Response to the claim: The Quran’s Slander of Solomon -The communion of Demons

Response to the claim: The Quran’s Slander of Solomon-The communion of Demons

Mohamad Mostafa Nassar


Br. Umar

The Christian Wrote:

Quran Contradiction

The Quran’s Slander of Solomon: The Communion of Demons

Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers’ name.  Sons and daughters titles will be “no more“) complain about the biblical portrayal of prophets and messengers being sinners, committing gross sinful acts, and view this as an indication that the Holy Bible has been corrupted.

We have discussed these points elsewhere on our site, so we are not seeking to explain or defend the reason why the Holy Bible presents specific prophets in a negative light.

We, instead, want to use this criterion against the Quran and show that the Muslim scripture is guilty of slandering Allah’s messengers. This is basically a continuation of a series of articles on this subject that can be read here:


Here, we want to examine the Quran’s claim that Solomon had demons working for him and under his authority.

Muslim Response:

[021:079] To Solomon We inspired the (right) understanding of the matter: to each (of them) We gave Judgment and Knowledge; it was Our power that made the hills and the birds celebrate Our praises, with David: it was We Who did (all these things).

[027:015] We gave (in the past) knowledge to David and Solomon: And they both said: “Praise be to God, Who has favoured us above many of his servants who believe!”

 [027:036] Now when (the embassy) came to Solomon, he said: “Will ye give me abundance in wealth? But that which God has given me is better than that which He has given you! Nay it is ye who rejoice in your gift!

Now, let us look at the Holy Bibles:

3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. 5 He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech [a] the detestable god of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done.


These verses are from 1 Kings 11:3-6, and I think it pretty much proves the point. Also, compare that verse of the Bible, with this:

[038:030] To David We gave Solomon (for a son),- How excellent in Our service! Ever did he turn (to Us)!

 What’s even more interesting thing is what Abdullah Yusuf Ali said about this verse (Sura 38:30):

” The greatest in this life have yet need of this spiritual blessing: without it all worldly good is futile. Referring back to the story of David, we are now introduced to Solomon, who was a great king but greater still because he served God and turned to Him. The Quran, unlike the Old Testament, represents Solomon as a righteous king, not as an idolater, doing “evil in the sight of the Lord” (1 Kings xi,6)

             (Source: The Qur’an : Text. Translation, and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, footnote # 4182)

            So is the Muslim scripture guilty of slandering the Prophet’s, I think not Mr. Shamoun…..

The Christian Wrote:

The Holy Bible says that demons know God is one:

“You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe–and shudder!” James 2:19

They even know that Jesus is the Holy Son of God who can destroy them:

“for he had healed many, so that all who had diseases pressed around him to touch him. And whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, ‘You are the Son of God.’” Mark 3:10-11

“When he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell down before him and said with a loud voice, ‘What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, do not torment me.’ For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man.

(For many a time it had seized him. He was kept under guard and bound with chains and shackles, but he would break the bonds and be driven by the demon into the desert.) Jesus then asked him, ‘What is your name?’ And he said, ‘Legion,’ for many demons had entered him. And they begged him not to command them to depart into the abyss.” Luke 8:28-31

Muslim Response:

 In the Quran we read the Jinns as well as Men were made to serve Allah, and Allah SWT alone:

  Quran [051:056] I have only created Jinns and men, that they may serve Me.

  But let us proceed with Teh Christian Sam’s arguments.

The Christian Wrote:

           But despite this, no believer can have fellowship or work with Satan or his demons:

“What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” 1 Corinthians 10:19-22

“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, ‘I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.’” 2 Corinthians 6:14-16

The Holy Scriptures clearly warn true believers from having fellowship with Satan and the demons. If a prophet decided to fellowship or partner with Satan he would clearly be sinning against God.

Even the demons know that true believers cannot and do not have fellowship with them:

“When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met Him as they were coming out of the tombs. They were so extremely violent that no one could pass by that way. And they cried out, saying, ‘What business do we have with each other, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?’ Matthew 8:28-29

Muslim Response:

Okay, nothing really important here.

The Christian Wrote:

Yet the Quran says that Solomon had demons, or jinn, working for him and that he was in communion with them:

And to Solomon the wind, strongly blowing, that ran at his command unto the land that We had blessed; and We had knowledge of everything; and of the Satans some dived for him and did other work besides; and We were watching over them. Surah 21:81-82

He said, ‘O Council, which one of you will bring me her throne, before they come to me in surrender?’ An efreet of the jinns said, ‘I will bring it to thee, before thou risest from thy place; I have strength for it and I am trusty.’ Said he who possessed knowledge of the Book, ‘I will bring it to thee, before ever thy glance returns to thee.’

Then, when he saw it settled before him, he said, ‘This is of my Lord’s bounty that He may try me, whether I am thankful or ungrateful. Whosoever gives thanks gives thanks only for his own soul’s good, and whosoever is ungrateful — my Lord is surely All-sufficient, All-generous.’ Surah. 27:38-40

Ibn Kathir wrote:

<O chiefs! Which of you can bring me her throne before they come to me surrendering themselves in obedience (as Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers’ name.  Sons and daughters titles will be “no more“))>.” …

<An `Ifrit from the Jinn said:> Mujahid said, “A giant Jinn.” Abu Salih said, “It was as if he was a mountain.” …

<I will bring it to you before you rise from your place.> Ibn `Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, said, “Before you get up from where you are sitting.” As-Suddi and others said: “He used to sit to pass judgements and rulings over the people, and to eat, from the beginning of the day until noon.” …

<And verily, I am indeed strong and trustworthy for such work.> Ibn `Abbas said: “Strong enough to carry it and trustworthy with the jewels it contains. Sulayman, upon him be peace, said, “I want it faster than that.”

From this it seems that Sulayman wanted to bring this throne as a demonstration of the greatness of the power and authority that Allah had bestowed upon him and the troops that He had subjugated to him. Power such as had never been given to anyone else, before or since, so that this would furnish proof of his prophethood before Bilqis and her people, because this would be a great and wondrous thing.

If he brought her throne as if he were in her country, before they could come to it, although it was hidden and protected by so many locked doors. When Sulayman said, “I want it faster than that, …

<One with whom was knowledge of the Scripture said:> Ibn `Abbas said, “This was Asif, the scribe of Sulayman.” It was also narrated by Muhammad bin Ishaq from Yazid bin Ruman that he was Asif bin Barkhiya’ and he was a truthful believer who knew the Greatest Name of Allah. Qatadah said: “He was a believer among the humans, and his name was Asif.” …

<I will bring it to you within the twinkling of an eye!> Meaning, lift your gaze and look as far as you can, and before you get tired and blink, you will find it before you. Then he got up, performed ablution and prayed to Allah, may He be exalted. Mujahid said: “He said, O Owner of majesty and honor.” … (Source)

Muslim Response:

Now, this is where the juice is at, first of all, we need to understand this, the evil one among jinns are the ones we call “Shaytaan”, how do we know this,, well the Quran of course:

Quran [017:027] Verily spendthrifts are brothers of the Evil Ones; and the Evil One is to his Lord (himself) ungrateful.

 Quran [017:027] Inna almubaththireena kanoo ikhwana alshshayateeni wakana alshshaytanu lirabbihi kafooran

So why does Sura 21:81-82 say that the “Satans” dived for him, well here is what Sheikh Abdullah Yusuf Ali has to say:

” As in 2736, the literalists and the rationalists take different views. The former say that Solomon had power over supernatural beings of evil, whom he compelled to dive for pearls and do other hard tasks. Rationalists refer this to hostile unruly races whom he subjected to his swayIt was God’s power ultimately, Who granted him wisdom. Solomon tamed evil with Wisdom. “

( Source: The Qur’an: Text, Translation, and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Footnote # 2738)

And that pretty much refutes your trash. It is true that Solomon had hosts of birds, Men, and Jinns (see Sura 27:17) but as proven, it was God’s power ultimately who granted wisdom to Solomon, and Solomon tamed evil with wisdom, and this is the literalists view. But the Rationalists view, in my humble opinion makes more sense, since the Holy Qur’an says that there are evil ones among men and jinns:

 Quran [006:112] Likewise did We make for every Messenger an enemy,- evil ones among men and jinns, inspiring each other with flowery discourses by way of deception. If thy Lord had so planned, they would not have done it: so leave them and their inventions alone.

Also, for more proof, read this:

Quran [002:014] When they meet those who believe, they say: “We believe;” but when they are alone with their evil ones, they say: “We are really with you: We (were) only jesting.”

Quran [002:014] Wa-itha laqoo allatheena amanoo qaloo amanna wa-itha khalaw ila shayateenihim qaloo inna maAAakum innama nahnu mustahzi-oona

 So, Sura 21:81-82 can be referring to Evil men, but ultimately it was God’s power. Now, regarding Sura 27:38-40, it is evident that the Ifrit of Jinns, were very fast, but here is the real truth behind it:

” If Solomon had been ungrateful to God i e.. if he had worked for his own selfish or worldly ends, he could have used the brute strength of Ifrit to add to his worldly strength and glory. Instead of it he uses the higher magic of the Book,- of the Spirit- to transform the throne of Bilqis for her highest good, which means also the highest good of her subjects, by the divine Light. He had the two alternatives, and he chooses the better, and he thus shows his gratitute to God for the Grace He had given him”

( Source: The Qur’an: Text, Translation, and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Footnote # 3276)

And that also pretty much refutes your trash.

The Christian Wrote:

And here now is the final Quranic text:

And to Solomon the wind; its morning course was a month’s journey, and its evening course was a month’s journey. And We made the Fount of Molten Brass to flow for him. And of the jinn, some worked before him by the leave of his Lord; and such of them as swerved away from Our commandment, We would let them taste the chastisement of the Blaze; fashioning for him whatsoever he would — places of worship, statues, porringers like water-troughs, and anchored cooking-pots.

‘Labour, O House of David, in thankfulness; for few indeed are those that are thankful among My servants.’ And when We decreed that he should die, naught indicated to them that he was dead but the Beast of the Earth devouring his staff; and when he fell down, the jinn saw clearly that, had they only known the Unseen, they would not have continued in the humbling chastisement. S. 34:12-14

The true Word of God says that it was human agents, not demons or devils, which did the work for Solomon under his supervision (Cf. 1 Kings 3-8; 1 Chronicles 22, 28-29; 2 Chronicles 2-7).

Thus, not only do the above Quranic texts slander Solomon by accusing him of working with demons, but they also attack God’s character by claiming that God permitted demons to work on building his holy temple!

The Quran says that certain people followed what Satans slanderously said about Solomon:

and they follow what the Satans recited over Solomon’s kingdomSolomon disbelieved not, but the Satans disbelieved, teaching the people sorcery, and that which was sent down upon Babylon’s two angels, Harut and Marut; they taught not any man, without they said, ‘We are but a temptation; do not disbelieve.’

From them they learned how they might divide a man and his wife, yet they did not hurt any man thereby, save by the leave of God, and they learned what hurt them, and did not profit them, knowing well that whoso buys it shall have no share in the world to come; evil then was that they sold themselves for, if they had but known. Surah. 2:106

Since the Quran slanderously accuses Solomon of working with demons, these stories must have originated from these very same Satans as a means of degrading David’s son. These tales must have been some of the things which Satan interjected into Muhammad’s message:

We sent not ever any Messenger or Prophet before thee, but that Satan cast into his fancy, when he was fancying; but God annuls what Satan casts, then God confirms His signs — surely God is All-knowing, All-wise — Surah 22:52

All Quranic quotations taken from A. J. Arberry’s version.

 The Christian Sam Shamoun

Muslim Response:

First of all, the ignorant Christian Shamoun has to realize that the Jinns have powers which men dont have, for example they can do things quicker then men, as shown in Sura 27:38-40, also these Jinns were just rough workers, the skilled workers are the ones the Holy Quran refer to as ” Sons of David” in the next verse:

Quran [034:013] They worked for him as he desired, (making) arches, images, basons as large as reservoirs, and (cooking) cauldrons fixed (in their places): “Work ye, sons of David, with thanks! but few of My servants are grateful!”

                             And to increase the damage, read this:

                  ” …… The workers who are called Jinns were only rouch workers, working “in front of Solomon”, i.e., under his eyes and the supervision of his men. They should be distinguished from the skilled workers who worked heart and soul for the Temple, and who are addressed as the “Sons of David” in the next verse.”

 ( Source: The Qur’an: Text, Translation, and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Footnote # 3805)

The Christian interpretation of Sura 2:106 is so lame, I wont even bother refuting it, but I will respond to his interpretation of Sura 22:52:

“Prophets and apostles (the distinction is explained n. 2503 to xix. 51) are but human. Their actions are righteous and their motives pure. But in judging things from a human point of view, the suggestion may come to their mind (from Satan) that it would be good to have power or wealth or influence for furthering God’s cause, or that it may be good to conciliate some faction which may be irreconcilable.

In fact, in God’s plan, it may be the opposite. God, in His mercy and inspiration, will cancel any false or vain suggestions of this king, and confirm and strengthen His own commands and make known His Wll in His Signs or revelations.”

        ( Source: The Qur’an: Text, Translation, and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Footnote # 2831)

                       Also, its funny how Shamoun is totally ignorant  of the fact that Allah SWT makes this part in the Ayat very clear>>> ………. ” but God will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and God will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for God is full of Knowledge and Wisdom: “


 Now, here is what we would like to ask Sam Shamoun, Which is the Real Solomon?

The one of the Bibles:

 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.

5 He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech [a] the detestable god of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done.

(1 Kings 11:3-6)

Or the one of the Holy Qur’an:

   [038:030] To David We gave Solomon (for a son),- How excellent in Our service! Ever did he turn (to Us)!

             And whats even more interesting is that Abdullah Yusuf Ali even acknowledges 1 Kings 11:3-6!

 ” The greatest in this life have yet need of this spiritual blessing: without it all worldly good is futile. Referring back to the story of David, we are now introduced to Solomon, who was a great king but greater still because he served God and turned to Him. The Quran, unlike the Old Testament, represents Solomon as a righteous king, not as an idolater, doing “evil in the sight of the Lord” (1 Kings xi,6)

             (Source: The Qur’an : Text. Translation, and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, footnote # 4182)

So to theChristian, do you prefer a Prophet who does “evil in the eyes of the LORD” or a Prophet who is excellent in God’s service??

And Allah Knows Best!

Paul the False Apostle of Satan

Questions that the Quranites Have No Good Logical responses to

𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐇𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐍𝐨 𝐆𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐋𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨

by Bassam Zawadi

Mohamad Mostafa Nassar


1) Why don’t we have any record of early Muslims completely rejecting hadith? 

The hadith rejecter might argue back by saying “we don’t blindly follow people; you are committing the appeal to tradition fallacy”.  

However, you answer back that Allah says in the Quran…

Surah 9:100

The vanguard (of Islam)- the first of those who forsook (their homes) and of those who gave them aid, and (also) those who follow them in (all) good deeds,- well- pleased is God with them, as are they with Him: for them hath He prepared gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein for ever: that is the supreme felicity.

In this verse, Allah is saying that the Muhajirin (those who migrated from Mecca to Medina) and the Ansar (the people of Medina) and those righteous people that came after them have been promised heaven. 

Now, how can Allah promise heaven to these people when they are the very same ones who transmitted the hadith to us? As a matter of fact they are the same people that passed the Qur’an down to us. The Quran is passed on to us by “Mutawattir” narrations.

Mutawattir narrations are narrations that have been transmitted by so many people that it would be impossible for all of the transmitters to fabricate such a narration. However, we have an enormous amount of Mutawattir hadith. We have a list of Mutawatir hadith that teach things that are not taught in the Quran. How can you reject their authenticity with no objective evidence?

If we are expected to believe that ALL the Muslims could have corrupted Islam by introducing the Hadith then to maintain consistency we must also conclude that it was very likely for them to have corrupted the Qur’an as well.

The Hadith rejecter will respond back by saying that Allah promised to preserve the Qur’an (Surah 15:9) but not the hadith. However, this is circular reasoning. The Hadith rejecter is basically saying “The only evidence that the Qur’an is preserved is that the Qur’an says so.” No objective person will take such an answer seriously. 

The hadith rejecter might also respond back by saying that there were early sects such as the Mu’tazilites that rejected hadith. However, the Mu’tazilites did not reject all hadith, they only rejected AHAD hadith. So the argument still stands that there were no early Muslims that practiced this corrupted understanding of Islam taught by the Quranites.

If we want to go to heaven we have to be like those people whom God promised heaven to in Surah 9, verse 100 and they sure were not hadith rejecters. 

Dr. Ahmad Shafaat says…

Since the companions of the Prophet played a decisive part in the transmission of the Sunnah and Hadith, it seems fitting to examine what the Qur’an has to say about their role. In this connection the most relevant Qur’anic passages are those where the companions or the Muslims generally are described as the best community or witnesses over humanity:

You are the best community raised for humanity; you enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in God (3:110).

Thus We have appointed you a community of the middle (wasat) that you may be witnesses over (‘ala) humanity and the Messenger may be a witness over you. And We did not make the qiblah which you (O Prophet) used to turn to except (a means) to distinguish him who follows the Messenger from him who turns back from his heels, and this was surely hard except for those whom God has guided aright. God was not going to make your faith fruitless.

For, most surely God is affectionate and merciful to humanity (2:143). And strive in the way of God as is his due. He has chosen you and has not laid upon you in religion any hardship, the religion of your father Abraham. He has named you Muslims before and in this (Qur’an) that the Messenger may be a witness (shahid) over you and you may be witnesses over humanity.

So establish regular prayer and practice regular charity and hold fast by God. He is your protecting friend, and what a protector and what a helper (22:78). O Prophet! We have sent you as a witness (shahid) and a bringer of good tidings and a warner (33:45).

The word wasat can mean “best” or “just and balanced”. The two meanings are connected by the fact that “best” is where various elements come together in a balanced way. The word shahid, in addition to the usual sense of “witness in a court of law”, has two other related senses in the Qur’an:

Someone who sees what is going on around him in his society and points toward what is just and right by speech, action, and shining example. The ultimate degree to which this role can be performed is to give one’s life, if necessary. This is why a person killed in the way of truth and righteousness is also called shahid.

Someone who on the day of judgment will be brought forward by God to establish his judgment, especially his judgment against the wrong-doers.

The first role can qualify and lead a person to the second role. Thus the Messenger is a witness in both senses:

O Prophet! Truly We have sent you a witness, a bearer of glad tidings, and a warner, as one inviting to God with his permission and as a light-giving torch (33:45-46). We have truly sent you as a witness, as a bearer of glad tidings, and as a warner. That you (O human beings) may believe in God and his Messenger and may aid him and revere him, and celebrate his praise morning and evening (48:8-9).

In these verses the Prophet is a witness in this world, bearing testimony to truth, justice and righteousness. This naturally leads him to be a witness in the second sense, mentioned in the following verses:

One day We shall raise from every people a witness against them from among themselves and We shall bring you (O Prophet) as a witness against these (your people): and We have sent down to you the book explaining all things, a guide, mercy, and glad tidings to those who commit (16:89; see also 4:41).

The two senses of the term “witness” are also applied in the Qur’an to the Prophet Jesus. Thus in 5:117 Jesus defends himself on the day of judgment with the words:

I did not say to them except what you commanded me, that serve God my Lord and your Lord. I was a witness over them so long as I was with them, but when you caused me to die, you were the watcher over them, and you are witness of all things”.

Here Jesus is a witness during his life in this world in the sense that he watched over his followers and kept them, or tried to keep them, on the right path by his teaching and example. In the following verse, if it refers to him as is generally understood, Jesus is a witness in the hereafter (in the second sense):

And there is none of the people of the book but must believe in him before his death; and on the day of judgment he will be a witness against them (4:159).

A witness in the hereafter is probably understood to be a witness against. But this is not necessarily the case for witness in the first sense. This is clear because the Prophets Muhammad and Jesus were witnesses over the community of believers but not witnesses against them.

The suhabah are not explicitly described as witnesses in the hereafter, although there is nothing in the Qur’an that excludes the possibility. Their witness is primarily understood in the Qur’an in the first sense. Some commentators, e.g. Ibn Kathir have taken shahid in the second sense and understood 33:45 to mean that the Prophet and the Muslims would act as witnesses in the day of judgment against other nations who rejected their prophets.

This interpretation is supported by a number of ahadith from books like Ahmad and Hakim not known for their reliability. If, however, we read the verse with our mind free from the Hadith, as we must before we have firmly established the reliability of the ahadith used, then it becomes clear that in 33:45 the “witness” refers to a role in this world and not the hereafter.

It is probable that the community entrusted with the role of witnesses in 2:143 and 22:78 is first and foremost that of the companions (suhabah) of the Prophet, since in 22:68 Abraham is described as “your father”, a description that is applicable properly to the companions among the Muslims. Thus the progression of Islam in history is divided into two momentous stages.

In the first stage the Prophet prepares a community of followers consisting primarily of his own people in the Arabian Peninsula. During this stage he is a witness over the community of his followers. In the second stage the companions take the Islamic message to a large part of the then know world and Islam is forever established as a world religion. In this stage the companions are the witnesses over humanity. 

But what about the ages after the companions? In these ages Muslims generally are meant to perform the role of witnesses. For the Qur`an commands all believers:

O believers! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for God can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you swerve, and if you distort (justice) or decline to do justice, surely God is well-acquainted with all that you do (4:135). O believers! Stand out firmly for God as witnesses to justice and let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably. Act equitably, that is nearer to righteousness, and be mindful of God. Surely God is aware of what you do (5:8).

The companions continued the mission of the Prophet by transmitting the Qur’an. They also passed on to other Muslims whatever living memories they had of his words and actions (Hadith), as and when the occasion arose. In transmitting the Hadith the companions followed the normal way of the times in which they lived, for, as we argued earlier it was God’s plan to leave the transmission of the Hadith to normal human processes. The companions did not produce comprehensive compilations of Hadith.

Only when the time of the companions passed did a more systematic writing of the Hadith started. This was very usual in earlier times. The disciples of a teacher learnt from the teacher but did not write down what he said or did in comprehensive documents. Once the age of living witnesses was over, the writing started. This is the normal human process of transmission to which preservation of the Hadith was entrusted by God. (Dr. Ahmad Shafaat, The Sacred Hadith Project, Chapter 3: How Far The Hadith Is Binding, Source)

Recommended Reading (what the early Muslims said about following the Sunnah)  

2) How do you know how to pray using the Quran alone?

The Quranites will answer back by saying that prayer has been sanctioned before and that the Prophets that came before the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) used to pray. They say that this also applies to Abraham and that the method of prayer has been passed down unto the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). 

This weak argument can be refuted in many different ways. 

First, challenge them to show you only one verse from the Qu’ran that says that the method of prayer was passed down from Abraham  (peace be upon him) to Muhammad (peace be upon him). 

Secondly, challenge them to prove from the Qu’ran alone that the way the Prophets before the time of Muhammad (peace be upon him) prayed is the same way as we pray today. Just because prayer was sanctioned for them, that doesn’t mean it was the same method of prayer. 

Thirdly, expose their inconsistencies and hypocrisy. They criticize Bukhari for collecting narrations 200 years after the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) death but have no problem accepting methods of prayer being passed down from Abraham to the last Prophet while there is a time span of more than a thousand years between them!

They claim that Allah did not promise to preserve the hadith, so challenge them back and ask them to show you where Allah promised to preserve the method of prayer passed down from Abraham to Muhammad (peace be upon them both).

Fourthly, the Quran condemns the method of prayer that was present in Mecca before Allah revealed the method of prayer to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):

Surah 8:35

Their prayer at the House (of God) is nothing but whistling and clapping of hands: (Its only answer can be), “Taste ye the penalty because ye blasphemed.”

So if the method of prayer was passed down, then surely people would have been practicing it. 

Fifthly, God says in the Qur’an…

Surah 2:239

(During war and emergency) if you (are in a state of) fear, then (perform the ‘salat’) standing up, (walking), or on horseback. Then, as soon as you have peace, remember Allah in the manner He has taught you which you (previously) did not know.

God is telling the people to make remembrance (dhikr) of Him the way He taught them which they did not know before. Salat (Prayer) is a form of remembrance:

Surah 20:14

Indeed, I am the One _ Allah! There is no god except Me! So obey Me and establish the ‘salat’ (prayers) to remember (li dhikr) Me.

So we are to pray to Allah the way He taught us. But note that Allah says in the end of Surah 2:239 that this way was not known to the Muslims at that time. If the tradition of prayer was passed down from Abraham’s time then the Muslims would have known how to perform it. However, Allah is saying here that they did not know. So surely they must have been taught, but by whom?

Well the verse says that Allah had taught them, but how did Allah teach them? Did He teach them in the Qur’an? I say that He didn’t in the Qur’an and I challenge anyone to use the Qur’an alone to show me how it teaches us to pray the way Muslims pray today.   

Don’t show me verses where the Qur’an says that we should bow down and prostrate. No, show me where the Quran says WHEN we should prostrate and bow down (the order) and what we should say in each position. It is impossible and no one can show us this. We can only conclude that the method of prayer that we implement today as Muslims came from another source besides the Qur’an and that is the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Allah taught us how to pray by using the Prophet (peace be upon him) to show us. The Qur’an says that Allah revealed the Quran to us, but then in another verse it says that the Holy Spirit (Gabriel) sent the Qur’an down to us. Is this a contradiction? No, it’s God sending us the Qur’an down but through the agency of the Angel Gabriel. Similarly it is Allah teaching us how to pray, but through the agency of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

You can also challenge the Quranites to show where the Qur’an says how many raka’s we must pray for each prayer. They won’t be able to do so. Some will desperately reply back that the numbers of raka’ts are not important. These kind of silly replies are not even worth responding back to. It’s obvious that you have trapped them. 

3) How do you know how much Zakah to pay using the Quran alone?  

Every single Muslim since the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) time has agreed that Zakah is 2.5% of one’s annual income. Where did they get this information from? If the Quranite replies back by saying “Well I don’t know that’s not my concern.

I only follow Qur’an, not men” then tell him that he is not being objective. Because if certain people deceived ALL the Muslims on issues like this then they could have deceived them by corrupting the Qur’an. So they are not being objective.

4) The Quran says that men can beat their wives. But we know according to the hadith that this is meant to be a light beating that inflicts a spiritual punishment and not a harmful physical punishment. What is to stop a man from misinterpreting the Quran and beating his wife severely?

The Hadith rejecter might answer back by saying that it is obvious that this verse is speaking about a light beating or he may say that the Qur’an orders in other verses that we must treat our wives well. 

However, such an answer is insufficient because a certain individual’s logic could tell him that the Qur’an teaches that it is a general principle to be good to your wife. However there is an exception to that general rule and that exception is if she behaves in a disrespectful way to her husband. What is to stop a person from thinking like this?

Some may even argue back that beating a wife in this verse could be referring to a strong beating if it is necessary. This is where the interpretation by Quran-Only Muslims could become dangerous. This is where they can misunderstand verses and implement them and it could have horrible consequences. 

5) It says in the Quran to shorten the prayer when you travel. How long do you have to travel in order to be eligible to have this privilege? How short do you have to cut the prayer?

Some Quranites may reply back by saying that we should not ask too many questions regarding these details. They might even reply back by comparing you to the Jews that kept asking Moses unnecessary questions after they were told to sacrifice a cow to God.

However, that analogy would be false because the request to sacrifice a cow was specific and clear. “Sacrifice a cow”, full stop. Everyone knows what a cow means. God didn’t say sacrifice a special cow and then they asked what special meant. No, a cow is a cow. It only has one meaning.

But here we are told to shorten the prayer. We don’t know by how much we should reduce it. Does this mean that I can shorten my prayer to a mere five seconds? Also, travel could mean different things to different people. Traveling could mean a 30 km distance for someone and it could mean 50 km to someone else. Who is correct? Which standard should we follow?

6) The Qur’an says to cut the hand of the thief.  Does the word ‘cut’ in the verse mean to cut off or to cut in the sense of making a mark, or could it be metaphorical and mean cutting off the resources of the thief?

I once received a ridiculous reply from an individual who said that all the interpretations could be correct! Indeed, what a desperate response. If the person you are arguing with was objective and truth-seeking he would clearly see how difficult his position would be.   

7) The prophecies of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) came true from the hadith, thus proving that there are divine revelations sent down to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) other than the Quran. How do you explain this?

Recommended Readings

Some argue that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not know the unseen; therefore we cannot appeal to these hadith that prophesy the future. They argue their case by quoting verses from the Qur’an such as Surah 7:188 and Surah 46:9. However, no one has ever argued that the Prophet knew these things by HIMSELF. The verses quoted prove that the Prophet (peace be upon him) could not have known the unseen on his own, but that does not mean that God cannot inform him:

Surah 72:24-28

“At length, when they see (with their own eyes) that which they are promised,- then will they know who it is that is weakest in (his) helper and least important in point of numbers.  Say: ‘I know not whether the (Punishment) which ye are promised is near, or whether my Lord will appoint for it a distant term.  He (alone) knows the Unseen, nor does He make any one acquainted with His Mysteries,- Except an apostle whom He has chosen: 

and then He makes a band of watchers march before him and behind him, That He may know that they have (truly) brought and delivered the Messages of their Lord: and He surrounds (all the mysteries) that are with them, and takes account of every single thing.’ 

8) The Qur’an says that we must obey Allah and the Messenger (Surah 3:31-32,132; Surah 4:13-14, 59, 61, 64, 69, 80; Surah 24:56). There are two separate commands here. One is to obey Allah and the other is to obey the Prophet. In order to obey someone, he would need to issue a command. So if we want to obey Allah we have to do so by reading the commands of Allah in the Quran and adhering to them. If we want to obey the Prophet then we have to do so by reading the commands of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in the authentic hadith and adhere to them. Or is there another way?

Some hadith rejecters claim that the command to obey the Prophet (peace be upon him) was only in regard to his contemporaries. However, there is no evidence for these claims. The Quran is supposed to benefit all of mankind. How do we benefit from this command especially since there are several verses regarding it?

Some other hadith rejecters claim that “obeying the Messenger” means to obey the message that he came with. So basically to “obey the messenger” means to follow the Qur’an. However, this is a weak argument because the Qur’an clearly separates obeying the Qur’an and the Messenger:

Surah 4:61

When it is said to them: “Come to what God hath revealed, and to the Apostle“: Thou seest the Hypocrites avert their faces from thee in disgust.

Notice that it is said to the disbelievers to come to what God has revealed (Qur’an) AND to the Messenger. So people are to come to two different things for guidance, not only one. 

Dr. Ahmad Shafaat talks about the issue of obeying the Messenger and refutes “Quranite” arguments regarding it in detail…

Now there are three ways to understand the injunction to obey the messenger:

The injunction pertains to the position of the Prophet as the head of the community and is similar to the injunction to obey the ul al-amr.

This interpretation is often given by the Qur’an-only Muslims. But let us see if this makes sense. First of all, we have seen considerable evidence above that the Qur’an views the prophetic role of the Messenger as more than just a deliveryman for the Qur’an,

so that he headed the Muslim community not just as any leader but also as a prophet. Second of all, even the verses under consideration, especially 4;59 do not support the position of the Qur’an-only sect. Verse 4:59 first says “Obey God” and then says “obey his Messenger and those of you who are in charge of your affair (ul al-`amr)”.

The way in the second statement the messenger and ul al-amr are put together might suggest that the messenger is like the other ul al-amr in the matter of obedience except that he is the overall head of the community and a chief among them while others are in charge of various local and more specialized tasks. But subsequently the verse says: “But if you have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to God and his messenger”.

Now in this statement the messenger is moved apart from those in charge of your affairs. His mention has moved with that of God. If the messenger were like other ul al-amr, then there should be a possibility of a dispute between him and some of the other Muslims and we should expect the verse to instruct that all disputes be referred to God, that is, to the ongoing Qur’anic revelation. The fact that the disputes are to be referred to God and the Messenger means that the obedience to the Messenger is of a type different from that to the ul al-amr.

That the Prophet is not just another Muslim leader when he was not delivering the Qur’an is shown also by 4:65, where it is a condition of faith that those who call themselves believers make the Prophet a judge in their disputes and then feel no hesitation in their hearts to accept his decision.

This is something not true of other ul al-amr. One can accept the decisions of all other Muslim leaders grudgingly or altogether dispute their decisions, but not so in the case of the Prophet.

There are yet more passages in the Qur’an that set the Prophet apart from other Muslim leaders or ul al-amr. Thus in 24:63 the Qur’an tells the believers not to make the calling by the Prophet like calling by one of them of another.

In 48:10 the Qur’an says: Surely, those who swear allegiance to you (O Prophet) do but swear allegiance to God. The hand of God is above their hands. Therefore whoever breaks (his pledge), he breaks it to the injury of his own should and whoever fulfils what he has covenanted with God, he will grant him a great reward (48:10).

In 4:80 we read: He who obeys the Messenger obeys God and he who turns away, (he will reap the consequences of his choice, for)We have not made you (O Prophet) a warder over them. Another verse tells the believers: do not put yourselves forward in the presence of God and his messenger … lift not your voices above the voice of the Prophet nor shout when speaking to him as you shout one to another, lest your deeds come to nothing while you perceive it not (49:2).

Even more, the Qur’an says that the Prophet is to be preferred by the believers over themselves and his wives are like their mothers (33:6) who are not to be married to any other man after him (33:53). Can all these things, or even most of them be said of any other Muslim leader?

The Qur’an-only Muslims point to 33:43 where God and the angels are said to bless (salla) believers just as they are said to bless (salla) the Prophet (33:56) and conclude from this that there is no real difference between the Prophet and other believers.

But the fact that in some matters the Qur’an speaks about the Prophet and the other believers in a similar way does not mean that the Prophet is like the believers. The verses mentioned above, which are ignored by the Qur’an-only Muslims, clearly show otherwise.

We may thus justifiably conclude that the obedience to the messenger cannot be considered as obedience to him as simply a leader and head of the community. This leads us to the consideration of another possibility.

The injunction to obey the Prophet pertains to his role as the messenger of God but since his role is that of the deliveryman the obedience to him is obedience to what he delivers  the Qur’an.

In other words, the obedience to the messenger is the obedience to the Qur’an;

This is another interpretation favored by the Qur’an-only sect. But this too should be excluded. We have presented above considerable evidence from the Qur’an to show that the messenger cannot be regarded simply as the deliveryman. Moreover, the obedience to the messenger is often mentioned along with obedience to God.

If obedience to the messenger is the obedience to the Qur’an, then what is the obedience to God? One may take obedience to God as a much wider concept, so that it is not exhausted by obedience to the Qur’an. Thus if in a particular matter it somehow becomes clear to us (through ilham and nur mentioned earlier) that a certain course of action is the right one, then we are duty bound to follow that course of action even if it is not clearly indicated in the Qur’an.

In that case, it would be possible to take obedience to the messenger as obedience to the Qur’an. That is, the meaning would be: obey God in whatever guidance he shows you through whatever means but also obey the revelation sent down on the messenger (Qur’an). Such an interpretation, however, will not support the contention of the Qur’an-only sect.

For, the moment it is admitted that the believers may be guided by some God-given resources within them apart from the Qur’an they would have to admit that the Prophet could also provide some guidance by God-given resources within him apart from the Qur’an and his resources are much more trustworthy than those of the rest of us.

Thus in the verses under consideration, the obedience to the messenger is neither obedience to him as a mere leader of the community nor is it simply obedience to the Qur’an.

It must be interpreted in the remaining, third, sense:

(Conclusion). The injunction to obey the Prophet pertains to the position of the Prophet as the messenger of God and means that at least some part of his Sunnah should be obeyed.

In order now to proceed beyond the above very valuable conclusion we need to raise the question whether obedience to the messenger, even in the third sense above, was only meant for the time of the Prophet or whether it is meant for all the generations of Muslims.

In view of the Qur’anic belief that the Prophet Muhammad was the seal of the prophets, any Qur’anic injunction is binding for believers till the day of judgment unless it is abrogated or circumstances change in such a way that it ceases to fulfill the very purpose for which it was given in the first place or it is in some other clear way seen to be of temporary validity.

Consequently, the injunction to obey the messenger is binding till the Day of Judgment, for, there is nothing in the Qur’an which suggests that the injunction was temporary. Indeed, this injunction occurs in the middle of the injunction to obey God and the injunction to obey ul al-amr.

Since the first injunction (obey God) as well as the third injunction (to obey ul al-amr, when they assume power according to the Qur’anic teachings) are clearly eternal, it is natural to understand the second injunction (obey the Messenger) as eternal also.

It may be objected here that since God and the ul al-amr are always with us while the Prophet is not, hence the injunction to obey them is eternal while the injunction to obey the Prophet was applicable only during his lifetime. This objection assumes that for a person to be obeyed he should be present to give orders.

This assumption, however, is not valid. For how can we obey God and refer our disputes to him? To be sure, unlike the Messenger, God is present with us always but we cannot hear or see him; hence we can obey him primarily by obeying the Qur’an which has come down to us from centuries ago.

In a similar fashion, although, we can see and hear the Prophet no more we can still obey him by obeying his Sunnah that has come down to us from centuries ago. Further support for the eternal validity of the injunction to obey the messenger is provided by the following verse:

Establish regular prayer and establish regular charity and obey the messenger that you may find mercy (24:56).

Here the injunction to obey the messenger comes alongside the injunctions to establish prayer and charity. These last two injunctions are clearly eternal and it will be completely arbitrary if we singled out the third one as of temporary validity.

An extra-Qur’anic argument of the Qur’an-only Muslims is that parts of the authentic Hadith do not have any applications now. For example, the Madinah Charter, although based on eternal principles confirmed by the teachings of the Qur’an, has no longer any validity. But this argument is shallow because regard for circumstances is necessary even in the application of the Qur’an and some Qur’anic injunctions are no longer generally applicable.

For example, the Qur’an enjoins the Muslims to be prepared for defending themselves against aggression and in this connection mentions horses. The underlying principle is eternal, but the form given to it by the mention of horses is no longer generally applicable.

Similarly the Qur’an enjoins fasting from dawn to dusk, but one needs to use ijtihad as to what to do in areas of the globe where the time interval between dawn and dusk can be several days or weeks or months. That in the use of the Hadith we have to similarly take into account the changing circumstances is therefore not an argument that it cannot be binding like the Qur’an till the judgment day.

In their search for arguments to support their view the Qur’an-only Muslims have come up with some other arguments. Thus they say that the verses where obedience to God is coupled with obedience to the messenger are explained by other verses where obedience is made due only to God. In this connection they quote verses such as these:

Say, “I exhort you to do only one thing: that you get up (taqumu) for God in pairs or as individuals, then reflect. Your comrade is not suffering from madness; he is only a warner unto you in the face of terrible doom” (34:46). Turn (anibu) to your Lord and commit (aslimu) to him before the retribution comes to you … (39:54).

In these verses there is no mention of the Messenger and so, according the Qur’an-only Muslims, only obedience to God, that is, obedience to the Qur’an, is required. But these verses do not really talk about obedience (ta’ah). In any case, if there are verses where only the obedience to God is mentioned, there are others where only the obedience to the Messenger is mentioned. We have already quoted the following verse:

Establish regular prayer and establish regular charity and obey the Messenger that you may find mercy (24:56; see also 58;13).

Another argument of the Qur’an-only Muslims is based on verses where the Prophet is asked to judge on the basis of what God has sent down or of his book etc. For example:

So judge between them by what God has sent down … (5:48)

Those who judge not by what God has sent down are the disbelievers (5:44)

The argument is that the Prophet in his capacity of the Messenger governed, when he was not making time-bound decisions, only on the basis of the Qur’an. But judging by the Qur’an does not exclude judging by some thing else such as the ilhamnur and hikmah that the Prophet was favored with. These verses only demand that the judgment should be completely consistent with the Qur’an.

They do not demand that the judgment cannot be extra-Qur’anic. That there could be extra-Qur’anic judgments of the Prophet that should be obeyed is shown by many of the verses discussed above. It is further supported by the following verse:

And when it is said to them, Come unto what God has sent down and unto the Messenger, you (O Prophet) see the hypocrites turn from you in aversion (4:61).

Here coming to the Prophet means coming to him for guidance and judgment, as is indicated by the previous verse which talks of “coming for judgment (like going to court)” (yatahakamu). And since coming unto the Messenger is mentioned apart from coming unto what God has sent down, it is natural to understand that the judgment of the Messenger was, though consistent with the Qur’an, was not entirely limited to a simple application of it. 

Thus at least some part of the Sunnah is binding in some way till the day of judgment. Now we need to ask more precisely what part of the Sunnah is binding and in what way. In this connection the verses about obeying and following the Prophet and looking towards his uswah hasanah imply that it is a collective obligation for the ummah to determine the authentic ahadith of all sort and look at all of them and then seek guidance from them.

This guidance may be in the form of recommendations or suggestions or they may be in the form of orders. When guidance in Hadith is in the form of orders it is obligatory for every Muslim to whom it reaches to obey it. In other words to be engaged in the sacred Hadith project is a collective obligation of the ummah and to obey what is found to be regulatory Hadith is an obligation on every Muslim. (Dr. Ahmad Shafaat, The Sacred Hadith Project, Chapter 3: How Far The Hadith Is Binding, Source)

Mufti Taqi Usmani clarifies the same issue…

The Obedience of the Prophet as Distinct from the Obedience of a Ruler

From the above conclusions, which are based purely on the verses of the Holy Qur’ân, another possibility, often overemphasized by some quarters while opposing the authority of the sunnah, is completely ruled out. It is sometimes said that the Holy Qur’ân, when it ordains the obedience of the Holy Prophet , means his obedience in the capacity of a ruler or a head of the state, and not in the capacity of a prophet.

Since the Holy Prophet was also a ruler of the Muslims, they were ordered to “obey” and “follow” him. But after he passed away, his personal obedience is no more necessary. Now, whoever takes over the rule shall stand for the Holy Prophet in the matter of obedience, and the Muslims should follow him.

This fallacy is based on the misconception that the Holy Prophet was ordered to be obeyed in his capacity of a ruler, and not in the capacity of a prophet or messenger.

But the verses already quoted leave no room for this misconception. The reasons are as under:

(1) Wherever the Holy Qur’ân has directed toward the “obedience of the Holy Prophet” it has always referred to the “obedience of the Messenger” and not to the obedience of the “ruler”, nor to the obedience of “Muhammad”  in his private capacity. It clearly indicates that he must be obeyed on account of his being a messenger.

When I say, to someone, “obey your father,” it means that his being father is the basic cause of his being obeyed. If I say, “obey your teacher,” it is evident that his being teacher is the cause of his obedience being due. Nobody can reasonably interpret these sentences conversely. So, when Allâh Almighty says, “Obey the Messenger,” how can it be reasonable to say that his messengership is not the cause of his obedience?

(2) At one occasion, at least, the Holy Qur’ân has removed even the remotest possibility of this wrong interpretation, when it said:

O those who believe, obey Allâh and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.(4:59)

Here, the obedience of the messenger has been separated and distinguished from that of the ruling authorities, which means that the “messenger” and “those in authority” both are to be obeyed in their different capacities.

It is important to note that in the case of the Holy Prophet  both the capacities were combined in him. He was a Messenger as well as a ruler. Therefore, if the Holy Qur’ân intended to restrict the obedience of the Holy Prophet to his lifetime only, it could easily be said, “Obey Muhammad.”

But by avoiding this expression, the Holy Qur’ân explicitly differentiated between his two capacities, and mentioned each of them separately to remove even the slightest apprehension of this misconception, and thus left no room for confusing one capacity with the other.

Moreover, there is another point to note in this verse. The word “Messenger” used here is in singular, while the phrase “those in authority,” is in plural. This is to signify that the Holy Prophet is the last messenger after whom no prophet will come. So, his obedience as a prophet shall always be confined to himself alone.

Nobody can share with him in this obedience in future. On the other hand, the ruling authorities shall be in a large number, coming one after the other. This kind of obedience is not restricted to the ruler present at the time of revelation; it, rather, extends to all the ruling authorities coming after him.

(3) It has been established earlier that the obedience of the Holy Prophet was based on the “unrecited revelation” he used to receive from Allâh. That is why the Holy Qur’ân has held it to be the “obedience of Allâh” Himself. On the other hand, no ruler or head of state can claim to receive any revelation of any kind.

It is for this reason that a ruler can enjoy an administrative authority over his subjects, but he cannot lay down the rules of Sharî’ah. His orders are purely administrative orders, which are to be obeyed by the citizens in that capacity alone.

He cannot override any rule of Sharî’ah enshrined in the Holy Qur’ân and the sunnah, nor can his orders be regarded as imperatives for all times to come, as those of Sharî’ah, because they are not based on any revelation from Allâh. They are effective only in a sphere where the Sharî’ah has not given any definite rule, and left the matter on the discretion of a ruler.

The case of the Holy Prophet is totally different. He, as a messenger, receives revelation from Allâh, recited and unrecited both. His prophetic orders, therefore, are not just administrative orders based on his personal perception. They are based on the revelation, or, at least, are confirmed by it. Let me now explain both situations:

The orders of the Holy Prophet are sometimes based on the revelation in the sense that the revelation “recited or unrecited” is their original source. But for this revelation, he would not deliver such orders. There can be no doubt in their divine nature. Hence they form part of the Sharî’ah.

In some cases, however, the origin of the orders is not a revelation. They are based originally on the Holy Prophet’s own analysis of the affairs. But they are confirmed by a revelation later on. This confirmation again is of two kinds: sometimes it occurs in explicit terms, whereby the decision of the Holy Prophet is upheld by a revelation, and sometimes it happens to be an implied confirmation. If Allâh Almighty does not object to a certain act of the Holy Prophet, it necessarily implies that the act has been confirmed by Him.

The reason is obvious. A prophet of Allâh, being a spokesman of His pleasure, remains under a constant divine supervision. If he says something or does something, which is not in complete consonance with Allâh’s pleasure, he is always warned about it. In a number of verses, the Holy Qur’ân has expressed Allâh’s disapproval of some acts done or intended by the Holy Prophet. Thus, no act of the Holy Prophet has ever gone unchecked.

In this perspective, if the Holy Prophet does some thing or issues an order, and no revelation, recited or unrecited, comes to disapprove of the same, it necessarily implies that the act or order has been approved by Allâh Almighty, because if the converse were true, the revelation would never remain silent; it would certainly come to correct the error, as it came in certain cases where disapproval was conveyed in direct terms to the Holy Prophet.

Thus, whatever he says or does in his capacity of a messenger, and no revelation comes to the contrary, it is deemed to be an implied confirmation of his saying or act.

It is, therefore, true to say that all his orders and acts are either based on the revelation, or confirmed by it, explicitly or implicitly.

No such authority can be attributed to any ruler after him, because the revelation after him came to an end. This is why the Holy Qur’ân highlights the obedience of the messenger as distinct from that of the ruling authorities.

On these three major grounds, there is no room for the misconception that the “obedience of the Messenger” emphasized by the Holy Qur’ân means the “obedience of the ruling authority.” In fact, his obedience is necessary for the sole reaason that he is a prophet, and his orders and acts reflect the pleasure of Allâh.

Hence the Sunnah which is nothing but a record of his sayings and acts, enjoys a binding authority on all Muslims who believe in Allâh and His Holy Book. (Taqi Usmani, The Authority of Sunnah, Chapter 1: Sunnah: The Second Source of Islamic Law, Source)

9) It says in the Qu’ran (Surah 33:21) that we have the Messenger as a good example to follow. How would we know his example without the traditions to turn to?

One response from Quranites is that the same thing is said in Surah 60:4 regarding Abraham. So does that mean we should have Abrahamic hadith?

Dr Ahmad Shaf’aat says…

The Qur’an declares:

Verily in the messenger of God you have goodly example (uswah hasanah) – for anyone who looks unto God and the last day, and remembers God much (33:21)

In connection with this verse the main question is: Does the example of the Prophet include the conduct of the Prophet in all situations as preserved in the authentic Hadith or only some particular conduct defined by the context of the verse? 

The Qur’an-only sect is understandably inclined to limit the reference, entirely or primarily to some conduct defined by the context of the verse. Since the verse is put in the middle of comments about the battle of al-Ahzab, also known as battle of khandaq (trench), it is said that the example of the Prophet mentioned is the particular conduct of the Prophet during that battle. But even if this is granted, this verse does not support the Qur’an-only position, at least not in its strict form.

For the statement that the Prophet provided a good example in the battle begs the question, what was the conduct of the Prophet during the battle? And this question cannot be answered without looking at the Hadith, since the Qur’an does not say anything about it. The first audience of the Qur’an must have known how the Prophet behaved in the battle and they would have immediately understood what the Qur’an was talking about.

But the later readers of the Qur’an such as ourselves need to turn to the traditions about the Prophet to determine relevant details of the Prophet’s conduct and follow his example in fulfillment of the Qur’anic verse. Without knowledge of such details this verse can hardly be practiced. One can assume that the conduct of the Prophet was one of courage and faith in God,

but in the absence of any concrete detail the allusion to the Prophet’s conduct can hardly inspire any one and consequently the mention of the uswah hasanah becomes almost meaningless. Imagine that you opened a book mentioning that Umar provided a goodly example in the battle of Khaybar but said nothing about what exactly `Umar did.

Even if you assume that `Umar behaved with courage, wisdom etc, this statement will remain unexplained unless we are told or we know from another source the details of what `Umar did in the battle. Without some such elaboration the statement would be an interesting curiosity but of no moral or ethical or spiritual value. 

Thus even if we restrict uswah hasanah to a very specific example of the Prophet’s conduct the verse conflicts with the Qur’an-only position. For, it requires knowing from the Hadith the details of that specific example. Here we have an illustration of the fact that although the Qur’an explains everything and it expounds itself, its proper or fuller understanding, like that of any other text in human language, depends to some extent on its external context, which in part is provided by the Hadith.

However, it is more reasonable not to restrict uswah hasanah to any one example. This point is supported by the Qur’anic reference to the uswah hasanah of Abraham and those with him:

A good example or pattern (uswah hasanah) was set for you by Abraham and those with him when they said to their people, “We disown you and what you serve besides God. We reject you, and there has arisen between us and you enmity and opposition until you believe in God alone…There is indeed a goodly example (uswah hasanah) in them for anyone who looks towards God and the last day. But if anyone turns away, God is self-sufficient, worthy of praise (60:4-6).

Notice that in the above passage a specific example is mentioned in case of the Prophet Abraham. But in 33:21 the statement about the uswah hasanah of the Prophet Muhammad is left quite general. If in 33:21 the reference was meant only to some specific example, then, as in 60:4-6, we should expect at least some allusion to that specific example. That the reference is left general suggests strongly that it is meant to be general.

It should also be noted that the Qur’anic verses often rise above their context and give ideas that are of more general application than the context may suggest. It is thus quite possible that from the particular example of the Prophet in the battle of the trench the Qur’an has formulated the general principle that the Prophet provides a good example in all spiritual, moral or religious matters.

This is supported by the verse: You (O Prophet) are indeed endowed with a great character (68:4). In view of this statement, it seems inconceivable that the Prophet provided the believers with only one example to be followed.

Thus the most natural and probable interpretation of the verse is that it is pointing to the example of the Prophet generally and encouraging believers to follow it. This clearly requires making some use of the authentic Hadith in our religious practice. 


In some verses the Qur’an tells people to follow the messenger. For example,

Say, If you love God, follow me; God will love you and forgive you your sins. God is forgiving, merciful (3:31). And: Follow him haply you may find the way (to truth and salvation) (7:158).

If in 33:21 one limits the uswah hasanah to a specific example, then it is impossible to limit “following the Prophet” in the above verses in that way. In these verses “following the Prophet” must clearly be understood in a general way.

The Qur’an-only Muslims would say that since the ways of the Prophet were in strict conformity with the teachings of the Qur’an, following the Prophet means simply following the Qur’an. But then we should expect to read, “If you love God, follow the book that he has sent down through me”.

Why tell the believers that they should follow the Prophet if what is intended is that they should read the Qur’an and follow it.

The above verses about uswah hasanah and about following the Prophet naturally raise the questions, What does it mean to follow the Prophet? Is it necessary to follow each and every one of his actions? Also, should we simply copy his actions or do we sometimes look at them and apply them in some way using our own judgments?

In regard to such questions we need to distinguish between religious obligation and religious desirability. How far the Hadith is obligatory is the subject of the next chapter. Here we discuss how far following the Hadith is religiously desirable.

It is clearly desirable to follow the regulatory and teaching Hadith. The circumstantial Sunnah such as eating the way he ate, wearing clothes like he wore, using the means of transport that he used is a different matter. The verse about the uswah hasanah connects the following of the uswah hasanah with looking towards God and the last day and remembering God much and one of the verses about following the Prophet starts with the words:

“If you love God … “. This means that the Prophet provides an example only for our spiritual and moral development — for us to get near God, develop a relationship of love and devotion with Him and to achieve success in the hereafter. But can eating, clothing or traveling in the way the Prophet used to eat, clothe, or travel be helpful to achieve this purpose?

Of course, when the Prophet teaches us certain etiquettes regarding food, clothing, transport etc. it is desirable to follow him, for in that case we are dealing with teaching Sunnah. It may be said that following the Prophet even when it is not a matter of etiquettes is an expression of our love for him and it is this love that is helpful in our spiritual development.

This has some truth in it and if a Muslim chose to express his love for the Prophet by following him in all ways possible, including the circumstantial Hadith, then this is fine. But such personal choice should not be considered as the ideal and there should be no pretension that it reflects higher level of piety. There are many ways to express our love for the Prophet and it is for God alone to evaluate it.

An overwhelming majority of Muslims have accepted that the uswah hasanah consists of regulatory and teaching Hadith and not the circumstantial hadith. Only a very small minority seems to insist that one should follow even the circumstantial Hadith. And of course on the other extreme there is the small minority of the Qur’an-only sect which wishes to do away with all Hadith.

In some matters it would be completely disastrous for Muslims to follow the circumstantial Hadith. Thus the Prophet had to engage in some warfare using weapons such as swords, spears, arrows and shields. Today, with the development of modern weapons, the Muslims obviously cannot fight with the type of weapons used by the Prophet.

(Of course, if at some point a world order is established in which Muslims can pursue their legitimate interests without the use of warfare then warfare would have to be completely avoided.) Such examples show that no matter how strict a position we take in regard to following Hadith, the use of some judgment and reason on our part is unavoidable. (Dr. Ahmad Shafaat, The Sacred Hadith Project, Chapter 2: The Message and the Messenger,Source)

10) We have different forms of reciting the Qur’an, which means that certain letters are taken away from the word or pronounced differently. Through authentic hadith, we know that these were accepted forms of reading approved by the Prophet (peace be upon him). But without hadith, how would we know this? Using the Qur’an alone, if I see that there are different forms of recitation then I would think that there is more than one Qur’an and I wouldn’t know which one is correct.
11) In Surah 2:221, God forbids us to marry polytheist women.

Yet in Surah 5:5, God says that we can marry the believing women and the chaste women from the People of the Book. This is a clear differentiation between believing women and People of the Book. You can’t have a believing person today from the People of the Book who is not a Muslim. So if God were talking about the believing women from the People of the Book then He wouldn’t have differentiated the “believing women” phrase from them.

Furthermore, the believing people from the People of the Book were the ones who truly followed the teachings of Jesus and Moses, which are lost today. So by using the Quran alone, how do I know which verse was revealed first? Did Surah 2:221 come first and then God sent down Surah 5:5 making an exception or did God send down Surah 5:5 first and then send Surah 2:221 by completely prohibiting us from marrying the women from the People of the Book?

12) Surah 24, verse 31 says “And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof” What exactly is this part that “appears thereof”?

Some will try to argue back by saying that “what appear thereof” is referring to seductive parts of a women’s body. However, some men may be seduced by a woman’s fingernails and face. Does this mean that she must cover them as well? This is subjective. Where is the objective standard to follow regarding such a law?

13) If the Quran is so easy to understand on our own, then why did Allah have some Muslims staying behind in Madinah in order to become very well versed in religion, while the others go out to the battlefield so that they can then come back to be taught (Surah 9:122)?

Indeed, if we can all just simply read the Qur’an and be equal in knowledge and understanding then what is the point of having people specialize in it in order to teach us? Why would this require so much time? Some Quranites might argue back that people could specialize in Qur’an more than others, yet this does not justify that there are other sources besides the Qur’an to refer to.

They would also argue that if one reads the Qur’an on his own then that would be enough because it is easy to understand and that those who specialize in it are only gaining extra knowledge that is not significant. However, this is not the impression given by the verse:

Surah 9:122

It is not possible for the believers to go forth all together. Why, then, does not a party from every section of them go forth that they may become well-versed in religion, and that they may warn their people when they return to them, so that they may guard against evil.

Here we see that one purpose that the party of Muslims that stayed behind in order to master the religion was to make sure that they warn their people and help them guard against evil. This would not be necessary if anyone could just read the Qur’an on their own.

No, there must be more details (e.g. detailed issues of prayer, zakah, fasting etc.) that must be communicated to the Muslims in order to ensure that they practice their religion properly and this is not to be found in the Qur’an. For if it was, then anyone can have the time to refer to it and this would not require specialization, for any lay man would then be able to accomplish this task. 

14) Allah says in the Qur’an (Surah 75:19) that the Qur’an will be recited. But then in the verse right after (verse 20) it is also said that the Qur’an will be explained. If the Qur’an is self-explanatory then the only thing that needs to be done is reciting it out.

However, in verse 19 the function of reciting is done and then in the verse right after, the function of explaining is done. Clearly these are two different tasks, which mean that reading the Qur’an alone would not give you the full explanation required. It has to be explained through some other source. What is that other source?

Someone replied back to this article and I replied back here.

A Christian student is objecting to the ruling of execution in Islam – her comments and our response to them

𝐀 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 – 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦

Mohamad Mostafa Nassar



Praise be to Allah.


It is good that questions from non-Muslims are put to those who specialise in Islamic knowledge, to ask them about the rulings of Islam and the wisdom behind these rulings. This is better for them than asking these questions of ordinary Muslims who may be overcome by emotion and speak without knowledge. Nevertheless, we hope that every questioner will be sincerely prepared to accept the truth when he finds it, and that it will not be a question solely for the purpose of criticism and objection. 


Let us begin our answer with what the questioner mentioned, which is “Doesn’t this soul belong to Allah alone?” We say: Yes, it does belong to Allah alone, and hence it is not to be killed except by the leave of its owner, namely Allah. If you see in the laws of Allah, may He be exalted, any killing of a soul that is not done by Allah’s leave, then this would be something embarrassing for us, because then you would have established proof against us! 

Hence every time we say that So-and-so deserves to be killed or to have the hadd punishment of execution carried out against him, if that is not in accordance with the laws of Allah and by His leave as mentioned in His Holy Book or on the lips of His Messenger who was sent by Him to His slaves with His laws, then it is injustice and transgression. In that case you have the right to object to the one who says that, no matter who he is, and you and others have the right to criticise the one who does that or thinks of it. 

But if permission to execute the one who deserves to be executed, or the command to do so, is something that Allah has prescribed for His slaves in His holy Book, or on the lips of His Messenger, the most truthful one, then there is no room for you to ask such questions, because the easy and straightforward answer is that this soul of whom you are speaking belongs to the Lord of the Worlds; it is He Who gave it life and it is He Who has prescribed that it is to be executed in this situation. 

In the answer to question no. 20824 we have explained the reasons for the punishment of execution in sharee‘ah; please read this information there. 


So as to be fair-minded to other people, and be fair and just in our judgement of beliefs and ideas that we do not share, we must do two things 

Firstly: we should see the image of the other person as it really is, complete and not lacking, realistic and not distorted. 

Secondly: we should not reject from the other person that which we accept from ourselves or from those with whom we are pleased. 

If we want to be fair-minded regarding the rulings of Islam, then we must examine the cases in which Islam permits killing or execution, or enjoins it, then we must complete the picture by finding out the measures and rulings that have been set out to prevent unlawful killing and protect society from that. 

Among the great rulings of Islam that are aimed at protecting human life are the following: 

(a) The prohibition on suicide and killing oneself

(b) The prohibition on everything that is harmful to the body and may lead to self-destruction, such as alcohol and drugs

(c) The prohibition on abortion

(d) The prohibition on unlawful killing. There is a stern warning against killing souls that are protected according to Islamic law, such as the words of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, (interpretation of the meaning):

“And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell to abide therein, and the Wrath and the Curse of Allah are upon him, and a great punishment is prepared for him” Quran [an-Nisa’ 4:93].

That even includes killing non-Muslims with whom the Muslims have treaties or who are living under Muslim rule. Concerning that, our Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said:

“Whoever kills a non-Muslim with whose people the Muslims have a (peace) treaty will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, even though its fragrance may be detected from a distance of forty years.” Narrated by al-Bukhari (2995).

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

What is meant is: a non-Muslim who has a treaty with the Muslims, whether it is an agreement to pay jizyah, a truce with a ruler, or a guarantee of protection from a Muslim.

End quote from Fath al-Baari (1/259) 

(e) Hadd punishments are to be warded off where there is any doubt (that an offence occurred). If there is any doubt about a hadd punishment of execution, in such cases the person who is subject to that punishment is not to be executed, because of that doubt which wards off the hadd punishment of execution from him.

(f) The hadd punishment of execution is reserved only for the most serious crimes, such as apostasy, zina (unlawful sex) on the part of a married person, and unlawful killing (murder), out of recognition of the great importance of religion, honour and human life.

There are many major sins for which the hadd punishment is not execution, such as riba (usury), theft, slander of chaste women, gossip and many others. If Islam were as the unjust Western media portrays it, then the hadd punishment of execution would be for every sin and crime. Allah forbid that Islam should be such, when it has brought the most just and equitable rulings.

(g) There is a stern warning against killing, and it is taught that it may result in the killer becoming a disbeliever who is beyond the pale of Islam, and that is when he regards killing and murder as permissible, and does not forbid that to himself, because of his great audacity in killing a soul who was protected by sharee‘ah. Concerning that our Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The believer’s religious commitment will remain sound (and he is subject to the mercy of Allah) so long as he does not shed blood that it is forbidden to shed.” Narrated by al-Bukhari (6469).

(h) The decision to carry out the hadd punishment in Islam is not to be made by ordinary individuals; rather that is something only for shar‘i judges (qaadis=retaliatory execution) and people in authority.

Al-Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

There is no difference of opinion among the scholars that retaliatory punishment of killing (qisaas= retaliatory execution) can only be carried out by people in authority who have been given the power to carry out qisaas and hadd punishments, and so on.

End quote from Tafseer al-Qurtubi (2/245) 

If the matter of execution were left to people, so that each person would settle his own scores, then the killing would go beyond simple retaliation and the state of affairs would be as it was during the Jaahiliyyah ( pre-Islam time in Mecca); ten people would be killed in return for one, and one or more men would be killed in return for a woman, and all of these victims would have been killed wrongfully.

But in Islam it is essential to prove that the accused did indeed kill the victim, and it is essential to establish that there is no doubt about that, and only then does he deserve to be executed. And the matter does not stop there; rather the family of the slain are encouraged to freely pardon the killer, or to accept the diyah (blood money, instead of calling for the killer to be executed).

Islamic teaching encourages the next of kin of the victim to pardon the killer and promises them an immense reward if they do that, but it allows them to accept a deal giving them more than the prescribed blood money in order to win their agreement not to carry out the sentence of execution on the killer. Of course, this encouragement to pardon and to seek intercession with the next of kin of the victim is not applicable in cases where the killer is a violent criminal who shows no signs of repentance or remorse for his deed.

In fact, in such cases, it is prohibited to intercede for him, and he is to be executed in order to protect people’s lives. Concerning that Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “And there is (a saving of) life for you in Al-Qisas (the Law of Equality in punishment), O men of understanding, that you may become Al-Muttaqoon (the pious” Quran [al-Baqarah 2:179].

This eloquent sentence sums up the wisdom behind qisaas or retaliatory execution of the killer, in a more eloquent and deep manner than the saying that was current during the Jaahiliyyah. 

Shaykh ash-Shinqeeti (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

One of the teachings of the Qur’an which guides to that which is best is qisaas (retaliatory execution, because if a person gets angry and wants to kill someone else, but then he remembers that if he kills him, he will be killed (executed) in return, he will fear the consequences and thus will refrain from killing him.

So, the one whom he wanted to kill will live, and he himself will also live, because he did not kill him and was not killed in retaliation. And executing the killer will result in saving the lives of many people, whose number no one knows except Allah, as we have stated above. Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And there is (a saving of) life for you in Al-Qisas (the Law of Equality in punishment), O men of understanding, that you may become Al-Muttaqoon (the pious”  Quran [al-Baqarah 2:179]. Undoubtedly this is one of the most equitable and fair of ways, and thus it has been noted throughout the world, in the past and at present, how little murder occurs in countries that are ruled in accordance with the Book of Allah, because qisaas is a deterrent to the crime of murder, as Allah says in the verse quoted above. 

What the enemies of Islam claim, that qisaas (retaliatory execution is not in accordance with wisdom, because it reduces the numbers of people in society by killing a second person after the first one died, and that he should be punished in a way other than execution, such as being imprisoned.

And he may father a child whilst he is detained, thus increasing the numbers of people in society, all of that is an invalid argument and is devoid of wisdom, because detention does not deter people from killing, and if the punishment did not serve as a deterrent, then the foolish people would commit a lot of murders, thus exacerbating the reduction in numbers as a result of widespread killing. 

End quote from Adwa’ al-Bayaan (3/31, 32) 


Moreover, we say to you: do you know that the number of people killed at the time of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), of both Muslims and disbelievers – including the disbelievers who were slain in battle – was no more than one thousand people on both sides? Whereas you will find that thousands of people are killed in a single year under Western laws that prohibit qisaas (retaliatory execution).                                                              


This objection is very strange on the part of a woman who follows the Christian religion and obviously must believe what it says in the Bible, which clearly prescribes execution. In fact, it contains a command to kill entire nations, men women and children.

In the twentieth chapter of the book of Deuteronomy (v. 10 ff) it says:

“10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 

13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 

15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God”

Deuteronomy 20:10-18 (New International Version)

From this text it is clear that God instructed (the Israelites) to put to the sword every living soul – man, woman and child – among those six peoples: the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 

Regarding other peoples, He commanded that they be called:

First, to a peace deal; if they agreed to it, and accepted to obey them, be subject to them and to pay the poll-tax, all well and good.

Secondly, if they did not agree, then they were to be fought.

Thirdly, when they were defeated, all their males were to be put to the sword, and their women and children were to be taken captive, and their livestock and wealth were to be plundered and divided among the fighters. 

This is what was done to all the peoples who were at a distance from those six people. 

In the twenty third chapter of the Book of Exodus (v. 23 f) it says:

“23 My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out. 24 Do not bow down before their gods or worship them or follow their practices. You must demolish them and break their sacred stones to pieces.”

Exodus 23:23-24 

See also Exodus 34:11f and Deuteronomy 7:1f 

In order to know the number of those whose execution the Bible commanded, we have to know that these six peoples were more numerous than the Israelites, and according to the numbers mentioned, they may have reached several millions! 

See: Numbers 1:20 ff 

The bishop Dr Keith wrote a book in English about the stories of the Israelite Prophets in which he says: 

It is known from ancient books that in the land of Judaea 550 years before the Exodus there were eighty million people. Therefore, this is the number which the Bible commanded be killed and eradicated: eighty million. 

Then if we look at the Bible texts that contain emphatic commands to kill and eradicate, we will find the following: 

In the twenty-second chapter of the Book of Exodus (v. 20), it says: 

“Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the Lord must be destroyed”

Exodus 22:20. 

In the thirty-second chapter of the Book of Exodus (v. 25 ff) it says concerning the worshippers of the calf 

“25 Moses saw that the people were running wild, and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies. 26 So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, ‘Whoever is for the Lord, come to me.’ And all the Levites rallied to him.

27 Then he said to them, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: “Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.”’ 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died”

Exodus 32:25 ff 

In the twenty-fifth chapter of the Book of Numbers (v. 1 ff) it says:

“While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women, 2 who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate the sacrificial meal and bowed down before these gods. 3 So Israel yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor. And the Lord’s anger burned against them.

4 The Lord said to Moses, ‘Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the Lord, so that the Lord’s fierce anger may turn away from Israel.’

5 So Moses said to Israel’s judges, ‘Each of you must put to death those of your people who have yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor.’

6 Then an Israelite man brought into the camp a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 7 When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand 8 and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear into both of them, right through the Israelite man and into the woman’s stomach. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 9 but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000”

Numbers 1:1ff 

In the thirty-first chapter of the Book of Numbers it says (v. 5 ff):

“5 So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel.6 Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar…

7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks, and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps….

14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 ‘Have you allowed all the women to live?…

‘Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.’ …

So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the Lord commanded Moses.

32 The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 33 72,000 cattle, 34 61,000 donkeys 35 and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man”

Numbers 31:5 ff 

Here we may ask: if the number of virgins (women who had never slept with a man) was 32,000, how many must the total number of males who were killed – old men, young men and boys – have been? How many must the number of married women (women who had slept with a man) have been? 

If we move on to the story of Joshua, we will find that he killed millions, after the death of Moses! (as is mentioned in the Book of Joshua). 

In the fifteenth chapter of the Book of Judges (v. 15 ff) it says:

“15 Finding a fresh jawbone of a donkey, he grabbed it and struck down a thousand men.

16 Then Samson said,

‘With a donkey’s jawbone

I have made donkeys of them.

With a donkey’s jawbone

I have killed a thousand men.’”

Judges 15:15f 

In the seventeenth chapter of the First Book of Samuel (v. 8f) it says:

“8 Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites. (From ancient times these peoples had lived in the land extending to Shur and Egypt.) 9 Whenever David attacked an area, he did not leave a man or woman alive, but took sheep and cattle, donkeys and camels, and clothes. Then he returned to Achish.”

I Samuel 27:8f 

“And brought out the people who were there, consigning them to labor [or cut them] with saws and with iron picks and axes. David did this to all the Ammonite towns”

1 Chronicles 20:3

And on and on it goes in the books of the Old Testament. 

What do the books of the New Testament say? 

What do the clergy who follow the New Testament believe? 

Paul commented on all of this – and much, much more – when he said in his Epistle to the Hebrews (11:32-34): 

“32 And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies”

Hebrews 11:32-34 

Paul thinks that the deeds of those whose names he listed were acts of righteousness, faith, piety, and goodness! 

Thus, the clergy in ancient and modern times transmitted stories of destruction, slaughter, and banishment with glee, glorifying and praising God, and speaking of false signs and miracles. 

And the hymns in the churches repeat the words of Christ: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” Matthew 10:34 

After reviewing the texts that we have quoted to you from your own scriptures, we hope that, if time allows and you are sincere in seeking the truth, that you will read the book Debate Between Islam and Christianity (p. 342 ff) and Izhar ul-Haqq [the book is known in English by its Arabic title] by Shaykh Rahmatullah Kairanawi (4/1256 ff). 

Here it may be said to the one who believes in the Bible: 

“41 Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42 How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye?

You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

Luke 6:41-42 


If you are someone who believes in religion and divinely revealed laws, then we have quoted to you what it says in your holy Book, from which it is clear that execution is prescribed far more frequently in the Bible than in the teachings of Islam. 

If you rely on purely rational thinking, outside of religion, then we have explained the wisdom and mercy towards society in the prescription of qisaas (retaliatory execution) and punishment of the apostate by execution.

We ask Allah, may He be exalted, to show you the truth as truth and enable you to follow it. We would be happy to answer any further questions you may have. 

May Allah grant you insight, open your heart, guide you and help you.

And Allah knows best.

The Incident That A Jewish Old Woman Threw Garbage On The Beloved Prophet Is Fabricated Or Authentic?

Weak Hadith: The thief who steals repeatedly Hadith Sunan Abi Dawud 4410

The reasons for capital punishment in Islam

Apostates in Islam: Should they be killed or saved? Apostasy in Islam – Islam on Apostasy

Why is the apostate to be executed in Islam?

Questions about the punishment for hiraabah (aggression)

Punishment for Rape in Islamic Law

Those Who Wage War And Make Mischief’ – Quran 5:33

The hadd punishment for theft

Hirabah versus Jihad

Punishment for Stealing: Why so Harsh?

A Christian student is objecting to the ruling of execution in Islam – her comments and our response to them

There is no amputation of the hand except in the case of one who steals something worth one quarter of a dinar or more

A Christian student is objecting to the ruling of execution in Islam – her comments and our response to them

Christianity Exposed

The Goal of Christianity Exposed: Take your money  and rape your child

The Christian Myth

Widespread Sexual Child Abuse by Christian Clergy

The Christian Myth

Christian clergy have been under much scrutiny over a long series of scandals involving sexual child abuse.

The abuse has occurred in communities large and small, in private homes and in church. In 2008, the Pope was apologizing again, this time in person to President Bush, about the extent of the child sex abuse in the Catholic Church in the USA and the Canadian prime minister made an official apology to his indigenous population,

because “between 1870 and 1996, an estimated 150,000 indigenous children were wrenched from their homes and sent to Christian boarding schools, where many were sexually and physically abused”.

Not even schools have been safe from the secret violence. The worst frequency of abuse has been when Christians themselves live with other Christians, as we see in Christianity and Sexuality: The Damaging Results of Faulty Teachings: 6. Internal Abuse” by Vexen Crabtree (2015).

The Christian Myth

In 2010 the Pope met with German senior Catholics to discuss 170 child abuse cases by German priests, and German Bishop Robert Zollitsch apologised again to victims of the abuse.

The Christian Myth

In 2001 the Pope sent an apology by e-mail for a string of injustices committed by clergy in the Pacific nations, which included priests and missionaries forcing nuns to have sex and then abortions” — “Pope denounces ‘evil’ sex priests” (BBC News 2002)

The Christian Myth

Father James Porter victimized 200 minors in the 12 years between 1960 and 1972 when he was active in the priestly ministry. Many of his victims report violent rape, cruel humiliation, and punishment that can only be described as sadistic. One priest who “saw” Porter rape a child defended him, when confronted by a parishioner, with response, “Father is only human.” In 1993 he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 18 years in prison for a portion of his offenses.

The Christian Myth

Many priests, even those sent for psychiatric treatment for child abuse, are kept in positions of authority in the Church. Maybe because the Church is lacking so many priests, and to expel them all would be too damaging to the structure of the Church.

More than a dozen suicides by priests facing public exposure of their sexual activity were recorded between 1990 and 1993.

The Christian Myth

8 solicitors representing 8 firms say that the “Catholic Church is incapable of stopping abuse and must be called to account. They have written a letter to The Times (17 January) saying that the Church is still covering up crimes by priests and is incapable of policing itself. They call for a full public inquiry not only into the Catholic Church but also into the Church of England”.

The solicitors said: From cases we are handling currently, we are aware of some 41 Catholic priests who have been convicted of serious sexual offences in the recent past. Yet these very same organisations, particularly in the Catholic Church, have persistently ignored and in many cases covered up complaints of abuse and we believe these are the tip of the iceberg. The culture of cover-up has been embedded in the Catholic Church for decades if not centuries. The Times 2012 Jan 17

The Christian Myth

On 2011 September 23 , the IHEU (International Humanist and Ethical Union) spoke at the 18th session of the UN Human Rights Council, condemning the Vatican “for attempting to undermine democracy and human rights by insisting that child abuse cases be judged under the churches’ own rules of canon law rather than the laws of the state”

The Christian Myth

“Over 800 complaints of sexual abuse had been lodged against priests in 2008. However, only 10 of those complaints involved recent activity; most of the complaints involved alleged offenses in the 1960s and 1970s, and nearly all of the priests accused are deceased, retired, or otherwise inactive.

Several dioceses declined to participate fully in the audits and child-protection programs suggested by the staff of the bishops’ conference. Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska, has consistently refused to allow audits.”

The Christian Myth

Seven years earlier:“Thousands of newly released personnel files show that the Archdiocese of Boston went to great lengths to hide priests accused of abuse, including clergy who allegedly snorted cocaine and had sex with girls aspiring to be nuns. The first round of the documents, roughly 3,000 pages, on eight Roman Catholic priests were made public Tuesday on a Superior Court order.

They included allegations that clergy sexually abused teenage girls and used cocaine and other drugs, and that one led a “double life” by carrying on an affair with a female parishioner. Many of the priests whose files were released are not among the 400 clergy members targeted in the dozens of lawsuits against the archdiocese. But attorneys for plaintiffs hope the documents show the archdiocese had a habit of transferring priests to other parishes even after accusations of child abuse.”

The Christian Myth

Another seven years earlier:“Several accounts already record the extent, history and struggles of the sexual abuse of minors by priests in the United States (Berry, 1992; Burkett & Bruni, 1993; Rossetti, 1990; Sipe, 1990a). A quick review of the alleged priest abusers who have come to legal attention demonstrates the trend: 10 priests of a total of 97 in a Southwestern diocese; 9 of 110 in a Midwestern diocese; 7 of 91 in a Southern diocese; 15 of 220, and 40 in a diocese of 279 in the Eastern United States. Sixty Catholic priests and brothers were in prison on sexual abuse charges as of September 1994.”“Sex, Priests and Power: Anatomy of a Crisis” by Richard Sipe (1995)8

The Christian Myth

One of the latest summaries is that of the famous liberal, Bishop John Selby Spong, in 2009, who admits that despite the horrific events that have been uncovered so far, there is more to come: “There was a history of bishops and archbishops moving offending clergy to another jurisdiction rather than confronting the issue. [… If] the abuse and the cover-up were quite systemic, […] it must have involved people in high places, including bishops, archbishops and cardinals. […] I do not […] believe that thus far there has been anything like a full disclosure, so the issue will not end yet.” Retired Bishop John Selby Spong (2009)22

The Christian Myth
The Christian Myth
The Christian Myth
The Christian Myth

Surah 9:29 – Tabuk | Response To ‘Religion Of Peace’

𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐡 𝟗:𝟐𝟗 – 𝐓𝐚𝐛𝐮𝐤 | 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐨 ‘𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐎𝐟 𝐏𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞’

Mohamad Mostafa Nassar


The site Religion Of Peace (TROP), the founder is Glen Roberts – this notorious Christian missionary has written an article in response to our piece on Quran 9:29 which can be see here: “Answering Jihad: ‘Fight Against Those Who Do Not Believe’ – Quran 9:29

This missionary has been publishing anti-Muslim and Islam articles for many years pretending to be an “expert” on Islam. In reality he has no expertise in any field let alone when it comes to Islam. He is a fraud masquerading as an “expert”. The supposed article he wrote in response to ours – he made a lot of claims without evidence. Usually when a person does a rebuttal to another person, one would attach a URL link for people to read what the author is actually rebutting in order for readers to make their own conclusions. In an unusual turn Glen Roberts did not link our article for his viewers to read.

This article is in response to some of the claims he made. We will link Glen Roberts’ piece in reference section, so people can compare what we have written to his and make their own conclusions up on this matter. [1]

Glen Roberts begins by claiming that nowhere in the Quran is there any hint that the verse is referred to the Byzantine’s. He then goes on to say that the verse commanded early believers to fight people based on their belief alone as result of them following the Christian or Jewish faith. Then he makes the mistake as other missionaries do usually and writes:

“This is extremely important because the Quran is claimed by Muslims to be perfect and complete. Why would Allah neglect to mention an opposing army if it is critical to interpreting the passage? What’s worse is that instead of laying out the case for self-defense, Allah explicitly curses Jews and Christians in the next verse (9:30).”

There are a number of issues with this approach. The Christian missionary makes the same mistake as his other friends by saying the Quran is complete then there is no need for other outside Prophetic Statements . The Quran is indeed complete. His misunderstanding, the verse of the Quran he refers to indirectly is in regards to Laws in the Quran. The Laws laid out in the Quran are very clear.

This is how scholars have understood the verse he inferred. It has nothing to do with the verse we are speaking about. The Quran speaks about prayer and other ritualistic matters, but we don’t know how to carry them out in our day to day lives unless we approach the Hadith, the Prophetic statements on this.

Furthermore, Glen Roberts cherry picks what we can believe in and what we can’t. You do not have the authority to dictate what Muslims have believed in for 1400 years, and all of sudden claim that those outside sources of the Quran shouldn’t be relied on when it conveniently goes against your article.

The very same Quran tells us that the Prophet Muhammed (p) came to explain, elucidate and these are recorded in the Hadith:

“with manifest signs and with scriptures; and we have sent down the Reminder to thee too, that thou mayest EXPLAIN to men what has been sent down to them, and haply they may reflect.” – Quran 16:44 (Edward Henry Palmer Translation)

As for the claim to connect Surah 9:29 and verse 30 together, these two have no connections whatsoever. Let us explain: you should be aware that just because straight after 9:29 comes the cursing of a group of people who exalted Ezra that does not mean that the verses were revealed on the same occasion. For example, Surah 9:1 all the way to verse 24 was revealed in connection with the Quraysh polytheists, which was revealed over a year before surah 9:29 was revealed.

The discussion surrounding 9:29 and 9:30 refer to two completely different groups. While 9:29 was revealed on the occasion of Tabuk, that is in relation to Byzantine as one of the earliest scholar’s of Islam who met Muhammed’s companions report’s this to us.

He very clearly states that this verse was revealed in relation to Tabuk, the Byzantine’s. Whereas S. 9:30 as the companions of Muhammed have said, the latter verse refers to a group of People who called Ezra the son of God in Madinah. Ibn Abbas (619 – 687 CE) the Prophet Muhammed’s companion states the following in relation to 9:30,

“Ibn Abbas states: Sallam b. Mishkam, Nu’man b. Abi awfa, shas b. Qays, and Malik al-sayf [Jews] came to the Prophet Muhammad (p) and said: ‘How can we follow you if you renounce that which came before you. You do not think that Ezra is the son of God?’ So Allah revealed to him the verse.” (Tafsir al-Baghawi, (4/36), online source, )

Now compare the above with Mujahid Ibn Jabr (645 – 722 CE) who met the companions of Prophet Muhammed, he states in his exegesis for 9:29 that the verse was revealed in connection to the Byzantine’s. The Tabuk expedition more specifically:

“Mujahid Said: ‘This was when Muhammad (p) ordered his companions for Ghazwah Tabook.’
حين أمر محمدٌ وأصحابه بغزوة تبوك (Tafsir al-Tabari, on Surah 9:29, online source, )

Many other classical scholars have said that Surah 9:29 was revealed in connection with Tabuk. Their names are, Hud b. Muhakkam Huwwariyy (9th century) [2], al-Tabari (838 – 923 CE) [3], Baghawi (1044 – 1122 AD), Ibn Kathir (1301 – 1373 AD), Al-Zurqani (1645 – 1710 CE).

When we look at the two verses in a historical perspective readers would be aware that the two verses have no connection to each other when they were revealed. Each verse dealt with separate incident’s on two different occasions. Missionaries like Glen and others make frequent mistakes in matters of the Quran, this is as a result of them never studying Islam in basic level or in University.

This is one of the reasons why scholars dedicate years to study and learn the science of revelation i.e., occasions or circumstances of revelation (Asbab al-Nuzul). The Quran is not like any other scripture. Many verses were revealed on different occasions and therefore it is important to know when and why each verse was revealed. Without extensive studies of this field one will make mistakes and make up claims that is in not line with historical understanding of the verse(s).

As for the claim:

“The most obvious problem with this argument is that verse 9:29 bluntly says to fight Jews and Christians on the basis of their religious belief. … The enemy is defined simply as those who “believe not in Allah” nor acknowledge the superiority of Islam.”

Scholar Zakaria Bashier (b. 1940), who obtained his BA and M.litt. in Philosophy from the Universities of Khartoum, Sudan and Durham, UK respectively, and his PhD on Islamic Philosophy from the University of Pittsburgh, USA, he has written an interesting and in-depth piece on the Arabic words used for Surah 9:29 alone.

He states that the fact that they were called “Christians” and “Jews” and

(1) did not believe in God (atheists),

(2) they do not believe in the day of Judgement and

(3) non-practicing – based on the Arabic words used he concludes that the verse cannot refer to all Christians and Jews in Arabia, because the Quran unequivocally states elsewhere that there are Christians who are believers in God and the Last Day.

The scholar concludes and says based on the Arabic words used in the verse, that it refers to a specific group only, not all Christians and Jews. For a detailed analysis on the words, please see the following article by Scholar Zakaria Bashier: “Revisiting Quran 9:29 – Tabuk

Roberts then makes a more outlandish and deceptive claim:

“Given that there is no textual context for self-defense in Sura 9, the next problem for apologists is that the historical record is not terribly cooperative either, even from Muslim sources. In the first place, there is no independent confirmation that there was ever a military advance at Tabuk on Muhammad’s tribe. In other words, there is not a shred of historical evidence that a Byzantine army had been assembled at that time, much less that it was attacking Muslims.”

You asserted that there is no independent outside non-Muslim sources on Tabuk and surrounding events. You may be right here. You should remember that as a Christian you don’t have one shred of independent evidence to corroborate that Jesus existed outside the New Testament. Have you got a source which says Jesus existed and did the things described in the New Testament by any contemporary person that lived at the time Jesus was alive?

You don’t. You base your beliefs of Jesus on sources from within Christianity. Same goes with Islam, we base our evidence on our sources which have been accepted and authentic in Islam for over a 1000 years.

If you’re going with this line of thinking, then be consistent with your approach and accept also that there is no independent contemporary evidence that Jesus existed outside of the New Testament. Thus, you should reject your Christian beliefs because as per your logic, there is no “independent” source outside your NT. You won’t do that. So all we are asking of you is at least use the same measurement of approach to our scripture as you do to your own. Don’t be one-sided and biased.

You then moved on and claimed that there is no historical evidence, not even from Muslim sources of an impending army. Did you skip the number of early reports we cited in the article which clearly state that the Byzantine’s were trying to attack the Muslim community?

Or did you wilfully make this claim up in order to deliberately mislead your readers not to see those facts presented? Is this why you didn’t provide a direct link to our article for your readers to read?

Let’s present some of the earliest sources on the Byzantine army’s attempt to attack the Muslim community. The following report from Sahih Muslim and other sources tell us that Byzantine army had already been encamped at Tabuk. The Hadith clearly mentions that the Prophet and the Muslims had to “confront a large army” of the Byzantine’s:

“…this is my story of remaining back from Allah’s Messenger on the occasion of the Battle of TABUK. Never did I possess means enough and (my circumstances) more favourable than at the occasion of this expedition.

And, by Allah, I had never before this expedition simultaneously in my possession two rides. Allah’s Messenger set out for this expedition in extremely hot season; the journey was long and the land (which he and his army had to cover) was waterless and HE HAD TO CONFRONT A LARGE ARMY,

so he informed the Muslims about the actual situation (they had to face), so that they should adequately equip themselves for this expedition, and he also told them the destination where he intended to go. …” (Sahih Muslim Book 37, Hadith 6670)

Riyad as-Salihin:

“…this is the account of my staying behind from the battle of TABUK. I never had better means and more favourable circumstances than at the time of this expedition. And by Allah, I had never before possessed two riding-camels as I did during the time of this expedition. Whenever Messenger of Allah decided to go on a campaign, he would not disclose his real destination till the last moment (of departure).

But on this expedition, he set out in extremely hot weather; the journey was long and the terrain was waterless desert; and HE HAD TO FACE A STRONG ARMY, so he informed the Muslims about the actual position so that they should make full preparation for the campaign.” (Riyad as-Salihin Book 1, Hadith 21)

Mishkat Al-Masabih:

“To Tabuk. God’s messenger undertook it in extreme heat, facing a long journey, desert country and A NUMEROUS ENEMY. He made clear to the Muslims what they were about to do in order that they might get ready the equipment for their expedition, telling them where he was going.”

(Mishkat Al-Masabih – English Translation With Explanatory Notes [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Publishers, Lahore, Pakistan., 1991] by James Robson, D. Litt., D.D. (Emeritus Professor Of Arabic, The University of Manchester), volume II (Vol. 2), page 836 (Chapter V))

One of the earliest sources on the Tabuk expedition is by Ibn Sa’d (784-845 CE), in his Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir he furnishes us with much detail surrounding this event. He states that reports had reached Prophet Muhammed (p) that the Byzantine (Romans) had “concentrated large forces” and Heracluis had sent some his military to ‘Balqa’. This is when the Muhammed (p) “summoned” his companions to Tabuk:

“They (narrators) saud: It (report) reached the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, that the ROMANS HAD CONCENTRATED LARGE FORCES IN SYRIA had, that Heraclius had disbursed one year’s salary to his soldiers, and that tribes of Lakhm, Judham, ‘Amilah and Ghassan had joined hands with him. THEY SENT HAD SENT THEIR VANGUARDS TO AL-BALQATHE MESSENGER of Allah, SUMMONED THE PEOPLE TO MARCH.

He set out and informed them about the place which he intended, so that they could make necessary preparations. He sent (messengers) to Makkah and to the tribes of Arabia (asking them) to send help. This took place in the days of intense heat.” (Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, [Translated by S. Moinul Haq (New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2009)], by Ibn Sa’d, volume 2, page 203-204)

This is also reported by the 9th Century historian Aḥmad Ibn Yaḥya al-Baladhuri (D. 892 CE), in his book ‘Kitab Futuh Al-Buldan’, he states in clear words that the Prophet (p) learned that the Byzantine army “had assembled against him”:

“Tabuk make terms. When in the year 9 AH the Prophet marched to TABUK in Syria for the invasion of those of the Greeks, Amilah, Lakhm, Judham and others WHOM HE LEARNT HAD ASSEMBLED AGAINST HIM, he met no resistance. So he spent a few days in Tabuk, whose inhabitants made terms with him agreeing to pay poll-tax.”

(The origins of the Islamic State, being a translation from the Arabic accompanied with annotations Geographic and historic notes of the Kitab Futuh Al-Buldan of al-Imam Abu’l Abbas Ahmad Ibn Jabir Al Baladhuri, [Translated by Phillip Khurti Hitti, PHD, 1916], volume 1, page 92) 

In the version that is narrated by Mu’jam Tabarani (873 – 918 CE), he states that Christians said it is a “appropriate time to attack the Arabs” (Muslims):

“The Battle Of Tabuk

Rajab 9 A. H.
On the authority of Imran Ibn Husayn that the Christian Arabs wrote to Hercules, the King Of Rome that Muhammad passed away and that the people were dying because of the drought that they were experiencing. It was therefore a very appropriate TIME TO ATTACK THE ARABS (MUSLIMS).

immediately issued the order for preparations. A fully equipped army of 40 000 was prepared.” (Mu’jam az-Zawa’id, volume 6, page 191) (Siratul Mustafa [Translated by Maulana Mahomed Mahomedy – Madrasah Arabia Islamia and Zam Zam Publishers – Fifth Authorized Edition, 2015] by Hadrat Maulana Idris Sahib Kandehlawi, volume 3, page 96)

Muhammad al-Zurqani (1645 – 1710 CE) also reports the above accounts:

“It is related that the Prophet (p) received reports of the Byzantine military crossing on the northern frontiers of Arabia with the intend of MOUNTING AN ATTACK ON THE MUSLIMS. The Prophet was informed by some Nabataeans and others that Heraclius was stocking one year’s provisions for his army and drafting the pro-Byzantine tribes of Lakhm, Judham, Amla and GHASSAN under his banner, INTENDING TO COME UPON HIM and that his advance columns had already reached Balqa.” (A Commentary On Al-Mawahib, by Muhammad al-Zurqani,  volume 3, page 63 – 64)

It should be noted also that the Pro-Byzantine Ghassasnide (Ghassan) tribe which Ibn Sa’d and Zurqani already mentioned [4], few months before Tabuk expedition were attempting to attack the Muslim community. But the Muslims did not initiate any fighting. The Muslims only took action when the reports were confirmed as shown in the above accounts in relation to Tabuk expedition.

These are the sources that mention that Pro-Byzantine Ghassan tribe intended to attack. Sahih al-Bukhari reports:

“… I left her (and went home). At that time I had a friend from the Ansar who used to bring news (from the Prophet) in case of my absence, and I used to bring him the news if he was absent. In those days we were afraid of one of the kings of GHASSANID TRIBE. We heard that he INTENDED TO MOVE AND ATTACK US, so fear filled our hearts because of that. (One day) my Ansari friend unexpectedly knocked at my door, and said, “Open Open!’ I said, ‘Has the king of Ghassan come?’ He said, ‘No, but something worse; God’s Messenger has isolated himself from his wives.’ …” (Sahih al-Bukhari volume 6, Book 60, Hadith 435. Eng. Tran., )

Sahih Muslim:

“I had a friend from the Ansar. When I had been absent (from the company of the Prophet) he used to bring me the news and when he had been absent I used to bring him the news, and at that time we dreaded a KING OF GHASSAN. It was mentioned to us that he INTENDED TO ATTACK US, AND OUR MINDS WERE HAUNTED BY HIM. My friend, the Ansari, came to me, and he knocked at the door and said:

Open it, open it. I said: Has the Ghassanid come? He said: (The matter is) more serious than that. The Messenger of Allah has separated himself from his wives. …” (Sahih Muslim Book 9, Hadith 3508. Eng Tran., )

Jami at-Tirmidhi:

“‘My house was in Al-Awali among those of Banu Umayya, and I had a neighbour among the Ansar, and he and I would take turns visiting the Messenger of God.’ He said: ‘One day I would visit him and bring the news of the Revelation, and one day he would visit him and bring the same. We heard that GHASSAN WERE PREPARING THEIR HORSES TO ATTACK US. He said: ‘

One day he came to me in the evening and knocked on my door, so I went out to him. He said: “A horrible thing has happened.” I said: “Ghassan has come?” He said: “Worse than that. The Messenger of God has divorced his wives.’ … “(Jami at-Tirmidhi volume 5, Book 44, Hadith 3318. Eng. Tran., Sahih Darussalam,

Roberts also claims that the expedition was set out based on “rumours” and not factual evidence, then why did the Muslims few months before Tabuk expedition not set out against the pro-Byzantine the Ghassan tribe when the Muslims heard that they were advancing against them but the Muslims did not do anything but stayed, as shown in the above Hadith reports? For more information on the Ghassan incident see the following article please: “Byzantine’s, Tabuk Expedition And The Rumor Claim

The fact of the matter is the Muslims only advanced months later when there was clear evidence of Byzantne’s impending army. Readers should also be aware that a year before this event the Ghasanide’s assassinated an envoy, a Messenger of Muhammed which led to the battle of Mut’ah: “The Battle Of Mu’tah (Mutah)

So far, based on the earliest sources of Islam, we get a clear picture that the Byzantine’s did indeed concentrate large forces in order to overthrow and murder innocent Muslims.

Then author moves away this time claiming that what we used are “weak” sources:

“Even the more questionable sources do not say that there was a real army at Tabuk, just a possible rumor that one was being put together. [Apologists such as “Discover the Truth” routinely interchange reliable and weaker sources to make it appear that Muslims at Medina were in imminent danger at the time.”

Roberts, you claimed that we used weak sources, could you show us what exactly is weak? It should be noted to our respected readers that the critic did not present a single evidence to back his outlandish assertion that we used “weak sources”. A simple Google search would inform readers that Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari, Riyad as-Salihin and other sources we quoted are some of the most authentic sources of Islam.

Glen Roberts then claims that we quoted events that occurred “after Tabuk”:

“They also alter the wording from the original verse and introduce events that occurred after Tabuk as if they preceded it].”

Here he infers on some of the earliest reports from classical scholars who say that Abu Amir along with Byzantine leader prepared to assassinate Prophet Muhammed and murder Muslims. He deceptively claims that this event occurred after Tabuk. The event you misrepresented and inferred to did not happen after Tabuk.

In fact the very sources you claim to have read clearly state that this happened just before the Prophet set out to Tabuk expedition. The sources mention that the Byzantine leader along with Abu Amir attempted to murder the Prophet. The very sources you deliberately misrepresented and not show your readers mention this fact.

The 14th-century respected scholar Abu l-Fidaʾ Ismail Ibn Umar Ibn Kathir (1301-1373 CE), mentions that Abu Amir got the backing of Heraclius to launch an attack on the Muslim community, notice he states “Before Tabuk”:

“Masjid Ad-Dirar and Masjid At-Taqwa
The reason behind revealing these honorable Ayat is that before the Messenger of Allah migrated to Al-Madinah, there was a man from Al-Khazraj called “Abu `Amir Ar-Rahib (the Monk).” This man embraced Christianity before Islam and read the Scriptures. During the time of Jahiliyyah, Abu Amir was known for being a worshipper and being a notable person among Al-Khazraj.

When the Messenger of Allah arrived at Al-Madinah after the Hijrah, the Muslims gathered around him and the word of Islam was triumphant on the day of Badr, causing Abu `Amir, the cursed one, to choke on his own saliva and announce his enmity to Islam. He fled from Al-Madinah to the idolators of Quraysh in Makkah to support them in the WAR AGAINST THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH.

The Quraysh united their forces and the bedouins who joined them for the battle of Uhud, during which Allah tested the Muslims, but the good end is always for the pious and righteous people. The rebellious Abu Amir dug many holes in the ground between the two camps, into one of which the Messenger fell, injuring his face and breaking one of his right lower teeth.

He also sustained a head injury. Before the fighting started, Abu Amir approached his people among the Ansar and tried to convince them to support and agree with him. When they recognized him, they said, “May Allah never burden an eye by seeing you, O Fasiq one, O enemy of Allah!” They cursed him and he went back declaring, “By Allah! Evil has touched my people after I left.”

The Messenger of Allah called Abu Amir to Allah and recited the Qur’an to him before his flight to Makkah, but he refused to embrace Islam and REBELLED. The Messenger invoked Allah that Abu Amir die as an outcast in an alien land, and his invocation came true.

After the battle of Uhud was finished, ABU AMIR realized that the Messenger’s call was still rising and gaining momentum, so HE WENT TO HERACLIUS, THE EMPEROR OF ROME, ASKING FOR HIS AID AGAINST THE PROPHET. HERACLIUS GAVE HIM PROMISES AND ABU AMIR REMAINED WITH HIM. He also wrote to several of his people in Al-Madinah, who embraced hypocrisy, promising and insinuating to them THAT HE WILL LEAD AN ARMY TO FIGHT THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH TO DEFEAT HIM AND HIS CALL.

He ordered them to establish a stronghold where he could send his emissaries and to serve as an outpost when he joins them later on. These hypocrites built a Masjid next to the Masjid in Quba’, and they finished building it BEFORE the Messenger went to TABUK. They went to the Messenger inviting him to pray in their Masjid so that it would be a proof that the Messenger approved of their Masjid.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, last accessed 27th February 2017, )

The plan of assassinating Prophet Muhammed (p) was in preparation long before the Prophet (p) set out to Tabuk. Another classical source, Ibn Juzzay mentions that this group wanted to lure the Prophet (p) into the mosque (Masjid al-Dirar) as a way for them to kill him. He also states that this event happened before Tabuk expedition. So preparation was made to murder the Prophet at Taif battle, this occurred many months before the Tabuk incident.

Tafsir Ibn Juzayy (1321 – 1357 AD) writes:

“… (to create division between the muminun) They meant to separate the believers from the Mosque of Quba’. (and in readiness for those who previously made war on Allah and His Messenger ) i.e. waiting for the one WHO FIGHTS ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER.

He was Abu ‘Amir ar-Rahib who the Messenger of Allah called a fasiq. He was one of the people of Madina. When the Messenger of Allah came to Madina, he FOUGHT with rejection and hyprocrisy, and then left for Makka and FORMED THE PARTIES OF THE IDOLATERS.

When Makka was conquered, he went to Ta’if. When the people of TA’IF became Muslim, he went to SYRIA AND SOUGHT THE HELP OF CAESAR. He died there. The people of the Mosque of Harm said, “When Abu ‘Amir came to Madina, he prayed in this mosque.” “Before” indicates what he did with the Parties.” (Tafsir Ibn Juzayy, last accessed 27th February 2017, online source, )

For details surrounding the Ta’if incident, what led to it please see the following article: “The Siege Of Ta’if (Taif)

So it is quite clear from the above early sources that the Byzantine leader long with Abu Amir were attempting to assassinate Prophet Muhammed before the Tabuk expedition was undertaken.

Glen Roberts then goes on to assert:

“Ibn Kathir is one of Islam’s most respected historians, which even the apologists admit. He worked at a time when Islamic scholars were far less concerned about spin than fact. His research determined that the expedition to Tabuk was about loot and tribute to compensate for the loss of pilgrimage revenue.”

In fact he is either blatantly lying, deliberately misleading people or does not understand the verse and just interprets it how he feels like as a way of attacking Islam. The verse 9:28 was revealed in connection with Hunayn incident which took place long before the expedition of Tabuk.

No doubt they were going to get compensated, but this has no connection in relation to the said incident under discussion. Surah 9:28 did not trigger off the Muslims to fight for mere money. What started the war as we have seen from early sources is the aggression and hostility from the Byzantine’s.

Roberts then goes on to conclude on Ibn Kathir’s quotation:

“The Muslims were not under attack when verses 9:29 and 9:123 were narrated.”

They did attempt to attack the Muslim community. Ibn Kathir himself showed that the Byzantine leader along with Abu Amir attempted to murder the Prophet before Tabuk expedition. Besides this, Ibn Sa’d and Kitab Futuh al Buldan and others who lived long before Ibn Kathir also confirm the account that the Byzantine’s assembled an army to attack the Muslim community.

It is interesting, on one hand he chooses to disparage and attack our classical scholars and earliest sources we quoted on this incident but when it suits him he quotes Ibn Kathir. You can’t have it both ways. Ibn Kathir himself says very clearly that the Byzantine’s were attempting to Murder Prophet Muhammed before the Tabuk expedition was undertaken, as the above reports cited clearly showed.

He continues:

“’Discover the Truth’ adds a few other embellishments to the story, such as claiming that the opposing army had fled (supported by neither Muslim nor independent accounts)”

The Muslim sources show that an army was there. This is confirmed in Sahih Muslim, Ibn Sa’d, Kitab Futuh al-Buldan and Al-Zurqani as shown earlier. How does that negate the fact that they fled? They left the area they wanted to engage in fighting.

When the confirmed reports show that they were there but when Muslims arrived, they went away, how does that not support our position that they fled? You are clearly clinging to straws here.

Glen Roberts continues:

“and also that “no harm was inflicted on any Christian or Jews” once Muhammad arrived at Tabuk. This is what is called a bald-faced lie. Here is the actual account of what Muhammad did…”

Our statement that no Christian or Jew was attacked was in relation to those who did not engage in fighting.

The very source you quote actually hints to us that there was a fight from both sides hence one person got killed:

“When they came out, the cavalry of the Prophet ENGAGED them, capturing Ukaydir and killing his brother.” (Ibn Kathir volume 4, page 21)

Readers should be aware Khalid was sent to get the leader Ukaydir Ibn Abd al-Malik to the Prophet. Unfortunately the leader did not want to come and instead, it seems he engaged in war against Khalid. In which it resulted in a death of one person. Khalid was not sent to fight but rather to bring the leader Ukaydir to the Prophet and sort things out in words.

If the critic claims that he was sent out to kill, then he needs to answer as to why others weren’t killed? Why was only one person harmed, but the rest were brought to the Prophet (p) and set free? Sunan Abi Dawud reports:

“Narrated Anas ibn Malik ; Uthman ibn Abu Sulayman: The Prophet sent Khalid ibn al-Walid to Ukaydir of Dumah. He was seized and they brought him to him (i.e. the Prophet). He SPARED HIS LIFE AND MADE PEACE WITH HIM on condition that he should pay jizyah (poll-tax). (Sunan Abi Dawud Book 19, Hadith 3031. Eng. Tran., Hasan Al-Albani, )

He concludes on this incident by saying:

“So there’s that. A Christian family going about their business is ruthlessly attacked and robbed on Muhammad’s order. At least one member is killed and the others save their lives. …”

Glen Roberts makes it out as if these people are a normal, law abiding family who have done nothing wrong other than look after their animals. This picture that is portrayed here is typical among missionaries to make the perpetrators that have done wrong as victims whilst Muhammed (p) defending himself and the community as the bad ones. Let’s explain why this picture is not in harmony with the historical sources we have available.

Some might ask what reason was there for Prophet Muhammed to send out Khalid to get Ukaydir Ibn Abd al-Malik? The leader of that region along with his people were on the side and pledged allegiance to the Byzantine’s. Hence, when the expedition of Tabuk was undertaken, these people were on the side of the Byzantine’s. They knew that the Byzantine’s were going to engage in warfare against the Muslim community but still pledged allegiance and supported them. Scholar Shaykh Allamah Shibli Nomani (1857 – 1914 CE) explains:

“Dumat al-Jandal (also pronounced as Daumat al-Jandal), which is five stages from Damascus, there was an Arab chief, UKAIDIR BY NAME, WHO OWED ALLEGIANCE TO THE ROMAN EMPEROR. Khalid Ibn Walid was despatched with four hundred and twenty men to subdue him.

Khalid made captive, and later on released him on condition that he would personally appear before the Prophet (p) to settle terms. Accordingly, he arrived accompanied by his brother and was promised protection.” (Sirat -un- Nabi [Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam] by Shaykh Allamah Shibli Nomani, volume 2, page 238)

The people of that area and their leader of Dumat al-Jandal who was Ukaydir, before the Tabuk expedition took place they engaged in hostility and attempted to attack the Muslim community in Madinah as a number of sources confirm this. Kitab al-tabaqat al-Kabir – Ibn sa’d (784 – 845 CE):

“Then (occurred) the Ghazwah of the Apostle of Allah, to Dumat al-Jandal … They (narrators) said: (The news) reached the Apostle of Allah, that a large number of men had assembled at DUMAT AL-JANDAL and that they treated cruelly the camel-riders when they passed by them, and INTENDED TO ATTACK AL-MADINAH.” (Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, [Translated by S. Moinul Haq (New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2009)], by Ibn Sa’d, volume 2, page 76)

This is also reported by Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari (838-923 CE):

“In this year he mounted an expedition against Dumat al-Jandal in the month of Rabi’i. The reason for it was that word reached the Messenger of God that a host had ASSEMBLED THERE AND HAD APPROACHED HIS TERRITORIES…” (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam: Muhammad at Medina (“Ta’rikh al-rusul wa’l-Muluk”) – [Translated by Michael Fishbein – State University of New York Press, 1997], volume VIII (8), page 4 – 5)

It was in the interest of the Muslims to make a peace treaty with this group and to make sure they stop their hostilities against the Muslim community. In which after Khalid’s incident they agreed.

As for his claim,

“agreeing to pay jizya (ie. extortion)…”

Jizya was never “extortion” as the deceptive of an “expert” claims. What was Jizya? In modern times we would understand this as a tax that was used to pay for hospitals, schools, military defence of the country, helping the poor and needy. This tax (Jizyah) was needed for the Government to function, and adequate care for its citizens be met.

The claim that the author seems to push that ‘Jizya’ was oppressive is only found by those who are pushing a certain agenda to paint Islam negatively. In fact, the same tax that was levied on non-Muslims was also imposed on to Muslims, called Zakat. It was compulsory for the Muslims to pay this as a way for the poor and needy Muslim and non-Muslim be fed and clothed. Odd that he conveniently leaves that out to his readers.

There is a remarkable story of the second Caliph Umar Ibn al-Khattab (586 – 644 CE). He was passing along a house when saw an old, blind man begging. Umar immediately touched the old man and asked him, whether he was a Christian or a Jew, the man said that he was from the Jewish faith. The old blind man then further told him that he begged in the day so he could provide himself the daily needs, for his food and pay the Jizya yearly. Umar Ibn Khattab upon hearing this story immediately summoned his people to feed him and allowed the man to longer pay any Jizya:

“To which of the people of the Book do you belong? I am a Jew, responded the blind man. Umar took him by the hand, led him to his own house, GAVE HIM SOMETHING FROM IT (i.e., food) and then sent him to the keeper of the treasure with this message, ‘See to this man and his like, for we have not done right if we devour their youth and neglect their old age.

The religious tax is for the poor and needy. The poor are the Muslims; this man is one of the needy of the people of the Book (Christians and Jews). HE FREED THE MAN FROM THE OBLIGATION TO PAY THE JIZYAH.“ (Kitab al-Kharaj, by Abu Yusuf Yaqub (d. 798), page 71)

And The companion of the Prophet Muhammed (p), Khalid Ibn Walid is said to have exempted non-Muslim men from Jizya and gave them charity and supported their families too for as long as they lived in the Muslims lands:

“Abu Yusuf recorded a report from Khalid Ibn Walid who wrote a pact for the people of al-Heerah, “I have determined for them: Any old man who is weak to work, has been afflicted with an affliction or was rich and is now poor such that his fellow religionists give him charity, he does not have to pay the Jizyah and he shall be supported from the public treasury of the Muslims as well as his dependents for as long as he remains in the land of hijrah and the land of Islam.” (Kitab al-Kharah, bu Abu Yusuf, page 290)

As Roberts was unable to find any credible evidence that concretely agrees with his claims on Q. 9:29, he then concludes by saying Islam spread to every community to Spain, and to the Indian sub-continent after Prophet Muhammed’s death by his companions. Therefore his assertions on Sura 9:29 is correct. This line of claims are not credible nor in accord with history.

No doubt Islam spread to many of the places you mentioned, but you’re leaving out a major factor and that is, many of these countries did not allow Muslims to spread the religion of Islam freely with words and were very oppressive. Missionary activities were forbidden. Hence there was a suppression by the leaders at the time. These lands, their leaders were very oppressive. Hence, it led those countries being conquered. Nobody denies the fact that those countries were conquered.

To prove that conquering was based on there being no freedom of religion is the case of Abyssinia. Abyssinia allowed Muslims to practice their religion freely. To preach openly about their religion without there being suppression or any hostility. The Prophet nor any of the companions attacked Abyssinia.

Nor did they pay any Jizya because the leader was faithful and a righteous Christian man who did not oppress Muslims. Where there was freedom for the Muslim community, the Prophet’s companions never initiated war against them. This is a historical fact. The Prophet’s statement on this matter confirms this:

Leave the Abyssinians alone, so long as they do not take the offensive (leave you at peace).
Transliteration: utruk al-habasha ma tarkukum.” (Al Sirah al Halabiyah, volume 3, page 294)

Sunan an-Nasa’i:

“The Messenger of Allah said at that point “Leave the Ethiopians alone so long as they leave you alone, and leave the Turks alone so long as they leave you alone.’” (Sunan an-Nasa’i volume 1, Book 25, Hadith 3178. Eng. Tran., Hasan Darussalam, )

Sunan Abi Dawud:

“(1594) Chapter: Prohibition Of Agitating The Turks And Abyssinians
“Narrated from Abi Sukainah One of the Companions: The Prophet said: Let (leave) the Abyssinians alone as long as they let you alone, and let the Turks alone as long as they leave you alone.” (Sunan Abi Dawud Book 38, Hadith 4288. Eng. Tran., Hasan Al-Albani, )

The relationship between Abyssinia and the early Muslim government is an excellent example for rebutting the claims that have been made by Glen Roberts.

The mission of Prophet Muhammed’s entire life was always to spread the message of Islam and stand up for justice. And he only fought those who oppressed people, as the following prayer (Du’a) of the Prophet (p) demonstrates:

“(O Allah, apportion to us such fear as should serve as a barrier between us and acts of disobedience; and such obedience as will take us to Your Jannah; and such as will make easy for us to bear in the calamities of this world.

O Allah! let us enjoy our hearing, our sight and our power as long as You keep us alive and make our heirs from our own offspring, and make our REVENGE RESTRICTED TO THOSE WHO OPPRESS US, and SUPPORT US AGAINST THOSE WHO ARE HOSTILE TO US let no misfortune afflict our Deen; let not worldly affairs be our principal concern, or the ultimate limit of our knowledge, and let not those rule over us who do not show mercy to us).” (Riyad as-Salihin Book 5, Hadith 834 Eng. Tran., )


The claims being made against our article on 9:29 does not hold any weight when we examined them. The assertion of Glen Roberts that Surah 9:29 has no connection to Tabuk was not true. The earliest evidence shows that Sura 9:29 was revealed on the occasion of Tabuk is from Mujahid Ibn Jabr [5], a scholar who met the companions of Prophet Muhammed (p) as we showed earlier. Furthermore, the Arabic words used and the earliest historical sources showed that 9:29 was revealed on occasion to the Tabuk expedition.

The verse targeted and referred to a specific group of people. In which we found that the Byzantine’s alongside other tribes formed an alliance to attack and murder Muslims. Therefore, the claims being made to discredit our article was nothing more than a deceptive piece to deliberately mislead innocent readers. This article thoroughly showed that Glen Roberts claims made on Sura 9:29 were untenable and thus should be rejected by sane light-minded people. [6] [7]

Sadly the author of the article from TROP has a lot in common extremists right-wingers. They have created this atmosphere, a world of “us” vs “them” mentality, which contributes nothing more than hate and destruction in the world. The only way to win against these extremist bigots on all sides is to give the true message of scripture and bring communities together for a better and peaceful world.

(1) – “Social Conditions: Christians And Jews In Early Period Of Islam

(2) – “The Relationship Of The Muslim With Non-Muslims

(3) – “Most Misinterpreted Verses Of The Quran?

(4) – “The Hadith ‘…Fight Until They Say There Is No god But Allah’ Explained

(5) – “Early Expeditions And Battles Of Islam

(6) – “The Truth About Jizyah


[1] This is the article that was written by Glen Roberts: “The Myth: Muhammad was Attacked by a Byzantine Army: The Tabuk Expedition and Verse 9:29” (Last accessed 28th February 2017 (*)),

[2] The 9th century scholar Hud b. Muhakkam Hawwari states that Surah 9:29 was revealed as a result of Tabuk, his statement is reported in the book, “Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought” by Asma Afsaruddin, page 75 – 76

[3] A summary on 9:29 from At-Tabari (838 – 923 CE):
“عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلا بِالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ… حِينَ أُمِرَ مُحَمَّدٌ وَأَصْحَابُهُ بِغَزْوَةِ تَبُوكَ
Mujahid reported concerning the verse, “Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day…” that it was revealed when Muhammad and his companions were commanded with the expedition of Tabuk.

The expedition of Tabuk was preceded by the battle of Mu’tah which began when the emissary of the Prophet was assassinated while delivering a letter to a Roman ally. (Tafseer At-Tabari 9:29 Online source, )

[4] The New Encyclopedia of Islam – Cyril Glasse on the Ghassan tribe:
“Ghassanis. A South Arabian tribe, the Banu Ghassan, who migrated to Syria from the Yemen between the 3rd and 4th century AD and settled in the region of Damascus.

Many of them became monophysite Christians. Their leaders were accorded a Phylarcate, or status of vassal kingdom, under the Byzantine Emperor Justinian (527 – 569).

The Ghassanis protected the southern flank of the Byzantine Empire.” (The New Encyclopedia of Islam – Revised Edition Of The Concise Encyclopedia Of Islam [Introduction by Professor Huston Smith – Altamira Press – Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INC, 2002], by Cyril Glasse, page 154)

[5] Mujahid Ibn Jabr (645-722 AD) clearly states in his exegesis that Surah 9:29 was revealed as a result of Tabuk expedition:

“Mujahid Said: ‘This was when Muhammad (p) ordered his companions for Ghazwah Tabook.’
حين أمر محمدٌ وأصحابه بغزوة تبوك (Tafsir al-Tabari, on Surah 9:29, online source, )
[6] In Sahih al-Bukhari the Prophet (p) is reported to have said that he will not sit down while the enemy is out there trying to persecute him or his community:

“I saw the Messenger of God, on the day of the battle with the confederates while he was carrying so much earth for the trench that his abdomen was covered. The Prophet was saying, “O God, had you not guided us, we would not have given charity nor prayed.

Send tranquility upon us and make our stance firm if we encounter the enemy. Verily, THEY WERE THE FIRST TO TRANSGRESS AGAINST US. IF THEY INTEND PERSECUTION, THEN WE HAVE REFUSED.” (Sahih al-Bukhari volume 9, Book 90, Hadith 34, Arabic Tran.)

[7] “At the battle of Mutah, the Christian Greeks learnt to their cost what it meant to put the valour of Allah’s warriors to the test; and in their hatred of Islam’s steady growth, they busied themselves in mustering a most terrible army to crush it. The Prophet heard of this. He resolved to be first in the field and attack. Only his unshaken confidence in divine protection could have inspired him with such temerity.

How many thousands of soldiers must he gather together so as not to court irretrievable disaster? Now the moment was not in the least favourable: a long drought had withered crops and herbage; flocks were decimated; horrible famine plunged the whole region in desolation; and the torrid heat of the second half of summer destroyed all energy.

The harvest of the savoury fruit of each oasis, watered by inexhaustible wells, alone promised to be abundant and invigorating; and it was precisely when the Faithful were about to profit by the only benefits of this lean year that the Apostle issued his marching orders.


Answering Jihad: ‘Fight Against Those Who Do Not Believe’ – Quran 9:29

Response to the misunderstanding surrounding the Sword Verse Quran (9:5)

𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐕𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧 (𝟗:𝟓)

Mohamad Mostafa Nassar


  Analysing Verses Surah At-Tawbah= Chapter the Repentance (9:1-13)   

A Historical Examination of The Sword Verse – The Noble Quran Surah At-Tawbah= Chapter the Repentance (9:1-13)

This article seeks to examine Surah At-Tawbah= Chapter the Repentance chapter 9, verse 5 of the Quran in its historical context. Some claim that the verse ‘sanctions the killing of innocent people’, and this is how it was implemented by Prophet Mohammed (p). We shall respond to these claims in this piece.

The verse (9:5) is one of the most misquoted by opponents who want to paint the Islamic faith negatively. Whenever the verse is cited, it is sliced to pieces.

“…Then slay the idolaters wherever you find them…” – Quran (9:5)

From historical perspective, the reports (Ibn Ishaq and Tabari), and exegesis inform us that these verses were directly revealed concerning the polytheists of Arabia (Tafsir Ibn Kathir [1], Tafsir Jalalayn [2], As-Sawi [3] and Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas [4]).

To recap, in the sixth year of Hijri the Muslims and the idolaters made a treaty. Part of the treaty was that neither parties would attack the other, nor would they attack any of their allies. On this they agreed and went their ways. It did not take long when the Banu Bakr tribe (who were an ally of Quraysh) attacked and killed many of Banu Khuza’a tribe (they were allies of the Muslims).

The Quraysh being in the middle, the Muslims would have presumed that they would have tried to stop their ally (Banu Bakr) attacking and killing Banu Khuza’a. However, historical reports inform us that the polytheistic Quraysh supported banu Bakr with weapons and their members also partook in killing Banu Khuza’a. From historical point of view, we see that the Quraysh were the first to breach the terms of the treaty.

The Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) receiving news of what Banu Bakr and Quraysh idolaters did, he and his Companions assembled an army to march against them. It was on this occasion that the Muslims conquered Makkah (Tafsir Anwarul bayan).

NOTE: Although Surah Tawbah (Surah Bara’ah) mostly was revealed after the conquest of Makkah, however, these verses cited in this article (below) were revealed before that:

“‘Ruhul Ma’ani’ writes that although Surah Bara’ah was revealed after the conquest of Makkah, these verses were revealed before.” (Ruhul Ma’ani, volume 10 page 62). [5]

Analysing Verses

9:1 (This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.

9:2 So go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot weaken Allah and that Allah will bring disgrace to the unbelievers.

9:3 And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore, if you repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve.

9:4 Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).

9:5 So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

9:6 And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.

9:7 How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Messenger; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).

9:8 How (can it be)! while if they prevail against you, they would not pay regard in your case to ties of relationship, nor those of covenant; they please you with their mouths while their hearts do not consent; and most of them are transgressors.

9:9 They have taken a small price for the communications of Allah, so they turn away from His way; surely evil is it that they do.

9:10 They do not pay regard to ties of relationship nor those of covenant in the case of a believer; and these are they who go beyond the limits.

9:11 But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and We make the communications clear for a people who know.

9:12 And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief– surely their oaths are nothing– so that they may desist.

9:13 What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him if you are believers.

9:1 – In the first verse we are informed that there was a treaty which the Quraish (and other tribes) broke, except the Banu Kinanah tribe who stayed faithful (Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas).

9:2 – The idolaters are told that they can go about freely in the land for four months, once the timing comes, they will be dealt with, 1400 years ago.

9:3 – For breaking their treaty, God Almighty is inviting them to repent and turn away from the hostilities. Their plots do not in any way weaken God. There will be a punishment for those who broke the treaty and continue with their aggression.

9:4 – The punishment which the Muslims would have inflicted were only aimed at those who actively took up arms against the Muslims and broke the pact. This verse shows that the idolaters that were at peace and weren’t siding with the enemy were left alone. In Fact, God Almighty commands Muslims to fulfil their agreement with them and leave them be at peace since they have done nothing wrong against them (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas and Tafsir Ibn Kathir).

9:5 – The end of the four months, and the slaying of the idolaters, refers to those who broke the treaty, and fought against the Muslims. As the previous verse showed, not all idolaters were fought against. Only those who broke the treaty and actively participated in warfare were dealt with.

The classical scholar Ibn Al-Arabi Al-Maliki (1165 – 1240 CE) comments on Surah 9:5 and states:

“وتبين أن المراد بالآية: اقتلوا المشركين الذين يحاربونكم

What is meant by this verse (ayah) is: Fight the polytheists who are fighting against you.” (Ahkam Al-Quran, by Ibn Al-Arabi, volume 2, page 456)

9:6 – Even those idolaters who actively fought the Muslims, if they were to ask ‘protection’ from the Muslims, God Almighty commanded the believers to protect them and take them to a safe place so that they may hear the Words of the Quran. 

From this verse we can see that those who wanted peace and stopped their hostilities, after hearing the recitation of the Quran – they were allowed to go freely anywhere they wished. They were not forced to convert to Islam (Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas, Tafsir al-Jalalayn and Tafsir Ibn Kathir).

9:7 – How can there be an agreement with the idolaters when they have broken pacts and fought the Muslims many times. The only agreement that is still binding are those who did not break the treaty. Those who did not fight the Muslims, their treaty was still binding. The Muslims are ordered by God to stay true to the agreement with those who stayed faithful (Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas).

9:8 – This verse is in reference to those who broke the pact and waged war against the Muslims, as explained before. The verse informs us, how can they have a pact when they get an upper hand against the Muslims, they would not hesitate to break the pact and attack the Muslims without hesitation. In short, it shows how treacherous and warlike these people were who the Muslims were up against (Tafsir al-Jalalayn and Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas).

9:9 – The disbelievers of Makkah forcefully prevented people believing in the message of Islam (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas and Tafsir Ibn Kathir).

9:10 – Here in the verse we are told that these treacherous folks do not respect ties of kinship nor any treaty. They are truly transgressors (Tafsir al-Jalalayn and Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas).

9:11 – If some of those who were at war with the Muslims repented from their past transgressions, prayed, pay zakat (poor-rate), they are brothers of the Muslims (Tafsir al-Jalalayn and Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas). A reminder to readers, those that did become Muslim, done so freely. Forced conversion in Islam is Haram (forbidden).

9:12 – Although the verse says to fight those who broke the pact and openly revile Islam. The previous verses (and Q. 9:13) show that breaking the pact and reviling Islam was not the only crime these people committed. As shown before, they also physically fought the Muslims (Khuza’a). The very next verse (9:13) clearly tells us that they attacked the Muslims (Banu Khuza’a).

9:13 – Here God says to the Muslims, why is it that you will not fight those idolaters who broke their oaths, aimed to expel Prophet Muhammed (p), and attacked the Muslims first (Tafsir al-Jalalayn and Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas). It seems from the verse that some of the Prophet’s companions, were unwilling to fight these warmongers.

Where we have addressed the verses one by one, we can see the textual context for the verses alone show that the Muslims were only fighting the idolaters as a result of them (1) breaking their treaty, (2) tried expelling the Prophet – (3) fought and attacked the Banu Khuza’ah (a non-Muslim ally of the Muslims).

Furthermore, in light of the aforementioned information, we would like to add that majority of earliest scholars like Ibn Abbas (619 – 687 AD), a companion of Prophet Muhammed, Ata b. Abi Rabah (653 – 732 AD), Mujahid b. Jabr (645 – 722 AD), and Muqatil b. Sulayman (d. 767 AD) and later exegete like Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (1149 – 1209 AD) forbade initiation of military attacks and used surah 2:190 as proof.

Professor Asma Asfaruddin:

“Early exegetes and Jurists like Ibn Abbas, Ata b. Abi Rabah, Mujahid b. Jabr, and Muqatil b. Sulayman and later exegetes like Fakhr al-Din al-Razi firmly maintained that Qur’an 2:190 unambiguously forbade the initiation of military hostilities and that military activity could ony be launched against actual, not potential, combatants. …” [6]

Tafsir al-Qurtubi:

“Then this ayat was revealed, meaning that it is lawful for you to fight if the unbelievers fight you. So, the ayat is connected to the prior mention of hajj and entering houses by the back door. After this the Prophet fought those who fought him and refrained from those who refrained from fighting him until the ayat in Surat at-Tawba (9:5) was revealed, ‘Fight the idolaters,’… 

Ibn Abbas, Umar Ibn Abd’l – Aziz and Mujahid said that it is an ayat whose

 judgement REMAINS OPERATIVE and means: ‘FIGHT THOSE WHO FIGHT YOU and do not transgress by killing women, Children, monks and the like,’ as will be explained. An-Nahhas said that THIS IS THE SOUNDER POSITION IN TERMS OF BOTH THE SUNNA AND IN TERMS OF LOGIC

As for the Sunna, there is a Hadith reported by Ibn Ibn Umar that, during one of his expeditions the Messenger of Allah, saw a woman who had been killed and he ABHORRED THAT and FORBADE the killing of women and children.

As for logic, it applies to children and those like them, like Monks, the chronically ill, old men and hirelings who clearly should not be killed. When Abu Bakr sent Yazid Ibn Abi Sufwan to Syria, he commanded that he should not do harm to certain groups. Malik and others transmitted this. …” [7]

Although we touched upon Surah 9:6 briefly, it needs further clarification. Some individuals are fond of twisting the verse to mean something it was never intended to say. It is claimed that the polytheists were forced to convert to Islam or faced the sword. This claim, historically speaking is simply not true.

The seemingly all-out war verse (9:5) when we look at the verse that follows (9:6) it shows opposite of what Surah 9:5 seems to convey. The classical commentators of the Quran say that 9:6 refers to all people who want to ask for protection.

Hence, if the idolaters who were at war, stopped their hostilities and asked the Muslims then to hear the message of the Quran, and later rejected Islam. The Muslims were commanded by God to take them to a place of safety i.e., they were not killed even when they rejected Islam. This verse alone shows, the Muslims then were only fighting as a result of Quraysh’s aggression and hostilities, not for their beliefs.

Mujahid Ibn Jabr (645 – 722 AD):

“This verse guarantees the safety of people in general (insan) who came to listen to the Prophet recite from the Quran until they had returned to the place of refuge whence, they came.” [8]

9th Century scholar Hud b. Muhakkam:

“The polytheists who requests safe conduct from Muslims in order to listen to the word of God is to be so granted and returned unharmed to his place of origin, whether he embraces Islam or not. This was the view of Mujahid, for example. 

Al-Kalbi is quoted as saying that the verse referred instead to a group of polytheists who wished to renew their pact with Muhammad asked them to profess Islam, offer prayers, and pay the zakat, they refused, and the Prophet LET THEM RETURN SAFELY TO THEIR HOMES. Ibn Muhakkam further notes that al-Hasan al-Basri had remarked thus on the status of this verse: ‘It is valid and unabrogated (muhkama) until the Day of Judgement.’” [9]

Al-Tabari (838 – 923 AD):

“In this verse God counsels Muhammad, ‘If someone from among the polytheists (al-Mushrikun) – those whom I have commanded that you fight and slay after the passage of the sacred months – were to ask you, O Muhammad, for safe conduct in order to listen to the word of God, then grant this protection to him so that he may hear the word of God and you may recite it to him.’


Al-Wahidi (d. 1075 AD):

“Should someone from among the same group of polytheists request safe conduct and refuge among Muslims so that he may listen to the word of God and learn of its positive commandments and interdictions, he is to be so granted and escorted back to a place of safety. This is so because they are an ignorant people, and so should be given protection and the opportunity to acquire knowledge and perhaps submit to Islam.” [11]

Al-Zamakhshari (1070 – 1143 AD):

“…if one of the polytheists, with whom no pact (mithaq) exists, were to request safe conduct from the Muslims in order to listen to the Qur’an, then he should be granted it so that he may reflect God’s words. AFTERWARD, HE IS TO BE ESCORTED BACK TO HIS HOME WHERE HE FEELS SAFE. This, al-Zamakhshari says, is established practice for all time. Al-hasan al-Basri had similarly maintained that this verse is ‘valid till the day of resurrection.’ …” [12]

Al-Razi (1149 – 1209 AD):

“on the authority of Ibn Abbas, who relates that a polytheist man asked Ali b. Abi talib, ‘if we wished to approach the Messenger after the end of this period (the four sacred months) in order to listen to the word of God or for some other reason, will we be killed?’ Ali replied in the negative and recited this verse, affirming the granting of safe conduct to him so that he may listen to the Qur’an. …

al-Razi further comments that this verse indicates that imitation of precedent (al-taqlid) is not sufficient in religion, and that critical inquiry (al-nazar) and the seeking of proofs (al-istidlal) are indispensable requirements within religion.

If emulation of precedent were enough, he argues, then this verse would not have granted a respite to this unbeliever and would have been merely given a choice between professing his belief [In Islam] or death. As this did not occur, it confirms that Muslims are required to offer safe conduct to such person and thereby assuage his fears and allow him the opportunity to deliberate upon the proofs of religion. How long such a respite should last is not known; perhaps it should be determined according to the prevalent custom (bi-l-urg), he says.” [13]

Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas (d. 1414 AD) states that Prophet Muhammed granted safe passage to any of the idolaters who asked for it. So that they may hear the Quran. If he does not believe (i.e., embrace Islam), then he is to be left alone and granted safe passage back to the land he come from:

(And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the word of Allah) so that he may hear your recitation of the words of Allah; (and AFTERWARD CONVEY HIM TO HIS PLACE OF SAFETY) TO THE PLACE HE IS GOING, IF HE REMAINS AN UNBELIEVER. (That) which I have mentioned (is because they are a folk who know not) Allah’s command and His divine Oneness. (Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas on Surah 9:6 online Source)

Tafsir al-Jalalayn also emphasizes that they were left alone if they did not believe in Islam, and were taken to their place of safety:

And if any one of the idolaters (ahadun, ‘one’, is in the nominative because of the [following] verb [istajāraka, ‘seeks your protection’] that validates it) seeks your protection, requests security from you against being killed, then grant him protection, provide security for him, 


that, which is mentioned, is because they are a people who do not know, the religion of God, and so they must [be made to] hear the Qur’ān in order to [come to] know [religion]. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn on Surah 9:6 – Online source)

Classical Commentaries: Quraysh Initiated War

It is interesting to note, although some of the classical exegesis emphasized on offensive Jihad and used 9:5 as evidence. They themselves acknowledged in their commentaries that the verse was revealed as a consequence of the Quraysh (Banu Bakr) initiating war first. From their exegesis, they say that Prophet Muhammed (p) nor his companions-initiated war against the idolaters.

It was the Quraysh with Banu Bakr who provoked – led the Muslims to retaliate against them. Sadly, this important information is always left out by those who want to paint the Islamic faith negatively. Let us now read what the exegesis says.

Ibn Kathir (1301 – 1373 AD):

(then stand you true to them. Verily, Allah loves those who have Taqwa.) The Messenger of Allah and the Muslims preserved the terms of the treaty with the people of Makkah from the month of Dhul-Qa`dah in the sixth year of Hijrah, until the Quraysh broke it and helped their allies, Banu Bakr, against Khuza`ah, the allies of Allah’s Messenger. 

Aided by the Quraysh, Banu Bakr killed some of Bani Khuza`ah in the Sacred Area! The Messenger of Allah led an invasion army in the month of Ramadan, of the eighth year, and Allah opened the Sacred Area for him to rule over them…” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Surah 9:7, Online Source).

Ibn Kathir:

“It was also said that these Ayat refer to the idolators breaking the peace agreement with Muslims and aiding Bani Bakr, their allies, against Khuza`ah, the ally of the Messenger of Allah. This is why the Messenger of Allah marched to Makkah in the year of the victory, thus conquering it…”  (Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Surah 9:13 –Online Source).

Tafsir Jalalayn:

(except for those you made a treaty with at the Masjid al-Haram) Referring to the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. They are the Quraysh who were exempted before. (As long as they are straight with you, be straight with them) i.e. as long as they carry out the treaty and do not break it, you should fulfill it. The ma is conditional and not adverbial. (Allah loves those who have taqwa) The Prophet was straight in his treaty with them until they broke it by helping the Banu Bakr against Khuza’a(Tafsir al-Jalalayn on Surah 9:7 – Online source)

Tafsir al-Jalalyn:

“Will you not (a-la, ‘will not’ or ‘is not’, denotes incitement) fight a people who broke, violated, their oaths, their pacts, and intended to expel the Messenger, from Mecca — for they discussed this between them in their council assembly — initiating, combat, against you first? when they fought alongside Banu Bakr against Khuza‘a, your allies

So, what is stopping you from fighting them? Are you afraid of them? God is more worthy of your fear, when you fail to fight them, if you are believers.” (Tafsir al-Jalalayn on Surah 9:13, Online source)


“[ As-Sawi: This refers to the Treaty of al-Hudaybiyya which stipulated that there would be no war for twenty years. The Banu Bakr formed an alliance with Quraysh and the Khuza’a with the Prophet. Banu Bakr then attacked Khuza’a and Quraysh helped them with weapons, thus breaking the treaty. ‘Amr b. ‘Allam al-Khuza’i went and informed the Prophet what had happened.

The Prophet said, “You will not be helped if I do not help you,” and made preparations and went to Makka and conquered it in 8 AH. …” (Tafsir as-Sawi on Surah 9:3 – Online source)

Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas:

“(Will ye not fight a folk) why is it that you do not fight a people, i.e. the people of Mecca (who broke their solemn pledges) which are between them and you, (and purposed to drive out the messenger) and wanted to kill the Messenger when they entered Dar al-Nadwah (and did attack you first) by breaking their pledge when they helped the Banu Bakr, their allies, against the Banu Khuza’ah, the allies of the Prophet (p)?

(What! Fear ye them?) O believers, do you fear fighting them? (Now Allah hath more right that you should fear Him) because of leaving His command, (if ye are believers).”

(Tanwir al-Miqbâs min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas on Surah 9:13 – Online Source)

Imam Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (1292 – 1350 AD) commenting on Quran 9:7,

“When God sent His Apostle (p), most of the followers of these religions responded to him and to his successors, voluntarily and willingly. NOBODY WAS COMPELLED TO DO SO. The Apostle fought only those who fought and waged war against him. He did not fight those who made peace with him, neither did he fight those who were under the pledge of truce.

He was obeying the bidding of God Most Sublime where he said:

‘Let there be no compulsion in Religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects Evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks, and God heareth and knowth all things ‘(al-Baqarah: 256).

The Apostle did not compel anyone to adopt Islam. 

The above quoted verse from the Qur’an negates compulsion in the sense of prohibition that is: do not compel a soul to embrace the Religion. The verse (Sura) was revealed to admonish some of the men among the companions whose children embraced Judaism and Christianity before the advent of Islam, and where with the advent of Islam, their fathers embraced the religion of Muhammad and attempted to compel their children to follow their lead.

God Most Exalted prohibited the fathers from resorting to compulsion to inspire their children to embrace Islam out of their choice. … To him who ponders over the biography of the Prophet (p) it becomes clear that he did not compel anyone to embrace his religion, and that he only fought those who fought him.

He did not fight those who made truce with him as long as they kept and honoured the truce. He never broke a promise, for God Most High bid him to fulfil his promises to them as long as they kept theirs.

A propose, God Most Exalted said:

‘How can there be a league before God and His apostle, with the pagans, except thoe with whom ye made a treaty near the Sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them for God doth love the righteous’ (al-Tawbah: 7).

Likewise, when the Prophet Muhammad made truce with (the tribe of) Quraysh holding for ten years, HE DID NOT START ANY FIGHT WITH THEM; BUT WHEN THEY VIOLATED THE MUTUAL AGREEMENT AND RAISED ARMS AGAINST HIM, HE FOUGHT BACK… 

he stopped the fight when they retreated and went off. The point is that he did not compel anyone at all to embrace his religion; but people embraced his religion voluntarily and willingly. When most of the people earth realized the True Guidance, and that he is genuinely the Apostle of God, they embraced his call. [14]

From the above classical commentaries, we read that it was Banu Bakr and Quraysh idolaters who waged war. Which led to the Muslims assembling an army against them.

As part of this article, we are also going to provide scholarly contemporary commentaries for Surah 9:5, to get a better understanding.

Professor Asma Afsaruddin:

“…The Qur’an further asserts that it is the duty of Muslims to defend those who are oppressed and who cry out to them for help (4;75), except against a people with whom the Muslims have concluded a treaty (8:72). 

With regard to initiation of hostilities and conduct during war (jus in bello), the Quran has specific injunctions. Verse 2:190, which reads, ‘Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression, for God loves not aggressors,’ forbids Muslims from initiating hostilities.

Recourse to armed combat must be in response to a prior act of aggression by the opposite side. The Qur’an further counsels (5:8), ‘Let not rancor towards others cause you to incline to wrong and depart from justice. Be just; that is closer to piety.’ This verse may be understood to complement 2:190 in spirit and intent, warning against excesses that may result from an unprincipled desire to punish and exact revenge. 

During the month of Ramadan in the third year of the Islamic calendar (624 CE), full-fledged hostilities broke out between the Muslims and the pagan Meccans in what became known as the battle of Badr. In this battle, a small army of Muslims decisively routed a much larger and more experienced Meccan army.

Two years later, the battle of Uhud was fought, in which the Muslims suffered severe reverses, followed by the battle of Khandaq in 627. Apart from these three major battles, a number of other minor campaigns were fought until the Prophet’s death in 632. Some of the most trenchant verses exhorting the Muslims to fight were revealed on the occasions of these military campaigns. 

One such verse is 9:5, which has been termed the sword verse (ayat al-sayf). It states:

‘And when the sacred months are over, slay the polytheists wherever you find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place.

The first of the sword verses (9:5), with its internal reference to the polytheists who may be fought after the end of the sacred months, would circumscribe its applicability to only the pagan Arabs of Muhammad’s time; this is, in fact, how many medieval scholars, such as al-Shafi’I and al-Tabari, understood the verse.

The second of the sword verses is seemingly directed in general at the People of the Book – that is, Jews and Christians – but again, a careful reading of the verse clearly indicates that it does not refer to all the People of the Book, but only those from among them who do not, in contravention of their own laws, believe in God and the Last Day and do not forbid wrongdoing.

This understanding is borne out by comparing verse 9:29 to verses 3:113-15, for example, which state:

‘They are not all the same. Among the People of the Book are a contingent who stand [in prayer] reciting the verses of God at all times of the night while they prostrate. These are they who believe in God and the Last day and enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. They hasten to [perform] goods and they are among the righteous. And whatever they do of good will not be rejected [by God] and God knows best the God-fearing.’

The Qur’an, in another verse (2:193), makes unambiguously clear that, when hostile behavior on the part of the foes of Islam ceases, then the reason for engaging them in war also lapses

This verse states:

‘And fight them on until there no chaos (fitna) and religion is only for God, but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.’

The Harshness of the two sword verses is thus considerably mitigated, and their general applicability significantly restricted, by juxtaposing with them conciliatory verses, such as the ones cited above, and other such verses. Among other such verses is the one that has been characterized as the peace verse (8:61):

‘If they incline toward peace, incline you toward it, and trust in God. Indeed, He alone is all-hearing, all-knowing.’

‘Slay them wherever you catch them and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution is worse than slaughter. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful (2:191-192).’

‘God does not forbid you from being kind and equitable to those who have nether make war on you on account of your religion nor driven you from your homes. God loves those who are equitable (60:8).’

These verses make warring against those who oppose the propagation of the message of Islam, and consequently resort to persecution of Muslims, contingent upon their continuing hostility. Should they desist from such hostile persecution and sue for peace instead, the Muslims are commanded to accede to their request. 

The Qur’an (60:8) further makes clear that non-Muslims of goodwill and peaceableness cannot be the targets of war simply on account of their different religious backgrounds.” [15]

Dr. al-Buti:

“As a matter of fact, reading verse 5 of chapter 9 in isolation supports the view that Muslims should fight pagans for their Disbelief, but this same verse must be read together with the proceeding verses of the same chapter. Hence, if we read this verse (9:5) in the light of the following three verses only (9:6,7, and 8) the claim for killing pagans for their paganism becomes void. …” [16]


We have examined the historical and the scholarly side related to chapter 9 (specifically 9:5), there is one conclusion that can be drawn: Chapter 9, verse 5 was meant to be defensive

In the sense, that it was revealed concerning the pagan Arabs who broke the treaty and fought the banu Khuza’a. Prophet Muhammed (p) did not fight them for their beliefs, rather for breaking the treaty and killing Banu Khuza’a’s people.

As shown, the true Islam, real Islam which was practiced by Prophet Muhammed (p) was to repel evil and the brutality of Quraysh.


[1] Ibn Kathir: “(then stand you true to them. Verily, Allah loves those who have Taqwa.) The Messenger of Allah and the Muslims preserved the terms of the treaty with the people of Makkah from the month of Dhul-Qa`dah in the sixth year ﴿of Hijrah﴾, until the Quraysh broke it and helped their allies, Banu Bakr, against Khuza`ah, the allies of Allah’s Messenger. 

Aided by the Quraysh, Banu Bakr killed some of Bani Khuza`ah in the Sacred Area! The Messenger of Allah led an invasion army in the month of Ramadan, of the eighth year, and Allah opened the Sacred Area for him to rule over them, all thanks are due to Allah. …” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Surah 9:7, Online Source).

AND Tafsir Ibn Kathir:

“It was also said that these Ayat refer to the idolators breaking the peace agreement with Muslims and aiding Bani Bakr, their allies, against Khuza`ah, the ally of the Messenger of Allah. This is why the Messenger of Allah marched to Makkah in the year of the victory, thus conquering it…” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Surah 9:13, Online Source).

[2] Tafsir Jalalayn: (except for those you made a treaty with at the Masjid al-Haram) Referring to the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. They are the Quraysh who were exempted before. (As long as they are straight with you, be straight with them) i.e., as long as they carry out the treaty and do not break it, you should fulfill it. 

The ma is conditional and not adverbial. (Allah loves those who have taqwa) The Prophet was straight in his treaty with them until they broke it by helping the Banu Bakr against Khuza’a. (9:7). (Tafsir al-Jalalayn on Surah 9:7, Online source)

AND Tafsir al-Jalalyn 9:13

Will you not (a-la, ‘will not’ or ‘is not’, denotes incitement) fight a people who broke, violated, their oaths, their pacts, and intended to expel the Messenger, from Mecca — for they discussed this between them in their council assembly — initiating, combat, against you first? 

when they fought alongside Banu Bakr against Khuza‘a, your allies?

So, what is stopping you from fighting them? Are you afraid of them? God is more worthy of your fear, when you fail to fight them, if you are believers. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn on Surah 9:13, Online source)

[3] As-Sawi:[ As-Sawi: This refers to the Treaty of al-Hudaybiyya which stipulated that there would be no war for twenty years. The Banu Bakr formed an alliance with Quraysh and the Khuza’a with the Prophet. Banu Bakr then attacked Khuza’a and Quraysh helped them with weapons, thus breaking the treaty. ‘Amr b.

 ‘Allam al-Khuza’i went and informed the Prophet what had happened. The Prophet said, “You will not be helped if I do not help you,” and made preparations and went to Makkah and conquered it in 8 AH.

In 9 AH, the Prophet wanted to make hajj and he was told that the idolaters were there doing tawaf of the House naked. He said, “I do not want to go on hajj until that no longer takes place. So, he sent Abu Bakr that year as amir over the hajj to carry out the hajj for the people. 

Then he, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, sent Ô Ali to recite these verses on the Day of Sacrifice and to say that after that year, no idolater could make hajj nor do tawaf of the House naked.] (Tafsir as-Sawi on Surah 9:3 – Online source)

[4] Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas:

“(Will ye not fight a folk) why is it that you do not fight a people, i.e. the people of Mecca (who broke their solemn pledges) which are between them and you, (and purposed to drive out the messenger) and wanted to kill the Messenger when they entered Dar al-Nadwah (and did attack you first) by breaking their pledge when they helped the Banu Bakr,

their allies, against the Banu Khuza’ah, the allies of the Prophet (pbuh)? (What! Fear ye them?) O believers, do you fear fighting them? (Now Allah hath more right that you should fear Him) because of leaving His command, (if ye are believers).” (Tanwir al-Miqbâs min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas on Surah 9:13 – Online Source)

[5] Tafsir Anwarul Bayan volume 2, page 427

[6] Islam and International Law: Engaging Self-Centrism from a Plurality of Perspectives, Asma Asfaruddin, volume 7, page 60.

[7] Tafsir Al Qurtubi, Classical Commentary Of The Holy Qur’an, [Dar al-Taqwa], volume 1, page 490 – 491
[8] Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought By Asma Afsaruddin, page 88
[9] Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought By Asma Afsaruddin, page 88
[10] Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought by Asma Afsaruddin, page 89
[11] Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought by Asma Afsaruddin, page 89
[12] Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought By Asma Afsaruddin, page 89
[13] Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought By Asma Afsaruddin, page 89 – 90
[14] Guidance To The Uncertain In Reply To The Jews And The Nazarenes (‘Hidayatul Hayara Fi Ajwibatul Yahud wa al-Nasara’) – [Translated by Abdelhay El-Masry, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah] by Imam Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziah, page 25 – 27
[15] Crescent and Dove: Peace and Conflict Resolution in Islam [United States Institute Of Peace Press Washington, D.C., 2010] by Asma Afsaruddin, page 44 – 47
[16] Muslims and Non-Muslims : Peace and Covenant [2004], by Mashhad Al-ʻAllaf, page 39 – 40

Allah knows Best.

𝐁𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞

𝐂𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐄𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧 𝐁𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐲𝐥𝐞

𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐁𝐞𝐬𝐭.

Revisiting ‘I Have Been Commanded To Fight…’ Hadith

The Hadith ‘…Fight Until They Say There Is No god But Allah’ Explained

Allah Made Me Victorious By Awe, (By Frightening My Enemies) For a Distance of One Month’s Journey

I have been made victorious with terror

Does Islam Force Itself On Others?

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

The Sword Verse”: Surah 9:13 – 24

An Historical Examination Of The Sword Verse – Surah 9:5

A Historical Examination of The Sword Verse – Surah 9:5

Quran 9:5 – Sword Verse

Quran 9:5 – Sword Verse – Contextual Explanation

How can Islam be a religion of peace when Surah An-Nasr=chapter the Divine support (110) and Surah At-Tawbah=Chapter the repentance (9) that include the Sword verse was the last to be revealed from the Qur’an?

The “I have been made victorious with terror”  and ” I have been helped by terror” Hadiths – In Context

Bewitchment of the Prophet 

𝐁𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 

Mohamad Mostafa Nassar


𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐒𝐚𝐡𝐢𝐡, 𝐀𝐥-𝐁𝐮𝐤𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐢 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 `𝐀’𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐡 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝, “𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥 𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦.”

𝐒𝐮𝐟𝐲𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝, “𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐜 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞.”

𝐒𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝,

𝐎 `𝐀’𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐡! 𝐃𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐈 𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐇𝐢𝐦.

𝐓𝐰𝐨 𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐬𝐚𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐦𝐲 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐚𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐦𝐲 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐭.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐲 𝐦𝐲 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐧𝐞, `𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐧’

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝, `𝐇𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝.’

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝, `𝐖𝐡𝐨 𝐛𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐦’

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝, 𝐋𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐝 𝐛𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐬𝐚𝐦. 𝐇𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐮 𝐙𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐲𝐪 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐉𝐞𝐰𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐡𝐲𝐩𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞.’

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐝, `𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 (𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐡𝐢𝐦)’

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝, `𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛.’

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐝, `𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 (𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛)’

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝, `𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐥𝐦 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐚 𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐤 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐃𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐰𝐚𝐧.’

`𝐀’𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐡 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝, “𝐒𝐨 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐭 (𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐫).

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝,

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈 𝐬𝐚𝐰. 𝐈𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐟 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐚 𝐬𝐨𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐥𝐦 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐬.

𝐒𝐨 𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 (𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥). 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐈 (𝐀’𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐡) 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝,𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜’

𝐇𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝, (𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈 𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝 (𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐨𝐟) 𝐰𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐝𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞.)”

𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞: 𝐓𝐚𝐟𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐫 𝐈𝐛𝐧 𝐊𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐫, 𝐒𝐨𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐡 𝐀𝐧-𝐍𝐚𝐚𝐬  –  𝐃𝐚𝐫-𝐮𝐬-𝐒𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬

𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝? 


𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠: 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚̂𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝. 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐬?

𝐊𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐬 (𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐃𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩) 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧: 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐧𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐚 𝐛𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐧. 𝐏𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞, 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬! 


𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐇𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐡, 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐥-𝐌𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐡. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲, 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡’𝐬 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐟𝐞𝐥𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐝.

𝐀𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞, 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐉𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐋𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐝 𝐢𝐛𝐧 𝐀𝐥-𝐀`𝐬𝐚𝐦 𝐛𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐛𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭’𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐞. 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐜, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞.

𝐇𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐛𝐲 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 (𝐄𝐱𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐇𝐞). 𝐇𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬. `𝐀𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐡 (𝐦𝐚𝐲 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐛𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐡𝐞𝐫) 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝: 𝐎𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐞

𝐈𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐉𝐢𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐥 (𝐆𝐚𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐥) (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐚 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐥-𝐀𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐫 (𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐞𝐥𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬, 𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐡 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭). 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐢𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐲 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡’𝐬 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐞. 

𝐈𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 (𝐄𝐱𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐇𝐞) 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐡𝐬, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐀𝐥-𝐌𝐮`𝐚𝐰𝐰𝐢𝐝𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐲𝐧 (𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐡𝐬 𝐀𝐥-𝐅𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐪 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐀𝐥-𝐍𝐚𝐬). 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦, 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝.

𝐏𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐡𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝: 𝐍𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐡𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭. 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 (𝐆𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐄𝐱𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐇𝐞) 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞.

𝐋𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐬, 𝐌𝐮𝐡𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐝 (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐬𝐮𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐧. 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞, 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐔𝐡𝐮𝐝, 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐦𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬, 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐥𝐢𝐩 𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐡 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐧. 𝐇𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐟𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐩𝐢𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐧𝐞𝐭 𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐢𝐧 𝐌𝐚𝐤𝐤𝐚𝐡.

𝐇𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐦. 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 (𝐄𝐱𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐇𝐞) 𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐮𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬.

𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐲𝐚𝐡 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐬: (𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚̂𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝…), 𝐢𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 (𝐄𝐱𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐇𝐞) 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬’ 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦.

𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞: 𝐅𝐚𝐭𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐛𝐧 𝐁𝐚𝐚𝐳 

𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐁𝐞𝐬𝐭.


On the Physical Experiences of the Prophet (PBUH) at the time of Revelation

How did the Prophet receive revelation? What was the state of the Prophet like in the face of the heaviness of revelation?

Lengthy fabricated hadith about the death of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) Al-Mu’Jam Al-Kabir Tabarani (3/85)

Refuting The Rubbish About The Death Of Our Holy Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) Quran (69:44-46)

Does this mean he was a false Apostle?

Response to Christianity Index

Lies and Myths about Islam REFUTTED Index

Clarification about the temporary impact of witchcraft on Prophet Muhammed peace be upon him.

Prophet Muhammed as a victim of a black magic and lies from non-Muslims

Was Prophet Muhammed Demon Possessed and Suicidal?

Is this the reason Iblis/Shaytan/Satan had authority over Mohammad to bewitched and deceive him?

Bewitchment of the Prophet 

The story of magic against the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and its meaning

Response to the false claim that the Prophet was Affected by Black Magic!

What the Bible Say about Astrology, Divination, Spirit Mediums, Magic, Wizardry, and Necromancy

God’s Testimony: The Divine Authorship of The Qur’an 

 Did Prophet Muhammed Pass Away Due to Poisoning

Was Jesus Poisoned?

The Alleged Poisoning of Prophet Muhammed

The Miracle of the Poisoned Sheep that Prophet Muhammed ate.

Refutting the lie that Muhammad died because he was poisoned

Reconciling between the verse “Allah will protect you from the people” and the death of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him).

Prophet Muhammed and the General agonies of death

Did any of the Companions of the Prophet=Sahaabah drink the blood of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)?

Why God’s (Allah’s) Book Cannot Contain Error

Why God’s (Allah’s) Book Cannot Contain Error

Mohamad Mostafa Nassar


1. God Revealed It: – “ Those who disbelieve in the Reminder when it comes to them (are guilty), for indeed it is an Honorable Scripture. Falsehood cannot come at it from before it or behind it. (It is) a revelation from the Wise, the Owner of Praise”
[Qur’an 41:41-42]

“ Praise be to Allah* Who has revealed the Scripture unto His slave, and has not placed therein any crookedness(but has made it) straight”
[Qur’an 18:l-2].

“ Allah has (now) revealed the fairest of statements, a Scripture consistent”
[Qur’an 39:23]

2. God Preserves It: God has promised to always preserve His book. He says:

“ Surely We revealed the Reminder [the Qur’an and We verily are it’s Guardian]” [Qur’an 15:9].

The Qur’an contains no additions. It remains today – letter for letter – as it was revealed over 1400 years ago -nothing added, nothing taken away. Two of the original manuscripts of the Qur’an prepared 1400 years ago still exist today. o­ne is in the Topkapi Sarav Museum in Istanbul, Turkey, and the other in Tashkent, Russia. Both of these are identical in content with the Qur’an available all over the world today.

3. You Can Examine It: God Says:

“ Will they not then consider the Qur’an with care? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much discrepancy”
[Qur’an 4:82]

Here God challenges people to find an error in the Qur’an. If it contains errors then it cannot be from God. If, o­n the other hand, it bad been the production of a human being it would definitely contain errors. A human writer 1400 years ago would have written o­n the basis of the level of knowledge of his or her day. And many of those ideas would turn out to be false later as humankind learns more, especially in the field of science. But the Qur’an is Remarkably free from error.

[*] Allah: name of the only God – used by Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews, and by Muslims of every language.

Allahu Akbar

The Scientific Miracles of the Qur’an

Atheism Refuted

Response to Christianity

Muslim Women in Science

Muslim Women in Science

Mohamad Mostafa Nassar


There is an ingrained value in every Muslim, man and woman alike, to pursue knowledge and to learn about God’s truth by studying the surrounding world. Prophet Mohammad (saws), advised his followers to seek knowledge wherever it can be found. In keeping with this value, Muslim women are continuing to make headway in the field of science and their graduation ratios often exceed those of western women in pursuing scientific degrees according to figures recently released by UNESCO.

Yet, very seldom do positive depictions of Muslim women get portrayed by the western mainstream media. In some cases, media profit depends upon a production team’s ability to feed the myopic fantasies and stereotypes etched in the minds of many non-Muslims.

Westerners are comfortable with stereotypes that Muslim women are oppressed because of Islam, which could not be further from the truth. The Islamic message, which stresses gender equity and rights for women, is often corrupted by competing cultural values that have no basis in Islam scripture. 

The quest for knowledge has always applied to women in Islam. God has made no difference between genders in this area. The Prophet (saws) once said: “Seeking knowledge is a mandate for every Muslim (male and female).” (Sahih Bukhari)

During the International Congress on Muslim Women in Science Towards a Better Future, King Mohamed VI stressed that “…the integrated development of the principles of Islam and of scientific knowledge must be achieved irrespective of gender”, according to a UNESCO report on the gathering that took place in 2000. 

Muslim women in science have become leaders in their fields, receiving awards, earning patents and making contribution that further man’s knowledge of the world, and yet the eyes of western cameras see through these women as if they do not exist. A tendency to avoid praise for Muslim achievements hides the seldom explored comparisons. 

The fact is that the United States falls behind six Muslim countries in the percentage of women graduating in science to the total science graduate population. The countries whose ratio of women science graduates exceeds that of the United States are Bahrain, Brunei Darussalam, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Qatar and Turkey. Morocco exceeds the United States in the ratio of women engineering graduates as a percentage of the science graduate population.

Rehab Eman, a Muslim woman with a Bachelor of Science in Architectural Engineering, and a Masters degree in Islamic Studies on Jerusalem credits Islamic values for what inspired her to pursue knowledge in a scientific field. Instead of holding Eman back, the Muslim men in her life, including her father and brother, encouraged her to work hard for her education. “My lecturers were men, my supporters were men, my sponsors were men. They believed in my talents…,” she shares. 

Traditionally, Muslim women have not been discouraged in the sciences to the extent that Western women have, which might be why statistics show such high ratios of Muslim women graduates in science fields as a percentage to the total science graduate population. However, in Muslim countries the real hurdles that affect women’s education are the very same hurdles that affect men’s education. These hurdles take the form of poverty, illiteracy, political instability and the policy of foreign powers. 

Data that explains the real problem can be found by comparing the total educated populations of countries and regions of the world. A high degree of illiteracy and low levels of secondary school enrollment account for why there are less graduates overall in poorer countries than there are in wealthier regions like North America and Europe.

In locales defined by UNESCO in their recent report, gross secondary school enrollment ratios are very low: Africa (below 40%), West Asia (below 60%), and East Asia (below 75%). 

While some Islamophobic pundits are all too ready to make a correlation between poor education and what type of religion one practices, more accurate relationships can find their foundation in hard figures. National wealth and education forge a tight relationship.

According to data from the UIS (UNESCO Institute for Statistics), national wealth is directly related to educational enrollment. Statistics show that the vast majority of medium-high and high income countries have a secondary school enrollment ratio above 90 percent. Poorer countries don’t have the resources needed to make education a priority.

Undoubtedly, the next question that gets asked is, “How do countries become poor?” Well, to the dismay of many hostile to the deen, poverty and Islam cannot be correlated any more successfully than illiteracy and Islam. While there is more than enough scriptural proof that Islam encourages education for both men and women, some fail to realize that when the disease of poverty attacks, it does so in disregard to any cultural or religious boundaries.

Obstacles to Education

Although there are obstacles to education in much of the non-Muslim world today, the Muslim world has endured some of the most hostile attacks in recent decades, which has affected the overall quality and safety for youth trying to obtain education. In war torn Afghanistan and Iraq, schools of all levels have been bombed and shelled by U.S. military forces. Public health is in jeopardy and infrastructure has been damaged and not rebuilt.

When state-sponsored super-power terrorism isn’t being waged on weaker civilian populations, a form of quiet economic warfare is being waged behind a smokescreen of Public Relations razzle-dazzle by organizations like the IMF and World Bank, the culprits responsible, in part, for increasing third-world national debts and hitting other nations’ education systems like a home run out of Yankee Stadium. 

A self-proclaimed Economic Hit-Man, John Perkins, former Chief Economist for Chas. T. Main, confesses in a radio interview with Amy Goodman that his job was to build the American Empire by increasing other countries’ national debt by using any means necessary. 

“This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that,” says Perkins.

Gender Inequity

Gender inequity does exist, but it is not relegated to Muslim countries. Some disparaging gender gaps in higher education exist where the religion of Islam isn’t even practiced by a majority of the population. For example, only 44% of people enrolled in higher education in Switzerland are women, Guatemala (43%), Rwanda (37%), Korea (36%), Bhutan (34%), Cambodia (29%) and Liechtenstein (27%).

On the other side of the coin, in Tunisia, a country where 98% of people practice Islam, there were 5% more female students enrolled than males in higher education. Malaysian women made up 55% of the enrolled population in higher education, Lebanon (54%), Jordan and Libya (51%).

Bahrain even exceeded the United States in the ratio of women enrolled in higher education by 6%. If education is freedom, then it looks like Muslim women in Bahrain are more liberated than American women. 

Rather than Islam threatening a woman’s right to education, governments hostile to Islam often set up roadblocks to prevent Muslim women from obtaining education. Both France and Turkey are guilty of this type of exclusionary persecution, all under the false guise of secularism.

According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), a prestigious nongovernmental organization, these bans exclude thousands of women from institutions of higher learning each year. A 2004 HRW report states, “This restriction of women’s choice of dress is discriminatory and violates their right to education, their right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and their right to privacy.”

Exemplary Muslimah Scientists 

Despite the fact that the Muslim woman is constantly being harassed about her choice in religion and must withstand relentless western media stereotypes that ridicule her faith and demonize the men of her culture, there exists an Islamic tradition celebrating women in science of which Muslims must remind the world.

Today, the Islamic culture in which women are encouraged to participate, excel and lead in scientific fields continues to express itself, not only through statistical data, but in real, living, breathing and praying people. Although these women are exceptional, they are by no means the exception to the rule.

Professor Samira Ibrahim Islam

Professor Islam was nominated as a distinguished Scientist of the World For the Year 2000 by UNESCO. She made significant contributions in drug safety by defining the Saudi profile for drug metabolism. She has held several academic leadership posts in her own country as well as international diplomatic posts with the World Health Organization.

Professor Islam has also been a key figure in building academic infrastructure, beginning in the ’70s, to support women studying science in higher education in Saudi Arabia.

Sameena Shah

Recently at the international Workshop on Machine Learning in Canada, Samira Shah, presented an innovative algorithm in computerized cognitive leaning that she and a team of colleagues developed at IIT Delhi, India. Her previous academic contributions include a “Global Optimizer” for which a patent is pending. She is currently pursuing a doctorate degree from IIT Delhi.

Professor Dr. Bina Shaheen Siddiqui

Dr. Siddiqui has made significant contributions to medicine and agriculture through her study and classification of indigenous plant materials. She has been awarded several patents for anticancer constituents and biopesticides and has written more than 250 research articles.

Pakistan Academy of Sciences elected her as a Fellow and she co-founded the Third World Organization for Women in Science. She received her Ph.D. and D.Sc. from the University of Karachi, Pakistan. She has been honored with several prestigious awards including the Khwarizmi International Award of Iran and Salam Prize in Chemistry.

Historic records show that women participated in science and medicine in Muslim societies. By contrast, in America, during the 1890’s women could not be doctors, and yet, Muslim women doctors were seen as equals to their male counterparts hundred’s of years earlier, they were even responsible for written contributions in the field.

Also, women like Ijliya, an astrolab builder, were employed as skilled scientists in Muslim courts. Others made progress in pharmacology like Ishi Nili

Seeking knowledge is one of the most rewarding ways to connect to Al-Alim (The All Knowing) besides prayer. The believing faithful hold a deep love for Allah in their hearts. Perhaps it is this deep love that inspires believing men and women to strain and reach with their minds, through scientific learning in order to bring themselves closer to the One to whom they are so thankful. 

“Iqra!” (read) was Allah’s first command to Mohammad (peace be upon him) and its implications are numerous to Muslims living today. Read, be literate, seek and learn, discover and use the gifts and talents that Allah has granted us above animals. Use the mind to move closer to Al-Haadi (The Guide), as the Muslimah scientists have done in the past and are doing today.


The data for years 2002/2003 contained in these tables describes the percentage of women graduates in science and engineering out of the total science and engineering graduate population in each country, and pertains to higher-education in science (life sciences, physical sciences, mathematics and statistics, computer sciences)

and Engineering (engineering and engineering trades, manufacturing and processing, architecture and building) fields in countries with Muslim majorities for which data was available. (Statistics from the “Global Education Digest” report released from UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2005)

Woman Graduates in Science

Bahrain                   74%
Bangladesh              24%
Brunei Darussalam     49%
Kyrgyzstan              64%
Lebanon                  47% 
Qatar                     71%
Turkey                    44%

Compared with…

U.S.                       43%
Japan                     25% 

Women Graduates in Engineering

Eritrea                      4%
Morocco                  25%

Compared with…
U.S.                        19%
Japan                      13%

Corey Elizabeth Habbas is a a freelance writer from St. Paul, Minnesota, US

The Scientific Miracles of the Qur’an

Atheism Refuted

Response to Christianity

Why a Scientist Believes in God

Why a Scientist Believes in God

Mohamad Mostafa Nassar


This article of Mr A. Cressy Morrison, former President of the New York Academy of Sciences, first appeared in the “Reader’s Digest” (January 1948); then on recommendation of Professor C. A. Coulson, F. R.S., Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, was republished in the “Reader’s Digest” November 1960 – It shows how science compels the scientists to admit to the essential need of a Supreme Creator.

We are still in the dawn of the scientific age and every increase of light reveals more brightly the handiwork of an intelligent Creator. In the 90 years since Darwin we have made stupendous discoveries; with a spirit of scientific humanity and of faith grounded in knowledge we are approaching even nearer to an awareness of God. For myself I count seven reasons for my faith.

First: By unwavering mathematical law we can prove that our universe was designed and executed by a great engineering Intelligence. Suppose you put ten coins, marked from one to ten, into your pocket and give them a good shuffle. Now try to take them out in sequence from one to ten, pulling back the coin each time and shaking them all again.

Mathematically we know that your chance of first drawing number one is one in ten; of drawing one and two in succession, one in 100; of drawing one, two and three in succession, one in a thousand, and so on; your chance of drawing them all,

from one to number ten in succession, would reach the unbelievable figure of one chance in ten thousand million. By the same reasoning, so many exacting conditions are necessary for life on earth that they could not possibly exist in proper relationship by chance.

The earth rotates on its axis at one thousand miles an hour; if it turned at one hundred miles an hour, our days and nights would be ten times as long as now, and the hot sun would then burn up our vegetation during each long day, while in the long night any surviving sprout would freeze. Again, the sun, source of our life, has a surface temperature of 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and our earth is, just far enough away so that this ‘eternal fire” warms us just enough and not too much!

If the sun gave off only one-half its present radiation, we would freeze, and if it gave half as much more, we would roast. The slant of the earth, tilted at an angle of 23 degrees, gives us our season; if it had not been so tilted, vapors from the ocean would move north and south, piling up for us continents of ice.

If our moon was, say, only 50 thousand miles away instead of its actual distance, our tides would be so enormous that twice a day all continents would be submerged; even the mountains would soon be eroded away.

If the crust of the earth had been only ten feet thicker, there would be no oxygen without which animal life must die. Had the ocean been a few feet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been absorbed and no vegetable life could exist.

Or if our atmosphere had been thinner, some of the meteors, now burned in space by the million every day would be striking all parts of the earth, starting fires everywhere. Because of these, and host of other examples, there is not one chance in millions that life on our planet is an accident.

Second: The resourcefulness of life to accomplish its purpose is a manifestation of all-pervading Intelligence. What life itself is no man has fathomed. It has neither weight nor dimensions, but it does have force; a growing root will crack a rock.

Life has conquered water, land and air, mastering the element, compelling them to dissolve and reform their combinations. Life, the sculptor, shapes all living things; an artist, it designs every leaf of every tree, and colours every flower. Life is a musician and has each bird to sing its love songs, the insects to call each other in the music of their multitudinous sounds.

Life is a sublime chemist, giving taste to fruits and spices, and perfume to the rose changing water and carbonic acid into sugar and wood and, in so doing, releasing oxygen that animals may have the breath of life.

Behold an almost invisible drop of protoplasm, transparent and jelly-like, capable of motion, drawing energy from the sun. This single cell, this transparent mist-like droplet, holds within itself the germ of life, and has the power to distribute this life to every living thing, great and small.

The powers of this droplet are greater than our vegetation and animals and people, for all life came from it. Nature did not create life; fire-blistered rocks and a salt less sea could not meet the necessary requirements. Who, then, has put it here?

Third: Animal wisdom speaks irresistibly of a good Creator who infused instinct into otherwise helpless little creatures. The young salmon spends years at sea, then comes back to his own river; and travels up the very side of the river into which flows The tributary where he was born. What brings him back so precisely?

If you transfer him to another tributary he will know at once that he is off his course and he will fight his way down and back to the main stream and then turn up against the current to finish his destiny more accurately.

Even more difficult to solve is the mystery of eels. These amazing creatures migrate at maturity from all ponds and rivers everywhere – those from Europe across thousands of miles of oceans – all bound for the same abysmal deeps near Bermuda.

There they breed and die. The little ones, with no apparent means of knowing anything except that they are in a wilderness of water nevertheless find their way back not only to the very shore from which their parent came but thence to the rivers, lakes or little ponds – so that each body of water is always populated with eels.

No American eel has ever been caught in Europe, no European eel in American waters. Nature has even delayed the maturity of the European eel by a year or more to make up for its longer journey. Where does the directing iruptilse originate?

A wasp will overpower a grasshopper, dig a hole in the earth, sting the grasshopper in exactly the right place so that he does not die but becomes unconscious and lives on as a form of preserved meat. Then the wasp will lay her eggs handily so that her children when they hatch can nibble without killing the insect on which they feed, to them dead meat would be fatal.

The mother then flies way and dies; she never sees her young. Surely the wasp must have done all this right the first time and every time, or else there would be no wasp. Such mysterious techniques cannot be explained by adaptation; they were bestowed.

Fourth: Man has something more than animal instinct – the power of reason. No other animal has ever left a record of its ability to count ten or even to understand the meaning of ten. Where instinct is like a single note of a flute, beautiful but limited, the human brain contains all the notes of all the instruments in the orchestra.

No need to belabour this fourth point; thanks to the human reason we can contemplate the possibility that we are what we are only because we have received a spark of Universal Intelligence.

Fifth: Provision for all living is revealed in phenomena which we know today but which Darwin did not know – such as the wonders of genes. So unspeakably tiny are these genes that, if all of them responsible for all living people in the world could be put in one place, there would be less than a thimbleful.

Yet these ultra- microscopic genes and their companions, the chromosomes, inhabit every living cell and are the absolute keys to all human, animal and vegetable characteristics. A thimble is a small place in which to put all the individual characteristics of two thousand million human beings. However; the facts are beyond question.

Well then, how do genes lock up all the normal heredity of a multitude of ancestors and preserve the psychology of each in such an infinitely small space? Here evolution really begins – at the cell, the entity which holds and carries genes. How a few million atoms, locked up as an ultra-microscopic gene, can absolutely rule all on earth is an example of profound cunning and provision that could emanate only from a Creative Intelligence – no other hypothesis will serve.

Sixth: By the economy of nature, we are forced to realize that only infinite wisdom could have foreseen and prepared with such astute husbandry. Many years ago a species of cactus was planted in Australia as a protective fence. Having no insect enemies in Australia the cactus soon began a prodigious growth; the alarming abundance persisted until the plants covered an area as long and wide as England, crowding inhabitants out of the towns and villages, and destroying their farms.

Seeking a defence, the entomologists scoured the world; finally they turned up an insect which exclusively feeds on cactus, and would eat nothing else. It would breed freely too; and it had no enemies in Australia. So animal soon conquered vegetable and today the cactus pest has retreated, and with it all but a small protective residue of the insects, enough to hold the cactus in check for ever. Such checks and balances have been universally provided. Why have not fast-breeding insects dominated the earth?

Because they have no lungs such as man possesses; they breathe through tubes. But when insects grow large, their tubes do not grow in ratio to the increasing size of the body. Hence there has never been an insect of great size; this limitation on growth has held them all in check. If this physical check had not been provided, man could not exist. Imagine meeting a hornet as big as a lion!

Seventh: The fact that man can conceive the idea of God is in itself a unique proof. The conception of god rises from a divine faculty of man, unshared with the rest of our world – the faculty we call imagination. By its power, man and man alone can find the evidence of things unseen. The vista that power opens up is unbounded; indeed, as man is perfected, imagination becomes a spiritual reality.

Atheism Refuted

The Scientific Miracles of the Qur’an

Response to Christianity