If only world leader come up with the RIGHT TERMS. Khawarij Terrorism. So uninformed people, would know the very cult that Islam extremely opposes. So name it as it is. Khawarij Terrorism. (yeah i mean you Trump). No hope for people like Wilders, Le Pen, Bannon or organization like PEGIDA, UKIP though. They thrive by misleading people, just like ISIS. They want to make perpetual war with >1.500.000.000 people, just like ISIS. They don't want to co-exist just like ISIS.
And to say ISIS is Islamic is like saying Timothy Mc Veigh is very American or Anders Behring Breivik is very Norwegian.
http://debunkingaccusation.blogspot.co.id/2017/04/isis-violations-on-islam.html
No wonder ALL OF MUSLIM COUNTRIES ON PLANET EARTH declare war against ISIS, right?
----
source: http://abuaminaelias.com/dangers-of-the-khawarij-ideology-of-violence/
----
The Kharijites earned their name (from the root kh-ra-ja meaning “to go out”) because they exited Islam and the Muslim community due to their heretical innovations. They will recite the Quran but it will not go beyond their throats, meaning it will not enter their hearts and they will not understand it.
Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:
يَخْرُجُ نَاسٌ مِنْ قِبَلِ الْمَشْرِقِ وَيَقْرَءُونَ الْقُرْآنَ لَا يُجَاوِزُ تَرَاقِيَهُمْ يَمْرُقُونَ مِنْ الدِّينِ كَمَا يَمْرُقُ السَّهْمُ مِنْ الرَّمِيَّةِ ثُمَّ لَا يَعُودُونَ فِيهِ حَتَّى يَعُودَ السَّهْمُ إِلَى فُوقِهِ
There will come a people from the east who recite the Quran but it will not go beyond their throats. They will pass through the religion just as an arrow pierces its target and they will not return to it just as the arrow does not return to the bow.
Source: Sahih Bukhari 7123, Grade: Sahih
The Kharijite ideology is based upon the following evil tenets:
Declaring Muslims to be unbelievers.
Rejecting lawful obedience to the rulers.
Justifying violence against Muslims and innocent people.
The correct Islamic belief is that no Muslim can become an unbeliever due to his sins alone. A Muslim must explicitly disavow Islam in order to be properly considered an unbeliever.
At-Tahawi said:
وَلَا نُكَفِّرُ أَحَدًا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْقِبْلَةِ بِذَنْبٍ مَا لَمْ يَسْتَحِلَّهُ وَلَا نَقُولُ لَا يَضُرُّ مَعَ الْإِيمَانِ ذَنْبٌ لِمَنْ عَمِلَهُ
We do not excommunicate anyone who prays toward Mecca because of their sins as long as he does not consider them lawful, and we do not say sins do not harm the faith of those who commit them.
And he said:
وَلَا يَخْرُجُ الْعَبْدُ مِنَ الْإِيمَانِ إِلَّا بِجُحُودِ مَا أَدْخَلَهُ فِيهِ
A person does not leave faith except by disavowing what brought him into it.
Source: al-Aqīdah al-Ṭaḥāwiyyah
In contrast, the Kharijites charge other Muslims with unbelief due to their sins or perceived sins in order to justify their merciless and criminal behavior towards them.
Ibn Taymiyyah writes:
وَالْخَوَارِجُ هُمْ أَوَّلُ مَنْ كَفَّرَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ يُكَفِّرُونَ بِالذُّنُوبِ ، وَيُكَفِّرُونَ مَنْ خَالَفَهُمْ فِي بِدْعَتِهِمْ وَيَسْتَحِلُّونَ دَمَهُ وَمَالَهُ وَهَذِهِ حَالُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ يَبْتَدِعُونَ بِدْعَةً وَيُكَفِّرُونَ مَنْ خَالَفَهُمْ فِيهَا وَأَهْلُ السُّنَّةِ وَالْجَمَاعَةِ يَتَّبِعُونَ الْكِتَابَ وَالسُّنَّةَ وَيُطِيعُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ الْحَقَّ وَيَرْحَمُونَ الْخَلْقَ
The Kharijite sect was the first to declare Muslims to be unbelievers because of their sins. They charged as unbelievers whoever disagreed with their innovations and they made lawful the spilling of blood and the taking of wealth. This is the condition of the people of innovation, that they invent some religious innovation and then they excommunicate whoever disagrees with them concerning it. Rather, the people of the Sunnah and the community follow the Book and the Sunnah and they obey Allah and His Messenger and follow the truth. They have mercy upon the creation.
Source: Majmū’ al-Fatāwá 1/278
True Muslims have mercy upon the entire creation, including unbelievers and idolaters, but the Kharaijites have no mercy for those outside their group. They declare other Muslims to be unbelievers by misinterpreting and misapplying the verses of the Quran.
Al-Bukhari reported: Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, considered the Kharijites to be the worst of Allah’s creation and he said:
إِنَّهُمْ انْطَلَقُوا إِلَى آيَاتٍ نَزَلَتْ فِي الْكُفَّارِ فَجَعَلُوهَا عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ
Verily, they take verses that were revealed about unbelievers and use them against the believers.
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 6531, Grade: Sahih
In the early period of Islam, they declared Ali ibn Abi Talib to be an unbeliever when he intended to reconcile with Mu’awiyah.
Ubaidullah ibn Abu Rafi reported: The Kharijites came out against Ali ibn Abi Talib and they said:
لَا حُكْمَ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ
There is no rule (ḥukm) but for Allah. (12:40)
Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, said:
كَلِمَةُ حَقٍّ أُرِيدَ بِهَا بَاطِلٌ
A word of truth by which is intended falsehood.
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1066, Grade: Sahih
The original Kharijites misused the verse “there is no rule but for Allah,” (12:40) by not properly distinguishing between matters upon which Allah has definitively ruled and matters left open to interpretation, consultation, and human decision-making. Ali ibn Abi Talib decisively refuted them with the Quran.
Abdullah ibn Shaddad reported: The Kharijites came out against Ali and they said:
انْسَلَخْتَ مِنْ قَمِيصٍ أَلْبَسَكَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى وَاسْمٍ سَمَّاكَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى بِهِ ثُمَّ انْطَلَقْتَ فَحَكَّمْتَ فِي دِينِ اللَّهِ فَلَا حُكْمَ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ تَعَالَى
You have replaced the authority Allah the Exalted has given you and the name with which he named you. Then, you have withdrawn and judged with the judgment of men in the religion of Allah while there is no rule but for Allah.
When Ali heard this, he gathered the people and he called for the greatest scripture (muṣḥaf). He started striking it with his hand, saying:
أَيُّهَا الْمُصْحَفُ حَدِّثْ النَّاسَ
O you scripture, speak to the people!
They said, “It is not a person. It is only ink and paper. We are speaking about what is narrated from it.” Ali said:
أَصْحَابُكُمْ هَؤُلَاءِ الَّذِينَ خَرَجُوا بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَهُمْ كِتَابُ اللَّهِ يَقُولُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى فِي كِتَابِهِ فِي امْرَأَةٍ وَرَجُلٍ وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ شِقَاقَ بَيْنِهِمَا فَابْعَثُوا حَكَمًا مِنْ أَهْلِهِ وَحَكَمًا مِنْ أَهْلِهَا فَأُمَّةُ مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَعْظَمُ دَمًا وَحُرْمَةً مِنْ امْرَأَةٍ وَرَجُلٍ
The Book of Allah is between myself and these companions of yours who have come out against me. Allah said in his Book regarding the woman and man, ‘If you fear dissension between the two, send an arbitrator (ḥakam) from his people,’ (4:35) and the nation of Muhammad is greater in sanctity for their lives than the affair of a woman and a man.
Ibn Abbas was sent to debate with the rebels and four thousand of them repented and returned to the side of Ali. Then, Ali said to the remaining rebels:
فَقِفُوا حَيْثُ شِئْتُمْ حَتَّى تَجْتَمِعَ أُمَّةُ مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمْ أَنْ لَا تَسْفِكُوا دَمًا حَرَامًا أَوْ تَقْطَعُوا سَبِيلًا أَوْ تَظْلِمُوا ذِمَّةً فَإِنَّكُمْ إِنْ فَعَلْتُمْ فَقَدْ نَبَذْنَا إِلَيْكُمْ الْحَرْبَ عَلَى سَوَاءٍ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْخَائِنِينَ
Remain wherever you wish, for the nation of Muhammad has agreed between us and you that you will not shed sacred blood or obstruct the highways or oppress a protected people. If you do so, then we have issued a notice of war against you on equal footing. Verily, Allah does not love the treacherous.
Source: Musnad Aḥmad 658, Grade: Sahih
Ahmad Shakir declared this narration to be authentic in his verification of Musnad Aḥmad 2/66.
The Kharijites believe their opinions regarding leadership, government, politics, and the Sharia are the only valid opinions in Islam and whoever disagrees with them becomes an unbeliever. However, the truth is that much of these matters are left open to interpretation and consultation among the Muslims.
In fact, the Prophet commanded us to distinguish between the rule of Allah and the rule of people and not to claim our opinions are the rulings of Allah.
Buraida reported: When the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, would appoint a commander over the army, he would personally enjoin him to fear Allah and to be good with the Muslims who were with him. The Prophet would say:
وَإِذَا حَاصَرْتَ أَهْلَ حِصْنٍ فَأَرَادُوكَ أَنْ تَجْعَلَ لَهُمْ ذِمَّةَ اللَّهِ وَذِمَّةَ نَبِيِّهِ فَلَا تَجْعَلْ لَهُمْ ذِمَّةَ اللَّهِ وَلَا ذِمَّةَ نَبِيِّهِ وَلَكِنْ اجْعَلْ لَهُمْ ذِمَّتَكَ وَذِمَّةَ أَصْحَابِكَ فَإِنَّكُمْ أَنْ تُخْفِرُوا ذِمَمَكُمْ وَذِمَمَ أَصْحَابِكُمْ أَهْوَنُ مِنْ أَنْ تُخْفِرُوا ذِمَّةَ اللَّهِ وَذِمَّةَ رَسُولِهِ وَإِذَا حَاصَرْتَ أَهْلَ حِصْنٍ فَأَرَادُوكَ أَنْ تُنْزِلَهُمْ عَلَى حُكْمِ اللَّهِ فَلَا تُنْزِلْهُمْ عَلَى حُكْمِ اللَّهِ وَلَكِنْ أَنْزِلْهُمْ عَلَى حُكْمِكَ فَإِنَّكَ لَا تَدْرِي أَتُصِيبُ حُكْمَ اللَّهِ فِيهِمْ أَمْ لَا
When you besiege the people of a fortress and they appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not give them protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet but rather give them protection in the name of you and your companions. Verily, for you to violate the protection of yourself and your companions is a lesser sin than to violate the protection of Allah and His Messenger. When you besiege the people of a fortress and they appeal for you to bring them out according to the rule of Allah, do not bring them our according to the rule of Allah but rather bring them out according to your ruling. Verily, you do not know if you will judge with the ruling of Allah concerning them or not.
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1731, Grade: Sahih
Thus, Muslims must distinguish between the rule of Allah and the rule of people. Yet the Kharijites, who make no such distinction, will charge other Muslims with unbelief who disagree with their views. In fact, the Kharijites do not simply declare Muslims to be unbelievers in a theoretical way, but rather they call for violent rebellion against entire Muslim societies.
Regarding Muslim rulers, the correct Islamic belief is that we must obey them in all lawful matters. We should only disobey them if they command us to commit sins and we may not call for a violent overthrow of their governments as long as they allow the prayer.
Umm Salamah reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:
سَتَكُونُ أُمَرَاءُ فَتَعْرِفُونَ وَتُنْكِرُونَ فَمَنْ عَرَفَ بَرِئَ وَمَنْ أَنْكَرَ سَلِمَ وَلَكِنْ مَنْ رَضِيَ وَتَابَعَ
There will be rulers from whom you will see both goodness and corruption. One who recognizes their evil and hates it will maintain his innocence, but one who is pleased with it and follows them will be sinful.
It was said, “Shall we not fight them?” The Prophet said:
لَا مَا صَلَّوْا
No, as long as they pray.
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1854, Grade: Sahih
As long as Muslims are allowed to pray and practice the pillars of Islam, then there is no justification for declaring a rebellion against the rulers. In contrast, the Kharijites rebel against the ruler not to protect the religion, but rather for inexcusable worldly reasons.
Abu Hayyan reported: A man from the Kharijites came to Hasan Al-Basri and he said, “What do you say about the rebels?” Hasan said:
هم أصحاب دنيا
They are seekers of the world.
He said, “Why do you say that when one of them goes out with his spear until it breaks and he leaves his family and children?” Hasan said:
حدثني عن السلطان أيمنعك من إقامة الصلاة وإيتاء الزكاة والحج والعمرة
Tell me about the ruler. Does he prevent you from establishing prayer, giving charity, and performing the pilgrimage?
He said no. Hasan said:
فأراه إنما منعك الدنيا فقاتلته عليها
As I see it, he has only prevented you from seeking the world and you have fought him for it.
Source: al-Baṣā’ir wal-Dhakhā’ir 1/34
In general, Muslims must work to reform societies through non-violent methods such as teaching, preaching, and charity. Violence is only a last resort in the worst case. The Kharijites, on the other hand, charge Muslim leaders with unbelief and anyone else who does not support their call for violent rebellion. In this way, they justify indiscriminate violence against entire Muslim societies.
Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:
مَنْ خَرَجَ مِنَ الطَّاعَةِ وَفَارَقَ الْجَمَاعَةَ فَمَاتَ مَاتَ مِيتَةً جَاهِلِيَّةً وَمَنْ قَاتَلَ تَحْتَ رَايَةٍ عُمِّيَّةٍ يَغْضَبُ لِعَصَبَةٍ أَوْ يَدْعُو إِلَى عَصَبَةٍ أَوْ يَنْصُرُ عَصَبَةً فَقُتِلَ فَقِتْلَةٌ جَاهِلِيَّةٌ وَمَنْ خَرَجَ عَلَى أُمَّتِي يَضْرِبُ بَرَّهَا وَفَاجِرَهَا وَلاَ يَتَحَاشَ مِنْ مُؤْمِنِهَا وَلاَ يَفِي لِذِي عَهْدٍ عَهْدَهُ فَلَيْسَ مِنِّي وَلَسْتُ مِنْهُ
Whoever rejects obedience to the leader and divides the community and dies will have died upon ignorance. Whoever fights under the banner of one who is blind, raging for the sake of tribalism, or calling to tribalism, or supporting tribalism, and is killed will have died upon ignorance. Whoever rebels against my nation, striking the righteous and wicked alike and sparing not even the believers and does not fulfill the pledge of security, then he has nothing to do with me and I have nothing to do with him.
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1848, Grade: Sahih
This narration succinctly describes the characteristics of the Kharijites and their violent behavior. They reject lawful obedience to Muslim leaders and they fight according to their tribal zeal, meaning they are not concerned with justice for their victims. They attack both the righteous and the wicked, and they do not honor covenants of security and the protection of civilians.
In our times, you will see them target markets, bus stations, airports, and other places frequented by unarmed civilians. The purpose of such attacks is not to achieve any immediate military objectives, but rather to spread terror among the population and destabilize the government. In this way, they follow the same path as the first Kharijites in the early period of Islam.
At-Tabari reported:
فأتت الخوارج قريته فأخذوه وأخذوا ابنته فقدموا ابنته فقتلوها وزعم لي أبو الربيع السلولي أن اسم ابنته أم يزيد وأنها كانت تقول لهم يا أهل الإسلام إن أبي مصاب فلا تقتلوه وأما أنا فإنما أنا جارية والله ما أتيت فاحشة قط ولا آذيت جارة لي ولا تطلعت ولا تشرفت قط فقدموها ليقتلوها فأخذت تنادي ما ذنبي ما ذنبي ثم سقطت مغشيا عليها أو ميتة ثم قطعوها بأسيافهم
The Khawarij came to a village and they seized a man and his daughter. She said to them, “O people of Islam! Indeed, my father is an old man so do not kill him, and I am only a girl. By Allah, I have never been immoral and I have never harmed anyone.” They brought her to kill her and she kept saying, “What is my sin? What is my sin?” Then she fainted and they killed her with their swords.
Source: Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī 6/124
Ibn Kathir writes:
إِذْ لَوْ قَوُوا هَؤُلَاءِ لَأَفْسَدُوا الْأَرْضَ كُلَّهَا عِرَاقًا وَشَامًا وَلَمْ يَتْرُكُوا طِفْلًا وَلَا طِفْلَةَ وَلَا رَجُلًا وَلَا امْرَأَةً لِأَنَّ النَّاسَ عِنْدَهُمْ قَدْ فَسَدُوا فَسَادًا لَا يُصْلِحُهُمْ إِلَّا الْقَتْلُ جُمْلَةً
If the Khawarij ever gained power, they would corrupt the entire earth, Iraq, and Syria. They would not leave a boy or a girl or a man or a woman, for in their view the people have become so corrupt that they cannot be reformed except by mass killing.
Source: al-Bidāyah wal-Nihāyah 10/584
Wherever they appear, the Kharijites cause division among the Muslims at large and even among their own groups. Whenever they form a group, it is not long before splinter groups and off-shoots appear with each one claiming to have the right to seize the Caliphate.
Wahb ibn Munabbih said:
أني قد أدركت صدر الإسلام فوالله ما كانت للخوارج جماعة قط إلا فرقها اللَّه على شر حالاتهم وما أظهر أحد منهم رأيه قط إلا ضرب اللَّه عنقه وما اجتمعت الأمة على رجل قط من الخوارج ولو أمكن اللَّه الخوارج من رأيهم لفسدت الأرض وقطعت السبل وقطع الحج من بيت اللَّه الحرام وإذا لعاد أمر الإسلام جاهلية حتى يعود الناس يستغيثون برءوس الجبال كما كانوا في الجاهلية وإذا لقام أكثر من عشرة أو عشرين رجلا ليس منهم رجل إلا وهو يدعو إلى نفسه بالخلافة ومع كل رجل منهم أكثر من عشرة آلاف يقاتل بعضهم بعضا ويشهد بعضهم على بعض بالكفر حتى يصبح الرجل المؤمن خائفا على نفسه ودينه ودمه وأهله وماله لا يدري أين يسلك أو مع من يكون
I knew the early period of Islam. By Allah, the Kharijites never had a group except that Allah caused it to split due to their evil condition. Never did one of them proclaim his opinion except that Allah caused his neck to be struck. Never did the Muslim nation unite upon a man from the Kharijites. If Allah had allowed the opinion of the Kharijites to take root, the earth would have been corrupted, the roadways would have been cut off, the Hajj pilgrimage to the sacred house of Allah would have been cut off, and the affair of Islam would have returned to ignorance until the people would seek refuge in the mountains as they had done in the time of ignorance. If there were to arise among them ten or twenty men, there would not be a man among them except that he would claim the Caliphate for himself. With each man among them would be ten thousand others, all of them fighting each other and charging each other with unbelief until even the believer would fear for himself, his religion, his life, his family, his wealth, and he would not know where to travel or with whom he should be.
Source: Tārīkh Dimashq 69290
Nevertheless, the Kharijites have been successful recruiting ignorant or desperate Muslims. The Prophet described them as using beautiful Islamic rhetoric and selling “foolish dreams” to the Muslim masses.
Ali ibn Abu Talib reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:
يَأْتِي فِي آخِرِ الزَّمَانِ قَوْمٌ حُدَثَاءُ الْأَسْنَانِ سُفَهَاءُ الْأَحْلَامِ يَقُولُونَ مِنْ خَيْرِ قَوْلِ الْبَرِيَّةِ يَمْرُقُونَ مِنْ الْإِسْلَامِ كَمَا يَمْرُقُ السَّهْمُ مِنْ الرَّمِيَّةِ لَا يُجَاوِزُ إِيمَانُهُمْ حَنَاجِرَهُمْ
In the last days, there will be young people with foolish dreams. They will say the best of words in creation but they will pass through Islam just as an arrow passes through its game. Their faith will not go beyond their throats.
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 4770, Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi
Their “foolish dreams” are their promises of an Islamic Utopia, a glorious jihad, a new Caliphate that will bring honor and strength back to the Muslims. Yet, their dreams are unrealistic and their methodologies dangerous to the very people they claim to be helping. Their understanding of faith is so shallow, superficial, and hypocritical that they cause even greater harm to Muslim community.
In another narration, the Prophet described them saying:
سَيَكُونُ فِي أُمَّتِي اخْتِلَافٌ وَفُرْقَةٌ قَوْمٌ يُحْسِنُونَ الْقِيلَ وَيُسِيئُونَ الْفِعْلَ يَقْرَءُونَ الْقُرْآنَ لَا يُجَاوِزُ تَرَاقِيَهُمْ يَمْرُقُونَ مِنْ الدِّينِ مُرُوقَ السَّهْمِ مِنْ الرَّمِيَّةِ لَا يَرْجِعُونَ حَتَّى يَرْتَدَّ عَلَى فُوقِهِ هُمْ شَرُّ الْخَلْقِ وَالْخَلِيقَةِ
There will be dissension and division in my nation and a people will come with beautiful words but evil deeds. They recite the Quran but it will not pass beyond their throats. They will leave the religion as an arrow leaves its target and they will not return until the arrows returns to its notch. They are the worst of the creation.
Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 4765, Grade: Sahih
Indeed, like their predecessors their preaching and propaganda entices people to join their cause but by their actions they are the worst of the creation, even though they recite the Quran and call to Islam. They bring forth verses of the Quran to bolster their arguments but they wield them against the objectives of Islam.
Usama ibn Zaid reported: Sa’d, may Allah be pleased with him, said:
وَأَنَا وَاللَّهِ لَا أَقْتُلُ مُسْلِمًا حَتَّى يَقْتُلَهُ ذُو الْبُطَيْنِ
By Allah, I would never kill a Muslim as this one had killed him.
A man said to him:
أَلَمْ يَقُلْ اللَّهُ وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لَا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ كُلُّهُ لِلَّهِ
Did not Allah say: Fight them until there is no more persecution and religion is entirely for Allah? (2:193)
Sa’d said:
قَدْ قَاتَلْنَا حَتَّى لَا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَأَنْتَ وَأَصْحَابُكَ تُرِيدُونَ أَنْ تُقَاتِلُوا حَتَّى تَكُونُ فِتْنَةٌ
We did fight them until there was no more persecution, but you and your companions intend to fight until there is persecution.
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 96, Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi
Sa’eed ibn Jubair reported: We were met by Abdullah ibn Umar and we hoped that he would narrate to us a good saying. A man approached him and he said, “O Abu Abdur Rahman, tell us about fighting during times of persecution as Allah said: And fight until there is no more persecution.” (2:193) Ibn Umar said:
هَلْ تَدْرِي مَا الْفِتْنَةُ ثَكِلَتْكَ أُمُّكَ إِنَّمَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يُقَاتِلُ الْمُشْرِكِينَ وَكَانَ الدُّخُولُ فِي دِينِهِمْ فِتْنَةً وَلَيْسَ كَقِتَالِكُمْ عَلَى الْمُلْكِ
Do you know what persecution is? May your mother be bereaved of you! Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, only fought the idolaters as there was persecution for practicing their religion. It was not like your fighting for the sake of ruling.
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 6682, Grade: Sahih
The purpose of a just war in Islam is to end religious persecution and to protect innocent people, yet the Kharijites use such verses to further persecute Muslims and to justify their worldly ambitions of political power.
We will continue to see the violent call of the Kharijites appear again and again until the end of time when the False Messiah appears among them. They follow the same Satanic forces from which will emerge the greatest tribulation and suffering ever faced by humanity.
Abdullah ibn Amr reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:
سَيَخْرُجُ أُنَاسٌ مِنْ أُمَّتِي مِنْ قِبَلِ الْمَشْرِقِ يَقْرَءُونَ الْقُرْآنَ لَا يُجَاوِزُ تَرَاقِيَهُمْ كُلَّمَا خَرَجَ مِنْهُمْ قَرْنٌ قُطِعَ كُلَّمَا خَرَجَ مِنْهُمْ قَرْنٌ قُطِعَ
There will emerge from the east some people from my nation who recite the Quran but it will not go beyond their throats. Every time a faction of them emerges it will be cut off.
The Prophet repeated this and on the tenth time he said:
كُلَّمَا خَرَجَ مِنْهُمْ قَرْنٌ قُطِعَ حَتَّى يَخْرُجَ الدَّجَّالُ فِي بَقِيَّتِهِمْ
Every time a faction of them emerges it will be cut off until the False Messiah emerges from their remnants.
Source: Musnad Aḥmad 27767, Grade: Sahih
As such, in our times we are witnessing a number of conflicts between oppressive governments and rebel Kharijite forces. Muslims are stuck between the spear of the ruler and the sword of the rebel. In such cases, we must remain patient and work to reform and improve our communities through education, preaching, and charity.
Abdullah ibn Amr reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:
تَكُونُ فِتْنَةٌ تَسْتَنْظِفُ الْعَرَبَ قَتْلَاهَا فِي النَّارِ اللِّسَانُ فِيهَا أَشَدُّ مِنْ وَقْعِ السَّيْفِ
There will be a tribulation that will wipe out the Arabs in which those killed on both sides are in the Hellfire. In that time the tongue will be stronger than the sword.
Source: Musnad Aḥmad 6941, Grade: Sahih
If we are not careful, we might fall into the sins of either side of the conflict by legitimizing the misdeeds of an oppressive government or justifying acts of terrorism in response. We should not rush to support one or another side in such conflicts as they are tribulations (fitnah) in which the truth is unclear.
Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:
سَتَكُونُ فِتَنٌ الْقَاعِدُ فِيهَا خَيْرٌ مِنْ الْقَائِمِ وَالْقَائِمُ خَيْرٌ مِنْ الْمَاشِي وَالْمَاشِي فِيهَا خَيْرٌ مِنْ السَّاعِي مَنْ تَشَرَّفَ لَهَا تَسْتَشْرِفْهُ فَمَنْ وَجَدَ مَلْجَأً أَوْ مَعَاذًا فَلْيَعُذْ بِهِ
There will be tribulations during which a sitting person will be better than the one standing. The one standing will be better than the one walking. The one walking will be better than the one running. Whoever exposes himself to these tribulations will be destroyed, so whoever finds a place of protection or refuge should take shelter in it.
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 6670, Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi
Rather, we must be patient, resist calls for violence, and avoid getting involved in these conflicts. If we are patient, it will not be long before Allah will give us a way out. But if we call for violence, then Allah will heap more violence upon us.
Hasan Al-Basri, may Allah have mercy on him, said:
لَوْ أَنَّ النَّاسَ إِذَا ابْتُلُوا مِنْ قِبَلِ سُلْطَانِهِمْ صَبَرُوا مَا لَبِثُوا أَنْ يُفْرَجَ عَنْهُمْ وَلَكِنَّهُمْ يَجْزَعُونَ إِلَى السَّيْفِ فَيُوَكَّلُونَ إِلَيْهِ فَوَاللَّهِ مَا جَاءُوا بِيَوْمِ خَيْرٍ قَطُّ
If the people had patience when they are being tested by their unjust ruler, it will not be long before Allah will give them a way out. However, they always rush to their swords, so they are left with their swords. By Allah, not even for a single day did they bring about any good.
Source: al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrá 8789
Satan intends to use the alluring call of the Kharijites as a means to drag us into the Hellfire. We have to resist them by upholding the true teachings of Islam: mercy with the creation, patience with hardship, justice with our enemies. The Kharijites intend to impress us by their outward displays of faith, but inwardly they have no faith. Only by understanding true Islam in both its inward and outward teachings can we protect ourselves, our children, and our communities from their dangerous ideology.
==
more reading
https://muslisms.com/2014/09/14/khawarij-a-history-of-violence/
Content:
1. Introduction
2. Background
3. Quraysh Broke The Treaty And Waged War
4. Analysing The Hadith
5. The Hadith rejects Forced Conversion Claim
6. The Quran Rejects Forced Conversion Claim
7. Various Commentaries On The Hadith
8. Conclusion
2. Background
3. Quraysh Broke The Treaty And Waged War
4. Analysing The Hadith
5. The Hadith rejects Forced Conversion Claim
6. The Quran Rejects Forced Conversion Claim
7. Various Commentaries On The Hadith
8. Conclusion
1. Introduction
The following Hadith quotation (below) has often been quoted by some critics claiming that Prophet Muhammed (p) sanctions and/or approves of Muslims to forcefully convert non-Muslims to Islam:
When we get to read the Hadith and its historical context we find that this claim has no support from the Hadith nor was it interpreted in such a way. So what is the historical understanding of the Hadith report?
2. Background
Some of the earliest to contemporary scholars state that the Hadith report was said in connection to the pagan Arabs in Prophet Muhammed’s life time. Those words were uttered on the occasion of Surah al-Tawbah, specifically Surah 9:5, the “sword verse” as some would like to call it (Tafsir Ibn Kathir and Ibn Juzayy). [1] [2]
We wrote previously an article dedicated to Quran 9:5 – the verse was revealed as a result of the polytheists of Makkah breaking the treaty, attacking and killing Muhammed’s allies. As a result of their heinous and treacherous act, the Prophet (p) engaged the enemy.
Furthermore, it should be noted to our respected readers that in light of the Hadith report we are going to analyse, the Quraysh polytheists persecuted and murdered Muslims in Makkah for over ten years, and even when the Muslims fled to find safe sanctuary in Madinah they were persecuted once more: “Did Quraysh Persecute Muslims When They Fled To Madinah?”
3. Quraysh Broke The Treaty And Waged War
Before we analyse the Hadith report, let’s briefly explain what happened on the occasion of Surah 9:5. In the sixth year of Hijri the Muslims and the polytheist Makkans made a treaty. Part of the treaty, the agreement was that neither parties would attack the other, nor would they attack any of their own allies. In this, all parties agreed and went their own ways. It didn’t take long when Banu Bakr tribe (who were an ally of Quraysh) attacked and murdered many of Banu Khuza’a’s tribe (they were the ally of the Muslims). The Quraysh being in the middle, the Muslims presumed that they would have tried to stop their ally (Banu Bakr) attacking and killing Banu Khuza’a. To the contrary, historical reports inform us that the polytheistic Quraysh supported Banu Bakr with weapons and their members also partook in killing Banu Khuza’a members. The Quraysh were the first to breach the terms of the treaty, attacking and murdering Prophet Muhammed’s ally. This is reported from many early sources.
Ibn Kathir (1301 – 1373 AD):
Tafsir Jalalayn:
Tafsir al-Jalalayn goes further:
As-Sawi:
Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas:
Besides the above evidence, many earlier historical sources report similar accounts of this incident. That the Quraysh and Banu Bakr initiated warfare against Muhammed’s ally.
One of the earliest sources is Kitab al-Maghazi by Ma’mar Ibn Rashid (714-770 AD). He states that the Quraysh along with Banu Bakr attacked the Banu Khuza’ah tribe which were an ally of the Muslims at the time:
Ta’rikh al-rusul wa’l-Muluk – Abu Ja’far Muhammad b Jarir al-Tabari:
In Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya Ibn Kathir reports in greater detail on this incident:
It is clear from some of the earliest sources that Prophet Muhammed (p) nor his companions initiated war against the polytheist Quraysh. It was the Quraysh with Banu Bakr who provoked – led the Muslims to retaliate against them.
4. Analysing The Hadith
With above out of the way, we can now focus on the Hadith report:
And:
The controversy among critics surrounds the following part of the Hadith:
Some critics have deduced from this part of the report that Prophet Muhammed (p) and his companions roamed around Arabia forcefully converting people to Islam with the point of the sword. This fanciful tale has sadly been perpetuated by orientalists and other critics of Islam for a while.
The classical understanding of the Hadith: as a result of the polytheists breaking the treaty, murdering members of Muhammed’s ally and persecuting the Muslims over for many years, the Muslims had no choice but to deal with those who continued hostility and bloodshed with the point of the sword, 1300 years ago.
Since they murdered and persecuted people for so many years, the polytheist warmongers had no right over their land. Expulsion of the criminals was a must rule in this circumstance in order to save the community from further harm they would commit. If they did abide by the treaty and didn’t do the things they did, they would have still had full control over their territory, but since they persecuted and murdered, they longer had a right to this. Now, the only choice that would have been offered to the criminals was one of the following:
1. Stop their hostilities, put their weapons down and live under the Muslim rule (government).
2. Embrace Islam.
3. Or leave the Muslim lands.
2. Embrace Islam.
3. Or leave the Muslim lands.
Scholars in the past have interpreted the Hadith slightly different and sometimes offered different choices shown to the one presented. I would argue that this position is in line with what the Prophet (p) did on this incident as our earliest sources confirm this. The decision to add choice number one with the other two was because of the Biography of Prophet Muhammed’s life (Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah) and other sources.
For example, when the Prophet Muhammed (p) conquered Makkah, he commanded his companions only to fight those who fought them. He went further, anybody that goes inside Abu Sufyan’s house or lock their doors and don’t engage in any fighting, they were safe and protected. Furthermore, We understand from history that when the Muslims took over Makkah they gave the polytheists amnesty and forgave them for the wrong they had done. As such, conversion nor expulsion on this occasion was necessary as long as the polytheists laid down their weapons and repented from the wrong they had done.
Sirat Rasul Allah – Ibn Ishaq:
Kitab al-Maghazi – Ma’mar Ibn Rashid (714 – 770 AD):
Ta’rikh al-rusul wa’l-Muluk – Abu Ja’far Muhammad b Jarir al-Tabari (838 – 923 AD):
Kitab Futuh Al-Buldan – al-Imam Abu’l Abbas Ahmad Ibn Jabir Al Baladhuri (d. 892 AD):
Although the polytheists were given amnesty and forgiven as long as they laid their weapons down and sought peace, there was an exception to few people. The Prophet (p) ordered his companions to kill certain specific individuals even if they were caught holding on the curtains of the Kab’ah. The names are, Abdullah Ibn Sa’d Ibn Abi Sarh, Abdullah Ibn Khattal, Miqyas b. Subahah, Al-Huwayrith b. Nuqaydh b. Wahb b. Abd. B. Qusayy, Ikrima b. Abi Jahl and Hind b. Utbah and few other names. These individuals persecuted, murdered people cold bloodily, and in some cases committed treachery against the State. As such, the Prophet (p) ordered that they should be dealt with wherever they may be.
It would be similar to a criminal making a run for a serious crime he or she may have committed in America today. If the authorities apprehend him or her they could get the death penalty in the court of law. The seriousness of the crime would not absolve the perpetrator from being tried. This is similar to this incident, 1300 years ago.
Since Prophet Muhammed (p) was the head of State, judge, jury and had the authority from God to execute those who committed heinous crimes, at the same time it was also in his hand to forgive. But in the case of these individuals, the only thing that could save their lives is if they went on the run (left Muslim lands) or embraced Islam, and repented from past crimes they had done. Some ran away, others came to the Prophet (p) asking for forgiveness and were granted. And some were executed for the past crimes.
It should be noted, those who insisted on hostility and warfare against the Muslims, they would have been dealt with the point of the sword or exiled (leave the lands where the Muslims resided), 1300 years ago. They would have no right to stay on the same land with the Muslims or other peaceful tribes who were non-Muslim. These rules were intended to make sure the community as a whole (Muslim and non-Muslim) were safe and were free to live without being persecuted against.
Indeed Prophet Muhammed’s (p) role in the community as a whole was to defend the rights of the marginalised and protect those who were victims of injustice. As such, if the polytheists at the time wanted protection and laid down their weapons, the Prophet (p) protected them as the evidence has shown.
This evidence here shows that the Prophet (p) nor his companions fought as a result of their beliefs. Rather it was due to them breaking the treaty and shedding blood which subsequently led to the Muslims conquering Makkah.
5. The Hadith rejects Forced Conversion Claim
The forced conversions claim, it is not permissible to force anyone to enter Islam. It is haram (forbidden).
In the book “Hidayatul Hayara Fi Ajwibatul Yahud wa al-Nasara” the scholar Imam Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (1292 – 1350 AD) comments on Surah al-Tawbah. He writes that the Prophet (p) never forced anyone to accept Islam:
In fact, the very report that is used by proponents tells us that forced conversion is forbidden (haram):
This Hadith is also reported in Sahih Muslim:
Notice the words:
Ibn Kathir commenting on Surah 88:22 states that one cannot force someone to “faith” i.e., force someone to believe in Islam:
Similarly, this is also said by Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas:
Tafsir Anwarul Bayan – Muhammad Aashiq Elahi Muhajir Madani states that the responsibility of the Prophet (p) was only to preach the Message and “not force people to believe (in Islam)”:
Maarif ul Quran – Mufti Mohammad Shafi says that it is God who guides the “unbelievers”, and Muhammed (p) is only a “preacher”:
Tafsir-Ul-Qur’an – Maulana Abdul Majid Daryabadi:
The above evidence refutes the “sanctioning compulsion in religion” claim. We see that after declaring the command to fight the polytheistic Quraysh, the Prophet Muhammed recited verses affirming that his and the companions duty is only to deliver the message of Islam, which clearly shows that he was not forcing anyone to Islam.
6. The Quran Rejects Forced Conversion Claim
Furthermore, the Quran also affirms that forced conversion did not take place. It was not obligatory on this occasion for the polytheists to accept Islam in order to make peace with the Muslims. If they stopped their hostilities against the Muslims and sought refuge, then the Muslims were commanded to grant them protection and safe passage even if they did not accept Islam, as the following verse (Quran 9:6) testifies:
Some of the earliest exegesis have said that if the polytheists wanted to hear the message of Islam, the Muslims were obligated to convey the message to them. Even if they rejected Islam, they were allowed and should be send back to the area where they felt safe (Mujahid Ibn Jabr (645 – 722 AD) [3], Hud b. Muhakkam (9th Century) [4], Al-Tabari (838 – 923 AD) [5], Al-Wahidi (d. 1075 AD) [6], Al-Zamakhshari (1070 – 1143 AD) [7], Al-Razi (1149 – 1209 AD) [8], Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas (d. 1414 AD) [9], and Tafsir al-Jalalayn (15/16th Century) [10]). The Muslims were commanded by God to take them to a place of safety where they felt safe. They were not harmed even when they rejected Islam. This verse (Q. 9:6) shows, the Muslims then were only fighting specific individuals from Quraysh as a result of the aggression and hostilities, not because of their beliefs.
7. Various Commentaries On The Hadith
The 13th-century scholar Taqi ad-Din Ahmed Ibn Taymiyyah (1263 – 1328 AD) comments on this Hadith report and says it speaks about those who wage war against the Muslims:
Shaykh Jamaal al-Din M. Zarabozo presents Wamaidh al-Umari’s view and he states the fighting that is mentioned in the Hadith is in reference to some “form of wrong or evil” the other side have done:
The late respected scholar Amin Ahsan Islahi (1904 – 1997) writes:
Shaykh Muhammad al-Ghazali (1917 – 1996):
Professor Jonathan A.C. Brown, says that the Hadith was understood to mean that the conquered polytheists will agree to submit to the Muslim rule:
Abdul Hamid Siddiqi’s commentary on the Hadith report:
Professor Asma Afsaruddin provides Dr. Buti’s assessment in regards to this report, and he says that the Hadith speaks about someone who “opposes you” or “fight someone who attacks you”:
Shaykh Sami al-Majid, professor at al-Imam Islamic University, Riyadh, writes:
Dr. Jamal Badawi:
Shaykh Muhammad Hashim Kabbani:
The late Egyptian Sunni scholar and Islamic theologian Mahmoud Muhammad Shaltut (1893 – 1963) writes:
Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi:
Scholar Zaid Shakir:
With the above in perspective, the command of the Hadith was specific to one group only, those who caused bloodshed and showed open aggression against the Muslims and their non-Muslim allies, 1300 years ago.
Furthermore, it should be noted while this issue with the polytheist Quraysh was taking place, Quran 9:4 tells us that the Prophet (p) had treaties with other polytheists in Arabia who were faithful and did not engage in any hostility against the Muslims nor their allies. Here the Muslims are ordered to abide by this treaty:
Quran 9:7 also repeats this treaty. Here, the Muslims are commanded to abide by the treaty so long as they are true to the Muslims:
We see here the Prophet and his companions did abide by the treaty with other polytheists like the Banu Kinanah, Banu Damra, Banu Mudlaj and other tribes who were peaceful (Surah 9:4, 7) and weren’t touched as classical and contemporary exegesis have reported to us. This clearly shows that the Prophet (p) did not fight the Quraysh polytheists because of their beliefs. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
8. Conclusion
We see the historical context in which those words were uttered – the Muslims made a treaty with the Quraysh and the agreement was that no party would break the treaty, nor attack them or any of their own allies. Everyone agreed to the treaty’s order at the time. It didn’t take long before the Quraysh with Banu Bakr attacked, and murdered Muhammed’s non-Muslim ally at night. Soon after this, the Prophet and his companions led to conquering Makkah. The uttering of the statement was in the context of the Quraysh criminals who broke the treaty and murdered members of Muhammed’s ally and were given a choice of the following to choose:
1. Stop their hostilities, put their weapons down and live under the Muslim rule (government).
2. Embrace Islam.
3. Or Leave the land.
2. Embrace Islam.
3. Or Leave the land.
Final words, as we have seen, this hadith refers to some polytheistic Arabs who persecuted, murdered Muslims and their allies, and broke their treaties with them. As such, some deserved capital punishment, yet they are given the opportunity to repent in which case they are to be forgiven, and their property will be protected. This shows, the command of the Hadith was specific to one group only, those who caused bloodshed and showed open aggression against the Muslims and their non-Muslim allies, 1300 years ago. And history is a witness that no one was forced to accept Islam, since the very report and other early historical sources refute this claim. [16]
Don’t forget to follow Discover The Truth on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favourite social networks.
Related articles:
.
References:
[1] Ibn Kathir mentions the exact battle this Hadith was uttered – Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) [Supervised by Abdul Malik Mujahid – First Edition, 2000], volume 4, page 377
[2] Ibn Juzayy mentions that the Hadith was first said in relation to Surah 9:5, which was revealed in connection with the conquest of Makkah. Tafsir Ibn Juzayy, last accesed 22st December 2006 http://bewley.virtualave.net/tawba1.html
[3] Mujahid Ibn Jabr (645 – 722 AD) on Surah 9:6:
“…this verse guarantees the safety of people in general (insan) who came to listen to the Prophet recite from the Qur’an until they had RETURNED TO THE PLACE OF REFUGE WHENCE THEY CAME.” (Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought [Oxford University Press; 1st Edition., 2013] by Asma Afsaruddin, page 88)
[4] The 9th Century scholar Hud b. Muhakkam on Surah 9:6:
“…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.’” (Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought [Oxford University Press; 1st Edition., 2013] by Asma Afsaruddin, page 88)
[5] 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.’ Such an individual, according to the verse, is to be subsequently ESCORTED BACK TO HIS PLACE OF SAFETY EVEN IF HE REJECTS ISLAM AND FAILS TO BELIEVE AFTER THE PROPHET’S RECITATION OF THE QUR’AN BEFORE HIM. SCHOLARS IN THE PAST WHO HAVE AGREED WITH THIS GENERAL INTERPRETATION INCLUDE IBN ISHAQ, AL-SUDDI, AND MUJAHID…” (Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought [Oxford University Press; 1st Edition., 2013] By Asma Afsaruddin, page 89)
[6] 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.” (Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought [Oxford University Press; 1st Edition., 2013] by Asma Afsaruddin, page 89)
[7] 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.’ …” (Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought [Oxford University Press; 1st Edition., 2013] by Asma Afsaruddin, page 89)
[8] 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.” (Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought [Oxford University Press; 1st Edition., 2013] By Asma Afsaruddin, page 89 – 90)
[9] 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 http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=6&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 )
[10] Tafsir al-Jalalayn also emphasizes that they were left alone if they didn’t 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, SO THAT HE MIGHT HEAR THE WORDS OF GOD — THE QUR’AN — AND AFTERWARD CONVEY HIM TO HIS PLACE OF SECURITY, THAT IS, THE DWELLING-PLACES OF HIS FOLK, IF HE DOES NOT BELIEVE, SO THAT HE MIGHT REFLECT UPON HIS SITUATION — 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 http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=6&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 )
[11] Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas on Surah 9:4,
“(Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty) i.e. the Banu Kinanah after the year of al-Hudaybiyyah, (and who have since abated nothing of your right) who they did not break their treaties, i.e. those who had a nine month treaty (nor have supported anyone) of your enemies (against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term) i.e. nine months. (Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him)) by not breaking their treaties.” (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas on Surah 9:4, online source http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=4&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 )
[12] As-Sawi on 9:4,
:“[As-Sawi notes that the exception is made to the absolute statement in the first ayat. This is the Banu
“[As-Sawi notes that the exception is made to the absolute statement in the first ayat. This is the Banu Damra who still had nine months of their treaty remaining.]” (As-Sawi on Surah 9:4 – online source http://bewley.virtualave.net/tawba1.html )
[13] Maulana Mufti Mohammad Shafi:
“…commanded in the fourth verse of Surah Al-Taubah where Muslims were required to fulfil their treaty obligations to the tribes of Banu Damurah and Banu Mudlaj for the remaining nine months.” (Maarif ul Quran: Quran Translation and Commentary [Translation by Prof. Muhammad Hasan Askari & Prof. Muhammad Shamim Revised by Justice Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani] by Maulana Mufti Mohammad Shafi, volume 4, page 311)
[14] Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi’s commentary on 9:7,
“2 This declaration of the abrogation of the treaties with the mushriks was made in accordance with the law enjoined in VIII: 58 regarding the treacherous people, for it is treachery from the Islamic point of view to wage war against any people with whom a treaty of peace had been made, without openly declaring that the treaty had been terminated. That is why a proclamation of the abrogation of the treaties was necessitated against those clans who were always hatching plots against Islam in spice of the treaties of peace they had made. They would break the treaties and turn hostile on the first opportunity for treachery, and the same was true of all the mushrik clans WITH THE EXCEPTION OF BANI KANANAH, BANI DAMRAH AND ONE OR TWO OTHER CLANS. …
9 That is: Bani Kinanah and Bani Khuza`ah and Bani Damrah.” (Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi – Tafhim al-Qur’an – The Meaning of the Qur’an, on Surah 9, online source http://englishtafsir.com/Quran/9/index.html)
[15] Maulana Abdul Majid Daryabadi also mentions Kinana tribe and others who were true to the treaty:
“201. The reference is to Banu Dhamra and Banu Mudlaj, two classes of Kinana tribe, who, it was expected, would keep the pledge.” (Tafsir-Ul-Qur’an – Translation and Commentary Of The Holy Qur’an [Academy of Islamic Research And Publications, Nadwatul Ulama, Lucknow – 226 007, (Indian)] by Maulana Abdul Majid Daryabadi volume 2, page 217)
[16] According to al-Shanqeeti the action is performed by both sides. From the scholar’s writing he suggests to us that there was a war:
“However, as Ibn Daqeeq al-Eid pointed out, it seems very clear that this particular Hadith cannot be used as evidence that a person who intentionally does not pray is to be put to death. There is a difference between ‘fighting’, which implies opposing struggle between two parties, and ‘killing’ someone. The Prophet (peace be upon him) used the faa’il form of the word. THIS IMPLIES THAT THE ACTION BEING PERFORMED BY BOTH PARTIES INVOLVED. (Kauthar al-Maani al-Daraari fi Kashf Khabaaya Saheeh al-Bukhaari [Beirut: Muassasat al-Risaalah., 1995], by Al-Shanqeeti, Muhammad al-Khidr, volume 2, page 55)
===
#analyzing Quran 9:5
[2] Ibn Juzayy mentions that the Hadith was first said in relation to Surah 9:5, which was revealed in connection with the conquest of Makkah. Tafsir Ibn Juzayy, last accesed 22st December 2006 http://bewley.virtualave.net/tawba1.html
[3] Mujahid Ibn Jabr (645 – 722 AD) on Surah 9:6:
“…this verse guarantees the safety of people in general (insan) who came to listen to the Prophet recite from the Qur’an until they had RETURNED TO THE PLACE OF REFUGE WHENCE THEY CAME.” (Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought [Oxford University Press; 1st Edition., 2013] by Asma Afsaruddin, page 88)
[4] The 9th Century scholar Hud b. Muhakkam on Surah 9:6:
“…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.’” (Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought [Oxford University Press; 1st Edition., 2013] by Asma Afsaruddin, page 88)
[5] 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.’ Such an individual, according to the verse, is to be subsequently ESCORTED BACK TO HIS PLACE OF SAFETY EVEN IF HE REJECTS ISLAM AND FAILS TO BELIEVE AFTER THE PROPHET’S RECITATION OF THE QUR’AN BEFORE HIM. SCHOLARS IN THE PAST WHO HAVE AGREED WITH THIS GENERAL INTERPRETATION INCLUDE IBN ISHAQ, AL-SUDDI, AND MUJAHID…” (Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought [Oxford University Press; 1st Edition., 2013] By Asma Afsaruddin, page 89)
[6] 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.” (Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought [Oxford University Press; 1st Edition., 2013] by Asma Afsaruddin, page 89)
[7] 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.’ …” (Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought [Oxford University Press; 1st Edition., 2013] by Asma Afsaruddin, page 89)
[8] 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.” (Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought [Oxford University Press; 1st Edition., 2013] By Asma Afsaruddin, page 89 – 90)
[9] 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 http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=6&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 )
[10] Tafsir al-Jalalayn also emphasizes that they were left alone if they didn’t 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, SO THAT HE MIGHT HEAR THE WORDS OF GOD — THE QUR’AN — AND AFTERWARD CONVEY HIM TO HIS PLACE OF SECURITY, THAT IS, THE DWELLING-PLACES OF HIS FOLK, IF HE DOES NOT BELIEVE, SO THAT HE MIGHT REFLECT UPON HIS SITUATION — 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 http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=6&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 )
[11] Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas on Surah 9:4,
“(Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty) i.e. the Banu Kinanah after the year of al-Hudaybiyyah, (and who have since abated nothing of your right) who they did not break their treaties, i.e. those who had a nine month treaty (nor have supported anyone) of your enemies (against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term) i.e. nine months. (Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him)) by not breaking their treaties.” (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas on Surah 9:4, online source http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=4&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 )
[12] As-Sawi on 9:4,
:“[As-Sawi notes that the exception is made to the absolute statement in the first ayat. This is the Banu
“[As-Sawi notes that the exception is made to the absolute statement in the first ayat. This is the Banu Damra who still had nine months of their treaty remaining.]” (As-Sawi on Surah 9:4 – online source http://bewley.virtualave.net/tawba1.html )
[13] Maulana Mufti Mohammad Shafi:
“…commanded in the fourth verse of Surah Al-Taubah where Muslims were required to fulfil their treaty obligations to the tribes of Banu Damurah and Banu Mudlaj for the remaining nine months.” (Maarif ul Quran: Quran Translation and Commentary [Translation by Prof. Muhammad Hasan Askari & Prof. Muhammad Shamim Revised by Justice Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani] by Maulana Mufti Mohammad Shafi, volume 4, page 311)
[14] Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi’s commentary on 9:7,
“2 This declaration of the abrogation of the treaties with the mushriks was made in accordance with the law enjoined in VIII: 58 regarding the treacherous people, for it is treachery from the Islamic point of view to wage war against any people with whom a treaty of peace had been made, without openly declaring that the treaty had been terminated. That is why a proclamation of the abrogation of the treaties was necessitated against those clans who were always hatching plots against Islam in spice of the treaties of peace they had made. They would break the treaties and turn hostile on the first opportunity for treachery, and the same was true of all the mushrik clans WITH THE EXCEPTION OF BANI KANANAH, BANI DAMRAH AND ONE OR TWO OTHER CLANS. …
9 That is: Bani Kinanah and Bani Khuza`ah and Bani Damrah.” (Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi – Tafhim al-Qur’an – The Meaning of the Qur’an, on Surah 9, online source http://englishtafsir.com/Quran/9/index.html)
[15] Maulana Abdul Majid Daryabadi also mentions Kinana tribe and others who were true to the treaty:
“201. The reference is to Banu Dhamra and Banu Mudlaj, two classes of Kinana tribe, who, it was expected, would keep the pledge.” (Tafsir-Ul-Qur’an – Translation and Commentary Of The Holy Qur’an [Academy of Islamic Research And Publications, Nadwatul Ulama, Lucknow – 226 007, (Indian)] by Maulana Abdul Majid Daryabadi volume 2, page 217)
[16] According to al-Shanqeeti the action is performed by both sides. From the scholar’s writing he suggests to us that there was a war:
“However, as Ibn Daqeeq al-Eid pointed out, it seems very clear that this particular Hadith cannot be used as evidence that a person who intentionally does not pray is to be put to death. There is a difference between ‘fighting’, which implies opposing struggle between two parties, and ‘killing’ someone. The Prophet (peace be upon him) used the faa’il form of the word. THIS IMPLIES THAT THE ACTION BEING PERFORMED BY BOTH PARTIES INVOLVED. (Kauthar al-Maani al-Daraari fi Kashf Khabaaya Saheeh al-Bukhaari [Beirut: Muassasat al-Risaalah., 1995], by Al-Shanqeeti, Muhammad al-Khidr, volume 2, page 55)
===
#analyzing Quran 9:5
