Commonly Misquoted Verses and Narrations

Content

1. Introduction
2. Verse 1: "Fighting is ordained for you..." (2:216)
3. Verse 2: "Not equal are those who sit at home..." (4:95)
4. Verse 3: "Among the believers are men having fulfilled their covenant..." (33:23)
5. Verse 4: "When you meet the infidels, smite their necks..." (47:4)
6. Verse 5: "There is no blame on those who are old..." (9:91)
7. Verse 6: "Slay them wherever you catch them..." (2:191)
8. Verse 7: "But if they turn away, catch and slaughter them..." (4:89)
9. Verse 8: "Fight the pagans wherever you see them..." (9:5)
10. Abrogated?
11. Verse 9: "They ask you about fighting in the holy month..." (2:217-218)
12. Verses 10: "Fight in God's cause..." (2:244) & (4:76)
13. Verse 11: "Fight those who believe not in God..." (9:29)
14. Similar Narration: "I have been ordered to fight..."
15. Verse 12: "Ruthless to the disbelievers..." (5:54) & (48:29)
16. Verses 13: "I will instil terror into the hearts..." (8:12-13)
17. Verse 14: "The punishment for those who wage war..." (5:33)
18. Similar Narration: "A group from the Ukil/Urayna tribe..."
19. Verse 15: "Take not the Jews and Christians as friends..." (5:51)
20. Misquoted Narrations
21. Narration 1: "such a deed as equals Jihad..."
22. Narration 2: "There is no migration now, only Jihad..."
23. Narration 3: "Paradise is under the shade of swords..."
24. Narration 4: "...I am bringing you slaughter!"
25. Narration 5: "I have been made victorious with terror..."
26. Narration 6: "Expel them from the Arabian peninsula..."
27. Narration 7: "Whoever replaces his religion, execute him"
28. Narration 8: "...They are from them"
29. Conclusion
By Ansar Al-'Adl (www.islamicboard.com) Introduction In our time, we find it becoming more and more common for some
people to misquote verses from the Qur’an, or narrations of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), in order to
support their twisted presentation of Islam as a hostile and violent religion. The majority of these verses are either
mistranslated, taken out of context, or misunderstood due to lack of basic knowledge. For example, Jihad is misunderstood
by many people today as a “holy war”, hence, whenever it is praised in the Qur’an, it is seen in a
negative light. Jihad in reality is a positive concept, not a negative one, and for this reason, one must read about Jihad before
reading the rest of this article. An explanation of Jihad can be read here. This article intends to clarify the misconception that
Islam promotes violence and hatred by re-examining the misquoted verses and narrations. As we shall see, once understood
properly, it becomes apparent that Islam teaches nothing but peace, harmony and tolerance for all humanity. We have
selected and quoted the verses/narrations in the way that they are circulated by the Islam-haters, so that the poor translation
and other deceptive tactics of the Islam-Haters may be exposed. Misquoted Verse #1 Qur’an 2:216 Jihad (holy
fighting in God'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 God knows, and you know not. The first mistake in this translation is
that this Qur’anic verse actually does not use the word “Jihad”. This verse actually uses the word
“Qitaal”, which refers to physical fighting. Fighting is ordained for Muslims in order to defend themselves and
their rights, as well as the rights of others. The obligation to physically defend one’s rights, and to establish justice was
elaborated on in the previously mentioned article on Jihad. It is sufficient to quote a verse from the Qur’an in this
regard: 4:75 And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill-treated and
oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are
oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help." It is most certainly a
duty of all human beings to help each other from oppression and injustice. This is what Islam teaches. Commenting on verse
2:216, Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes: To fight in the cause of Truth is one of the highest forms of charity. What can you offer
that is more precious than your own life? But here again the limitations come in. If you are a mere brawler, or a selfish
aggressive person, or a vainglorious bully, you deserve the highest censure. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, Text, Translation
and Commentary ) Therefore, the fighting ordained by God in the Qur'an is the fighting to establish justice and security in
the land, and this is a duty upon all human beings. We will always hope for peace, but we must realize that without justice,
freedom, rights and equity, peace will never be able to survive. Likewise, on verse 2:216, Abdul Majid Daryabadi writes:
War, it has been truly said, is sanctioned by the law of nature – the constitution of man and the constitution of society
– and is at times a biological and sociological necessity. Islam, the ideal and practical religion has allowed it, but only
in cases of sheer necessity. (Daryabadi, The Glorious Qur’an, emphasis added) Islam has designated war as the
last resort and only in cases of sheer necessity, in order for us to defend the rights of ourselves and others. Also, the picture
becomes even more clear when we take into consideration the historical context of the revelation. Abdullah Yusuf Ali goes on
to explain the historical context in his commentary on verse 2:217: The intolerance and persecution of the Pagan clique
at Mecca caused untold hardships to the holy Messenger of Islam and his early disciples. They bore all with meekness and
long-suffering patience until the holy one permitted them to take up arms in self-defence… (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an,
Text, Translation and Commentary ) In light of the above quote, it becomes apparent that fighting has been especially
ordained in conditions of severe persecution and hardship. Consequently, the Muslims are required to defend themselves
from oppression and establish justice. To abstain from helping those under oppression is cowardice. Abdul Majid Daryabadi
also explains the historical context of the verse: Persecuted, harassed, afflicted, poverty-ridden, exiled, and small in
number as the Muslims were at the time of the enactment of warfare, it was but natural that they were none too fond of
crossing swords with the mighty forces that had conspired for their extirpation. Nothing short of express and emphatic Divine
Command could urge them on to the field of battle [in order to defend their rights]. And yet the Islamic jihads are declared to
be ‘designed by the Prophet to satisfy his discontented adherents by an accession of plunder!’ (Margoliouth).
Such is this European scholar’s love of veracity! Such is his wonderful reading of history! (Daryabadi, The Glorious
Qur’an) The commentary on this verse makes it very clear that Muslims have always understood this verse as the
legal right to defend one’s rights from the forces of oppression, but never to transgress limits in defence. Misquoted
Verse #2 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 God's Cause with their wealth and lives. God has granted a rank higher to those who strive hard,
fighting Jihad with their wealth and bodies to those who sit (at home). Unto each has God promised good, but He prefers
Jihadists who strive hard and fight above those who sit home. He has distinguished his fighters with a huge reward. First of
all, this is a very poor translation of the verse. Let us look at some notable translators: 4:95YUSUFALI: Not equal are
those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of God with their goods and
their persons. God hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who
sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath God promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those
who sit (at home) by a special reward PICKTHAL: Those of the believers who sit still, other than those who have a
(disabling) hurt, are not on an equality with those who strive in the way of God with their wealth and lives. God hath conferred
on those who strive with their wealth and lives a rank above the sedentary. Unto each God hath promised good, but He hath
bestowed on those who strive a great reward above the sedentary MUHAMMAD ASAD: Such of the believers as remain
passive' -.other than the disabled -cannot be deemed equal to those who strive hard in God's cause with their possessions
and their lives:' God has exalted those who strive hard with their possessions and their lives far above those who remain
passive. Although God has promised the ultimate good unto all [believers], yet has God exalted those who strive hard above
those who remain passive by [promising them] a mighty reward KHAN/HILALI: Not equal are those of the believers who
sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the
Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth
and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those
who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward; Now that we have quoted the most common
translations, the source for the quoted translation seems questionable. Words such as “Jihadists” are purely
media coined terms without any real meaning. In fact, the Oxford American Dictionary says about this term: USAGE:
There doesn’t seem to be a pressing need for this English-friendly form since the Arabic term for a holy warrior,
mujahid, has already made it into English in plural forms ( mujahideen, mujahedin), along with jihadi, a form more in keeping
with Arabic morphology. Jihadist, however, is the preferred form for all writers who are vehemently anti-Arab or anti-Islam.
Having defined Jihad in the previous article, we can describe a Mujahid as someone who strives to uphold justice, perhaps
risking his life in the process. So what do these verses say? They are elevating the status of those who are brave to stand up
for truth and justice in the face of oppression. The verses elevate their status over that of those who cowardly hide from
defending the rights of others, unless they have a disability, which prevents them from doing so. So the Islam-hater finds no
support (for their distorted presentation of Islam) in these verses either. Moreover, the verse supports the interpretation of
Jihad as any struggle for the sake of God because it has mentioned those who perform Jihad with their wealth by donating it
for a good cause, such as humanitarian organizations. As Muhammad Asad writes about this verse: The term mujahid is
derived from the verb jahada, which means "he struggled" or "strove hard" or "exerted himself", namely, in a good cause and
against evil. Consequently, jihad denotes "striving in the cause of God" in the widest sense of this expression: that is to say,
it applies not merely to physical warfare (qital) but to any righteous struggle in the moral sense as well (Asad, The Message
of the Qur’an) Misquoted Verse #3 Qur'an 33:23 Among the Believers are men who have been true to their
covenant with God 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 the Islam-Hater has
conveniently removed the brackets from the translation, so that the reader cannot distinguish between ideas of the translator
and the words of the Qur'an. Let us help out by providing a translation without any additional ideas: 33:23. Among the
believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah, of them some have fulfilled their obligations, and some of
them are still waiting, but they have never changed in the least. It is also clear that the Islam-hater has placed additional
ideas into the translation, not supported by any translator. "fighting and dying", "prepared for death in battle", these are not
the words of the Qur'an. The Qur'an is praising those early companions who remained steadfast in their faith and true to the
covenant. This verse does not mention fighting or Jihad at all. That is one interpretation of this verse, as Ibn Kathir writes:
When Allah mentions how the hypocrites broke their promise to Him that they would not turn their backs, He describes the
believers as firmly adhering to their covenant and their promise:
([they] have been true to their covenant with Allah; of them some have fulfilled their Nahbah;) Some of [the
Qur’anic commentators] said: "Met their appointed time (i.e., death).'' Al-Bukhari said, "Their covenant, and refers back
to the beginning of the Ayah.
(and some of them are still waiting, but they have never changed in the least.) means, they have never changed or broken
their covenant with Allah. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir) And Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes on verse 33:23: In the fight for Truth were
(and are) many who sacrificed their all – resources, knowledge, influence, life itself – in the Cause, and never
wavered. If they won the crown of martyrdom, they were blessed… Other heroes fought valiantly and lived, always
ready to lay down their lives. Both classes were staunch: they never changed or wavered. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, Text,
Translation and Commentary ) Their covenant is their promise to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to protect
him and support Islam. Some of the Muslims had already fulfilled it by dying to protect their faith, while others were still fully
prepared to do the same. The comprehensive nature of this verse is better understood when we consider the words of Shaykh
Abdul Bary Ath-Thubaity, Imam of the Prophet’s Mosque, who said about verse 33:23: The men about whom we
are talking are not those who have sunk deep into the abyss of worldly pleasures, those who do not aim for high moral
standards and turn away from their Lord. They are not those of imposing physical stature whose minds are devoid of any
sense; for such people are most certainly not real men. The real men whom we are talking about are those whom Allah
describes when He says, “And the slave of the Most-Beneficent (Allah) are those who walk on the earth in humility
and sedateness, and when the foolish address them (with bad words) they reply back with mild words of gentleness. And
those who spend the night before their Lord, prostrate and standing. And those who say Our Lord! Avert from us the torment
of Hell. Verily it’s torment is ever an inseparable, permanent punishment. Evil indeed it (Hell) is as an abode and a
place of dwell. And those who when they spend, are neither extravagant nor niggardly, but hold a medium (way) between
those (extremes).” (Al-Furqan 25: 63-67)(SOURCE) This is what fulfilling one’s covenant truly means. It refers
to fulfilling one’s Islamic obligations with devotion and sincerity, and speaking gently even to those disbelievers who
are rude and harsh. On the subject of martyrs, it would be wise to quote from the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):
God's Apostle said, "Five are regarded as martyrs: They are those who die because of plague, abdominal disease, drowning
or a falling building etc., and the martyrs in God's Cause." -Bukhari #2829 (Volume 4, Book 52, #82) "Whoever dies
protecting his religion, he is a martyr; whoever dies protecting his wealth, he is a martyr; whoever dies protecting his family, he
is a martyr; and whoever dies protecting his blood (i.e. his life), he is a martyr." - (At-Tirmidhi #1421, Abu Dawud 4772,
An-Nasa'i #4100 and Ibn Majah #2580) These ahadith deals a severe blow to the misconception that martyrdom in Islam
refers to those who die in battle only. As we have seen, the greatest manifestation of Jihad is when one is willing to sacrifice
their life for the sake of God, and this can take any of the forms listed in the above narration. Dying in physically defending the
rights of others is only one form. Misquoted Verse #4 Qur'an 47:4 So, when you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in
battle, 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 until the war lays down its
burdens. Thus are you commanded by God to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit
to Islam . Once again a poor translation serves the purpose of the Islam-haters very well. Let us examine a more accurate
translation before analyzing the verse: 47:4 Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in battle, smite at their necks;
At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity
or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been God's Will, He could certainly
have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who
are slain in the Way of God,- He will never let their deeds be lost. So we now see some grievous mistakes made in the
poor translation quoted. 1. The verse makes NO mention whatsoever of "killing and wounding" 2. "Thus are you commanded
by God to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam " is a complete addition to the
verse and is not found anywhere in the Qur'an! 3. That verse does not use the word Jihad at all It is very clear that the context
of this verse is in battle, and when in battle the defenders of humanity should attack the unjust oppressors until they are
subdued. Professor Shahul Hameed comments on verse 47:4 by saying: The context of this verse was when the
Muslims were to fight their enemies for their very existence. After thirteen years of endurance and patience, the prophet and
his companions had to leave their home town of Makkah and to emigrate to Madinah. When the people of Madinah had
welcomed him there and he was accepted as a leader there, the Makkans became unhappy. They wanted to eliminate
Muhammad and his religion; and so they sent their army to root out Islam. And the crucial battle took place in Badr. It was just
before this that Muhammad received the revelation from God to fight: {And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with
you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.} (Al-Baqarah 2:190) This
meant that the Prophet and his companions were not to start the fighting; but to defend themselves against aggressors. That
was how fighting was ordained; but we must know that once we fight, we fight to defeat the aggressors, so that we can live
without fear of molestation and invasion; so that we can live in peace; so that justice is done. Remember God does not
command any one to start fighting; rather He permits people to fight in self defence or for the defence of those who are
attacked unjustly. (SOURCE) The historical context again illustrates a condition of constant struggle and war. In such a
condition, God reassures the believers that He is with them, and to therefore have full faith, strength and bravery in battle and
not to cower from the enemy. As Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes: When once the fight (Jihad) is entered upon, carry it out with
the utmost vigour… (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, Text, Translation and Commentary ) Likewise, Dr. Maher Hathout
writes: Clearly, these verses are applicable in the heat of battle and against an aggressive combating force. (Hathout,
Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.49) Muslims are encouraged to restrain the enemy by
capturing them, and to therefore minimize loss of life. Moreover, the verse specifically mentions that Muslims should subdue
the enemies "until the war lays down its burdens", i.e. until the enemy stops fighting. Similar to this verse: 8:61 But if the
enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that hears and knows (all
things). So the verse is very specific, in that it is limited to the context of a battle and the Muslims should only fight until the
enemy is subdued or inclines towards peace i.e. they should not transgress limits. In the event of a battle, the verse guides
Muslims to abstain from transgressing limits and only to fight the enemy until they are subdued or cease fighting. Shaykh
Muhammad Saalih Al-Munajjid comments about the treatment of prisoners: If the Muslims capture them and take them to
a place that has been prepared for them, they should not harm them or torture them with beatings, depriving them of food
and water, leaving them out in the sun or the cold, burning them with fire, or putting covers over their mouths, ears and eyes
and putting them in cages like animals. Rather they should treat them with kindness and mercy, feed them well and
encourage them to enter Islam... ...The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to enjoin the Muslims to
treat prisoners well, whereas the Romans and those who came before them the Assyrians and Pharaohs, all used to put out
their prisoners’ eyes with hot irons, and flay them alive, feeding their skins to dogs, such that the prisoners preferred
death to life. (SOURCE) Therefore, Islam has laid out clear rules and regulations for Muslims to follow in the event of war,
which is only used as a last resort. Misquoted Verse #5 Qur'an 9:91 There is no blame on those who are old, weak, ill,
or who find no resources to spend (on Jihad), if they are sincere (in duty) to God and His Messenger. Some non-Muslims
feel that this verse is proof that Jihad is a Holy War because if it were not the elderly and others would be able to participate.
Consequently, this verse is falsely used in an attempt to negate any concept of non-military Jihad. First of all, we have
already established that Jihad is of many types and does not necessarily have to be purely spiritual or purely physical. There
are several disabilities that prevent a person from performing a certain Jihad. Being old or weak prevents one from
participating in a physical Jihad to uphold good. Nor can the weak be expected to be a soldier fighting for justice, like those
who fought the Nazis in World War II. Additionally, another form of Jihad is donating money/resources to the poor and needy.
Someone devoid of those resources cannot be expected to do that, as the verse mentions. With regards to ill, an example
would be if someone has a illness in which they have less control over their desires, then they cannot participate in the
spiritual Jihad to control one's desires, like fasting during Ramadan. One who studies the Islamic Law already knows that
those who are ill do not have to fast, which is an example of spiritual Jihad. The different forms of Jihad have been described
in detail in Islam and is well-known to Muslims. For example, Shaykh Muhammad Saalih Al-Munajjid writes: Jihaad may
be with the tongue (by speaking out), or with weapons (which is qitaal or fighting) or with money. Each of these categories
includes numerous subcategories. (SOURCE) And Dr. Shahid Athar writes: The word "jihad" means struggle or, to be
specific, striving in the cause of God. Any struggle done in day-to-day life to please God can be considered jihad. One of the
highest levels of jihad is to stand up to a tyrant and speak a word of truth. Control of the self from wrongdoing is also a great
jihad. One of the forms of jihad is to take up arms in defence of Islam or a Muslim country when Islam is attacked. This kind
of jihad has to be declared by the religious leadership or by a Muslim head of state who is following the Qur’an and
the sunnah. (SOURCE) The other forms of Jihad are discussed in more detail in the article An Explanation of Jihad.
Misquoted Verse #6 And slay them wherever ye catch them.." (2:191) A classic and popular example of what Muslim
scholars, like Dr. Jamal Badawi, call a ‘cut and paste’ approach. Everything becomes so much easier for the
Anti-Islamists when they remove the context. The solution for the Muslim is to simply replace the verse in its context:
2:190-194 Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And
kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution and oppression are
worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill
them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on
until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility
except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited,
there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But
fear (the punishment of) God, and know that God is with those who restrain themselves. How many times do we see the
above verse repeating the message to make it clear? These verse were revealed at a time when Muslims of Madinah were
under constant attack from the Makkans. An example would be when the Makkans conducted the public crucifixion of the
companion of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Khubaib bin Adi. These would be classified as 'terrorist activities'
according to the modern usage of the term. So what does this verse say in this context? "Fight in the cause of God those who
fight you", "unless they (first) fight you there" - the context of this verse applies to those who initiate the attack against
Muslims. And even after they attack, the verse makes it clear: "But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." And it
also makes clear the purpose for what Muslims fight: "fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there
prevail justice and faith in God". It is the duty of Muslims to defend humanity from oppression and persecution and to establish
justice. Muslims believe that God has placed us here on earth as his deputy or viceroy, and thus, it is our duty to enjoin the
good and forbid the evil, to establish peace and justice in the land. Dr. Maher Hathout writes the following on verses
2:190-194: These verses were applicable to a particular situation or if, hypothetically, the same situation was to be
repeated… Historically, fighting back against the aggressors was prohibited during the thirteen years of the Meccan
period. After the migration to Medina and the establishment of the Islamic state, Muslims were concerned with how to
defend themselves against aggression from their enemies. The aforementioned verses were revealed to enable them to
protect the newly formed state by fighting in self-defence against those who fought them. However, the Qur’an clearly
prohibits aggression. The verses explain that fighting is only for self-defence. Thus, a Muslim cannot commit aggression and
kill innocent men, women, children, the sick, the elderly, monks, priests, or those who do not wish to fight. A Muslim is also
mandated not to destroy plant life of livestock. (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.49,
emphasis added) The historical context is something that must always be considered where developing an understanding
of Qur'anic verses. Without knowing the circumstances behind the revelation, one cannot apply the verse as accurately.
Shaykh Salman Al-Oadah writes about the general principles in Jihad: Jihad can never be fought for worldly gain, for
conquest, or even for revenge. Muslims must only fight to protect the lives, property, and freedoms of people, especially
their freedom to worship Allah when that freedom is forcibly attacked. They are never allowed to attack innocent people, even
when they are themselves attacked by the countrymen of those innocents. Any people that go against this established
principle of Islamic Law and murder civilians are fighting against Islam and everything that it stands for. It is ludicrous for
them to call this fighting a jihâd, a word that means striving in the cause of Islam. They are in fact murderers in the light of
Islamic Law and should be treated as such. (SOURCE, emphasis added) There are strict and detailed laws in Islam, which
Muslims must follow carefully. A military Jihad must be performed under these regulations. Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes about
verse 2:190: War is only permissible in self-defence, and under well-defined limits. When undertaken, it must be pushed
with vigour, but not relentlessly, but only to restore peace and freedom for the worship of God. In any case strict limits must
not be transgressed: women, children, old and infirm men should not be molested, nor trees and crops cut down, nor peace
withheld when the enemy comes to terms. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, Text, Translation and Commentary ) He
then re-iterates the general principles behind Jihad in his commentary on verse 2:191: In general, it may be said that
Islam is the religion of peace, goodwill, mutual understanding, and good faith. But it will not acquiesce in wrong-doing, and
its men will hold their lives cheap in defence of honour, justice, and the religion which they hold sacred. Their ideal is that of
heroic virtue combined with unselfish gentleness and tenderness, such as is exemplified in the life of the Apostle. They
believe in courage, obedience, discipline, duty, and a constant striving by all the means in their power, physical, moral,
intellectual, and spiritual, for the establishment of truth and righteousness. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, Text,
Translation and Commentary ) This is the true focus behind Jihad, and Muslims must never lose this focus. Jihad is solely
for the purpose of aiding humanity and bringing justice and freedom to the oppressed. Therefore, all actions must be in-line
with this focus and the strict regulations governing Jihad. The focus is to defend, not destroy. One who focuses on the
betterment and aid of humanity will realize that destruction will never achieve this. Abdul Majid Daryabadi writes extensively
on verse 2:190: 2:190 “And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you” – Violating the truce they
themselves had signed. The Muslims, after having borne untold persecution with almost superhuman fortitude for years and
years at the hands of the pagans of Makkah, are now for the first time enjoined to take to reprisals. ‘For a full thirteen
years the Muslims were subjected to relentless persecution in Mecca. The Prophet and his followers fled for life to Medina,
but the enemy would not leave them alone in their refuge. They came to attack them within a year, and the first three battles
were fought in the very locality which will whether the Prophet was an assailant or defendant’ (Headley, The Original
Church of Jesus Christ and Islam, p. 155). The Makkans had signed a truce and were the first to break it. The words
‘fight with those who fight you’ clearly show, firstly, that the Muslims were not the aggressors, and secondly,
that those of the enemy who were not actual combatants – children, women, monks, hermits, the aged and the infirm,
the maimed, and the like – had nothing at all to fear from the Muslim soldiery. It was in light of this express Divine
injunction that the great Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, charged his troops into Syria, ‘not to mutilate the dead, nor to slay
old men, women, and children, nor to cut down fruit-trees, nor to kill cattle unless they were needed for food; and these
humane precepts served like a code of laws of war during the career of Mohammadan conquest.’ (Bosworth Smith,
Mohammed and Mohammedanism, p. 185). Has not Islam thus, in prescribing war against those who break God’s
law, who challenge His righteous authority, and who fill the world with violence and injustice, made every concession short
of the impossible? Has any code of military ethics been so chivalrous, so humane and so tender towards the enemy?
‘The moral tone adopted by the Caliph Abu Bakr, in his instructions to the Syrian army, was’, says a modern
Christian historian, ‘so unlike the principles of the Roman government, that it must have commanded profound
attention from a subject people. Such a proclamation announced to Jews and Christians’ sentiments of justice and
principles of toleration which neither Roman emperors nor orthodox bishops had ever adopted as the rule of their
conduct’ (Finlay, Greece Under the Romans, pp. 367-368). (Daryabadi, The Glorious Qur’an, emphasis added)
Muhammad Asad explains verse 2:190 in the following manner: This and the following verses lay down unequivocally
that only self-defence (in the widest sense of the word) makes war permissible for Muslims. Most of the commentators agree
in that the expression la ta'tadu signifies, in this context, "do not commit aggression"; while by al-mu'tadin "those who commit
aggression" are meant. The defensive character of a fight "in God's cause" - that is, in the cause of the ethical principles
ordained by God - is, moreover, self-evident in the reference to "those who wage war against you", and has been still further
clarified in 22: 39 - "permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged" - which, according to
all available Traditions, constitutes the earliest (and therefore fundamental) Quranic reference to the question of jihad, or holy
war (see Tabari and Ibn Kathir in their commentaries on 22: 39). That this early, fundamental principle of self-defence as the
only possible justification of war has been maintained throughout the Quran is evident from 60: 8, as well as from the
concluding sentence of 4: 91, both of which belong to a later period than the above verse. (Asad, The Message of the
Qur’an, emphasis added) And on verse 2:191, he states the following: In view of the preceding ordinance, the
injunction "slay them wherever you may come upon them" is valid only within the context of hostilities already in progress
(Razi), on the understanding that "those who wage war against you" are the aggressors or oppressors (a war of liberation
being a war "in God's cause"). The translation, in this context, of fitnah as "oppression" is justified by the application of this
term to any affliction which may cause man to go astray and to lose his faith in spiritual values (cf. Lisan al-Arab). (Asad,
The Message of the Qur’an, emphasis added) This extensive commentary on this verse should sufficiently address all
confusion and misconceptions that resulted from misquoting this verse. Misquoted Verse #7 But if they turn away, catch
them and slaughter them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks." (4:89) This
verse has been misquoted like the previous verse, out of context. Here is the full passage: 4:88-91 Why should ye be
divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah
hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way. They but wish
that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): so take not friends from their ranks until
they forsake the domain of evil in the way of God (from what is forbidden). But if they revert to [open] enmity, seize them and
slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. Except those who join a group
between whom and you there is a treaty (Of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting
you as well as fighting their own people. If God had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have
fought you: therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then God hath
opened no way for you (to war against them). Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their
people: every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto; if they withdraw not from you nor give you
(guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them; in their case We
have provided you with a clear argument against them So in the same manner as the first verse, this verse also only
commands Muslims to fight those who practice oppression or persecution, or attack the Muslims. And in the event of a battle,
the same laws of war are in place and a Muslim who transgresses limits should prepare for the punishment of God. In
response to a question on verses 4:88-89, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi quotes the verses in their full context and then asks the
following: Now tell me honestly, do these verses give a free permission to kill any one anywhere? These verses were
revealed by God to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), at the time when Muslims were attacked by the
non-Muslims of Makkah on a regular basis. They were frightening the Muslim community of Madinah. One may say using the
contemporary jargon that there were constant terrorist attacks on Madinah and in this situation Muslims were given
permission to fight back the “terrorist”. These verses are not a permission for “terrorism” but they
are a warning against the “terrorists.” But even in these warnings you can see how much restraint and care is
emphasized. ( SOURCE, emphasis added) It is also important to note that the Qur'an clearly condemns murder. The
Qur’an says about the prohibition of murder, 6:151 Take not life, which God hath made sacred, except by way of
justice and law: thus does He command you, that ye may learn wisdom. 17:33 Nor take life, which God has made sacred,
except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, We have given his heir authority (to demand Qisas(retribution) or to
forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the law) 5:32...if any one slew a person
- unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one
saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people So the Qur'an makes it very clear that Muslims cannot
initiate an attack against others, unless there is an immediate threat of being attacked. The context of the quoted verses
applies only to situations where the oppressors are killing Muslims. In this case, they have a right to defend themselves and
others, especially the weak and oppressed. Misquoted Verse #8 9:5 Kill the disbelievers wherever you find them. This
verse, often called "the verse of the sword", has been misquoted in a manner similar to the previous verses. First, we shall
provide the verse in its context: 9:5-6 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans
wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they
repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving,
Most Merciful. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and
then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge. Having presented the verse
in context, we can analyze it properly. Dr. Maher Hathout gives an explanation on the historical context of the verse: This
verse was revealed towards the end of the revelation period and relates to a limited context. Hostilities were frozen for a
three-month period during which the Arabs pledged not to wage war. Prophet Muhammad was inspired to use this period to
encourage the combatants to join the Muslim ranks or, if they chose, to leave the area that was under Muslims rule; however,
if they were to resume hostilities, then the Muslims would fight back until victorious. One is inspired to note that even in this
context of war, the verse concludes by emphasizing the divine attributes of mercy and forgiveness. To minimize hostilities,
the Qur'an ordered Muslims to grant asylum to anyone, even an enemy, who sought refuge. Asylum would be granted
according to the customs of chivalry; the person would be told the message of the Qur'an but not coerced into accepting that
message. Thereafter, he or she would be escorted to safety regardless of his or her religion. (9:6). (Hathout, Jihad vs.
Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, pp.52-53, emphasis added) Therefore, this verse once again refers to
those pagans who would continue to fight after the period of peace. It clearly commands the Muslims to protect those who
seek peace and are non-combatants. It is a specific verse with a specific ruling and can in no way be applied to general
situations. The command of the verse was only to be applied in the event of a battle. As Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes: The
emphasis is on the first clause: it is only when the four months of grace are past, and the other party show no sign of
desisting from their treacherous design by right conduct, that the state of war supervenes - between Faith and Unfaith.
(Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, Text, Translation and Commentary, emphasis added) If the pagans would not cease
their hostilities towards the Muslims, then they were to be fought, especially since they were living in the land of an Islamic
state. Dr. Zakir Naik writes concerning this verse: This verse is quoted during a battle. ...We know that America was
once at war with Vietnam. Suppose the President of America or the General of the American Army told the American soldiers
during the war: "Wherever you find the Vietnamese, kill them". Today if I say that the American President said, "Wherever
you find Vietnamese, kill them" without giving the context, I will make him sound like a butcher. But if I quote him in context,
that he said it during a war, it will sound very logical, as he was trying to boost the morale of the American soldiers during
the war. ...Similarly in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 the Qur'an says, "Kill the Mushriqs (pagans) where ever you find
them", during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur'an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don't be afraid
during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them. Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer to the allegation
that Islam promotes violence, brutality and bloodshed. It says: "If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to
him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men
without knowledge." [Al-Qur'an 9:6] The Qur'an not only says that a Mushriq seeking asylum during the battle should be
granted refuge, but also that he should be escorted to a secure place. In the present international scenario, even a kind,
peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General
will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don't just let them go free, but also escort
them to a place of security? This is exactly what Allah (swt) says in the Glorious Qur'an to promote peace in the world. (
SOURCE, emphasis added) Dr. Naik makes some very interesting observations about the verse. Indeed, it is truly amazing
how Islam-haters will ignore God's infinite mercy in their attempt to malign Islam. God has always given human beings a way
out of any suffering, and has only ordained fighting as a last resort. Muslim scholars have written much commentary on these
Qur'anic verses explaining the historical context in such great detail so that there may be no misconceptions. We have quoted
extensively from various commentators on these verses and there is no need to repeat the same material again. We will
provide one more commentary before moving on. Professor Shahul Hameed writes on verse 9:5: This is a verse taken
from Surah At-Tawba. This chapter of the Qur’an was revealed in the context when the newly organized Muslim
society in Madinah was engaged in defending themselves against the pagan aggressors. The major question dealt with here
is, as to how the Muslims should treat those who break an existing treaty at will. The first clause in the verse refers to the
time-honored Arab custom of a period of warning and waiting given to the offenders, after a clear violation. That is, they will
be given four months’ time to repair the damage done or make peace. But if nothing happens after the expiry of these
forbidden months, what should be done? This is what the present verse says. According to this verse, fighting must be
resumed until one of the two things happens: Either the enemy should be vanquished by relentless fighting. That is what is
meant by {then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in
every stratagem [of war]}; or they should repent, establish prayers and pay zakah, etc. This is one of those verses of the
Qur’an which are likely to be misunderstood, if quoted out of context. We must understand that this fighting was
against a people who forced the Prophet and his companions to leave not only their own homes but all their property and
even their hometown of Makkah to Madinah. Once the Muslims were organized into a community in those lawless times, the
rules to be followed by the Muslims were clearly laid down, even in the matter of war. Since Islam is a comprehensive
system, no human activity could be ignored. And given the nature of mankind, we cannot imagine a situation where fighting is
 completely ruled out either. As can be seen, the above injunctions on fighting is not on an individual level, but only in the
case of a society that strives to flourish and thrive as a nation. But even here the norms are clear: fighting is only in self
defence or for the establishment of justice; and always fighting is the last option. And no one is allowed to transgress the
limits set by God. (SOURCE, emphasis added) Ibn al-`Arabi, in his commentary on the Qur’an, writes:
“It is clear from this that the meaning of this verse is to kill the pagans who are waging war against you.”
(Ahkam al-Qur’an: 2/456, emphasis added) Shaykh Sami al-Majid also makes some very interesting points in his
discussion on this verse: If we look at the verses in Sûrah al-Tawbah immediately before and after the one under
discussion, the context of the verse becomes clear. A few verses before the one we are discussing, Allah says:
“There is a declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the pagans with whom you have
contracted mutual alliances. Go then, for four months, to and fro throughout the land. But know that you cannot frustrate
Allah that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.” [ Sûrah al-Tawbah: 1-2] In these verses we see that the
pagans were granted a four month amnesty with an indication that when the four months were over, fighting would resume.
However, a following verse exempts some of them from the resumption of hostilities. It reads: “Except for those
pagans with whom you have entered into a covenant and who then do not break their covenant at all nor aided anyone
against you. So fulfill your engagements with them until the end of their term, for Allah loves the righteous.” [Sûrah
al-Tawbah: 4] So when Allah says: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight the pagans wherever you
find them, and seize them and beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” we must know
that it is not general, since the verse above has qualified it to refer to the pagan Arabs who were actually at war with the
Prophet (peace be upon him) and those who broke their covenants of peace. This is further emphasized a few verses later
where Allah says: “Will you not fight people who broke their covenants and plotted to expel the Messenger and
attacked you first?” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 13] (SOURCE) Therefore, the context of the verse within the Surah makes it
clear that this refers to those who are persistent in their hostilities and attacks against Muslims, and it is applied in battle only.
We recommend that one reads Shaykh Sami Al-Majid's full article entitled There is no Compulsion in Religion. Abrogated?
The next issue with this verse concerns abrogation. It has been claimed by some that this verse 9:5 has abrogated all the
peaceful verses in the Qur'an. However, this claim results from a misunderstanding of some Qur'anic concepts. In the Qur'an
there is naskh and there is also takhsees. Naskh is the abrogation of a ruling by a ruling that was revealed after it. Naskh
occurs in matters of Islamic law. Takhsees on the other hand refers to specification, where one verse restricts the application
of another verse, or specifies the limits not mentioned in the other verse. As Shaykh Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi writes:
Specification involves one verse limiting or restricting a general ruling found in another verse, whereas naskh involves
abrogating the first verse in toto (i.e., it is not applied in any circumstances or conditions). (Qadhi, An Introduction to the
Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 233) Shaykh Qadhi also explains that
one of the conditions for naskh is that the two conflicting rulings apply to the same situation under the same circumstances,
and hence there is no alternative understanding of the application of the verses. As he states: Therefore, if one of the
rulings can apply to a specific case, and the other ruling to a different case, this cannot be considered an example of naskh.
(Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 237)
Therefore, verse 9:5 can in no way be considered an example of naskh since it is only a ruling applied to a very specific
situation and circumstances. There is a lot of confusion surrounding some verses labeled as cases of naskh because the early
Muslims used to use the word naskh to refer to takhsees as well. Therefore, some Muslims failed to realize that some of
these cases labeled by early Muslims as 'naskh' were cases of takhsees. This is why some early Muslim scholars are quoted
who have classified this verse as a case of 'naskh'. One should realize that they used the term naskh to refer to a broader
range of meanings, including takhsees. As Dr. Jamal Badawi writes: Any claim of naskh must be definitive, not based
on mere opinion or speculation. It should be noted that earlier Muslims used the term naskh to refer also to takhsees or
specifying and limiting the ruling than abrogating it. ( SOURCE, emphasis added) Shaykh Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi
specifically addresses the confusion about verse 9:5, and after citing the different claims he concludes: It can be seen
from the examples and categories quoted that, in reality, most of these verses cannot be considered to have been abrogated
in the least. Some of them merely apply to situations other than those that they were revealed for. Almost all of these
'mansookh' (abrogated) verses can still be said to apply when the Muslims are in a situation similar to the situation in which
the verses were revealed. Thus, the 'Verse of the Sword' in reality does not abrogate a large number of verses; in fact,
az-Zarqaanee concludes that it does not abrogate any! (fn. Az-Zarqaanee, v.2, pps.275-282) (Qadhi, An Introduction to the
Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 254) Shaykh Sami Al-Majid also states
the same thing in his article: Some people – especially some contemporary non-Muslim critics of Islam –
have tried to claim that this verse abrogates the verse “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” They argue
that the generality of this statement implies that every unbeliever who refuses to accept Islam must be fought. They support
their allegation by pointing out that this verse is one of the last verses to be revealed about fighting. However, this verse in
no way abrogates the principle in Islamic Law that there is no compulsion in religion. It may be general in wording, but its
meaning is quite specific on account of other verses of the Qur’ân that are connected with it as well as on account of
a number of pertinent hadîth. (SOURCE) Shaykh Jamal Al-Din Zarabozo also deals with this issue in his writings on the
verse "There is no compulsion in religion". He mentions the view that this verse has been abrogated as then states:
Al-Dausiri rejects this statement because of the following: A verse cannot abrogate another verse unless it completely
removes the ruling of the earlier verse and there is no way to reconcile the contradictory meanings of the verses. (Zarabozo,
There is No Compulsion in Religion, Al-Basheer) This was the view of the great scholars and mufasireen (Qur'anic
commentators) both classical and recent, like Ash-Shanqeeti or Ibn Jarir At-Tabari. Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa also
comments on this issue in his discussion on the puunishment for apostasy: At the same time, one can say that the death
penalty for apostasy – especially when it is considered as a hadd (prescribed) punishment – contradicts the
Qur'anic principle [law] in Surah II, verse 256, which proclaims "No compulsion in religion." Ibn Hazm, to avoid this criticism,
claimed that this verse had been abrogated and that compulsion is allowed in religion; consequently, according to him, the
punishment for apostasy does not contradict the Qur'an (fn. Muhalla, vol. XI, p. 195). However, this claim is invalid, since
Qur'anic scholars have established the abrogated verses and this verse is not among them (fn. Suyuti, Itqan, vol. II, p.
22-24). Accordingly, one can say with the Encyclopaedia of Islam that "In the Qur'an the apostate is threatened with
punishment in the next world only." (fn. Heffening, Encyclopaedia of Islam , vol. III, p. 736 under "Murtadd"). (El-Awa,
Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 51, emphasis added) Therefore, when we discuss the
merciful and loving verses of the Qur'an and we receive a claim that they have been abrogated by the specific verses
concerning battle, we can dismiss such a claim as mere speculation and invalid. Peace and justice are fundamentals of the
religion of Islam and can never be removed from it. Misquoted Verse #9 2:217-218 They question you concerning
fighting in the sacred month. Say: Fighting therein is a great/grave (matter); but to prevent access to God, to deny Him, to
prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, to expel its members and polytheism are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease
fighting you until they make you renegades from your religion. If any of you turn back and die in unbelief, your works will be
lost and you will go to Hell. Surely those who believe and leave their homes to fight in God's Cause have the hope of God's
Mercy. Again the translation has been altered and before answering the quote, we should provide a clear translation:
2:217 They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in
the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its
members." Persecution and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back
from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this
life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein. 2:218 Those who believed and those who
suffered exile and fought (and strove and struggled) in the path of God,- they have the hope of the Mercy of God. And God is
Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. We see now how detrimental it is for the Islam-haters to use authentic unaltered translations,
as it exposes their methods of deception. The context of these verses refers to an expedition of a group of the companions of
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), under the lead of Abdullah bin Jahsh Asadi. The companions recognized a
caravan from the Quraysh. Since the Quraysh had openly declared war on the Muslims and had persecuted them to the
extent that they drove them out of their homes, and stole their property, the companions present, felt that they could retaliate.
They killed one man of from the caravan, and took two as prisoners. When they returned to Madinah, the Prophet Muhammad
disapproved of their attack during the Holy Month. But God revealed this verse as a reminder to the Muslims that while killing
in the Holy Month was bad, persecution and expelling people from their homes because of their faith is far worse. So the
verses make it very clear that in the face of the terrorist attacks of the polytheists, the Muslims should be brave and steadfast
and turn to God for help rather than giving in and leaving the truth. As Shaykh Safiur Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri writes on verse
2:217: The Words of Allah were quite clear and said that the tumult created by the polytheists was groundless. The
sacred inviolable sanctities repeatedly violated in the long process of fighting Islam and persecuting its adherents. The wealth
of the Muslims as well as their homes had already been violated and their Prophet s.a.w.s. had been the target of repeated
attempts on his life…Shortly afterwards, the two captives were released and blood money (compensation) was given to
the killed man’s father. (fn. For details see Zad Al-Ma’ad, 2/83-85; Ibn Hisham, 1/605;
Rahmat-ul-lil’alameen, 1/115. 2/468.) (Al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum; Riyadh-Saudi Arabia, Dar-us-Salam
Publications, 1996; pp. 205-206, emphasis added) Misquoted Verse #10 2:244 Fight in God's Cause, and know that
God hears and knows all. 4:76 Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and the unbelievers Fight in the cause of Evil,
so destroy such minions of the devil! Verse 4:76 is actually translated as follows: Those who believe fight in the cause of
Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the
cunning of Satan We have already established the purpose for which Muslims fight in our commentary on verse 2:216 at the
beginning of the article. Dr. Maher Hathout comments on verse 4:76 by saying: This verse is related to the two preceding
verses (see 4:74-75) where it was stated that those who fight for God's cause would be rewarded whether they are
victorious or slain. Fighting for God's cause includes the liberation of the oppressed, meaning the helpless men and women
who are yearning and praying for freedom. The believers fight for God's cause, and the disbelievers fight for the sake of their
idols. An idol may be taken conceptually. For example, evil or greed may figuratively be construed as idols. The believers
should put all their trust in God the Almighty and Powerful and fear not the disbelievers and their evil plans. Evil plans are
always inferior to goodness. (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.50) Verse 2:244
is informing the believers not to transgress limits because they should know that "God hears and knows all". So a true Muslim
is God-conscious when defending the rights of others and does not overstep his limits in applying justice. Misquoted Verse
#11 9:29 Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by God
and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, [even if they are] of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah
with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. Some people have falsely concluded from verse 9:29, that Muslims
are commanded to attack all non-Muslims until they pay money. In fact, such an interpretation is completely false and
contradicts authentic Islamic teachings. Commenting on this verse, Shaykh Jalal Abualrub writes: These Ayat (Quranic
verses) stress the necessity of fighting against the People of the Scripture, but under what conditions? We previously
established the fact that the Islamic State is not permitted to attack non-Muslims who are not hostile to Islam, who do not
oppress Muslims, or try to convert Muslims by force from their religion, or expel them from their lands, or wage war against
them, or prepare for attacks against them. If any of these offenses occurs, however, Muslims are permitted to defend
themselves and protect their religion. Muslims are not permitted to attack non-Muslims who signed peace pacts with them, or
non-Muslims who live under the protection of the Islamic State. ( Abualrub, Holy Wars, Crusades, Jihad ) Likewise, the
following fatwa points out that Muslims cannot attack a peaceful non-Muslim country: Question : Is it an obligation of an
Islamic state to attack the neighboring non-Muslim states and collect ‘jizya’ from them? Do we see this in the
example of the rightly guided Caliphs who fought against the Roman and Persian Empires without any aggression initiating
from them?

Answered by Sheikh Hânî al-Jubayr, judge at the Jeddah Supreme Court

If the non-Muslim country did not attack the Muslim one nor mobilize itself to prevent the practice and spread of Islam, nor
transgress against mosques, nor work to oppress the Muslim people in their right to profess their faith and decry unbelief,
then it is not for the Muslim country to attack that country. Jihâd of a military nature was only permitted to help Muslims
defend their religion and remove oppression from the people.

The Persians and Romans did in fact aggress against Islam and attack the Muslims first.

The Chosroe of Persia had gone so far as to order his commander in Yemen specifically to kill the Prophet (peace be upon
him). The Romans mobilized their forces to fight the Prophet (peace be upon him), and the Muslims confronted them in the
Battles of Mu’tah and Tabûk during the Prophet's lifetime.

May Allah guide us all. And May peace and blessing be upon our Prophet Muhammad. (SOURCE, emphasis added)
The above fatwa refers to the historical context in which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) fought against other
nations. The Prophet Muhammad did not initiate agression against anyone, rather he and his followers were under attack from
all who sought to crush the new Islamic state. The first hostilities between the Muslims and the Roman empire began when
the Prophet Muhammad's messenger to the Ghassan tribe (a governate of the Roman empire), Al-Harith bin Umayr Al-Azdi,
was tied up and beheaded (Al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, p. 383). The killing of a diplomat was an open act of
war, and the Prophet Muhammad sent an armed force to confront the tribe, but the Roman empire brought in reinforcements
and the resulting conflict, known as the Battle of Mut'ah, was a defeat for the Muslims. Only after this did subsequent battles
between the Muslims and the Roman Empire occur, and the Muslims emerged victorious. Likewise, as mentioned in the
above fatwa, hostiltiies between the Muslims and the Persians only began after the Persian emperor Chosroe ordered his
governor in Yemen Badham, to kill the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, although his efforts were thwarted when the latter accepted
Islam. Other non-muslim groups, such as those in Madinah, also initiated hostilities against the Muslims despite peace treaties
as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes: As for fighting the Jews (People of the Scripture), they had conducted a peace pact
with the Messenger after he migrated to Madinah. Soon afterwards, they betrayed the peace pact and joined forces with the
pagans and the hypocrites against Muslims. They also fought against Muslims during the Battle of A`hzab , then Allah
revealed…[and he cites verse 9:29] (Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 80) In light of the historical context of
this verse, it becomes very clear that the verse was revealed in connection with agression initiated against Muslims. As Dr.
Jamal Badawi very accurately concludes with regard to verse 9:29 and similar verses: All of these verses, without
exception, if studied carefully, address aggression and oppression committed against Muslims at the time of the Prophet
(peace and blessings be upon him), whether by idolatrous Arabs, some of the Jewish tribes in Madinah, or by some
Christians. (SOURCE) Therefore, the command to fight in verse 9:29 relates to those non-muslims who commit agression
and not those who are committed to live in peace. The verse is subject to certain conditions that were apparent when it was
implemented in the time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes: What we have stated makes
it clear that Islam did not allow the initiating of hostilities, except to: 1. repel aggression; 2. protect Islamic propagation; 3.
deter Fitnah and oppression and ensure freedom of religion. In such cases, fighting becomes a necessity of the religion
and one of its sacred ordainments. It is then called, ‘Jihad’. (Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 81)
The verse then proceeds to mention some issues relating to the Islamic state, and governing non-muslim citizens of the
Islamic state. Dr. Maher Hathout comments on the regulations in verse 9:29: Freedom of religion is an essential aspect in
an Islamic state. One of the five pillars of Islam is zakat (almsgiving). The People of the Book (Christians and Jews) are not
obliged to pay the Islamic zakat that is spent by the state for social necessities and state affairs as defined in the Quran
(see 9:60). But they must pay other taxes to share in the state budget. If they refuse to pay this tax to the state and rebel
against the state, then it is the obligation of the state to confront them until they pay it. This is what Caliph Abu Bakr did after
the death of the Prophet, when some people refused to pay zakat. (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera
International, 2002, p.53) The verse mentions Jizya, which is unfortunately misunderstood by some people. Like any
nation, the Islamic government requires its citizens to pay taxes in return for its services. Since Muslims pay the Zakat, the
non-muslim citizens are required to pay Jizya (for more information on Jizya, please refer to Jizya in Islam and Jizyah and
non-muslim minorities). Dr. Monqiz As-Saqqar writes concerning the Jizya tax: The sum of jizya was never large to the
extent that the men were unable to pay. Rather, it was always available and reasonable. During the reign of the Prophet,
peace and blessings be upon him, jizya never exceeded one dinar annually and it never exceeded four dinars under the
Umayyad rule. (SOURCE) Shaykh Abu'l-Hasan Al-Mawardi (d. 1058CE) explicitly points out that the Jizya should be
exacted in accordance with the means of the people, and the Imam should judge the conclude the amount to the satisfaction
of the leaders of those being taxed: The fuqaha (Jurists) differ as to the amount of the Jizya. Abu Hanifa considers that
those subject to this tax are of three kinds: the rich from whom forty-eight dirhams are taken; those of average means from
whom twenty four are taken, and the poor from whom twelve dirhams are taken: he thus stipulated the minimum and
maximum amounts and prohibits any further judgement on behalf of those responsible for its collection. Malik, however,
does not fix its minimum and maximum amount and considers that those responsible should make their own judgement as to
the minimum and maximum. Ash-Shafi'i considers that the minimum is a dinar, and that it is not permitted to go below this
while he does not stipulate the maximum, the latter being dependant on the ijtihad (judgement) of those responsible: the
Imam, however, should try to harmonise between the different amounts, or to exact an amount in accordance with people's
means. If he has used his judgement to conclude the contract od jizyah to the satisfaction of the leaders of the people
being taxed, then it becomes binding on all of them and their descendants, generation after generation, and a leader may
not afterwards change this amunt, be it to decrease it or increase it. (Al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, Ta-Ha
Publishers Ltd. 1996, pp. 209-210) Hence, the laws of Islam forbid Muslims from opressing non-muslims and command
them to treat others with justice and compassion. In fact, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself forbade Muslims from
harming non-muslim citizens of an islamic state or any non-muslim with whom there was an agreement of peace, as he said,
"The one who wrongs a covenanter or impairs his right or overworks him or forcibly takes something from him, I will be his
prosecutor on the Day of Judgment. (Sunan Abi Dawud 170/3 no. 3052, Sunan an-Nasa'i 25/8 no. 2749, and verified by
Al-Albani no. 2626). In conclusion, verse 9:29 commands Muslims to fight against only those who initiate agression as
illustated by its historical context. Muslims may only fight under strict conditions, and are commanded to live peacefully with
peaceful non-muslim neighbors. Similar Narration Bukhari: God's Apostle said, I have been ordered to fight with the
people till they say, None has the right to be worshipped but God. (Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196) With regards to the
narration, only part of it has been quoted, and the full text reads: And the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "I have been
ordered to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship other than Allah and that Muhammad is the
Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer, and pay zakat, and if they do this, then their blood and money shall be protected
from me, except by an Islamic right, and their account will be with Allah. This narration lists some of the pillars of Islam that
Muslims must adhere to. The fighting being ordained here refers to the enforcement of laws and regulations within an Islamic
state. Just as modern governments enforce their legal policies, so to does the Islamic state. These legal policies refer to
Muslims paying their Zakat (charity tax) and abiding by the laws in an Islamic state. Those who understood the sayings of the
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) the best, were his companions, and we can examine their application of the sayings
of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to derive a better understanding. We find that after the death of the Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him), many hypocrites who had pretended to be Muslim began to turn away and leave their
religious duties, one example was Zakat (the charity tax). They wanted to compromise the commands of God. It was then that
Abu Bakr, the First Caliph and the Caliph of that time, cited this narration to make it clear that a compromise would not be
tolerated and he would fight them until they agreed to follow Islam in full. The fighting that resulted was known as the Riddah
wars. Similarly, we can see that today's governments would not tolerate it if a citizen refused to pay tax or abide by the laws
of the country. If one lives in a state or country they must abide by the regulations to ensure a secure and healthy society.
We should note that the 'people' referred to in this narration does not refer to all of humanity. As Shaykh Ahmed Ibn
Taymiyyah says: “It refers to fighting those who are waging war , whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not
refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant.” (Majmu` al-Fatawa
19/20) Clearly, this narration does not refer to imposing Islam upon non-Muslims, since the Qur'an explicitly states: 2:256
There is no compulsion in religion... Also, we have already dealt with the claims that this verse was abrogated under our
discussion of verse 9:5. Once understood in their correct context, these verses and narrations become clear. Misquoted
Verse #12 5:54 Allah will bring a people whom He loveth and who love Him, humble toward believers, stern toward
disbelievers, striving in the way of Allah, and fearing not the blame of any blamer. Such is the grace of Allah which He giveth
unto whom He will. Allah is All-Embracing, All-Knowing. 48:29 Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are
ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another Non-Muslims think that this verse tells Muslims to be harsh and cruel
to non-Muslims. Let us first provide a better translation: 48:29 Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. and those who are with
him are strong against disbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate
themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces
of their prostration. This is their similitude in the Taurat; and their similitude in the Gospel is: like a seed which sends forth its
blade, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and it stands on its own stem, (filling) the sowers with wonder and delight.
As a result, it fills the Unbelievers with rage at them. Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous
deeds forgiveness, and a great Reward. The Arabic word "ashidda" does not mean ruthless, but strong and firm. Ruthless
is an unacceptable translation. Translations of ashidda: Pickthall: hard; Yusuf Ali: strong; Daryabadi: stern; Khan-Hilali:
severe; F. Malik: strong; Shakir: firm of heart; Arberry: hard; Irving: strict Also, the disbelievers being referred to in these
verses are the those who persecuted and attacked the Muslims. Shaykh Fawzee Al-Atharee said the following: And
similarly the disbeliever, if he has good character with us and good manners with us and good way and treatment with us,
then we have good manners with him, good behaviour with him, good way with him and good treatment of him. And if his
manners are bad and his behaviour is bad [i.e. abusive and cruel], then we treat him with accordance to how he is treating
us. This is something permissible in the legislation. But the Prophet s.a.w.s. has indicated very clearly in all the narrations
that have been brought and throughout his life, that there must be a matter of balance and to be just. And that is in dealing
with the people of disbelief and also in dealing with those who have faith. The Muslims were commanded to stand up for
their religion and defend themselves against the persecution of the disbelievers. Again, if we examine the historical context,
we also find that this is referring to those who attacked the Muslims continuously. So verses apply in a situation similar to the
historical context. Since this verse mentions the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and praises
their path, let us examine some narrations about the companions. Musab bin Umair was a notable companion of the Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him). He was sent to Madinah to share the message of Islam with the people living there. One
incident of his related as follows: Once Musab and Sad were sitting near a well in an orchard of the Zafar clan. With them
were a number of new Muslims and others who were interested in Islam. A powerful notable of the city, Usayd ibn Khudayr,
came up brandishing a spear. He was livid with rage. Sad ibn Zararah saw him and told Musab: "This is a chieftain of his
people. May God place truth in his heart." "If he sits down, I will speak to him," replied Musab, displaying all the calm and
tact of a great daiy. The angry Usayd shouted abuse and threatened Musab and his host. "Why have you both come to us
to corrupt the weak among us? Keep away from us if you want to stay alive." Musab smiled a warm and friendly smile and
said to Usayd: "Won't you sit down and listen? If you are pleased and satisfied with our mission. accept it and if you dislike it
we would stop telling you what you dislike and leave." "That's reasonable," said Usayd and, sticking his spear in the ground,
sat down. Musab was not compelling him to do anything. He was not denouncing him. He was merely inviting him to listen. If
he was satisfied, well and good. If not, then Musab would leave his district and his clan without any fuss and go to another
district. Musab began telling him about Islam and recited the Quran to him. Even before Usayd spoke, it was clear from his
face, now radiant and expectant, that faith had entered his heart. He said: "How beautiful are these words and how true!
What does a person do if he wants to enter this religion?" "Have a bath, purify yourself and your clothes. Then utter the
testimony of Truth (Shahadah), and perform Salat. Usayd left the gathering and was absent for only a short while. He
returned and testified that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. ( SOURCE) Another
example is found in the treatment of Thumamah Ibn Uthal, who was a notorious criminal who had killed many Muslim
travelers. Because of this, the Prophet Muhammad declared him a wanted criminal who was to be captured or killed. Soon
after, when he was traveling for pilgrimage, some Muslims caught him and took him to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be
upon him). The Prophet recognized him and had him kept in the Masjid (mosque) with food and even ordered his own camel
to be milked for him. They treated him like a guest rather than a war criminal! The Prophet Muhammad asked Thumamah
what he had to say for himself, to which he replied "If you want to kill in reprisal, you can have someone of noble blood to kill.
If, out of your bounty, you want to forgive, I shall be grateful. If you want money in compensation, I shall give you whatever
amount you ask." The Prophet Muhammad freed him and allowed him to leave. The very same day, Thumamah returned and
declared his acceptance of Islam to the Prophet Muhammad. So we find that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)
and his companions displayed the best character and attitude towards all people and this is what drew so many people to
Islam. As the God says in the Qur'an: 3:159. And by the Mercy of God, you dealt with them gently. And had you been
severe and harsh-hearted, they would have ran away from about you; so pass over (their faults), and ask (God's) Forgiveness
for them; and consult them in the affairs. Then when you have taken a decision, put your trust in All‚h, certainly,
All‚h loves those who put their trust (in Him). The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was commanded by
God to bring people to the teachings of Islam through the beautiful character that Muslims must show. The Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him) conveyed this message to others by saying: He who is not merciful to others, will not be
treated mercifully. (Muslim, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 42) And there are numerous examples one could quote which
illustrate the kind and loving nature of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Narrated Abu Huraira: A disbelieving
Bedouin urinated in the mosque, and the people rushed to beat him. Allah's Apostle ordered them to leave him, let him finish
and pour a bucket or a tumbler (full) of water over the place where he has passed urine. The Prophet then explained to the
Bedouin calmly, "This is a place of worship, in it is the worship of God and the reading of Qur'an." After the Bedouin had left,
the Prophet then said to his companions, " You have been sent to make things easy (for the people) and you have not been
sent to make things difficult for them." (Muslim, Book 2, Number 559 and Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 149)
This narration, on its own, is sufficient to refute the claim that Islam is intolerant. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon
him) did not show any anger or resentment to a non-Muslim who urinated in the Muslims place of worship! So Islam teaches
gentleness in all things. As the Prophet Muhammad said: Whoever is deprived of gentleness is deprived of all good.
(Muslim, Book 32, Number 6270 & Abu Dawood, Book 41, Number 4791) The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)
always displayed tolerance and compassion in his dealings with people, including Non-Muslims. Dr. M. Hamidullah explains
the following points: When the Prophet Mohammed settled down in Medina, he found there complete anarchy, the region
having never known before either a State or a king to unite the tribes torn by internecine feuds. In just a few weeks, he
succeeded in rallying all the inhabitants of the region into order. He constituted a city state, in which Muslims, Jews, pagan
Arabs and also probably a small number of Christians, all entered into a statal organism by means of a social contract.
The constitutional law of this first 'Muslim' State - which was the confederacy as a sequence of the multiplicity of the
population groups - has come down to us in toto, and we read therein not only in clause 25: "to Muslims their religion, and to
Jews their religion," or, "that there would be benevolence and justice," but even the unexpected passage in the same clause
25: "the Jews . . . are a community (in alliance) with - according Ibn Hisham and in the version of Abu-'Ubaid, a community
(forming part) of - the believers (i.e., Muslims)." The very fact that, at the time of the constitution of this city-state, the
autonomous Jewish villages acceded of their free will to the confederal State, and recognized Muhammad as their supreme
political head, implies in our opinion that the non-Muslim subjects possessed the right of votes in the election of the head of
the Muslim State, at least in so far as the political life of the country was concerned. (Hamidullah, Introduction to Islam,
paragraphs 414-416) During the life of Prophet Muhammad, there was a Jewish synagogue in Madinah and an educational
institute known as Bait Al-Midras. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) preserved and protected both of them. The
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) also honored a group of Christians of najran from Yemen, when they visited his
mosques in Madinah. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) held interfaith discussions with them and they prayed in
the Mosque in the Christian fashion while the Muslims prayed in the Islamic tradition. The Prophet Muhammad's tolerance is
also illustrated in the following narration: Once the Prophet was seated at some place in Madinah, along with his
Companions. During this time a funeral procession passed by. On seeing this, the Prophet stood up. One of his Companion
remarked that the funeral was that of a Jew. The Prophet replied, “Was he not a human being?” (Bukhari,
Muslim) If every human being in this world saw the various ethnicities and cultures with these eyes, the world would
flourish in peace and harmony. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) set an example for his companions to follow in
the way he showed respect and kindness to Non-Muslims. Dr. Farida Khanam also points out the following incidents: In
the present world, everyone’s thinking, tastes, aptitude, likes and dislikes can never exactly coincide. For many
reasons, differences do arise in this world. But then, what is the permanent solution to the problem? The solution lies in
tolerance, called i‘raz in Arabic. The Prophet’s entire life served as a perfect example of this principle.
According to his wife, ‘A’isha, "He was a personification of the Qur’an." That is to say, the Prophet
molded his own life in accordance with the ideal pattern of life which he presented to others in the form of the Qur’an.
He never beat a servant, or a woman, or anyone else. He did, of course, fight for what was right. Yet, when he had to
choose between two alternatives, he would take the easier course, provided it involved no sin.’ No one was more
careful to avoid sin than he. He never sought revenge—on his own behalf—for any wrong done to him
personally. Only if God’s commandments had been broken would he mete out retribution for the sake of God. It was
such conduct which gained the Prophet universal respect. In the early Meccan period when the antagonists far exceeded
the Prophet’s companions in number, it often happened that when the Prophet would stand to pray, his detractors
would come near him and whistle and clap in order to disturb him, but the Prophet did not even once show his anger at such
acts. He always opted for the policy of tolerance and avoidance of confrontation... When the opposition became very
strong the Prophet left Mecca for Medina. But his antagonists did not leave him in peace. They began to attack Medina. In
this way a state of war prevailed between the Muslims and non-Muslims. Since the Prophet avoided war at all costs, he
strove to bring about a peace agreement between him and the Meccans. After great efforts on his part, the non-Muslims
agreed to the finalizing of a 10-year peace treaty, which was drafted and signed at the al-Hudaybiyyah. While the
al-Hudaybiyyah treaty was being drafted, the Meccans indulged in a number of extremely provocative acts. For instance, the
agreement mentioned the Prophet’s name as ‘Muhammad the Messenger of God.’ They insisted that
the phrase ‘the messenger of God’ should be taken out, and be replaced simply by ‘Muhammad, son of
Abdullah’. The Prophet accepted their unreasonable condition and deleted the appellation with his own hands.
Similarly, they made the condition that if they could lay their hands on any Muslim they would make him a hostage, but if the
Muslims succeeded in detaining any non-Muslim, they would have to set him free. The Prophet even relented on this point.
For the restoration of peace in the region, the Prophet accepted a number of such unjustifiable clauses as were added by the
enemy. In this way he set the example of peace and tolerance being linked with one another. If we desire peace, we must
tolerate many unpleasant things from others. There is no other way to establish peace in society. ( SOURCE) The Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him) also extended the hand of friendship to Christians as well. He maintained good ties with the
Christian Negus of Abyssinia throughout his life. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) even selected Non-Muslims
as ambassadors. One such example was Amr ibn Umaiyah Ad-Damri. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) sent a
message to the Monks of Saint Catherine in Mount Sinai, saying the following: " This is a message written by Muhammad
ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, far and near, we are behind them. Verily, I defend them by
myself, the servants, the helpers, and my followers, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against
anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be changed from their jobs, nor
their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to
the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they
(Christians) are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige
them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, this is not to take place without
her own wish. She is not to be prevented from going to her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are
neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation is to disobey this
covenant till the Day of Judgment and the end of the world." The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) also advised
his companion Mu'adh ibn Jabal by saying: No Jew is to be annoyed because of their Judaic faith. We must also
examine the Prophet Muhammad's teachings towards neighbors: Abu Huraira (May Allah be pleased with him) reported:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "By Allah, he is not a believer! By Allah, he is not a believer! By Allah, he is not a
believer.'' It was asked, "Who is that, O Messenger of Allah?'' He said, "One whose neighbor does not feel safe from his evil".
(Al-Bukhari and Muslim) "He who believes in God and the Last Day should honour his guest, should not harm his neighbor,
should speak good or keep quiet." (Bukhari, Muslim) The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) also clearly specified
that a Non-Muslim neighbor should receive this excellent treatment: "Whoever hurts a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state
hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys God." (Bukhari) "He who hurts a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state, I am his
adversary, and I shall be his adversary on the Day of a Judgment." (Bukhari) It is fascinating to note that the Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him) was so vocal in his support of good treatment towards humanity that he would even be
prepared to stand on the side of the Non-Muslims against the Muslims who did not follow his teachings. This is true justice
and this is what lead to the peace and prosperity that Islam brought into the world. The excellent character of Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him) has been noted by many Non-Muslim historians as well, and in fact anyone who has studied
his life carefully has been amazed at the golden character of this human being. Washington Irving notes in his book 'Mahomet
and His Successors': In his private dealings he was just. He treated friends and strangers, the rich and poor, the
powerful and weak, with equity, and was beloved by the common people for the affability with which he received them, and
listened to their complaints. (Irving, Mahomet and His Successors) To read more about what Non-Muslims have to say
about him, refer to the following:
http://www.load-islam.com/C/Muhamma...ut_the_Prophet/ Misquoted Verse #13 8:12-13... I will instill terror into the
hearts of the unbelievers. Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips off them. This because they contend
against God and his apostle. ... This is another verse that is commonly quoted out of context, both historical context and the
context of the verse itself in the Qur'an. Let us first examine the full verse: 8:12-13 Recall that your Lord inspired the angels:
"I am with you; so support those who believed. I will throw terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved. You may strike
them above the necks, and you may strike even every finger." This is what they have justly incurred by FIGHTING God and
His messenger. For those who fight against God and His messenger, God's retribution is severe. That is the context of the
verse in the Qur'an. The historical context is that this verse was revealed at the Battle of Badr, a battle in which the pagans of
Makkah traveled over 200 miles to destroy the Muslims of Madinah. The Pagans of Makkah had an army of about 1000 while
the Muslims were only 300 followers. The Prophet Muhammad ((peace be upon him)) and his followers had suffered severe
persecutions and torture for 13 years in the city of Makkah. Having fled from Makkah to the safety of Madinah, they found that
they were once again threatened. Abul 'Ala Maududi describes the situation that led to the Battle of Badr, beginning with the
Muslim activity in Madinah: In the first year of Hijrah, four expeditions were sent [by the Muslims to the Quraish] , that is,
the expedition under Hamzah, the expedition under Ubaidah bin Harith, the expedition under Sa'ad bin Abi Waqqas and the
Al-Abwa' expedition under the Holy Prophet himself. In the first month of the second year two more incursions were made on
the same route. These are known as Buwat Expedition and Zawal Ushairah Expedition. Two things about all these
expeditions are noteworthy. First, no blood was shed and no caravans were plundered in any of these expeditions. This
proves that the real object of these expeditions was to show to the Quraish which way the wind was blowing. Secondly, not a
single man from the people of Al-Madinah was sent by the Holy. Prophet on any of these incursions. All the bands consisted
purely of the immigrants from Makkah so that the conflict should remain between the people of the Quraish themselves and
should not further spread by the involvement of other clans. On the other side, the Quraish of Makkah tried to involve others
also in the conflict. When they sent bands towards Al-Madinah, they did not hesitate to plunder the people. For instance, an
expedition under the leadership of Kurz bin Jabir al-Fihrl plundered the cattle of the people of Al-Madinah from the very
vicinity of the city to show what their real intentions were. This was the state of affairs when, in Sha'aban, 2 A. H. (February
or March, 623 A. D.) a big trade caravan of the Quraish, carrying goods worth $50,000 or so, with only a guard of thirty to
forty men, on its way back from Syria to Makkah, reached the territory from where it could be easily attacked from
Al-Madinah. As the caravan was carrying trade goods worth thousands of pounds, and was scantily guarded, naturally Abu
Sufyan, who was in charge of it, from his Past experience feared an attack from the Muslims. Accordingly, as soon as he
entered the dangerous territory, he despatched a camel rider to Makkah with a frantic appeal for help. When the rider
reached Makkah, he, following an old custom of Arabia, tore open the ears of his camel, cut open his nose and overturned
the saddle. Then rending his shirt from front and behind, he began to cry aloud at the top of his voice, "O people of Quraish
despatch help to protect your caravan from Syria under the charge of Abu Sufyan, for Muhammad with his followers is in
pursuit of it; otherwise I don't think you will ever get your goods. Run, run for help." This caused great excitement and anger
in the whole of Makkah and all the big chiefs of the Quraish got ready for war. An army, consisting of 600 armored soldiers
and cavalry of 100 riders with great pomp and show marched out for a fight. They intended not only to rescue the caravan
but also to put to an end, once for all, the new menace from the Muslims who had consolidated themselves at Al-Madinah.
They wanted to crush that rising power and overawe the clans surrounding the route so as to make it absolutely secure for
future trade... ...the Holy Prophet and the true Believers had realized the urgency of that critical hour which required the risk
of life: therefore they marched straight to the south-west, wherefrom the army of the Quraish was coming. This is a clear
proof of the fact that from the very beginning they had gone out to fight with the army and not to plunder the caravan. For if
they had aimed at plundering the caravan they would have taken the north- westerly direction and not the south- westerly
one. (Maududi, Tafheem Al-Qur'an, emphasis added) The Makkans were not satisfied with expelling the Muslims from
Makkah and subsequently desired that they be purged from the surroundings of all major trade routes. So God supported the
Muslims and informed them that God would allow justice to prevail over oppression. He informed them that they should not
fear fighting in God's path, but it is the enemies who should fear God's retribution for their oppression and injustice. Also, God
inspired the ANGELS to support the believers and strike the disbelievers. This was NOT a command for the Muslims. Shaykh
Safiur Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri describes the situation during the Battle of Badr as follows: [The Makkans] were too
much exasperated and enraged and fell upon the Muslims to exterminate them once and for all. The Muslims, however, after
supplicating their Lord, calling upon Him for assistance, were made to hold to their position and conduct a defensive war
plan that was successful enough to inflict heavy losses on the attackers. The Prophet (Peace be upon him) used to pray to
his Lord ceaselessly persistently and day and night to come to their succour. When the fierce engagement grew too hot he
again began to supplicate his Lord saying: “O Allâh! Should this group (of Muslims) be defeated today, You will no
longer be worshipped.”.... Immediate was the response from Allâh, Who sent down angels from the heavens for the
help and assistance of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and his companions. The Noble Qur’ân observes: And recall
when your Lord inspired the angels: “Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror
into the hearts of those who have disbelieved.” [8:12] (Al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum; Riyadh-Saudi
Arabia, Dar-us-Salam Publications, 1996; pp. 219-220) Also, the previously mentioned laws of Jihad all applied here and
the Muslims were commanded: 8:61 But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and
trust in God: for He is One that hears and knows (all things). Believing in a punishment for oppressive disbelievers
delivered by the unseen angels is hardly different from believing in an unseen punishment in the next life. In addition, the
word 'terror' used in the verse (ru'b) is explained in a following discussion under 'Misquoted Narration #5'. Misquoted Verse
#14 5:33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for
mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from
the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter The context of this verse itself
will clear any negative perceptions against Islam. One cannot quote verse 5:33 without quoting verse 5:32 (prohibition of
murder) and verse 5:34 (command to forgive). Let us examine the verse in its proper context: 5:32-34 ...If any one slew a
person - unless it be as punishment for murder or for spreading corruption in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole
people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them
Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. The punishment
of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is:
execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their
disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into
your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. There are several points to note here. The first is
the gravity of the offense. This is punishment for WAGING WAR against the Prophet of God and spreading evil and
destruction. In modern terminology this would be considered "terrorism". This is a punishment for such a severe offense,
hence the severity of the punishment. As Muhammad Asad writes on this verse: The present participle la-musrifun
indicates their "continuously committing excesses" (i.e., crimes), and is best rendered as "they go on committing" them. In
view of the preceding passages, these "excesses" obviously refer to crimes of violence and, in particular, to the ruthless
killing of human beings. (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an) It is quite shocking to see how many Islam-haters will
place this verse under the heading of "inciting Muslims to kill and wage war", whereas the verse commands nothing of this
sort! In fact, it comes directly after a verse prohibiting murder and likening the unjust murder of a single individual to the
slaughter of humanity. The Qur'an purposefully describes the gravity of the sin before describing the punishment. The crime of
murder and committing terrorist activities is regarded as such a severe violation in Islam, that a severe retribution has been
prescribed. Waging war against God's prophet is tantamount to waging war against Our Creator Himself. It is ironic that
Islam-haters will present this verse to justify their claim that Islam supports terrorism, whereas Muslim scholars have always
presented this verse as proof that Islam is vehemently opposed to terrorism. For example, the Islamic Fiqh Council of Saudi
Arabia writes about this verse: Obviously, in view of the enormity of such acts of aggression, which are viewed by the
Shari'ah (Islamic law) as an act of war against the laws and the creatures of God, there is no stricter punishment anywhere in
the manmade laws. (Islamic Fiqh Council of Saudi Arabia, Terrorism – Islam’s viewpoint, Muslim World
League Journal, Jumad al-Ula 1423/July 2002 CE) Is it logical to inform someone about a certain punishment without
telling them about the crime? Yet, this is exactly what the enemies of Islam have done to deceive people into thinking Islam is
a violent religion. They cite only verse 5:33 without verse 5:32 or verse 5:34, which brings us to our next point. God has
prescribed multiple punishments in this verse using the word "or" between them, indicating various alternatives. The
punishment depends on the circumstances and severity of the offence. As Muhammad F. Malik writes in his translation of this
verse: The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Rasool and strive to create mischief in the land is
death or crucifixion or the cutting off their hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land (based on the gravity of
their offence)... (Malik, Al-Qur'an: Guidance for Mankind) Likewise, Abdullah Yusuf Ali comments: For the double crime
of treason against State, combined with treason against God, as shown by overt crimes, four alternative punishments are
mentioned, any one of which is to be applied according to circumstances...except that tortures such as "hanging, drawing,
and quartering" in English Law, and piercing of eyes and leaving the unfortunate victim exposed to a tropical sun, which was
practiced in Arabia, and all such tortures were abolished. In any case sincere repentance before it was too late was
recognized as grounds for mercy. (Yusuf Ali, The English Translation of the Holy Qur’an, emphasis added) Indeed,
the subsequent verse immediately states that this punishment is not for those who repent. For verily, God is Oft-Forgiving and
Most Merciful. God's infinite Mercy is truly clear when one considers that God is willing to forgive these ruthless acts of terror
that deserve such harsh punishments, so long as the offender sincerely repents to Allah, seeking His Pardon and True
Guidance. The Muslim scholars have mentioned that whenever Allah warns us of a punishment, He always shows us a way
out, a way to avoid the punishment. Many Muslim jurists also cite this verse in the case of punishment for Hirabah (armed
robbery/highway robbery). In such instances, depending on the severity of the offence, the punishment is prescribed. When
murder has been committed, then execution is prescribed as the punishment. Depending on the circumstances, the judge
may choose a lesser punishment. The banishment mentioned in the verse has been interpreted by some schools of thought
as imprisonment. The punishment of crucifixion has been mentioned in the verse, but many Muslim scholars have mentioned
that they never have even heard of such punishment ever being prescribed. In fact, Imam Malik, the founder of the Maliki
school of thought, when as ked about crucifixion, replied that he had never even heard of a single case in which crucifixion
was prescribed as punishment for armed robbery. (see Al-Mudawwanah, vol. XV, p. 99). In light of this fact, Shaykh
Muhammad S. Al-Awa has said: This observation of Malik's gives me the impression that this punishment was
prescribed solely to deter the potential criminal. (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications,
1993, p. 11, emphasis added) Concerning the argument that such punishments are barbaric, Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa
writes: Shaykh Muhammad Abu Zahra, in his previously mentioned book [Al-Jarima wal-'Uqba, pp. 6-11] , explains the
aim of both Islamic law, as well as the sacred Jewish law contained in the Torah, is to achieve public security and peace for
the community as well as the retribution for the criminal minority; accordingly, the necessary means for the attainment of this
latter end were prescribed both in the Torah and the Qur'an. The second question concerns the law of pardon for offenders
who repent and whether the punishment for Hirabah should be considered a dead letter because of this law. To answer this
question, one should again bear in mind that this punishment, and indeed all the hudud punishments in the Islamic penal
system, are prescribed mainly to protect society from crime. In order to achieve this purpose, Islamic law, while prescribing
punishment for criminals, makes it possible for them to be pardoned when they realize the evil of their conduct and desire to
mend their ways. This does not contradict the earlier quotation from Abu Zahra. While punishment may be withheld,
provision must be made for all the injuries and harm resulting from the criminal's act. In this way, society does not lose
anything. On the contrary, it gains a new member who, if he had not been given the chance to repent, forever would have
been considered an outlaw. (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 13, emphasis
added) For further information on the Islamic Criminal Law, the reader may refer to the excellent article, Crime and
Punishment in Islam. Other scholars explain the Islamic punishments by comparative means. Shaykh Abdul Majid Daryabadi
writes the following on verse 5:33: Lest some of these penalties may appear 'barbarous' to some hypersensitive Western
reader, let him cast a glance on 'drawing and quartering', a penalty of the English Criminal Code maintained as late as the
18th century, inflicted on those found guilty of high treason touching the king's person or government. The person committed
was usually drawn on a sledge to the place of execution; there he was hung by the neck from a scaffold, being cut down and
disemboweled, while still alive, his head was cut from his body and his corpse divided into four quarters. With the profession
of their faith declared as high treason by law many Catholics of England and Ireland suffered this death. 'In this reign of
Henry III and Edward I there is abundant evidence that death was the common punishment of felony; and this continued to
be the law of the land as to treason and as to all felonies, except petty larceny, down to the year 1826' (Stephen, History of
the Criminal Law of England , I. p. 458). In contemporary English law, robbery is larceny with violence; and the guilty is liable
to penal servitude for life, and in addition, if a male, to be once privately whipped. The elements of the offence are
essentially the same under American law ( EBr. XIX. p. 346). (Daryabadi, The Glorious Qur’an, emphasis added) In
light of the above mentioned points, we can clearly reject any claims of this verse supporting "violence and warfare" as
baseless. The textual context, historical context, legal context, and comparative analysis of this verse all demonstrate that this
verse merely enjoins justice in return for grave offences, and by no means can support the lies of the Islam-haters. Similar
Narration Bukhari: Some people from `Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them, so Allah's Apostle
(pbuh) allowed them to go to the herd of camels (given as Zakat) and they drank their milk and urine (as medicine) but they
killed the shepherd and drove away all the camels. So Allah's Apostle sent (men) in their pursuit to catch them, and they
were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut, and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron and they were
left in the Harra (a stony place at Medina) biting the stones. (Volume 2, Book 24, Number 577) This narration is often quoted
in order to present the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as someone who delivered exceedingly cruel and barbaric
punishments. Let us examine the narration more closely along with other narrations of the same event. The narration states
the following: -Some people from Urayna (or Ukil) tribe came to Madinah after accepting Islam
-They acquired an illness due to the climate, for which the Arabs used to drink milk and urine of camels as medicine
-The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) allowed them to go to the herds of camels for their medicine
-After recovering from their illness, they killed the sheperd and drove away the camels
-The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) ordered their hands and feet cut off, their eyes branded with heated pieces
of iron, and they were left in the desert It is clear that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) prescribed the hands
and feet to be cut off in accordance with the Islamic laws concerning hiraabah (armed robbery). What doesn't appear in this
narration is the reason for branding their eyes with heated pieces of iron. This is explained in other narrations where it states
that this was the punishment because they had done the same thing to the sheperd whom they killed. As Shaykh Abdul
Khaliq Hasan Ash-Shareef states about this narration: It should be made clear that those people who came to the Prophet
(peace and blessings be upon him) were Muslims and they were sick. The Prophet advised them to go to the herd of camels
and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). When they became healthy, they killed the herder of the Prophet and drove
away all the camels that were allocated for sadaqah (charity). When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) came
to know about this, he applied the punishment for Hirabah on them. Hiraba means killing people, robbing their money or
raping women by an armed group of people. The punishment for Hirabah is mentioned in the Qur’an. Allah says:
“The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His Messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be
that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.
Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom” (Al-Ma’idah: 33).
As for branding their eyes, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) branded the eyes of the people of `Ukl or
`Uraina with iron because they killed the herder and branded his eyes with iron. Imam Ibn Hajar stated the differences of
opinions among scholars and he said, “The killing that took place (that is, in reference to the above hadith) was in
retaliation and Allah Almighty says, ‘And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked
you’ (Al-Baqarah: 194).” All in all, using this story as evidence in favor of the permissibility of torturing
people in Islam is refuted by the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) applied the punishment for Hirabah
on them and that he did not do so for personal vengeance. (SOURCE, emphasis added) Likwise, Moiz Amjad writes:
There is only one part of the referred narrative, which raises a question-mark in one's mind. It apparently seems strange that
after having implemented the punishment prescribed in the Qur'an for crimes committed against the society, in general, why
did the Prophet (pbuh) ordered their eyes to be branded. Most of the narratives do not provide an answer to this question.
However, in one of the narratives reported in Ibn Al-Jarood's Al-Muntaqaa, Anas (ra) is reported to have explained the
reason for this punishment as well. The companion of the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: The Prophet (pbuh)
branded their eyes because they had branded the eyes of the herdsmen. (volume 1, Pg. 216) This explanation adequately
clarifies the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) ordered the branding the eyes of the culprits, in compliance with the Qur'anic
directive of Qisaas (Al-Baqarah 2: 178, Al-Maaidah 5: 45) for the punishment of murder and inflicting physical injury on
someone. In view of the foregoing explanation, I find no reason to consider the incident narrated in the referred narrative to
be unauthentic. ( SOURCE) Shaykh Muhammad al-Qannâs, a Professor at Al-Imam University (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia),
places the narration in perspective by presenting the views of the various Muslim scholars: The above mentioned hadîth is
narrated in Sahîh al-Bukhârî (6802) and Sahîh Muslim (1671). It reads:
Some people belonging (to the tribe) of `Uraynah came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) at Madînah, but they found its
climate uncongenial. So the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to them: If you so like, you may go to the camels that are
part of the charity and drink their milk and urine. They did so and were all right. They then fell upon the shepherds and
killed them and turned apostates from Islam and drove off the camels of the Prophet (peace be upon him). This news
reached Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) and he sent (people) on their track and they were (brought) and
handed over to him. He got their hands cut off, and their feet, and put out their eyes, and threw them on the stony ground
until they died.

The scholars disagree among themselves on this punishment:

1. Some said: This punishment was in retaliation for their act and the Prophet (peace be upon him) punished them in the
same way that they killed the shepherds. It is mentioned in Sahîh Muslim “The Prophet (peace be upon him) put
out their eyes because they put out the eyes of the shepherds”.

The people concerned in studying the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) military career said: They dismembered the
shipyards. Ibn al-Qayyim said: “It is extracted from the story of al-`Arâniyîn tribe that the criminal will be subject to
the same act similar to the one he perpetrated, when they put out the shepherd’s eyes, he put out their
eyes.” [Zâd al-Mâ`âd: (3/286)]

2. Other scholars said what is mentioned in the hadîth is abrogated, according to the prohibition of mutilation.

Accordingly, what took place in this hadîth was abrogated. This was adopted by al-Bukhârî. He narrated from Qatâdah
that: “It is been narrated to us from the Prophet (peace be upon him) after that the Prophet (peace be upon him)
encouraged charity and prohibited mutilation.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (4192)].

It was narrated by Qatâdah through Muhammad b. Sîrîn that this took place before the revelation on the ruling of
punishments. [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (5686)]

Al-Hâzimî said: “This hadîth was abrogated” and he set a chapter “Mutilation and its
abrogation”. He said: “A group of people adopted the opinion that these ruling were fixed in the beginning and
then were abrogated when Allah sent: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His
messenger…” [Sûrah al-Mâ’dah: 33]

[Al-I`tibâr fi al-Nâsikh wa al-Mansûkh, page 196].

It could be that this severe punishment was at the beginning because the Prophet (peace be upon him) knew that some of
the tough and hardened Bedouins who live around Madînah would not refrain from attacking others unless they heard of
some of these severe punishments. The desert Bedouins living in the surrounding wilderness were warlike tribes used to
toughness and to causing harassment. Allah says: “The dwellers of the desert are very hard in unbelief and
hypocrisy, and more disposed not to know the limits of what Allah has revealed to His Messenger; and Allah is Knowing,
Wise” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 97] (IslamToday fatwa service) Therefore, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)
did not punish them any more than the harm they inflicted upon the sheperd and the Muslim community. He also sent a strong
message to other desert tribes who were accustomed to raiding and attacking nearby villages and tribes. This punishment
was done for the security of the Muslim community, living in a very dangerous time with no formal legal system governing the
arabian tribes. The situation is incomparable to modern times where governments have strong control over their territories - in
arabia there existed a tribalistic anarchy. As Shaykh Muhammad 'Ata Al Sid Sid Ahmad writes: When the criminals of
'Urainah betrayed the community of Madinah which had met them with all love and respect -- by torturing and killing the
herder of their camels and escaping with the Muslim's camels as their booty -- the Prophet quickly marshalled all his powers,
arrested and dealt with them in the severest manner as the law allowed him. (Al-Sid, Islamic Criminal Law: The Hudud;
Malaysia, Eagle Trading Sdn. Bhd., 1995, p. 132) It should also be noted that many critics of the punishments in Islam are
themselves believers in an afterlife in which people will be punished for their crimes, often with eternal torment in Hell. Eternal
torment is far more servere than any temporary punishment delivered in this life. The punishments prescribed in Islam are
intended to purify the offender of their sin in order that they may be saved from a far greater punishment in the next life. It
seems that when one defers a punishment to the afterlife, there is a subconcious belief that such a punishment is not as
"real" and consequently it is not as bothering to sentence someone to eternal torture in Hell as it is to prescribe a painful
punishment here and now. Such thinking is inherently flawed.

Some writers have also claimed that the punishment delivered to the Ukil/Urayna tribe was prescribed for their apostasy. This
is clearly rejected by the text of the hadith as well as the consensus of all Muslim jurists. Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa
explains this as well: On the other hand, the prevalent view among Muslim jurists is that the case of this group of 'Ukal
and 'Urayna was a case of hiraba (armed robbery) and it was for this crime that they were punished (fn. See Tabari, Tafsir,
vol. VI, pp. 132-146; Ibn al-Qayyim, Zad al-Ma'ad, vol. III, p. 78; Ibn Hajar, Fath Al-Bari, where he criticises Bukhari's view).
The text itself demonstrates this very clearly. (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993,
p. 51) To conclude, this narration refers to an event of Hiraabah (armed robbery), where the Prophet Muhammad (peace be
upon him) implemented the law of Qisas (retribution), and the offendors were punished exactly as they had punished the
sheperd. The Prophet did not exceed this limit at all in his prescribed punishment, but rather purified the offenders so that the
punishment in the next life would be averted. Misquoted Verse #15 5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the
Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them. Verily Allah
guideth not a people unjust. The first point to be noted is that, in the verse above, the word Awliya is often incorrectly
translated as friends (Awliya is the plural and its singular is wali and the concept is walaah). As a result, many people are
under the misconception that this verse commands Muslims to distance themselves from Non-Muslims and to avoid friendship
with them. This is far from the truth, as we shall see after examining the meaning of the word Awliya. The Qur'an says:
3:122 . ..Allah was their WALI (protector), and in Allah should the faithful (Ever) put their trust. This verse indicates that a
wali is one in whom trust is placed for protection, as the Qur'an always declares God the protector, wali, of the righteous. As
Dr. Saeed Ismail Sieny concludes his discussion on Walaah by writing: As we have discovered above, the root of the
word "al-walaah" does not include love, support, etc., and that the core meaning rests on guardianship. (Sieny, The
Relationship Between Muslims and Non-Muslims; Toronto, Al-Attique Publishers Inc., 2000, p. 102, emphasis added) And
Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi writes: In the verse you quoted, the word "Awliya" is used. It is a plural and its singular is "wali".
The correct translation of the word ""wali"" is not "friend" but it is someone who is very close and intimate. It is also used to
mean "guardian, protector, patron, lord and master". In the Qur'an this word is used for God, such as “Allah is the
Protector (or Lord and Master) of those who believe. He takes them out from the depths of darkness to light…”
(Al- Baqarah: 257) There are many other references in the Qur'an that give this meaning. The same word is also
sometimes used in the Qur'an for human beings, such as “And whosoever is killed unjustly, We have granted his
next kin "wali" the authority (to seek judgment or punishment in this case)…” (Al-‘Isra' :33)
( SOURCE emphasis added) It becomes clear that the word Awliya cannot be taken as simply referring to friendship, as it
contains a much more complex meaning, including dependence and guardianship. Therefore, a more accurate translation of
the verse would be: 5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your protectors: They are but
protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
Therefore, the referred verse does not prohibit friendship with Non-Muslims at all. Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi writes: The Qur'an
does not say that non-Muslims cannot be Muslims' friends, nor does it forbid Muslims to be friendly to non-Muslims. There
are many non-Muslims who are good friends of Muslim individuals and the Muslim community. There are also many good
Muslims who truly and sincerely observe their faith and are very friendly to many non-Muslims at the same time. Islam
teaches us that we should be friendly to all people. Islam teaches us that we should deal even with our enemies with justice
and fairness. Allah says in the Qur'an in the beginning of the same Surah Al-Ma’dah: “O you who believe!
Stand out firmly for Allah as witnesses to fair dealings and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and
depart from justice. Be just, that is next to piety. Fear Allah, indeed Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do.” (
Al-Ma’dah :8) In another place in the Qur'an, Allah Almighty says: “Allah forbids you not with regard to those
who fight you not for your faith, nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them. For Allah loves
those who are just. Allah only forbids you with regard to those who fight you for your faith, and drive you out of your homes
and support others in driving you out, from turning to them for protection (or taking them as wali). Those who seek their
protection they are indeed wrong- doers.” (Al-Mumtahinah: 8-9) Moreover, Allah Almighty has described Prophet
Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, as "a mercy" to the worlds. He was a sign of Allah's Mercy to all, Muslims as
well as non-Muslims. In his kindness and fair treatment he did not make any difference between the believers and
non-believers. He was kind to the pagans of Makkah and fought them only when they fought him. He made treaties with the
Jews of Madinah and honored the treaties until they broke them. He, peace and blessings be upon him, is reported to have
received the Christians of Najran with kindness in his Masjid in Madinah. They argued with him about Islam, but he returned
them with honor and respect. There are many examples from his life that show that he was the friendliest person to all
people. ( SOURCE) And as Muhammad Asad writes: As regards the meaning of the "alliance" referred to here, see
3:28, and more particularly 4: 139 and the corresponding note, which explains the reference to a believer's loss of his moral
identity if he imitates the way of life of, or-in Qur'anic terminology-"allies himself" with, non-Muslims. However, as has been
made abundantly clear in 60: 7-9 (and implied in verse 57 of this Surah), this prohibition of a "moral alliance" with
non-Muslims does not constitute an injunction against normal, friendly relations with such of them as are well-disposed
towards Muslims. It should be borne in mind that the term wall has several shades of meaning: "ally", "friend", "helper",
"protector", etc. The choice of the particular term - and sometimes a -combination of two terms-is always dependent on the
context. (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an, emphasis added) The second point to note is that although this verse
makes a general statement, the ruling is specific and is to be applied in a context similar to the historical context. Shaykh
Yusuf Al-Qaradawi wrote about this topic extensively in response to a similar question: [The answer to this is that these
verses are not unconditional, to be applied to every Jew, Christian, or non-Muslim. Interpreting them in this manner
contradicts the injunctions of the Qur'an which enjoin affection and kindness to the good and peace-loving peoples of every
religion, as well as the verses which permit marriage to the women of the People of the Book, with all that Allah says
concerning marriage and He has put love and mercy between you” (30:21) and the verse concerning the
Christians: And thou wilt find those who say, 'Surely we are Christians,' to be nearest to them (the Muslims in affection...
(5:82) The verses cited above [verse 5:51] were revealed in connection with those people who were hostile to Islam and
made war upon the Muslims. Accordingly, it is not permissible for the Muslims to support or assist them - that is, to be their
ally- nor to entrust them with secrets at the expense of his own religion and community. This point is explained in other
verses, in which Allah, The Most High, says: They will spare nothing to ruin you; they yearn for what makes you suffer.
Hatred has been expressed by their mouths, but what their hearts conceal is still greater. Thus have We made clear to you
the revelations (or signs), if you possess understanding. Ah! You love them, but they do not love you… (3:118-119)
This ayah throws light on the character of such people, who conceal great enmity and hatred against the Muslims in their
hearts and whose tongues express some of the effects of such hostility. (Al-Qaradawi, Al-Halal Wal Haram Fil Islam; US
American Trust Publications, 1994, p. 340, emphasis added) As Shaykh Qaradawi mentioned, verse 5:11 cannot possibly
be taken as a prohibition of friendship since the Qur’an allows Muslim men to marry women from the People of the
Book: 5:5 … virtuous women of the believers and the virtuous women of those who received the Scripture
before you are lawful for you… And the Qur’an describes the relationship of marriage to be a relationship with
the deepest bond of love: 30:21 And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves,
that ye may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for
those who reflect. Also note that the Qur’an says: 60:8-9 Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not
made war against you on account of [your] religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show
“Birr” with them and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice. Allah only forbids you
respecting those who made war upon you on account of [your] religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up
[others] in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.
The word “birr” is the same word used to describe a Muslim’s relationship with their parents which is
considered the most sacred blood relationship in Islam. Therefore, Muslims are clearly commanded to deal with peaceful
non-Muslims is a friendly and peaceful manner. The third point is that the specific groups being referred to in this verse were
those hostile to Islam, and not all Jews and Christians in general. Concerning the historical context, the verse was revealed
during a time when the Muslims were being attacked from many directions, including the Christian Roman empire and the
Jews of Madinah. The Muslims had originally made a pact with the Jews of Madinah, but they were betrayed twice. So in this
context, the Qur'an was telling the believers to be cautious in dealings with such enemies who oppose Islam, and not to trust
them as protectors. As Jasser Auda writes: It was revealed in certain historic circumstances, in which there was a war
between the infant Islamic state on different occasions on four different fronts: the Romans, the Persians, the pagans of
Arabia, and the Jews of Madinah. So, the historic context of the revelation of this verse is a situation of war between
Muslims and the People of the Book (Jews, internally in Madinah, and Christians, through a Roman crusade). So, yes,
Muslims were not allowed to make friends with the enemies who were fighting them and wishing to eliminate them from the
face of the earth. Some Muslims say that since the verse has this historic context, then it is part of history and no longer
applies. This is not correct! It is true that the verse has a history behind it, but this does not mean that it is no longer
relevant. It is totally relevant but only in a context similar to the historic context. So today Muslims are not to make friends
with Jews or Christians (or followers of any other religion for that matter) if they try to kill Muslims, kick them out of their
homes, etc. ( SOURCE) The Qur'anic verse is relevant in a similar context to the historical context. A Muslim cannot take
Jews or Christians or anyone as protectors if they oppose their religion and its teachings. The Muslims are encouraged to rely
on each other for support. Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi writes: It is obvious that Jews patronize the Jews and Christians
patronize the Christians, so why not Muslims patronize Muslims and support their own people. This verse is not telling us to
be against Jews or Christians, but it is telling us that we should take care of our own people and we must support each
other. In his Tafsir, (Qur’an exegesis) Imam Ibn Kathir has mentioned that some scholars say that this verse (i.e.
the one you referred to) was revealed after the Battle of Uhud when Muslims had a set back. At that time, a Muslim from
Madinah said, "I am going to live with Jews so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." And another person
said, "I am going to live with Christians so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." So Allah revealed this
verse reminding the believers that they should not seek the protection from others, but should protect each other. (See Ibn
Kathir, Al-Tafsir, vol. 2, p. 68) ( SOURCE)[/ The groups prohibited for Muslims to take as protectors are described in the
Qur’an: The Holy Qur'an, 60:1 O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as protectors,- offering them
(your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet
and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in Allah your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way
and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love (and friendship) with them: for I
know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path. 60:2
If they were to get the better of you, they would behave to you as enemies, and stretch forth their hands and their tongues
against you for evil: and they desire that ye should reject the Truth. So the Qur'an forbids taking those as protectors who
expel the Muslims from their homes and who would betray and attack as soon as the opportunity arises. Those who have no
respect for a Muslim’s beliefs and desire that the Muslim leaves their faith - they cannot be taken as protectors. This is
the correct interpretation based on the context of the verse. To conclude, we once again quote Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi:
Muslims are allowed to have non-Muslims as friends as long as they keep their own faith and commitment to Islam pure and
strong. You are correct in pointing out that a Muslim man is also allowed to marry a Jewish or Christian woman. It is obvious
that one marries someone for love and friendship. If friendship between Muslims and Jews or Christians was forbidden, then
why would Islam allow a Muslim man to marry a Jew or Christian woman? It is the duty of Muslims to patronize Muslims.
They should not patronize any one who is against their faith or who fights their faith, even if they were their fathers and
brothers. Allah says: “O you who believe! Take not for protectors (Awliya') your fathers and your brothers if they love
unbelief above faith. If any of you do so, they are indeed wrong-doers.” (Al-Tawbah : 23) In a similar way, the
Qur'an also tells Muslims that they should never patronize the non-Muslims against other Muslims. However, if some Muslims
do wrong to some non-Muslims, it is Muslim’s duty to help the non-Muslims and save them from oppression . The
Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said that he himself will defend a Dhimmi living among Muslims to whom
injustice is done by Muslims. But Islam also teaches that Muslims should not seek the patronage of non-Muslims against
other Muslims. They should try to solve their problems among themselves. ( SOURCE) Islam is a religion of peace and
compassion, therefore it requires its adherents to act in the best possible manner to other human beings. Verse 5:51 does not
refer to friends, but protectors, and the historical context reveals that this verse prohibits Muslims from seeking the protection
and allegiance of those who are hostile to the Islamic faith. It is not a reference to all Non-Muslims, as the scholars of Islam
have clarified. Misquoted Narrations We will now examine some of the frequently misquoted narrations (ahadith) from
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). With regards to the narrations, the vast majority of narrations circulated amongst
Islam-haters are unauthentic, fabricated and contain mistranslations (as many of them were translated by non-muslims).
Muslims only accept the Sahih ahadith as authentic. The collection of narrations known as Sahih Bukhari and also Sahih
Muslim are the largest collection of authentic ahadith, and can be trusted, while other collections do not enjoy the same status
in Islam. Therefore, it this article we will only examine the authentic narrations, on the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon
him). Islam-Haters often will quote from works such as Ibn Ishaq or At-Tabari, and other works which contain many
mistranslations and unauthentic narrations. Arguments based on such narrations can be rejected outright without the need for
further investigation. The second point to note with regards to the narrations is that most of those which are perceived
negatively are simply those which encourage Jihad. Since Jihad is misunderstood by many to be a "holy war" against
non-muslims, any narration that encourages Jihad is automatically perceived in a negative light. The truth of course is that
Jihad is not a negative concept. Jihad refers to fighting against oppression and injustice and fighting to uphold peace, justice,
and security in the land. This has been re-iterated throughout this article. If we understand that Jihad is intended to help
humanity, then we can understand the narrations about Jihad properly. The Jihad that was encouraged by the Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him) was Jihad to extinguish the suffering, enslavement, and oppression of human beings. First
we shall address the following quote often presented: Bukhari: Jihad (holy fighting) in God's Cause (with full force of
weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its Pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, God is made
superior and He becomes the only God who may be worshiped. By Jihad Islam is propagated and made superior. By
abandoning Jihad (may God protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position. Their honor is
lost, their lands are stolen, and Muslim rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He
who tries to escape this duty dies as a hypocrite. Islam-haters deceptively write Bukhari before the above quote in order to
convey the impression that this narration is part of the collection of narrations from Prophet Muhammad in Sahih Bukhari.
However this is not the case. Anyone who opens a copy of Sahih Bukhari will find this note written in as a footnote. This note
does not appear in any Arabic copies, therefore, this is not the saying of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), nor even
the saying of Imam Bukhari, but simply the commentary of the translator, Muhammad Muhsin Khan. This is his opinion and
not a saying of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). This quote is often used to depict Jihad as a military campaign
to destroy or oppress people of other beliefs. Having already defined Jihad in the light of the Qur'an and Sunnah, we can
reject such a notion as completely false. Misquoted narration #1 Bukhari: A man came to God'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. Can you, while the Muslim
fighter has gone out for Jihad, enter a mosque to perform prayers without ceasing and fast forever?" The man said, "No one
can do that." (Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44) Many narrations used by enemies of Islam are similar to the one presented
above. All these narrations emphasize the importance of Jihad in Islam. The purpose of Jihad is emphasized clearly in the
Qur'an: 4:75 And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill-treated and
oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are
oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help We can understand
the Jihad the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) encouraged if we examine the historical situation at that time.
Muhammad Husayn Haykal notes the following in his biography of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him): Fighting
was permitted in Islam, and carried out by Muhammad and his companions, in order to stop their being persecuted for their
faith and to have all the freedom they needed to call men to it. Later, when we see the details and the proofs of this, it will
become clear that in all these alliances Muhammad's purpose was the consolidation of the defence of Madinah. The objective
was to remove Madinah beyond any design the Quraysh might have against its Muslim inhabitants. Muhammad could not
have forgotten that the Makkans once sought to extradite the Muslims from Abyssinia... ...This peaceful show of strength by
Islam does not at all mean that Islam, at that time, forbade fighting in defence of personal life and of religion, or to put a stop
to persecution. Indeed, Islam did not. Rather, it imposed such defence as a sacred duty . What it did really mean at that time,
as it does today or will ever do, was to condemn any war of aggression. "Do not commit any aggression," God commands. He
counsels, "God does not love the aggressors."[Qur'an, 2:190] (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad; US North American Trust
Publications, 1976, p.206, 208 emphasis added) Therefore, Islam, being a system which aims for the betterment of
humanity, imposes fighting against oppression and injustice as a religious duty. This is the reason for the sayings of the
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) which encourage his followers to fight for the sake of God. Misquoted narration
#2 Bukhari: God's Apostle said on the day of the conquest of Mecca, "There is no migration now, only Jihad and good
intentions. And when you are called for Jihad, you should come out at once." (Volume 4, Book 53, Number 412) The
reason is very clear why the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) has mentioned this. When the Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him) entered Makkah, the city of those who had persecuted him and his followers a decade before, he
forgave those who persecuted him. It was this mercy that allowed the entire city to willingly embrace Islam. Muhammad
Husayn Haykal writes about the Prophet's entry into Makkah: The Prophet camped on a height opposite the mountain of
Hind and in the proximity of the graves of Abu Talib and Khadijah. He was asked whether he wanted to rest in his old house
in Makkah and answered, "No! They have leveled it." The Prophet then retired to his tent grateful to God for this glorious and
victorious return, and for bringing to its knees the cruel city which had tortured and banished him. For a moment, he turned
his gaze toward the valley of Makkah as well as to the surrounding hills. He recalled that in those hills he often found refuge
from the persecution of Quraysh... ...Mounting his she camel, al Qaswa', he rode toward the Ka'bah where he
circumambulated the House without dismounting. He then dismounted and called upon `Uthman ibn Talhah to open the
Ka'bah for him. Muhammad stood at the door surrounded by the many worshippers who had found their way to the holy
House. He delivered a speech to the people present in which he said, quoting the Qur'an... ..."O men, We have created you
from male and female and constituted you into peoples and tribes that you might know and cooperate with one another. In
the eye of God, highest among you is the most virtuous. God is omniscient and all wise." [Qur'an, 49:13] He continued: "0
Men of Quraysh, what do you think I am about to do with you?" "Everything good," they answered, "for you are a noble
brother and a noble nephew of ours." Muhammad went on: "Rise, then, and go. For you are free." With this word,
Muhammad gave a general amnesty to all Quraysh and all the Makkans. The Prophet's General Amnesty Oh, the beauty of
pardon and forgiveness on the part of the mighty and powerful! How great is the soul of Muhammad which rose above hatred
and above revenge, which denied every human feeling and ascended to heights of nobility man had never reached before!
There were the Quraysh among whom were people whom Muhammad well knew had plotted to kill him, had persecuted
him, and inflicted upon him and his companions all kinds of injury and harm, who fought him at Badr and at Uhud, who
blockaded him in the Campaign of al Khandaq, who incited the Arab tribes to rise against him, and who would even then
tear him apart if only they had the power. There, the whole of Quraysh stood totally under Muhammad's hand, indeed under
his feet, totally subject to his command. Indeed, their very life depended upon the first word emerging from his lips. All these
thousands of men, of Muslims in battle array, stood on the ready waiting for that one word to wipe out the whole of Makkah
and its people within minutes. Muhammad, however, was no less than Muhammad! He was no less than the Prophet of God!
No alienation, antagonism, or hostility could find any permanent abode in his heart. His heart was absolutely free of
injustice, of malice, of tyranny or false pride. In the most decisive moment, God gave him power over his enemy. But
Muhammad chose to forgive, thereby giving to all mankind and all the generations the most perfect example of goodness, of
truthfulness, of nobility and magnanimity. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad ]; US North American Trust Publications, 1976,
pp. 406-408) At this point, Islam had become the major authority in the Arabian Peninsula and was established as a full
state. With this many followers it was clear that in the face of danger, migration was no longer an option for such a large
nation as no Muslim could turn their back on a fellow believer. Rather it was imperative that they all recognize the need for
standing united in defending against the inevitable attacks from the armies of Persians and Romans. Misquoted narration #3
Bukhari: Allah's Apostle said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords." (Volume 4, Book 52, Number 73)
This narration is quoted by some in order to depict Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as someone who glorified
violence and killing. However, if the full saying is quoted in context, that image is immediately banished. The full saying is
found in another narration: ...Allah's Apostle in one of his military expeditions against the enemy, waited till the sun declined
and then he got up amongst the people saying, "O people! Do not wish to meet the enemy, and ask Allah for safety, but when
you face the enemy, be patient, and remember that Paradise is under the shades of swords." Then he said, "O Allah, the
Revealer of the Holy Book, and the Mover of the clouds and the Defeater of the clans, defeat them, and grant us victory over
them."(Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 266l) This narration makes it abundantly clear that the Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him) taught his followers to hate violence and never desire conflict with the enemy. However, in the event of
a battle, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) encouraged his companions to be patient and informed them of the
reward promised by God to those who die fighting oppression and injustice. This saying should be presented in its full context
so that the reader may see that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a man who desired peace and patiently
endured the struggles thrust upon him by his enemies. As Dr. Jamal Badawi mentioned about this narration: The hadith
deals with the situation where Muslims are forced to the battlefield as the last resort to defend themselves in which case the
use of the sword may be necessary and martyrdom (self-sacrifice) is rewarded with Paradise. ( SOURCE) Misquoted
narration #4 The Prophet said "I swear by the One in Whose hand is my soul, O Quraysh, that I am bringing you
slaughter!" (Musnad Ahmad # 7036, Ibn Hisham 1:289) Although this narration does not appear in Sahih Muslim or Bukhari,
it has been narrated in some other collections and accepted by scholars. To understand this narration, we must examine the
historical context in which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) made the statement. Shaykh Safiur Rahman
al-Mubarakpuri mentions this narration in his biography of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in the following
context: Al-Bukhari, on the authority of Ibn Mas‘ud, narrated that once when the Prophet [pbuh] was prostrating
himself while praying in Al-Ka‘bah, Abu Jahl asked his companions to bring the dirty foetus of a she-camel and place it
on his back. ‘Uqbah bin Abi Mu‘ait was the unfortunate man who hastened to do this ignoble act. A peal of
laughter rose amongst the infidels. In the meanwhile, Fatimah, the daughter of the Prophet [pbuh], happened to pass that
way. She removed the filth from her father’s back. The Prophet [pbuh] invoked the wrath of Allâh upon them,
especially upon Abu Jahl, ‘Utbah bin Rabi‘a, Shaibah bin Rabi‘a, Al-Waleed bin ‘Utbah, Omaiyah
bin Khalaf and ‘Uqbah bin Mu‘ait. It is recorded that all of them were killed in the battle of Badr. [Bukhari 1/37]
Scandal-mongering and backbiting were also amongst the means of oppression that the chiefs of Makkah, in general, and
Omaiyah bin Khalaf, in particular, resorted to in their overall process of evil-doing. In this regard, Allâh says: "Woe to every
slanderer and backbiter." [Al-Qur'an 104:1] ‘Uqbah bin Al-Mu‘ait once attended an audience of the Prophet
[pbuh] and listened to him preaching Islam. A close friend of his, Ubai bin Khalaf, heard of this. He could not tolerate any act
of this sort, so he reproached ‘Uqbah and ordered him to spit in the Prophet’s holy face, and he shamelessly
did it. Ubai did not spare any thinkable way to malign the Prophet [pbuh] ; he even ground old decomposed bones and blew
the powder on him... The Tyrants’ Decision to kill the Prophet [pbuh] Now that all the schemes and conspiracies of
Quraysh had failed, they resorted to their old practices of persecution and inflicting tortures on the Muslims in a more
serious and brutal manner than ever before. They also began to nurse the idea of killing the Prophet [pbuh]. In fact, contrary
to their expectations, this new method and this very idea served indirectly to consolidate the Call to Islam and support it with
the conversion of two staunch and mighty heroes of Makkah, i.e. Hamzah bin ‘Abdul-Muttalib and ‘Umar bin
Al-Khattab[R]. ‘Utaibah bin Abi Lahab once approached the Prophet [pbuh] and most defiantly and brazenly shouted
at him, "I disbelieve in: "By the star when it goes down." [53:1] and in "Then he (Gabriel) approached and came closer." [53:8]
In other words: "I do not believe in any of the Qur’ân." He then started to deal highhandedly with Muhammad [pbuh]
and laid violent hand on him, tore his shirt and spat into his face but his saliva missed the Holy face of the Prophet [pbuh].
Thereupon, the Prophet [pbuh] invoked Allâh’s wrath on ‘Utaibah and supplicated: "O Allâh! Set one of Your
dogs on him." Allâh responded positively to Muhammad’s supplication, and it happened in the following manner:
Once ‘Utaibah with some of his compatriots from Quraysh set out for Syria and took accommodation in
Az-Zarqa’. There a lion approached the group to the great fear of ‘Utbah, who at once recalled
Muhammad’s words in supplication, and said: "Woe to my brother! This lion will surely devour me just as Muhammad
[pbuh] supplicated. He has really killed me in Syria while he is in Makkah." The lion did really rush like lightning, snatched
‘Utbah from amongst his people and crushed his head. [Tafheem-ul-Qur'an 6/522; Quoted from Al-Isti'ab, Al-Isaba,
Dala'il An-Nubuwwah, etc] It is also reported that a wretched idolater from Quraysh, named ‘ Uqbah bin ‘Abi
Mu‘ait once trod on the Prophet’s neck while he was prostrating himself in prayer until his eyes protruded.
[Mukhtasar Seerat Ar-Rasool p.113]... ...the tyrants of Quraysh would not be admonished, contrariwise, the idea of killing
the Prophet [pbuh] was still being nourished in their iniquitous hearts. On the authority of ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin
Al-‘As, some people of Quraysh were in a place called Al-Hijr complaining that they had been too patient with the
Prophet [pbuh] , who suddenly appeared and began his usual circumambulation. They started to wink at him and utter
sarcastic remarks but he remained silent for two times, then on the third, he stopped and addressed the infidels saying: "O
people of Quraysh! Hearken, I swear by Allâh in Whose Hand is my soul, that you will one day be slaughtered to pieces." As
soon as the Prophet [pbuh] uttered his word of slaughter, they all stood aghast and switched off to a new style of language
smacking of fear and even horror trying to soothe his anger and comfort him saying: "You can leave Abul Qasim, for you have
never been foolish." [Ibn Hisham 1/289] ‘Urwa bin Az-Zubair narrated: I asked Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin
Al-‘As to tell me of the worst thing that the pagans did to the Prophet [pbuh] . He said: "While the Prophet [pbuh] was
praying in Al-Hijr of Al-Ka‘bah, ‘Uqbah bin Al-Mu‘ait came and put his garment around the
Prophet’s neck and throttled him violently. Abu Bakr came and caught him by his shoulder and pushed him away
from the Prophet [pbuh] and said: "Do you want to kill a man just because he says, My Lord is Allâh?" [Bukhari 1/544]
(Al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum; Riyadh-Saudi Arabia, Dar-us-Salam Publications, 1996; pp. 94 & 105-108,
emphasis added) It becomes clear that this statement was uttered by a man subjected to abuse and persecution. The
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said this after being repeatedly tormented while trying to worship his creator in
peace. Not only was he tortured, but his followers also suffered immense torture. Professor K. S. Ramakrishna Rao
summarizes some of the tortures the early Muslims faced: Read the history of the early converts to Islam, and every
heart would melt at the sight of the brutal treatment of innocent Muslim men and women. Sumayya, an innocent women, is
cruelly torn into pieces with spears, An example is made of " Yassir whose legs are tied to two camels and the beast were
are driven in opposite directions", Khabbab bin Arth is made lie down on the bed of burning coal with the brutal legs of their
merciless tyrant on his breast so that he may not move and this makes even the fat beneath his skin melt." "Khabban bin Adi
is put to death in a cruel manner by mutilation and cutting off his flesh piece-meal." In the midst of his tortures, being asked
weather he did not wish Muhammad in his place while he was in his house with his family, the sufferer cried out that he was
gladly prepared to sacrifice himself his family and children and why was it that these sons and daughters of Islam not only
surrendered to their prophet their allegiance but also made a gift of their hearts and souls to their master ? Is not the intense
faith and conviction on part of immediate followers of Muhammad, the noblest testimony to his sincerity and to his utter
self-absorption in his appointed task ? (Ramakrishna Rao, Islam and Modern Age) Therefore, Prophet Muhammad's
comment (peace be upon) was a warning. It was a warning to the Quraysh to desist from their crimes or face the punishment
of their Lord. It should be noted that this was always the function of God's Messengers and Prophets throughout the history of
humanity on Earth. They were sent by God to guide people back to the worship of their Creator, towards good deeds and acts
of compassion and away from evil deeds and sins. The Prophets warned their people to desist from their crimes before the
punishment of God would come. An example would be the nation of Pharaoh who enslaved the Children of Israel and sought
to kill Prophet Moses (peace be upon him). For their crimes, God caused them to drown in the sea. Dr. Ja'far Sheikh Idris
comments on the destruction of nations by mentioning the following: Decline or destruction is therefore the ultimate and
inevitable destiny of any ungrateful nation, any nation which rebels against God and follows the path of immorality. But this
ultimate destruction is brought about in accordance with principles. Here are some of them. a. Destruction or chastisement
does not befall a nation until it is sufficiently warned. This warning can come to them through the medium of a Messenger
from God: "And never did Thy Lord destroy the townships, till He had raised up in their mother-town a messenger reciting
unto them our revelations. And never did we destroy the townships unless the folk thereof were evil doers." (Qu'ran:xxvii,59)
"Never did We destroy a population, but had its warners------by way of reminder; and We never are unjust." (Qur'an
xxvi,208-209) Or they may be caused to know in some other way that they are guilty and should therefore expect to be
punished. (The Process of Islamization, Part 4 © 1977 The Muslim Students' Association of the US and Canada Fourth
Printing - January 1983) So the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was performing his duty of warning the Quraysh of
an impending punishment from God if they did not desist from their crimes and sins. In the end, most of the Quraysh did
repent and embraced Islam, thus the punishment was averted from them. Misquoted narration #5 Bukhari: Allah's
Apostle said, "I have been made victorious with Terror" (Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220) The full narration reads as
follows: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest
meanings, and I have been made victorious with ru'b (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of
the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and
now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them). (Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52,
Number 220) By using the word 'Terror' for ru'b, the Islam-hater intends to convey the following definition of terror:
Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes. ( The
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) However, the word ru'b does not have that
meaning at all. It refers to fright and anxiety. In fact, we can derive a better understanding of ru'b by examing other ahadith:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) saod: "I was given victory through Ru`b: the enemy becomes filled with Ru`b even though
they are the distance of a month's journey away from me." (Ahmad #20337) The meaning is thus obvious that when the
enemies' attempts to detroy the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) failed, they began to fear him as he grew in
strength in Arabia and gained more followers. They feared and hated the religion he brought which preached equality and
morality and would remove them from their position of corrupt tyrants who enslaved the poor and the non-arabs. It was fear of
the mysterious power which granted Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his followers such rapid success. This fear
was not the fear that resulted from past combat, as many Islam-haters would have us believe, rather it was a type of fear
which prevented further combat. As Jalal Abualrub notes: Ru`b ', means, ‘Fear': Here is a list of some of the
Islamic resources explaining, ‘Ru`b', as, ‘Fear', and, ‘Awe': Fat`h al-Bari bi Shar`h Sahih al-Bukhari ;
Tu`hfat al-A`hwadhi bi Shar'h Jami' at-Tirmidhi ; and, Shar`h Sunan an-Nasaii . These books were written by Muslim
Scholars explaining Hadeeths contained in, Sahih al-Bukhari , and the Sunan collections of Imams at-Tirmidhi and
an-Nasaii, respectively.... ... Al-Waqidi said in his, Maghazi , that Juwairiyah Bint al-Harith said, “ We were at the
Muraisii` area when the Messenger of Allah marched forth towards us. I heard my father say, ‘There has come to us
a gathering that we cannot resist.' I saw men and horses in such numbers that I cannot describe. After I became Muslim and
the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, married me I looked at the Muslims and found their numbers to be less than
what I had thought. I knew that this was Ru`b that Allah, the Exalted, throws in the hearts of the polytheists.' ” There
are many similar examples in which the enemies of Islam, who, just like the Muraisii` people, had gathered armies to attack
Madinah and the Prophet, scattered throughout the desert in fear when they heard that the Prophet had gathered an army to
resist their treacherous attacks. Many lives were saved through Allah throwing fear in the hearts of the enemies of
Muhammad, peace be upon them, because his enemies feared him, fled and did not meet him in battle. Thus, ‘fear',
in the Hadeeth...saved Muslims and many of their enemies the hardship of battle and warfare. (Abualrub, The Prophet of
Mercy, emphasis added) hence, the fear that the disbelievers had of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) can justly
be compared to the fear a thief or murderer would have of a police officer. In fact, a Police officer would desire that criminals
fear the law in order to maintain a safe and secure society. Some crtitics also claim that this narration proves that the
motivation of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was money due to the phrase, "the keys of the treasures of the
world were brought to me and placed in my hand". Of course they omit the phrase before that - "While I was asleep". Jalal
Abualrub comments on this deceptive tactic as follows: By doing so, it would appear that the Prophet, peace be upon
him, was seeking or wishing to acquire other people's wealth for himself. Contrary to this false illusion, this was a vision that
the Prophet saw which contained glad tidings for the generations of Muslims to come. This is why in the same Hadeeth, Abu
Hurairah added, as al-Bukhari and Muslim reported from him, “ Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people,
are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them). (Abualrub, The Prophet of Mercy) There are
thousands of narrations which confirm that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) lived a simple life in poverty despite
the power and strength he acquired as a leader. Here are a few of such narrations: Narrated 'Aisha: The family of
Muhammad had never eaten their fill of wheat bread for three successive days since they had migrated to Medina till the
death of the Prophet. (Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 461) Narrated 'Aisha: The family of Muhammad did not eat two
meals on one day, but one of the two was of dates. (Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 462) Narrated 'Aisha: The bed
mattress of the Prophet was made of a leather case stuffed with palm fibres. (Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 463)
Narrated Qatada: We used to go to Anas bin Malik and see his baker standing (preparing the bread). Anas said, "Eat. I have
not known that the Prophet ever saw a thin well-baked loaf of bread till he died, and he never saw a roasted sheep with his
eyes." (Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 464) Narrated 'Aisha: A complete month would pass by during which we would
not make a fire (for cooking), and our food used to be only dates and water unless we were given a present of some meat.
(Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 465) In truth, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) never desired anything of
the worldly pleasures. His mission was solely to please his Lord and spread the true message across the land, calling people
to morality, justice and peace achieved through submission to God. Misquoted narration #6 The Prophet said to
expel the non-muslims from the arabian peninsula.
The statements of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) concerned are as follows: Expel the pagans from
the Arabian Peninsula (Ar. Jazîrat Al-'Arab), respect and give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing
with them. (Sahîh Bukhârî)

I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula (Ar. Jazîrat Al-'Arab) and will not leave any but Muslims.
(Sahîh Muslim)
 Two religions shall not coexist in the Arab lands (Ar. Ard Al-'Arab). (Muwatta Mâlik) First let us discuss the meaning of
Jazîrat Al-'Arab and Ard Al-'Arab. We shall examine how these terms are geographically defined in connection to their context
in the aforementioned Ahâdîth.

When the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) gave commands to his companions he spoke using the terminology and
the language that they were familiar with. Thus, the regions mentioned were defined according to the cultural and geopolitical
setting in Arabia. If we look at how the Prophet's comnpanions understood and implemented his directives, we are able to
develop a better understanding of what the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) intended.

The prominent companion of the Prophet, 'Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, relocated the Jewish tribes of Khaybar and Fadak, sending
them to other regions in Arabia such as Taymâ and Arîhâ. Scholars have used this, amongst other narrations, as evidence
when interpreting the saying of the Prophet Muhammad on the arabian peninsula. Shaykh Sâmî Al-Mâjid writes in his
discussion of these Prophetic sayings: Furthermore, many scholars understand the hadîth to refer only to the Hijâz region
surrounding Makkah and Madînah . The proof for this is that `Umar expelled the Jews from Khaybar and Fadak, but did not
expel the inhabitants of Taymâ, though it is also located on the Arabian peninsula. ( IslamToday Fatwâ)
Commenting on this action of 'Umar, Imâm Abu Zakariyyah An-Nawawî (d. 1300CE) writes:
`Umar sent them to Taymâ and Arîhâ. This is proof that the Prophet (peace be upon him) intended that the Jews and
Christians should be evicted from only part of the Arabian Peninsula, specifically the region of Hijâz. This is because
Taymâ is part of the Arabian Peninsula but outside of Hijâz. (Sharh Sahîh Muslim 10/212-213)
He also says:
Al-Shâfi`î understood the ruling to apply to part of the Arabian Peninsula, namely the Hijâz region. For him this is
Makkah, Madînah, al-Yamâmah and their environs. It does not include Yemen and other areas of the Arabian Peninsula. (
Sharh Sahîh Muslim 11/93-94)
Likewise, the Hanbalî scholar Imâm Ibn Qudâmah Al-Maqdisî (d. 1223CE) mentions Imâm Ahmad b. Hanbal's (d. 855CE)
opinion that the Arabian Peninsula refers to Madinah and its environs. He then goes on to say: This means that what is
forbidden is for unbelievers to settle in "Madinah and its environs" which includes Makkah, al-Yamâmah, Khaybar, al-Yanbu`,
Fadak and their outlying areas. This is the opinion of al-Shâfi`î. It is as if the Arabian Peninsula referred to in those hadîth
is intended to mean the Hijâz region. The only reason this reason is named Hijâz, a word implying a boundary or division,
is because it divides between the regions of Tihâmah and Najd. It is not forbidden for them to live in the borderlands of
Hijâz, like Taymâ and Fayd, since `Umar did not prohibit this. (al-Mughnî 13/242-244)
This is again repeated by Imâm Ibn Hajar Al-'Asqalânî (d. 1449CE): The pagans are not allowed to settle specifically in
the Hijâz region, meaning Makkah, Madînah, al-Yamâmah, and their environs. It does not apply to other regions that are
considered part of the Arabian Peninsula. This is because everyone is agreed that they may live in Yemen, though it is part
of the Arabian Peninsula. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars. (Fath al-Bârî 6/198)
The conclusion of these quotations is that the Prophet's directive concerning the removal of Non-Muslim groups referred
specifically to the Hijâz region (the surroundings of Makkah and Madînah) and not the entire 'Arabian peninsula'.

Having understood the geographical aspect of the directive, the legal aspect may be examined. What is the conclusion of the
removal of Non-Muslims from the Hijâz region? The scholars have explained that this removal implies only the prohibition of
permanent non-muslim settlements in the region. It does not preclude the presence of all non-muslim activities, so long as
permanent settlements are not taken up. As Shaykh Sâmî Al-Mâjid writes: There are some things that need to be
understood about this hadîth. It does not prohibit non-Muslims from residing in the Arabian Peninsula without the intention
of permanent settlement. They may live within it for purposes of business, study, or work. There is no prohibition against it.
(IslamToday Fatwâ)
Therefore the hadîth of the Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited the presence of Non-Muslim settlements, in the Hijâz
region.

It may be asked as to why the Prophet (peace be upon him) gave such a directive. A number of reasons can be offered.
Makkah and Madînah became established as the heart of the Muslim world. The presence of non-muslim settlements in the
surrounding region posed a threat if these settlements would grow, gain control and dominate the area, allowing their
unislamic customs and beliefs to prevail in the nucleus of the Islamic empire. Even worse, they may turn against the Muslims
in the area and eradicate them. Such a fear was quite valid as the Muslims were no foreigners to hostility and agression from
non-muslim tribes who sought to wipe them out. Thus, it was crucial that Islam remained the sole power and influence in
these lands to ensure the stability of the Islamic nation. The companions implemented the Prophetic commands without
violence. There was no destruction of homes or property involved; the Muslims fought only those who initiated the agression
against them. They retained peaceful ties with many non-muslim tribes and groups. There were many Christian, Jewish and
Zoroastrian groups who continued to live peacefully under the Islamic state undisturbed. Misquoted Narration #7
The Prophet said, "Whoever replaces his religion, execute him."
In order to understand this issue, we need to examine the Islamic law on apostasy. Since religion is looked on as a personal
affair in western society, the notion of state intervention in one's personal choice would naturally seem excessive. However,
from the Islamic perspective, a number of points must be observed with regard to apostasy: 1. Islam has never compelled
anyone to accept the religion. Anyone who becomes a Muslim does so purely through objective study of the religion. As
Allah has informed us in the Qur'an:

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion.

10:99 So would you (O Muhammad) then compel people to become believers?

Likewise, Islam encourages its followers to reflect and contemplate upon the universe around us and to ponder over the
beauty of the Qur'anic message:

47:24 Do they not ponder over the Qur'an or are their hearts locked up?

51:20-21. And on earth are signs for those endowed with inner-certainty; and [likewise there are signs] in yourselves, do you
not observe?

29:20 Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah
has power over all things.

Thus, Islam requires that one's faith be constructed upon logical investigation and study of the universe in which we live.
Through logical contemplation, one realizes the supreme authority of the Creator and the veracity of Muhammad's (saws)
claim to prophethood. Thus we find that, in the history of Islam, no knowledgeable Muslim has ever left Islam. The only
cases we find of former Muslims are people who were never practicing Muslims in the first place, nor did they ever have a
good understanding of Islam. Yet on the other hand, the list of educated converts to Islam is immense, and it includes
educated leaders such as priests , rabbis and atheists .

2. Those who have left Islam have historically fallen under three categories: those who left having never properly understood
the religion often due to social circumstances, those who faked a conversion into Islam in order to undermine the Islamic
community from within, and those who left to support opposing forces in battle against the Muslims. Because of the first
category, Islam requires that the person who has chosen to forsake the religion be consulted with in order that his doubts
may be clarified to him if there is any specific issue of confusion, or so that he may learn the proper Islamic teachings that
he may otherwise have not been exposed to. As for the second and third category, this was the original reason behind the
Prophet's statement on apostasy. The Qur'an records (3:72) that the Jews of Madinah decided to initiate the practice of
pretending to accept Islam and then publicly declare their rejection of it, so as to destroy the confidence of the
newly-converted Muslims. Thus, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh ruled that a punishment should be announced so that those
who decide to accept Islam do so because of a firm conviction not in order to harm the Muslim community from within.

3. Coming to the actual law of apostasy, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh did say, in the above historical context, " Whoever
replaces his religion, execute him " (Bukhari, Abu Dawud) but how exactly do we understand this statement and does it
conflict with the principles of freedom? The Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself clarified this statement in another hadith
narrated in Sahih Muslim where he mentioned that the one who was to be fought against was the one who " abandons his
religion and the Muslim community". It should be noted that every country has maintained punishments, including execution,
for treason and rebellion against the state ( See Mozley and Whitley's Law Dictionary , under "Treason and Treason Felony,"
pp. 368-369). Islam is not just a set of beliefs, it is a complete system of life which includes a Muslim's allegiance to the
Islamic state. Thus, a rejection against that would be akin to treason. Rebellion against God is more serious than rebellion
against one's country. However, one who personally abandons the faith and leaves the country would not be hunted down
and assassinated, nor would one who remains inside the state conforming to outward laws be tracked down and executed.
The notion of establishing inquisition courts to determine peoples' faith, as done in the Spanish Inquisition, is something
contrary to Islamic law. As illustrated by the historical context in which it was mandated, the death penalty is mainly for those
who collaborate with enemy forces in order to aid them in their attacks against the Islamic state or for those who seek to
promote civil unrest and rebellion from within the Islamic state. When someone publicly announces their rejection of Islam
within an Islamic state it is basically a challenge to the Islamic government, since such an individual can keep it to
themselves like the personal affair it is made out to be.

4. From Islamic history, we can gain a better understanding of how this law has been implemented. Although the Prophet
Muhammad pbuh threatened the death penalty in response to the attempts against the Muslim community, no such
executions took place in his time (Imam Shawkani, Nayl Al-Awtar, vol. 7, p. 192) even though there is a report that a Bedouin
renounced Islam and left Madinah unharmed in his time ( Fath Al-Bari vol. 4, p.77 and vol. 13 p. 170; Sahih Muslim biSharh
An-Nawawi, vol. 9, p. 391). Thus, we find that context plays an important role in determining how to deal with apostates. The
case of one who enlists nations to fight against the Islamic state is more serious, for example. That is why the scholars of
the Hanafi school of thought felt that the punishment only applies to the male apostate and not the female apostate because
the latter is unable to wage war against the Islamic state. If someone simply has some doubts concerning Islam, then those
doubts can be clarified. So an Islamic state is certainly justified in punishing those who betray the state, committing treason
and support enemy forces. As for anyone else, if they do not publicly declare their rejection of Islam, the state has no interest
in pursuing them; if their case does become public, however, then they should be reasoned with and educated concerning the
religion so that they have the opportunity to learn the concepts they may not have understood properly and they can be
encouraged to repent. Misquoted Narration #8
When asked about the possibility of women and children of the polytheists being exposed to danger during a night raid,
the Prophet Muhammad said, "They are from them."
Before addressing the specific narration in question, let us first emphasize the fact that Islam prohibits the killing of women
and children.

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: A woman was found killed in one of these battles, so the Messenger of God forbade the killing of women
and children. (Sahîh Bukhârî, Sahîh Muslim)

Ibn `Abbas says: The Messenger of Allah, when dispatching his troops, would tell them, " ..Do not behave treacherously, nor
misappropriate war-booty, nor mutilate [those whom you kill], nor kill children, nor the people in cloisters." (Musnad Ahmad,
Sunan At-Tirmidhî)

Another narration records that he said, "…Do not kill a woman, nor a child, nor an old-aged man’ (Sharh
as-Sunnah Al-Baghawî)

Narrated Anas ibn Malik: The Prophet said: Go in Allah's name, trusting in Allah, and adhering to the religion of Allah's
Apostle. Do not kill a decrepit old man, a young infant, or a child, or a woman; do not be dishonest about booty, but collect
your spoils, do right and act well, for Allah loves those who do well. (Sunan Abî Dawûd)

And again, "Do not kill a child, nor a woman, nor an old man, nor obliterate a stream, nor cut a tree…" (Sunan
Al-Bayhaqî)

The strict conditions that Islam has laid out in the event of warfare are referred to in the verse: 2:190 Fight in the cause of
Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
 The companions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) continued to abide by these conditions in all the military
campaigns they undertook after his death. The first caliph, Abu Bakr, advised his military commander: "I advise you ten
things: Do not kill women or children or an aged , infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an
inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal
from the booty, and do not be cowardly."
(Muwatta Mâlik)
Having established that Islam forbids the killing of women and children and all devastation during war, the narration
concerning the night raid may now be examined. In this narration the Prophet Muhammad was asked about the potential
injuries which may unintentionally befall non-combatants during a night raid. The narration is as follows: Narated By 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 polytheist warriors at night with the possibility of exposing their women and children to danger. The
Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them." (Sahîh Bukhârî)
In other words, the Prophet (peace be upon him) acknowleged the unfortunate yet inescapable possibility of what is today
referred to as "collateral damage". In military campaigns, women and children are never to be targeted and their deaths are to
be avoided at all costs. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that such deaths do occur as an unintentionally during the fighting. As
Shaykh Abdullah Al-Manî'î writes concerning the narration in question:
Those who are not generally engaged in fighting – like women, children, the elderly, the handicapped, and others
who do not participate in the fighting – are not to be killed. The Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited this. His
prohibition of the killing of women and children is clearly related by Ibn `Umar in Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3015) and Sahîh Muslim
(1744).

The only exception to this is where such people participate directly in the fighting or are so intermixed with the fighters that
it is impossible to separate them from those who are fighting. This exception is indicated by the hadîth of al-Sa`b b.
Jathâmah. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was asked about the women and children of the polytheists who were among
them and who would be injured if the enemy was attacked. He said: “They are of them.” [ Sahîh al-Bukhârî
(3021) and Sahîh Muslim (1475)]

In short, non-Muslims living in Muslim lands, those who are under covenant, and those with whom we have peace cannot
be attacked. As for those who are at war with us, the combatants may be fought and killed. Those who are not combatants
cannot be killed or targeted for killing. The only way that they can be killed is as an unintentional consequence of fighting
against the enemy combatants.

Indeed, the hadîth in question actually shows us that the general rule is not to kill non-combatants, even when they are
present on the battlefield. The only exception is when the non-combatants are so mixed in with the fighters in the theatre of
combat that it is impossible to fight against the combatants without the possibility of some non-combatants inadvertently
being killed. This is only out of dire necessity.

Ibn Hajar writes in his commentary on this hadîth in Fath al-Bârî (6/146):

His statement “They are of them ” means that they are construed as such under those circumstances. It does
not mean that it is permissible to deliberately target them.

It is a matter of agreement among scholars that a person’s unbelief is not reason for that person to be killed. There
is considerable evidence for this. Aside from the Prophet’s prohibition of killing non-combatants, we have where Allah
says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” [ Sûrah al-Baqarah: 256]

And Allah knows best.

Imâm Abu Zakariyyah An-Nawawî (d. 1300CE) explains that this may occur during a night raid because one's ability to see
is impaired by the dark (Sharh Sahîh Muslim 2790). This does not negate the fact that such unfortunate accidents remain just
as abhorrent. Conclusion Islam is a religion of mercy and justice. It calls all human beings to the worship of the One God who
created us all. What many people falsely present as Islam has actually been proven to be diametrically opposed to the values
and laws of Islam. The narrations and verses explained in this article are frequently misquoted by those who seek to malign
Islam and spread hatred towards its followers. In doing so, they follow in the footsteps of historical tyrants who performed
ethnic cleansing by painting a certain group as evil. Such was the method of the Nazis who slaughter millions of Jews by
labelling them as Christ-killers. History repeats itself, and it is unfortunate that people have not learnt from previous atrocities.
Today, Muslims are experiencing the same hatred, as people become more tolerant of attacks on Islam. The only cure to this
problem is education. Everyone must strive to spread the truth about a misunderstood religion. Islam is not the enemy.
Hatred, Intolerance and Ignorance are the enemies of humanity. May Allah protect us!