributed substantively to the growth of the Muslim population in India. K.S. Lal elucidates both of these points:

The Hindus who naturally resisted Muslim occupation were considered to be rebels. Besides they were idolaters (mushrik) and could not be accorded the status of Kafirs, of the People of the Book – Christians and Jews… Muslim scriptures and treatises advocated jihad against idolaters for whom the law advocated only Islam or death… The fact was that the Muslim regime was giving [them] a choice between Islam and death only. Those who were killed in battle were dead and gone; but their dependents were made slaves. They ceased to be Hindus; they were made Musalmans in course of time if not immediately after captivity…slave taking in India was the most flourishing and successful [Muslim] missionary activity…Every Sultan, as [a] champion of Islam, considered it a political necessity to plant or raise [the] Muslim population all over India for the Islamization of the country and countering native resistance.

The late Rudi Paret was a seminal 20th century scholar of the Koran, and its exegesis. Paret’s considered analysis of Koran 2:256, puts this verse in the overall context of Koranic injunctions regarding pagans, specifically, and further concludes that 2:256 is a statement of resignation, not a prohibition on forced conversion.

After the community which the Prophet had established had extended its power over the whole of Arabia, the pagan Arabs were forcefully compelled to accept Islam stated more accurately, they had to choose either to accept Islam or death in battle against the superior power of the Muslims (cf. surahs 8:12; 47:4). This regulation was later sanctioned in Islamic law. All this stands in open contradiction to the alleged meaning of the Quranic statement, noted above: la ikraha fi d-dini. The idolaters (mushrikun) were clearly compelled to accept Islam – unless they preferred to let themselves be killed. [Note-Koran 9:5];

In view of these circumstances it makes sense to consider another meaning. Perhaps originally the statement la ikraha fi d-dini did not mean that in matters of religion one ought not to use compulsion against another but that one could not use compulsion against another (through the simple proclamation of religious truth).

Lest one think such coercion applies only to “pagans”, Princeton scholar Patricia Crone makes the cogent argument that coercion may apply during any act of jihad resulting in captivity (i.e., jihad as the institution for extension of Islamic suzerainty, including, for our example, the jihad kidnapping of the two Fox reporters). Dr. Crone, in her recent analysis of the origins and development of Islamic political thought, makes an important nexus between the mass captivity and enslavement of non-Muslims during jihad campaigns, and the prominent role of coercion in these major modalities of Islamization. Following a successful jihad, she notes:

Male captives might be killed or enslaved, whatever their religious affiliation. People of the Book were not protected by Islamic law until they had accepted dhimma. Captives might also be given the choice between Islam and death, or they might pronounce the confession of faith of their own accord to avoid execution: jurists ruled that their change of status was to be accepted even though they had only converted out of fear.

An unapologetic view of Islamic history reveals that forced conversions to Islam are not exceptional—they have been the norm, across three continents—Asia, Africa, and Europe—for over 13 centuries. Orders for conversion were decreed under all the early Islamic dynasties—Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, and Mamluks. Additional extensive examples of forced conversion were recorded during the jihad campaigns and rule of the Berber Almoravids and Almohads in North Africa and Spain (11th through 13th centuries), under both Seljuk and Ottoman Turkish rule (the latter until its collapse in the 20th century), the Shi’ite Safavid and Qajar dynasties of Persia/Iran, and during the jihad ravages on the Indian subcontinent, beginning with the early 11th century campaigns of Mahmud of Ghazni, and recurring under the Delhi Sultanate, and Moghul dynasty until the collapse of Muslim suzerainty in the 18th century following the British conquest of India.

Moreover, during jihad—even the jihad campaigns of the 20th century [i.e., the jihad genocide of the Armenians during World War I, the Moplah jihad in Southern India [1921], the jihad against the Assyrians of Iraq [early 1930s], the jihads against the Chinese of Indonesia and the Christian Ibo of southern Nigeria in the 1960s, and the jihad against the Christians and Animists of the southern Sudan from 1983 to 2001], the dubious concept (see Paret, above) of “no compulsion” (Koran 2:256; which was cited with tragic irony during the Fox reporters “confessional”!), has always been meaningless. A consistent practice was to enslave populations taken from outside the boundaries of the “Dar al Islam”, where Islamic rule (and Law) prevailed. Inevitably fresh non-Muslim slaves, including children (for example, the infamous devshirme system in Ottoman Turkey, which spanned three centuries and enslaved 500,000 to one million Balkan Christian adolescent males, forcibly converting them to Islam), were Islamized within a generation, their ethnic and linguistic origins erased. Two enduring and important mechanisms for this conversion were concubinage and the slave militias—practices still evident in the contemporary jihad waged by the Arab Muslim Khartoum government against the southern Sudanese Christians and Animists. And Julia Duin reported in early 2002 that murderous jihad terror campaigns—including, prominently, forced conversions to Islam—continued to be waged against the Christians of Indonesia’s Moluccan Islands….”

Symposium: Convert or Die
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2475

“…Although (he) acknowledges the forced conversion of pagans in Arabia, he ignores its Koranic source(s), in particular the timeless war proclamation (the Koran being the “uncreated word of Allah” for Muslims) on generic pagans (not simply Arabian pagans), Koran 9:5, which offers pagans the stark “choice” of conversion or death: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” . Thus for the idolatrous Hindus (and the same applies to enormous populations of pagans/animists wherever Muslim jihadist armies encountered them in history, including, sadly, contemporary Sudan) for example, enslaved in vast numbers during the waves of jihad conquests that ravaged the Indian subcontinent for well over a half millennium (beginning at the outset of the 8th century C.E.), the guiding principles of Islamic law regarding their fate —derived from Koran 9:5—were unequivocally coercive. Jihad slavery also contributed substantively to the growth of the Muslim population in India. K.S. Lal elucidates both of these points:
The Hindus who naturally resisted Muslim occupation were considered to be rebels. Besides they were idolaters (mushrik) and could not be accorded the status of Kafirs, of the People of the Book – Christians and Jews… Muslim scriptures and treatises advocated jihad against idolaters for whom the law advocated only Islam or death… The fact was that the Muslim regime was giving [them] a choice between Islam and death only. Those who were killed in battle were dead and gone; but their dependents were made slaves. They ceased to be Hindus; they were made Musalmans in course of time if not immediately after captivity…slave taking in India was the most flourishing and successful [Muslim] missionary activity…Every Sultan, as [a] champion of Islam, considered it a political necessity to plant or raise [the] Muslim population all over India for the Islamization of the country and countering native resistance.
The late Rudi Paret was a seminal 20th century scholar of the Koran, and its exegesis. Paret’s considered analysis of Koran 2:256, puts this verse in the overall context of Koranic injunctions regarding pagans, specifically, and further concludes that 2:256 is a statement of resignation, not a prohibition on forced conversion.
After the community which the Prophet had established had extended its power over the whole of Arabia, the pagan Arabs were forcefully compelled to accept Islam stated more accurately, they had to choose either to accept Islam or death in battle against the superior power of the Muslims (cf. surahs 8:12; 47:4). This regulation was later sanctioned in Islamic law. All this stands in open contradiction to the alleged meaning of the Quranic statement, noted above: la ikraha fi d-dini. The idolaters (mushrikun) were clearly compelled to accept Islam – unless they preferred to let themselves be killed. [Note-Koran 9:5];
In view of these circumstances it makes sense to consider another meaning. Perhaps originally the statement la ikraha fi d-dini did not mean that in matters of religion one ought not to use compulsion against another but that one could not use compulsion against another (through the simple proclamation of religious truth).
Lest one think such coercion applies only to “pagans”, Princeton scholar Patricia Crone makes the cogent argument that coercion may apply during any act of jihad resulting in captivity (i.e., jihad as the institution for extension of Islamic suzerainty, including, for our example, the jihad kidnapping of the two Fox reporters). Dr. Crone, in her recent analysis of the origins and development of Islamic political thought, makes an important nexus between the mass captivity and enslavement of non-Muslims during jihad campaigns, and the prominent role of coercion in these major modalities of Islamization. Following a successful jihad, she notes:
Male captives might be killed or enslaved, whatever their religious affiliation. People of the Book were not protected by Islamic law until they had accepted dhimma. Captives might also be given the choice between Islam and death, or they might pronounce the confession of faith of their own accord to avoid execution: jurists ruled that their change of status was to be accepted even though they had only converted out of fear.
An unapologetic view of Islamic history reveals that forced conversions to Islam are not exceptional—they have been the norm, across three continents—Asia, Africa, and Europe—for over 13 centuries. Orders for conversion were decreed under all the early Islamic dynasties—Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, and Mamluks. Additional extensive examples of forced conversion were recorded during the jihad campaigns and rule of the Berber Almoravids and Almohads in North Africa and Spain (11th through 13th centuries), under both Seljuk and Ottoman Turkish rule (the latter until its collapse in the 20th century), the Shi’ite Safavid and Qajar dynasties of Persia/Iran, and during the jihad ravages on the Indian subcontinent, beginning with the early 11th century campaigns of Mahmud of Ghazni, and recurring under the Delhi Sultanate, and Moghul dynasty until the collapse of Muslim suzerainty in the 18th century following the British conquest of India.
Moreover, during jihad—even the jihad campaigns of the 20th century [i.e., the jihad genocide of the Armenians during World War I, the Moplah jihad in Southern India [1921], the jihad against the Assyrians of Iraq [early 1930s], the jihads against the Chinese of Indonesia and the Christian Ibo of southern Nigeria in the 1960s, and the jihad against the Christians and Animists of the southern Sudan from 1983 to 2001], the dubious concept (see Paret, above) of “no compulsion” (Koran 2:256; which was cited with tragic irony during the Fox reporters “confessional”!), has always been meaningless. A consistent practice was to enslave populations taken from outside the boundaries of the “Dar al Islam”, where Islamic rule (and Law) prevailed. Inevitably fresh non-Muslim slaves, including children (for example, the infamous devshirme system in Ottoman Turkey, which spanned three centuries and enslaved 500,000 to one million Balkan Christian adolescent males, forcibly converting them to Islam), were Islamized within a generation, their ethnic and linguistic origins erased. Two enduring and important mechanisms for this conversion were concubinage and the slave militias—practices still evident in the contemporary jihad waged by the Arab Muslim Khartoum government against the southern Sudanese Christians and Animists. And Julia Duin reported in early 2002 that murderous jihad terror campaigns—including, prominently, forced conversions to Islam—continued to be waged against the Christians of Indonesia’s Moluccan Islands….”

Symposium: Convert or Die
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2475
“…Although [he] acknowledges the forced conversion of pagans in Arabia, he ignores its Koranic source(s), in particular the timeless war proclamation (the Koran being the “uncreated word of Allah” for Muslims) on generic pagans (not simply Arabian pagans), Koran 9:5, which offers pagans the stark “choice” of conversion or death: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” . Thus for the idolatrous Hindus (and the same applies to enormous populations of pagans/animists wherever Muslim jihadist armies encountered them in history, including, sadly, contemporary Sudan) for example, enslaved in vast numbers during the waves of jihad conquests that ravaged the Indian subcontinent for well over a half millennium (beginning at the outset of the 8th century C.E.), the guiding principles of Islamic law regarding their fate —derived from Koran 9:5—were unequivocally coercive. Jihad slavery also contributed substantively to the growth of the Muslim population in India. K.S. Lal elucidates both of these points:
The Hindus who naturally resisted Muslim occupation were considered to be rebels. Besides they were idolaters (mushrik) and could not be accorded the status of Kafirs, of the People of the Book – Christians and Jews… Muslim scriptures and treatises advocated jihad against idolaters for whom the law advocated only Islam or death… The fact was that the Muslim regime was giving [them] a choice between Islam and death only. Those who were killed in battle were dead and gone; but their dependents were made slaves. They ceased to be Hindus; they were made Musalmans in course of time if not immediately after captivity…slave taking in India was the most flourishing and successful [Muslim] missionary activity…Every Sultan, as [a] champion of Islam, considered it a political necessity to plant or raise [the] Muslim population all over India for the Islamization of the country and countering native resistance.
The late Rudi Paret was a seminal 20th century scholar of the Koran, and its exegesis. Paret’s considered analysis of Koran 2:256, puts this verse in the overall context of Koranic injunctions regarding pagans, specifically, and further concludes that 2:256 is a statement of resignation, not a prohibition on forced conversion.
After the community which the Prophet had established had extended its power over the whole of Arabia, the pagan Arabs were forcefully compelled to accept Islam stated more accurately, they had to choose either to accept Islam or death in battle against the superior power of the Muslims (cf. surahs 8:12; 47:4). This regulation was later sanctioned in Islamic law. All this stands in open contradiction to the alleged meaning of the Quranic statement, noted above: la ikraha fi d-dini. The idolaters (mushrikun) were clearly compelled to accept Islam – unless they preferred to let themselves be killed. [Note-Koran 9:5];
In view of these circumstances it makes sense to consider another meaning. Perhaps originally the statement la ikraha fi d-dini did not mean that in matters of religion one ought not to use compulsion against another but that one could not use compulsion against another (through the simple proclamation of religious truth).
(cont)

Convert or Die Symposium
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2475

“…the timeless war proclamation (the Koran being the “uncreated word of Allah” for Muslims) on generic pagans (not simply Arabian pagans), Koran 9:5, which offers pagans the stark “choice” of conversion or death: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” . Thus for the idolatrous Hindus (and the same applies to enormous populations of pagans/animists wherever Muslim jihadist armies encountered them in history, including, sadly, contemporary Sudan) for example, enslaved in vast numbers during the waves of jihad conquests that ravaged the Indian subcontinent for well over a half millennium (beginning at the outset of the 8th century C.E.), the guiding principles of Islamic law regarding their fate —derived from Koran 9:5—were unequivocally coercive. Jihad slavery also contributed substantively to the growth of the Muslim population in India. K.S. Lal elucidates both of these points:

The Hindus who naturally resisted Muslim occupation were considered to be rebels. Besides they were idolaters (mushrik) and could not be accorded the status of Kafirs, of the People of the Book – Christians and Jews… Muslim scriptures and treatises advocated jihad against idolaters for whom the law advocated only Islam or death… The fact was that the Muslim regime was giving [them] a choice between Islam and death only. Those who were killed in battle were dead and gone; but their dependents were made slaves. They ceased to be Hindus; they were made Musalmans in course of time if not immediately after captivity…slave taking in India was the most flourishing and successful [Muslim] missionary activity…Every Sultan, as [a] champion of Islam, considered it a political necessity to plant or raise [the] Muslim population all over India for the Islamization of the country and countering native resistance.

The late Rudi Paret was a seminal 20th century scholar of the Koran, and its exegesis. Paret’s considered analysis of Koran 2:256, puts this verse in the overall context of Koranic injunctions regarding pagans, specifically, and further concludes that 2:256 is a statement of resignation, not a prohibition on forced conversion.

After the community which the Prophet had established had extended its power over the whole of Arabia, the pagan Arabs were forcefully compelled to accept Islam stated more accurately, they had to choose either to accept Islam or death in battle against the superior power of the Muslims (cf. surahs 8:12; 47:4). This regulation was later sanctioned in Islamic law. All this stands in open contradiction to the alleged meaning of the Quranic statement, noted above: la ikraha fi d-dini. The idolaters (mushrikun) were clearly compelled to accept Islam – unless they preferred to let themselves be killed. [Note-Koran 9:5];

In view of these circumstances it makes sense to consider another meaning. Perhaps originally the statement la ikraha fi d-dini did not mean that in matters of religion one ought not to use compulsion against another but that one could not use compulsion against another (through the simple proclamation of religious truth)…”

Polytheists – the Kalasha in Pakistan endangered by increasing Islamic fundamentalism: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/pakistan/090225/the-fate-the-kalasha?page=0,0

Dikgaj, I wanted to let you know about this site http://www.answeringmuslims.com
They are Christians but they pick apart Islamic theology pretty well.

Hello there, You’ve performed an excellent job. I’ll definitely digg it and in my view suggest to my friends. I’m sure they’ll be benefited from this web site.

Please do continue this article.

Sir, you are doing a great job !


Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: